As Petre Roman would have said during the Revolution, that sounds like hell, but history has shown that it is true. Individualism does not mean, as it would seem, considering the etymology, egoism. On the contrary, individualism implies assigning a value to the individual, not the group he belongs to. If a certain individual has value by himself, not through the group he belongs to, clan, ginta, complicated, social class etc. then society is better. This is probably where all the social and political delights that we enjoy start, Europeans, we indulged, in some areas, starting over two thousand years ago (I mean the Athenian democracy), without realizing how lucky we are.
But it seems that this type of society is the exception, not the rule. In most societies, you exist through the group you belong to, too little by what you can do. And this is not only about traditional societies (primitive), but also by some civilizations. In the states of today's territory of India, in Antiquity, but also later, there were no historical chronicles like those in the West. The king was a figure by virtue of his function, not by what he did special, he could not impose himself in history. There is the king, not a particular king. History as we see it, there it was considered not to exist. Time was just running out, but social changes or any kind did not exist. Everything was going the same way, for thousands of years, everyone knew their role, no one could change anything essential. Because it was predetermined in the laws of nature. That is why there are difficulties in knowing the names of the historical characters from this area, because they were not recorded, as they did not record their deeds. For the simple reason that their world view considers this absolutely unnecessary. People were born into castes, social mobility (the transition from one caste to another, in this case) it was non-existent.
Obama's success, maybe less shocking in Ancient Rome than now
It seems difficult to compare with what is happening in Europe, in Greece and then in Rome, but not only. We know from which clan the Hippocrates were, aristotle, Thales or Aristophanes ? Sure, we have vague data about the city or island they came from. These people were important because of what they did, that's how they stayed. More even, all free men dreamed of individual glory. When a boy was born, his parents dreamed that he would become a "champion" at the Olympic Games. However hard one's road to success might be in those places, there is a chance. In Rome, things were not too different. The Romans record heroic deeds, nobile, real or less real, of characters whose origin does not recommend them for such a thing. In plus, despite the extraordinary hardness, The Roman Empire was characterized by social mobility, there is always the possibility to move from one class to another. They were emperors from all areas of the empire. During the time of the Romanians, we probably wouldn't have been so surprised by Obama's success. There were Roman emperors born in Africa, although they belonged to the white race.
Where did individualism begin??
Like other good things, individualism is favored by war situations, of the crisis in general. It seems like long stability, not war or crises are the greatest dangers that beset human society. Crisis situations favor the assertion of nonconformist individuals, competent, full of personality, which in other conditions would be removed. Maybe not by chance, the culture in which the hoplites appeared gave birth not only to democracy, but it was characterized by individualism. Believable or not, individualism died in medieval Europe until the Black Death, the devastating epidemic of the 14th century. In a report on Discovery, they were talking about a Western character with an important political role, very rich and great philanthropist, about whose grave nothing is known, precisely because of the fact that individualism, in any form, was discouraged by the Church in the European Middle Ages, the previous period of that epidemic.. Individualities appear after the epidemic that decimated the population of Europe, but it also affected the society of the time. The people who had no chance before, precisely because of their social origin, I get to be successful. It was not the doctors approved by the Church who established the methods of preventing the spread of the epidemic, they failed miserably with their fantasies, but simple people, of good sense, who noticed that if the disease did not appear in 40 days, it will never appear (quarantine).
Modern science, which abounded since its beginnings in people from modest social backgrounds, it appeared only as a result of individualism. Every scientist, by definition, seeks to do original things, experiences that no one has done before, but also theories that no one has issued before. He does not endlessly interpret sacred texts, hundreds or thousands of years old, which were born from divine revelations.
Not only science, but also modern democracy, humanistic values, human rights etc. it would be the natural consequence of the reappearance of individualism in Europe. Among the values of Antiquity to which Renaissance Europe returned, individualism should have a place of honor (fortunately, The Europeans had something to fall back on, others don't). Democracy, liberalism presented advantages in those historical conditions, but they could not have appeared if there was a critical mass of nonconformist people, individualists, he would not have found the chance to assert himself and assert his values. It was that structure of people that was now favored, which was needed. Probably the same type of people who in Antiquity would be "placed by a fortress" as in the legend of Romulus and Remus.
