#Individual vs Collectivism

[sheilamurrey]

Integrating the Spirals: Background and Who Benefits

My DE-Program course I developed in 2020 begins again tomorrow and this is how it came to be and why I’d love for you to join me in this practice of, Integrating the Spirals™. As well, I go into who I think will align with this and some other information I’m sharing in this post. If you would rather listen instead of read, play the audio: Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening wherever you…

[cock-holliday]

I think that individualist theorists are important to learn from in the areas where collectivist theory fails (or sets itself up to fail), while still maintaining my sense of striving for betterment FOR a collective. Where individualism fails is in thinking “I got mine, fuck you,” but where collectivism fails is in creating a sense of duty and obligation that makes it easier to force people to fall in line—the crux of the fucking issue to begin with, right?

I WANT people to think for themselves and to act independent of a sense of duty…for the overall betterment of everyone. Of course I want the liberation of everyone—an injury to one is an injury to all, your struggle is my struggle and our paths are intertwined etc etc but forfeiting individual roles both speeds up burnout and makes group dissent impossible.

“You should care about x struggle because you should just care naturally” sure, but this strategy isolates each struggle from each other and isolates YOU from the struggle. “I am not x but I’ll care because I’m nice” survives as long as the fight doesn’t destroy you. You cannot martyr for every individual cause one at a time out of obligation.

“This hurts YOU, which is connected to what hurts ME, so together we are fighting for each other” is a much more sustainable practice.

Without personal connection, it is difficult to keep going, it is difficult to not feel split between struggles, and guilt becomes a tool you either self-destruct with, or it can be used to manipulate your actions. We cannot oust abusers because it would “harm the collective.” When one leader is removed, it’s over because my obligation was to that group above my own individual action. I cannot question the authority leadership of our group because it will undermine the Collective.

Self-preservation becomes ‘selfishness,’ all efforts not going to the cause become ‘unimportant,’ and dissent from within will be crushed unceremoniously. A new state is born, a new leader is chosen. The cycle repeats. What are we even fighting for if not to better all of our own lives together?

I don’t want to trade one lord for another, I don’t want my neighbors to be content with submission, I don’t want complacency.

I will fight for my neighbor any day, but I am not their savior. I am not their lord. They should be the arbiter of their future, like I should be mine. Rejecting a total melting into a collective is essential to resist tyranny from outside and within, not for the sake of “rugged individualism” but to actually ensure we all are really free.

Autonomy above all else, for the good of us all.

[philosopherking1887]

On Individualism and Collectivism

I saw a post promoting collectivism over individualism going around a while back, which inspired me to write a post about a philosophical issue I've been thinking about for a while. I was going to reblog a version of that post with some interesting commentary added, and add even more commentary to it, but it was getting incredibly long, so I thought it was best to make my own post, and just include a link -- here -- to the post with the relevant commentary, to which I will occasionally refer in the discussion below.

I got into a disagreement a few years ago with another academic philosopher about whether feminists must be individualists, in which I attempted (unsuccessfully, I'm afraid) to explain a distinction between what I have since started calling surface and fundamental individualism and collectivism:

Surface individualism or collectivism describes the emphasis of the cultural ethos that members of a society are taught.

Fundamental individualism or collectivism refers to where the fundamental locus of ethical value is taken to lie: the individual or the community.

Here's my overall thesis, fully explained and argued for under the "keep reading" link (which may be similar to what @reasonandempathy was trying to get at in the first reblog comment on the post linked above):

Surface collectivism is probably better than surface individualism because it promotes the well-being of more people; but fundamental individualism is necessary to justify the protection of individual rights to autonomy over one's life and body.

Neoliberal individualism is surface individualism. The culture emphasizes individual choice, individual action, makes individuals feel like they must always support themselves and rely on no one else, tells them that that is what constitutes real "freedom." This is the outlook that the other philosopher was (correctly) arguing is wrongly thought, by some white Western feminists, to be necessary to feminism; it is sometimes promoted by Western aid agencies that encourage women in the Global South to start their own businesses to achieve financial independence from (apparently) oppressive family and community structures. Surface collectivism would mean a culture that tells people to always think about their relationships with others, how they are embedded in a community, what they can accomplish by working with others. That sounds a lot better, especially to those of us who are well-acquainted with the pernicious, alienating consequences of surface individualism.

