The Catholic Thing
One or Many? Print E-mail
By Joseph Wood   
Saturday, 08 June 2013

Question: Which is worse, collectivism or individualism? 

Answer: Yes. 

Collectivism and individualism, while not exclusively modern, have characterized modernity.  Both reduce or dismiss God in favor of the supremacy of group or self.  Without God, modernity, as fancy as it looks, reverts to paganism.

Consider the news out of Syria: tens of thousands of deaths, cannibalism, and rape used by rebel forces to subdue government supporters.  The rebels, at least some of them, thus prove themselves capable of matching the tactics of the Assad regime.

Americans know that we are capable of atrocities ourselves, witness My Lai and Abu Ghraib.

But as a cultural trait, we find atrocities like those in Syria unfathomably horrible.  David Goldman explains this revulsion as the result of the Judeo-Christian rejection of paganism:

The Christian West summoned the pagans out of pre-history on the authority of a God whose love extends to every individual, so that as individuals they might abandon the collective identity of tribe and instead embrace an individual identity as Christian converts. The bright line that separates pre-modern collective identity from the covenantal identity of the Western individual is nowhere clearer than in the matter of atrocity. Pagan tribes feel no compunction about torturing and desecrating the cadavers of members of another collectivity; Western societies cannot abide such acts without going mad. We cannot even observe them from afar without feeling a touch of madness. 

The direct or lingering effects of Jewish and Christian faith govern our society’s reaction to atrocities. Where God’s love wins hearts and minds (as it sometimes does in people and places not obviously touched by Judaism or Christianity), people are seen as persons, and atrocity is rejected.  And the effects of that love persist, for a time, in societies that have in large part forgotten God.

The worst nightmares within the former Christendom flowed from that distorted, collectivized love of patria called nationalism, which treated the nation as an idol.  Displacing Christianity with nature-worship and other pagan practices, the Nazis perfected nationalist idolatry.

When we replace God, to whom Western civilization was once imperfectly ordered, with a collective orientation towards man, we risk the fall into paganism.  When we choose paganism, we cannot escape the collective – tribe, nation, state – and we open the possibility of vast horrors.

As Pope Emeritus Benedict has pointed out, the brand of paganism found in modern post-Christian societies is especially durable.

            In the modern collective, equality is everything, and uniformity is the point.
(Nuremberg Rally, c. 1935) 

Blessed John Henry Newman already saw the likely trajectory of modernity in the nineteenth century.  Chesterton characterized it as a form of insanity, the first stage of the madness Goldman notes in Syria.

C.S. Lewis explains it comprehensively in his essay, “Membership.” Lewis contrasts membership in the Body of Christ to membership in the modern collective.  In the Body of Christ, each member is unique, and diversity properly understood thrives.  Community is essential, but equality is not the point.

In the modern collective, equality is everything, and uniformity is the point.

Lewis, writing during World War II, understood the need for collective efforts to defeat Nazism.  But he warned against mistaking the collective as the ends rather than the temporary means.  And he explained the right ordering of politics vividly:

A sick society must think much about its politics, as a sick man must think much about his digestion; to ignore the subject may be fatal cowardice. . . .But if either comes to regard it as the natural food of the mind – if either forgets that we think of such things only to be able to think of something else – then what was undertaken for the sake of health has become itself a new and deadly disease.

Lewis was realistic enough to understand that the modern collective would not disappear anytime soon.  Democratic forms of government were, he thought, the only available means in a fallen world to preclude tyrannical rule by one or a few.  But he knew that democracy, with its emphasis on equality, could lead to a false notion of membership in the collective that was just as tyrannical and soul-deadening.

In these pagan times, the president, whose party booed the mention of God in its platform, opens his address to Planned Parenthood with, “I'm sorry that I could not be at the party yesterday.  I understand it was a little wild.  (Laughter.)” Making no references to eugenics or abortion – the founding and current causes of that group – he invokes God’s blessings on the abortion industry.  Most people who see photographs of aborted babies know that the president has blessed an atrocity. 

And individualism?  It turns out to be a slightly different route to the same destination, via the triumph of the autonomous self in the dictatorship of relativism.  Without God, the relativist soon turns to the state for authority and meaning.

Our politics will not get us out of this predicament.  In 1960, Fr. John Courtney Murray could write:

In America we have been rescued from the disaster of ideological parties.  They are a disaster because, where such parties exist, power becomes a special kind of prize. The struggle for power is a partisan struggle for the means whereby the opposing ideology may be destroyed. It has been remarked that only in a disintegrating society does politics become a controversy over ends; it should be simply a controversy over means to ends already agreed with sufficient unanimity.