Some time ago, I witnessed a discussion about human rights. Who says that man must have rights? It's like a kind of real revelation, one could say, the axiom. But the formulation of human rights would only be a mental constitution of this type of man (his vision from a few centuries ago). He felt that he needed these rights to feel free and develop. Unfortunately, most people do not feel this need, neither now nor then.
Since then things have changed. Not only that now this type of man would feel that he needs more such rights, but the socio-economic conditions, much more stable, it no longer favors this type of man. Now among successful people this type is less represented. Things that horrified us a few decades or centuries ago, now I come back to the actuality. We live in a world where the monopoly of the guilds is starting to appear again, in which freedom of expression is no longer what it was¦the Middle Ages, from which we wanted to detach ourselves, he starts to show his fangs again. Individualism matters less, but belonging to a group. In poor countries like Romania, it is known that without files you can't get anywhere. Characters who by themselves are nothing are publicized, but only through fathers, partner, party.
A painted political crow at the White House?
What is happening in Romania is serious, but as one of the most liberal countries in the world, maybe the most liberal, The USA is in this situation, it's very serious. The world no longer has a rabbit to run after, it no longer has a landmark. It is very serious that in the 21st century we enjoy ourselves as an African American (or how to say it politically correctly) arrive at the White House. This should have happened a long time ago, as a long time ago a woman was supposed to be president in this country. It could be a new era, s-ar pota revigora America? It could blow a wind of positive change all over the world? It would be nice to be like that, we all want, unfortunately, things might be totally different. Dl. Obama, otherwise very nice, (but which I personally do not consider black, not only is he half white, but he has a chosen education, he didn't grow up in the ghetto) although he is a member of the Democratic Party, had a less liberal campaign than McCain's. Elements in his CV make him less liberal than McCain. There is a lot of money behind him, probably many interest groups. Perhaps his success shows to a greater extent not the melting of the racial prejudices of the electorate, but of interest groups. Europe is full of racism and anti-Semitism, as the statistics show, precisely because of the decline of individualism, hard to believe that America is so different. Until a president with CV elements similar to Mrs. Oprah Winfrey comes to the White House, from my point of view, America has only one tanned president, as Berlusconi says. The events will prove if Mr. Obama is exactly what we want, but not just a painted political crow.
Individualism and morality
Liberalism, whose advantages in the economy and in society are well-known, is associated with individualism. Individualism does not mean indifference to other people, on the contrary, gives importance to man as an individual and not as a group, the man with his personal qualities. Individualistic people want happiness and personal dignity, they do not simply want to survive and prosper through the group. For them, every individual matters, regardless of race, sex, religion etc. Also, wanting to have a better image of himself in front of his own eyes, they do not accept to do harm with the ease with which those who feel part of a group do it. Beyond empathy, sometimes we avoid certain facts precisely so as not to alter our self-image. I don't do that, individualistic people often say.
Interesting if the societies in which there was individualism (most often because of militancy) in the past they are more prone to assimilate democracy now. Also, we cannot help asking ourselves if there are no differences, beyond cultural ones, that is, genetics, between different ethnic groups, in the availability towards individualism. Another question, which any evolutionism would ask if the Black Death did not somehow also determine a selection, people resistant to that infection, maybe they had other qualities? But most likely, genetic factors have nuances, the cultural and environmental ones are undoubtedly the most important.
Not by chance, the richest continent in resources, but with the poorest people, but perhaps also the biggest corruption, and Africa. Tribal ties are still very important there. Any genetic connection with the former Yugoslavia, where political and religious indoctrination led to the genocide of the ˜90s? On the other hand, in Islamic fundamentalist countries, family ties, group, tribe are very important. The status of women is related to this phenomenon, they are family objects, which are not allowed to depreciate.
In crisis conditions, people tend to adapt to nature, that is, to do things that really change things, not at society, that is, to create and maintain favorable alliances. These aspects are discussed in the Civilization of Hunger. If these crises, which remind us that we are human, if it doesn't exist, they should be invented. Europe has always been lucky with crises. Probably the lack of natural barriers that are very difficult to cross has prevented the isolation of populations since Antiquity. Complete safety was impossible. Full safety, lull, very warm life, they started to settle in Europe¦
http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revista-presei/International/109594/Cine-l-a-fac…
http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revista-presei/International/110688/Modelul-Obam…
