Individualism And Democracy Essay, Research Paper

Introduction

There is growing consensus in the United States of the potential collapse of democracy, and many scholars question whether America will be able to address the challenges necessary to avert it. At the heart of the issue is the disintegration of civil society. In a remarkable book on the subject – Democracy on Trial – Jean Elshtain (1995: 5) notes, “As a civic question – and it is by no means a civic matter alone – the locus of despair speaks to the loss of civil society. This deepening emptiness, and kind of evacuation of civic spaces, lies in the background of our current discontents, helping to explain why democracy is going through an ordeal of self-understanding as we near the end of the twentieth century.”

Through example and illumination of contemporary societal distress Elshtain is successful in painting a picture of eminent despair – “the growth of cynicism and the atrophy of civil society; too much acquisitive individualism that translates ‘wants’ into ‘rights’; an increase in disrespect of, even contempt for, the rule-governed practices that make democracy work; a politics of displacement that disdains any distinction between public and private and aims to open up all aspects of life to the harsh glare of publicity; the neglect of practical politics in favor of proclamations of one’s unassailable and exclusive identity as a member of a group defined by race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference; and a waning of our ability to transmit democratic dispositions and dreams to succeeding generations through education” (117-118).

Through this rendition Elshtain is successful in pointing to the degradation of civil society, most specifically as the result of increased individualism. This tautological approach, however, risks undermining potential solutions by ignoring the foundational reasons for increased individualism in the United States. In fact it is possible to have both negative and positive developments of individualism, a better understanding of which can be seen by an analysis of individual needs and individual reactions to environmental stimuli. Such an analysis may lend to a better understanding of not only how “negative individualism” develops in the U.S., but appropriate means by which these negative developments of individualism can be avoided in the future without loss of unique American individualism that stands as a forefront of American success and prosperity.

Such an analysis, however, must consider both the individual as a unique human being, with individual wants, desires, and needs, as well as the individual responding to environmental queues which affect their behavior by providing either impetus for, or roadblocks to, their needs and desires. Civil society begins to atrophy when collective behavior is the result of a sufficient number of individuals who feel that collective ends are thwarting their own individual needs, resulting in further exaggeration of negative individualism in an effort to regain a balance, perceived or otherwise, between individual and societal needs.

The qualitative method utilized in this effort attempts to unravel the disintegration of civil society in consideration of an analysis of the unique balance between individual needs and individuals responding to their environmental. Rapid and advanced industrialization, as in the United States, creates the foundation for an atmosphere of increased isolationism, or anomy, and individualistic tendencies. Efforts by individuals to fulfill their psychological needs and respond to environmental stimuli in this atmosphere results in political behavior that aggravates individualism, further widening the gap between individual and collective ends – in essence a snowball effect, whereby individualism breeds further division and disunity through the reactions of individuals to societal behavior (environmental stimuli) that seems to increasingly address individual, opposed to collective, ends.

Many scholars believe that increased industrialization, coupled with technological advances that further alienate individuals from their society, are to blame for America’s increased individualism and the disintegration of civil society. This concern was elaborated by Alexis de Tocqueville in his seminal work Democracy in America, in which he emphasized the dangers inherent in increased individualism as a result of an increasingly industrialized capitalist system. This individualism, however, has helped to develop a nation of opportunity, wealth, prosperity, religious diversity, and ultimate nationalism through the strength of a collection of diverse individuals, struggling for a common goal – individual freedom and fulfillment. Given the grand intentions of individualism, what, then, has happened in American society that such flagrant claims of disintegration, such as Elshtain notes, have so permeated society?

Human Needs and Political Behavior

Although not the first attempt at merging political behavior within the context of an essential element of nature, James Davies’ effort in Human Nature in Politics attempts to synthesize Artistotle’s human political “lifeform” with contemporary motivational behavior theory – specifically, Abraham Maslow’s development of an innate hierarchy of needs that directs an individuals motivations and behavior.

