The Real Dividing Line in Our Culture Wars

“The dividing line in the culture war is not individualism vs. collectivism but, rather, peace vs. aggression. What are you willing to do to peaceful people, if they group in ways that you dislike?”

Arguments about the collective versus the individual are a focal point in the culture war. There are those who implore us to judge each person as an individual, rather than as a member of some group, some collective. Then there are those who argue that—while they agree that every person is an individual—group disparities (be they economic or social) are a moral stain on our society. And finally, there are those who accept collectivism as a good thing, that solidarity with one’s own tribe is necessary because people are social animals, and so on. We know the talking points.

This particular battle in the culture war tends to be messy because people are talking past each other. One distinction we need to clarify is that there is a difference between being either an individual or a member of some collective, and morally judging an individual as a member of a collective. For example, a boy named Jack is objectively part of a collective known as males—this is just a fact about the world (Trees are part of the collective known as living things, planets are part of the collective known as astronomical objects, etc.). At the same time, it would be a mistake to in any way judge Jack accordingly; being a member of the class of objects called males tells us nothing of his character, desires, or any other individual trait.

Notice that in the previous example, Jack’s membership in the collective called ‘males’ was involuntary. This is another distinction that clouds the cultural battlefield. Imagine Jack decides to join a local Church. The fact that he chose to join does give us information about his values. Not much, to be sure, but knowledge of one’s voluntary associations is far more significant, morally and otherwise, than his immutable characteristics.