Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    	Individuality is *allowed* to some extent, but it is *not*
    encouraged.    Conformity is encouraged.   People are expected
    to express their individuality in trivial ways only.   In serious
    issues, conformity is expected, demanded and enforced.
    
    	Alan.

        I, for one, believe that our culture (the USofA) is among the
        most individualistic in the history of the world. We value the
        individual, his rights, his free will, and his liberty in the
        extreme, and I don't believe that you'll find many or perhaps
        even *any* cultures that put more emphasis on the individual.
        Most cultures put more emphasis on the collective--the society,
        the family, the tribe--than we do.
        
        I would trace this individualism back to England and from there
        back to our Germanic forebears. It also owes a great deal of its
        refinement to the classical theories of democracy and consensus
        that come from Greece, Rome and the Church, although without the
        fierce individualism of the Teutonic barbarians these theories
        would not have seen the highly individualistic expressions that
        they have.
        
        If we see a fair amount of pressure against individualism in
        this country, I expect that it comes from the dilution of this
        Anglo-Saxon New English frontiersman culture in the melting pot
        of America. As WASPs fall from their positions of pre-eminence,
        their philosophies have mixed with those of the other cultures
        that have and are affecting us. These include at least Gaelic,
        Semitic, Oriental, and Amerind cultures which all have stronger
        veins of collectivism in them than the WASPy Yankee culture.
        
        For my money, coming as I do, from a strongly mixed Gaelic/WASP
        background, I don't find the tempering our extreme individualism
        an entirely bad thing. There is a lot to be said for a balance
        between the rights and freedoms of the individual and the duty
        to the needs of the whole. Either in excess seems prone to a lot
        of problems.
        
        JimB.

    Individuality is more accepted now than it has been in the past.
    This may be, in part, due to the fact that a lot of us in the "baby boomer"
    generation have finally reached an age where we choose to think
    for ourselves whether we're accepted or not.  I, for one, prefer
    to be myself, and anyone who doesn't like can go their own way.
    
    Barb

    
    Yes, individuality is encouraged in our society, until someone can't
    distinguish between individuality and being obnoxious!

RE: .3

I disagree with your theory about English/Teutonic cultures promoting
individualism. (In fact I'm not entirely sure you weren't writing
tongue-in-cheek when you said that).

Let's see: Early English settlers in New England. Yup, those Pilgrims/
Puritans sure were strong advocates of an individual's rights. The only
time one was allowed to bathe was on a Saturday night, one *had* to
attend church services on a Sunday, and let's not forget where the
sexual term "missionary position" came from. (Hell, in Massachusetts
even today, we have laws in the statute books forbidding sexual inter-
course in any manner, other than the prescribed "male-on-top, female-
under-and-facing" position.

Indeed, those "liberal individualists" were so unforgiving of others' desires
to worship differently, or their marching to the beat of a different 
drummer, that Roger Williams and many others were forced to flee Massachusetts,
and, in turn, founded the state of Rhode Island. (It's not entirely co-
incidental that the first - and oldest - synagogue in America, was
established in Newport, RI. If I remember correctly, Jews were not
allowed to practice their religion among the good Massachusetts Bay
Colony folk.)

And who can forget how those fiercely-independent, Teutonic warriors
turned into goose-stepping, peace-loving, individualistic Nazis in
Germany? Or even today, in America, those nice white-supremacist,
Aryan-nation groups - now *they're* really into individual freedoms,
live-and-let-live, and all that other good stuff.

And your assertion that Oriental, Semitic, Gaelic and Amerind cultures
have diluted the individualism of the WASPy Yankee culture also seems to
be a bit off the mark.

Gee, I haven't met too many Orientals, Jews, Irish-Catholics, or Chippewas
who *all* seem to live in Greenwich, Connecticut, wear those silly golf shirts 
with the embroidered alligators, and have 2.7 blond-haired, blue-eyed kids 
named Biffo, Muffy, and Spi (that's the .7 part of the name).

It strikes me that, in order to live/survive, in the (former?) Yankee majority
that comprises New England, people from *these* cultures have to be a lot
more individualistic. Try ignoring Christmas if you're Jewish, Buddhist or
a non-Christian Amerind, for example.

