Collectivity and Individuality

Spinning off from a conversation with a dear friend, I'd like to give it a try to the topic of "collectivity and individuality". From many other conversations followed with my friends, time and again at least one of us stumbles into what seems a pretty contradictory position regarding what you believe an individual should do, and what a collectivity - be it a family, a household, a society, a country, a planet - should do in order to be better. Other times, the seeming uniformity in positions (same rules apply to the individual as to the collectivity) bring up a series of holes in the logic that can't be ignored. So what's going on?

Though one can argue whether the individual is the product of its collectivity, or the collectivity the product of its individuals, it is undeniable that both the cllectivity and the individuals shape one another, BUT no collectivity is the carbon copy of a particular individual, nor is there an individual that embodies perfectly a given collectivity. A collectivity is a "body" - so to speak - imprinted by many individuals, who carries also the imprints from individuals that have been part of it in the past, as well as often the transfered imrpints of individuals that are not part of it. The individual itself is an element that bears both the partial imprints of a given collectivity - each different depending on the individuals of the collectivity it has more relation with - probably other collectivities as well, and a fair share of its own molding. This still - this difference in the way they all shape each other -  wouldn't give us much footing for stating different sets of rules for each, but what does mark this difference and what does give is the landing for different sets of rules and different conceptions for each, is the fact that while an individual is ruled by one will - their own will, whether they decide to submit it to someone else or not - while the collectivity has no onw will (except in freaky cases), but many wills, all of them pulling and pushing and giving motion to the whole body.

As individuals, more than freedom, independence and responsability are important for healthy, proper, successful growth. As an individual, from the moment you are conscious, you must take your life in your hands and make the decisions that allow you to learn, grow and find your happiness. Delegating your life on others, expecting them to fix it, or blaming the sun, the moon or the stars on your failure, simply won't do it. As an individual, it is entirely up to you whether you decide to live a fake life, a life full of excuses and placing the blame everywhere but where it should really be placed (you), or whether you want to take your life in your hands and make things happen, shoulder up for your mistakes, your failures, your miscalculations and take them fro what they are: you fucked it up, but now you know how not to do it.

As an individual, it's not so much about who you depend or not on, in which way and for what - though ideally you shouldn't depend on anyone but yourself - but what suits you best, what works for you best, and own up to it. Do you want to be a kept person? Ok, find someone to pay for you and live with the consequences of that life style. Do you want to be a provider? Good. Find someone to provide for and live with all it entails. Do you want to be alone and do whatever the fuck you want to do when you want to do it? That's also cool, but then also shoulder the consequences of a lot of me-time and no humans to greet when you get home.

Can you, as individual, have it all? Yes you can, the thing is that you are probably not wanting "all", but a lot of partials of a lot of different situations. Think about that.

As a collectivity, we are not ruled by one mind, deciding for the fates of all, but as a collectivity, a lot of wills, seeking a lot of different ways to achieve personal happiness (in good theory) collide with one another. Some wills have more muscle than others, and thus work to repress those wills that stay in their way. When applying a rule to a collectivity, what happens is that you apply that rule to all the individuals, and the structures of power within the collectivity would swift and shift and distor the effect of the rule passing it from individuals with more power to those with less power leaving the benefits up for those who have more power and all the shortcomings for the ones with less power. A rule applied to individuals where each is responsible for itself, can't be applied like that to a collectivity, where then it will translate as a carte blanche for the more powerful to do as they will and feel free to pass on the negative effects on the rest. Shall it bother them, they would do something about it.

Social Sciences are full of a lot of nice theories about how a collectivity can or cannot rule itself, and ste up a lot of suppositions, which are good and nice in theory, but hold no water in real life. Struggles of power between the classes are not as common as the theory say, and societies are not on equilibrium points, but most of the time they are outside this point because the individuals or micro-groups holding up the power within the collectivity push against the boundaries to take more for themselves in detriment of the rest of the collectivity. Big companies push for tax breaks and they have the means to lobby for them. They push for flexible labor rules that allow them to cut on wages and warranties, even ban unions. The rest of the colelctivity is usually held hostage by their means of living, posing threats to their livelyhood by menacing their jobs or social securities, and often buying them off with false information.

Social Sciencies seldom consider corruption and under-the-table managing in their throries, which happen often in real life. Services purposefully let to be ruined only to push forward a privatizing agenda. Lobbying to tip the scale in a decision and set in motion conditions that strenghten the position of those in power against those who are not. Lobbying that's basically giving gifts to a few people to buy the favors away from a large portion of the collectivity that would only receive the short end of the deal.

As an individual, you normally wouldn't plot against yourself, nor would be your happiness fully pursued by such behavior. Yes, there is people out there who does that, but in their case we all agree to call them "sick". As a collectivity, however, it is posible and quite normal to have a part of it to plot against the other part, and just as some wills composing the collectivity which to bend other wills to them, and have them aid them in their own pursue of happiness and abandon their own, a different set of rules and a different philosophy is required in order to regulate the collectivity, make sure it works for everybody and it gives each and everyone of them and honest, fair shot at being happy and independent and responsible for their own lives without having to pay for the excesses of others.