What other classes have you had in which individualism was discussed? How was it talked about? Is it seen largely as a good thing or a bad thing? If you haven’t encountered it in other classes, react to what you read in the chapter.
Last semester I took a social psychology class that largely covers why people are drawn away from individualism. From Bulman's perspective, individualism can be good for humans to develop a sense of self, however people need to come together in order to shape society based on everyone's own traits. I find this interesting because a lot of the content from my social psych class talked about how dangerous it can be if everyone relies on each other to make decisions. It is common for people to go against their individual views because they want to fit in, which is something Bulman points by discussing the middle class' desire to be a united community. However, he mentions that movies often portray the protagonist as someone who is an outsider, and follows their own path. Furthermore, Bulman discusses how this can diminish the sense of community that needs to be present for a society to flourish. Overall, I think individualism is a good thing, but it needs to be balanced with a drive for community and togetherness.
The only class where I had discussed individualism was my Race & Racism class. We had mainly talked about how individualism can impact a society by helping develop the community into becoming more diverse or more separated. It all depends on how the individual reacts to his or her environment and surroundings. In the sense we were talking about it in, individualism wasn't seen as good or bad, more so just describing how this term can come into play to help spread diversity around the United States.
I don’t remember which cinema class this was in, but we ended up discussing Into the Wild (2007, directed by Sean Penn). Christopher Mccandless, the (real) man who inspired Krakauer’s book and Penn’s film, is a great example of individualism and its costs. In our discussion of the film, we unraveled the rugged individualist complex held by Chris. Yet, throughout the film’s rising action (prior to his time alone in the wilderness), Chris has multiple hand-of-god moments that come from nothing but human kindness and a sense of community. He isn’t an unlikeable character by any means, he just feels that fundamentally, man is capable of thriving alone in the wilderness as we once did. We as a class saw Chris’ individualism as his biggest fault, just as it’s thoroughly examined in the film. One major quote from the movie appears as his health declines: “Happiness only real when shared.” Chris established himself in the middle of nowhere just to realize, close to death, that the belief which led him there was incorrect. A VCU arts classroom isn’t exactly the place for a rugged individualist, so we didn’t have many, if any, counter arguments. Ultimately, Chris’ sense of self reliance and independence is what got him killed, and that’s how the class discussed it.
Individualism was discussed in my sociology class. It was often in companionship with deviance as individualism is typically outside of the social norms. Deviating from the what is expected and considered "normal" was viewed as a bad thing and that is what individualism is, being different. Also, with the post-modernist view individualism came up alot as the new norm in post-modernism is being more individual and encompassing of all walks of life. In this context it was a positive thing, but only because it was what society wanted/expected from people.
None of my other classes have spoke about individualism, but what I read in the chapter ties in with what we spoke about in class. Suburban environments may not experience similar hardships as those in urban areas due to lack of poverty, racism, and sexuality struggles. This causes that path to individualism to be drastically based on the resources and people that surround them. I think it's interesting that Bulman doesn't mention these themes of race in his writing when its such an important topic.
Last year in my first semester my intro to sociology had briefly talked about individualism. It was basically said to be a political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. It wasn't seen as a good or bad thing it was just described and how it develops our society/community.
We talked a little about individualism in my sociology class. It wasent really said to be a positive or a negative to anyone or anything. We talked a little about how it was a political philosophy. I dont really remember much of what we really discussed but in the chapter it kind of went over what we were talking about in class. The suburbs vs the urban world and how when you think of one you get these stereotypes.
I took a composition class in high school and during our second semester, we briefly discussed individualism and how it affects American society. In general, we all agreed that the idea of individualism alone is good. The idea that if you work hard enough, you’ll be able to reach your goals is wonderful. Ideally, individualism would be a way for everyone to be able to get ahead in life based on their own merits, but realistically, individualism doesn’t quite work that way in American society. We can claim that individualism drives us, but there’s still systemic obstacles that prevent many people from getting ahead. Sometimes it doesn’t matter how hard you work if you’ve got barriers stopping you from reaching your goals. I guess individualism in the sense that everyone has their own thing going on and no one will be judged too harshly for being different is true for America (most of the time), but the idea that individualism puts everyone on equal footing is false.
