THE I vs THE WE by Bill Lee

A person is a person through other people. - Michael Schur

I don’t know if up till the last little while I’ve been inattentive to the developments in the zeitgeist, but recently I seem to be coming upon more and more chatter, radio interviews, articles in the culture section of the various magazines and newspapers I read, extolling the importance for the nurturing of our individual selves. You know the topics, “self” sufficiency, regard for “oneself”, love of “self”, depending on “oneself”, paying no attention to anyone who is not four-square 100% on “our” side, “self” care etc., etc. Of course, anyone who engages with Face Book knows what I’m taking about, the messages are everywhere. The individual or the ego, in these messages is seen as supreme. There is nary a word regarding notions of social wellbeing, the public good or the necessity of forging and maintaining social relationships. Perhaps this is not so surprising given the number of YouTube videos available on social media and books for sale on “self-care”. Whether these books, face book posts and interviews are a driver of the phenomenon, or a sign of it, I find it disconcerting.

Of course, I am a socialist and view the “social” and the public good as the most important public value of society. While I don’t think one has to be a socialist to understand that the public good is crucial for the good of the individual; there are plenty of liberal people who share a similar view. However, this is not the message we are hearing.

I’m not suggesting that all these “messengers” are fans of Ayn Rand, the Queen of “toxic individualism”, who claimed that the highest value of humanity is selfishness. This dreadful person is of course long dead but her books, I am reliably told, continue to be very good sellersi. Given the murky prose and ridiculous plots of her material it isn’t her writing that attracts the readers. There is at least one Senator in the US who reputedly bought and handed out copies of her turgid codswallop to all of his staff.ii But these right-wing politicians are a group unto themselves. No, most of the self improvement stuff that I’ve seen comes across as a merely pretty earnest, if simplistic, concern that we become accepting and happy with ourselves, which qualities are to be acquired by burnishing up the old self image, thinking positively, avoiding guilt and ditching those nay-sayers who might seem to interfere with our self care enterprise. Though they don’t suggest running roughshod over our fellow human beings, it is not very far from Michael Schur’s quote, that heads this piece, and rather suggests that we should just not risk anyone getting in the way of our individual “self care”. The message seems to suggest that we need to create our separate little islands where we care for ourselves, and receive not a discouraging word. And there’s the rub. It feeds into the right-wing, capitalist system of values that privileges the individual over that of the community.

The hard focus on our particular self-worth is like a kind of memorandum urging the protection of our egos. There is little concern, in these admonishments and instruction manuals, for how we treat others, how we forge and develop the collective good. The collective good can involve
some very wonderful affirmation of our egos. At the same time, it can involve confusion, argument, even conflict. And for sure it can involve receiving some criticism and questioning, sometimes of ourselves. But the collective good is also our good. I know I am by no means alone in believing that the individual good is not and cannot be separate from our understanding of the good of our brothers and sisters. For example, it is generally understood that Indigenous peoples recognize that collective and individual rights are mutually interactive and supportive. (Colechester, 2002; Holder & Corntassel, 2002). Marco Procaccini in a Facebook Postiii, puts the issue very well:

There is plenty of room for "self" and individuality and individual autonomy in a collective setting, as we see in cooperative/democratic organizations and communities. Socialists traditionally don't see individual and societal need as oppositional. The mantra they often use of ‘From Each According to Ability to Each According to Need’ and The Free Development of Each Congruent to the Free Development of All’ show this. The fact is each individual needs the cooperation of other individuals to survive and thrive, in other words a collective group. And obviously every collective group is made up of free-thinking individuals addressing common concerns and issues. This is why human beings have always formed communities. It's how we have survived and thrived as a species.

Let’s be clear, as Procacinni states, one of the chief reasons, probably the chief reason, that humankind has survived to become the dominant species (perhaps too dominant, but that is a different issue) is because we are social beings, not because of our search for ego gratification or our love of “freedom”.iv Our ancient ancestors came together into social groups for many good reasons but three of the most obvious will suffice to make the point: (1) as a means of efficiently hunting for food (2) caring for the young and; (3) collective defence. These are three key elements that allowed for our survival and development. That quote, and the section of the book it comes from, seem to be much more realistic, healthy and humane than the promoters of “the Self”.

It is similar in thought and conviction to John Donne’s admonishment in his poem, “No Man is an Island”. Schur, in a short discussion of the southern African concept of “ubuntu”, quotes Kenyan philosopher and theologian John Mbiti: “The individual can only say, “I am, because we are; and since we are therefore I am.” (92) While we make our efforts to increase our stock of personal/individual happiness, I believe we should really think about that.

__________________________________________________________
i Sadly, her books have reported yearly sales of 74,300 per year in the 1980’s, 95,300 per year in the 1990’s, 167,028 per year in the 2000’s and in the 2010s a whopping 303,523 per year. (Ari, 2013)

ii There is no evidence that the poor devils actually got through the free reading material. My guess is that very few of them, if Atlas Shrugged “, was among the tomes. In 1,200 pretentious pages she presents her so-called “theory” of something called “objectivism”. This is accomplished through pompous speeches and boring interchanges between various characters.

iii May 16, 2020. iv There is no point in discussing the likes of right-wing “anti-maskers” who recently disrupted Ottawa and the violent “freedom-mongers” who attempted to overthrow the US government in January of 2021. Resources Ary (2013). “AYN RAND HITS A MILLION . . . AGAIN!” MEDIA. https://ari.aynrand.org/press-releases/ayn-rand-hits-a-million-again/#:~:text=2000s%20%E2%80%94%20167%2C028%20per%20year,2010s%20%E2%80%94%20303%2C523%20per%20year. Colechester, M. (2002). “Individual Rights and the Collective Conscious”. Anthropology Today. Vol. 18 – No. 1. (February). Holder, C.L. & Corntassel, S.J. (2002). “Indigenous Peoples and Multicultural Citizenship: Bridging Collective and Individual Reights”. Human Rights Quarterly Vol. 24, No. 1 (Feb., 2002), pp. 126-151. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Schur, M. How to be perfect”. New York: Simon & Schuste