Fundamental collectivism says that only the collective matters in itself, or has intrinsic value, and any given individual has significance only a means to the survival and flourishing of the collective. It's ambiguous, but this seems to be the attitude being articulated in the tweet at the top of the linked post. And that is what @conservativemalarkey talks about in the third comment on that post as a justification for forcing anyone born with a uterus and ovaries to give birth: according to fundamental collectivism, that person's reproductive capacities are in the first instance a resource for the community to reproduce itself, and their individual preferences about what to do with their body do not matter. There is no individual right to bodily autonomy; there is only the duty to perpetuate the community. To put it in the terms that @nothorses brought up: the collective has rights but no obligations/duties to its individuals; individuals have obligations to the collective, but no rights that it is required to respect.

That's why I have come to believe (and was attempting to argue with the other philosopher) that fundamental (not surface) collectivism is incompatible with feminism: it provides no grounds to protect individuals' rights to bodily autonomy. That, of course, harms everyone; historically, communities have often forced men and boys to risk their lives going to war to defend the community, or to add to its wealth and territory. But it especially notably harms those who are assumed to have the capacity to gestate and bear children (gendered by cisnormative society as women and girls, giving rise to sexism and misogyny that affect anyone associated with that category), because that capacity is, so to speak, the "limiting reagent" for reproduction in the community: it is a scarce resource, far more limited in the lifespan, costly in time and energy, and dangerous to the life and health of the possessor than the capacity to fertilize. For that reason, patriarchal societies (incredibly widespread historically and geographically) effectively regard the reproductive capacities of potential child-bearers as community property, or as a commodity regulated by the community. A (presumed) woman*'s value, and the purpose of her life, consists in her ability to reproduce within the socially approved constraints; women's sexual activities are everyone's business; everyone feels entitled to comment on the bodies of women of reproductive age, especially when pregnant, and how they raise their children.

[[*Meant to encompass anyone perceived as a woman, which in most contexts, historically, also means being assumed to have childbearing capacities; includes AFAB people who do not identify as women as well as trans women who pass as cis. The general attitude also, of course, affects trans women who don't pass as cis but are understood to be communicating a self-identification as a woman.]]

Can a community be said to flourish if a large number of the individuals in it are miserable? Structurally, yes: it can successfully perpetuate itself, grow, become wealthy, while all its individuals dutifully sacrifice themselves to it. Ironically, for a society based so heavily on surface individualism, modern capitalism looks a lot like that: individuals are expected to sacrifice themselves for The Economy, which grows and maintains itself like an organism without regard for whether the vast majority of the individual 'cells' that make up its organs and tissues are satisfied with their lives. This is also true of patriarchal cultures in which at least half of the population is limited in the way they can live their lives, and are taught to see this as natural and inevitable.

Fundamental individualism, by contrast, says that the locus of value is the individual: what matters is the well-being of individual human (or sentient) beings, and communities are valuable only insofar as they contribute to the well-being of their individual members. Fundamental individualism is perfectly compatible with surface collectivism, and it is very probably true that most individuals will be happiest if they live in communities that emphasize their communal ties and encourage them to think of themselves as enmeshed in and dependent on a community. BUT fundamental individualism will say that this kind of culture is good because it is what is best for the greatest number of individuals.

According to fundamental individualism, the collective, qua collective, has no value independent of the individuals in it. Individuals have rights to autonomy and to have basic needs met which the community must respect. Do individuals have obligations to the collective? Yes, but only as a surface shorthand for their obligations to all the other individuals that make it up. Communities, cultures, collective forms of life have no intrinsic value, because they are not independently sentient: they cannot feel pain, pleasure, desire, or satisfaction. The loss of communities and cultures is terrible because of the harm that it causes to the individuals who lose their sense of connection, identity, and purpose. But if a way of life systematically fails to promote the well-being of a great many of its members, and/or systematically violates their rights in a way that cannot be remedied without ending that way of life, then it deserves to be ended. Again, most of us here have no trouble saying that about modern capitalist society, but it's equally true of any form of social organization.

Are people (outside of academic philosophy) generally familiar with Ursula K. Le Guin's story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas"? Here's the text, available from libcom.org (short for "libertarian communism," apparently). Spoiler alert: episode 1.06 of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach," is very obviously based on it. That is one of the starkest, most evocative illustrations of collectivism that is not balanced by consideration of the rights and well-being of individuals: one individual is forced to live in unending misery so that the rest of the community can be happy.