  Alan   

    re .6:
    
    I think you're looking at only selected bits of evidence. The fact that
    Roger Williams founded a place like Rhode Island and got away with it
    is indicative of the individualistic strain that runs through our
    culture. 
    
    More to the point, though, look at our notion of privacy, as codified
    in the bill of rights, particularly the bits about unreasonable search
    and seizure, housing soldiers, and freedom of speech. Jefferson was of
    the opinion that the first amendment precluded libel and slander laws. 
    
    Contrast this with (for example) the Japanese, who are extremely
    collectivist. They have an interesting proverb about how the nail that
    sticks out will be hammered down. Contrast this with ours about the
    squeaky wheel getting the grease. 
    
    Just because American culture isn't perhaps as individualistic as you'd
    like doesn't mean that it isn't probably the most individualistic in
    the world. Human beings are pack animals, and they like the members of
    their pack to act like them. West European (Anglo-Gallic-Germanic)
    culture defends the individual more than the others do. It still wants
    fealty from its members, but that doesn't invalidate the point. 
    
    	Jon

    
    .6
    
    Your laws are pretty wild!  Are you saying that, by law, you have
    to cross the state line to utilize a different sexual position???
    Wow!  
    
    

     
    
    	I think individualism is highly promoted in this society, because
    it's "good business". Again, the social ramifications of this are
    ignored, as different companies earn zillions selling *you* goods
    "that set you apart" from the crowd or whatever. Options for everything
    we own abound and are highly available. You can buy your individualism,
    or, at least that's what they'd like you to believe. And they'll spend
    zillions training you while you unsuspectingly watch TV; Get this!
    Drive one of these! Map yourself into this image with our product!  
    
    	Joe Jas  
    
    	

    RE: .8
    
    Yeah, I tend to drive to Rhode Island a lot. :-)
    
      Alan

    I think the question was "is individualism encouraged", not "is
    individualism legal".
    
    Given that, I have to say NO.
    
    Perhaps members of the majority need to become minorities for a
    bit before they understand this.  Imagine getting low grades in Spanish
    class for not singing Spanish Christmas carols because you were told
    by your parents that you should not, since they proclaim something
    you don't believe.  Yes, I'm picking my incidents, but they happened
    far too often in my childhood AND in my adulthood to be ignored.
    And, given that my skin is the majority color and I can "pass" for
    being of the majority, my experience can't begin to compare to that
    of someone who could not "pass".
    
    How many parents, who encourage art and music in their children,
    would REALLY like it if that child went into the arts as a career?
    My mom wouldn't have liked it - after all, artists STARVE (and
    have fairly low social status unless they're really successful,
    and not many have great success).  Be an engineer; dabble in
    the arts as a hobby!
    
    Look at our recent law REQUIRING parents to get social security
    numbers for their children DESPITE religious beliefs against
    numbering people.
    
    We allow individualism (up to a point), but we don't encourage it.
    
    --Louise

    It occurs to me that this conversation eloquently states the 
    case for individuality - few other places on the planet allow 
    individuals the latitude to:
    
     o	choose an educational path, 
     o	choose a career, 
     o	borrow some money (from individuals who started *their* own
    	company)
     o	start a company based on a personal notion (e.g. of "programmable 
    	data processors"), 
     o	create a private information base of incredible proportion, 
     o	and decide, privately, to let one's employees have access to
    	this info. base (among other things) wherein they may openly
    	discuss and question all manner of things, including individuality.
    
    This is not to say that this country is a utopia; far from it. 
    And, it seems to me that in order to run any country with a modicum
    of efficiency, some rules must be made and enforced and this, of
    course, encourages conformity.  Then too, I think the human animal
    likes, maybe needs, a certain degree of conformity to norms (like
    families, f'rinstance).  We certainly have our share of institutions
    and bureaucracies which tend to foster conformity.
    
    But, what this country also allows, and yes, I believe to a great
    degree encourages, is the freedom to learn, think, and act for
    oneself.  Perfect we ain't, but, from what I've seen of the world,
    we're a tad closer than just about everyone in this department.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  The base note question raised some corollary questions in
    	  my mind:   What is "individuality" and how does one know
    	  that they are acting as an individual (vs. conforming to
    	  some tribal/societal norm)?  Also, what would a "perfectly"
    	  or completely individualistic society look like?
    
