“Communal solidarity and individual freedom: antagonists or allies?”
‘I’ before ‘we’ and ‘we’ before ‘I’,
A loop of synchronize and rivalry,
‘You’ and ‘me’ and ‘you’ and ‘we’,
Battled simultaneously throughout evolution history,
All men are made up of same thing,
‘You’ and ‘me’, as that of universe,
So is the thought process,
Seven billion people have their own dimensions and concepts.
J.S Mill has quoted,‘’Over himself, over his own body and mind the individual is sovereign.’’
Herbert Spencer,‘’State exists merely because crime exists and its principal function, therefore,is to protect and restrain not to foster and promote.’’
Inter country relations, mutual cooperation and war relations have been studied as a different discipline only after the first world war.Greek thinkers in every generation were guided by individualism. They were fond of self actualization, expressing their own thoughts and behaving in a certain way was considered their right.Individuals are responsible for their own judgement of their belief. People in the western society are satisfied with personal interest is the preoccupation of the society.Glaucon,Thrasymachus and Epicurean thinkers were primarily individualists.National life was considered a personal contribution of personal development and was their gift to future generations. However,this individualism was overpowered and it itself became the reason for the loss of the Greeks.
Before the eighteenth century in response to the unwanted and unnecessary intervention on personal behaviour gave rise to the Laissez Faire principle. Laissez- faire is a French phrase that translates to ‘’leave us alone.’’ Further, the state had been seen as an obstacle to economic growth and development. More than individual life, there were more obstacles in economic freedom. Therefore after the beginning of the eighteenth century, business tycoons, authentic thinkers and industrial countries started voting against government intervention. Originally, the industrial revolution gave opening to feeling that the government should not hinder demand. Bentham, J.M. Mill, Herbert Spencer and Adam Smith were the major renderer of this principle. In this concept background, individualism began its rise. State was a necessary evil was the belief it was founded on. They say it openly that the state should keep its least or least work so that they can give individual freedom. What individualists believe that without the state peace and management is not possible. A state should suppress the violence and conspiracy. A state should be concerned about the protection of its citizens. But they should not interfere with their welfare and benefit in the state's hand. Individualists have maximum principle based on, Maximum Possible Individual Freedom and Minimum Possible State Action.
While maintaining the community solidarity there are also various problems that arise not due to the fault of the belief but actually from the fault of the way it functions. In the name of equality the maximum interference by the community and for the soul benefit of the community is also not possible as this is a highly competitive and industrial age. Sometimes thinking about the community can also give rise to the fear that the unbridled interference on a personal level. While considering community solidarity, often the chances are they impose responsibility to all members of the society so more than growth of the society they start imposing responsibility on others rather than working themselves and start a blame game. Similarly, the production and distribution is centred in the government then instead of having a good bureaucratic system. Even though the idea of community solidarity is extracted for bureaucracy in USSR it was the reason for the backlash in action as it is the antagonist of personal responsibility and initiative. It is seen that individual freedom makes people creative and enthusiastic. China who previously used Gen Communism and group agriculture has used an interesting technique on private wealth. As a human, people have greed and motive to attain the highest level of exponential growth, these weaknesses of a person is the reason that people who say about the community solidarity are themselves would be working against the motive of society to live on their maximum level. The intervention of nations on laws and activities response is also neglected and hated by the individualists. Individual freedom gives access to the right to religion, speech, behaviour and way of living.
According to Rousseau, ‘’Man is born free but everywhere in chain.’’
Community is the umbrella for all the individuals. It focuses on group goals, what is best for the collective group, and personal relationships. It believes to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” Society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. Over exaggeration of national interference on personal life is the main belief of individual individualists. Even in this competition the belief that all their demands and needs are fulfilled by themselves is wrong. It is almost Impossible without the community that the measure of people's rights is protected. However, every individual has their own in the highest intelligence but the reality not everyone has a same intelligence level, some are intelligent and some are dumb, some are clever and some are generous, some are brave and some are weak, so if the community does not interfere, the strong ones can easily manipulated and the exploitation continuous. What an individual believes is that if they are given responsibility for their own happiness and prosperity then the citizens will be happy but on the contrary there would be contraindication and selfishness that intersect and overlap each other.. Even how much freedom the person is given but their behavior can increase the social degradation factors like rate of monopoly, control system and preservation. Individualists believe that the survival of the fittest is the ultimate aim of living, covering up with tags of bringing best out of the person. Poor keep on becoming poor and rich keep on becoming rich that increase the gap in ‘haves’ and ‘have not’.
