Is Individuality a social construct?

[Luc]

Somthing has been troubling me lately and I was hoping you guys could help me with this:

Is everything about a human's psychology/emotion/personality w/e the effects and/or reactions of/to the material world and society?
Like:

Preferences (sexuality included)
World view (perception of world)
Knowledge (what they know)
Psychology (mental condition)
Personality (emotional condition)
Physical condition (genetics and other stuff)
If the things that distinguish one human from another are, the result of experiences and the effects of society on a particular human; aren't individuals and individuality just social constructs and/or unoriginal?:confused:

If so, does being a social construct make Indivduality and Originality unimportant, arbitrary and/or contradicting?

Disclaimer: I am probably using the term "social construct" incorrectly.

[Frank Zapatista]

Somthing has been troubling me lately and I was hoping you guys could help me with this:

Is everything about a human's psychology/emotion/personality w/e the effects and/or reactions of/to the material world and society?

Like:

Preferences (sexuality included)
World view (perception of world)
Knowledge (what they know)
Psychology (mental condition)
Personality (emotional condition)
Physical condition (genetics and other stuff)
If the things that distinguish one human from another are, the result of experiences and the effects of society on a particular human; aren't individuals and individuality just social constructs and/or unoriginal?:confused:

If so, does being a social construct make Indivduality and Originality unimportant, arbitrary and/or contradicting?

Disclaimer: I am probably using the term "social construct" incorrectly.
Are you implying that homosexuality is the result of a persons environment? Do you think a person becomes gay via nurture and not nature?

[Kadir Ateş]

Is Individuality a social construct?

You should read the Introduction to Marx's Grundrisse (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm):


Individuals producing in Society – hence socially determined individual production – is, of course, the point of departure. The individual and isolated hunter and fisherman, with whom Smith and Ricardo begin, belongs among the unimaginative conceits of the eighteenth-century Robinsonades, [1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/intro-f.htm#1) which in no way express merely a reaction against over-sophistication and a return to a misunderstood natural life, as cultural historians imagine. As little as Rousseau’s contrat social, which brings naturally independent, autonomous subjects into relation and connection by contract, rests on such naturalism. This is the semblance, the merely aesthetic semblance, of the Robinsonades, great and small. It is, rather, the anticipation of ‘civil society’, in preparation since the sixteenth century and making giant strides towards maturity in the eighteenth. In this society of free competition, the individual appears detached from the natural bonds etc. which in earlier historical periods make him the accessory of a definite and limited human conglomerate. Smith and Ricardo still stand with both feet on the shoulders of the eighteenth-century prophets, in whose imaginations this eighteenth-century individual – the product on one side of the dissolution of the feudal forms of society, on the other side of the new forces of production developed since the sixteenth century – appears as an ideal, whose existence they project into the past. Not as a historic result but as history’s point of departure. As the Natural Individual appropriate to their notion of human nature, not arising historically, but posited by nature. This illusion has been common to each new epoch to this day. Steuart [2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/intro-f.htm#2) avoided this simple-mindedness because as an aristocrat and in antithesis to the eighteenth century, he had in some respects a more historical footing.
The more deeply we go back into history, the more does the individual, and hence also the producing individual, appear as dependent, as belonging to a greater whole: in a still quite natural way in the family and in the family expanded into the clan [Stamm]; then later in the various forms of communal society arising out of the antitheses and fusions of the clan. Only in the eighteenth century, in ‘civil society’, do the various forms of social connectedness confront the individual as a mere means towards his private purposes, as external necessity. But the epoch which produces this standpoint, that of the isolated individual, is also precisely that of the hitherto most developed social (from this standpoint, general) relations. The human being is in the most literal sense a Zwon politikon[3] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/intro-f.htm#3) not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society. Production by an isolated individual outside society – a rare exception which may well occur when a civilized person in whom the social forces are already dynamically present is cast by accident into the wilderness – is as much of an absurdity as is the development of language without individuals living together and talking to each other. There is no point in dwelling on this any longer.

[Luc]

You should read the Introduction to Marx's Grundrisse (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm):

Thank you, I actually have the Grundrisse on my shelf and have been meaning to read it:laugh:

However, atm I don't understand what Marx is saying:blushing: so I will read it slowly and carefully asap.

Thanks again!

[Luc]

Are you implying that homosexuality is the result of a persons environment? Do you think a person becomes gay via nurture and not nature?

Good point, I wasn't thinking about homosexuality when I wrote this post:blushing:

I just don't understand how genetics (if thats the other explanation) determines attraction to anything:confused: I'll do some more reading.

I wouldn't say "nurture" or "nature" but perhaps somthing along the lines of developement vs. biological dictation.

[Octavian]

Individualism is how capitalism pacifies people into not criticizing the society they live in. The act of trying to be an individual in a state of mass media is absurd and as the capitalists always say in their advertisements and government PSA's "Be yourself, everybody is doing it".

[Luc]

Individualism is how capitalism pacifies people into not criticizing the society they live in. The act of trying to be an individual in a state of mass media is absurd and as the capitalists always say in their advertisements and government PSA's "Be yourself, everybody is doing it".

Thanks, the hipocrasy of "be yourself, everbody is doing it" is exactly what lead me to question whether there is even such a thing as being yourself:thumbup:

[mykittyhasaboner]

The concept of the "individual" to begin with is certainly a social construct. One is only an individual when compared to other people. Therefore "individuality" or certain aspects of "individuals" are affected by social relationships, if not outright determined by such relationships.

[Hexen]

Sorry to bump this topic but I would have to say that individuality is a capitalist metaphor and it doesn't really exist.

[ArrowLance]

I would say most certainly, I don't see how a person can qualify as an 'individual' if they are taken out of society and left by themself. They have no way to express individuality, and I don't see how it exists outside of its expression.

[KR]

I lol at the bullshit expressed in this thread, off course individuality is not a social construct, if society did not exist we would still exists as individuals, thus individuality cannot be said to be a social construct. And ArrowLance, an individual outside of society could still express himself, what do you even mean with this?

