The Catholic Church traditionally mediated vertically between the human and God, through priests and pope. In Protestantism the relation of the individual to God became central; one traversed the world’s vertical structures, meaning that one’s own conscience and own will becomes very important, that the purity of one’s own heart becomes very important, assessing himself. One continuously has to exercise self-control over himself, which creates an enormous obligation. One can no longer impose a believe on others, choice is subjective. That means that a certain tolerance for the believes of others should be part of our persuasion. One cannot claim to have the only valid self fabricated truth. It requires that the individual becomes attuned to the generality in an other way, not though God but through citizenship. Citizenship doesn’t only mean having rights, it means having responsibilities for the ties that surround us as well, but that is often forgotten. In ethics you see statements that one has to be attuned to the greatest happiness for the greatest number. If not, your action is bad. For a society to work, one has to conceive himself as a member of a bond.
We now have the major problem that the individual has been completely democratized, but there’s no longer the sense of community in which you pass on a certain culture, which you feel connected to, where you have a sense of collectiveness that you also expect from others, like this is who we are, this is what we stand for. We’ve all been so individualized that we can’t moralize anymore either.
One problem of individuality, combined with an enormous freedom and formlessness, is that it makes that people don’t feel at home in their surroundings anymore, that communal forms erode and that thus the strength and vitality of the community get hollowed out. People are very focused on their own feelings and perceptions, but those perceptions are embedded in an encompassing network. The network we’re embedded in has become of increased complexity and of more anonymous relationship. At the same time we have an increased dependancy on the structures we rely on, e.g.: we don’t have to know where our food is coming from.
I think we see the absence or lack of moral reference points, the lack of people who take responsibility and are accountable as such. The consequence of this is when decision have to be made that affect us all, the responsibility gets tossed over to others or made technocratic. We than call in the scientists and set up a committee that formulates a report that’s objective so that someone who takes the decision can say: ‘Look, I followed a model and I can’t do anything about it, I was covered by experts.’ That’s a development that can’t just be undone, but at the same time you notice right now that a lot of people feel something’s not right about the current order of things. We’re looking, but still very much in that subjective mode and there’s no powerful response to that yet, while there’s an obvious need for it.
I think that now a point has been reached where the importance of collectivity is being recognized again. And that the concept of freedom as it has been conceived for a long time is in need of correction. That freedom has to be once again conceived in relation to community. There’s a search for new collective ties in which that individual freedom is in balance with something like communal well-being.
Stefan I do get your point that there is a problem with too much individualization. I do agree that this results in the fact that people will seek out new ways of giving meaning to life. But I do not feel formless, lost in culture etc as you describe?! Is your statement above a warning of what might happen or something you actually see.
Secondly I don’t get the relation of Post-Secularism and your statement of over-individualization… Do you want state and church to be entangled again?
Thirdly,I don’t think religion is the only factor that can bring people together. And isn’t the fact that you put God first also an act of NOT taking full responsibility?
IMHO (!!) there are two big mistakes in the question itself:
1. Religion or better “believe” mustn`t be a contradiction - the idea, that Jesus (or better: the artificial person named so) brought into the world was completely different to what churches (all!!) much later made out of it. First of course: forget everything said about “god” there - that`s ancient thinking. If You do that, you will find out, there are a lot of values, that are very much like our modern (european) values to be found there,
especially individuality and (very important!!) general empathie,
and this leads to the second error (please don´t forget: IMHO!!)
2. Individuality is strictly to be distinguished from “identiy” in a small, but VERY important point: the personal bindings to groups.
Even mentally in the beginning the genesis of both terms is the same.
But up from a very certain point every person can be lead into two directiopns:
a. the acquired (!) property to be an identity, or
b. grow “natural” into the property to be an individual, to get the status of individuality.
following a. (identity)
every person has to be “conditioned” to be member of a certain group, in ancient or anachronistical cultures mostly the family, furtherone the clan. This binding is later on (grownup) so deeply conditioned, you can hardly loosen it.
You find “identity” also in historically democratic systems - bindings to the family (christmas!) and of course the “state” (nationalism).
Identity is also markable with the anxiety to be isolated from the group.
To produce “identity” requires a bunch of methods of parenting, but these are part of the culture, therefore mostly unnoticed.
Of course (and very important) empathy is needed to be member of the group, too, but this empathy is strictly limited to the group (family up to clan or state), other people are at first strangers or even enemies.
Limits are important for having identity, but the limits are to an important part those of the group.
following b. (the just natural genesis to become an “individual”) :
we in europe (and other p.o.t.w.) since some decades are not pressing anyone into any group - even not into a mentionally binding to a state.
But (extremely important!) individuality is not meaning isolation (as unfortunatedly a lot of scientists declare),
just the bindings to any group an individual person is (for a shorter or longer while) connected too are without bigger problems
to be dissolved.
This is the very important difference to “identity” !!
And of course (but not so important):
The personal limits of an individual:They are to be built up around the person, not too high, and of course not to low.
And of course:
Empathy here is much more difficult!
Learning empathy to a special group (identity) is rather easy to be learned,
but as an individual you must be able to build up empathy to every person, you meet.
All in all: We (in the “western world”) are only half the way gone into a community of real individuals, already.
Reasons:
Empathy is a rather lately dicovered word, and nearly nowone really knows, what it means.
Even a lot of scientists are still saying, empathy is a way “to crowl into someone others mind”.
Thats wrong, empathy is the ability to recognise a person in whole (holistically) and strictly see AND respects his or her limits!
You learn it generally as a child (if it is not blocked accidentally or intentionally) together with building up and recognizing your personal limits, at first having empathy to your mother (or fathers) and recognizing the limits of them, by this (try-and-error method) learning about your own limits. Later you develop empathy for other persons - other kids, other grownups, later all persons, you meet.
But: Unfortunately not many people in europe know about this genesis, mothers are mostly very (too much) altruistic, sometimes harsh, even cruel. Children learn this way: limits are something to disrespect or, otherwise, fear.
That is not difficult to explain, because even parents mostly grew up without getting the ability for real natural empathy.
the result:
A lot of children and young grown-ups are nothing else but just egoists, building up empathie poorly or only to get advantage.
Grownups are not building up natural empathie, but only cognitive empathy (if ever and mostly to get advantage, too).
Our only (but justified!) hope:
These (we) little egoists meet other little egoists, and THEN………..
(sometimes even a pure altruism may occure)
And of course: Individuality seems to be a oneway-road, pure identity is anachronism und leads into a lot of disadvatages (no creativity or innovations, wars or terrorism). easily to be seen at anxient cultures like pure islam.
____________
Gosh - Its a very difficult thing, and it took me longer than exspected. I hope You got something of what I meant…
And of course: I hope, contradiction will arise!!
excuse errors.
Addendum:
The first question was secularism, I know.
Secularism seems to be another thing, but is not accidentally an idea, that came with the early christianity and only after heavy fights was accepted by the roman catholic church later on, too.
Secularism and individuality is bound together, although the “secular states” for a long time were build up on identity.
Enlightenment was a heavy fight against the churches than, and individuality arouse with it back again - first as an idea, in the “new world” (Nortamerica) pretty soon in reality, in the “old world” much later, but really much later (around 1968).
Unfortunately big changes is always a matter of generations - even four decades since 1968 we are still not free from anxient ways of thinking. Worse: A lot of people still glorify traditional cultures - they see some advatages (discipline, bound and politely children), but oversee the heavy disadvantages of these anxient cultures.