Individualism

by Steven Lukes

Individualism embraces a wide diversity of meanings and is widely used by those who criticize and by those who praise Western societies and their culture, by historians and literary scholars in search of the emergence of 'the individual', by anthropologists claiming that there are different, culturally shaped conceptions of the individual or 'person', by philosophers debating what form social science explanations should take and by political theorists defending liberal principles. In this classic text, Steven Lukes discusses what 'individualism' has meant in various national traditions and across different provinces of thought, analyzing it into its component unit-ideas and doctrines. He further argues that it now plays a malign ideological role, for it has come to evoke a socially-constructed body of ideas whose illusory unity is deployed to suggest that redistributive policies are neither feasible nor desirable and to deny that there are institutional alternatives to the market.

Genres: Philosophy, Sociology

172 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1973

About the author

Steven Michael Lukes is a political and social theorist. Currently he is a professor of politics and sociology at New York University. He was formerly a professor at the University of Siena, the European University Institute (Florence) and the London School of Economics.

Reviews

[Neal Alexander · Rating 5 out of 5]

‘Conservatives were too busy harping on the cultural revolution of the Sixties, liberals on the Reagan revolution’s “culture of greed,” and all they could agree on was that America was beyond repair. The American public, meanwhile, was having no trouble accepting both revolutions and reconciling them in everyday life. This made sense, given that they were inspired by the same political principle: radical individualism.’

When I read this, by Mark Lilla in the New York Review of Books in 2010, it seemed epiphanic but paradoxical. What does individualism mean, then? If individualism is such a defining characteristic, why did do little seem to be written about it? This short monograph by Lukes, first published in 1973, finally did the job for me.

The first section is a kind of multilingual philological essay. ‘Individualism’ was first used in early 19th century France, pejoratively, then later in Germany in a positive sense, related to genius and originality. In England it was used by different political schools of thought, some negatively, some positively. And in the USA of course individualism became almost the national creed.

The second section of the book tries to distinguish the various senses, or ‘basic ideas’, behind current usage of the word. Among these are dignity, autonomy, privacy, and self-development. Perhaps the most insightful is the ‘abstract individual’ which is the idea that ‘the relevant features of individuals determining the ends which social arrangements are held (actually or ideally) to fulfil, whether these features are called instincts, faculties, needs, desires, rights, etc., are assumed as given, independently of a social context’. In other words, this idea is that individuals influence society but not the other way round. Put like this, the idea is obviously problematic, but I do recognise in how I think, let’s say about ethical approval for medical research having to come from individuals and only rarely from communities.

Lilla’s NYRB article goes on to say ‘the country edged left on issues of private autonomy (sex, divorce, casual drug use) while continuing to move right on economic autonomy (individual initiative, free markets, deregulation)’. In Lukes’ terms, well, autonomy is one of the first and main ‘basic ideas’ within individualism but, for him, what Lilla calls ‘economic autonomy’ is rather ‘economic individualism’ which, as understood by Hayek for example, does not imply individual autonomy at all but rather control by corporations within a legal framework provided by government. So, after all, there isn’t one single thing called ‘individualism’ which sufficiently explain so many features of modern society.

[Kamakana · Rating 5 out of 5]

121016: great introduction to the word 'individualism' and its history, meaning, ideological, philosophical uses. this covers connotations from french (starts and somewhat remains negative), from german (more social, romantic, ideal), english ('nation of shopkeepers', utilitarians, etc), american (lynchpin of american dream etc.). i have not read much sociology, let alone individualism as economic, political, religious, empirical, epistemological, methodological... but this inspires some further reading and that is always positive. historical document, 1973, does explain the varied concepts, offers ideal integration of individual and society...

i read this with always already the prejudice of words: '-ism' is often ideological and in a bad way, whereas '-ity' is positive, for example 'individualism' versus 'individuality', or 'communism' versus 'community'... but these are only places to start investigations as is this book...

[Louis Le Marquand · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a decent introduction to the nature individualism. Lukes provides the reader with a good introduction to the many different conceptions of individualism from the enlightenment through to the 20th century.

Lukes explores the different conceptions of individualism, from the metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political, religious, economic and methodological notions, whilst focusing on the writings of philosophers and other intellectuals in England, France, Germany and the United States of America.

Lukes cites not just key theories of the proponents of individualism such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Turgot, Benjamin Constant, Thomas Jefferson and Wilhelm Von Humbolt, but also the scathing criticisms of their ideas made by prominent collectivist-antagonists such as Joseph de Maistre, Karl Marx, Rousseau and others. Lukes works to integrate the essential commonalities between the individualists to put forth a thesis for what he believes to be the essential elements that compromise this ideology, which includes for example, individual autonomy/volition, privacy, liberty and equality of rights.

What i would like to have seen however is a greater reference made to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism which is undoubtedly the most consistent integrated (and I believe objective) theory of individualism ever put forth. Whilst Rand is mentioned it is only in passing which was disappointing.

[T.R. Ormond · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great starting place to learn about the history of the idea of the individual.

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brisk read that deconstructs the hallowed notion of 'individualism,' turning the concept's admirers against their own cherished beliefs and taking a compassionate-yet-sophisticated approach toward a defense of collectivism.