[Hit The North]

I lol at the bullshit expressed in this thread, off course individuality is not a social construct, if society did not exist we would still exists as individuals, thus individuality cannot be said to be a social construct. And ArrowLance, an individual outside of society could still express himself, what do you even mean with this?

I think it is your position that is bullshit. In what sense could people exist without a society (i.e. without having relations with other humans) and what means would they have to express their individuality without recourse to a language and a culture (both of which cannot exist without a society)?

[KR]

I think it is your position that is bullshit. In what sense could people exist without a society (i.e. without having relations with other humans) and what means would they have to express their individuality without recourse to a language and a culture (both of which cannot exist without a society)? They would exist? There are several people who have lived alone for decades and surviving without help from society. People could express themselves with for an example, cave paintings.

[workersadvocate]

They would exist? There are several people who have lived alone for decades and surviving without help from society. People could express themselves with for an example, cave paintings.

While mr. independent individual was spending the day doing cave paintings, who was securing the necessities of life, "without society" (without any social relatiins betwern human beings)?

[PhoenixAsh]

I think it is your position that is bullshit. In what sense could people exist without a society (i.e. without having relations with other humans) and what means would they have to express their individuality without recourse to a language and a culture (both of which cannot exist without a society)?

Emotions. Acts. Grunts. Food preference. Etc. To name a few.



I would say most certainly, I don't see how a person can qualify as an 'individual' if they are taken out of society and left by themself. They have no way to express individuality, and I don't see how it exists outside of its expression.


The question of wether or not this is induviduality if society is abssent is like asking the question: does a tree make a sound when it falls and there is nobody there to hear it.

Wether or not induviduality is observed is irrelevant for it being there.

[Thirsty Crow]

The question of wether or not this is induviduality if society is abssent is like asking the question: does a tree make a sound when it falls and there is nobody there to hear it.

Wether or not induviduality is observed is irrelevant for it being there.I don't think this is the right way to approach that highly speculative question.
Namely, you cannot possibly imagine a living animal without a community of sorts, and that also goes for humans who, for the sake of argument, were torn out of their community and ended up somewhere else on this planet. The community would still be there, especially if we consider the hypothetical case of a child in such conditions, and this community would be that of other animals (if the hypothetical child were not eaten in the first place). Again, society of sorts. Just not a human one, and by extension, you could only speak of a biologically human being, of homo sapiens sapiens, but not of a socialized human being - let's say, human being proper.

[PhoenixAsh]

Homo Sapiens means "knowing man" there is no part of its definition of Homo Sapiens being a socialized being. Though that is what they tend to do because they are adept at communication.

However. We are talking about induviduality here. Or the possibility of being ones own person seperate in a collection that can express itself, is self aware and posesses specific internally and externally oriented ambitions and characteristics.

induviduality does not necessrally require communication though it does require interaction but it does require human society to distance one self from when we are talking about human induviduality.

[Lanky Wanker]

Physical condition (genetics and other stuff)


Can genetics be socially influenced? :confused:

[Luc]

Can genetics be socially influenced? :confused:

...

I have no idea anymore why i wrote that:confused:

this was from along time ago as you can see lol

[KR]

While mr. independent individual was spending the day doing cave paintings, who was securing the necessities of life, "without society" (without any social relatiins betwern human beings)?
If by necessities of life you mean food, water and shelter, that is rather easy to get in the wild, and in fact requires less work than in our current society. It is easy to get food by hunting and gathering, shelter could be provided with caves or similar, and water is easily available most places on earth. But this discussion is not about whatever or not an individual could survive alone outside of society, or whatever or not it is better to live in an society than alone (which it certaintly is), this is about whatever or not individuality is a social construct, which it quite clearly is't, as an individual is not dependent on society to form his individuality/identity.

[Lanky Wanker]

...

I have no idea anymore why i wrote that:confused:

this was from along time ago as you can see lol

Oh right, I didn't notice the date lol.

[Ostrinski]

Homo Sapiens means "knowing man" there is no part of its definition of Homo Sapiens being a socialized being. Though that is what they tend to do because they are adept at communication.

However. We are talking about induviduality here. Or the possibility of being ones own person seperate in a collection that can express itself, is self aware and posesses specific internally and externally oriented ambitions and characteristics.

induviduality does not necessrally require communication though it does require interaction but it does require human society to distance one self from when we are talking about human induviduality.But to be conscious of one's individuality, social relations are required. One only recognizes themselves as an individual in the context of other individuals.

[KR]

But to be conscious of one's individuality, social relations are required. One only recognizes themselves as an individual in the context of other individuals.

Prove it.

[Ostrinski]

Prove it.From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of INDIVIDUAL

1
a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group
An individual is only an individual if the individual is conscious of their individuality. And the individual only recognizes themselves as an individual in relation to other individuals. I'm not sure what you're asking to be proven. This is pure logic. The only way that you couldn't accept this to be true is if you believe we get our individuality from some higher power or divine being.

[Q]

There are a few things going on here and the matter can get complicated quite fast. But long story short is that our current conception of "individuality" is indeed quite so a result of capitalist society. In the same way science, art, philosophy and religion are all constructs of capitalist society.

Within European feudalism for example, there was no separate conception of "art", "science", "religion" or, for that matter, "individuality". They were all intermixed into one big conceptual framework called christendom. Only with the enlightenment did this framework get untangled, with philosophy and science being the first to blossom on their own.

Likewise, with primitive communist society humans did very much live within a collective framework. The tribe was part of these people in a very deep sense. Within capitalism there is also a tendency, among the proletariat, to get back this sense of collectivity. This is also the main danger for the ruling class, so hence why they emphasize so much on this "individuality" thing and are bent of a political agenda of destroying all vestiges of collectivity and privatising every social hangout. Individuality of course does exist, but without social relations most modern humans would die quite fast.

