Rich 1

Dylan Rich

Professor Monardi

PSC 101

February 13, 2018

Paper 4, Question 1

Radical Individualism is an interesting concept; a state of mind that is literally incapable

of valuing cooperation outside of one's own community. In our modern and highly connected

world, widespread adoption of this system of belief would spell doom. Fortunately, Radical

Individualism is not widespread, despite the pressures and demands of modern society. Looking

out for your own self-interest is a natural and healthy behavior, but only becomes radical when

the environment encourages insulation from your fellow man. Humanity is largely empathetic;

we take care of our own interests but when we can, we lift others. It is only when we become

separated from those around us that Individualism can become Radical.

The Suburbanization of America had a tremendous impact on our culture. The national

identity crystallized into what we call the American dream; cleaning a brand-new car in the

driveway next to a white picket fence, dinner on the table inside, a successful self-made man.

The world has moved on from those “golden days.” More and more issues have been raised over

aspects of this dream, such as gender roles, consumerism, etc. Radical individualism can also be

traced back to this cultural shift. Moving from the crowded interdependent life in the big city and

from the hard-working slog of the country to this new creation of pre-planned communities gave

citizens both free time and a moderate amount of space. This can be considered a kind of

“Goldilocks zone.” If there was a big job that needed to be done, someone was nearby and

willing to do it for a modest price. On the other hand, not sharing walls with your neighbors gave
 Rich 2

a degree of blessed protection from their personal dramas. No longer did an American family

clearly rely on the few neighbors nearby to accomplish major tasks, and no longer did you have

to put up with the neighbor above's late night dances. You could focus on yourself and so Radical

Individualism was able to form. Encouraged by the national race to be the best, to get to the top,

workers of all classes and fields did “what had to be done” to get ahead. Advertisers and

managers, the quiet leaders of the majority, noticed the shift and encouraged it for their own

gain. “Keeping up with the Joneses” became a new national pastime, wearing away at the

community spirit. This was a slow and subtle change, but de Tocqueville's concerns about

egoism (Hudson, 107) became more relevant.

Our contemporary environment is undergoing another shift. The internet is changing this

arena as in all other aspects of life. Before the Internet, it was easy to remain insulated from the

concerns of those around you, and even more so to those far distant, heard only on the radio or

read in a newspaper. Now, heart-wrenching images of loss and devastation circle the globe

immediately, giving us instant and constant access to crises both local and afield. Since the

millennium, we have been made aware of these disasters, but only recently have we become able

to directly react. The combined advents of social media and crowdfunding for charity enable us

to reach out, invalidating our excuse of “there is nothing I can do.” Studies have shown that

social media inspires empathy toward “outsider” or “other” groups (Wheeler and Quinn, 9).

Radical Individualism and Empathy cannot coexist. While some claim the internet is the leading

cause of Radical Individualism, I contest that this only appears to be so due to the literal

immaturity of the internet. The children now proclaiming their independence are maturing into

empathetic adults, aware of those around them both physically and digitally and creating new

communities.
 Rich 3

Works Cited

Hudson, William E. American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America's Future. ,

2017. Print.

Wheeler, Hannah, and Courtney Quinn. “Can Facebook Aid Sustainability? An Investigation of
Empathy Expression within the Humans of New York Blog.” Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 6, 2017,
p. 1005.