    	  

    Re: .0
    
    Encouraged?  Not really.  I think society gives lip-service to the
    idea, but doesn't back it up when push comes to shove.
    
    Re: .6
    
    Read something by Perry Miller about the Pilgrims/Puritans (no,
    they're not the same thing) and then try again.

    I think conformity is encouraged in this society.  We are all
    encouraged to strive for the same goals - to live in a $350K home
    that looks just like all the others on the street, to wear the same
    suit to a business meeting that everyone else there will wear, to
    aspire to buying the same current status car that everyone else
    who can afford one will buy, and to have the same new toys as everyone
    else, CD's, etc.  From the day we are born we are encouraged to
    get married someday and to have at least two children.  Our laws
    regarding marriage and families encourage us to live in legal family
    units.  It's easier to control large masses of people if most of
    the people are the same.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Of course this society encourages conformity. *All* societies encourage
    conformity! If a society doesn't encourage conformity, it's not really
    a society, it's a bunch of hermits all living in the same neighborhood. 
    
    Everyone wants their children to have a good life. Almost
    definitionally, that means the house and car and kids &c. The simple
    reality is that the sort of people who have children lead lives with
    children in them. We all grow up in households with children. This
    shouldn't be surprising. 
    
    Anglo-American culture has a greater tolerance for eccentrics, weirdos,
    space cadets, crunchy-granola types, and all other people who don't
    conform to the default culture than about any other does. Don't let the
    fact that it is a culture, and therefore likes people to be "normal"
    blind you to its tolerance for diversity. 
    
    	Jon

        By way of illustration, over in the note on long distance
        romances someone recently made the comment that the reason they
        had avoided marriage was the need for complete freedom. In our
        culture that sort of expression is quite common. Yet on a
        historic scale it is quite extrodinary. It expresses a degree of
        individualism that is seen in very few cultures.
        
        It's quite true that the Puritans were quite intolerant and
        inflexible in many things. But as Jon said, the whole notion of
        upping and forming a whole new community that had your standards
        because you didn't like those of the one you were in is very
        individualistic.
        
        It is also true that the US can be rather hard on its minorities
        and can have a hard time understanding and appreciating the
        differences of those minorities, but it really does try to. Many
        nations and cultures in the world aren't at all interested in
        encouraging or even permitting minorities or subcultures. We
        have a lot of racial and ethnic problems in this country in part
        because we permit and encouraged subcultures to form.
        
        We have a lot of friction amongst our many subcultures, and do a
        fair from perfect job with our "melting pot", yet all the same
        you'd be hard pressed to find a country on earth with more
        diversity. We have a long way to go in accepting and valuing
        difference but we are trying rather hard.
        
        JimB.

    
    	I have some friends who bought some rural land here in Colorado,
    and they decided to live a few seasons there in a teepee.   They
    were essentially run out of town by their neighbors, who took it
    upon themselves to dissapprove of this lifestyle.    They were
    *not* violating any zoning laws by doing this.

       	These people were of the majority race, had money to support
    themselves, but had just chosen to do so differently than the
    majority has.   They were harrased out of their chosen home town
    only because they were not conforming to conventional norm
    
    	Whether other cultures are better or worse was not the question.
    The question was if *this* society is conformist or individualist.
    It is conformist.
    
		    	Alan.

    
    When ever I am tempted to do something a specific way mostly because
    I would be conforming if I did so, I ask myself this question -
    
    Should I really strive to be ordinary?
                                                                   
    Marion

    re .17:
    
    	"Whether other cultures are better or worse was not the question. The
    	question was if *this* society is conformist or individualist. It is
    	conformist."
    
    Okay, fine. It depends on whether you want to look at our culture in a
    vacuum or not. I've said a couple of times that yes, our culture wants
    conformity from us. All cultures do. If you want to truly live as an
    individual, you have to go be a hermit. 
    
    If you're trying to cut off the discussion, you've made a good point.
    If, however, you want to examine the issue, you have to look at
    different cultures. My opinion is that ours is pretty tolerant. Not as
    tolerant as it could be, but pretty tolerant as things go. 
    