Like Aristotle, Davies attempts to merge the dynamics of individual needs and environmental stimuli within an interwoven system. Adding to Aristotle’s suppositions, Davies incorporates what, in 1963, was new insight into human psychology and motivation – specifically, through development of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This combined view of man as a political lifeform within a framework that is both directed by, and responsive to, environmental, or societal activities, is important and instructive in analyzing the problems Elshtain notes are permeating society today. It considers both the needs and desires of individuals, and how they effect developments in society, as well as governmental activity within society (the environment), thereby addressing contemporary developments, both positive and negative, as well as possible solutions to negative developments that now ferment in the United States.

Seen in this perspective, an individuals’ behavior, political or otherwise, is dependent upon the fulfillment of individual needs, of which their environment may stifle or help them fulfill these needs. Presuming that Artistotle is correct in defining human beings as political lifeforms, and that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are defining characteristics of individuals within political societies, the individual/environmental synthesis should transcend empirical boundedness, offering important illumination of today’s 21st century difficulties as outlined and expressed by Elshtain and others. The first part of this section will review the underlying assumptions of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and the application of these needs to political behavior. The second part of this section will focus on specific “troubles”, addressed in Elshtain’s review of American society at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, in consideration of innate individual needs, expressed through Maslow’s hierarchy, and an individual’s reactions to environmental stimuli that either enhance or stifle the fulfillment of those needs.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

“Maslow had a vision of a world in which synergy is not a zero-sum game but a way of interacting with the world, such that the social, political, and cultural world becomes enhanced simultaneously with the enhancement of the individual. What is good for you is also good for me”

Pearson & Podeschi. 1999. “Humanism and individualism: maslow and his critics.” Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 41-55.

Maslow is not the first to view the individual as having innate human behaviors, however his hierarchy of needs was the first development that explicitly linked individual behaviors to a procession of advancing. In other words, Maslow addresses human nature within the realm of unique individuals with varied and changing needs that do not always follow a specific, designated path. This approach makes his work most tenable to political behavior theory because it allows for both the simplicity as well the complexity of human action. Nor did Maslow’s work deviate markedly from classical assumptions of human goodness and morality. Pearson & Podeschi (1999: 51) note, “For Maslow, despite the impact of social forces, we as individuals have a responsibility to contribute to the possibilities of intrinsic human attributes, with the human need for growth providing a generating force for engaging in a lifetime enterprise of self-creation that has consequences on others.”

Maslow’s theory, as it relates to human motivation, revolves around one fairly simple proposition: “It is characteristic of human beings throughout their whole lives that they are practically always desiring something…” (Maslow, 1963: 7). In this sense, humans have specific needs, or desires, which they continually strive to fulfill. These needs begin from the most basic, at the bottom of the hierarchy (physiological and safety needs), to the more advanced and complex needs (belongingness and love, self-esteem, and self-actualization needs).

For Maslow, all human beings begin their need requirements at the bottom of the hierarchy, working their way up to the highest need – that of self-actualization. A few clarifications are necessary at this point. First, an individual may be working to fulfill more than one need at a time, as in the need for belongingness and self-esteem – therefore, an individual will not necessarily need to completely fulfill a lower need before attempting to fulfill a higher need. Second, some need requirements may be directed at one specific need (e.g., hunger) but may be unconsciously “fulfilled” by another need void (e.g., desire for belongingness or love). The distinction may be complex, however it is this “misinterpretation” of needs that requires a more complex view of human behavior, according to Maslow. Third, when an individual is dominated by a specific need, their whole philosophy of the present, and even of the past and the future, changes. For instance, if one is dominated by safety needs, as in the woman Elshtain eludes to who must hover inside her apartment with mattresses propped against the windows for fear of stray gunfire, it is likely that the desire for belongingness, within the community, family, or other organizations, is not a top priority, but that her need for safety will dominate her entire existence and thought processes. To this extent, all other needs will become dormant and unimportant.

Fourth, it is instructive to note, “when a need has been satisfied for a long time, this need may be underevaluated” (Maslow, 1963: 26). For instance, once the woman in Elshtain’s recollection above surpasses her need for safety by moving to a safer neighborhood, in time her thoughts will focus on the next levels of need, and her ability to relate to others who are now experiencing the same safety needs she previously experienced will be difficult, if not impossible. Fifth, an exception to the view of individuals continually striving for new and higher need levels would be those who have experienced severe deprivations in one need level. For example, Maslow notes that an individual who has suffered chronic unemployment may, for the rest of his life, be satisfied if only he gets enough food to eat. Lastly, these needs are not eradicable but are organic, genetic forces that individuals can nurture but cannot create and can control but never quite destroy, either in themselves or in others. Though organic, however, environmental influences are fundamental for the development, or destruction, of individual human motivation and fulfillment of these individual needs.