"But that's not real collectivism!" someone will protest. "Real collectivism means everyone takes care of each other! They would have compassion for every member of the community and never allow that to happen to one of them!" Well, it depends on what you mean by "real." Many forms of surface collectivism could mount an argument against that arrangement, on the grounds that a healthy community must care for all its members, even (or especially!) the humblest and most vulnerable. From the perspective of either surface or fundamental collectivism, it might be argued that permitting any member of the community to suffer in this way would damage the cohesion of the community by encouraging callousness regarding the suffering of (certain) other members.

But nothing about fundamental collectivism says that a community must care for all its individual members in order to flourish; on the contrary, it says that individuals do not matter for their own sake, but only for what they can contribute to the community. Fundamental collectivism can only offer an indirect, instrumental argument that allowing the Omelas situation would harm the community because of how it would affect the community ethos. In Le Guin's story, all members of the community do know about the condition of their society's thriving; that's how some of them decide that they should walk away. But in the SNW episode, most people do not understand what their happiness rests on; they can blissfully believe that the community does care for all its members, so fundamental collectivism could not find anything wrong with the arrangement.

Crucially, fundamental collectivism cannot capture the real reason most of us will think the Omelas situation is horrifying: that it violates the rights of an individual who does not choose to sacrifice their well-being for the sake of the community, but is forced to suffer so that the community can thrive. If you're thinking it would be OK if, and only if, the individual did choose to be the sacrifice for the community: that's something that might be promoted, even glorified, by surface collectivism, which would encourage people to see their individual happiness as less important than the well-being of the community. But fundamental collectivism could not account for the profound ethical difference between a chosen and a forced sacrifice: the importance of individual autonomy; the principle that no one should be able to make such a momentous choice about the course of an individual's life except that individual.

Mind you, this does not mean that a fundamentally individualistic ethics will necessarily rule the Omelas situation impermissible. There are some forms of fundamental individualism that could justify it -- notably, utilitarianism, which would say that the suffering of one individual, however appalling, is far outweighed by the perfect happiness of thousands or millions of other individuals. Fundamental individualism is not sufficient to rule it out; and you might not think it should be ruled out, considering the numbers involved. But fundamental individualism is necessary to even say what the problem is. The only objection that fundamental collectivism could offer doesn't even locate the problem in the terrible forced suffering of the individual, but in the way that knowing about it might affect the cohesion of the rest of the community.

So while I'm generally in favor of a surface-collectivist ethos, I'm convinced that any fundamentally collectivist ethical theory has profoundly immoral consequences. The ultimate locus of ethical value must be the individual. It's fine for a culture to encourage individuals to prioritize the community over themselves, but there is something genuinely wrong with the community forcing sacrifices on its members, and that can only be accounted for with reference to irreducible individual rights.

[alpaca-clouds]

Cyberpunk and the Individualist

Keeping the theme of Cyberpunk for this week, I want to talk about one other thing about Cyberpunk, that I super rarely see discussed.

Remember a while ago, when I talked about how western Cyberpunk always had this theme of "Japan is overtaking our economy and soon we will be Japanofied!" because of the economic anxieties towards Japan in he 70s and 80s. Which is why Cyberpunk has all those Japanese aesthetics and the Japanese megacorps and what not. It is because of this anxieties...

But... One thing that is often missed among this is the other part of that anxiety. Japan, despite being a capitalist country, is also a collectivist society. Aka a "you do stuff for the good of society" and what not country. Meanwhile western and especially American capitalism is an individualist country, where everything is about the "do your own and only your own" and the illusion "freedom!!!" 🦅

That also is why so much more people died of the pandemic in the USA than in Japan. Because while the US individualist "FREEDOM 🦅" society made a whole thing of "I feel robbed of my freedom while wearing a mask" the Japanese collectivist society was like: "Sure I am wearing a mask if I can protect society through it."

And here is the Cyberpunk thing. The protagonists in Western Cyberpunk stories are individualists. Sure, they might work in small groups, but they are not part of communities. If they start out with a community, they get divorced from the community through the story. Maybe the community gets killed or maybe they turn against the rugged individualist protagonist.

Originally a lot of western cyberpunk obviously had this idea of the noir kinda hero. The out of his luck private detective and what not. But also the street fighter, who has lost everything. A lot of the early stuff also very much focused on a male perspective - and dare I say it? - a toxic masculine approach to things.

And I think this is also where a lot of the defeatism of Cyberpunk storytelling comes from. Because Cyberpunk is of course dystopic. But it is dystopic in a way that has completely given up on things. Cyberpunk is like: "Don't even try to change the system, IT IS HOPELESS." But... Yeah, duh it is if you are working alone or in a small group. You need a community to fight the system. You need to network to do something.

