To first explore the theme of ‘Individualism vs. Collectivism’ in my chosen texts, we must first understand their true definitions. According to “Cultures and Organizations – Inter-cultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival” (Hofstede, Geert (1994), page 260 – 261) individualism can be defined as “the opposite of collectivism; together they form one of the dimensions of national culture. Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself/herself and the immediate family only.” Collectivism, on the other hand, “stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong cohesive ‘in’ groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.”
The very foundation for individualistic or collectivist thinking can be identified by a comparison of various cultures. Most favour either side as a significant political stand point. For a simplistic example, the United States of America has been voted Number 1 in terms of a society based upon the individual’s needs, emphasising this in: everyday media coverage, advertising, education, etc. The same ideology parallels with other western countries, such as the United Kingdom (3rd) and France (10th). If we choose to examine perhaps, a country whose political system was not only opposite of an individualistic based structure but also in terms of language, culture, history, among many other external forces, we are likely to see an incredible difference. I take China, for example, which is soon to be, if not already, the World’s great super power, the economic and political rival of the Untied States.
To examine how China is internally managed, we see it is run from a collectivist standpoint; everyone in together and looking after the team. To say ‘no’ when ordered to do something by anyone in the public eye, or to disagree with government opinion is taken absolutely seriously and would not be tolerated in a collectivist society. It would disrupt the harmony; you would become a chink in the chain. This only emphasises the idea that individualism and collectivism are the two, major political forces that define a country. To analyse this further, we can identify that an inner Democracy, such as America, is individualistic, boasting freedom of choice and speech and the ability to work one’s way up the social hierarchy based.
On the other side of the scale, Communism is an absolute collectivist state, so much so in fact that it can be seen to deny any forms of individualism. It still chooses to place importance of teamwork and working together for a better future. This could, in a political sense, make China as a nation seem too controlling, seemingly more pro government and the state rather than taking justified notice of the humanitarian issues that seem to plague the international news media and hinder the countries’ ever more important position in global affairs.
If we should take this idea down to a personal level and attempt to lay such differing ideologies on members of society, you could state certain stereotypes that would reflect each viewpoint. For the sake of visual theatrics, we could suggest an anti-war protester and a soldier. The anti-war protester has the ability to speak out on the opinions he feels passionately about, such as: anti-war, anti-government ideologies or changes in foreign policy. Any topic that a liberal feels is unjust, he is well within his right to argue the opposing points. This is based purely on his own thoughts, even though slight collectivism can trickle in among mass protests as people’s personal preferences combine to make the message a personal preference of the unit. It becomes so that it’s not an individual, but a mass body speaking for the people, a collected group which unsurprisingly brings the scent of irony into the situation.
Looking at the soldier now, we see that he is strictly disciplined and has to live by a set of rules. He takes orders without question or emotion because he is, to some degree, trained as a cog in the greater machine of political warfare. Whatever personal opinions he feels, whether he disagrees with an order or is scared of potential injury, he must keep it bottled up. To speak out causes a rebellion and therefore damages the morale of the troops as well as instilling widespread doubt about their ability to reach a certain, tactical objective. The soldier is clearly someone working for a wider collaboration rather than just his own personal preferences.
Report: Individualism vs. Collectivism in reference to society and its deprecation of morality
Individualism is a theme that describes the conflicting social opinions of various parties, often in form of national governments but also at a more personal level. The very basis of many stories is structured on the defining individual who breaks the boundaries of a conformist state when he believes the social hierarchy to be wrong. I have chosen to analyse the texts Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk, Lord of the Flies by William Golding and Apocalypse Now, by Francis Ford Coppola. These texts demonstrate both the individual/collectivist states in various ways.
In which ways do the characters in each text show their individualistic or collectivist stand-points and how do others respond to this opinion?