    Now then, getting back to your friends, why didn't they fight? Why
    didn't they call in the police? Why didn't they put up a few "No
    Tresspassing" signs to emphasize to the unwashed that they were on
    their property? I've had plenty of friends who've set up their own
    communes, towns, settlements, or whatever. The legal system is pretty
    sympathetic to folks who own land and pay their taxes on time, no
    matter how weird they are. 
    
    Frankly, I'm a bit skeptical that that is the whole story. I knew some
    people who wanted to get closer to nature and bought some rural land
    and lived there. They didn't get along real well with the neighbors,
    but the neighbors were a mile a way through a dense forest. My friends
    eventually gave up their boonies, muttering about problems with the
    neighbors. My cynical opinion is that they got tired of cranky hot
    water systems, fixing the tractor, bad TV reception, and a limited
    diet. I think my friends played up (or maybe even unconciously
    exacerbated) the trouble with the neighbors to save face and leave.
    Sometimes I think that people who make the snidest remarks about brie
    are the ones who like it the runniest. 
    
    I'll admit that I'm a comfort-loving creature, but living in a teepee
    doesn't sound like my idea of a good time. I'll bet it gets cold at
    night. I'm also skeptical that in the wilds of Colorado, people would
    be "essentially run out of town" for something as innocuous as living
    in a teepee. There are plenty of strange folks in Colorado. I mean, if
    Wiccan communes can survive quite nicely there, surely a few Anglos in
    a teepee can manage. 
    
	Jon

    re: .17
    
    There must be something more to your friends' story than what you
    put here.  I know at least two different people who have been
    living extraordinarly alternate lifestyles (one's a bunch of
    Indian mystics (Delhi-india, not native American) in the hills
    above Denver for many a year.  I don't know what they're living
    in, but the mystic one goes around in a yellow gown with a pigtail
    growing out of the top of his head. 

    Compared to some of the things that go on in Colorado, and in
    Montana, and in Idaho and Wyoming and Utah, living in a teepee is
    pretty innocuous.  There are weirdos in them thar hills, but as
    long as they were just weirdos on their own property, people
    seldom pay attention to them. 
    
    --bonnie, from Montana

I question the statement that if you want to be completely free that you
have to be a hermit.  I don't believe that being social animals precludes
individuality.

Jim.

    This week's Time magazine (6 June 88) has an article on eccentrics. It
    says, "American eccentrics have replaced their British brethern as the
    uncontested leaders of oddballitry--and are less sarcastic to boot."
    "America, particularly California, has more eccentrics per square foot
    than anywhere else." "Eccentricity flourishes where there is freedom of
    expression. You won't find eccentrics tolerated in repressive regimes
    or countries where social conformity is paramount."
    
    It also has a quiz to determine if you are eccentric. Answer the
    following True or False.
    
    1. Getting what I want has little to do with luck.
    2. I am not sensitive to others.
    3. If I realize that another person is wrong, I tend to keep quiet.
    4. I enjoy daydreaming.
    5. Most people are too stupid to realize what is important in life.
    6. I am a good social mixer.
    7. People ought to be more concerned about other people.
    8. I like to know what great men thought about ideas that interest
	me.
    9. I feel inferior to others.
    10. In the dark, I never see images.

    
    
    
    
        
    
    
    
    
    Correct oddball answers: true (1,2,4,5,8), false (3,6,7,9,10)
    70% qualifies you as eccentric.

    I've noticed that some of the replies here seem to confuse "is
    individuality encouraged" with "are we *free*".  The subject of
    freedom is not the subject chosen by .0.
    
    As for the question asked in .0, I have to say yes...
    
    		...and no...
    
    I have seen that many people encourage it and envy those who display
    it, as long as they don't have to deal with it.  I don't have any
    problem with a guy who wants to shave part of his head, pierce his
    nose and paint his scalp (I really don't), though I doubt if I would
    be comfortable if my son wanted to do this...  ;-)
    
    No, really, think about it.  Individuality is a very personal thing.
     It is an expression of 'I' in the truest sense of the word.  Seeing
    as we are all different at some level, then there would be some
    level of 'you' that doesn't conform to 'me' and what I feel or beleive.
     In some cases the difference can and will be great enough to make
    one uncomfortable.  Few of us would deny ones right to be him/herself,
    and would even encourage it.  ""You can do your own thing, only
    do it over there.""
    
