On Individualism

This is an article I working on for the Rambler. It is far too long and will have to be trimmed but I'm submitting it anyway. I'm putting the full text, unedited, here for reference sake and so people will have a place to read it if they want to. It's somewhat of an independent train of thought for a Christendomer, which makes it a great case point of its own thesis. Enjoy.

In defense of Individualism

- 1: A doctrine that the views of the individual ought to be ethically paramount;
- 2: The conception that all values, rights and duties originate in the individual
- 3: A theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action and interests
--Miriam-Webster 9th New Collegiate Dictionary

This word “individualism,” is not commonly spoken at Christendom. When it is, it is usually spoken of as some sort of enemy, the philosophical antithesis of all things Christendom, all things Catholic. “When individualism started to take charge during the Enlightenment it was the beginning of the end for Catholic culture,” and “It's this modern individualism that's the cause of all of society's corruption,” are not uncommon things to hear Christendomers say. I however hold a different view. I believe that the greatest threat to modern society, and to Catholicism in particular, is a lack of individualism.
My argument is a simple one: Individualism is a necessary element of the human character. Imagine if you will, a young man named Johnny. Johnny lacks initiative, his own sense of judgment, any cares, interests, or values not established by the group or (what he understands to be) a higher authority. Johnny sounds pretty boring doesn't he? Put Johnny in a good Catholic bubble like Christendom and what does Johnny do? He goes to mass receives the sacraments, and pursues good wholesome studies; the environment drives him to do this. Put Johnny in a vacuum by himself and what does he do? Probably nothing; there is no-one to tell Johnny what to do. Now put Johnny face-to-face with modern society, modern criticism, modern corruption. What does he do now? That's right, Johnny conforms. He adopts society's values, beliefs, behaviors. Given that a large portion of modern society believes in abortion rights, secularism and sexual liberation, he'd likely adopt these beliefs. Now, what if Johnny was raised in a good Catholic bubble like Christendom but then left and entered modern society to live and work. Johnny has spent his entire life till now in a good environment absorbing good values but now his values are in conflict with his environment. Previously Johnny practiced his faith but then it was easy. Now it will be hard. He will have trouble standing up to society and its criticisms. He will either live miserably unable to justify himself to society or cave to society's pressures. This because Johny lacked initiative, his own sense of judgment, any cares, interests, or values of his own. In short, it is because Johnny is formed solely by the group. He is not an individual.
Now, this may seem like an extreme example. After all, Johnny as I described him does not seem like a real person. He is an automaton. Virtually everybody in the world has his interests, beliefs and values of his own. At least here at Christendom we have people interested in art, philosophy, politics, even math and science and often they pursuit these things on their own with no outside pressure. But on deeper examination this is a real issue. According to a Gallup poll people tend to lose their faith in college. The transferal to college is the place where most children leave the instruction and support of their parents and leave to survive on their own. It is where they, for the first time, are left to their own devices to face society and its criticism of Catholicism and they cave, they surrender. This is not just an issue with people who go to secular schools but also with those who go to good Catholic places like Christendom. In general, about a quarter of the graduating at Christendom remains around Front Royal and in the Christendom community. Front Royal and the Shenandoah Valley have by far the highest percentage of Catholic residents than any other region of Virginia. When people graduate, often they never enter the world; they are uncomfortable anywhere else but Christendom. Christendom is one of the few places in the world where their values won't be questioned, where living as a Catholic isn't opposed but encouraged by the group. This is also a problem at many other conservative Catholic colleges. The problem is that Christendomers lack individualism; they are too dependent on the community of Christendom College, too dependent on the group.
The problem is even more significant than that however. The motto of Christendom College is “To Restore All Things In Christ.” This implies and I was lead to believe that it meant that Christendom's mission is ultimately to convert the world, to bring this secular society back to Christ. If Christendomers don't go out into the world and make actual contact with secular society, how can it possibly convert it? It cannot. All over the country Catholics are in retreat. In Florida just this past year, Thomas Monaghan founded Ave Maria-ville, a place where Catholics can live free of the pressures of the secular world. Homeschooling is on the rise (not a knock on homeschooling, being myself a former homeschooler, but only and attack on when it is used as a means to avoid actual contact with society.) Graduates of good Catholic colleges are finding employment primarily at other Catholic colleges and educational institutions or in small companies in low paying jobs owned by a few enterprising graduates. Catholics are failing in their duties as citizens of this world. Organizations, such as the Legion of Mary, as good as they are, are being used as a replacement for actual individual contact with secular world. Conversions are not won primarily through door to door activity but through but through the example that Catholics set forth, particularly the example that personal Catholics friends and associates set. People are impressed by individual example and if the individual example that Catholics set is one of weak personal faith and conviction, or one that doesn't exist because Catholics have retreated and failed to even exist as friends and associates to these people. Catholics are slowly but surely, retreating from the world on a personal level and this is the primary cause of the failure of our Church to grow through conversion.
