The Cult of the Individual

By "Cult of the Individual" I specifically mean that portion of our national psychology and culture that permeates the importance of the individual and its respective needs above even that which promotes it - society. This individualism shares a causal and correlative relationship with what I shall call the "base" system of production - in other words, the very system that serves as the foundation for our modern capitalist society. However, my purpose here is not to genealogically trace the roots of this individualism - a task which has been done repeatedly by numerous philosophers, sociologists, and economists far superior in their analysis to my own. Nonetheless, what I seek to do now is to demonstrate how this individualism is perpetuated and replicated on current generations and will continue to do so through means of socialization in the foreseeable future. Whether or not this is a problem is a conclusion I will let the reader deduce.

Before I begin arguing the conditions that make the Cult of the Individual possible and those which are responsible for its reproduction and sustenance, account of this mentality is in order. What do I mean by the Cult of the Individual? The cult of the individual is the accepted, dominant mindset that the individual has interests that are in contrast to both society and others; it is a psychological development dependent upon given institutions and social arrangements that become intuitive and accepted through various, and often times insidious means, of reproducing themselves in Western society. The characteristics of the cult of the individual include both an assessment of the interests of the individual and a qualification of the individual himself - making such an assessment of the former possible to begin with.

As far as the latter is concerned - the nature of qualifications of the individual himself - regards an empowerment and entitlement bestowed upon the individual as an end in himself. This characteristic of the nature of the human being as individually entitled with the authority to legislate what is best for himself is the necessary condition legitimizing the pursuit of his own interests, even when they may be harmful to himself or society. From this normative claim about human nature comes another normative claim regarding the (perceived) illegitimacy that intrusion upon the interests of individual choice and well-being originates. From here, we have served the necessary task of proposing the inherent worth of individual interests.

In regards to the interests of the individual - another phenomenon takes place that purports that one's own interests are inherently valuable and that these interests are either (at worst) in conflict with society, or (at best) society can merely succumb and coincide with the interests of the individual. The latter is better explanation for why we may not see massive uproar when individuals feel their interests are being curbed - as they posit relative dissatisfaction to some interests, even if they do conflict with society. The quantitative measurement of these interests may be low in regards to the quantitative measurement of more mundane interests that society seems capable to fulfill and not remain at odds. The view that one's own interests must be inherently valuable is simply a consequent of the first principle of the individual's own entitlement and worth; and the secondary consequent that these interests are possibly at odds with society (and other individuals) is caused by other social factors that legitimize the consumptive practices that emerge as a result of other causal phenomena (which will be explained later).

If these are to be accepted as true, then they must have their origins in something. This false-consciousness of the materialistic individual being completely an ends in himself is a byproduct of other social conditions and arrangements which is another matter altogether. How these are replicated nowadays as we experience them to be true is what I am interested in. Perhaps the two best means for which this cult of the individual is replicated amongst the masses can be found in two interdependent variables: the political system of democracy and the consumer culture. The origins of these systems can be traced back to the dialectical contradictions between material forces at hand predating either democracy or capitalism, but this has been adequately explained before - so we will only deal with these (democracy and consumerism) as they relate to our discussion now.

Democracy:

The system of political representation and organization cannot properly be labeled "democracy." Democracy would be an inherently misguided application of ideals for a society as large and complex as our own; and would altogether be rejected by most who employ the term in its strict sense. Rather, we should look at our society for what it is: a republic (note the small 'r') applying democratic ideals and methods within a federal framework dividing powers and relegating authority within different levels of organization. For my purpose here, I will examine the aspect of democratic ideals - for it stands that the American republic is defined analytically through these ideals as to the qualitative depiction of its republican nature and its federal framework. In other words, one can establish a republic or federal system without democratic ideals at all, and the former is far from dependent upon the latter.

But as these democratic ideals relate to the Cult of the Individual is not at all that complex to understand, if one separates oneself from the inherent value with democracy or the individual. The political ideal of democracy as it is applied in the United States is one in which the individual is conditioned to believe himself to have an important say in political matters - regardless of whether this is true or not. It does not take a rocket-scientist or a devout cynic to recognize that an individual can play nothing more than a marginal factor in any political outcome outside of an election for student council or mayor of your town of less than 1,000 people. What is more interesting is both the manipulation involved and the subtle attitudes that arise from this sort of condition.