Individualists want to limit the workplace of the state and the community. For example, socialism comes as in contraindication on individualism. Socialism in short, demands the abolition of the private ownership of much wealth and requires that you also transferred should be in some may be vested in and operated by the community as a whole. Socialism gives more interest on society and community rather than the individual person. Socialism is against capitalism and anarchism, taking them as the considerable factor that has caused this difference in between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots. For the sake of the community to be forbidden from exploitation and to bring peace and wellbeing for the humankind and citizens then the community should be responsible for the intervention. This is an equal opportunity to all kinds of individuals for their freedom. Community gives confidence among the normal situation. Marx and Engels viewed scientific society possible only with collectivism and effort. Collectivism states, Socialism, Fabianism syndicalism and guide socialism were focused for the betterment of society with community solidarity for individual betterment. Despite some limitations, in the 20th century, it is one of the most accepted systems. The feeling of community solidarity has always been a challenge for civilization.
Community solidarity’’ word is used for realising justice, securing the public and reducing domination. Few theoretical studies show that focus on diversity and individualization has yelled in conclusive result threats to solidarity. Drawing from history of political thought, social theory and religious studies interpersonal dependence should encourage a radical research agenda that intends to solidarity effectively as static and non rational sources. Modern people are attracted to liberty, away from restrictions of traditions and place. Society with the community solidarity responses to preserve the advantage of liberalism with its emphasis on human rights. The communitarian response is to preserve the advantage of freedom along with its emphasis on human rights, universal tolerance and free association, while attempting to revive a community solidarity that is similar yet different from that found in traditional societies and totalitarian regimes. Public order, national security, preservation of moral values, danger of authoritarianism/ despotism, discipline and regulations limit individual freedom. Communitarian emphasis on romantic localism and its tendency to leave serious questions of economic power.
Social media for example these days have different kinds of thoughts behind the camera. However they have always got clash between ‘individual freedom’ and ‘community solidarity’
Let's suppose we post something on social media on the topic, ‘’Who can perform a frontline role in open discussion on ‘mental health’?
Individuals would say, ‘’I think an individual is the core for any revolution. To see the change in the world one must begin with home that inspires family, society and the country. A man should be given freedom to make his own choices, a lot of stereotypes, stigmas, religious, social norms and often lack of open discussion has contributed to a lot of mental illness.
People believing in ‘community solidarity’ would say, ‘’An individual effort like putting in store with a hole. Effort can only take its form with dedication of ‘community’. The individual freedom might overlap and create more serious trouble while ensuring oneself mental health.
When ‘’individuals’’ makes ‘’community’’ and without ‘’community’’ human can’t exist in isolation. Without guaranteeing ‘’individual freedom and rights’’, the community can’t get maximum potential of ‘’individual’’ hence don’t exist peacefully for a longer run as chances are any day it might burst. But ‘’community’’ provides a common space for all individuals respecting their opinions and mutual understanding hence not biasing upon anyone with any common and uncommon qualities. While an individualist society prizes personal control, autonomy and individual accomplishments, a collectivist one puts a premium on loyalty and cohesion and imposes mutual obligations in the context of in-groups. existing political culture research, especially in the recent decades, has not paid due attention to the implications of political culture for the psychology of the individual whose political attitude and belief system constitutes, shapes, and is affected by, political culture.
Many great thinkers were sometimes individualist and sometimes concerned with community solidarity. People who believe in individual freedom cannot digest the nature of community intervention, similarly the people who consider a community solidarity cannot digest individual freedom. A balance between individual freedom’ and ‘community solidarity’ is the need of today’s world that brings a state of utopia. But in this generation of rapid technology and voices in the world, with a mass of people with individual ideologies raging, can this balance be ever made?