I feel like the true baseline of where Cyberpunk and Solarpunk are different from each other is in fact the idea of community. Cyberpunk with its rugged individualism does not trust community - Solarpunk does.

And here I go again: We silly humans are no good on our own. We actually need community. We need more community than just our little nuclear family. So, just... open yourself up to work with others. Don't be a lonely Street Samurai.

[balestrem]

I think what is so interesting about marginalised groups of people is how they often times form groups that devalue individualism or competition and instead go for a form of collectivism and cooperation instead. Because in western societies individualism and competition is praised and often rewarded, while it often does a lot of damage to humans who are inherently social beings. The queer community, feminist movements (esp. intersectional feminism!), POC groups they all gather in a sort of community, a broader understanding of family, values and ideas. Looking at how people thrive in such safer spaces in communities is proof how community and cooperation is what’s beneficial to humans in general and it helps a society to grow. What I think is important, is that everybody starts to build a community around cooperation and love, in order for us to be able to heal from this capitalist hell. In order to move forward I think we need to stop pitting us against each other and instead create a world where we understand ourselves as a collective which is striving for change, peace, love, equity, kindness, respect and so much more.

[stupid-sloot-headcanons]

Personally when it comes to Toga I think Hori accidentally showed what was wrong with Japan's lack of awareness for neruodivergent children, I say accidentally because I don't think out of how much Japan ignores or puts down children with learning disabilities he even knows he's sort of bringing up the issue. Because in America we have programs like the I.E.P program and 504 program to better help these kids, therapy centers, people are more aware etc, and sure these have their own problems but it's still better than nothing which what Japan offers. Now I want a au where someone from America visits bhna Japan and just can't understand how Japan doesn't have many programs yet. "Wait only quirk counseling, you realize development therapy is important you know? Does UA have a special quirk class?"

Ngl you're describing my original plan for my OC before I turned her fic into more of a yandere Tomura wankfest lmao

America like you said does have its own problems in how neuroatypical kids are treated, especially in public schools and how they're perceived/treated by peers, family, teachers, etc. But it's a different sort of problem and a different mindset than what (admittedly little) I know of the Japanese school system's approach to their kids.

That may be a part of the Western and individualist mode of treatment in psychology and counseling vs the Eastern more collectivist approach. Like to oversimplify, here the goal is like "What can we do to help you function and be a stable person for your own benefit primarily, and also function in society" whereas in countries like Japan, traditionally its the other way around: "What can we do to get you to function in society, and your own benefit is more of a second priority."

On its face, neither approach is necessarily bad or good, but the emphasis on not causing disturbances in society and conforming to it can easily exacerbate mental health issues.

[waitmyturtles]

I just had an incredible and fabulous dialogue with the amazing @absolutebl about collectivist vs. individualistic perspectives on identity politics. I’m just blissed out thinking about how much there is for me to learn, as a Western viewer of Asian content, about what I’m missing between the lines, culturally, of the content I’m consuming. 

What I’m reflecting on at the moment is something that I mentioned yesterday in my quick hit thoughts on Cherry Magic. Both Cherry Magic and Old Fashion Cupcake center compassion as a plot point through their uke leads in Adachi and Nozue. 

I’ve been wondering, nearly two months after Old Fashion Cupcake ended, why even *thinking* about that show still gives me a strong ache in my heart. And I think the dialogue about identity politics is helping me understand it more. 

I’ve written before that one of the reasons why I love Asian dramas is that many plot lines center family and commentary on family structures and pressures. I relate well to that.

However, shows like Old Fashion Cupcake and Cherry Magic aren’t *necessarily* about family. In my Western POV, they might be more about “creating family,” essentially creating one’s “chosen family.”

But that’s not REALLY accurate. In fact, I think it’s too much of an easy bowtie to solve for what I’m trying to get at.

In trying to solve the mystery of my own heartache, I think what I’m actually reacting to is the unwrapping of a collectivist perspective of how individuals could and can treat each other in Asian societies -- a collectivist perspective that I, as an Asian American, actually have VERY LITTLE familiarity with, having grown up in the States.**

What is it that I’m really seeing when Adachi sheds tears for Kurosawa’s unspoken confessions? What is it that I saw when Nozue turned back to run towards Togawa, to decide that he wasn’t going to live without Togawa and his kawaii smile in his life anymore?