I maintain that the solution to this problem is the influx of a new wave of individualism in conservative Catholic thought and mentality, or at least in the Christendom mentality. But what is individualism? Contrary to popular opinion (around Christendom anyway) individualism is not synonymous with selfishness. On the contrary, a philosophy that emphasized selfish behavior and attitude would likely be called selfishism. Individualism focuses on individual behavior, which is a different thing altogether. The definition from the Miriam Webster Dictionary at top of this article, particularly the second and third definitions, provides a better understanding of what I am talking about. For the sake of this article, Individualism is the belief that all rights, duties and values originate in the individual and as a result all action and initiative originate in the individual. This is a two part definition and I will need to deal with both parts separately.
The first part, “Individualism is the belief that all rights, duties and values originate in the individual,” comes from the fact that all human society, from the largest nation to the smallest commune, is composed of individuals. The individual is the base unit of all society; even the family, the smallest self sufficient unit, cannot exist without individuals. A father commands and leads his family but his leadership if for naught without the individual cooperation of its members. Ultimately, every decision made by man is up to the individual. Whether it be to cooperate with and conform to those around him, or to 'go against the flow' and do differently. A ruler may issue a tax, but it is up to each and every individual in his realm whether to pay it or refuse and suffer the consequences. The Catholic Church may issue a decree but it is up to the individual whether to accept it on the Church's authority alone, on his own reason, or to reject it in whole or in part. This is a basic consequence of human free will. Thus, society, and all it's attributes, are reducible to the individuals that make it up. As a result, duties must be individual because the duties of society must be reduced ultimately to the duties of the individuals in society. Similarly, all rights and values are individual. This first part of the definition is a fact of life.
The second part of our definition, “All action and initiative originate in the individual,” is a consequence of the first part. If all action of society is reducible to the actions of the individuals who make up society, then clearly all human action is individual action. For anything to happen in society, individuals must decide to do so. Even more so, actions must originate in individuals. Society does not decide to go to war, individuals decide that society should go to war and other individuals then choose to cooperate with that decision. Thus for anything to happen in society, individuals must first make the decision to act. Often this means a governing body coming to a decision, but just as validly private individuals can make the decision. What must happen is that the decision must then be agreed upon by the other members of the society. A governing body has more tools to encourage the other members to come to agreement (the threat of force being primary) but a private individual is still able to garner support if he is intrepid and aggressive enough. If the enough of the society comes to agreement, then action ensues. The remaining members of society who not agree can either conform, refuse to contribute, or actively counteract the action, whatever it may be. This pattern is observable in both obvious societal action (the declaration and fighting of war) and in more general societal movement (The general adoption of the television.) The point is that societal action begins with individual decisions and initiative. Someone must first make the decision to act and people must make the decision to follow.
Now, in general, humanity can be divided into two kinds of individual. This is no clear division of humanity and in fact, the vast majority of humanity can be described as residing somewhere between the two types. These two types are: independents and conformists, that is, those who tend to make decisions independent of the decisions of others and those who base their decisions on others. To be more precise, one type keeps his will his own while the other allows his will to be directly influenced by others. Now, the first type does not necessarily make decisions regardless of the views of other but any affect that the views of others have on is are mediated by his own reason and emotions. The latter's dependence on his peers arises out of a number of reasons including man's conformist tendency or mob mentality which in turn is due to many reasons including personal indecisiveness and man's social aspect. (Basically, maintaining the views and values of a certain group is useful for advancement within the group and gaining the approval of other members of the group.) So, while one man's decisions are rooted in himself, the other man's decisions are rooted in others. Now, as I said before, it is highly unusual that anybody to be wholly one type or the other. The vast majority create their opinions and actions through both their own independent thought and on the views of others.