I'm not only talking about family and friends, but about pretty much all aspects of society. Where do you get your food for example? In a grocery store most likely. This grocery store in turn depends on many layers of relations in order to function. This is what capitalism does: No one produces for their own need, but we produce for a social need (which is privately owned and produced for profit) and we buy all other necessities of life. This is one big complicated web of social relations.

And while under communism the social relations would change (wage, states, classes would no longer exist), they would most probably deepen because society becomes conscious of itself and is no longer alienated from itself. Hence, the collective mindset would grow and our "individuality" would also most likely change in its character.

[Ostrinski]

There are a few things going on here and the matter can get complicated quite fast. But long story short is that our current conception of "individuality" is indeed quite so a result of capitalist society. In the same way science, art, philosophy and religion are all constructs of capitalist society.

Within European feudalism for example, there was no separate conception of "art", "science", "religion" or, for that matter, "individuality". They were all intermixed into one big conceptual framework called christendom. Only with the enlightenment did this framework get untangled, with philosophy and science being the first to blossom on their own.

Likewise, with primitive communist society humans did very much live within a collective framework. The tribe was part of these people in a very deep sense. Within capitalism there is also a tendency, among the proletariat, to get back this sense of collectivity. This is also the main danger for the ruling class, so hence why they emphasize so much on this "individuality" thing and are bent of a political agenda of destroying all vestiges of collectivity and privatising every social hangout. Individuality of course does exist, but without social relations most modern humans would die quite fast.

I'm not only talking about family and friends, but about pretty much all aspects of society. Where do you get your food for example? In a grocery store most likely. This grocery store in turn depends on many layers of relations in order to function. This is what capitalism does: No one produces for their own need, but we produce for a social need (which is privately owned and produced for profit) and we buy all other necessities of life. This is one big complicated web of social relations.

And while under communism the social relations would change (wage, states, classes would no longer exist), they would most probably deepen because society becomes conscious of itself and is no longer alienated from itself. Hence, the collective mindset would grow and our "individuality" would also most likely change in its character.Beats the shit out of mine. Q always comes with the insight.

[Hit The North]

Prove it.

Actually, given that the empirical experience for the overwhelming majority of the human population is within a human society, the onus is on you to prove that a human subject, utterly divorced from society and without any earlier experience of being inducted into a human society, can be aware of his/her individuality.

[KR]

From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of INDIVIDUAL

1
a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group
An individual is only an individual if the individual is conscious of their individuality. And the individual only recognizes themselves as an individual in relation to other individuals. I'm not sure what you're asking to be proven. This is pure logic. The only way that you couldn't accept this to be true is if you believe we get our individuality from some higher power or divine being.
No like wtf? We are individuals regardless of whatever or not other people exist and we know that we exist regardless of whatever or not other people exists. If you from birth put someone in a dungeon with no other people and only giving him food and water than he would still be aware of his own existence, would still be aware of his individuality.

[KR]

There are a few things going on here and the matter can get complicated quite fast. But long story short is that our current conception of "individuality" is indeed quite so a result of capitalist society. In the same way science, art, philosophy and religion are all constructs of capitalist society.

Within European feudalism for example, there was no separate conception of "art", "science", "religion" or, for that matter, "individuality". They were all intermixed into one big conceptual framework called christendom. Only with the enlightenment did this framework get untangled, with philosophy and science being the first to blossom on their own.

Likewise, with primitive communist society humans did very much live within a collective framework. The tribe was part of these people in a very deep sense. Within capitalism there is also a tendency, among the proletariat, to get back this sense of collectivity. This is also the main danger for the ruling class, so hence why they emphasize so much on this "individuality" thing and are bent of a political agenda of destroying all vestiges of collectivity and privatising every social hangout. Individuality of course does exist, but without social relations most modern humans would die quite fast.

I'm not only talking about family and friends, but about pretty much all aspects of society. Where do you get your food for example? In a grocery store most likely. This grocery store in turn depends on many layers of relations in order to function. This is what capitalism does: No one produces for their own need, but we produce for a social need (which is privately owned and produced for profit) and we buy all other necessities of life. This is one big complicated web of social relations.

And while under communism the social relations would change (wage, states, classes would no longer exist), they would most probably deepen because society becomes conscious of itself and is no longer alienated from itself. Hence, the collective mindset would grow and our "individuality" would also most likely change in its character.
How would it change?

[Ostrinski]

No like wtf? We are individuals regardless of whatever or not other people exist and we know that we exist regardless of whatever or not other people exists. If you from birth put someone in a dungeon with no other people and only giving him food and water than he would still be aware of his own existence, would still be aware of his individuality.Being self-aware is not the same as acknowledging your own individuality. Individuality describes one's characteristics in relation and contrast to the characteristics of others. I don't know how much further this can be broken down. I guess I'll just keep repeating it.

[Q]

How would it change?

As I said, within capitalism, the capital cycle is the main motivator of social relations, you could say it is the building block of society itself. Within communism this would change because wage exploitation and private ownership of that exploitation would cease to exist. Social relations are no longer fed by money in communism. A socialist revolution therefore will turn society upside down in almost all aspects.

Since communism solves the problem of alienation via actual democracy and since that means that communism enables us to develop ourselves in genuine humans that are living (as opposed to surviving as under capitalism), it stands to reason that social relations will be fed by humans as the main motivator: Developing yourself, doing something for your community, working to achieve a great scientific breakthrough... you name it.

This comes along with the question of freedom. Because, what is "freedom" under capitalism? You could argue (and I think this is a rather common sense definition) that it is doing whatever you please, unconstrained by stuff like work. Therefore, freedom is the absence of work, which in turn means that work defines freedom. Because you're alienated from work, it defines freedom by its absence. Again we see how capital defines our lives.

So "freedom" and "work" too have a very different meaning under communism, as wage exploitation no longer exists so "work" no longer exists as a social institution.

