Learn Liberty

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Prof. Aeon Skoble claims that if we really care about the wellbeing of communities, we should keep in mind the unique and autonomous individuals that make it up. Each individual is deserving of respect and dignity, and should be free to pursue their own ends as long as they don’t infringe upon the freedom of others. Although the concept of community is important, it does not warrant overlooking the individuals that comprise it.


  • Methodological Individualism [Article]: Arnold Kling shares a quote from Donald J. Boudreaux underscoring the importance of methodological individualism when looking at the whole range of social phenomena.

  • The Collectivist Illusion [Article]: Tibor R. Machan examines the problem of grouping human beings and ascribing to them capacities only individuals can have.

  • The Dangers of Collectivism [Article]: Dennis Bechara explains how government intervention alters the nature of society and our relationship to government.

  • Liberalism [Article]: Gerald Gaus and Shane D. Courtland provide a broad philosophical overview of liberalism, highlighting in particular the classical liberal philosophical perspective.


Individualism vs. Collectivism

One of the defining characteristics of philosophical liberalism is the idea of individualism. Each person is an autonomous individual deserving of respect and dignity equal to that of all others, which entails the freedom to pursue ends of his or her own design provided that this doesn’t abrogate the similar freedom of others.

But aren’t we social creatures? Don’t we need community in order to flourish? And if the answer is yes, does that mean that individual rights are a big mistake? Actually it’s true that we’re social creatures, but this doesn’t imply that individualism is a mistake. Karl Marx claimed that our identities are constituted entirely by our socioeconomic class and that autonomy was an illusion. The prevailing economic system determines how you think. The liberal project was flawed, Marx said, because it caused people to have false ideas about labor, capital, society, even our own selves. Mussolini also claimed that the liberal project was flawed because it caused people to have false ideas about labor, capital, society, and our own selves, but his claim was that our identity was constituted and determined not by class but by our ethnicity.

These days few defend these claims, but it’s a lot more common to claim that the community determines our identity, and that liberalism is a flawed project. This is sometimes called the communitarian argument against liberal individualism. But what is the community? We’re all members of many different communities simultaneously: family, town, ethnicity, region, nation, religion. In addition to these, we become members of communities through our interests and affiliations, professions, hobbies, sports loyalties, and other manifestations of our preferences. To be sure, all these things play a role in helping shape who we become. But it’s a stretch to say that any of them trumps any of the others or that the process is deterministic.

Communitarianism seems to elide the distinction between influencing and determining. We still make choices about our values and actions despite there being many influences on our thinking. If you had to do everything yourself, you’d never get anything done. Being part of a community allows us to divide labor and benefit from specialization in trade.

Besides the economic benefits of social living, we also need friendships and culture and entertainment. But we get these benefits from social living because we’re individuals. One reason society has so much to offer is that we’re all a little different. The great diversity of human interests and talents and preferences is a testimony to our individualism, and society just is the manifestation of these differences as they’re brought together. If everyone thought the same way and liked all the same things, society would be a much less interesting place. So the idea that to protect community we need to stop thinking of people as autonomous individuals is getting it backwards. If we really care about the wellbeing of communities and preserving the way that society contributes to human flourishing, we ought to keep in mind the unique and autonomous individuals that make it up.

Right-click the link below and select "Save Link" or "Save Target."


Download Video

Right-click the link below and select "Save Link" or "Save Target."


Download MP3

8 Comments

  1. Matt Wavle

    It would be in line with liberty to have the right to freely associate.  If you choose to freely associate in a commune, that would be congruent with the freedom of a large family unit.  But each individual within the commune must retain the choice to stay or leave at any moment, or else it would be considered a cult.  And cults are in there very nature, NOT libery-loving entities. 

  2. Matt Wavle

    Marx was based his views in determinism, which is at odds with the reality of the individual’s freedom to choose. 
    – Today we often hear many an oxymoron relating to "group rights".  Rights are an Individual thing, much like emotions.  No group can magically posses rights that they did not already posses each as individuals. 

  3. Anonymous

    you seriously missed the point entirely, …………."AS LONG AS YOUR FREEDOMS DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE OTHER." This is the boundary line! Get it! You must be one of those fundies who think that their communism, mafiasims, fascisms, or any other cloned -isms will be the best -ism!

  4. Jakub Kubas

    Prof. Skoble argues that individuality is the basis of our communities and that they – individual choice and preference – are the reason people choose to take part in different community and cultural events, thus driving them forward. But can true individualism, in which each being is completely self-defined and autonomous, become the breeding ground for a community, which, ex definitione, is a collectivist environment like all other societies? Collectivism would see the exploration and/or creation of links that bring individuals together, creating a culture or community based on common traits, interests, and ideas, which simply cannot be created in individualist environments because of their focus on highlighting the differences between individuals. 

    Undoubtedly, the rights of the individual are important and it is the duty of the government to protect those rights, among which "are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." However, it is also the responsibility of the government to establish limits to the free society so as to protect the rights of all individuals within it and in order to maintain a relatively closely-knit national society as a means of maintaining the public peace and securing the nation from subversive forces (such as those that the United States was exposed to during the Cold War at the hands of the Soviet Union, as Mr. Yuri Bezmanov would claim). 

    I, personally, would hold true to the classic rule of the Golden Mean: perfection is hidden somewhere in the midst of both extremes. Societies should be free so that individual expression and free will would not be bound in the chains of tyranny, however they should be limited so that certain moral and social standards do not decay, as well as to prevent a society based on the worship of self-interest: a contradiction of the values of any republic, or "res publica" – a common affair.
  5. TateFegley

    Greg, you seem to enjoy playing the role of the caricatured libertarian, who has no nuance in studying the social sciences, but sees every question exclusively in terms of his ideology. How does your moral question negate the idea that there are such things as individualism and collectivism?

  6. kevinbuttrum

    I believe the Big nanny state government we currently have, is killing our individualist based communities, by forcing us to only be a whole nation community, instead of individual State communities. The Federal Government should only enforce negative rights, since it is a Republic. Only the States should mandate postive rights, because all the states are democratic.  

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    LearnLiberty_Banner (1)