The importance / influence of the individual vs. the collective in politics / history?

[amorphous_constellation]

I was just wondering what everyone thought on this particular thing. I think this might have been covered before a long time ago... maybe, maybe not.

We all can see that individuals seem to generate influence, and direct history to different places. It seems like this happens in politics, in history, in religious stories..

Are most of these people products of where they came from , and so they are just place-holders for what was going to happen anyway.. or do you think that a lot of originality starts with individuals, and so then, the influence mostly goes out from them? Are they just rather random people who are 'riding the wave' of trends that were somehow initiated by collectives? And so then, the individuals are just the figures who fell into place, during different times that called for figures? Or do individuals generally generate ideas that are usually so original, that each thing they seem to do is an extreme rarity

 

[Stevicus]

I was just wondering what everyone thought on this particular thing. I think this might have been covered before a long time ago... maybe, maybe not.

We all can see that individuals seem to generate influence, and direct history to different places. It seems like this happens in politics, in history, in religious stories..

Are most of these people products of where they came from , and so they are just place-holders for what was going to happen anyway.. or do you think that a lot of originality starts with individuals, and so then, the influence mostly goes out from them? Are they just rather random people who are 'riding the wave' of trends that were somehow initiated by collectives? And so then, the individuals are just the figures who fell into place, during different times that called for figures? Or do individuals generally generate ideas that are usually so original, that each thing they seem to do is an extreme rarity

I think it could be argued that, if one focuses on the good of the collective, it stands to reason that it would be beneficial to the individuals within that collective. In practice, it seems more of a numbers game, at least when it comes to politics in a democratic society. Whoever gets the most votes gets to run the society, with the assumption that the collective majority should know what's best for the country.

Of course, all other things being equal, there will always be those who stand out from the crowd, as opposed to those who blend into the background. People develop different aptitudes and tastes. I suppose it can be questioned whether it comes from the individually personally, or if it's a product of upbringing, culture, education, or other outside factors. It's ironic that in a society which puts forth the message of individualism and "free to be you and me," there are so many people worried about what other people are wearing or whether or not they "fit in."

 

[PureX]

In any group of humans most people will see most thing mostly the same way. Although some people will see some things somewhat differently. And a couple of people will see most things very differently.

For any society of humans to remain strong, and thrive, it needs to be able to maintain it's integrity by protecting the core of it's way of life. But it also needs to be open to new ways of seeing and doing things that might be better, or be better suited to the inevitable changes that come in life. So that large group that see things in much the same way need to be maintained and honored, yet the small number of people that tend to be the 'outliers' also need to be heard, and their innovative views, considered. Cultures that are too conservative, stagnate, while cultures that are too liberal disintegrate. So a balance need to be maintained.

The big leaps forward tend to come from single extraordinary individuals because the vision that enables the individual to recognize them is, itself, a outlier. Strange people tend to see the world in strange ways. Something what they see turns out to be incredibly innovative and useful to the whole community. And sometimes it's just the opposite. But we have to remain open-minded or we'll miss good while we're trying to negate the bad.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I think it could be argued that, if one focuses on the good of the collective, it stands to reason that it would be beneficial to the individuals within that collective. In practice, it seems more of a numbers game, at least when it comes to politics in a democratic society. Whoever gets the most votes gets to run the society, with the assumption that the collective majority should know what's best for the country.

And is the collective majority watching for something new, or do they know what they want, and just waiting for it to be generated , from somewhere in the group.. There are complications with all of this. A collective be made to do what's not in its best interest, it can be fooled. But it seems like it can also be led to a higher level, and like that as well. I don't know.

I am too tired to give you a good reply at the moment

Of course, all other things being equal, there will always be those who stand out from the crowd, as opposed to those who blend into the background. People develop different aptitudes and tastes. I suppose it can be questioned whether it comes from the individually personally, or if it's a product of upbringing, culture, education, or other outside factors. It's ironic that in a society which puts forth the message of individualism and "free to be you and me," there are so many people worried about what other people are wearing or whether or not they "fit in."

I was thinking maybe it's not that ironic in the sense that there may be a hierarchy of influence, and there always was, and that's hard to break

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I was just wondering what everyone thought on this particular thing. I think this might have been covered before a long time ago... maybe, maybe not.

We all can see that individuals seem to generate influence, and direct history to different places. It seems like this happens in politics, in history, in religious stories..

Are most of these people products of where they came from , and so they are just place-holders for what was going to happen anyway.. or do you think that a lot of originality starts with individuals, and so then, the influence mostly goes out from them? Are they just rather random people who are 'riding the wave' of trends that were somehow initiated by collectives? And so then, the individuals are just the figures who fell into place, during different times that called for figures? Or do individuals generally generate ideas that are usually so original, that each thing they seem to do is an extreme rarity

It's a good topic.

When I was studying for my competency test for history, this issue came up. Traditionally, historians have looked at the broad strokes, mighty men who have shaped the lives of many. That has been changing. Not just because these men are the products of their cultures, but also because they would never have been able to do the things they do without the support of uncountable others.

