Covid and the limits of narrow individualism

There are benefits of individualism, which would be our ability to think for ourselves, which is necessary for innovation; yet this comes at the cost of not being able to work together or act in solidarity towards a common cause other the cultural status quo.

One problem of pure individualism is that it is 1) hard to organise coordinated action, unless some incentive is provided to work as part of collective. Another problem of pure individualism is that 2) there is a tendency to see the world from a purely self-centric perspective, which does not necessarily mean acting selfish, merely the failure to comprehend the bigger picture. A final, more damning, problem is that when everyone is only in it for themselves, then it makes us all cynical and untrusting of anyone else; it is inherently self-alienating. For such social creatures; it stands against our own nature, and the only one’s who disagree are so disconnected they don’t know any different.

1. ⁠At present, for individuals to work as a collective, the military is one way to achieve this, the other is in exchange for remuneration. This means that the majority of coordinated action is directed towards profit making goals, and still only for ones individual benefit, but such activities are rarely directed towards benefit for the collective as a whole.

2. ⁠I’d argue that COVID has provided a perfect demonstration of the problems of individualism. From a purely individualist perspective, you might look at COVID and think, ‘well infection rate is 2%, it doesn’t really effect my age group, and wearing a mask infringes upon my rights, so I won’t bother.’ From an individual perspective, you’re willing to accept what you believe is a minimal risk to yourself, and most likely be fine.

If it is only one individual doing this, then it isn’t such a problem. The problem comes when it is a significant proportion of the collective all acting as separate individuals, by this purely individual way of thinking, and all acting as if the collective doesn’t exist.

The thing about COVID though is that it simply doesn’t go away by itself. It could have been eliminated before it even had a chance to get started. Yet, there was no prior planning, there was a panicked reaction once it arrived, there was no solidarity in our leaders, with each EU nation deciding best actions for themselves. It was very poorly communicated, with patronising slogans ‘lower the curve’ that are assertions from authority rather than attempts to help us understanding. In the end, we were told it was serious and told how to act, and yet the evidence of own experience told us leaders weren't taking it seriously at all. China had people in hazmat suits at every border and train station; their narrative and actions were consistent. When I had to fill in a passenger locator form, there was no-one there to even check it. The covid app asked you to check into locations, but it was not required for service, nor even checked.

Even government actions were delayed. The first lockdown people engaged in in good faith for the good of the country. Yet, even this came far too late. Had lockdown been imposed at the first sign of symptoms, if it had been communicated such that people could understand it (i.e. the exponential rate of spread), then it could have been contained and eliminated. Yet, it would have required a global response to do so. Yet, when leaders break their own rules, rather than lead by example, then all good faith is gone.

When seen from a collective perspective, you might understand and want to do the same, as the individualist above, but might additionally recognise the collective implications of these same actions, and choose instead to act out of a sense of responsibility towards the collective; one would understand that these purely individualistic actors serve to ensure that the virus continues to spread between them, and hence remains in circulation.

To eliminate the virus requires the whole collective to make an individual sacrifice in the short term, for the benefit of the collective in the long term. Yet, if everyone makes this short term sacrifice in solidarity, then it actually serves to benefit the individual in the long term as well, because the virus can no longer spread and hence is eliminated from circulation.

This is one reason why China eliminated the virus within six weeks with less than 10k cases. 1) An urgent,  coordinated, collective political response to take immediate action before the virus could spread uncontrolled across the population, 2) there was a single source of information and instruction for the people, without a cacophony of uninformed and anti scientific opinions confusing the people. 3) orders to remain in lockdown isolation for six weeks (not unlike it is now in the uk). Indeed, the uk has been in lockdown for much longer than China did 4) Yet, the Chinese people took the threat much more seriously, because the narrative was consistent and the news was filled with hospitals overflowing with people. They found a collective solidarity in knowing that their short-term individual sacrifice was necessary for the good of the nation. This short-term sacrifice and solidarity in action is something the purely individualistic is unwilling or unable to do.

Now if we compare the above response to what we’ve seen of the political reaction,  in the US particularly, every leader at all levels of governance, each with their own individual, often uniformed or purely subjective opinion on what action to take. There was no plan for the national response, no collective coordinated action whatsoever, no consistency in agreement, and every political commentator with a perspective, putting forward their own opinions; that the virus isn’t real, that lockdown is anti-freedom and should be defied, that we must organise and have a collective protest, in sum, our response was an incoherent and chaotic mess, and quite frankly embarrassing. I know my international friends were horrified at first, and ultimately found the whole thing comedic. For them, the idea of Western supremacism was forever shattered. For the first time, I heard Chinese sing the benefits of their system of governance over the democracy of the West. (This is not an endorsement of Chinese government by me; I just found it the reversal interesting. Edit - of course, extended over such a long term, even the chinese people’s patience is wearing thin.)

Climate change would seem the perfect situation when collective action is necessary; yet, humans have demonstrated themselves as incapable of putting their individual interests to onside, getting their collective shit together, and acting for the benefit of the collective as a whole, which actually also includes themselves, of course. The only rare exception is at times of immediate and urgent existential threat, eg at times of wars. (Edit April 2022 - what a surprise.)

Now whilst the collectivist movements of the past might serve to subjugate the individual, I’d argue that collective action doesn’t necessitate a denial of the individual. It means that individuals must recognise themselves as both a unique individuals and part of a much larger collective whole, and that one has a duty to serve the interests of both. This is a problem of education, and a cultural reality that sets us against each other in competition.

The biggest mistake though is the binary thinking that believes anything other than narrow individualism means its collectivist opposite, at the expense of the individual. It is this simplistic thinking that lies behind the poor western response to covid. I’d argue that anyone who has grown up on the internet cannot help but see themselves as an individual part of a more complex collective whole. I simply argue that it is time that we start acting like it, and our governance reflects this self-evident fact as well.

This means a government led by those who can see a bigger picture beyond their self-centric worldview and can intervene to bring balance to a system that is unsustainably out of balance. For a culture built upon rational individual self-interest has not only concentrated wealth with the old and already established, such that the millennials are struggling to even get established in life, nor is it entirely unsustainable for progress as a culture when the young, the best educated generations in history, are still struggling with the daily grind to survive, rather than making new advances, but this cultural built upon self-centric individualism doesn’t even realise the extent of the problem; either that or they don’t care. This collective ignorance and lack of self-awareness is both a symptom and pretty damning of evidence against narrow individualism entirely on its own.

The solution is not to suppress the individual or restrict the self-centric pursuit of anyone’s interests; after all many of the self-centric individualists are the engines of innovation, wealth creation and technological progress. I argue that they lack the competence to see the bigger picture, and hence are unfit to steer the ship. A broader, collective overview perspective is necessary for those who actually steer our collective course, to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to make something of their lives and each generation can contribute meaningfully to moving western culture forwards. Progress simply isn’t sustainable otherwise.

For if we handle climate change, as we did with covid, then we are not going to survive.