    I don't believe that that attitude is correct or proper, simply
    the most prevelant.
    
    I have also noticed quite often that trying to force one to conform
    is the quickest way for individuality to surface!!
    jim
    

    re .0   There is no such thing as "Society".  
    
            There are only Men and Women.
    
            Men and Women in Families and Communities.
    
            All of this "Society" stuff is intellectual abstractionism
            that has no real basis in reality.  
    
                                                  Russ P.

    People in groups behave differently than they do when they're
    isolated.  People in large groups behave differently than when
    they're in small groups.  
    
    I don't know that I would say the group is greater than the sum of
    the parts, but there is a level of interaction among individuals,
    expressed through individuals, that is not fully accounted for by
    individual behavior.  The development of language is a primarly
    example: if there is no agreement on meaning, there is no
    communication.  Language has meaning only in "society", even if a
    society of only two.
    
    --bonnie 

    re: .24
    
    Why is speaking of society "intellectual abstractionism" while
    speaking of "Men and Women in Families and Communities" [sic]
    is, presumably, not?
    
    
    re: replies in general (just an observation)
    
    It appears as if there are some people who think that this society/
    country/community/whatever does encourage individuality (whatever
    that is).  Others seem to feel that it encourages conformity.  And
    still others feel that it does both.  Personally, I think the last
    is the most accurate description because, as several folks have
    indicated, ours is, more than most on Earth, a pluralistic society.
    For me, the "either/or" route is to confining.  
    
    Yes, we as a nation often encourage conformity; government of any
    kind, even within sub-groups of sub-groups of society, seems to 
    require the willingness on the part of the members of the group to 
    embrace a particular set of norms.  On the other hand, one of the
    major tenets of this country, as a political whole, is the belief
    that individuals *do* have rights, and one of those rights is
    that of dissent and the right to act on that dissent.  Those actions
    must fall within the norms of the country as a whole (e.g. no fair
    starting your own town/society/klatch/tribe/whatevah by nuking 
    somebody else). And it's hardly surprising that people trying to
    start a new group will encounter resistance.  It seems to me that
    as a species, our willingness to follow the "us vs. them" viewpoint
    is a matter of historical record.  One way for "us" to feel good
    about "ourselves" is to compare ourselves to the alawys-inferior
    "them".
    
    On the other side of the coin, the language itself is littered with
    phrases that are signs of our national willingness to permit and
    encourage individuality:  "rugged individual", "his own man (sexist,
    yes, but the main connotation is of "individual-is-good", "think
    for yourself", "I don't follow the crowd", "to thine own self be
    true", "marches to the tune of another drummer", "she's nobody's baby" 
    and so on.
    
    Is it possible, then, that as a nation we encourage conformity *and*
    encourage individuality?  I think it is.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Is ours a conformist society ?  No. Our society allows lots of
    individual freedom. Yes, you have given valid reasons to argue
    that ours is a conformist society. But you haven't seen conformity
    until you have seen some of the eastern cultures. 
    
    Anil.

        I'm answering this before reading the previous replies, so excuse
    me if the topic has wandered away from the base note.
    
        I am convinced that individuality is discouraged in this society.
    One look at the advertising gives me the messages "Be one of the
    crowd", "Be Accepted", and "Most of the people in this country like
    our product, you should be like them!".  Advertising is a large
    part of our consumer culture, and I feel that it has more of an
    effect on us than most other people I talk to.
    
    ASP

    Sounds like there are two answers to the question in .0 - the absolute
    and the relative.
    
    The absolute - No, individuality is not encouraged in our society,
    since people are urged to conform.
    
    The relative - Yes, it is encouraged.  All societies promote conformity
    to some extent, but, within that framework, our society does encourage
    individuality.

RE: .26  Advertising:

"On the other side of the coin, the language itself is littered with phrases
that are signs of our national willingness to permit and encourage
individuality:  "rugged individual", "his own man (sexist, yes, but the main
connotation is of "individual-is-good", "think for yourself", "I don't follow
the crowd", "to thine own self be true", "marches to the tune of another
drummer", "she's nobody's baby" and so on."