Individualism recognizing that all action and thought originates in individuals, emphasizes independence as a virtue. This is both, independence of intellect and independence of action. Because, people can either rely on themselves or others for their world views and action, they can either be the cause of public opinion and societal action or the result of it. Basically, all public opinion and societal action originates people acting as independents and is carried out by people acting as conformists. So, independents set the world stage; they create society, determine its course; they are the ones who determine whether the world goes to God or the Devil. So, if all atheists are independents and all Catholics are conformists, society will be given to the atheists. Contra wise, if all Catholics are independents and all atheists are conformists, the world will go to the Church. Thus, it is obvious that to be independent is a moral imperative for any Catholic. If independence is necessary for conversion and the spread of the faith, then how can anyone in good conscience be a conformist? The simple fact is one cannot.
Is it any wonder why the Catholic Church, and indeed, conservative Christianity in general is in such dire straits today? Young Catholics grow up being told such and such about their faith and they never question it or try to understand it. They merely accept it.
“Do you believe God exists?”
“Yes.”
“Do you believe God loves you?”
“Yes.”
“Do you believe the Church is the source of the truth?”
“Yes.”
“Why do you believe this?”
“I don't know.”
Is it any wonder why this person fails to win any converts? Is it any wonder why he is given to weird Catholic fringe movements? Is it any wonder why he is more likely to be converted to Mormonism, Buddhism, or Atheism than he is to convert one of them to Catholicism? How is anyone supposed to take him seriously? Even more important, how is he supposed to take himself seriously? When he reaches some secular institution and is confronted by all sorts of 'freethinking' people, how is he going to react. He may be in the right, but he does not know know that. All he knows is that the 'freethinkers' seem to have a better understanding and greater personal conviction than he does. He will either withdraw his religion to his local Church and avoid public expression of faith and confrontation of his cherished beliefs, or he will join the 'freethinkers' and follow them. What he will not do is look deeper into his faith and the issues raised and in so doing deepen his understanding and faith and hopefully present a good representation of what Catholicism is. He will not because he was raised not to.
How many have seen this happen, to people they know? How many people know someone of weak faith who will not admit to being a Catholic in public? How many people know someone who lost their faith in college or in the workplace? How many know someone whose faith goes no deeper than a weekly, wishy-washy sermon by a wishy washy priest? How many are hesitant to face the secular world and believe it to be unconquerable, impossible to convert, or so impossibly hostile to his faith that he fears it and would rather spend his life on a farm in a social bubble and teach impressionable Catholic youth to do the same thing? I personally doubt that there is one Christendomer who does not know at least one of these.
Now imagine, if every Catholic was raised, and encouraged to question his faith and learn about it. If he was encouraged to look into such questions as the existence of God, relationship of science and faith, and other similar questions; If he were encouraged to study, not only the Catholic side but the secular, the protestant, and the Muslim sides; If he were encouraged to do this on his own and to take initiative in these studies, would he not be much more prepared to answer such questions, to respond to such critics and to do so with intellectual certitude and authority? I do not simply mean the practice of some soft Catholics of taking there children to different denominations and asking them to choose their own faith, or the practice of ignoring the teachings of the Church entirely in favor of one's own judgment. I mean more. I mean the provision of more than the basics of Catechism, the encouragement of a broad range of study, and most importantly, the encouragement of individual initiative in this study. If this were to happen, the Catholic Church would take the offensive, and perhaps the secular, protestant, and Muslim world would be placed again on the retreat.
Would this mean the loss of faith of some people? Probably. Would this lead to a rise of 'alternative' (ie. heretical) theologies within the Church? Likely. But would the faith, conviction and influence of those who remain, rise dramatically? Definitely. People lose their faith every day, and odd theologies seem to be at an all time high, but conviction and firmness amongst the faithful is something severely lacking. Now is not the time for timidity and reactionary behavior but offense and all offensives garner casualties. The ranks must be strengthened and the weak weeded out (or rather let go) because they compromise the cause. This is what must be done If the Church is to once again take the offensive on the intellectual and social spheres of the modern world.
Now, I've highlighted and demonstrated what I believe the be the problem, I've posited what I believe to be the solution, I've given a simple rational explanation for my belief, and I've presented how I believe this solution would help and how it should happen, all the while descending into more and more rhetorical and demagogic language. Now, I hope you will independently view and consider these ideas, compare it to whatever body of knowledge you already possess, and act upon your conclusions without being prompted by a like minded authority or friend. Thank you for your patience and God Bless.