What it will exactly mean, how social relations will exactly evolve, I do not know. Likewise I'm sure a 15th century tradesman capitalist had no idea what the full implications were going to be about "freedom", "work", "individuality" and the like. But like him, I work for my own interests until the end which means, in my case, to try and organise the proletariat as a class-collective that is aware of its own power and thereby becomes a potential ruling class, able to start a new stage in human history.

These are big questions that have no very easy answers.

[PhoenixAsh]

From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of INDIVIDUAL

1
a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group
An individual is only an individual if the individual is conscious of their individuality. And the individual only recognizes themselves as an individual in relation to other individuals. I'm not sure what you're asking to be proven. This is pure logic. The only way that you couldn't accept this to be true is if you believe we get our individuality from some higher power or divine being.


Your quote says nothing about consciousness of a larger society and your loigic comes down to answering my previous question: "there is only sound when somebody is there to hear it"

Induviduality requires being selfaware and requires self recognized emotions and hopes and dreams.

[PhoenixAsh]

Actually, given that the empirical experience for the overwhelming majority of the human population is within a human society, the onus is on you to prove that a human subject, utterly divorced from society and without any earlier experience of being inducted into a human society, can be aware of his/her individuality.

Well actually that has been proven time and time again when people utterly divorced from human society were introduced back into society or contact with others. Those people displayed very high levels of self awereness and distinctions. They do not magically appear....they were always there.

So no...the onus is on you to disprove that a sole organism is not awere of them selves.

[bots]

If by necessities of life you mean food, water and shelter, that is rather easy to get in the wild, and in fact requires less work than in our current society. It is easy to get food by hunting and gathering, shelter could be provided with caves or similar, and water is easily available most places on earth. But this discussion is not about whatever or not an individual could survive alone outside of society, or whatever or not it is better to live in an society than alone (which it certaintly is), this is about whatever or not individuality is a social construct, which it quite clearly is't, as an individual is not dependent on society to form his individuality/identity.

I don't know about this. I've got an interest in survivalism and I do go out into the wilderness as often as I can. In an ideal scenario (summer or early fall, good weather, if I'm carrying a knife or hatchet, if I've got a magnifying glass for starting fires, good clothes and boots etc.) I could survive pretty well. But when things get tough I think even Survivorman or whatever would be pretty hard pressed to survive alone for more than two or three winters. It's just too much work to make a go of it without the amenities and support of some sort of society. If you don't believe me go out into the woods right now with nothing but the clothes on your back and just try and get a fire going. I'd be willing to bet the hermits you mentioned earlier weren't above scavenging what they could from society whenever they could. Even Ted Kacynzki had to make trips into town, and not just to drop off bombs.

[bots]

I guess to add to what I'm saying and stay on topic, from a strictly philosophical view the individual is not a social construct. From a realistic, materialistic viewpoint, the individual is dependent on society for survival and therefore requires a society to develop their individuality.

[workersadvocate]

Can a human being come into existence without the efforts of other human beings?

Without human society, none of us would exist, much less worry about our precious 'individuality'.

I keep coming back to this because one day some wanker is going to stand in a workers' tribunal declaring that the working class can't tell "me" what to do, can't seize "my" property or collect "my" money for taxation, because "I" the Self is the ultimate king, blah blah blah Randroid shit.
My response would be: humanity owns each and all of us, and we are each a part of the whole of humanity without which we would not exist and could not survive.
Individuality assertion over against humanity is like a grain of sand proclaiming itself greater then the endless beach or desert. We made you, we kept you alive, we allowed you to have your distinct individuality and to express it via the means of human social communication which we fucking taught you or provided the foundations for in the first place, and you--the supposedly self-made independent unaccountable individual---ain't so fucking special or independent and above the masses of humankind!

I think we need to wage total war on the fundamentally anti-human anti-communist elitist individualism epidemic of the bourgeois era. Humanity owns us each and all, and we are all parts of the whole of collective humanity. In the event of conflicts of interest humanity pwns "I, me, mine"...lest we forget who secures our freedoms and our livelihoods.

[Hit The North]

No like wtf? We are individuals regardless of whatever or not other people exist and we know that we exist regardless of whatever or not other people exists. If you from birth put someone in a dungeon with no other people and only giving him food and water than he would still be aware of his own existence, would still be aware of his individuality.

As Brospierre has pointed out, you're using the word 'individual' in a very basic empirical way, but even with this usage it is dubious to presume that a creature born into a black box and maintained there with no outside stimulus would ever develop an awareness of it own existence. It certainly would not be aware of its individuality in any meaningful sense.

But taking a less extreme example: I have two pet dogs and they have different personalities and quirks and I can look at them and think how individual they are from each other - but are they aware of these differences? I'd suggest this is unlikely, as they have fewer powers of self-awareness than a typical human being. They lack the conceptual apparatus to think about concepts such as personality, etc. They may separate themselves from others around them and recognise others by smell or other sensory data, but they lack the self-reflection necessary to think about themselves as individuals with distinct qualities, traits and ambitions.

So taking even a common example of a sophisticated non-human animal like a dog that has quite a rich pattern of interactions, without recourse to a language in order to conceptualise a concept like 'individuality', then how can we say that it has awareness of its own individuality?

As a socialised human being I am able to recognise qualities in myself and in others and I have the language and conceptual skills to think about them in nuanced and complex ways - moreso than a dog, a language-less chimp, a grunting caveman or a feral child raised by wolves.

The key to understanding why this is the case is the word socialised. This is because awareness of individuality necessitates quite a complex set of references that are conceptualised through the use of language and mediated by cultural norms and perhaps individual psychic needs (themselves a product of our interaction). In other words, self-conscious and self-reflecting individuality is a natural capacity within humans but as is the case with most of our capacities it can only be realised through society and shaped in various ways. So it follows that individuality is a mediated social construct shaped by actually lived-out social lives within the context of particular dominant social relations. Therefore, the individuality of a 16th century puritan (self-conceptualising as an individual soul belonging to the great host of heavenly souls) is different to the extreme self-consciousness upon which 21st century metropolitan individuality is founded (self-conceptualising, perhaps, as an autonomous, self-directed and rational consuming individual).