Advertisements, marketing, political campaigns - in short nothing more than propaganda aggrandizing democratic values - impart a sense of empowerment upon the individual. Indeed, no potential political candidate need depend on the one vote to propel himself to political office. Rather, it is the mass acceptance and internalization of this power within oneself to "make a difference" that is key. Thus, the wise political strategist understands that as long as he appeals to this emotional response of empowerment, and can reasonably expect to transfer power from those who actually wield it into a deception of the individual psyche, then he has at least begun a partially successful route for achieving political office. After all, if the unencumbered self is believing himself to be important and an end within himself, then appealing to this flaw in American psychology will be quite successful. What we have here is not merely an indication of causality, but also of circular repetition. The individual, before he ever votes, learns of the history of democracy (note this use rather than merely a republic with democratic ideals) and only learns of their legitimacy. Through years of education, social normalization, and in-group pressure he comes to value the individual and observe democracy as the only legitimate political arrangement or ideal. Thus, what has been done is the inculcation of individual self worth as both caused by the democratic processes of the American political establishment and its own affirmation.

The democratic ideals bring forth another condition which, through socialization, imparts another view of the individual as one with conflicting interests. In our society democracy is seen inextricably related to rights, especially in the negative sense. By negative rights I mean those rights that protect the individual from someone (typically the government) intruding upon his decisions to live his life how he freely chooses or from coercing him to act in ways contrary to how he may decide himself. From this there may be inferred a dubious concept of how we position ourselves in relation to society at large: that collective interests are somehow opposed to our own, and should be treated suspiciously or with outright rejection. This is a fundamental characteristic of the cult of the individual, which mandates its members rely not on what is collectively good but individually good as the indicator of what they ought to do - while at the same time positing the interests of the individual be contrary to the interests of individuals and society as a whole. Rights, for all their idealism, may be useful in some regards - but they also imply a significant amount of selfishness on the part of the individual as he sees his interests for choice on how to live his life and what society may demand of him as needing protection. The priority in American politics especially focused on negative rights and the lack of legitimacy for society to impose its interests on the individual (as if they must always be at odds with one another) is in many ways culpable for this development of the cult of the individual.

Consumerism:

Perhaps far more insidious than the political establishment and institutionalization of democratic ideals upon the youth - the bombardment of consumer ideals, strategic marketing ploys that manipulate and take advantage of our delicate psychology as unencumbered selves, perpetuate and replicate the sense that our interests We experience this as small children, when in our lifetimes we will constantly be subject to the imagery and pressure of marketing on behalf of various private interests to make us believe that we must buy these things (which often times are not even intrinsically valuable to ourselves - and we cannot even rationally explain why we want them in the first place).

However, the role of consumerism as it relates to the cult of the individual is not necessarily just the explanation for how or why we becomes slaves to production for exchange. Rather, how it encompasses a greater aspect of the cult of the individual. Through consumer desires, consumer satisfaction, we are given through these relations and practices a false-sense of empowerment and self-worth that deludes from our relative insignificance. Since the individual is already indoctrinated with his own sense of self-worth, he cannot help but want to deny the possible infinitude of the universe and his relative worthlessness. Consumer desires, and their easy satisfaction, empowers the individual to take control of his own life, through nothing more than working to provide an income, and exchange through monetary means that income for useless material goods he neither needs nor (authentically) desires.

The ideal behind consumerism develops naturally surrounding the productive methods for exchange themselves. When this becomes adopted as the cultural pretext for an entire population (such as the United States) then the cult of the individual takes place; it has been adopted not only as cultural practice but a national psychology that views the entire universe and relations within it through this limited lens.

Consumerism also takes another route in developing the cult of the individual. Through consumerism naturally follows consumption, and consumption is by definition a practice of acting upon one's own (perceived) desires. Nobody buys a Corvette, a High-definition television set, or a 6,000 sq/foot house over a 2,000 sq/foot house for the interest of society. And indeed, insofar as the cult of the individual has permeated our mindset and determined our thought process and behavior well before we could ever step aside and reconsider it, anything that would attempt to limit this type of behavior becomes illegitimate, wrong, or possibly "evil." This subtle yet insidious practice is what defines the American condition that is the cult of the individual.

In conclusion there is no way to ameliorate this condition without properly removing the aspects of our life (those which precede and determine our consciousness) form the picture altogether - preventing their experience before more human beings come to be. The responsible factors of our existence which are also responsible for the means in which this condition are reproduced are equally culpable, yet cannot be destroyed within the framework that justifies or empowers them. And thus, for as long as these institutions, arrangements, and systems are in place - so too will the cult of the individual.