An Individual/Environmental Synthesis Approach to Political Behavior

In Human Nature in Politics (1963) Davies utilizes Maslow’s basic propositions and needs hierarchy with a few minor adjustments. First, recognizing that few, if any, Americans have experienced the severe deprivation of basic physical needs – Maslow’s first hierarchy of need (e.g., water, food, air) – Davies postulates that this need is actually a foundational requirement for all remaining needs. In other words, because Americans, on the whole, can expect to obtain these first level needs automatically and generally are not inclined to worry about whether or not there will be sufficient water to drink or even, for most, food to eat, this should form part of the fundamental foundation of all higher needs. He adds to this argument by pointing out that for those severely lacking such basic needs, consideration of higher level needs within the context of public policy and political behavior and decision-making is a highly ridiculous proposition. Davies (1963: 160) notes, “To assume that ordinary or extraordinary persons in such a hungry condition can in any way concern themselves with matters of public policy is to assume a kind of madness that prefers order, justice, and individual responsibility therefore to survival itself.”

Second, Davies adds the element of “tension” to the hierarchy. This tension, as Davies utilizes the term, includes “insecurity, anxiety, and frustration, but it includes both the disagreeable and the agreeable sensations of wanting” (Davies, 1963: 64). Davies explains that tension exists between the “want” of a need, and the “activity” of acquiring the need. Individuals feel “tension” when attempting to acquire a need, and although acquiring the need may not diffuse the tension completely, tension is a “characteristic of human life and of human behavior, and it is a characteristic of that aspect of human behavior which is called politics” (Davies, 1963: 65). It is essentially the state in which one force opposes another – this state occurs both in human nature, as well as in society. “The very nature of policy decisions in a society makes for a state of anxiety. The very issues that are up for public consideration and decision are those which are most difficult to make because the source of the difficulty is uncertain and the solution for it is even more so” (Davies, 1963: 68).

Summarizing Maslow’s hierarchy within this view, Davies (1963: 70) expresses the basic framework within which individual political motivation and behavior may be analyzed:

“People pursue the relief of tension in order to satisfy the basic needs (physical, social, self-esteem, and self-actualization needs). When they have satisfied one need or have become secure in the ability to satisfy that need, they are ready to pursue another one, reverting to concern with that prior need only when it is itself threatened.”

Maslow’s hierarchy, combined with Davies’ element of “tension,” form a synthesis between individual needs and desires reactions to environmental stimuli that individuals perceive as helping or hindering their attempts to fulfill these desires. Tension is an important element of this synthesis and it is, as Davies points out, at the very heart of politics itself – it arises, for example, from a conflict between an individual’s basic need and their internalized social rules, or between habit and custom on one hand, and emergent needs on the other. It is this tension that accounts for the environmental stimuli that individuals react to and which directs their behavior.

This approach, then, incorporates consideration of individual behavior in response to psychological needs merged with reaction to environmental stimuli as a result of tensions between individual and environmental (societal) needs. When viewed as a holistic analysis of the “collective result” (the negative or positive reality of behavior in society as a whole, though in this case the focus is the negative) this approach should offer insight for further analysis of Elshtain’s concerns.

Applying an Individual/Environmental Synthesis Approach.

It is now important to review the concerns originally expressed by Elshtain: (1) the growth of cynicism and the atrophy of civil society; (2) too much acquisitive individualism that translates ‘wants’ into ‘rights’; (3) an increase in disrespect of, even contempt for, the rule-governed practices that make democracy work; (4) a politics of displacement that disdains any distinction between public and private and aims to open up all aspects of life to the harsh glare of publicity; (5) the neglect of practical politics in favor of proclamations of one’s unassailable and exclusive identity as a member of a group defined by race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference; (6) and a waning of our ability to transmit democratic dispositions and dreams to succeeding generations through education (Elshtain, 1995: 117-118). To address these concerns in a more holistic manner according to underlying needs they are condensed into three broad theme categories as follows: (1) Growth of cynicism and atrophy of civil society; (2) translating “wants” into “rights”; and, (3) disrespect for rule-governed practices of Democracy. Each of these is analyzed individually below, followed by a summary analysis of the results.

