Individualism

by Robert Villegas

  For years, Dr. Montessori crusaded for her educational techniques, while the world clashed in bloody war. She worked against great odds to convince the world that her educational principles provided the means by which the world might eliminate its gross problems. In fact, Dr. Montessori’s system was breeding individuals of such quality and self-confidence that they never required violence in order to solve their problems. While the adults murdered, the children she taught loved.

  Dr. Montessori’s method involves the recognition of the early development of the human baby. She centers her approach around the period of the infant’s life during which the child is growing constantly and striving energetically to learn more than in any other period of life; and she arranged an educational environment that allows this growth its fullest opportunity. Her approach boasts successes that her contemporaries thought impossible. She taught children to read before they were five, she taught algebra before nine; she accomplished discipline when it was thought impossible, not by lecturing, commanding or restricting, but by leaving the child alone in an environment where he could safely explore the world.

  Dr. Montessori stated that the child’s first impulse is to be independent, to do and learn everything by himself. She believed that parents tended to check the child in this pursuit and that, in so doing, they are working against the child’s nature. “Only through freedom and environmental experience is it possible for human development to occur,” she said.

  The infant learns by experience. He is constantly bombarded by countless sensory materials. But the immediate objects of his awareness follow patterns that he quickly learns to grasp. His capacity is fully open to all experience. Although later, he does not remember much of his early experiences, everything is registered, absorbed into his personality. If his environment is peaceful, orderly and inspiring, he sets patterns of mental stability. His capacity for dealing with the exigencies of the wider contexts of reality are thereby enhanced. “…an educational technique based on the psychology of infantile development.”

  In the development of her technique, Dr. Montessori made several interesting discoveries. She found that the child has a tendency to seek development that serves its growth, i.e., its life. In her chapter entitled “Discipline and the Teacher” she actually enters the area of philosophy known as ethics. She mentions that this selectivity corresponds with what some philosophers call the difference in man, i.e., that man is a being of volitional consciousness. He must choose to think or not to think. The child naturally chooses to think if the stress on thinking is there in his environment. She also states that a misdirected or regressive education can cause this selectivity to disappear.

  There are several areas upon which I take issue with Dr. Montessori. As she states (P. 71 “The Spiritual Embryo”), the child’s purpose is adaptation. But I feel that this adaptation differs from an animal’s adaptation to environment. The child’s adaptation is more probably to his own capacities for living in that environment and also, not primarily for adapting, but for discovering his capacities to understand the environment, so that he might later as a mature person alter it to his own needs, and not vice versa. This principle, as I have stated, is consistent with man, the biological entity that he is. The principle of adaptation, as Dr. Montessori states it, applies to animals and other organisms but not completely to man. Man’s adaptation is to himself.

  Dr. Montessori also observes that obedience and social collectivization are a result of the ‘normalization’ that her schools produce in children. I do not doubt that she had seen many children develop these tendencies, but I feel that her attributing these outcomes to something natural in the human psyche may need to be clarified. It would seem that these outcomes occur not because they are natural, but more because of the exceptional schooling and its encouragement of the natural child. Montessori children develop a strong trust in their elders and those around them, and consequently, feel no desire to rebel. Indeed, if the entire educational system were composed of Montessori schools, we may have the harmony she glorifies.

  Sadly, it is not and I fear that after contact with the outer world, the Montessori youngster learns to think twice about such issues as obedience and collectivization. To be fair to Dr. Montessori, it may well be that through argumentation of this sort, she may have been trying to sell her ideas to dictators like Mussolini who wanted just this sort of “obedience”. We must remember that the times when she lived were not the most peaceful; nor the freest. And all she wanted from her life was to teach and awaken young minds.

  The Individual versus the Collective

  The battle of the Individual versus the collective is one waged for centuries. All of human history has been consumed by this struggle. For the most part, the collective has been winning.

  Most of the ideas and philosophies that have dominated throughout history have been handed down to us by the conquerors of man, the men who succeeded in corralling men into herds of mindless, submissive and willing slaves. It should be little wonder that these philosophies dominate our lives and our world today. They can now be thrown off.

  Throughout history, collectivism and its various equivalents have had a virtual monopoly when it comes to determining what is good behavior. For collectivism, man advances society by being self-sacrificial, obedient, submissive and kindly. The assumption has always been that being a good collectivist is the equivalent of being a good citizen. Challenging collectivism has been considered the equivalent of advocating criminal behavior. There was no such thing as rational behavior or egoism because to advocate such behaviors was tantamount to advocating criminality. Collectivism ruled the day and established all the standards regarding appropriate behavior and morality.

