>The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity, and that's bad for business; and especially bad for the oligarch types who engender this kind of alienation.
I'd say the opposite: the individuality in alienation is faux individuality. The individual today is "individual" by their clothing choices, consumption patterns, etc, where everything is if not mass produced, still mediated by money in a market ("underground" and "alternative" consumption is still consumption, not some original expression of self).
Add to that the widespread lack of social safety nets, non-support from community, friends, and even family, and individuals become obedient cogs to get their next meal.
It's in the non-alienated societies where the individual can be truly non-conformant and more unique, because the uniqueness there can be an actual personal expression (e.g. the old eccentrics), and because community support means the individual is stronger against the state, market forces, etc.
There are concessions to be made to get that community support, but few as heavy as the modern state/society/market/boss imposes on the individual (and they are based on historical prejudices which could be overcome within the same community - e.g against being gay - not in the inherent way the system functions - by making people consume as much as they can, nickel and dime them, treat them as redundant if they don't have money, etc- as are the modern concessions).
I'm not. In fact, I posit the opposite, that one enabler of individuality is through community support, as it means that "the individual is stronger against the state, market forces, etc."
That said, some self-sufficiency is required too. Someone that has to yield to all kinds of powers to survive because they're not self-sufficient, can't ascertain their individuality either.
Perhaps we should hope for the emergence of "be self-sufficient" as a separately motivating idea from "be an individual"?
Then maybe the instincts driving unhappy individualism would subside a bit.
Because the instinct towards sufficiency is presumably a strong one, underlying much of life, whether conscious or not. So I imagine that when the two concepts are blurred together, the instinct towards sufficiency causes people to be driven to differentiate themselves as individuals. For example, by leaving the places where they were raised, in the hope of becoming "different" from the people they grew up with.
it s not a specific idea, the concepts of individualism and self-sufficiency are orthogonal . in developed societies, markets have replaced the social dependency on each other because people want to be more individualistic. i don't think people are unhappy being individualists
>in developed societies, markets have replaced the social dependency on each other because people want to be more individualistic
In developed societies markets have replaced the social dependency on each other through legislation, gunpower, and policies that closed down communal ways of living and forced people to seek (much worse) work in towns and factories -- often against much protest from the people subjected to that. Further laws made small scale production impossible or near, and mass production mandatory. And much later (around the '30s or so) followed advertising and other means to expand this even more through constant low-intensity brainwashing.
In the process people became less individualistic -- often confined for hours on end to the same cubicle, to come back home exhausted from some meaningless commute, in a meaningless job.
Maybe we mean different things by self-sufficiency.
By self-sufficiency, I mean capable of doing well within the context of modern developed societies and their systems. Not ruggedly off-grid sufficient.
The markets don't work too well, even for individualism, when people cannot get what they need from those markets. People are often forced to conform to get what they need.
> I'd say the opposite: the individuality in alienation is faux individuality.
You're not saying the opposite; atomization is good for business, and yes, it's totally fake. There's a dipshit on the same flight as me wearing a dragon tail. He probably thinks he's bold and original, but he's a weeb who participates in an infantile marketing subculture. I'm sure he'll keep people in the pharmaceutical industry employed for decades to come.
People not "growing their own food" buy into all kind of food trends, not to mention a whole nation sticking to 30-50 nationwide chains (restaurants, food brands, etc) for the huge majority of their food.
Compared to an American of 70-80 years ago, or a modern French or Italian person this is huge conformism and sheep like consumption. And food is one of the most essential things in our life (not to mention the health implications).
Although this is not about "growing own's own food". You can still buy your own food without modern consumerism, as societies have done since forever in farmers markets, etc (and people still do in other parts of the world), where the food is not mass produced and branded by 10 major chains, nor the restaurant choices are 20-30 nation wide chains.
I'd say the opposite: the individuality in alienation is faux individuality. The individual today is "individual" by their clothing choices, consumption patterns, etc, where everything is if not mass produced, still mediated by money in a market ("underground" and "alternative" consumption is still consumption, not some original expression of self).
Add to that the widespread lack of social safety nets, non-support from community, friends, and even family, and individuals become obedient cogs to get their next meal.
It's in the non-alienated societies where the individual can be truly non-conformant and more unique, because the uniqueness there can be an actual personal expression (e.g. the old eccentrics), and because community support means the individual is stronger against the state, market forces, etc.
There are concessions to be made to get that community support, but few as heavy as the modern state/society/market/boss imposes on the individual (and they are based on historical prejudices which could be overcome within the same community - e.g against being gay - not in the inherent way the system functions - by making people consume as much as they can, nickel and dime them, treat them as redundant if they don't have money, etc- as are the modern concessions).