Last semester in my cultural anthropology class we discussed individualism within the context of various cultures. There is great variation in the degree of emphasis on different cultures and societies. In America we generally value personal autonomy, individual rights, and self-expression, but the prioritization of individualism is different throughout the world. Some cultures take group collectivism and group cohesion very seriously. For example, the Gebusi of Papua New Guinea believe so deeply in communalism that if someone spends an "unnecessary" amount of time alone, other people may accuse them of sorcery. Taking anthropology courses has helped me learn to step out of my own biases and unconsciously preconceived notions in order to access the functionality and meaning of it. I think individualism is important and I would be very upset if I couldn't express myself, but if that's not the societal norm within your culture, then it's just as important to consider the importance of conformity for other cultures.
I had a class last year where we briefly discussed individualism. I don’t remember much about what was said about it, only that it makes individuals strive to do better which leads to a competitive society. Then we briefly talked about whether individualism would be seen as a negative or positive in certain situations.
Over the summer I took the intro to Africana studies (AFAM 111). In the course, we explored individualism in different contexts. One that comes to mind was when we deep dived into the complex society and culture of the Kingdom of Kongo. In their society they valued the groups benefit over individual gain. So in this specific context I would say it was seen as a negative thing by the people in the society. I would say individualism was largely seen as a negative thing especially when we discussed how capitalism was a factor in the atrocities committed by the Europeans against the people of Africa and how most of these disgusting actions we for profit and for the economic benefit of individuals.
Individualism was discussed in my psychology class and in one of my history classes. I was taught that individualism meant giving priority to one's own goals. It was shown as a good thing to an extent. Giving priority to your goals meant focusing on yourself and becoming a person that can achieve more. It meant exploring and finding new ways to succeed. It was also shown as a negative thing because one wouldn’t be contributing to the community therefore wouldn’t be able to help out the society grow as a whole. The psychology definition and Bulman's definition relate as he defined it as “a core idea that the individual has autonomy and independence apart from social groups and institutions.
Not necessarily a class, but more of an ongoing lesson taught to me by a mentor from where I live who taught me about track. In the context of the sport of track and field, success is basically correlated to an individualistic mindset. With yourself being the only one to blame for a loss, development as an athlete and even personally is limited to your being and your being only. You can't blame the other runners for you doing bad, you can't try and mimic the other runners to try and be better, but you can deviate from the mainstream and use your plans to grow for yourself and improve that way. Learning that you shouldn't go into anything worried about what others are going to do, but rather what you yourself is going to do, is the way individualism was taught to me. This shed a positive light on the subject as opposed to some who learned the concept negatively.
I don't remember any particular class that i've taken talk about individualism. From what I read in Bulman's chapter and from what we talked about in class, I believe individualism to be based on the environment you grow up in. As Bulman centers his writing around class being the differing factor for individualism. Additionally, a point of failing in Bulman's writing, that was brought up in class, is the lack of talk about race. I feel individualism is heavily based on the people, morals, and environment one is surrounded by.
I briefly remember one of my high school geography teachers talking about individualism and how it hurts our generation. He said that the younger generation nowadays does not want to ask for help and wants to do everything on their own, essentially what he was trying to say was that were growing up too fast. I guess he meant well but to some who missed his point, it could come off as negative. Personally, I see both perspectives, I see my peers doing things they probably should not do but they do it to seem grown, but in many situations, kids have to grow up fast due to their environment.
In my freshman English class, we had to write a couple of essays exploring our opinions and views on certain topics. It made me think about myself and why I think the way I do. We read pieces of literature from George Orwell and in these works of literature, the characters are stripped from their individuality and are controlled in every aspect. Reading Orwell's book and writing essays regarding his ideas opened my eyes to how important individualism is. I also realized that individualism can easily be taken for granted and how awful it would be if I were stripped from my individuality.
We discussed individuality in my human spirituality class last semester. It was mentioned when referencing spirituality as its mostly an individual journey, at least to some degree. It can be seen as similar to bulmans perspective as the development of ones self is greatly emphasized in both views. I agreed with the sentiment regarding quality of upbringing and environment having major effects on individualism.