[Hit The North]

Well actually that has been proven time and time again when people utterly divorced from human society were introduced back into society or contact with others. Those people displayed very high levels of self awereness and distinctions. They do not magically appear....they were always there.

So no...the onus is on you to disprove that a sole organism is not aware of them selves.

Really? I'd like to see this evidence. If you're referring to the occasional documented evidence of feral children, then all the evidence points to the fact that having been isolated from human contact in the first few years of their lives, these people have been irreparably damaged and fail to be successfully inducted into human society, unable to grasp linguistic skills and being barely recognisable as human to the people around them.

[KR]

Can a human being come into existence without the efforts of other human beings?

Without human society, none of us would exist, much less worry about our precious 'individuality'.

I keep coming back to this because one day some wanker is going to stand in a workers' tribunal declaring that the working class can't tell "me" what to do, can't seize "my" property or collect "my" money for taxation, because "I" the Self is the ultimate king, blah blah blah Randroid shit.
My response would be: humanity owns each and all of us, and we are each a part of the whole of humanity without which we would not exist and could not survive.
Individuality assertion over against humanity is like a grain of sand proclaiming itself greater then the endless beach or desert. We made you, we kept you alive, we allowed you to have your distinct individuality and to express it via the means of human social communication which we fucking taught you or provided the foundations for in the first place, and you--the supposedly self-made independent unaccountable individual---ain't so fucking special or independent and above the masses of humankind!

I think we need to wage total war on the fundamentally anti-human anti-communist elitist individualism epidemic of the bourgeois era. Humanity owns us each and all, and we are all parts of the whole of collective humanity. In the event of conflicts of interest humanity pwns "I, me, mine"...lest we forget who secures our freedoms and our livelihoods.
I disagree with you. I dont think the masses are superior to the individual, but neither do i think that an individual is superior the the masses. I think we are all equally important as individuals, and a majority does't have the right to eliminate the freedoms of an individual, like freedom of speech, the freedom to do what you want with your own body or put whatever you want into your own body or prohibit you from drawing things that society finds disgusting or have sex with whoever you want to, just because they are a majority.

[Red 7]

Is everything about a human's psychology/emotion/personality w/e the effects and/or reactions of/to the material world and society?


No - it is the effect of Divine will and the metaphysical netherworld.

On a less sarcastic note. Anyone who thinks 'food' and 'shelter' don't consist, largely, of social elements... well, lets just say it makes me ashamed of our modern educational institutions.


Do you think a person becomes gay via nurture and not nature?

Also, to take the bait that's been hanging there - yes. A person can become gay - although in our current society, you're a lot more likely to end up as an overly enthusiastic heterosexual, through 'nurture' as you so elegantly put it.

But really, no Marxist worth their salt should ever make such a banal distinction between 'nature' and 'nurture'. It's an extremely unhealthy dichotomy, as are all the 'individual' in stark opposition to society notions scattered throughout this thread.

Oh, and the post above mine (Kier's) is a rather foolish justification for pedophilia and rape. Just saying.

[KR]

No - it is the effect of Divine will and the metaphysical netherworld.

On a less sarcastic note. Anyone who thinks 'food' and 'shelter' don't consist, largely, of social elements... well, lets just say it makes me ashamed of our modern educational institutions.



Also, to take the bait that's been hanging there - yes. A person can become gay - although in our current society, you're a lot more likely to end up as an overly enthusiastic heterosexual, through 'nurture' as you so elegantly put it.

But really, no Marxist worth their salt should ever make such a banal distinction between 'nature' and 'nurture'. It's an extremely unhealthy dichotomy, as are all the 'individual' in stark opposition to society notions scattered throughout this thread.

Oh, and the post above mine (Kier's) is a rather foolish justification for pedophilia and rape. Just saying.
How is it a justification for rape or pedophilia? :confused:

[Red 7]

I'm sure you had no intentions of justifying anything like that... its just the way it was worded. To me, logically, if you begin to talk about ideas like freedom or liberty using the absolute individual as a starting point, you will hit a dead end. And this is what many liberal and bourgeois thinkers do today (as most of them believe in an absolute human nature of which logically leads to today's... capitalist human interaction - read the passage someone quoted from the Grundrisse, it address this issue).

Really there is no absolute starting point or origin, social or individual, they've mutually evolved throughout history - hence even something as simple to human beings as food or shelter, have large social elements. Hunting/gathering are social activities, involve social relations like the family... feeding/sheltering the family. The same social activities can be seen all over the animal kingdom.

Its fine saying that humans have basic functions, biological drives - but on the instant of birth they're connected with the wider world. The individual doesn't exist within a vacuum. Just like moving your body parts is the effort and interaction between humans and nature, things like the subject, self, psyche are also intimately connected, linked and in some cases determined by MATERIAL THINGS - of which human relations are, and of which make up what we call 'society'. That's my own Marxist view anyway. I hate the idea of absolutes like 'innateness', 'nature'.

Marxism often gets a lot of stick for being 'deterministic', but it's really not about that. It's about finding connections in the world, and realizing that things aren't just isolated and absolute, and concepts like 'freedom' come with the price of social and communal interaction. In fact I'd go so far as to argue that's the only type of freedom we can even talk about. Else you're really just talking about the motions of particular bodies (i.e. an atom's individuality).

[Os Cangaceiros]

My response would be: humanity owns each and all of us, and we are each a part of the whole of humanity without which we would not exist and could not survive.

Humanity "owns" us? What does that even mean? Who decides how to use humanity's "property"? :huh: Will a massive collective vote be taken of the amorphous human masses whenever the most trivial matter arises in relation to the individual? And why does something fundamental as human life fall into the laws of ownership and property?