In Fight Club, we see that the Narrator is conforming to everyday life; working at the same job day after day, buying more items in needless consumerist greed, crying at pain and aiming for a better life ‘…dead without a scar and leaving behind a really nice condo and car.” It is the epitome of a higher social status, declared through the possession of ‘things,’ items that represent wealth, power and success. Yet he is no different to many other everyday citizens, especially in a western culture, who are defined as people on their social status and therefore slip nicely into a collectivist group, even though they may not be aware that they have lost their total individuality. The Narrator is a perfect example of someone who realises that he is conforming to what society says he should be, stating at one point …“you’re not how much money you’ve got in the bank. You’re not your job. You’re not your family, and you’re not who you tell yourself…. You’re not your name…. You’re not your problems…. You’re not your age…. You are not your hopes.” Everything he states is a categorisation that allows an individual to be collected and sorted in social segments. The Narrator therefore switches from society’s collectivist image of him, to a brief moment of individuality defined through an independent realisation of civilisations confines, and then down to Tyler Durden’s hope of a free world, the concept of ‘Space Monkeys,’ everyone the same in order to be different; individuals with the same goal, personality, likes, dislikes. Through independent thinking, Tyler creates a collectivist, anarchy driven group in order to create a new world.
Tyler Durden is the Narrator’s alter ego, a figment of his imagination created to break him through social boundaries. On the outside, it appears that Tyler Durden is very much the individual, largely because of his small rebellions against everyday society(i.e; smashing out car headlights, avoiding government tax by living in an abandoned house, splicing frames of pornography into Disney films and urinating on the food at the restaurant where he works.) However, with the creation of Fight Club, we begin to see that his individualistic views spread.
So what made both, conflicting characters the way they are? Society? Perhaps family structures as a microcosm of man’s relationship to God and to society. Jack and Tyler both realize that they come from broken homes with very little of a father figure, and that this plight is a reflection of that of an entire generation “raised by women.” Looking for a sense of masculine identity, this generation bonded with males they saw on TV and grew up believing they would be “millionaires, rock stars..” but as they remain “30-year-old boys”, it is hard for them to adapt to the routine orientated world where they cannot be any off these things. Tyler makes the comparison between their anomalous domestic situations and that of humanity’s cosmic situation more obvious describes this generation as “the middle child… without a purpose, or a place” and asks the narrator, “our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed on us, what does that tell you about God?” The conclusion that Tyler, Jack, and the audience must come to is that God has also abandoned this generation… and perhaps humanity in general… so that the children are raised by women, in this case personifying the over-civilizing effects of culture. Tyler, breaking the bond with culture, also breaks the bond with his existing parent and thus implicates that humanity should be orphans… devoid of figures of authority and religion, represented by the Father, and culture and nurturing, represented by the Mother. “Fuck salvation, fuck redemption… God hates you! Get used to the fact… we don’t need God” Tyler says.
We generalise the entirety of this collectivist state – this group of broken, disappointed, lost people – as Generation X; thirty year olds raised during the advent of: television, record divorce rates and increased media infiltration. The book focuses on how desensitization, narcissism, lack of parental role models and unrealistic self-expectation has made this generation “some of the best and brightest men alive… squandering their lives… pumping gas, working at restaurants, slaves with white collars.” “X” by its very nature implies the variable, the unknown. The identity of Generation X, even as they come into mature adulthood, is still unknown to them. They do not know how to define themselves and seek self-definition through their furniture (“Which dining set defines me as a person?”) or through brooding over their problems, looking for attention (the narrator’s trips to the therapy groups). Fight Club gives the men a sense of definition and personal work by identifying with the repressed, but still powerful, archetype of the “macho he-man male.” The need for Generation X to latch on to some cause is one of the reasons that Fight Club becomes so widely popular; they need to show their individualism, they need to break conformity. It is only when Fight Club has acquired a large number of these men that the audience begins to realise the irony of the situation. These men are not individuals…they have done nothing more than switch from one collectivist unit to another.
