September 7, 2021

In the classic 1992 film Reservoir Dogs, one scene involves a group of gangsters sitting at a diner debating the merits of tipping. When presented with the fact that tipped professions are paid below minimum wage, one of the men retorts that he would sign a petition or vote in favor of raising the minimum wage, but he still refuses to leave a tip for the waitress. Although the film is nearly 30 years old, this scene highlights a philosophical divide between individual and collective action.

In the 1980s, conservative leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan pushed the notion of individualism hard, with the latter infamously once arguing, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.” These Cold War era figures provide us with a false choice: figuring out the root cause of an issue, rather than solely focusing on its symptoms, is essential in solving any problem.

‍This disproportionate focus on individualism is best shown in the discourse about unemployment in the United States. With the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, businesses are reopening to find it difficult to hire employees. The right-wing has used this to argue that government aid has made people lazy and uninterested in work. However, this focus on the individual obscures other reasons: lingering health concerns, lack of childcare options, and lower salaries than before the pandemic.

As a result, many people on the left tend to push back hard against individualist narratives by focusing on systems and social conditions. For example, when discussing police brutality, it does not make sense to focus on whether individual police officers are amicable, but rather what the aggregate effect contemporary policing has on marginalized groups. Focusing on individual officers instead of wider issues distracts from and enables problematic parts of police culture.

Furthermore, individual choices are heavily influenced by one’s environment, and ignoring this fact can lead to troubling conclusions. It should surprise no one that wealthier areas in the United States produce higher performing schools than poorer ones. The answer is obvious: wealthier areas have more resources for their students. But those who strictly adhere to individualism may miss this point and instead come to the problematic conclusion that poorer people are inherently less intelligent.

This attention to systems and societies in response to a disproportionate focus on individualism can sometimes be perceived as ambivalence to individual choices. It is not that individual choices do not matter, it is that individuals do not have as much power as systems do. To use the previous example of education: students in less well-funded school districts should absolutely study hard. But without addressing the issue of resources, students in these districts are at a disadvantage.

This aforementioned false dichotomy obscures many issues important to the left. Look no further than efforts to destigmatize trans and non-binary gender identities, legalize marijuana, defend free speech, or protect the right to abortion. Although vitally important, these issues do not fit neatly within the categories of “individualism” or “collectivism.”

During the worst of COVID-19, people on the left advocated both broad-based and also individual actions. Activists pushed for rent-freezes, debt cancellation, and direct cash assistance, while also pushing individuals to wear masks, tip generously, and stay home when possible. This is a good rule of thumb even outside of the pandemic context: push for better things and be kind to those around you. While one must not lose the forest for the trees, there’s no consequence to being a good person.‍