Individuality assertion over against humanity is like a grain of sand proclaiming itself greater then the endless beach or desert. We made you, we kept you alive, we allowed you to have your distinct individuality and to express it via the means of human social communication which we fucking taught you or provided the foundations for in the first place, and you--the supposedly self-made independent unaccountable individual---ain't so fucking special or independent and above the masses of humankind!

There are some pretty clear overreaches in terms of the individual having no rights to themselves, though. For example, if "humanity" told me that they were going to extract one of my eyeballs so a blind person could see, I'd tell "humanity" to fuck off. (And this isn't an example I made up, it comes from here (http://www.amazon.com/Self-Ownership-Freedom-Equality-Studies-Marxism/dp/0521477514), in which the author uses it as an example of the collective overreaching into the rights of the individual. I also brought the book up in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2229355&postcount=43) on the topic of "individualism".)


Humanity owns us each and all, and we are all parts of the whole of collective humanity. In the event of conflicts of interest humanity pwns "I, me, mine"...lest we forget who secures our freedoms and our livelihoods.

Saying that is all well and good. Putting it into practice without making the majority of people's lives utterly miserable while benefiting a minority group of people who claim to represent "humanity's best interests" is easier said than done.

Honestly this is the kind of stereotypical shit that makes people hate communists.

[bots]

Humanity "owns" us? What does that even mean? Who decides how to use humanity's "property"? :huh: Will a massive collective vote be taken of the amorphous human masses whenever the most trivial matter arises in relation to the individual? And why does something fundamental as human life fall into the laws of ownership and property?

I think you know workersadvocate was being allegorical. We "belong" to humanity in the sense that our existence depends on those who have come before us and we are therefore an extension of the social and historical realities which have enabled our birth and maturity.


Saying that is all well and good. Putting it into practice without making the majority of people's lives utterly miserable while benefiting a minority group of people who claim to represent "humanity's best interests" is easier said than done.

Yeah that's the tricky part. Putting a strictly individualist perspective into practice makes lives utterly miserable too. I don't think anybody is advocating either Borg collective or Randian individualism. Understanding how some kind of collective nurturing is necessary doesn't have anything to do with the ideal of completely free human individuals entering voluntary contracts and thus eliminating hierarchy and oppression or whatever. It's just a rational, scientific and honest understanding of nature. You can't live without other people.

I don't know, maybe we're discussing two different things at this point.

[black magick hustla]

i think individualism vs collectivism is a false dichonomy propped up by left wing and right wing bosses. to quote vaneigem,

"Too many corpses strew the paths of individualism and collectivism. Under two apparently contradictory rationalities has raged an identical gangsterism, an identical oppression of the isolated man. The hand which smothered Lautréamont returned to strangle Serge Yesenin; one died in the lodging house of his landlord Jules-Françoise Dupuis, the other hung himself in a nationalized hotel. Everywhere the law is verified: "There is no weapon of your individual will which, once appropriated by others, does not turn against you." If anyone says or writes that practical reason must henceforth be based upon the rights of the individual and the individual alone, he invalidates his own proposition if he doesn't invite his audience to make this statement true for themselves. Such a proof can only be lived, grasped from the inside. That is why everything in the notes which follow should be tested and corrected by the immediate experience of everyone. Nothing is so valuable that it need not be started afresh, nothing is so rich that it need not be enriched constantly."

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think you know workersadvocate was being allegorical. We "belong" to humanity in the sense that our existence depends on those who have come before us and we are therefore an extension of the social and historical realities which have enabled our birth and maturity.

I don't see why this point is even worth bringing up, though. Yes, I'm the result of humanity, if for nothing else than I was born from another human. What practical political implications comes from that, though? Everyone would probably admit to that, hell the bedrock of traditional fascist ideology was the subsumption of the individual to their "nation".


It's just a rational, scientific and honest understanding of nature. You can't live without other people.

Hardcore individualism doesn't revolve around removing yourself from humanity, though. The egoists of yesteryear didn't advocate running into the mountains and living off the land.

[Mr. Natural]

Let's make this simple. All living beings--cells to bodies to communities of beings--are social individuals. They are all self-organized internally while existing in dynamic interdependence with their environment of other such beings and physical forces.

This is science, life, Marx, the materialist dialectic, and communism. This is the science that everyone on these left forums ignores. This is the science that confirms the major Marxist constructs and can bring them and us to revolutionary life.

Engels at Marx's graveside: "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force."

Those who astonishingly claim the isolated individual can exist are ignoring Ma and Pa, for starters. They are also expressing bourgeois social relations and propaganda.

[Hit The North]

Let's make this simple. All living beings--cells to bodies to communities of beings--are social individuals. They are all self-organized internally while existing in dynamic interdependence with their environment of other such beings and physical forces.


But this is employing the term 'individual' in its basic, empirical sense. We could just as usefully substitute the word 'individual' with 'unit' in your statement above.

The OP is a question of 'individuality' - that is, the way in which one experiences being an individual. The question 'Is individuality a social construct?' to me demands only a single answer: 'Of course!' Because how else can human beings experience any sense of identity except through their social relations?

[Hexen]

To get things back on track, "individuality" is a capitalist metaphor which if you ever noticed that many films/tv shows/games/etc from the west that has many ongoing plotlines such as collective "hive minds" assimilating a person therefore "taking their individuality" away?

In metaphorically speaking the "hive mind" represents socialism/communism which actually represents capitalist fears of being "assimilated" into cooperating society.

Get it?

[Firebrand]

I've been thinking about this and I reckon that this constant placing of the individual and society in opposition to each other is actually kind of an extension of the capitalist idea that all things compete with each other to get the best deal for themselves. Thus the individual and society must be in constant conflict in order to achieve a balance between the ideas of both. I think this is fundamentally flawed.

We are not looking at two organisms in competition, we are looking at two symbiotic organisms. If one strikes the other it is hurting itself, they cannnot exist without each other. Both are a product of each other, there is no society if there are no people, there are no people if there is no society. If there are people in one place there is society of some sort, if there is society there must be people.

