Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Individualism vs conformity
Individualism vs conformity
Individualism and conformity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Individualism vs conformity
In Scott Russell Sanders’, “The Common Life”, he puts forward the conflict between an individual and society. Sanders recognizes the importance of individual activities, or as he said “seasons of withdrawal from responsibility”. On the contrary, Sanders declares that this surplus in no responsibility can steer to “a career of being unaccountable”. Sanders’ declarations are well founded when the proof is inspected. Real life situations can pertain to Sanders’ claims. An example of a real life situation that is related to Sanders’ claims is any college student who takes a year off from school. That student may never go back to school, instead pursuing a career of uniqueness and individuality. A career of uniqueness and individuality is basically
Ayn Rand's classic story of one man's desire to become an individual in a nameless society presents a compelling refutation of collectivism in all forms. The hero, labeled "Equality 7-2521" by the State, chooses to challenge conventional authority as he learns the joys of experimentation and discovery, the ecstasy of human love, the challenge and fairness of liberty, and the happiness of self-interest. Equality 7-2521 writes three unique phrases in his journal: 1. "My happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to an end. It is the end.", 2. "We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it.", 3. "The word 'We' . . . must never be placed first within man's soul.". These phrases will be discussed individually in the remainder of this essay.
Mantsios defends his claim by sharing the four myths and opposing seven realities of the American dream of equal opportunity. Then comparing three profiles of people from upper, middle, and lower classes, then by proving the correlation between educational attainment and classes. In a country with democratic principles, the general public makes an impact on the country, but it’s truly governed by politicians and the incredible power of wealth. Mantsios gives up the economic spectrum break down by giving the facts on the differences between the one who have very little, a lot and not enough money. One myth that Mantsios makes in his essay is how “all Americans do not have an equal opportunities to succeed. Inheritance laws ensure a greater likelihood of success of the offspring of the wealthy” (295). The huge gap between the upper and lower classes shows the social struggle. Higher income classes have a more likely chance for successful inheritance which allows the wealth to get passed on to the offspring. However, Davidson contradicts the theory’s that were presented by Mantsios by stating “Maddie represents a large population: people who, for whatever reason, are not going to be able to leave the workforce long enough to get the skills they need”(349). However, if Maddie works hard enough she can prove Mantsios wrong. That doesn’t mean she has to go to college or get a higher education, of course, that would make everything simpler. All she has today is work her way up in the company to make something of herself to show that she can still reach her full
The government’s authority over several aspects of society displays its corruption and causes more people to become conformists who lack egotism in Ayn Rand’s novel Anthem. The government chooses the occupations of all of the citizens. It is the Council of Vocation’s position to decide everyone’s job, thus suppressing the right of the people to freedom of choice. The teachers, who had been appointed by the Councils, inform the students to “Dare not choose in your minds the work you would like to do when you leave the Home of the Students. You shall do that which the Council of Vocations shall prescribe for you. For the Council of Vocations knows in its great wisdom where you are needed by your brother men, better than you can know it in your unworthy little
...nce any degression on the social ladder. However, there will always be those who dictate who and what the society truly is. Just like Chesnutt portrays for us in The Marrow of Tradition, there will always exist a social ladder, upon which we will either rise or drop.
Society is built and run on social and moral obligations and while these two are closely related, both impact cultures around the world in different ways. Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Mill’s On Liberty demonstrate the relationship these obligations have with successful and unsuccessful social constructs. For the purposes of this paper, a moral obligation is a consideration of what is right¬¬¬ and wrong and can vary depending on pressures from external sources such as religion, while a social obligation is a responsibility the individual has to act to benefit the best interests of their class as well as supporting the stability between society and the individual. Marx and Mill differ greatly in their opinions on the role and effects of both moral and social obligation, with Marx claiming that social obligation is one’s responsibility to one’s class and Mill claiming that it is one’s responsibility to further the society by expressing one’s own ideas because doing so is key to preventing society from becoming stagnant. Both authors also have differing views on moral obligation since Marx also claims that morality as a whole is a social construction used to oppress the Proletariat and that it is therefore invalid, whereas Mill claims that moral obligation is one’s debt to oneself to express their opinion, since not doing so would leave one’s character undeveloped.
Andrew Carnegie believes in a system based on principles and responsibility. The system is Individualism and when everyone strives towards the same goals the system is fair and prosperous. Carnegie’s essay is his attempt to show people a way to reach an accommodation between individualism and fairness. This system can only work if everyone knows and participates in his or her responsibilities. I will discuss Carnegie’s thesis, his arguments and the possible results of his goals.
Karl Marx’s article titled Estranged Labor as found in his 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts pays significant attention to the political economic system, which is commonly referred to capitalism. He further delves into nature of the political economy with a keen focus on how it has negatively impacted the worker or laborer. Therefore, the laborer forms the subject of his critical and detailed analysis as tries demonstrates the ill nature of the political economy. To start with Karl Marx portrays how the political economy as presented by its proponents has led to emergence of two distinct classes in society; the class of property owners and on the other hand, the class of property less workers. According to Karl Marx (2004), proponents of the political economy have introduced concepts such as private property and competition indicating without providing any form of analytical explanation but rather just expecting the society to embrace and apply such concepts. In particular, political economists have failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for division that has been established between capital and labor. Estranged Labor clearly depicts Marx’s dissatisfaction as well as disapproval towards the political economy indicating that proponents of such a system want the masses to blindly follow it without any form of intellectual or practical explanation. One area that Karl Marx demonstrates his distaste and disappointment in the article is worker or the laborer and how the worker sinks to not just a commodity but rather a wretched commodity (Marx, 2004). This is critical analysis of Karl Marx concept or phenomenon on the alienation of the worker as predicted in Estranged Labor in several aspects and how these concepts are ...