Oddly enough, these phrases are used in Advertising to make people conform and
SELL to them.  It is lip service to individuality only.  The Ads try to make
people THINK they are different, but discourage actual individuality.  Think
about it, if people really were individualistic would it be worth it to spend
millions of dollars on an ad campaign that would only reach a few individuals? 

Jim.

	I believe most people recognize a need in a society to be a conformist.
That's why we have rules and laws to abide by. Most of us will give up some of 
our individuality because it makes our society as a whole, work better. At the 
same time, an event like the D.B. Cooper robbery aboard a 727(?) or Eddie "The 
Eagle" Edwards in the most recent winter Olympics, captures the Walter Mitty in 
all of us and let us vicariously vent our individualism. After that venting, 
we're ready to go back to conforming until the next "one day wonder" comes 
along. So conformity is valued in our society, but individualism is treasured as
a rare gem.

Pete

    Perhaps the people who are best off are those able to conform when that
    is in their best interests, and are also able to do their own thing
    regardless of opposing commentary at other times. Not being able to
    conform or not being able to greatly differ both seem severely
    limiting. 
    
    Knowing when to do which, then, becomes a major art form. 

    I firmly believe that our society does not encourage individualism.
    We are taught, especially in school but to a lesser extent in the
    family, to conform.  Our creativity, imagination and individualism
    in all other forms is discouraged.  This continues after we've
    graduated from school and moved out on our own, both in our social
    lives and at work.
    
    					Larry
    					  ~

    no !!!!
    j think our society wants grey mices(is this correct?).
    as more as you are "colored" tho more problems you have.
    
    thomas,  switzerland

    
    
    *NO*
    
    Ed (the individual)

       The "do your own thing" ideas have been dominant for at least
    20 years now.
    
       Social life, TV, magazines, contemporary psych books, ads, etc
    all seem more oriented towards individual pursuits, the idea being
    that individualism=happiness.
    
       The reality that millions prefer an individualistically based
    set-up like relationships instead of marriage does not point towards
    any kind of traditional (ie time-honored, conforming) life style.
    
       If individualism wasn't prevalent, then the sense of community
    would be strong for the general population, marriage highly respected,
    and divorce uncommon.  
    
       I imagine that a non-individualistically based culture wouldn't
    be murdering 25,000+ of it's members annually, nor would there be
    1.5 million abortions per year.  
    
       Individuality means pathetic realities like palimony suits and
    other waves of lawsuits.  It's reading the Globe instead of the
    local paper, not knowing the local Gov't but knowing Presidential
    candidates.
    
       One might think that a Society that encourages conformity would
    have a low suicide rate, no?
    
       Or that people who had problems could solve them without
    Pop-shrinks?   Or running to personnel perhaps?
    
       If people have conformed to anything it's the wave of individualism
    that has swept thru the West.
    
       Now, about the church life we are so conformed to,....
    
    
                                                      Russ

    
    Re: .36
    
    It may just be my interpretation but....
    
    ...there seems to be an uneasy confusion here between individualism
    and individual responsibility. 
    
    A person who is an individualist still has a responsibility towards
    themselves regarding their relationships, pregnancies (or
    impregnations), ending or continuing their own life...
    
    So does a person who chooses to lead a more conformist lifestyle.
    
    These are basic responsibilities towards ourselves that we inherit
    by virtue of being social homo sapiens on this planet. 
    "Individualism" is not an excuse for evading your responsibilities
    to yourself  - it *may* be a way of choosing to take or leave some
    of the "responsibilities" that are imposed externally and that you
    are *expected* to respond to. These you have a choice about - but
    you are always responsible for your self.
                                        
    Abigail
    
    

    re: .36
    
    Seems to me that it's not individualism that causes a lot of those
    things, but rather the stress caused by pressure to conform.  
    Folks ought to be pretty happy if they're encouraged to "be themselves"
    and develop their individual uniqueness, and live in an environment
    where there's a payoff in allowing one's individuality to grow.
    But the more similar a group of people is, the easier they are to
    control (say, by a government).
    (Keep in mind, tho, that you mustn't hurt each other, or step on each
    other's toes.)
    I think it's more likely one would go to a "pop-shrink" due to
    problems encountered by one's inability to conform in a society
    where that is considered the norm.
    
