Underlying my recent string of posts is an increasing awareness of individualism and collectivism battling for supremacy in the American ethos. Collectivism makes the group primary, individualism (obviously) makes the individual primary. The history of America is rooted in a rich individualistic tradition, but there are new collectivistic trends that we see in our political developments that point to something more foundational. The field of Media Ecology provides helpful insights here.
Because we live in a communication environment (“ecology”) that famed media ecologist Marshall McLuhan recognized as networked (he saw this before the Internet), we see popular social discourse in many ways shaped by the characteristics of the Internet. This involves short bursts of information, global integration of communicators, broad information sharing to “connect the dots” on various topics, and real-time awareness to those in the network. What this does not involve is an emphasis on careful thought and reflection, which is the great tradition tied to that traditional medium, the book.
If one generalizes a bit to see the book as a tool more in line individualism, and the Internet as a tool more in line with collectivism, then one should not be surprise to see the political rise of collectivism correlated to the rise of the Internet in political communication. Seeing this distinction is a helpful tool for analysis fortified by some compelling data points, perhaps most notably being the statistic by Pew Research that in 2006, the majority of Americans went outside of mainstream media as their primary source of political information. In the subsequent presidential election, it was the Internet candidate, Barack Obama, who went on to win the electoral majority, surprising the expected establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton (remember the “Stop Hillary Express”?).
The 2008 Obama campaign raised $770 million dollars, with a large portion coming via a nearly 4 million donor database. The Internet has created many opportunities, and collectivistic leaders have stepped forward through these openings. Individualism, by its nature diverse and fractured, has yet to respond with anything as cohesive and sustained at a political level. But that could change. And when it does, I suspect the opportunist who breaks through will have the chance to spark a new movement, or counter-movement, to the present collectivism. For America’s individualistic roots should not be expected to be surpassed so easily, no matter how compelling the collectivist leader and movement.
I would differ slightly with your assessment of “the Internet as a tool more in line with collectivism.” You can look to the rise in awareness of a politician such as Ron Paul, who’s message is classical liberalism (i.e., individualism)—the Internet made this possible.
Mediocrity, laziness, and lack of intellectual engagement is fertile soil for collectivism.
Individuals who share an opinion, or set of values make up a collective: Ron Paul’s message of individual liberty was shared by those paying attention thus forming a collective force of individuals. The more people wake up, and become intellectually involved, I’m sure they will agree with the most intellectual of the founders:
[...] in America, where we constantly hear arguments based on the idea that we must chose between either individualism or collectivism, the idea that the interests of both the individual and the [...]