Each of the four classical theorists Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel had different theories of the relationship between society and the individual. It is the objective of this paper to critically evaluate the sociological approaches of each theory to come to a better understanding of how each theorist perceived such a relationship and what it means for the nature of social reality.
Another VIP who would agree with this source would be Adam Smith. He believed in capitalism and the “pursuit of profit.” Every individual is free to develop their individual capacities. Adam Smith would agree with the source because of the author’s economic opinion supporting welfare capitalism. After considering the key ideas of the source, and exploring multiple ways a society can embrace or reject those ideas, it is clear that the ideology of modern liberalism as reflected in the source should be embraced fully.
Natural philosophers of every century of human existence have asked what we owe to each other, society or government. In The Origin of Civil Society, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that the only natural form of duty is to one’s family, and all other obligations are based on agreement (57). Henry David Thoreau, in 1849, wrote in Resistance to Civil Government (sometimes known as Civil Disobedience), “it is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support” (143). This sort of conflict, which has accompanied all men at the great changes in society, is what drives conflict in Herman Melville’s Bartleby, the Scrivener. Melville, like the Byzantine architects, crafts a work of art that studies a microcosm of the macrocosm. That is to say, by looking at the relationship between two people, Melville is able to explore the larger context around them, specifically the radical change of society in the mid-19th century. Like Thoreau, Bartleby’s famous word, “I would prefer not to,” send a shockwave through contemporary expectations and give rise to how a person approaches a situation. Bartleby and Thoreau are both transcendentalists, and look to return to a Rousseauian state of nature. They have both arrived there after a journey of self-examination – most definitely in Thoreau’s case, and most probably in Bartleby’s – and their non-conformist attitudes raise questions of what is expected of people with regard to their duty to society and each other. Bartleby in particular makes the nameless...
...has argued that, for Marx, production is related to freedom through his understanding of human nature. This paper advanced this argument, firstly, through analysing Marx’s materialist understanding of human nature. This paper thus extends its argument in the second section by arguing that human’s capacity to freely choose when to produce distinguishes them from animals who are bound to repetitive labour. It also argues how under capitalism workers are animalised and alienated from their species-beings. Finally, this paper agued that freedom only exist in the realm of necessity. Also, as unfreedom is based on the capitalist system, this paper argues that it is only through the introduction of capitalism that men understood freedom as an expression of their being. Lastly, this paper noted that capitalism is a necessary object in understanding freedom.
In the “Brave New World”, everyone fulfills his or her responsibilities, In fact; they don’t have any right not to fulfill their duties nor they don’t even think about questioning their responsibilities. If there is a case that they don’t make a choice, there are other people who make that decision for that person. The underlying reason for this is because they believe in the value of society over the individual. Social utility is strictly protected. The conscious collective awareness is emphasized; meanwhile the individual gratifications are forced to suppress. In short, “everybody is for everybody”.
There are tremendous changes in human history from preliterate society to today. Through the civilization, the form of community was also changed from tribal society to the nation. As changing of the notion of community, the sense of economy for the member in the society has been changed. The advent of the capitalist society which aims at making profits influences the changing of view of family and community. Arlie Russell Hochschild, the author of “From the Frying Pan into the Fire”, explains that capitalism and its market influence on ideas for ‘family’ and ‘community’. Hochschild claims that spending time with family was a priority in the past, but it is not a priority anymore in capitalist society. Efficiency takes a priority in capitalism
Most have heard the classical paradox of the chicken and the egg. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The same question can apply to the individual and society. Which comes first? To answer the question, a concept of the individual must be established and the origins of society must be explored. Only then can one compare and contrast their roles in relation to the other. Two revolutionary thinkers, Soren Kierkegaard and Bertolt Brecht, will give their arguments of opposition to try to determine whether the power between society and the individual is pulled in one particular direction than the other. In conclusion, an answer will be produced to the question: the chicken, society, or the egg, the individual? The concept of the individual is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability. Th individual is a historical being in that he developes a personality as he grows and circulates within his or her family, peer group, neighborhood and eventually within the society as a whole. He developes in the process patterns of feeling, thinking, and habits. An individual is also a cultural being. Culture includes religion, philosophy, science, technology, art, education, politics, etc within a given society. The concept of the individual emerged, across western society at the end of the middle ages (1200-1400), with the rise and expansion of a new social class: the bourgeoise. During the historical emergence of a new social class, the bourgeoisie, co-developing was a new form of society. The feudal society, which had come to an end, saw the emergence of the hierarchy of social groups, making people dependent on others. On the shoulders of the common man grew an enormous parasit...
In “Ill Fares the Land,” Tony Judt argues that “the pursuit of material self-interest” has become the main ingredient in “our sense of collective purpose.” He argues that this materialism is responsible for the “growing disparities of rich and poor,” but Judt’s demonization of individualism continues as he attributes the woes of contemporary life to “materialistic and selfish quality.” Judt is correct in his argument that materialism and by proxy, individualism have undermined the fabric of the community. Although the community’s diminishing bonds are to blame; government inaction is also a contributory factor. Together, the downfall of the community, through the growing disparity of economic classes and runaway individualism, and government dysfunction and gridlock are the main contributing factors that prevent the reconciliation of economic inequality.