I don’t see how individualism can beat out collectivism as long as groups = more power. for individualism to work each person would have to wield equal power to any group.
One view doesn’t need to “beat out” the other; for each societal state, there’s a corresponding equilibrium between individualistic- and group-think (or rather, group-think for varying sizes of groups) as each person weigh the costs and benefits of adherence for them. In a world of individuals, an organized and specialized group of any size “= more power.” Witness sedentary farmers displacing hunter-gatherers. On the other hand, in a world of groups, a rogue individualistic prisoner’s-dilemma-defector is king. Witness sociopaths in corporate structures, or the plots of far too many Star Trek episodes.
The balance of power can shift as Individualism becomes a better choice, due to its risks lessening and rewards increasing, whether due to culture, technology, or extensive debates on websites.
I don’t see how individualism can beat out collectivism as long as groups = more power. for individualism to work each person would have to wield equal power to any group.
One view doesn’t need to “beat out” the other; for each societal state, there’s a corresponding equilibrium between individualistic- and group-think (or rather, group-think for varying sizes of groups) as each person weigh the costs and benefits of adherence for them. In a world of individuals, an organized and specialized group of any size “= more power.” Witness sedentary farmers displacing hunter-gatherers. On the other hand, in a world of groups, a rogue individualistic prisoner’s-dilemma-defector is king. Witness sociopaths in corporate structures, or the plots of far too many Star Trek episodes.
The balance of power can shift as Individualism becomes a better choice, due to its risks lessening and rewards increasing, whether due to culture, technology, or extensive debates on websites.