Individualism and Equality : Andre Beteille

SUBJECT: SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
TOPIC: Discuss the relationship between Individualism and Equality.
COURSE: B.A (H) PHILOSOPHY

In his article - Individualism and Equality, Andre Beteille examines the relationship between individualism and equality at the level of values. He has focussed upon explaining the works of renowned anthropologist, Louis Dumont and famous historian, Alexis de Tocqueville. He also emphasises upon their contrasting works on the tumultuous and impassive relationship between individualism and equality.
The relationship between individualism and equality has been avidly discussed over the years and has left many awestruck with the simultaneous emergence of the desire for equality and the appreciation of the individual. These two conflicting terminologies were one which could both reinforce and limit each other, and in extreme cases; exclude each other. Social and political philosophers have stressed upon understanding this complex relationship as most societies are growing and changing at an inter-intra global level; and their citizens are now more aware of their rights in a lateral paradigm. A study of the relations between hierarchy, equality, the individual and the group cannot be made without a historical awareness of the changes taking place throughout the modern world. He has majorly shown the difference in the concept of the individual and that of equality, in the Western countries and in India.
To define the two terms –
Individualism is the political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes "the moral worth of the individual”. It promotes the exercise of one's goals and desires and advocates that interests of the individual that should achieve precedence over the state or a social group while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government. Equality, or the politically correct word, Egalitarianism is a trend of thought that favours equality for particular categories of, or for all, living entities. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status. It upholds the idea of everyone having the same political, economic, social, and civil rights or as a social philosophy involves, advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralisation of power. Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.

Therefore, both individualism and equality are large, vague and undefined ideas; but it is necessary to note that each of them can be and has been conceived in more than one sense. It has been widely held that, at the time of Tocqueville, traditional societies emphasized hierarchical values and collective identities; whereas modern societies were marked by their simultaneous concern for equality and individual identity. The assumption of a corresponding relationship between Individualism and Equality appear to be challenged by acts of discrimination in which collective entities are stressed upon, which is sometimes seen through at the expense of individual claims in the pursuit of equality.
Beteille argues that such discussions should not only cover just those societies where these values were first clearly articulated, but also in other societies to which these values have to spread. Although, cultures do differ and differ in important ways in the modern world, they are also closely interconnected. For example, equality is cross-culturally an ideal and a value which has acquired a certain appeal in every part of the modern world. Defining individualism is one thing and demonstrating that it has a central and unique place in the collective consciousness of a given society is another. We need not take at face value the kind of statement which says that the individual counts for nothing in some societies and for everything in others. When we say that individualism is a value in a given society, we mean that its people hold the individual to be as important as, or more important that clan, caste, estate, race or nation; and that that act in ways which enable us to infer why they assign him such significance. With something as large as individualism, it becomes evident that people hold divergent viewpoints and act in a divergent way as well. More so over, equality should ideally be the principle of social life; yet it often has negative social consequences. The commitment to attainment of both individual goals and spread of equality varies within the society as well.
The strikingly vast difference between the understanding of the ideals and values of individualism and equality come into light when the works of Dumont and Tocqueville are used as parallel evidence. The point of departure of Dumont’s work is the contrast at the level of values between societies governed by holism and hierarchy on one hand and by individualism and equality on the other hand. He focuses on the obvious hierarchy in the traditional Indian culture, but often forgets to take into account the modern scenario and ends up giving precedence to collectivism over individualism. Tocqueville too had become receptive to the spread of individualism and of equality, but grew up in an era where there was an increase in appreciation for individual human beings. He too was struck by the relationship between this new individualism and so-called ‘equality of classes’.
Historians have also noted the presence of individualism and the spirit of equality in pre-modern times, namely in tribal societies; which completely dismisses the claim that these ideals are time and not value-based. The difference between the notions of individualism in past and present societies is that, in most societies, the caste, the clan or the family overshadows the individual to a large extent. Whereas, in certain societies the individual is given pre-eminence as a bearer of rights and capacities.
The guiding thread of Dumont’s work is his contrast between hierarchical and egalitarian societies, i.e between homo hierarchical and homo aequalis. For him, hierarchy is the social expression of a fundamental value which he calls ‘holism’, and equality is the expression of the opposite, individualism. His work on India was mainly an analysis of hierarchy, and the one on Europe was a work on individualism. Dumont’s contrast between homo hierarchicus and homo aequalis may be seen as a reformulation of Tocqueville’s contrast between aristocratic and democratic societies. Dumont portrays two different societies which have been separated by a space-time paradigm; whereas Tocqueville pushes hard to show how two contrasting societies can grow out of one another. Dumont was a perpetrator of difference, whereas Tocqueville upheld the notion of continuity. In India, the implementation of individualism over equality is warped and difficult, as people are conditioned to function within the set paradigm of hierarchy; yet often (insincerely) demand the need for equality. Equality, for example, of opportunity may not in every sense help hone individualistic talents. In an age of competition, the traditional Indian education system does little to promote every individual equally.
In today’s world; individualism and equality function side by side as the inability for that to happen can lead to the fall of many social institutions; like offices, trade unions etc. Simultaneously, collective identities strive to uphold the spirit of humanity and are the basis for the instillation of fundamental values which lead to smooth functioning of society. A society whose individual members are reduced to the lowest common denominator can only stagnate and cannot progress. Individualism in the contemporary world is linked more with the idea of progress that it is with the idea of equality. The crucial view of equality in today’s world lies on how we view equality and in which set scenario. The prevalent hand of justice is bound to create inequality, in order to meet the individual demands and pleas for justice.