  Today, the innocent person is bludgeoned with ideas like Original Sin, moral disapproval and mysticism, all of which tell him that the power of the collective is overwhelming, that it is his only reality, his only source of life and knowledge, his only source of power and self-esteem. He has absorbed envy and hatred of the innocent because his own innocence was once destroyed by others. He has become a dutiful executioner. Innocence has little chance when all must fear, all must join, all must participate—or else.

  The battle for the individual, for his rights, for his ego, for his love of life has had few advocates. Most fighters for the Individual accepted the terms of the collectivists and sought their goals. They did not know the nature of the evil they were appeasing. If one could look into the eyes of an Attila one would see that he understood only conquest, death and plunder; one would understand the nature of the enemy of the individual. Everything else, collectivism, altruism, Original Sin, and the innate depravity of man, are merely timid expressions of this view, timid because they serve only to prepare the way for dictatorship.

  When confronted by collective influences, the Individualist learns not to buckle under to the collective. The collective is his enemy because it presumes that it should be foremost in his mind. He knows that collectivism is an invasion of the self.

  The Individualist puts his own thinking and feelings foremost. The Individualist is self-authorized to do what he thinks is right. This is why we have the battle of the Individual versus the collective. The Individualist understands that collectivism is the enemy because it is constantly waging war on him while he continues to pursue his goals and wages war on no one. To the Individualist, the stench of collectivism is clear and present. Whenever it rears its head, he is quick to identify it and deal with it.

  Individualism holds that the essence of human life is the singular being. It upholds the Individual as a self-creating entity whose goal is to obtain as much experience, love, pleasure and accomplishment as possible. Man, says Individualism, is a being of self-created soul, a being whose thoughts and feelings proceed from his independent mind.

  The term Individualist is well-known and identifiable historically. But there is no discussion or analysis of the person whose life revolves around other people and collectivism. We wi
ll call him the “otherist”.[3]

  The difference between the otherist and the Individualist is too great not to be noticed. While the Individualist focuses on his knowledge, the otherist focuses on his fear of others. The Individualist is moved by self-confidence. The otherist is restricted by self-doubt. When confronted by an imposing viewpoint, the otherist thinks, "How can I compromise?" while the Individualist would say, "He is wrong."

  Most people do not accept the idea that there is a viewpoint different from "otherism." They spend their lives thinking they are being rational, objective and correct; while they hold the premise of living within the opinions of others. There is even a form of Individualism, a pseudo-Individualism within otherism; it consists of pretending to be an Individualist under the belief that such a pretense will bring acceptance by others. This fake Individualism is an effort to obtain value from others instead of from one's self and is usually expressed through mindless rebellion--and is called Individualism. Yet, as with all forms of "otherism" it is a reversal of cause and effect, an effort to obtain self-value from the opinions of others; while the true Individualist obtains self-value from his self. When we hear arguments against Individualism in our culture, what we hear most often are arguments against this pseudo-Individualism.

  If the otherist were to take an objective look at his life, he will find that every element of his life is chosen because of one basic question: "What impact will my thoughts and actions have on the opinions of others and how will those opinions reflect upon my self appraisal?" The otherist is fraught with tension (the fight or flight response), doubt about himself, suffering whose source he does not understand, the pain of guilt, and the feeling that he must forgo happiness. He cowers before others. The larger the group, the humbler he becomes.

  Otherism offers collective values and goals, and gives mandatory participation, and mandatory charity, and rules, and tasks and legislated morality. The self wonders what is wrong. The true self needs reason. Otherism needs faith, joining and blind chance. The self needs self-control. Otherism needs the control of others. The self needs spontaneity and free will. Otherism needs control and obedience. The self needs self-love. Otherism needs hatred of the self and love of the group.

  Sadly, for the otherist, there is no such thing as a collective. There are only individuals. The collective is not an entity, not a reality, only a fiction whose only goal is to bind each Individual in common action toward common goals. Collectivism is the enemy of the Individualist, because the true Individualist will not submit, will not allow his body and mind to be exploited for the sake of goals that benefit no one.

  The Individualist pursues his goals completely and without guilt. He is not burdened with the struggle over self-confidence like the otherist because he does not see his value as coming from others. His value comes from himself and he believes in his own integrity. The Individualist fears no person and has no fear or guilt. He judges others from the perspective of his own knowledge and goals. He does not think that there is something sacrosanct about the mind or opinions of another human being. He does not believe that every person has more knowledge than he. He challenges each Individual to prove his worth through word and deed, good thinking, high values and achievement. An Individualist judges each person based upon his own self-value and when he must, he compares the other person to himself. He does not compare himself to the other person.

