Kelley writes: >betty replied that individualism is very important--that you must think and >act on your own, and not define yourself by a group. in fact, saying I am an >ecofeminist/feminist/environmentalist defines me by a group. of course, >there are limitations to these definitions but we use them all the time, and, >at least for me, they do not detract from me being kelley. We shouldn't confuse a collectivistic mentality with shared values--values shared with other people or even groups. I might share values with other members of say, the local squash club, but that doesn't require or imply that I submerge my person in that group. Same for enviromentalism and feminism. To hold values in those respects doesn't mean I surrender my individualness in the process. >we seem to throw around the term often and assume that if we say a concept is >not individualistic than it must support conformity. this, i think, is >such an american way of thinking--the idea of being the rugged individual. I >must become an person in isolation that proves "his" worth through strength, >control, and perservance, but "he" must do it alone. and if "he" fails, >well, "his" character was just not strong enough. "he" did not have enough >individual strength to succeed. And those who succeed are the true >individuals as they have proved that they can think, act alone and still make >it to the top. and those who fail, well they just don't have what it takes. > >using this rather raw, but i think, accurate definition of individualism, the >concept of individualism is contrary to ecofeminist philosophy, because of >the interrelatedness of nature. ecofeminsim stresses the uniqueness of >species, while tries to make connections between them. it does not erase >distinctions, but draws them out to value, and to integrate those >distinctions into a cooperatively intermingled web. Interrelatedness in nature is not a new idea really. At the atomic level there are a lot of shared relationships for example, so its no surpise that we have some things in common with sparrows. And there are differences too, like they get up in the morning far earlier than me. This interrelatedness does not require that humans supress there need and inclination to be individuals; in other words there is no mandate for collectivism in that. And like was said earlier, all we have to do is look at the societies and nations that are collectivist and or statist, you know--the group before person crowd, and we see that holds no answers for us. I am sure Pol Pot was really a great guy, but..... Betty >i have been part of this list for awhile and rarely respond, but i have read >adams, warren, shiva, merchant, griffin and others. i don't know if any >other them talk directly about individualism. this is my sense of the >philosophy as i have internalized it in my own life, and i would like to know >what others think. maybe this is a disclaimer, or maybe added to give me a >feeling that i have some "authority" to speak about this, regardless of why i >just typed this last paragraph in, i think before we continue on using the >term individualism we should do some deconstructing of it. > > >kelley
