Individual and Collective

To inquire into the relationship between an individual and the collective, let us begin by examining the individual.

What is it that an individual is made of?

An individual is not just a biological being. An individual is defined by the layers of abstractions that give them their identities, frameworks, templates, norms and expectations for ways of living and acting, belief systems, ideologies etc. to understand the world they live in etc. A child is born into these collective abstractions, is shaped by and made of them. All the desires of the individual to be and act in the world spring forth from this world of abstractions.

An individual can be said to be a bundle of abstractions as received from the collective.

In other words, the collective abstractions shape the individual – who they think they are and who they want to be.

One wants to change the world, rule it, feels oppressed by it, struggles against it, conforms to the template provided by it, or rebels against it, wants to make a name for oneself in its eyes, and so on. One tries to find happiness in the world, by following its rules or by breaking them. Either way, an individual appears to be irrevocably tied to the collective in the way that they act.

On one hand, one feels safer, more secure and less alone by surrendering more and more of one’s individuality to the collective-i.e. something greater than oneself. Yet at the same time one constantly tries to assert and build one’s individuality – i.e. one’s identity as clearly differentiated from one’s world, that too often at the insistence of the collective.

So, an individual, shaped by the collective and always acting in relation with the collective, who finds succour in its shelter, is also on this quest to be more of itself, to break the shackles imposed by the world.

This tension between the quest to build more and more of one’s individuality and the fact of finding safety and meaning in the collective that has shaped one and which one seeks to struggle against, for and in, represents the strange and rather confusing relationship between the two.

And what about the world, the collective? What is it made of? What is it that shapes it?

Where do all the collective institutions that shape us, like religion, society, family etc. exist? The institutions that shape us exist primarily in the mind. In the physical world they manifest in symbols, buildings, books, laws etc, but those are just the representations of the institutions. In the physical existence all that we see are biological creatures and physical forms- both natural and man-made. It is clear that these institutions are not physical in nature. They are concepts and like all concepts their origin lies primarily in the mind.

The collective with all its institutions can perhaps be taken akin to a concept that emerges, or is always in the process of emerging through the actions, intentions, desires, fears etc. of the individuals.

In other words- the collective institutions are mental objects i.e., abstractions.

The individual, who is acted upon by these institutions, responds by constantly acting upon these institutions in return, to solidify them, to modify them, to protect them or to attack them, to replace them with new ones etc. The individual constantly shapes the collective, as does the collective shape the individual.

This constant action of the two upon each other then often appears to be an unending, mortal conflict, at the end of which one must emerge victorious over the other.

But is that really so? Is the relationship between the two only one of struggle?

If we examine our state today both collectively and individually, what parallels do we see?

Collectively we have the tribalism of nation states, religions, races, the conflicts and wars, the authoritarianism of leaders and their governments, poverty, hunger, the destruction of the natural world that includes global warming and destruction of other species, the breathtaking technological advancements in almost every aspect of human existence, conquest of outer space, the glut of information and misinformation etc.

This collective actuality is shaped by the individual. But it also shapes the individual.

On the individual level we have- loneliness, being torn between opposing desires and fears, between pain and pleasure, with one always leading to the other, confusion- not knowing how to act in the world, relying or hoping for a guide, teacher, an expert or messiah to relieve one of one’s misery, seeking to find happiness in material possessions or non-material goals, tormented by greed and jealousy, battling mental illnesses of various kinds etc.

The individual actuality is shaped by the collective, as much as it shapes it.

Can we see clearly the connection between the state of the collective and the state of the individual? Does one not lead to the other? Is there any issue, whether of the collective or of the individual that is not connected to all other issues?

So who shapes whom? Whatever the individual does, the collective does the same, just in a different form and on a different scale, and vice versa. Whatever happens to the individual is also happening to the collective, and vice versa. Each of them is both the shaper and shaped.

So is there any difference between the two?

The shaper and the shaped, the individual and the collective are essentially one- a field of abstractions. Both individual and collective are mental objects or constructs, that exist in the mind i.e. this field of abstractions. And it is from this field of abstractions that all the thoughts and actions spring.

Though because one is conditioned to see them as separate from each other, the struggle of one against the other goes on and on and all the suffering with it.

An imaginary battle, between imaginary entities, but that which is taken to be real.

It is the complex world of abstractions (i.e., the known) that maintains its continuity through the battle between the two, through the false dichotomy of individual and collective. In fact, one could even say that that the two entities are a clever invention, a ploy by this field of abstractions to maintain its continuity, to preserve itself.

But all this is merely intellectual understanding, in the same field of abstractions.

One must see for oneself, non-intellectually, how the collective operates through and in oneself, and how one operates in and through the collective.

One must watch the process as it happens, in one’s daily life. How one’s actions, choices and thoughts are shaped by and shape the world every moment.

One must watch the voices of fear and desire that push us to be and to act in the world in certain ways, that tell us that we exist independently from the world and hence can act upon it, or that we are nothing but products of the collective.

As well the voices that prevent us from seeing all this.

It is in this watching that the inquiry unfolds.

Watching not as an individual with collective as an object, but watching both the individual and their objects.- watching without a watcher. In such an action the dichotomy dissolves, each and every moment as it arises.

And if one sees all this clearly, then what would be the nature of action in day to day life? How would one act, if not to change or maintain the status quo of the world, or of oneself as an individual? Is there then an action that is not based on abstractions, but rather rooted in reality- an intelligent response to each situation as it presents itself?