In Lord of the Flies, a novel written by William Golding in 1964, it is clear from the ending that the young group of men has been split by their views on how to run the island. Ralph, the main protagonist of the story, is a representation of Democracy, and believes that the island should be run on an equal base, where everyone has the chance to vote on various policies. This freedom of choice and speech is represented by the conch. Jack on the other hand represents fascism; clues that point to this symbolism can be seen strewn throughout the novel, such as the red, white and black face pain the wears for camouflage, a clear connection to the swastika flag of the Nazi Party in Germany. Looking at Lord of the Flies from an external perspective, we understand the novel itself had been written approximately 10 years after the Second World War, a segment of history that was still very fresh in people’s mind. Perhaps more than nowadays, the threat and fear of fascist governments such as the Nazi Party was very open and people would find it easier to make connections to them from the novel. For example, if we look upon the way Ralph attempts to run the island, we can see clear similarities to Neville Chamberlain, how his attempts at peace proved his moral righteousness and yet his failure to take decisive action when necessary allowed dire consequences to unfold; the greatest war our world has ever seen. Jack on the other hand, by the end of the book , is running the island like a dictatorship, a totalitarian state, where he is the supreme ruler, a buy who has allowed the dark side of his sole to consume him.
Does the time period in which the narrative is set relate to the theme of Individualism vs. Collectivism and if so, is there any similarities between the texts? What do these similarities suggest to a mass audience?
If we are to now examine the film Apocalypse Now (1979), we understand that Individualism vs. Collectivism plays an incredibly crucial role in understanding the diverse range of various characters. However, it is widespread opinion that the characters of Captain Willard and Colonel Kurtz are undoubtedly the most important in terms of the narrative and in terms of their social, political and spiritual standpoints. Captain Willard, as we understand him, is a soldier. As it is commonly known, a soldier cannot work as an individual; they must work as a part of a team, looking out for their comrades and pushing forward as a unit in order to achieve a political and tactical objective. However, this is the generalised perspective on the army and as researchers, we must examine the how the 1960s as a time period affected people and what the social situation was like in America at the time. The 60s were a time of social and spiritual revolution; free love, drug experimentation, the idea of ‘freeing ones mind.’ People, unlike in the very conformist 1950s did not want to be corporate suits, they did not want to live in suburbia, with the average middle class white family. They wanted to be themselves, totally, free of any class or stereotype. The fact that they were conscripted against their will to fight in Vietnam does very little to their actual character, which is why the Vietnam War is infamous for its ’rock ’n roll’ style and drug use. A percentage of the soldiers there were incredibly, morally corrupt. Unlike World War 1 or 2, they were not fighting a desperate or patriotic war. They were strangers in someone else’s country and all they wanted to do was what they wanted to do in America. Listen to The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan and The Rolling Stones, be influenced by their anti war lyrics, make love with their girlfriends, play guitar and as much as they could, they attempted to do this in Vietnam. Yet the setting did not suit who they were, proving that they were not fully committed to the war, leading to one of the central reasons why America lost the war.
Comparisons can then be easily be made between Apocalypse Now and Lord of the Flies because they both deal with the idea of moral deprecation. Apocalypse Now does this through taking us as the cinematic audience on a journey with the main characters and allowing us a voyeuristic approach as we watch how the increasing lack of civilisation and the introduction to ‘hell’ affects these men. This introduces the idea that when men are left to their own devices, they turn savage and cruel, and tend to take to adopt their primordial instincts to ‘kill without feeling…without passion…without judgement.” Colonel Kurtz is an excellent example of this. In the Lord of the Flies also, when the boys are isolated from civilisation, they choose to ignore the social boundaries that once contained them and allowed feeling of hate and actions of pain, suffering and death to consume without fear of the consequence. As Colonel states, summing up the entire ideal, “We are morally free…you have a right to kill me, but no right to judge me,” proving that savagery and human evil, from a ‘normal society’s’ point of view, is an attribute etched into human nature and is something that we must attempt to control. In the novel, Simon listens to what the Lord of Flies says to him…“There isn’t anyone to help you. Only me. And I’m the Beast . . . Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill! . . . You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you? Close, close, close! I’m the reason why it’s no go? Why things are the way they are?” The Lord of the Flies speaks these lines to Simon in Chapter 8, during Simon’s vision in the glade. These words confirm Simon’s speculation in Chapter 5 that perhaps the beast is only the boys themselves. This idea of the evil on the island being within the boys is central to the novel’s exploration of innate human savagery. The Lord of the Flies identifies itself as the beast and acknowledges to Simon that it exists within all human beings: “You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you?” The creature’s grotesque language and bizarre appropriation of the boys’ slang (“I’m the reason why it’s no go”) makes the creature appear even more hideous and devilish, for he taunts Simon with the same colloquial, familiar language the boys use themselves. Simon, startled by his discovery, tries to convey it to the rest of the boys, but the evil and savagery within them boils to the surface, as they mistake him for the beast itself, set upon him, and kill him.
Do the various individuals in each text display their criticism of what they see as a immoral society and how does this effect the general, collectivist state?
This idea is perhaps stronger than in any of the other texts, most prominent in Fight Club, where the entire story is set around one man’s personal journey to moral freedom through his protests against society. We learn from the very beginning of the story that the Narrator cannot sleep; he has insomnia. However, we later discover in the novel that this insomnia is in fact nothing more than his schizophrenic alter ego; the psychopathic, charismatic Tyler Durden. Slowly, we learn that Tyler’s uninvited trips into the Narrator’s life are a sign that his body, mind and spirit are protesting against the whole heartedly consumerist lifestyle he is leading as well as the gradual loss of his masculinity. As his normal self, a man who works 9 – 5 in an office, ‘buys IKEA furniture,’ he does not have the power to reach out and protest because he is too firmly lodged into the ‘normal’ way of life. He doesn’t want to break out because he will cause a scene, he will stand out, when all he wants is to blend in with the crowd and attempt to just fall asleep at night and find some meaning, some fulfilling objective that he can work towards and continue living happily. Tyler proves to be his angel for a time, fulfilling this desire with acts of rebellion, furthering and regaining his masculinity through fighting and acts of vandalism. However, Tyler himself becomes to take too much control; he turns against the narrator.
We see Tyler’s acts of vandalism become gradually more and more extreme. From doing nothing more than urinating into soup bowls or splicing pornography into Disney movies, he takes it a step further by smashing out car headlights, blowing up shop windows and threatening strangers with death unless they decide to change their life to the way Tyler sees fit. And yet it doesn’t stop there. Soon, Tyler’s terrorist guerrilla army, Project Mayhem, take to destroying monuments and blowing up buildings. Just like any acts of extreme terrorism, the public response is unsurprising; widespread terror and widespread suspicion. Everyday citizens know that they are out there and yet they cannot find them. From reading the novels, you can make many a likeness to the Taliban and there ‘hiding’ situation in Afghanistan. The most extreme point in the novel is the ending, where the Narrator and Tyler are atop one of the major credit card companies headquarters and are planning to blow the place up. Paparazzi, journalists and police have swarmed to the bottom and are attempting to stop the Narrator from doing it. It is a desperate situation, one that can throw the western world into turmoil. Once again, parallels are seen with 9/11, even thought the book was written before it occurred, we as a modern reader can now relate to such an atmosphere because we have experienced what it is really like to experience true fear at the hands of terrorism.
Criticism for immoral societies is rife in the film Apocalypse Now, where the entire narrative is focused on the search for a man who has turned his back on ‘normal’ civilisation in order to a live in his own world; a world without judgement. The following is a quote from the film which explains why some men cannot live in the world we believe to be moral, because all they can see are the negative attributes, the disasters and pain, that plagues our lives. “I’ve seen horrors…horrors that you’ve seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me…you have a right to do that, but you have no right to judge me. It is impossible to describe in words what is necessary to those that do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face…and you must make a friend horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends…if not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies.” This monologue is spoken by one of the central characters in the film, a green beret colonel who has, according to officers at the HQ, “Gone insane.” A man named Colonel Kurtz, a man who was in command of a division, yet has allowed the dark side of his character to take over and control him, therefore affecting his tactical thinking and his sense of moral justice. From simply being nothing more than a station commander, Kurtz believes himself to be God-like, justifying this belief with the idea that he is absolutely free. This is not freedom in the sense of American freedom, democratic freedom, freedom of speech and opinion and thought. He is spiritually free. He has no morals and no fear of judgement. As he states…“Judgement is what defeats us.”
At one point in the film, Captain Willard enters Kurtz’ compound on a boat where he is met by an incredible sight. Hundreds upon hundreds of armed men, women and children stand motionless along the river and by the neighbouring temple, the sight of Cambodians, Viet Minh, Americans, lying dead on the floor, hung by their necks from the tree tops, carved up into unrecognisable forms by the Colonel’s troop all around them. On the wall behind them, smeared in red paint reads a single line…“Our Motto: Apocalypse Now.” It is nihilism at it’s peak. Destroy everything you ever knew. Willard realises that the madness the officers talked of is nothing compared to the reality. These people have been brainwashed by Kurtz because he has allowed them freedom from judgement. They are not being judged by anyone so they are able to commit any action that they want under Kurtz command. It is a dangerous freedom that has allowed the mass murder of so many.
When Willard is finally captured by Kurtz and his men, he is subjugated to such horrors. He is bound, placed in a cage, imprisoned in a confined, dark box, given the head of comrade Chef and presented with so many opportunities to feel utter hatred, utter, unbearable, furious anger towards Kurtz. And yet just like that, Kurtz releases him from his confines. He speaks to him face to face, alone, unprotected and Willard does nothing. He is lost because he has witnessed a total and utter revolutionary idea. The idea of moral escapism…and that is his personal freedom. When asked by Kurtz what Willard thinks of his methods, Willard replies solemnly…“I see no methods, sir.”
We look at Apocalypse Now as just a war movie, but in truth, it is an analysis of morality. Right, wrong, good, evil, purpose. It is all a matter of perspective. It examines the idea that freedom is a metaphysical issue, but also a moral, political and spiritual one. There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of a particular culture. On one hand, we are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are willing to condemn acts of genocide as evil. Are you willing therefore to suggest that genocide is evil from the point of view of your culture, but not from the culture that is perpetrating it.
It is nothing more than Kurtz’s teaching. He has ignored the old proverb of ‘treat others like you would wish to be treated’ because from his perspective, such freedom from morality is essential in order to achieve freedom from judgement. Kurtz’s opinions have been bred from the ironies of what we perceive as a normal society. He states, as his final protest…“They train young men to drop fire on people…but their commanders won’t let them write ‘Fuck’ on their bombs because they tell them it’s obscene.’ Willard realises this, hears much of what Kurtz says as gospel, and yet with slow contemplation realises that too much freedom is dangerous. With total disregard for his own life, for his own life is not important anymore, he sets out to murder Kurtz. With a machete, he hacks the man to death. In the colonels mind even, Willard was right to kill him. It did not matter, he was free anyway.
The central concern of Lord of the Flies is the conflict between two competing impulses that exist within all human beings: the instinct to live by rules, act peacefully, follow moral commands, and value the good of the group against the instinct to gratify one’s immediate desires, act violently to obtain supremacy over others, and enforce one’s will. This conflict might be expressed in a number of ways: civilization vs. savagery, order vs. chaos, reason vs. impulse, law vs. anarchy, or the broader heading of good vs. evil. Throughout the novel, Golding associates the instinct of civilization with good and the instinct of savagery with evil. However, the boys only turn themselves toward savagery because it is a by-product of the ironies and tragedies of a ‘civilised life.’ The boys have seen what occurs in a seemingly ‘civilised’ world, the nuclear war occurring away from the island, and with that child like intelligence, find it difficult to differentiate between the idea of a civilised, free and individualistic (in aid of others) way of living to the savagery they soon adopt.
The conflict between the two instincts is the driving force of the novel, explored through the dissolution of the young English boys’ civilized, moral, disciplined behaviour as they accustom themselves to a wild, brutal, barbaric life in the jungle. Lord of the Flies is an allegorical novel, which means that Golding conveys many of his main ideas and themes through symbolic characters and objects. He represents the conflict between civilization and savagery in the conflict between the novel’s two main characters: Ralph, the protagonist, who represents order and leadership; and Jack, the antagonist, who represents savagery and the desire for power.
ZEN NOVEMBER 