An opinion on the McDonalds thing, along with other beatings.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


If individualism is a myth then so is collectivism. They are both concepts which are formed as a result of external stimuli. The individual self truly took hold after the printing press (according to McLuhuan) because reading is a private activity. One of his main maxims was "the medium is the message" and that's truly what we're seeing take place.
I wouldn't call these concepts myths though, it seems like the wrong word. They exist. Individualism exists on just as real a level as collectivism. They both have their times and places which they work.

What I'd like to focus on more though is the violence formed by this tribal mentality. Which brings me to my next reply to. See next post.

reply to post by DaWhiz


I'm pretty sure you misunderstand. McLuhan is saying that it's tribalism, not individualism, which leads to a violent mentality. The loss of identity leads to violence. If a person has no self then how is self control even a concept that person's mind can fathom?

reply to post by Mr Headshot


Oh yes. Individualism exists as well as collectivism. My point earlier was about so many who are not much more than part of the collective, however it manifests itself, but who think themselves individuals from having grown up with this false sense of self stamped on them by the collective.

I see as you appear to see, that individualism is a recent development in humans. That we were collective for most of our history. As I began to take this understanding, I saw that the development of the individual was an progressive development, and evolutionary development. I saw this as good. I still do.

And though we may consider that the individual "took off" with the printing press, we also see that there are still tribes which being much uneffected by the modern world which are still of collective consciouness. Even in our modern cultures the degree of individualism and collectivism varies.

These women were acting tribally. Though I think that they thought they were acting individually.

And yes, I think the point you brought in the next post is also correct.

For me the importance of the entire question is the balance between the individual and the collective. To me it seems that an individual cannot exist without the influences of the collective. It is how the individual regulates and organizes within himself those influences that is important.

I'm ready to toss this around for a while, but I gotta head out now.

Later.