And its all very well to say that an individual person can exist outside society but that doesn't change the fact that they have still at some point been caused by society, if only a society of two. Society makes the individual. The individual can walk out on society but that doesn't change that fact that the whole way that individual thinks has been shaped by society. Without it that individual would not exist as the person they know themselves to be.

[KR]

Let's make this simple. All living beings--cells to bodies to communities of beings--are social individuals. They are all self-organized internally while existing in dynamic interdependence with their environment of other such beings and physical forces.

This is science, life, Marx, the materialist dialectic, and communism. This is the science that everyone on these left forums ignores. This is the science that confirms the major Marxist constructs and can bring them and us to revolutionary life.

Engels at Marx's graveside: "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force."

Those who astonishingly claim the isolated individual can exist are ignoring Ma and Pa, for starters. They are also expressing bourgeois social relations and propaganda.
Why does it matter if people can survive alone? It does't justify majorities oppressing minorities, no matter how small a minority.

[KR]

To get things back on track, "individuality" is a capitalist metaphor which if you ever noticed that many films/tv shows/games/etc from the west that has many ongoing plotlines such as collective "hive minds" assimilating a person therefore "taking their individuality" away?

In metaphorically speaking the "hive mind" represents socialism/communism which actually represents capitalist fears of being "assimilated" into cooperating society.

Get it?
Only if your retarded collectivist/totalitarian Marxist-leninist.

[Mr. Natural]

Prole Art Threat, I always enjoy your pithy, intelligent comments. However, isn't it of the greatest but ignored-by-the-left significance that all life manifests social individuality/socially differentiated y? Isn't it of the potentially greatest significance that science is coming to understand this self-organized social individuality of life and confirms Marx's concept of communism as natural?

The OP question was "Is Individuality a Social Construct?" My answer could have been that individuality is a social construct and society is an individual construct. In life, the self-organizing organism and its "external" social relations constitute a dialectical, inseparable whole. This is in accord with the Hegelian philosophy of internal relations (world as internally related whole consisting of internally related wholes) that underlies Marx's materialist dialectic. Bertell Ollman's [U]Dance of the Dialectic (2003) is the authority on this.

Firebrand expresses this when she refers to the individual and society as "two symbiotic organisms." This is also the sense of the philosophy of internal relations and the new science(s) of organization.

If leftists would engage this new science of the organizational relations of life and society they could begin organizing the revolutionary processes that are so starkly missing from our era of endgame capitalism with its many hanging catastrophes..

In any case, this new science proves your "Of course!" answer to the OP's question. Self-organizing systems existing in dynamic interdependence with their environment (social individuality) is life's sole pattern of organization.

[Luc]

Only if your retarded collectivist/totalitarian Marxist-leninist.

oi, watch ur typing

[Hit The North]

Prole Art Threat, I always enjoy your pithy, intelligent comments. However, isn't it of the greatest but ignored-by-the-left significance that all life manifests social individuality/socially differentiated y? Isn't it of the potentially greatest significance that science is coming to understand this self-organized social individuality of life and confirms Marx's concept of communism as natural?

The OP question was "Is Individuality a Social Construct?" My answer could have been that individuality is a social construct and society is an individual construct. In life, the self-organizing organism and its "external" social relations constitute a dialectical, inseparable whole. This is in accord with the Hegelian philosophy of internal relations (world as internally related whole consisting of internally related wholes) that underlies Marx's materialist dialectic. Bertell Ollman's [U]Dance of the Dialectic (2003) is the authority on this.

Firebrand expresses this when she refers to the individual and society as "two symbiotic organisms." This is also the sense of the philosophy of internal relations and the new science(s) of organization.

If leftists would engage this new science of the organizational relations of life and society they could begin organizing the revolutionary processes that are so starkly missing from our era of endgame capitalism with its many hanging catastrophes..

In any case, this new science proves your "Of course!" answer to the OP's question. Self-organizing systems existing in dynamic interdependence with their environment (social individuality) is life's sole pattern of organization.

Mr Natural, I find too many metaphors in your writing. A cell cannot know itself and so it may be an individual cell in a colony of other cells, but it cannot experience itself as such. Therefore it cannot have the property of individuality that we extend to knowing subjects.

For the same reason, the relationship that a cell shares with other cells cannot properly be called a society in any sense that matches human society. Neither, in reverse, can a society be properly called an 'organism' except as metaphor or simile.

Now there may be general and mechanical similarities between the way in which matter organises itself at various levels, but what is more important is not the similarities but the emergent properties that each level of organisation manifests. Because of this fact, because an atom or a molecule or a cell, or a colony of bacteria, or a flock of birds, or even a troop of baboons, cannot constitute itself as a knowing subject, as a subject that can struggle for its own emancipation, your metaphor is not particularly useful for the left.

[Hexen]

Only if your retarded collectivist/totalitarian Marxist-leninist.

I guess you don't understand my point at all. I'm just talking about how capitalist society demonizes socialism/communism being a "hive mind" taking people's "individuality" away which this view is refected in media (especially "Invansion of the Body Snatchers", Cybermen, The Borg, even misunderstandings of what egalitarianism is all about which they conclude we all need a AI like Helios to make us "equal" according to Deus Ex series because humans are "naturally selfish" and such...)

Point is, Capitalist society often equates and confuses egalitarianism with "everyone being the same"/"hive mind" which is the main misconceptions about socialism/communism comes from and how our society uses it to demonize.

Of course collectivism is the opposite of individualism which is the basis of socialism/communism which is built around empathy, compassion, sharing, etc.

[Red 7]

Good point Hexen - there is definitely a demonisation of the ideas of egalitarianism and collectivism (of which is all part of a larger anti-communist ideology) in all sorts of cultural products, like Hollywood films, tv and videogames etc.