I wonder if what I'm really seeing is a kind of compassionate reaction to another person’s emotions that bears almost a kind of INHERENT RESPONSIBILITY to BE RESPONSIVE, even in kind, to the seme who is emanating desire. Because of the collectivist societal perspective in Asian countries, it seems to me that Adachi and Nozue might feel that they bear a responsibility to understand, digest, and react accordingly to Kurosawa and Togawa, respectively.

In my first-ever post on Tumblr, I wrote on Old Fashion Cupcake and called this reaction by Nozue a “compassionate morality” that drove his emotional reactions both to Togawa and to himself. I think that still holds from this analytical place of the collectivist interpretation. 

Why does Nozue even have a compassionate morality in the first place? As a Westerner, it almost surprised me to see this kind of emotional processing take place in a BL dorama -- and that’s because, I think, it’s a kind of collectivist, responsible-to-others plot line that we’d never see in the West. 

I’m not saying that the qualities of kindness or compassion or responsiveness DON’T exist in Western content. I just don’t think that Western content CENTERS compassion and collectivism the way that Asian dramas do. 

And I think that’s why my heart still aches over OFC, and why I reacted so strongly to Adachi’s tears in Cherry Magic. The fact that a seme’s unrequited love can elicit such a strongly compassionate and empathic response in a uke isn’t something I see in Western media. I don’t see, in the West, the heartaches that Nozue and Adachi go through when they realize their attractors are feeling pain. The collectivist lens, in my interpretation, is the bridge that gets Nozue and Adachi to do exactly that kind of reflecting on Togawa’s and Kurosawa’s feelings. 

I truly loved seeing these processes in our beloved Nozue and Adachi. That’s why I think these dramas keep me buoyed in such happy places.

*****

** Side-note: I don’t really want to go here in this post, but I wonder if I need to meditate on the impact of collectivist Asian societies on Asian family structures in immigrant America. A huge part of my struggle as an Asian American growing up was the demand by my family to conform in what I feel were unhealthy ways. At heart, I’m an American, with all the selfish, self-indulgent drives of an American individual. Conformity at this point in my life would have meant remaining unmarried and living with my folks -- an impossibility in my life. I’ve never interpreted my family’s demand for conformity as one stemming from societal collectivist demands, but I think I need to, in order to better understand my own upbringing.

[sistress]

.

[crypticmedici]

— R E A V E R

Miguel Hernandez, from Elegy (1936)

“I want to mine the earth till I find you, and kiss your noble skull, and un-shroud you, and return you.”

Work © crypticmedici — Do not modify, repost, or plagiarize this work.

[holamarciano]

I wonder how much talk of youth liberation and the rights of children as people recently is gonna clash of romanticizing diaspora types who talk about how western individualism is a societal ill while simultaneously getting trauma from their parents and whose entire familial support networks can vanish if they come out

[pissmoon]

Having autonomy as a person and embracing your individuality and communalism and organizing arent some antagonistic forces. Wild how people still take this 'individualism vs collectivism' bullshit seriously. Please no more corny essays on evils of 'western individualism' on my dash, it's alienation, not 'individualism'

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

I love your work and enjoy your theories, so I thought I'd pop up and ask a question, my question being; why do people like yuu so much? They don't really have a point in the story and stuff-this kinda sounds like I hate yuu but I don't I'm just curious on why they're liked in the EN Fandom so I apologize if I used the wrong choice of words or anything, also why is yuu called 'the therapist'?

Rather than saying “the EN fandom likes Yuu”, I think it’s more accurate to say “the EN fandom likes the idea of Yuu”. Yuu is not a character in of themselves, but is an easy proxy for anyone and everyone to self-insert (be it the player themselves or an OC of theirs) because they are so loosely defined. This makes it very easy to “project” (ie insert whatever traits you want) onto a blank slate on an individual level and to be more personally invested in the events related to Yuu.

In an ironic way, Yuu not having a major impact on the story encourages fans to create their own alternate tellings and scenarios (typically substituting their own interpretation of Yuu or an OC into their role) to change things. This, in turn, heightens the attachment to Yuu because of the time and effort being devoted to this insertion. Over time, the feelings can grow stronger with each repetition, and it forms a sort of bond and all the affection that may come with it.

This is in part why the self-insert and OC culture of TWST is so strong; Yuu is practically designed to be projected onto. Even the name may be a reference to this—Yuu as in, “you”. They’re meant to be “you”, so many people become attached yo Yuu because that is essentially a representation of “themselves” in the world of TWST (especially when you consider that one’s imagination amplifies this relationship).