The Growth of Cynicism and the Atrophy of Civil Society. Elshtain (1995: 24-25) notes, “American politics is a miasma….growing cynicism about politics promotes a spiral of delegitimation….Over time, the ‘culture of mistrust’ grows, aided by public scandals; by an ever more litigious and suspicious society; by a determination to ‘get mine’ no matter what may happen to the other guy; and by salacious snooping into the private lives of public figures, which further fuels cynicism about how untrustworthy our leaders are even as we delight in their downfall.”

In Maslow’s account of psychological needs once an individual has fulfilled the most basic of needs, their next desire is to fulfill the need for belongingness and self-esteem. In other words, they desire to feel “good” about themselves. Davies (1963: 45) further notes, “Interlocked with the strong urge to have a sense of belonging, of solidarity with others, is the desire to have a sense of equality, related to what Maslow calls self-esteem. This is the need for self-respect, in which the individual says: I am as good as anybody else; I may not be as clever or hard-working as you are, but I am as good as you are.”

An individual may attempt to fulfill this need in a positive or negative ways. For instance, a positive fulfillment of this need may be to accomplish a challenging task, one others recognize as a good effort worth recognition; or, to lead a church group, or participate in a non-profit organization, something that binds the individual both to collective accomplishment and personal satisfaction of a job well done. In a negative sense, individuals who lack the ability or opportunity to accomplish such activities may look for other ways to fulfill this need.

A cynic is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition, as “a person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.” Cynicism, therefore, allows an individual to feel that they are somehow “better” than others, because they themselves are not motivated by selfishness (of course). Politicians, for example, do not run for office because they intend to “serve the interests of society,” but because of their own selfish desire for power and notoriety. To solidify this notion, the misfortunes of others becomes a way in which an individual can see themselves from a higher, more virtuous plane – the spread of cynicism, however, is a necessary ingredient in this effort. It is a “we” and “they” mentality in which an individual can relate to others who recognize that “we” are indeed better than “they” are.

Environmental stimuli are also important in spreading cynicism. An individual’s strong desire to feel accepted and to belong is an important element at this hierarchical level, and one that has been recognized in studies of group behavior. Angus, et. al. (1960: 296) explain that “groups can become reference points for the formation of attitudes and decisions about behavior…[with] a sense of norms and values attributed to a generalized ‘group’: these are the expectations concerning appropriate behavior for the ‘loyal’ Catholic or union member. It is the group standards that are psychologically real and are responsible for influence when it occurs.” This influence may result in specific action, or in the formation of specific beliefs and ideas, including those of a cynical nature. The authors note that influence is also exerted “in smaller, face-to-face ‘primary’ groups such as families, circles of friends, and the like.” And, in fact, this primary group influence tends to be stronger than secondary-group influences (the local PTA, church group, or union, for example). An individual’s personal views regarding an issue, then, will be strongly influenced by the “environmental” stimuli provided by family, friends, and organized groups, most successfully through indirect, as opposed to overt, influence.

It is not difficult to see how the spread of such cynicism atrophies into what Elshtain refers to as a “spiral of delegitimation.” Cynicism is no longer a “belief” but takes on a life of its own – it becomes “fact”. It is, therefore, no longer “cynical” to believe that all politicians are out to get only what benefits them, but it is a certain truth, the “proof” of which is readily revealed through scandal after scandal, the delight of which is indeed that “we” are better than “they”. Tension is heightened as individuals struggle with the balance between individual needs and desires (“we”) and those of society (“they) – why shouldn’t our needs take precedence over the needs of others. This mentality leads to Elshtain’s second concern.