    -Paula
    

       By maintaining a strong family oriented Society, Japan seems
    to have fewer problems than the US.
    
       Should the ever more powerful youthful cutlture decide to rebel
    (ie no longer honor) the structures of real power that is the family,
    I suspect that the culture will end up like ours.  
    
       Tocqueville, De Gaulle, Comte, Emerson, Proudhon, Lamennais,
    Durkheim, Bonald, and Maurras' have made clear their dislike for
    individualism, seeing it as a disease that yields social breakdown.
    
       re .38   If Japan's health is any indicator, what causes stress
    in the U.S. may well involve those things (ideologies, lifestyles)
    that we (unlike Japan) have decided as a nation to conform to.
    
       The drive to achieve doesn't seem to be it, the loosening of
    certain values does.
    
                                               Russ

    The suicide rate for Japanese teens is more than twice as high as
    the US rate -- and the US rate is higher than most of Europe's.
    
    --bonnie 

      This is an interesting statistic.  It would make sense that the
    percentage of said attempts would also be twice as high - though
    I rather doubt it.
    
      Americans don't know how to slit a wrist properly, for instance.
    
      In addition, differing cultural values apply regarding the occurance
    of the act.  
    
      An impressionable Japanese teen may carry the sin of a dishonorable
    deed into an act of personal justice - ie hari kari.
    
      An American's profound sense of guilt doesn't strike me as reaching
    that type of decision, at least not as frequently.
    
      While suicide probably is not a justifiable act in any event
    (I'll pass on debating the possible if's, thanks), I do feel that
    realizations of dishonor are best dealt with when one confronts
    the self and administers some type of justice.
    
      America's youth seem to have the attitude that "if I can get
    away with it, then it's alright."
    
      Upon reflection another cultures youth could respond to a mis-
    deed in quite another fashion.
    
      With honor attached.
    
                                                   Russ P

From "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand, talking about individuality and
nonstandard definition of 'selflessness'.

They're wrong.  Selflessness does exist, though not in the way they imagine.
It's what I couldn't understand about people for a long time.  They have no
self.  They live within others.  They live second-hand.

He's paying the price and wondering for what sin and telling himself that he's
been too selfish.  In what act or thought of his has there ever been a self?
What was his aim in life?  Greatness, in other people's eyes.  Fame, admiration,
envy, all that which comes from others.  Others dictated his convictions, which
he did not hold, but he was satisfied that others believed he held them.  Others
were his motive power and his prime concern.  He didn't want to be great, but to
be thought great.  He didn't want to build, but to be admired as a builder.  He
borrowed from others in order to make an impression on others.  There's your
actual selflessness.  It's his ego he's betrayed and given up.  But everybody
calls him selfish. 

And isn't that the root of every despicable action?  Not selfishness, but
precisely the abscence of a self.  Look at them.  The man who cheats and lies,
but preserves a respectable front.  He knows himself to be dishonest, but others
think he's honest and he derives his selfrespect from that, second-hand.  The
man who takes credit for an achievement which is not his own.  He knows himself
to be mediocre, but he's great in the eyes of others. The frustrated wretch who
professes love for the inferior and clings to those less endowed, in order to
establish his own superiority by comparison. The man whose sole aim is to make
money.  Now I don't see anything evil in a desire to make money.  But money is
only a means to some end.  If a man wants it for a personal purpose, to invest
in his industry, to create, to study, to travel, to enjoy luxury, he's
completely moral.  But the men who place money first go much beyond that.
Personal luxury is a limited endeavor.   what they want is ostentation: to show,
to stun, to entertain, to impress others.  They're second-handers. Look at our
socalled clutural endeavors.  A lecturer who spouts some borrowed rehash of
nothing at all that means nothing at all to him, and the people who listen and
don't give a damn, but sit there in order to tell their friends that they have
attended a lecture by a famous name.

Jim. 

    
    no.
    quite often it is misundestood and even feared.
    
    ridiculed and abused.
    
    "slight" variations of individuality that don't stray too
    far from accepted levels of "norm" are either accepted or
    ignored.
    
    but don't try being too much of "an individual"....
    even in america.....