For me, I think you can only even really become an 'individual' in a communist society - in terms of your consciousness and the understanding you have of your self and the things around you and how they interact/overlap (class consciousness included). Before then you are just a 'subject' of your particular historical period. It's pretty hard to be an 'individual' under capitalism in my opinion.

[PhoenixAsh]

Really? I'd like to see this evidence. If you're referring to the occasional documented evidence of feral children, then all the evidence points to the fact that having been isolated from human contact in the first few years of their lives, these people have been irreparably damaged and fail to be successfully inducted into human society, unable to grasp linguistic skills and being barely recognisable as human to the people around them.

Yes all of that is true. BUT none of that says they are not induviduals according to the definition of induvidualism or do not have a notion of self.

See the point?

[Ostrinski]

Your quote says nothing about consciousness of a larger society and your loigic comes down to answering my previous question: "there is only sound when somebody is there to hear it"They are not the same at all. Sound is a material reality while individuality is socially influenced. Material conditions exist independent of human consciousness and interpretation. A social construct like individuality is entirely dependent on human conception.


Induviduality requires being selfaware and requires self recognized emotions and hopes and dreams.Yeah but you can't experience being an individual if there is no social pretext for it. A human that has had no human contact could not possibly describe their own individuality or even understand the concept of what an individual is or what relevance there is for individuality in their own existence. Simply knowing that you exist does not equate to knowing what makes your existence important or what unique characteristics define your existence.

[Mr. Natural]

Prole Art Threat, Others, PAT, I appreciate your thoughtful comments and am attempting to reply in kind.

You wrote, "I find too many metaphors in your writing." Well, many (most? all?) do, but I'm interdisciplinary and am trying to show the basic unity of life, communism, and the materialist dialectic as revealed by the new science(s) of organizational relations. I have to be metaphoric (but scientific and accurate) to even think about this stuff that covers so much territory.

The question to be asked of my metaphors is: Are they accurate? Do they suggest an organic, systemic unity of life in all its forms, and that the materialist dialectic and communism get it right?

You continue: "A cell cannot know itself and so it may be an individual cell in a colony of other cells, but it cannot experience itself as such. Therefore, it cannot have the property of individuality that we extend to knowing subjects."

True, a cell cannot know itself, but it has one; at least, it functions as a social individual. A cell is a self-organizing organism that interacts with other life forms and can unite with other cells to form multicellular organisms. All living systems are self-organizing, integrated wholes that exist in dynamic interdependence with an environment consisting of other living systems and physical forces. Life is a bootstrap of self-organizing material systems maintaining themselves and the life process.

The scientific term "self-organization" is equivalent to "self" or "individual." Self-organization means that an organism's internal organization determines its "external" relations and behaviors, while, in logical paradox, the organism must exist in an inseparable dynamic interdependence with its surround. A living system is thus a world unto itself that is inseparably interconnected with other such worlds. Living systems are structurally open (take in matter, energy), but organizationally closed to their environment. The environment triggers the organism, whose self-organization then determines how it will respond. Kick a dog and the dog's breed and individual history determines how it will react. (Should you try this experiment, choose a small dog.)

The internal self-organization of living systems that are inseparably interdependent with externals is an expression of social individuality. Living systems adapt their environment and are adapted by it, and self-organization with dynamic interdependence is the model for all life forms, including communism. Thus it is quite remarkable that the phenomenon of self-organization--so essential to life--wasn't discovered intil 1967 when the Nobel laureate, Ilya Prigogine, accomplished this watershed deed. Then, a year later, the Chilean neurophysiologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela made the same discovery in a different field using different methods and called it "autopoiesis" (self-making).

Now back to your point about cells now knowing they have individuality or self. The concepts of individuality and self emerge from human consciousness; the rest of life just "sees itself" as a bootstrap of self-organizing systems keeping themselves and the life process going. Only humans take these living relations personally.

Cells combine to form new systems with emergent properties. Thus you have an emergent progression of cell to organ to organism/body/person to community/herd/society to ecosystem to biosphere., with all of these stages manifesting major emergent properties as complexity increases. Human consciousness then emerges from the greatest complexity achieved by these self0organizing material systems: the human brain is by far the most complex living system. Our consciousness, thought, is just the means by which we must maintain our dynamic social and environmental relations in the dance of life. Our vaunted consciousness is merely attempting to achieve and maintain the living organic relations the rest of life automatically enjoys. Other living systems have an intrinsic "ecological mind," developed through evolution, that the human species must consciously develop and employ. We must understand and live by the "rules of life" if we are to continue, and these are the "rules" of social/communal/communist relations.

You wrote, "What is more important is not the similarities but the emergent properties that each level of organization manifests."

Well, life itself is an emergent property of the self-organization of matter into living systems. All of these living systems, whatever their level of emergence and complexity, have the same pattern of organization. This is the pattern by which we must learn to live if we are to successfully struggle for emancipation. Life goes to revoluton all the time via emergences, phase transitions, bifurcation points, and the overall evolutionary process.

The gist of my remarks is that life, community/communism, and revolution have a universal pattern of organization that can be thought of as social individuality. The very good news is that this pattern of organization exists and can be developed into popularly understood, grassroots revolutionary processes. The very bad news is that people do not understand this and are quite resistant to learning new tricks.

Revolution, anyone?

[Thirsty Crow]

Homo Sapiens means "knowing man" there is no part of its definition of Homo Sapiens being a socialized being. Though that is what they tend to do because they are adept at communication. Exactly my point.
Or to be more precise, HSS is a classificatory term in biology which is only applied to specific living organisms.
On the other hand, what I termed "human being proper" (very clumsily, I must admit) transcends the field of criteria used in biological classification. Therefore, one can easily imagine, or find historical records of homo sapiens sapiens which was not socialized in a human community, but in an animal one, which effectively means that any talk of individuality is totally moot in this instance (again, you might perceive certain "special" characteristics in the behaviour of an HSS living with animals, though I don't think that would imply that you're using the term as it's used to describe socialized human beings, as in "John has a strong sense of his own individuality").