Nooooo, not quite. And I'm making a few different points in this post which got a bit smooshed together.
I think communal endeavour tends to be more effective than individuals working off their own bat without consulting others, but that doesn't make individual works bad. And an educated individual who pays attention to what other people are doing and alters their actions accordingly can be very effective (of course the line between that and communal action can be blurry). The moral aspect with regards to the narratives people tell about social change is that by ignoring communal changes you're (a)Being inaccurate and (b)Encouraging less effective methods.
It's like: there's a tendency for people to act like Rosa Parks brought down bus segregation all by herself by refusing to move to the back of the bus almost on a whim. But, as I have learned recently, her actions were part of a long term decided on by the civil rights group she was a part of, and as a group they decided she should be the one to take a stand since the public would be more sympathetic to her.
I think perpetuating the "She was just a lone individual who took a stand" narrative does harm, and is an insult to her and her group. But if she HAD been a lone individual taking a stand that wouldn't be immoral, that would be awesome, especially since it would be a bigger achievement to do so much by yourself. But she didn't. *hopes the distinction is clear*
What I don't like is the idea that social justice etc is good as a vague goal, and taking a stand is ok if you do it as an individual based on specific personally experienced injustices (like Batman becoming a vigilante because his parents were killed by criminals, to give an extreme example), but thinking about the broader social patterns and working with others and forming a longterm strategy to change society is bad. Because for the most part that's how most social justice actually happens. And it means people can simultaneously agree that it is a Good Thing that slavery was abolished and women got the vote etc and think that our society is still sexist and racist, yet find the idea of modern civil rights or feminist movements, or the idea that to facilitate social change themselves they might have to educate themselves and work in concert with others, scary and threatening and unnecessary. Because they like to imagine that social change happens when individuals say "Hey, this kind of sucks" and do what feels natural and right without having to think too hard or challenge themselves or give up power or be One Of Those Activist People.
Which is not to say individuals can't make a difference, they can. And I think social justice movements can get stagnant and ineffective and in need of people working outside their own subcultural mainstream with a fresh perspective. But you need both, and fetishizing individualism to the total exclusion of communal endeavour is bad.
no subject
I think communal endeavour tends to be more effective than individuals working off their own bat without consulting others, but that doesn't make individual works bad. And an educated individual who pays attention to what other people are doing and alters their actions accordingly can be very effective (of course the line between that and communal action can be blurry). The moral aspect with regards to the narratives people tell about social change is that by ignoring communal changes you're (a)Being inaccurate and (b)Encouraging less effective methods.
It's like: there's a tendency for people to act like Rosa Parks brought down bus segregation all by herself by refusing to move to the back of the bus almost on a whim. But, as I have learned recently, her actions were part of a long term decided on by the civil rights group she was a part of, and as a group they decided she should be the one to take a stand since the public would be more sympathetic to her.
I think perpetuating the "She was just a lone individual who took a stand" narrative does harm, and is an insult to her and her group. But if she HAD been a lone individual taking a stand that wouldn't be immoral, that would be awesome, especially since it would be a bigger achievement to do so much by yourself. But she didn't. *hopes the distinction is clear*
What I don't like is the idea that social justice etc is good as a vague goal, and taking a stand is ok if you do it as an individual based on specific personally experienced injustices (like Batman becoming a vigilante because his parents were killed by criminals, to give an extreme example), but thinking about the broader social patterns and working with others and forming a longterm strategy to change society is bad. Because for the most part that's how most social justice actually happens. And it means people can simultaneously agree that it is a Good Thing that slavery was abolished and women got the vote etc and think that our society is still sexist and racist, yet find the idea of modern civil rights or feminist movements, or the idea that to facilitate social change themselves they might have to educate themselves and work in concert with others, scary and threatening and unnecessary. Because they like to imagine that social change happens when individuals say "Hey, this kind of sucks" and do what feels natural and right without having to think too hard or challenge themselves or give up power or be One Of Those Activist People.
Which is not to say individuals can't make a difference, they can. And I think social justice movements can get stagnant and ineffective and in need of people working outside their own subcultural mainstream with a fresh perspective. But you need both, and fetishizing individualism to the total exclusion of communal endeavour is bad.