Brief aside for a second, I want to emphasize that this is a phenomenon that is specific to the EN fandom. The JP side also has Yuusonas and OCs, but they are often not as fleshed-out as the ones you’ll see from the EN fandom. Most of the time, the Yuusonas/OCs from JP are more generalized (less individualized looks, far less details in backstories, etc.) so that any onlooker can still insert as the Yuu. Meanwhile, the Yuusonas and OCs from the EN side tend to go into a LOT of detail about their creations. I believe this reflects a fundamental cultural difference between JP and EN (more specifically America/Canada): collectivism vs individualism, conforming to a group vs standing out from the crowd. (I discuss other differences I’ve observed between JP and EN in this post.)

The “Yuu is NRC’s therapist” line is a joke from the earliest days in the fandom; this was way before most of the main story had come out and no one knew how little of a role Yuu would actually play in the overall narrative and changing the characters’ lives, nor the fact that the OB boys would get treatment from an actual therapist (a detail revealed in book 6, I believe). The therapist role was likely derived mainly from something Crowley says in the prologue about how Yuu can be the one that teaches the boys how to get along with one another. However, the more main story content released, the more it became apparent that what Crowley said was just flat-out untrue. (I go into more detail about that in this post.) Nowadays, I think that the term is used more ironically.

[alpaca-clouds]

Understanding Individualism vs Collectivism

Making that post about individualism and capitalism yesterday, I got some questions, that showed me the same problem as the person I was talking about had: A lot of people do actually not know what individualism and collectivism mean. So, let me try to explain.

I had kinda hoped that Abigail from Philosophy Tube might have made a video on this, but no such luck. So, I guess I have to try and explain it, even though I mostly know it from sociology, rather from the philosophic origins where it comes from.

Basically, both concepts originate with socialist philosophy in the early 19th century, which correctly identified the early capitalist society as individualist and saw the dangers coming with it. It argued that an individualist society will be harmful on a societal level, because the society at large would always focus on the self, rather than the other. Capitalist philosophy however picked this up was like: “Yeah, awesome, right?” And especially in the 20th century they really started to run with it, realizing that they could use it to make people into better consumers.

Now, individualism does not mean “a sense of self”. This is not connected to it. You will still have a sense of self in a collectivist society and nobody says that you shouldn’t have. Rather it means that the focus of everyone should be on the individual. Both themselves – but also the individual actors in society. It is as such not a surprise that the idea of “Great Man Theory” came up and started to thrive during early capitalism in the 19th century.

So, if individualism does not mean “a sense of self”, what does it mean?

I would argue there are two aspects to it. Once the aforementioned tendency to put the individual above the society and apart from it, but also to create and sell a personal philosophy that people are defined by their differences from others, rather than what they have in common. It tells people that they are all so very different from everyone else, which is a useful political tool for capitalism to fight collective actions such as unions, but also collective action for things like environmental protection. In the same vein it is used to keep people riled up against one another within society, as they focus on their differences, rather than what they have in common.

The most anarchistic professor I had at university put it very well: “If you as a worker talk to a factory worker from Bangladesh, you will find you have a lot in common. In fact you will always have more in common with this other worker rather than any billionaire there is.”

Which brings me to the other aspect that individualism is about: It sells you an individualistic dream. Which is why capitalism focuses so much on those rags to riches stories (that tend to be lies most of the time). “See, this millionaire started out his business in daddy’s garage. So you can also become a billionaire if you have the right idea.” Fellow leftist might know the saying: “You are just one bad day away from homelessness, but you will never be a billionaire.” Which is basically the counter argument to this.

See, capitalism tries to convince you, that “I am the better system, because in me you could become a billionaire,” to sell you not only on your own exploitation, but the exploitation of the masses.

And more than that, capitalism also has realized that it can use individualism to make you a better consumer. I alluded to this a bit further up. But the long and short of it is, that capitalism pushes this idea of “you are, what you consume”. Your individuality is defined by the things you spent money on. Maybe by you having the most expensive things, but also by you having maybe the weirdest things or something. You know, the “not like the other girls” girl will probably spend as much, if not more on the things that make her special, as “the other girls”.

This also goes into the whole idea of greenwashing, pinkwashing and rainbow capitalism. All this is about getting you to consume something to gain some sort of individual aspect from it. Basically, through buying the “green” stuff, you are a better consumer.

