I was wondering: Is it the issue or the orientation? Nationally or here at home, is the problem the cell tower, the airport, tax exemptions, the day of the week of a Town Meeting, or is it the politics of “me”? Is it a willingness to escalate—justify attacks and lawsuits—to get one’s own way? Is it the rise of hyper individualism, and is it harming us?
Hyper-individualism is acting in one’s own self-interest without regard to the rest of the community. It is a tendency to see the needs of the group as the enemy to one’s own self-interest, to see the individual as a member of one’s own entity, aligned with only those with the exact same interest, rather than seeing ourselves as members of the community as a whole.
It is easy to understand how, in a democracy, we move toward individualism. We protect the rights of all regardless of individual differences. It is harder to understand how we accede to a demand that every individual gets his or her own way. Never mind if we want to—how would it be possible to do it? Can nurturing the individual go too far?
Almost three centuries ago, when democracy was born and the Berkshires were settled, the Berkshire communities were small. They began with as few as six families or fewer. They grew to what was considered sizable—a few hundred. These settlers huddled together, their backs against the wild. Black-dark nights, wild animals, thick woods—they clung to one another. One of the most severe punishments was excommunication. The person who misbehaved was denied heaven after death, and even more harrowing, denied inclusion in the community before death.
Berkshire communities—our two cities, 30 towns and villages—are also entities with needs as well as responsibilities just like individuals. The community as well as its members should thrive. Some individuals, those willing to serve, run for office in order to look out for the community and the communal needs. The rest of us vote for them and for the measures they suggest. Majority rules. It is the sacred center of democracy. It also means that sometimes there will be a disgruntled minority. If we are in the minority, we may be displeased, but how better would we recommend we decide? Each form of government decides how to deal with the masses; how better than including them, asking for, and counting their votes? Subjugate them as in a kingdom? Shoot them as in a military dictatorship? Throw them in jail as in an autocracy? Starve them out as in an oligarchy? Because each of those other forms of government are models of minority rule. Is that what we prefer?
In a hyper-individualistic society, if we are running late, why can’t we run red lights? Because it endangers others? Because I-me-mine to the exclusion of yours ignores the strong center of government—the concept of ours. What does it mean if we assert that the importance of community is inferior to the rights of the individual? What does it mean if we don’t like something, we think no one should be allowed to do it?
Hyper-individualism is a step away from self-serving narcissism. At that point we deny that individual rights and community values can coexist. If we deny they can be mutually beneficial, what happens to our little villages and towns next?
Is that how we get to a point where we can kidnap and torture a governor who does not do as a minority wishes? Is that how we justify shooting someone who asks us to put on a mask before entering? Is that how we come to think that, since we are afraid of needles, no one should be required to get a vaccine against a pandemic? Maybe so, and maybe it is because our leaders are modeling that kind of behavior.
Moreover, it is the first firm step toward a form of government that weakens the majority by suppressing the vote, not honestly counting the vote, not seating those who win the vote. Why are some of our leaders modeling that sort of behavior? It is the first step to minority rule, and perhaps foolishly, they think they will be the minority rulers.
It starts with individuals thinking they can act as they please, demand what they please, regardless of the harm to others. We can do better. Together, we can solve the problems of tax exemptions and cell towers, airports and meeting dates. We can make rational decisions that serve the majority. Together we can dissuade those who, without regard to other people and other valid concerns, are simply demanding to have their own way.