Translating ‘Wants’ into ‘Rights’. Individualism, as expressed in the previous sections, is both a negative, as well as a positive notion. In the positive sense, individualism expresses courage to challenge the status quo and expression of unique individual identity (positive non-conformity). 21st Century individualism, however, has developed what Tocqueville warned would be the inevitable conflict between the principles of individualistic self-interest and public good. The foundation of this development seems to be the rapidity with which America has grown from a powerless colonial state to a fully industrialized nation. The result – increased marginality, requiring the redevelopment of the individual’s place in society (Davies, 1963), increased instability of a more mobile society (Arieli, 1964), societal fragmentation, with individuals finding it harder to identify with their society and communities (Taylor, 1991), and, organizations which become independent entities with personalities that supercede the individuals within (Kurtz, 1969).

Essentially individuals become increasingly dislocated from traditional community, losing the benefit of social stability and belongingness. As a fundamental need, individuals long to be “part” of something – “The social needs are those that arise from the deep desire people have to get together, be together, and stay together” (Davies, 1963: 31). If individuals are no longer able to fulfill this social need through community stability, they search for it through means that are more transitive, i.e., through like-minded individuals and groups. Such groups offer a stable and comfortable forum that can provide both the social need for belongingness, as well as stand the rigors of a mobile, marginalized, and fragmented society. The result of such action, however, is further marginalization and fragmentation, as individual groups take on their own version of “we” versus “they” cynicism mentioned earlier, fueling more environmental stimuli which further alienates more and more individuals focused on group wants and needs over societal goals.

Disrespect for Rule-Governed Practices of Democracy. Tied to the repercussions of rapid industrial growth is the growth of prosperity. Although on its face prosperity seems harmless, though excess, as with anything, creates its own set of difficulties. “Wealth, by the power it bestows, deceives us into believing that we depend on ourselves only. Reducing the resistance we encounter from objects, it suggests the possibility of unlimited success against them. The less limited one feels, the more intolerable all limitation appears” (Connolly & Gordon, 1974: 81). Furthermore, as was noted in a previous section, individuals, once having fulfilled lower-level needs, are often unable to relate to struggles necessary at previous need levels. For most Americans, the physiological and safety needs are automatically provided. This position means that for most Americans, the “principles of Democracy” that Elshtain refer to are of an irrelevant past – they are an assumed privilege, the security of which is taken for granted.

The focus instead becomes not of Democratic justice through the vote, but Democratic “equality” through governmental intervention; it is not freedom from oppression, but freedom to do whatever one desires without interference; not commitment to national unity, but commitment to everyone’s individual needs and desires – each portrays a distinct way of viewing what is “important” for Democracy today because each begins from different need levels. When a woman’s individual right to participate in the political process had been denied, Democratic justice through the vote was sought. Once obtained, the issue became Democratic justice through equality of work, followed by equality of pay. Subsequently it became Democratic justice through the right to do with one’s body what one wished. At each stage, a new level of “Democratic justice” seemed “the” injustice of the day – previous advances were already internalized and secured as “rights” automatically, therefore a new level of justice was sought.

Each of these examples exemplifies both the continual nature of need fulfillment as well as the unique ability of man to conveniently forget battles won, advances made, and previous desires fulfilled, and to desire new, better, and greater fulfillments. As the continual and increasingly diverse desires and needs for Democratic justices fall further and further from their origin, however, they also become further fragmented. The environmental impact of this fragmentation is to spread the belief that society no longer reflects the needs and desires of everyone, but of special groups and individuals. Though each individual may receive their “portion” of equitable distribution of justice as a result of these processes, the result is a focus on the need for equality that is “so extensive as to suggest that all law has to do with spelling out additional implications of the principles that all men are equal in dignity and worth…but the persistent demands of all groups to get from politics what they consider their equal share of public welfare seems often to have behind it the notion that hitherto each group has been discriminated against (and pendulously now must be discriminated for)” (Davies, 1963: 51). The snowball effect, of course, applies, as the persistent belief that society discriminates (either for or against) causes a reactionary process which begins again the need to fulfill the next level of justice for whatever group seems to be disadvantaged.

Summary and Conclusion

In essence the resulting process is a circular one, whereby individuals direct and fulfill their needs through response to environmental stimuli (governmental activities which either thwart or enhance those needs), which then act to circumscribe, direct, develop, and redevelop collective, societal needs in response to individual behavior within society.