Ironically the song “Be yourself”, is sung by a group called “Audioslave”. The track released in 2005, has great emotional appeal and was loved by many, including both my children; the elder one singing it very well and with great passion. Its repeated exhortation is “be yourself, is all that you can do” even though one maybe “separate or united, healthy or insane” and even if one “may win or lose”. It is an assertation of individuality. Modernity places great value on individuality and freedom of choice. But established societies value conformity, often going out of their way to stamp out individuality, frequently seeing it as something akin to a rebellion.
It would be worthwhile to point out that the path of individuality came to be better defined, since the European Age of Reason or Enlightenment (1685 to 1815). Its main tenet called rationalism, emphasized the idea that we should use reason to acquire knowledge, as opposed to the old thought that the scriptures and the Church, were the only fountainheads of facts. It is in this era that philosophy and science (together with its close cousin: technology), replaced religion or the “word of God” from its pivotal position in society. “God is dead. God remains dead. We have killed him, ” wrote Fredrich Nietzsche a few decades later. It would not be unfair to say that it was this shift of emphasis on reason as opposed to that on belief, that heralded the Industrial Revolution (1760 to 1840 according to Arnold Toynbee) as also the American Revolution (1765-83) and the French Revolution (1789-90). This shift is best symbolised in the statement of Rene Descartes who said ‘I think, therefore I am.”
The political and lifestyle changes brought about by this movement were many: including the emergence of the nuclear family, the rise of large factories and cities, the emphasis on individuals’ political rights and liberty, the increased mobility of people due to mechanized transport and the spread of diverse ideas aided by the invention of the printing press. But in short what this did was, to place the individual at the forefront of society, freeing him from the ages-old subservience to feudal structures, monarchy and church. Man, now became not just the master of his fate, but also the captain of his soul: free to decide on his career, on where to live, openly voice his world view, reason about religion and even elect a government of his choice.
Individualism got a major boost from this period onwards and a number of great discoveries and inventions are the result of individual effort and creativity. Ayn Rand is quoted to have said: “Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received — hatred. The great creators — the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors — stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.” But if you notice all the invention she mentions, happened in and around this period.
Individuality though bestowing upon man (or a woman), great freedom and creativity, nevertheless places inordinate responsibility on the person. It is certainly not easy being an individual. More than a century ago the poet A E Housman wrote a poem, “The Laws of God and the Laws of Man” affirming the same message, in the words “let God and man decree Laws for themselves and not for me; And if my ways are not as theirs Let them mind their own affairs.” But even he confessed to being “a stranger and afraid. In a world I never made”. Being the master of your fate is a lonely business, considering the fact that every choice has to be made by oneself. One is also left to face the music alone, if one chooses unwisely. In a fast-changing world that we live in today, it is not easy to make decisions and always make the right ones. And with globalization offering a mind-boggling array of careers, services, options and goods, choosing itself takes a lot of our energy and time.
For the common man, individuality largely means a freedom of choice. But is choice always such a good thing, and is choice necessarily good for individuals, in all societies? One would be inclined to say yes. But Professor Sheena Iyengar who did a comprehensive study on how choice affects outcome, points out that this is not the case. She says, “Americans tend to believe that they have reached some sort of pinnacle in the way they practice choice. They think that choice as seen through the American lens best fulfills an innate and universal desire for choice in all humans. Unfortunately, these beliefs are based on assumptions, that don’t always hold true, in many countries and many cultures. At times they don’t even hold true at America’s borders.” Her study found that “the assumption that we do best when the individual self chooses, only holds true when that self is clearly divided from others” such as the American populace is. But when it came to first generation Asian Americans her study brought forth a surprise. It demonstrated that in closely knit Asian communities where “two or more individuals see their choices and outcomes as intimately connected, then they may amplify one another’s success by turning choosing into a collective act. To insist that they choose independently might actually compromise both their performance and their relationship.” Yet, as she points out, “that is exactly what the American paradigm demands. It leaves little room for interdependence or an acknowledgement of individual fallibility. It requires that everyone treat choice as a private and self-defining act. People who have grown up in such a paradigm might find it motivating, but it is a mistake to assume that everyone thrives under the pressure of choosing alone.” In other words, assuming that mere individuality is responsible for success universally is a mistake.