Ironically this also goes into the entire anti-shipping discourse, which basically also says that your goodness as a person is defined by the things you consume.

Capitalism is selling you your identity. Your individual identity.

But sadly this is an idea very, very deeply engrained into the heads of most who have grown up in capitalism. Because it is everywhere in media. Sure, there is some media that calls it out, but most of it actually peddles the idea of the individual.

Because this is the second aspect at the core of individualism: The myths that only individuals can change something, rather than a collective. Which is what I call out so often when I am talking about the entire punk-genre stuff.

Even though it is less punk, let me take Star Wars as an example, because it is an amazing example of this. Especially the original trilogy, in which the Rebellion battles the Empire. However, the evil Empire is not defeated because the Rebellion manages to somehow outwit or outmaneuvre the Empire. Or because maybe the collective of the workers in the Empire turn against it. Rather it gets defeated because Luke, the individual, turns Darth Vater, an individual, and defeats the Emperor, the individual. Which goes back to this idea of the “great man”. It is those unique individuals who will save the world, rather than collective action.

This idea of some individuals being the ones to save the world, rather than we – the people – as a group and ourselves, is used to keep the people pacified under capitalism. They are waiting for “a good billionaire” to solve climate change, homelessness and all the other problems for us, rather than getting active themselves. They keep telling themselves: “Hey, under capitalism everyone can be a billionaire, including myself, and also my life isn’t that bad right now. So who cares that under socialism/communism everyone could be lifted up?”

Look, folks. I am saying this lovingly. But you are not as much of an individual as you think. You are your own person, but you are not unique. In fact, if you talk to a random person on the street – no matter who they are – and you and them are not instantly judging each other for one reason or another, you will find that you have a lot more in common than you think. Capitalist individualism just taught you to not see this, because your empathy can be its undoing.

[boredtechnologist]

Williams "Robotron 2084" arcade - attract mode

Reviewing Williams' "Robotron: 2084" from a deep philosophical perspective invites a fascinating exploration of the game's underlying themes, aesthetics, and the existential questions it raises, both intentionally and inadvertently.

1. Man vs. Machine - A Reflection on Technological Progress: "Robotron: 2084" centers around the classic theme of humanity's struggle against its own creations - the robots. Philosophically, this can be viewed as a commentary on the anxieties and paradoxes of technological advancement. As players fight against a relentless horde of machines, the game echoes fears of technology becoming uncontrollable or turning against its creators. This mirrors existential concerns about the role of technology in human life and its potential to both enhance and undermine the human experience.

2. The Individual vs. The Collective: The game's premise, where a single protagonist battles against an overwhelming collective force, touches on philosophical debates about individualism versus collectivism. The player's lone character, constantly battling overwhelming odds, can be seen as a metaphor for the individual's struggle to maintain identity and autonomy in the face of societal or technological collectives that threaten to subsume individuality.

3. The Sisyphean Struggle and Absurdism: "Robotron: 2084" offers no end, only an ongoing battle against an endless stream of enemies. This can be philosophically interpreted through the lens of Albert Camus' concept of the absurd hero, akin to Sisyphus' eternal struggle. The game's never-ending nature and the player's inevitable defeat reflect the absurdity of life and the idea that meaning and value come from struggle itself, rather than any final victory or conclusion.

4. Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence: On a more contemporary note, "Robotron: 2084" raises ethical questions about artificial intelligence and its implications for humanity. The robots, originally designed to serve humans but now their adversaries, symbolize the ethical dilemmas and potential dangers associated with AI. This aspect of the game prompts philosophical inquiry into the responsibilities of creators towards their creations and the ethical limits of artificial intelligence.

5. Nostalgia and the Human Psyche: From a more psychological perspective, the game's retro style and enduring popularity can be seen as an embodiment of nostalgia and a longing for simpler times. This raises questions about the human tendency to idealize the past and whether such nostalgia is a comforting escape or a barrier to confronting current realities.

6. Aesthetics and the Nature of Video Games as Art: "Robotron: 2084," with its distinctive 1980s arcade graphics and sound, contributes to the philosophical discussion about video games as a form of art. The game's style, gameplay, and enduring appeal challenge traditional notions of what constitutes artistic merit and invite players to consider the artistic value inherent in game design and the interactive experience.

In conclusion, "Robotron: 2084," while ostensibly a simple arcade game, offers rich material for philosophical exploration. Themes of man versus machine, individual versus collective, the absurdity of endless struggle, ethical considerations of AI, the role of nostalgia, and the nature of video games as art all converge in this classic game, demonstrating the profound potential for video games to engage with deep philosophical concepts and questions.

