Philosophy Cafe | Individualism versus Collectivism

Individualism versus Collectivism

Philosophical Questions

• What is the relationship between the 'individual' and the 'collective'?
• What does the 'versus' mean in the title of the discussion?
• And, what is the 'collective' anyway?

I am going to content myself with a wee bit of conceptual mapping & a brief sketch of some potential parameters of conflict between individuals & groups.

'Individuals' is clear enough & a collective is just a group of individuals. 'Versus' suggests some sort of conflict between individuals & groups (perhaps ones of which they are members but perhaps with ones of which they are not
members).

I note in passing that one can have conflicts of various sorts between individuals & between groups not just between individual & groups. Is there something morally distinct about group/individual conflicts?

Crudely put, the big question is the moral one of the rights of individuals to resist group demands or, put the other way around, the rights of groups to impose demands upon individuals.

Further, there are all sorts of ways that people are grouped together. Some are voluntary associations (like Philosophy café) & some involuntary (like nationality or race). I suggest that the potential conflict issues (& judgements as to legitimate outcomes) might vary depending on this variable.

It might also be that one judges that the rights of the individual to resist groups, or of groups to control individuals, depend on the group in question. So, some groups might be deemed to have legitimate power to coerce individuals but others not.

But perhaps that's too coarse-grained. Perhaps much depends on the issue in dispute. Perhaps a group could legitimately coerce an individual on some matters but not on others. And which matters are legitimate areas for group
power might vary from group to group.

To attempt to summarise this complexity: say that one takes it as a beginning assumption that an individual should be able to act as s/he pleases unless there is a good reason to stop them. Could there be such a "good reason" that is based simply on some group's right to control some individual, on some matters?

If so, what is the detail of this?