Individualism comes up pretty frequently in most of my special education classes. It is always viewed as an important piece of the profession and it is what makes each child unique. Even in just my regular education classes we'll discuss how each student is their own person with their own unique talents and needs. I think the current movement in education is to teach to the individual, not the group because in most cases, teaching to the whole group isn't honoring each child's individual strengths and needs.
2 semesters ago i took sociology and we briefly discussed individualism it was about social norms and was viewed as a bad thing . i'm currently taking social psychology and we have discussed the topic briefly as well but we are set to discuss more about it in the future. overall my experience with it is just general knowledge. never truly having a deep dive conversation
I took psychology my freshman year, and we discussed individuality and collectivism. We discussed how individualism encourages goals, which lead to individual accomplishment and the development of a distinct identity, as well as how it supports strengths and personal values. Whether it was establishing behavior, life tasks, coping mechanisms, or morals, the principle was applicable. One of the key themes discussed was how individuals in individualist societies may teach their children to be self-sufficient and independent.
I took a dual enrollment class on gender and global politics a few years ago that talked about individualism in American culture specifically as it relates to the third wave of American feminism--essentially getting into the complications of existing as an individual with your own set of intersectional experiences while trying to take part in a collective movement. The general attitude that arose in discussion was that it was good that feminism was able to expand in a way that didn't exclude how misogyny informs experiences with race, class, sexuality, etc., but the push for every action and shade of womanhood to be deemed "feminist" may have given rise to choice/individualist feminism, which impedes collective force for progress. I think it gets into a sort of paradox of tolerance question: is there some degree of identity flattening necessary to make large collective efforts work, and if so, what is the line between that sort of compromise and purposeful exclusion?
I haven’t studied individualism explicitly in a class before(at least not that I can remember), but I found the section on Individualism and Democracy interesting in today’s context. The individuality we are able to feel in a democracy is something that was instilled upon us from the moment we could listen; we were constantly told how grateful we must be that we escaped the trenches of aristocracy. Today though, it feels more common than not to feel distant to the democracy in our country, especially within the republican/democrat party framework. Tocqueville’s concerns of people not seeing themselves within the democratic structure has been realized, but has also been dismissed because of the community these same people find on the other side. To not support today’s democracy is not to find yourself completely selfish and thinking of individually, but to enter a space with many other people wanting similar things.
In my english class in high school we had a lesson about individualism. We talked about how it's a priority to one's self. Basically making their own rules, their own life choices and having consequences for their own actions. Many cultures encourage individuals to have a strong self concept. In what I learned it's how one takes it. Individualism encourages people to express their beliefs,emotions etc. In some part some take it as selfishness. Lower empathy plays its part. People in individualist cultures are more self interested which results in them feeling less empathy for others in a "community ".
I've had a couple of classes that have had discussions about individualism like some of my criminal justice classes and psychology class in high school. in my classes, they basically talked about how some individuals are very kept to themselves and how they do things alone. in specific in my criminal justice classes we talked about how a lot of serial killers such as the Unabomber are very independent and how they are individualists. i don't think individualism is a bad thing because everyone is different and everyone does life differently.
For individualism , recently in my intro to health class , we’ve talked about how when it comes to measuring the amount of oxygen levels in a person of color’s skin (mostly darker skin color) versus a person who is white , it can be very inaccurate by 10 points and most of the time in hospitals , we end up giving the person the wrong treatment and the wrong amount of oxygen & it can show that we’re not receiving the right benefits of the healthcare system.
Last spring semester I took an African American history class. We discussed how Individualism can be good and bad. We also said it's benefits with individualism.
I remember talking about individualism a lot throughout history class in middle school and high school, usually in a positive way. My teachers would talk about famous people from (primarily American) history whose individual actions created positive change by going against the system in some way. I also think that history class focused on celebrating individuals rather than group efforts when it came to systemic or large-scale changes, especially in lower school and middle school classes. I don’t remember a time when I was taught that it was a bad thing.