[sweettsubaki]

Bakugo needs to die for there to be any stakes left in mha

Do you personally think Bakugou is just that important to all the characters in the manga or to all the audience for his death to be the only stake possible ?

Also why Bakugou ? Why not Deku ? Why not SHouto. You know what ? Shark Girl is actually one of the only characters I haven't seen anybody give any hate to so logically, her would her death impact more people ?

More seriously though which definition of stakes are you going with ? In a narrative setting "Stakes are the risks, impacts, and rewards of a character's choices, which make audiences care about the story." According to the Cambringe dictionary, the general definition of stakes is this: "If you have a stake in something, it is important to you because you have a personal interest or involvement in it". Because I wasn't joking that much.

Now I'm not gonna disagree that Bakugou is important. As someone who has loved his character for 8 going on 9 years now and who has shipped BakuDeku both in a queerplatonic way and in a romantic way because of how he was written as this important piece of Deku's character, I completely agree that Bakugou definitely has this high of an importance in the story.

In order to work though, Stakes in storytelling are heavily linked to the themes and goals of the story.

Now would losing the boy he can only call "Kacchan" impact Izuku in deep and horrible ways ? Most definitely. Would he still consider he and the others became great heroes if said boy died and Izuku could not save him ? No.

And this isn't a small detail, this is an important piece of narration that's repeated at least twice in the story (and even widened to people other than Izuku).

This stake you're talking about does not work in the story because it would be the dumbest writing mistake Horikoshi would have made in it. It would be the most basic yet important inconsistancy he would have made in the story. Is that stake more important than the actual story he's telling ? I thought GoT s8 had finally taught people it's a very dumb thing to want. And in comparison it would make GoT s8 seem well written.

Because all this is not even counting the themes as well as Bakugou's role as a deuteragonist. What are the themes, ideas and goals of the story ? Showing people coming together. People helping people. People inspiring people. People impacting, both directly and indirectly, people's lives. Individualism and collectivism in their extremes hurt literally everybody. You need to find a middle ground. Society needs to change because individulas aren't enough to change a system, People are worth more than what they can give to others, ect... All these represented by two boys who needed to learn how to communicate and who will complete their journey by holding hands.

That's why a duo of protagonists works better than a single protagonist. Bakugou represents individualism while Deku represents collectivism. Then they reverse it. Now that they've both experienced each extreme, they need to join each other in the middle and finally fucking hold hands.

Now Horikoshi isn't a genius storyteller, he is far from perfect and in the symbolism vs concrete storytelling theory, he definitely works better with the symbolism part but he is still generally pretty good at storytelling in general. He is in the genre of Shonen, specifically an Action and Comedy. While he is inspired by superhero comics and uses a lot of their tropes, he also criticizes many of them. And that includes the very type of narrative device you suggest. Because the truth is that unless it fits the themes, killing a character is about as useful as letting them go on vacation.

Which is why I suggest "knowing whether Hawks' goal of creating a society where heroes aren't needed and can go on vacation will allow Izuku and Bakugou to get one to visit Mahoro and Kazuma for their honeymoon" as a more interesting stake for me personally ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[waitmyturtles]

In the annals of Great Episodes of Asian Dramas: episode 8 of She Loves to Cook, and She Loves to Eat ranks HIGH. A meditation on the pull between individualism and collectivism, filial piety vs. emotional survival, gender equity vs. social and cultural patriarchy.

And: the need for validation, the need for family and friends to help reflect one's own emotional reality. That this show chose RINA SAWAYAMA, a Japanese transplant to the UK, someone who had to uproot her young life, was ignored and belittled until she could learn to speak English, and then kicked utter ASS by becoming a fabulous and famous singer -- to enter this show through her song, "Chosen Family," my GAWD, did the showmakers of TsukuTabe really know what the hell they were doing.

This episode was EXQUISITE. FIFTEEN MINUTES OF EMOTIONAL JOURNEYS, DRIVES, AND VALIDATIONS. FIFTEEN FUCKING MINUTES.

Between this show and I Cannot Reach You, Japan is fucking WINNING with the kicking to the curb of Asian social expectations of humility and silence.

DAMN. I know I missed the live fan watch on this show, but if there are peeps who haven't watched it yet, I'd say drop everything and catch up like I am. KASUGA FOR THE DAMN WIN AGAINST HER FATHER. WOW.