The Trap Of Individualism

Many Chinese terms have become unusable because they’ve been usurped and abused by the CCP and, consequently, have gained a sinister connotation. People either avoid using certain words or misunderstand their meanings.

Take the term “reactionary” (反動) for example. Because of well-known historical events, the term easily evokes associations with the brutal and oppressive authoritarian regime. Such accusations had caused great suffering and trauma for a generation of people. Nowadays, even the CCP itself recognizes that this rhetoric is scary, so this term is no longer used. It’s rarely used in everyday speech either. Some liberal scholars even cite the phrase from the Tao Te Ching that says “reversal is the movement of the Tao” to label themselves as reactionary, as a show of defiance. However, in places without this dark historical context, the word is still used with its correct meaning. When I first encountered the word “reactionary” in English, I was a bit confused and had to check an English-Chinese dictionary to confirm that my understanding was correct. The opposite of progress is reactionary. Ideologies like racism, sexism, nationalism, and authoritarianism that hinder social progress can all be described as reactionary.

Another example is “collectivism” and “individualism.” In the Chinese public consciousness, the former often implies obedience. Individual agency is denied, and personal choice yields to the choices made by superiors. In collectives lacking democratic decision-making, collectivism becomes a guise for hierarchy. Meanwhile, “individualism” signifies the sovereignty of the individual over their personal values. Individuals make independent choices and are responsible for them. Individualism is often seen by liberals as an alternative value system that resists authoritarianism.

Due to the limitations and misguidance of available vocabulary, people get disoriented when telling their own stories, or fail to see obvious problems. In my WeChat Moments, individualist narratives are the norm. For instance, people frequently emphasize “making oneself stronger.” When reflecting on personal growth, some put a lot of focus on “IQ” and “vision.” I think this kind of narrative overlooks the larger context. Individualism assumes that agency comes from the individual alone. But this is wrong. Our social relations limit the extent of our agency. Take a simple example: if you throw someone into the Sahara Desert, freedom, agency, or becoming “strong” would be meaningless to them. Every aspect of our lives — decent income, housing, job security, clean water and air, the cost of living — depends on collective bargaining and decision-making. When people are excluded from these collectives, they can only focus on self-improvement or (when that fails) blame themselves.

In his essays criticizing neoliberalism, Byung-Chul Han also discusses this issue. People no longer need capitalists to exploit them; the dogma of individualism can drive people to exploit themselves. Social problems are framed within an individualist framework. The difficulties people face ultimately boil down to making oneself stronger to overcome them. And “stronger” means having more negotiating power than others, and thus securing more resources.

To borrow a phrase from Yanis Varoufakis, people privatize their fears and failures, seeking comfort in their private lives. But without collective action to fight for better social conditions, private comfort and struggles won’t lead to much change. If rent is high, join protests and activists, call for referendums to seize property from housing companies, build more public housing, and demand rent breaks from the government. If you’re dissatisfied with the climate crisis, join protests, disrupt fossil fuel companies, annoy the complacent middle class, and cultivate awareness among the younger generation. Foster solidarity across national and ethnic lines, and support institutions and individuals fighting for the public good. These courses of action cannot be found in the logic of individualism.

From a more metaphysical perspective, individualism also fails to provide an anchor of value for individuals. The result of individualistic self-sufficiency is inevitably narcissism. And this narcissism is empty and false, leaving no space for vulnerability, for letting go of oneself, for love.