Sadly, individuality also carries with it a heavy psychological cost. Ernest Hemingway once said, “happiness in educated people is the rarest thing I know” Education and individuality are closely connected. It is the educated person who is the most discerning and judgmental as far as relationships are concerned. It is thus quite common for the educated westerner to be unhappy in most relationship and continually seek newer ones. The high divorce rates in the West are proof of that. Individuality in a way, cuts us off from other people, making us often feel lonely and depressed. In more advanced nations, where individuality is worshipped, loneliness and depression are rampant. According to a 2017 report by Jo Cox commission on loneliness, Britain suffers a serious problem with loneliness, with more than nine million people often or always feeling lonely. The very next year the country saw the appointment of a minister for loneliness. In February this year, Japan too appointed a minister of loneliness, in a bid to tackle the rising rate of suicides. According to Word Health Organization’s earlier estimates depression was to have become the second biggest disease in the world, by last year itself.
In India we are still torn between tradition and individuality. This struggle happens in many parts of the world but is somewhat more obvious if one happens to live in India and especially in the Northern and North Eastern part. The conflict appears to be between development and retaining one’s cultural identity. People on one hand desire the latest lifestyle changing goodies that capitalistic society brings to their door but at the same time are not comfortable stepping outside the threshold of tradition. The struggle appears in my forms. It can be seen as a struggle between individualism and tribalism, or between egalitarianism and capitalistic hierarchy, between modernity and conformity, and between social stability and progress. It is a conflict which is quite visibly tearing societies apart but what is often missed is the psychological conflict that lies at the heart of most human beings. It is apparent in a young tribal woman who wears skin tight jeans, has her hair dyed blond and yet is part of the agitation demanding steps to preserve their ancient culture. It was equally mystifying to see, during the ongoing farmers agitation, one of my countrymen driving a BMW SUV to the protest site and joining protestors, demanding that the old socialist MSP system be not just retained but reinforced. On another level it is also quite apparent in the city bred tourist looking to destress by spending his holidays in a completely rural setting. To borrow Randy Newman’s words, “it a jungle out there” with ideas and counter ideas co existing in conflict.
If this article leaves you confused about the benefits and dangers of being individualistic, I am truly sorry. As with most problems in life there are no easy answers to this dilemma. I think the only practical solution emerges through experience as we walk with awareness on this confusing road to individuality. And as with everything we do it is important that we retain our balance and resist the temptation to be overly swayed by either side.
To begin with we could start our journey by listening to Rudyard Kipling who said: “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
And perhaps end in agreement with Swami Vivekananda who said:
“Some people are so afraid of losing their individuality. Wouldn’t it be better for the pig to lose his pig-individuality if he can become God? Yes. But the poor pig does not think so at the time. Which state is my individuality? When I was a baby sprawling on the floor trying to swallow my thumb? Was that the individuality I should be sorry to lose? Fifty years hence I shall look upon this present state and laugh, just as I now look upon the baby state. Which of these individualities shall I keep?”
I began this piece by referring to a popular sad song and would like to end it on a happier note with a bit of a laugh. So here it goes:
Descartes went to McDonalds to buy a Big Mac. The cashier asked if he wanted fries with it. He replied “I think not.” And poof, he disappeared.
Individuality though bestowing upon man (or a woman), great freedom and creativity, nevertheless places inordinate responsibility on the person. It is certainly not easy being an individual. More than a century ago the poet AE Housman wrote a poem, “The Laws of God and the Laws of Man “affirming the same message, in the words “let God and man decree Laws for themselves and not for me; And if my ways are not as theirs Let them mind their own affairs.” But even he confessed to being “a stranger and afraid. In a world I never made”. Being the master of your fate is a lonely business, considering the fact that every choice has to be made by oneself. One is also left to face the music alone, if one chooses unwisely. In a fast-changing world that we live in today, it is not easy to make decisions and always make the right ones. And with globalization offering a mind-boggling array of careers, services, options and goods, choosing itself takes a lot of our energy and time.
For the common man, individuality largely means a freedom of choice. But is choice always such a good thing, and is choice necessarily good for individuals, in all societies? One would be inclined to say yes. But Professor Sheena Iyengar who did a comprehensive study on how choice affects outcome, points out that this is not the case. She says, “Americans tend to believe that they have reached some sort of pinnacle in the way they practice choice. They think that choice as seen through the American lens best fulfills an innate and universal desire for choice in all humans. Unfortunately, these beliefs are based on assumptions, that don’t always hold true, in many countries and many cultures. At times they don’t even hold true at America’s borders.” Her study found that “the assumption that we do best when the individual self chooses, only holds true when that self is clearly divided from others” such as the American populace is. But when it came to first generation Asian Americans her study brought forth a surprise. It demonstrated that in closely knit Asian communities where “two or more individuals see their choices and outcomes as intimately connected, then they may amplify one another’s success by turning choosing into a collective act. To insist that they choose independently might actually compromise both their performance and their relationship.” Yet, as she points out, “that is exactly what the American paradigm demands. It leaves little room for interdependence or an acknowledgement of individual fallibility. It requires that everyone treat choice as a private and self-defining act. People who have grown up in such a paradigm might find it motivating, but it is a mistake to assume that everyone thrives under the pressure of choosing alone.” In other words, assuming that mere individuality is responsible for success universally is a mistake.
Sadly, individuality also carries with it a heavy psychological cost. Ernest Hemingway once said, “happiness in educated people is the rarest thing I know” Education and individuality are closely connected. It is the educated person who is the most discerning and judgmental as far as relationships are concerned. It is thus quite common for the educated westerner to be unhappy in most relationship and continually seek newer ones. The high divorce rates in the West are proof of that. Individuality in a way, cuts us off from other people, making us often feel lonely and depressed. In more advanced nations, where individuality is worshipped, loneliness and depression are rampant. According to a 2017 report by Jo Cox commission on loneliness, Britain suffers a serious problem with loneliness, with more than nine million people often or always feeling lonely. The very next year the country saw the appointment of a minister for loneliness. In February this year, Japan too appointed a minister of loneliness, in a bid to tackle the rising rate of suicides. According to Word Health Organization’s earlier estimates depression was to have become the second biggest disease in the world, by last year itself.
In India we are still torn between tradition and individuality. This struggle happens in many parts of the world but is somewhat more obvious if one happens to live in India and especially in the Northern and North Eastern part. The conflict appears to be between development and retaining one’s cultural identity. People on one hand desire the latest lifestyle changing goodies that capitalistic society brings to their door but at the same time are not comfortable stepping outside the threshold of tradition. The struggle appears in my forms. It can be seen as a struggle between individualism and tribalism, or between egalitarianism and capitalistic hierarchy, between modernity and conformity, and between social stability and progress. It is a conflict which is quite visibly tearing societies apart but what is often missed is the psychological conflict that lies at the heart of most human beings. It is apparent in a young tribal woman who wears skin tight jeans, has her hair dyed blond and yet is part of the agitation demanding steps to preserve their ancient culture. It was equally mystifying to see, during the ongoing farmers agitation, one of my countrymen driving a BMW SUV to the protest site and joining protestors, demanding that the old socialist MSP system be not just retained but reinforced. On another level it is also quite apparent in the city bred tourist looking to destress by spending his holidays in a completely rural setting. To borrow Randy Newman’s words, “it a jungle out there” with ideas and counter ideas co existing in conflict.
If this article leaves you confused about the benefits and dangers of being individualistic, I am truly sorry. As with most problems in life there are no easy answers to this dilemma. I think the only practical solution emerges through experience as we walk with awareness on this confusing road to individuality. And as with everything we do it is important that we retain our balance and resist the temptation to be overly swayed by either side.
To begin with we could start our journey by listening to Rudyard Kipling who said: “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
And perhaps end in agreement with Swami Vivekananda who said:
“Some people are so afraid of losing their individuality. Wouldn’t it be better for the pig to lose his pig-individuality if he can become God? Yes. But the poor pig does not think so at the time. Which state is my individuality? When I was a baby sprawling on the floor trying to swallow my thumb? Was that the individuality I should be sorry to lose? Fifty years hence I shall look upon this present state and laugh, just as I now look upon the baby state. Which of these individualities shall I keep?”
I began this piece by referring to a popular if sad song and would like to end it on a happier note with a bit of a laugh. So here goes:
Descartes went to McDonalds to buy a Big Mac. The cashier asked if he wanted fries with it. He replied “I think not.” And poof, he disappeared.
Paramjit Bakhshi has worn many hats. Starting out at the National Defence Academy, Pune which he had to leave, after two years training on account of an illness, he has been a tea planter, a consultant, an entrepreneur. He also writes poems, columns and short stories.