Last semester I took a social psychology class that largely covers why people are drawn away from individualism. From Bulman's perspective, individualism can be good for humans to develop a sense of self, however people need to come together in order to shape society based on everyone's own traits. I find this interesting because a lot of the content from my social psych class talked about how dangerous it can be if everyone relies on each other to make decisions. It is common for people to go against their individual views because they want to fit in, which is something Bulman points by discussing the middle class' desire to be a united community. However, he mentions that movies often portray the protagonist as someone who is an outsider, and follows their own path. Furthermore, Bulman discusses how this can diminish the sense of community that needs to be present for a society to flourish. Overall, I think individualism is a good thing, but it needs to be balanced with a drive for community and togetherness.
ReplyDeleteThe only class where I had discussed individualism was my Race & Racism class. We had mainly talked about how individualism can impact a society by helping develop the community into becoming more diverse or more separated. It all depends on how the individual reacts to his or her environment and surroundings. In the sense we were talking about it in, individualism wasn't seen as good or bad, more so just describing how this term can come into play to help spread diversity around the United States.
ReplyDeleteI don’t remember which cinema class this was in, but we ended up discussing Into the Wild (2007, directed by Sean Penn). Christopher Mccandless, the (real) man who inspired Krakauer’s book and Penn’s film, is a great example of individualism and its costs. In our discussion of the film, we unraveled the rugged individualist complex held by Chris. Yet, throughout the film’s rising action (prior to his time alone in the wilderness), Chris has multiple hand-of-god moments that come from nothing but human kindness and a sense of community. He isn’t an unlikeable character by any means, he just feels that fundamentally, man is capable of thriving alone in the wilderness as we once did. We as a class saw Chris’ individualism as his biggest fault, just as it’s thoroughly examined in the film. One major quote from the movie appears as his health declines: “Happiness only real when shared.” Chris established himself in the middle of nowhere just to realize, close to death, that the belief which led him there was incorrect. A VCU arts classroom isn’t exactly the place for a rugged individualist, so we didn’t have many, if any, counter arguments. Ultimately, Chris’ sense of self reliance and independence is what got him killed, and that’s how the class discussed it.
ReplyDeleteIndividualism was discussed in my sociology class. It was often in companionship with deviance as individualism is typically outside of the social norms. Deviating from the what is expected and considered "normal" was viewed as a bad thing and that is what individualism is, being different. Also, with the post-modernist view individualism came up alot as the new norm in post-modernism is being more individual and encompassing of all walks of life. In this context it was a positive thing, but only because it was what society wanted/expected from people.
ReplyDeleteNone of my other classes have spoke about individualism, but what I read in the chapter ties in with what we spoke about in class. Suburban environments may not experience similar hardships as those in urban areas due to lack of poverty, racism, and sexuality struggles. This causes that path to individualism to be drastically based on the resources and people that surround them. I think it's interesting that Bulman doesn't mention these themes of race in his writing when its such an important topic.
ReplyDeleteLast year in my first semester my intro to sociology had briefly talked about individualism. It was basically said to be a political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. It wasn't seen as a good or bad thing it was just described and how it develops our society/community.
ReplyDeleteWe talked a little about individualism in my sociology class. It wasent really said to be a positive or a negative to anyone or anything. We talked a little about how it was a political philosophy. I dont really remember much of what we really discussed but in the chapter it kind of went over what we were talking about in class. The suburbs vs the urban world and how when you think of one you get these stereotypes.
ReplyDelete- Timothy
DeleteI took a composition class in high school and during our second semester, we briefly discussed individualism and how it affects American society. In general, we all agreed that the idea of individualism alone is good. The idea that if you work hard enough, you’ll be able to reach your goals is wonderful. Ideally, individualism would be a way for everyone to be able to get ahead in life based on their own merits, but realistically, individualism doesn’t quite work that way in American society. We can claim that individualism drives us, but there’s still systemic obstacles that prevent many people from getting ahead. Sometimes it doesn’t matter how hard you work if you’ve got barriers stopping you from reaching your goals. I guess individualism in the sense that everyone has their own thing going on and no one will be judged too harshly for being different is true for America (most of the time), but the idea that individualism puts everyone on equal footing is false.