This is why we have seen an influx of history shows about things like what the average home was like in Tudor England, or What were the lives of servants like in the 1800s, or what was family life like during the Edwardian era. Even in our fictitious shows, we are seeing far, far fewer series about the lives of the rich, and a whole lot more about ordinary people.

And of course like a true Tolkien fan, I can't leave this topic without mentioning that one of the deep themes of the Lord of the Rings was how the actions of a single small hobbit can change the fate of the world.

 

[Heyo]

I was just wondering what everyone thought on this particular thing. I think this might have been covered before a long time ago... maybe, maybe not.

We all can see that individuals seem to generate influence, and direct history to different places. It seems like this happens in politics, in history, in religious stories..

Are most of these people products of where they came from , and so they are just place-holders for what was going to happen anyway.. or do you think that a lot of originality starts with individuals, and so then, the influence mostly goes out from them? Are they just rather random people who are 'riding the wave' of trends that were somehow initiated by collectives? And so then, the individuals are just the figures who fell into place, during different times that called for figures? Or do individuals generally generate ideas that are usually so original, that each thing they seem to do is an extreme rarity

What if it's not an "either/or", but a "depends"? I think there are a few people who were far ahead of anybody else, with original ideas and deeper insight.
But most of the time, the people we see as unique are just the ones who got favoured by history. Every general or politician had a lot of helpers. Even in disciplines where solo accomplishments are possible, we often see that the "greats" weren't the only ones, just the ones remembered. Take Darwin as an example. Wallace had the same idea at the same time, independent of Darwin.

 

[PureX]

And is the collective majority watching for something new, or do they know what they want, and just waiting for it to be generated , from somewhere in the group.. There are complications with all of this. A collective be made to do what's not in its best interest, it can be fooled. But it seems like it can also be led to a higher level, and like that as well. I don't know.

I am too tired to give you a good reply at the moment

I was thinking maybe it's not that ironic in the sense that there may be a hierarchy of influence, and there always was, and that's hard to break

I think you're tired because you're searching for one single answer to a question that doesn't have one single answer. Social dynamics just don't work that way. There are always a lot of different 'causes' influencing the various outcomes. And often those causes directly contradict.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Social dynamics just don't work that way. There are always a lot of different 'causes' influencing the various outcomes. And often those causes directly contradict.

Nah I was tired from my daily routine. Still sorta am. There are a lot of different causes, but we can identify two things - individuals and collectives / groups / wider societies. Which one gets the ball rolling.. Is the 'individual' just a sort of phantom in the machine that happens to stick out, or do individuals actually mold collectives. Is the question

 

[amorphous_constellation]

When I was studying for my competency test for history, this issue came up. Traditionally, historians have looked at the broad strokes, mighty men who have shaped the lives of many. That has been changing. Not just because these men are the products of their cultures, but also because they would never have been able to do the things they do without the support of uncountable others.

This is why we have seen an influx of history shows about things like what the average home was like in Tudor England, or What were the lives of servants like in the 1800s, or what was family life like during the Edwardian era. Even in our fictitious shows, we are seeing far, far fewer series about the lives of the rich, and a whole lot more about ordinary people.

And of course like a true Tolkien fan, I can't leave this topic without mentioning that one of the deep themes of the Lord of the Rings was how the actions of a single small hobbit can change the fate of the world.

Well I think maybe part of the modern age entails a debate between the ordinary person and the celebrity / royal / hero type person. But there are still plenty of individuals who have major influence. Certain youtubers gather millions of views, and others get not a lot. There are still 'people of the year' lists. And of course, there are politicans and ceos etc., who are projected everywhere, and who are probably talked about every day

In history books, you are presented immediately with big names , and you are led to research or read about very particular lives in different eras. In the bible and in mythology, it is also that way: big names are told to you, and think about them. Tolkien drew from Norse mythology I believe, where the same rule may also exist. There are big names, the heros, and the rest are just general stock. There is the major hero hobbit, but there was surely a large population of far more general stock type hobbits

 

[amorphous_constellation]

What if it's not an "either/or", but a "depends"? I think there are a few people who were far ahead of anybody else, with original ideas and deeper insight.
But most of the time, the people we see as unique are just the ones who got favoured by history. Every general or politician had a lot of helpers. Even in disciplines where solo accomplishments are possible, we often see that the "greats" weren't the only ones, just the ones remembered. Take Darwin as an example. Wallace had the same idea at the same time, independent of Darwin.

Perhaps it depends how receptive the one is to the other, and vice versa. The bible talks about hero figures and prophets, but it also seems to refer to the character of the 'people,' a large plural entity, as having different characteristics

 

[PureX]

Nah I was tired from my daily routine. Still sorta am. There are a lot of different causes, but we can identify two things - individuals and collectives / groups / wider societies. Which one gets the ball rolling.. Is the 'individual' just a sort of phantom in the machine that happens to stick out, or do individuals actually mold collectives. Is the question

Both. The collective 'norm' defines the individual 'outlier'. And the individual outlier defines the collective norm. Each by the relation to the other. And each pulls the othe in their direction, which is sometimes the same direction, and sometimes not. And is sometimes for the good, and sometimes not ... for either.

See what mean? There are many opposing motives and agendas all playing out against and with the others. It's a very complex and dynamic circumstance.