The Collective Is Not Always More Correct Than The Individual
One mistake often made by people who want to strive for a more collective
society -- whether that society might be called anarchist, communist, or
"small-d" democratic -- is to assume that the collective can always be
trusted above the individual. Unfortunately, in many radical-left circles,
if we talk too much about individual rights and even suggest that an
individual's opinions and observations might be closer to the truth than the
votes or consensus of the collective, we might be accused of pushing
"individualism," which supposedly is a bad trait typical of capitalist and
"bourgeois" society, not to be tolerated in egalitarian circles. Yet, this
kind of mentality, at least when taken to the extreme, enabled a lot of
really nasty totalitarian societies to exist in the past century, and the
history of those societies basically proves the point that individuals (who
were suppressed) can often be more correct than the group
If we are really striving for a fair and egalitarian society, then we need
to give utmost importance to the rights and liberties of the individual.
This does not mean promoting the kind of "individualism" that dictates that
each person must look out for her/himself and that collective decision
making and concern for the community are a hindrance to true liberty. What
it does mean is that each of us is unique and must be considered, judged and
observed according to our own unique combination of circumstances. This
means that our behaviors are far more complex than might be assumed by the
knee-jerk sort of ideologue who would say, for instance, that any of us
enjoys certain privileges above others for belonging to one particular
group based on race, gender, or ethnic origins. It also means that nobody's
behavior should be judged by a formulaic check list, so that in any given
situation, one person must be assumed to have certain politically
undesirable characteristics based on a particular incident when we don't
know the backgrounds, tendencies, or histories of the individuals involved.
(So, for example, a man who shouts at a woman or says something vaguely
disrespectful to her is automatically assumed to be "sexist" when a closer
examination of the histories of the individuals involved might reveal a
dynamic that is far more complex, with more equal hostilities, etc., than
anyone realized.) When we fail to recognize the potential uniqueness and
complexity of the individual, then we are failing to create a situation in
which each individual might enjoy a maximum amount of freedom and
liberty.
Sometimes, moreover, the individual can be really badly misunderstood by a
group which has made assumptions or followed presumptions that might not
really apply to the person involved. In judging individuals, groups can
make terrible mistakes, sometimes based on a lot of bias and prejudice.
This is illustrated not only by the countless collectivist mistakes made
throughout history, but also by the many smaller examples of collective
injustice and manipulation that we have already discussed in our Collective
Book. When a group is manipulated, becomes misguided, or simply fails to be
vigilant about judging everyone fairly and equally, it can become more wrong
than any single member.
The individual also might have a particular outlook or opinion in a given
situation that ultimately proves to be wiser or more accurate than the
outlook of the group. This is why it really is necessary to listen to the
opinions of individuals within the group who may not be going so well with
the collective flow. Dissenting opinions sometimes can change the mind of
the entire group, once the group considers the dissenting opinion fairly,
allowing each person within that group to weigh the merits of each
(differing) point of view.
In examining other literature dealing with problems within collectives, we
have seen quite a few articles talking about how to deal with the difficult
person who won't go along with the group, the ornery person, the malcontent
whose behavior or opinions seem to disrupt the group's smooth functioning.
The issue is thus usually depicted as finding a good way for the group to
collectively deal with a problem member. Unfortunately, this is only one
way of looking at things.
A truly democratic and egalitarian collective can't always assume that the
only problem to be considered in group-versus-individual conflicts is
protecting the integrity of the group against the disruptive individual.
Sometimes, the problem involves protecting the individual against the
group.