ReplyDeleteLast semester in my cultural anthropology class we discussed individualism within the context of various cultures. There is great variation in the degree of emphasis on different cultures and societies. In America we generally value personal autonomy, individual rights, and self-expression, but the prioritization of individualism is different throughout the world. Some cultures take group collectivism and group cohesion very seriously. For example, the Gebusi of Papua New Guinea believe so deeply in communalism that if someone spends an "unnecessary" amount of time alone, other people may accuse them of sorcery. Taking anthropology courses has helped me learn to step out of my own biases and unconsciously preconceived notions in order to access the functionality and meaning of it. I think individualism is important and I would be very upset if I couldn't express myself, but if that's not the societal norm within your culture, then it's just as important to consider the importance of conformity for other cultures.
ReplyDelete***degree of emphasis on collectivism
ReplyDeleteI had a class last year where we briefly discussed individualism. I don’t remember much about what was said about it, only that it makes individuals strive to do better which leads to a competitive society. Then we briefly talked about whether individualism would be seen as a negative or positive in certain situations.
ReplyDeleteOver the summer I took the intro to Africana studies (AFAM 111). In the course, we explored individualism in different contexts. One that comes to mind was when we deep dived into the complex society and culture of the Kingdom of Kongo. In their society they valued the groups benefit over individual gain. So in this specific context I would say it was seen as a negative thing by the people in the society. I would say individualism was largely seen as a negative thing especially when we discussed how capitalism was a factor in the atrocities committed by the Europeans against the people of Africa and how most of these disgusting actions we for profit and for the economic benefit of individuals.
ReplyDeleteIndividualism was discussed in my psychology class and in one of my history classes. I was taught that individualism meant giving priority to one's own goals. It was shown as a good thing to an extent. Giving priority to your goals meant focusing on yourself and becoming a person that can achieve more. It meant exploring and finding new ways to succeed. It was also shown as a negative thing because one wouldn’t be contributing to the community therefore wouldn’t be able to help out the society grow as a whole. The psychology definition and Bulman's definition relate as he defined it as “a core idea that the individual has autonomy and independence apart from social groups and institutions.
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily a class, but more of an ongoing lesson taught to me by a mentor from where I live who taught me about track. In the context of the sport of track and field, success is basically correlated to an individualistic mindset. With yourself being the only one to blame for a loss, development as an athlete and even personally is limited to your being and your being only. You can't blame the other runners for you doing bad, you can't try and mimic the other runners to try and be better, but you can deviate from the mainstream and use your plans to grow for yourself and improve that way. Learning that you shouldn't go into anything worried about what others are going to do, but rather what you yourself is going to do, is the way individualism was taught to me. This shed a positive light on the subject as opposed to some who learned the concept negatively.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember any particular class that i've taken talk about individualism. From what I read in Bulman's chapter and from what we talked about in class, I believe individualism to be based on the environment you grow up in. As Bulman centers his writing around class being the differing factor for individualism. Additionally, a point of failing in Bulman's writing, that was brought up in class, is the lack of talk about race. I feel individualism is heavily based on the people, morals, and environment one is surrounded by.
ReplyDeleteI briefly remember one of my high school geography teachers talking about individualism and how it hurts our generation. He said that the younger generation nowadays does not want to ask for help and wants to do everything on their own, essentially what he was trying to say was that were growing up too fast. I guess he meant well but to some who missed his point, it could come off as negative. Personally, I see both perspectives, I see my peers doing things they probably should not do but they do it to seem grown, but in many situations, kids have to grow up fast due to their environment.
ReplyDeleteIn my freshman English class, we had to write a couple of essays exploring our opinions and views on certain topics. It made me think about myself and why I think the way I do. We read pieces of literature from George Orwell and in these works of literature, the characters are stripped from their individuality and are controlled in every aspect. Reading Orwell's book and writing essays regarding his ideas opened my eyes to how important individualism is. I also realized that individualism can easily be taken for granted and how awful it would be if I were stripped from my individuality.
ReplyDeleteWe discussed individuality in my human spirituality class last semester. It was mentioned when referencing spirituality as its mostly an individual journey, at least to some degree. It can be seen as similar to bulmans perspective as the development of ones self is greatly emphasized in both views. I agreed with the sentiment regarding quality of upbringing and environment having major effects on individualism.