We are now in the condition Murray described. Our common understanding of the most basic questions – what is a human person, whether there is a divinely created order to which we should conform – has disintegrated, leaving both parties with deep pathologies.

The only answer to the collectivist-individualist dualism, the only escape from modernism-turned-paganism, is the renewal across society of belief in the unchanging truth of the personal, loving God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Absent that, our politics will increasingly be its own end, a deadly fight about fundamental principles and purposes, rather than a means – with more atrocious results.

Joseph Wood teaches at the Institute of World Politics in Washington. 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (7)Add Comment
written by Manfred, June 08, 2013
"Chesterton described it (modernity) as a form of insanity,...". Syria?, cannibalism?, rape? My Lai?, Abu Ghraib? Please. Let's discuss Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 55 million abortions of American citizens, slavery in America,
our war in Viet Nam which resulted in over two million Viet Namese deaths which Daniel Ellsberg, former Marine Capt. in Viet Nam, working at the Rand Corp. in 1968 realized the leadership in the U.S. knew the war was not winnable and yet they allowed it to go on until 1975. We have moved beyond Judeao-Catholicism and we have indeed become pagans ourselves. The solution is simple: either this Country falls on its knees and begs God to intervene (as ONLY God can ever correct this!) or we slide further into horror. Sodomite "marriage", In Vitro Fertilization are only portents of how depraved we will become. I speak with sound, intelligent people today who question why they were ever born. We have thrown away the Great Gift which Christ gave us-the Roman Catholic Faith. Our acceptance of It in Its full entirety is the ONLY solution.
written by Michael Paterson-Seymour, June 08, 2013
History shows that a passion for equality, a hatred of privilege and a tolerance of despotism very often go together. Every independent group, community, class or corporation is seen as a potential oppressor that only a strong central executive can hold in check. Bonapartism was the consummation of a Revolution, all along directed against the privileges of the nobility and clergy, rather than the absolutism of the monarchy.
written by Stanley Anderson, June 08, 2013
Joseph Wood, in connection with your column's opening question, I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' comment in his "Afterward to Third Edition" of his book "The Pilgrim's Regress" where he writes "Opposite evils, far from balancing, aggravate each other."
written by DeGaulle, June 08, 2013
Manfred, great comment. I fully agree, particularly with your last sentence.
written by Sir Mark, June 08, 2013
The war was over in 1973, not 1975. Soon Congress used Watergate as an excuse to cut off all support for South Vietnam. North Vietnam soon realized that we were not serious anymore so they broke the agreed peace and invaded South Vietnam in 1975, resulting in death and destruction. Talk to the boat people about how our broken promises led to the deaths of their families. I have. Some of them are my neighbors. Don't tell me about how much you care, Manfred; my neighbors wouldn't believe you
written by BillG, June 09, 2013
Question: Which is worse, collectivism or individualism?
Answer: Collectivism, because railing against so-called ‘Individualism’ is merely an equivocating sop to placate Collectivists with displays of even-handedness. I don’t think anyone really knows what ‘Individualism’ actually is and even Mr. Wood has to first conflate it with Relativism in order to critique it.

But if ‘Individualism’ is anything at all, it certainly isn’t a ‘movement’ as that would imply collective -ist effort. And while collectivist movements have murdered hundreds of millions in the space of a single century, I can’t think of any atrocity committed in the name of ‘Individualism’ on a scale to register even the most minute ripple in history. Is ‘Individualism’ characterized by selfishness, greed, lack of compassion, being sociopathic and relativistic? Perhaps, I don’t know. But each of those sins has its particular stand-alone denunciation. Attributing them to ‘Individualism’ and juxtaposing it with Collectivism will have the effect, I believe, of trivially denouncing one thing that doesn’t really exist in order to appear to be fair-minded and then importing that triviality over to the denunciation of something that really does exist – and really kills people.
written by Manfred, June 09, 2013
Sir Mark: Where do you and I disagree? I used the Viet Nam War and the two million Viet Namese WE killed as counter to Mr. Wood's accusations vis a vis Syria. Mr. Wood "concedes" My Lai and Abu Ghraib as examples of American atrocities from recent history. I was an Army officer in 1962-63 and the military thinking at that time was that America's involvement should have ended in 1954 with Dien Bien Phu. Instead, we entered a war which we ultimately lost.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters