The Warmth of Individualism
Individualism Is Not a Guarantor But a Prerequisite
A note to readers: Due to a number of reasons, including exhaustion, power outages, and lack of Internet access (which is ongoing), this publication has been delayed considerably. It was inspired by what is already yesterday’s (last week’s) news, but its theme is timelier than ever.
On New Year’s Day, Zohran Mamdani, the latest mayor of New York, was explicit in his inaugural address. He was open about his plans for his administration, his intellectual framework, and his politics.
Perhaps the most salient of his remarks, and certainly the most quoted in the days since, is: “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”
Supporters cheered. Opponents were alarmed.
I had intended to comment on this statement earlier, but exhaustion and other annual New Year’s challenges precluded it. Now, I can only be brief.
There is no question that Mamdani’s comment is anathema to the ideas and ideals that founded this country. Mamdani is also a Muslim, which means he is an eclectic mixture. Islam, while not entirely consistent with collectivism, is another ideology at odds with the idea of America. The election of an ideologue who would say that to the highest office in the largest city in the country, and what is still arguably the most important (despite decades of decline), is unfortunate in the least. But it is hardly surprising.
Why is that statement horrendous, even evil? And why isn’t it surprising?
To answer those questions, one would need to define “rugged individualism” and “collectivism”, and determine which of the two is consistent with the culture we’ve been living in. Then, one should ask: Which is consistent with the idea, however inconsistently carried out to date, of America? Which is consistent with America’s antipodes and enemies?
Many who share my essential philosophy are currently bristling at the word “rugged” and abjuring it. I don’t share this antipathy. One of my dictionary’s definitions of “rugged” is “having or requiring toughness and determination”. It is entirely consistent with genuine individualism, and, in an ever more culture of abject self-abasement, it is a proper corrective and a reminder of the proper approach to human life. Some may misinterpret that as cynical exploitation—of violating others and their rights (which is what collectivism does)—and contributing to a false dichotomy of sacrificing self on one side and sacrificing others on the other side. It is the work of individualist philosophers to correct that misconception and present the only true alternative to two kinds of sacrifice that are only superficially different. (I even use the term “rugged individualist” on my Instagram page and contrast it with “unrugged collectivism”.) Either way, the word is not essential and can be prescinded for the purposes of this discussion.
Objectivist philosophers and others who are also from an Aristotelian tradition have stressed for decades that the debate between individualists and collectivists is fundamentally a metaphysical debate. Metaphysics addresses the most fundamental questions about reality, nature, and the universe. Individualists see human beings, in accordance with the Aristotelian school of thought, as atomistic. Collectivists conceive of human beings, in accordance with the Platonist and Kantian schools of thought, as organic.
This means that individualists consider the individual to be the fundamental unit in their concept of “human being” (or “man”, to use an obsolete, gender-neutral term). A consistent individualist sees only individual humans as fully real. As Billy Beck wrote, “Only individuals exist.” He meant that only individuals exist metaphysically, as a unit. Collectivists conceive of humanity as an organic, interchangeable whole, or of clashing groups, as the fundamental, essential unit. Individuals are not even fully real to a consistent collectivist, certainly not as autonomous individuals.
It is impossible to practice wrong ideas entirely consistently, and there will always be paeans to the value of the individual among some collectivists. And, certainly, influential leaders (like Mamdani) will act as individuals on behalf of the collective (because only individuals exist—a group cannot do anything except as cooperating individuals). However, the collectivist’s framework, from metaphysics to politics, which is always derivative of deeper ideas, is always the mass. Individuals don’t count or even fully exist independently of that mass.
There are profound consequences to these two clashing worldviews. Sometimes, they are demonstrated with striking clarity when two adjacent polities can be observed (see below for an example).