ReplyDelete- Jo**
DeleteIndividualism comes up pretty frequently in most of my special education classes. It is always viewed as an important piece of the profession and it is what makes each child unique. Even in just my regular education classes we'll discuss how each student is their own person with their own unique talents and needs. I think the current movement in education is to teach to the individual, not the group because in most cases, teaching to the whole group isn't honoring each child's individual strengths and needs.
ReplyDeleteLynnsi^
Delete2 semesters ago i took sociology and we briefly discussed individualism it was about social norms and was viewed as a bad thing . i'm currently taking social psychology and we have discussed the topic briefly as well but we are set to discuss more about it in the future. overall my experience with it is just general knowledge. never truly having a deep dive conversation
ReplyDeleteI took psychology my freshman year, and we discussed individuality and collectivism. We discussed how individualism encourages goals, which lead to individual accomplishment and the development of a distinct identity, as well as how it supports strengths and personal values. Whether it was establishing behavior, life tasks, coping mechanisms, or morals, the principle was applicable. One of the key themes discussed was how individuals in individualist societies may teach their children to be self-sufficient and independent.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Ghee -
ReplyDeleteI took a dual enrollment class on gender and global politics a few years ago that talked about individualism in American culture specifically as it relates to the third wave of American feminism--essentially getting into the complications of existing as an individual with your own set of intersectional experiences while trying to take part in a collective movement. The general attitude that arose in discussion was that it was good that feminism was able to expand in a way that didn't exclude how misogyny informs experiences with race, class, sexuality, etc., but the push for every action and shade of womanhood to be deemed "feminist" may have given rise to choice/individualist feminism, which impedes collective force for progress. I think it gets into a sort of paradox of tolerance question: is there some degree of identity flattening necessary to make large collective efforts work, and if so, what is the line between that sort of compromise and purposeful exclusion?
I haven’t studied individualism explicitly in a class before(at least not that I can remember), but I found the section on Individualism and Democracy interesting in today’s context. The individuality we are able to feel in a democracy is something that was instilled upon us from the moment we could listen; we were constantly told how grateful we must be that we escaped the trenches of aristocracy. Today though, it feels more common than not to feel distant to the democracy in our country, especially within the republican/democrat party framework. Tocqueville’s concerns of people not seeing themselves within the democratic structure has been realized, but has also been dismissed because of the community these same people find on the other side. To not support today’s democracy is not to find yourself completely selfish and thinking of individually, but to enter a space with many other people wanting similar things.
ReplyDeleteEmily Henriquez-
ReplyDeleteIn my english class in high school we had a lesson about individualism.
We talked about how it's a priority to one's self. Basically making their own rules, their own life choices and having consequences for their own actions. Many cultures encourage individuals to have a strong self concept. In what I learned it's how one takes it. Individualism encourages people to express their beliefs,emotions etc. In some part some take it as selfishness. Lower empathy plays its part. People in individualist cultures are more self interested which results in them feeling less empathy for others in a "community ".
I've had a couple of classes that have had discussions about individualism like some of my criminal justice classes and psychology class in high school. in my classes, they basically talked about how some individuals are very kept to themselves and how they do things alone. in specific in my criminal justice classes we talked about how a lot of serial killers such as the Unabomber are very independent and how they are individualists. i don't think individualism is a bad thing because everyone is different and everyone does life differently.
ReplyDeleteFor individualism , recently in my intro to health class , we’ve talked about how when it comes to measuring the amount of oxygen levels in a person of color’s skin (mostly darker skin color) versus a person who is white , it can be very inaccurate by 10 points and most of the time in hospitals , we end up giving the person the wrong treatment and the wrong amount of oxygen & it can show that we’re not receiving the right benefits of the healthcare system.
ReplyDeletemy blog ^ - Novia
ReplyDeleteLast spring semester I took an African American history class. We discussed how Individualism can be good and bad. We also said it's benefits with individualism.
ReplyDeleteI remember talking about individualism a lot throughout history class in middle school and high school, usually in a positive way. My teachers would talk about famous people from (primarily American) history whose individual actions created positive change by going against the system in some way. I also think that history class focused on celebrating individuals rather than group efforts when it came to systemic or large-scale changes, especially in lower school and middle school classes. I don’t remember a time when I was taught that it was a bad thing.
ReplyDelete