Dr. Latif Al-Qassab

Reducing the collective to the individual is not merely a phrase circulating among social elites; rather, it is a manifest behavior indicating a significant cultural shift in human thought that, according to some historians, has invaded our contemporary world since the mid or late twentieth century. Its manifestations remain evident to this day. Conceptually, it refers succinctly to the marginalization of the collective in favor of the individual, who is viewed as an independent entity with a unique personal experience. The collective entities—such as society, the nation, the sect, and the class—tend, under the conditions of this logic, to dissolve into the mold of the individual.

The central feature of this concept lies in the critique of grand narratives that prevailed prior to this period, such as socialism, nationalism, religion, and modernity—referring here to the essence of Western intellectual life that began to emerge in the seventeenth century and was characterized by a focus on rationalism, secularism, and empirical philosophy.

The goal pursued by postmodernists can be summarized as prioritizing the experiences of individuals, with all their diverse and contradictory perspectives, so that the individual—or individuals—becomes the center of human existence and its ultimate meaning, rather than the group or groups, as was the case in earlier eras.

In light of the aforementioned and amidst this dramatic transformation, the collective is no longer regarded as the ultimate reference for general identity or for total social meaning. Consequently, values once associated with the collective—such as solidarity, social duty, national belonging, and altruism—have either been weakened or reinterpreted purely according to individual standards. Thus, religious or national values today are often viewed by many from a self-serving, individualistic perspective rather than from a collective, absolute one.

In the cultural sphere, lifestyle patterns have emerged that focus primarily on the self—such as consumer culture and unrestrained self-expression, often free from the constraints previously observed, particularly through social media. The aim, upon deeper reflection, appears to be the deconstruction of collective identities—especially the primary identities recognized since the early formation of states, whether in their historical or modern forms. This represents the cultural (intellectual) dimension.

Politically, the importance of organized collective movements—such as parties, unions, and associations—has been downplayed, while concerted efforts have been made to promote policies grounded in individual or factional orientations across various categories, particularly those based on gender or specific ideological affiliations. The result has been a prioritization of instinctual individual desires, even fleeting ones, over all rational and logical constants. It has become sufficient for a person to transition from one gender to another merely by expressing the desire to do so, without the need to provide any justification for the gender transition in question—and so on.

In the realm of ethics, the phrase "what is good for society" has been replaced by "what is good for me." This reversal of values and standards has sparked philosophical debate among intellectual elites—between those who view such transformation as a liberation from collective coercion, and others—rightly—who consider it a dangerous form of social fragmentation and a loss of the moral compass for society as a whole.

Comments