The Evolution of Individuality


Add New Comment

The Evolution of Individuality

 

Humanity is in the process of evolving from collective uniformity to increasing individual variation and diversity. This movement has gained impetus from the growing recognition that the overall strength and sustainability of the collective is proportionate to the value it accords to each individual human being and the active support it lends for full development of each individual’s unique, creative potentials. 

The relationship between the individual and the social collective is a crucial determinant of social development. The two are microcosm and macrocosm of one integrated whole which we call Society. The collective initiates social change through the actions of pioneering individuals – thinkers, artists, inventors, explorers, entrepreneurs, innovators – who give expression to the collective’s unrealized aspirations, unformed conceptions and unexpressed initiatives. Formed individuals seek to fulfill higher aspirations, express new conceptions and initiate new actions which are eventually accepted, imitated, organized and assimilated into the subconscious of the collective.

As humanity evolved from its animal ancestors in pre-history, Society emerged as an amorphous mass struggling to consolidate itself into a single viable, integrated entity. Once it succeeded in molding itself into a unified entity, it refused to tolerate divergent behavior among its members which might jeopardize that integrity. Even harmless attempts at variation were prohibited. Thus, gradually the collective emerged with a unified identity. 

Beyond this stage of assured survival of the social collective, development of the society throughout history was subconscious, by which I mean it occurred by sporadic, spontaneous and uncontrolled variation rather than by the concerted and coordinated effort of the social collective. Survival being the main objective, once it was assured, other activities were allowed to emerge and spread within strict limits but without conscious direction by the collective. 

During this latter phase, the accumulated subconscious experience of society leads to the acquisition of collective knowledge, but it remains unnoticed or unformulated and is not made conscious or explicit by the collective until it becomes conscious knowledge and is given conscious expression by one or a few members of the collective, such as the visionary individuals who first conceived and gave expression to the idea of a United States of America or the CERN scientist who gave expression to the potentials for a global information system based on hypertext, i.e. the Internet. Neither of these events sprang out of nowhere. Both were being prepared for by the cumulative collective experience, but realization of their potential required them to be given expression by a conscious representative of that collective. 

When society reaches the requisite stage of maturity, it waits for a representative member to emerge as a pioneer. If the collective is sufficiently prepared, society supports the pioneer’s initiative. The military leader, entrepreneur, social innovator are some expressions of this principle. Should the individual emerge ahead of his time, society ignores, resists or crushes him. The emergence of several pioneers helps the society convert its subconscious knowledge into a conscious possession. 

The pioneer, leader, entrepreneur, genius and all its other versions are various expressions of a common principle, the Individual who consciously embodies in himself all that the society has developed subconsciously. Each does it in his own unique way, formulating his thoughts as a strategy for action, but carrying with it in its substratum the substantial strength of the social collective from which the original inspiration has emerged. Such a thought-strategy has the potential to express itself in terms relevant to each specific field. As a TV broadcast reaches a wide audience, the actions of a representative pioneering individual ripple outwards to reach the whole society. 

Europe rebelled against the stifling social structure of the Middle Ages to develop Mind and mental individuality of thought in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom, but it was not able to fully translate the mental freedom into action because of the pressure for social conformity to religious, class and political structures. The ideas born in Europe took root and sprouted in the New World where a vast unsettled territory, the absence of established tradition and formal social structures made it possible for new ideas to express freely in innovative activities. Thus, individuality of thought born of intellectual freedom in Europe evolved into individuality of action born of physical freedom in America.     

The evolution of individuality remains incomplete. At the level of society, convention and conformity stifle individual freedom and creativity. Scientists hesitate to express ideas that have been rejected by their peers. Political leaders eschew new ideas in catering to the unenlightened and misguided self-interest of the electorate. Detroit’s carmakers compete to produce the car of yesterday for the world of tomorrow. The need today is for individuality of social action with the creative capacity to fashion more positive human relationships. It can be aided by mental individuals who give voice to the ideas that will guide social development in the future, such as the abolition of nuclear weapons, the end of competitive security paradigms, democratization of the UN, global action on the environment, global financial management, and establishment of world government. 

Evolution of Individuality

The differences between individuality and conformity in social organization may not be all that clearcut. While these may appear mutually exclusive issues, a mix of both has contributed to human survival and evolution under very differing conditions. Understanding the conditions requiring more of individuality or conformity / cohesion, or the appropriate mix of both,  may be important for future evolutionary success since humans are extremely adaptable.

Any form of governance / leadership needs to carefully balance the demands for individuality against conformity / cohesion for the common good. What are ther trade-offs under what selection pressures between the two? While it may be quite easy to superficially identify instances where one or other has succeeded, the reality is often more complex, even when we look at cases of personalities like Galileo and Darwin whose discoveries had immediate social consequences. We will always have individuals like Ramanuja whose theoretical insights / discoveries are far ahead of their time. The process of science and technology for enterprise and development seems to demand a social 'environment' promoting individuality at the founding phase to capture creative discoveries and innovations, but the successive phase of uptake / 'mainstreaming' of new discoveries and innovations seems to require a different kind of dynamics and individuality since only a very small fraction of doscoveries / innovations are normally successfull and applied.

The emergence of creativity / individuality is a complex psycho-social dynamic / tension field between the individual and society that is not fully understood.Arthur Koestler tried to capture some elements of it.  How does one create a productive dynamic tension field / social 'setting' for the emergence of individuality based on -

a) Leadership styles, empowerment and administrative systems

b) Group size and composition at different levels and scales,

c) Communications and learning dynamics,

d) Capablity and socio-economic opportunity,

e) Peer recognition and participation, representation and accountability,

f) Group cohesion vs  proximity,

g) Division / Complementarity vs uniformity / similarity of endowments and labour,

h) Permeability in relation to other entities and syntality / integration of the immediate group  and partnerships in terms of 'security' / 'survival' concerns?