From God to Peer Group: The Hidden Architecture of Western ‘Independence’

It somewhat irks me when people say the West is “individualist”. It isn’t. It’s a reductionist view on a very complex constellation of features and values of Occidental culture. 
 
What many refer to as the ‘individualistic’ properties of the west are actually a function, primarily, of three features, or maybe icons that are emblematic, of Western Culture. One is a permanent features, one semi-permanent feature, and the last is certainly currently active and important, but probably  somewhat more transient in the longer term. The three features are all related and feed into one another, and largely emerged as discernible traits around five hundred years ago : 
 
1) The first permanent and defining feature of the development and maturation of Western Culture is the evolution towards the interpretation mechanisms of the mind, identifiable in the popular emergence of the Humanist movement. Humanism really marked the end, and rejection of, a top down interpretation of the world. A view of the world that still, largely, constitutes the backbone of most, if not all, non-occidental cultures around the world.  
 
Where rationality and reason became increasingly accessible to the common folk, and each person became responsible for their own beliefs, attitudes and opinions that guided their life. Within this trend, no longer could a person hide behind the authority of a higher power to avert responsibility for their life heading/direction. Their own success and happiness was their own responsibility. A central culture that everyone operated within the confines of became increasingly irrelevant, as everyone began digressing along their own tangents. People began operating around a culture as a concept, rather than taking culture as an innate given as evidenced by the behaviours of others. Because, in this culture of the mind, the behaviours of others mattered less than what their beliefs were on topic A, B or C. 
 
Humanism primarily concerns itself with the present, and not the eternal or ever lasting (though, to be sure, these are concepts worthy of investigation in Humanism). It therefore, has a tendency to be somewhat secular in It’s orientation. The fact that Pope’s began to embrace Humanism probably shows that, after a thousand years of awaiting the second coming of the messiah, the church and it’s followers were getting somewhat tired of the waiting game. And that, a view began to emerge that, we may be here for longer than we anticipated, and as such, we should probably learn a little more about the world we live in. But the Papal interest in the subject represented a departure from the ‘old ways’ of doing things, and, probably quite unintentionally, began the flock over which the church was responsible, on the long road towards secularism. 
 
The other important and corollary evolution with respect to the Humanist movement was the trend towards academic rigor. The application of rationality and reason to written texts for the purposes of critical analysis. A trend which had died off completely under the auspices of theocratic based education. This emphasis on an sufficiently critical, writing, thinking and interpreting ‘internal monologue’, ultimately led to what some call ‘individualism’ today. The reliance on ones self, and one’s own thoughts, beliefs and opinions. 
 
 
2) The second , and only semi-permanent, defining feature is a foundational distrust of fellow human beings (probably propagated by the Abrahamic concept of ‘original sin’), which the occident found reprieve from in the form of written contracts which constrain the powers of others. Founded broadly with the writing of the Magna Carta in the 1200s, its implementation (and importantly, legitimate enforcement), started Western culture on a trend towards building ‘trust’ in all people, regardless of race or religion, through vested power in the punitive implications of the written word. Importantly, from a cultural perspective, this evolution resulted in the containment of power of those ‘higher up’ on the social ladder, while also constraining the power of others. Fundamentally eroding the social capital and authority of those of higher classes and putting anyone who was a party to the contract, on equal, or at least agreed upon, terms. It served to ‘flatten’ the social structure of occidental society and became the ‘egalitarianism’ and ‘liberalism’ (liberalism in the ‘minority rights’ sense) we know today.  
 
A probably unintended consequence of the trend towards written word and contracts was the devolution of chivalry. And as such, the interpersonal trust in your fellow human being. There was less and less need to ‘take someone at their word’, or have an agreement based on the honour of a verbal contract partner, when the humanist inspired analysis of a written contract could be reliably counted upon more to provide all the social and economic security one needed. This can, and probably does, lead to the atomisation of society towards what some would call ‘individualism’ today. 
 
This feature is only semi-permanent in my mind because it is an evolution of a previous idea which was superseded (the bible being the previous written authority – forming the foundation for a hierarchical, top-down cultural orientation). And as such, it is, in all likelihood, entirely possible that it will evolve again going into the future. 
 
3) The third feature, rather temporary one I should think, is the propensity to socially and psychologically bandwagon around ideas for affirmation. At the expense of an orientation towards the afterlife, the humanist orientation towards the analysis of the here and now, made gods of men. Key literary and artistic figures developed huge cult-like followings. The teachings of these men (and it was mainly men) provided devotees some degree of consolation to their existential angst, which had long been catered to by the teachings of the church.  
 
Furthermore, and related to the above two features, is that with the movement away from god and top down authority, the movement towards egalitarianism and the power of rationality, that there emerged a need for a new authority – the peer group. Because as the trust and faith in a higher power began to take more of a backseat to the rationality and reason of the mind, the collective judgements of groups of minds became increasingly important. As it was the collective judgements, or the perceived understandings and estimations of these judgements, which formed the foundation for systems of representative  governance, the judicial system, and ultimately, defining cultural and societal norms.  
 
But as we saw in the Renaissance, this appreciation for the importance of shifting views and opinions resulted in opportunities to actively alter, change or manage other peoples views and opinions. Among the first to do this with large degrees of success were the Renaissance artists, who considered themselves philosophers in no short measure. They actively sought to challenge, question, erode and alter the minds of their consumers. And, as the rock stars of their day, had sufficient ‘bandwagoning’ power to do so.  
 
Popular opinion has mattered ever since. But what makes this devleopment in the West even more pertinent and different from other cultures  is that it is popular opinion exalted by the merits of rationality and reason debased from hierarchical power structures that might otherwise constrain such views. The result? An entirely radical, progressive and possibly inherently unstable culture that is at risk/mercy of the social or philosophical whim of the era. 
 
I believe this current, popular and important aspect of Occidental culture is unlikely to be permanent. In the long history of new ideas, most will settle down to a stable status quo. Agency will eventually devolve/evolve into structure, with all the predictability, security and mundanity that goes along with it.  
 
Of course, from all this, a quick mention of how all this relates to the contemporary ‘culture wars’ between progressives and conservatives. We can see from the origins and evolutions listed above, that Western culture is fundamentally rooted in the progressivism – without question, without being progressive, the idea of humanism would have been rejected outright. The fact it was embraced by a (fairly) conservative institution like the Catholic Church shows just how ready the world was for a change, even though that change ultimately led (directly or otherwise) to the development of it’s detractors such as Luther and Calvin. But as has also been noted, evolution ultimately seeks a stable equilibrium. Change ultimately tries to find a new balance. And on this metric, there exists a role for conservative thinking, as conservatism acts in the interests of creating stability to enhance ‘real’ and ‘organic’ growth and change to occur. But it is hard to argue for such a position when the very nature of the culture is based around active change!  
 
Ill leave more commentary on the culture wars for another post. 
 
For the here and now, suffice to say, the three features of Western Culture listed above ultimately yield what some may, in a reductionist manner in my humble view, to saying that the west is ‘individualist’. I dont think that’s accurate, fair or just. Individualism the product of the three features above. It is not that Western Culture desires to be egocentric or self-centred, but the constellation of features above necessitate it. 
 
And that’s enough for today.