  The otherist fears all human beings because he has been taught to believe he has no right to judge others. Since there is no collective, the otherist fears a loosely approximate entity called “they.” He approaches life with his head bent in humility and fear. What he fears is the wrath of any person who presumes to be the moral authority, the person who wears the mask of anger and superiority. Since the otherist submits to collective authority, he and his life are worthless except in relation to the greatness of the others. He cannot be happy and free of guilt because he believes man is an un-perfectible subject who must join groups to survive. His every thought consists of the questions: “What are they doing?” “What will they do to me?” “Are they angry at me?” “What do they think?” “Are they going to be angry?” “What will they think?” etc.

  Most people are "otherists." They function only within the premises of collectivism. They struggle to understand its nuances and principles, thinking, like Machiavelli, that there is only one way to deal with men, believing that group-thinking is the last word, unaware that there is another universe of the Individual that has rarely been explored, where human potential has lain dormant, where man has barely learned to fly on wings he created.

  Frustrated by his inability to survive (putting others first has made him incapable of survival), the otherist can only do one thing--destroy the individual--in himself and in any person who shows a sense of pride. The otherist labels pride as a naive attitude that deserves a good round of ridicule. The otherist ridicules. The Individualist ignores the otherist.

  Collectivism and otherism, however, are merely rationalizations to which the otherist clings in order to help him deal with his fundamental fear of living. The emotional difference between the Individualist and the otherist is that the Individualist fears nothing, especially life, and the otherist fears the responsibilities and requirements of living and being alive.

  How does a person become an otherist? Except for the fact that Individualism is seldom presented as a viable option in life, the basic cause of otherism is terror felt by a young person over cruel encounters with others. This terror is culturally induced, but it is so strong that most young people do not know how to deal with it. They learn to survive by capitulating to the values of others, joining them by means of appeasement and pretense. The appeasement extends as far as absorbing their values and the pretense is that he also holds those values.

  The terror does not go away. This is because the otherist attempts to drown that terror in denial, to hold it unacknowledged in his mind. He suppresses the knowledge of his confusion and pretends that everything is all right. This creates a need for the release of fear-generated tension. This release is found in ritual joining with the group.

  Collectivism creates a dualism within man’s mind and body, a conflict wherein his thoughts of himself are confronted by thoughts of others. Collectivism says put others above oneself and live for others. His body (implicitly) tells him, I am one and Individual with my own needs and thoughts. This conflict places man in an endless battle against himself, where the effort to put others first and the effort to live for his own benefit clash.

  All the forces of society (today) are poised to show disapproval and ostracism for any man who would live and think individually. These forces, if they are successful, create a ritualized man whose knowledge and actions come from the collective and require a constant repetition of the ideas and precepts of the collective. Sacrifice and ritualism go hand-in-hand and serve to eliminate man’s ability to survive. Knowledge, gained from observation, takes secondary importance to faith and collectively provided “knowledge.” Political correctness is the otherist’s stock in trade. He will never stray from the opinion of the group. He is not made that way.

  The otherist has serious doubts about his identity. This is because his mental focus is always on others and who they are, and he defines himself in relation to others. With collectivism, each person blends into the collective and becomes indistinguishable from all others. He plunges into an orgy of promiscuous relationships where value is found, not in being different but in being the same. The standards of behavior and beauty become common standards. The otherist looks to others to determine his identity and what he should become. "What does he think of me?" is a constant question. He drifts on a proverbial roller coaster. When someone is nice to him, he is high, when someone is cruel, he plunges to the depths of unhappiness or anger. He has no sense of the person he has made because he has no way of knowing with certainty, what he has become.

  The otherist, is hidden and suppressed. Yet, he fights for
expression nonetheless. Otherism is such an uncomfortable state that the beleaguered self is driven by necessity to fight for its self-respect. This struggle, given the absence of understanding, might be expressed in neurosis, mindless rebellion, acting out and inappropriate behavior, but it is still a struggle for some sense of control of life. It is as if, self-doubt is causing the self to lash out at life and the oppressive injunctions of collectivism. But he will never challenge others.

  The otherist lives with confusion and difficulty, spending much time reclaiming himself from the negative consequences of his otherism. His life does not work and he gets little satisfaction from putting others above himself. This makes life a drudgery and happiness an impossibility. He must fake all the normal emotions and pretend that he is really independent. Still there is the inner doubt.

  On the other hand, the independent person does not fear the collective. He is free to consider the facts and judge with his own, and only his own mind. Proper action is therefore much easier to determine and implement because he has an idea of how he derived his knowledge and how it will affect reality. Moral certainty is much easier to accomplish and principled, value-directed action is the outcome. The Individualist’s life is much easier because he has fewer failures and fewer problems from which to extricate himself.