Sociology and the modern obsession with the "individual"

photo: sfsafehouse.org

It is sometimes difficult for people to think outside of the lens of individualism.

The notion of the "individual" may appear as common sense to modern Western readers, but in sociology we recognize it as culturally and historically specific. That is, the concept of the individual is not present or important in many cultures. The notion of the individual (as the building block of society) did not exist for most of human history. As one sociologist, Steven Buechler, puts it, "Although societies have always contained people, the notion that people are 'individuals' with unique functions, personalities, and temperaments is historically new."

The rise of the individual to center stage is linked to massive upheavals of Western society: the transition to capitalism and industrialization, on one hand, and political revolution and modern democracy on the other. Enlightenment thinkers and free market philosophers famously extolled the virtue of "freedom", "individual rights", and "rational" thinking. These symbols still ring through our basic assumptions about life and work today. They are the foundation of our most important political documents. History is taught in this context as a narrative of individual characters and decisions. And we often debate public issues like crime or health or economics in much the same way, as a set of choices made by individuals.

Think of that familiar cultural narrative, the American Dream, which teaches generation after generation of citizens about the virtues of individual determination and work ethic. Statistically speaking, this is not a reality for the majority of Americans. Social mobility is very low in American society. Full-time employees earning minimum wage-- even the most entrepreneurial and hardest of workers-- still live below the poverty line. Women and minorities are disproportionately represented among the Working Poor, revealing the lasting legacies of discrimination and challenging the ideals of meritocracy so fundamental to mainstream American culture.

(photo: IdiotsGuides.com)

And yet, the idea of the American dream remains strong.

This idea of the individual as the starting point, the essence of life, and the reason for our circumstances appears as simple taken-for-granted common sense. When I teach sociology, I am mindful that it is not always easy for new students to think beyond the realm of individualism. Doing so affects (and maybe even challenges) their very view of the world.

But the fact remains: humans are social beings. We are socialized into norms, values, and worldviews that are also built into our institutions. Certain behaviors are reinforced as society teaches us to conform. No one conforms to society all the time, but the pressure to do so is strong. There is no real pure form of "free will" in this sense because we are always contending with social rules and norms.

Don't get it twisted, though. Accounting for social forces does not deny human agency. Humans do make decisions and choices, and our motivations do affect our realities, but nobody does this in a bubble. Our interpretations and thought processes are affected by our social environment. And vice versa-- we as individuals can and do affect our environments.

Good sociological theory, based on empirical research, accounts for both the individual and social forces.

I often notice what Buechler calls "the glorification of the individual" in conversations among strangers, media explanations of events, and those sometimes-tense, sometimes-friendly discussions with family during holiday celebrations. When individualism takes center stage, structural issues tend to get dismissed. We focus on the choices or personality traits of the homeless person, the personal racism of one "bad apple" police officer, the psychological profile of the mass shooter or domestic abuser, or the entrepreneurial spirit of the CEO.

The person involved is an important part of the story, sure, but what do we ignore when we use this frame of reference alone? As a sociologist, my focus is on social forces.

Forty percent of homeless youth are LGBTQ. A study in 2007 found that one in four homeless adults are veterans. There is a strong geographical relationship between high rates of homelessness and lack of affordable housing. The latter has been significantly defunded across the country since the 1970s, and many cities have resorted to criminalizing homelessness-- a practice that A) is more costly to taxpayers than offering affordable housing and B) exacerbates the problems for homeless individuals by adding criminal records and legal fees to their already dire circumstances.

Source: National Law Center on Poverty and Homelessness

These are just a few glimpses of social forces, but there are countless more in the scores of sociological research on homelessness. Such cultural and structural facts reveal that there are forces at play beyond the reach of any one individual.

I will return to the other examples I pointed to above as I continue my journey on Steemit, so I'll save those cans of worms for another day. For now, the point is that putting an individual's experience in a broader social and historical context gives us a more complex picture and a better chance of dealing effectively with any social issue.

Discussion/ thinking exercises:

Imagine I asked you to tell me the story of your life. Instead of telling me from your point of view alone, though, I would like you to think about the social forces that affected your life. What groups, organizations, and institutions shaped your experiences? How did historical changes or events, your cultural upbringing, your class position, your neighborhood or family, your gender/ race/ ethnicity etc. affect your life story? The story of your life will probably seem much different told in this way. It is still, however, the story of your life.

Whether or not you actually write anything down is not important. Just thinking about it should make clear that there were forces beyond your control that shaped you AND that your uniqueness, personal motivations, and choices were also important along the way.

Suffering from depression or anxiety is a deeply personal experience, and for the most part, we as a society treat these issues on an individual basis. At the same time, the rates of these mental health issues have reached epidemic proportions. What social factors might be involved? Are there ways to "treat" the problem of depression/ anxiety on a scale beyond that of the individual?

Repeat this, using other issues like obesity, eating disorders, poverty, gun violence, domestic violence, sexual harassment, unemployment, addiction, etc. If at least some significant factors are beyond the control of the individual, these are examples of what sociologists call "social problems".