Individualism and Individuality

In the first episode of my Social Security series, I explore the difference between individuality and individualism, between being truly ourselves in connection with others, and the cultural pressure to perform independence at all costs. Individualism is a survival story, a disguise precarity and control use to convince us they are actually freedom. And yet, somehow that freedom leaves us separate, continuously striving, and worn thin. Individuality, on the other hand, is only itself. It thrives when we are held, supported, and recognized by one another. Individuality is a relational story. 

This episode invites you to imagine a new kind of social security, one built on trust, connection, and mutual support, and to consider what embracing our individuality might mean for our freedom, our relationships, and our ability to create a sense of security, socially. 

Transcript

Amy Parrish (00:03)
Hey y'all, welcome back to Rebelling. So in the first episode of the Social Security series, I want to look at the difference between individuality and individualism How we've been told living independently, making it on your own means we're free.

But in reality, we're just becoming more and more bound to the idea of independence itself, which is leaving us more and more alone.

I don't know about you, but something I always wanted growing up was to just be me. I never understood why who I was felt wrong. After all, you know, I live in America, the land of individualism, the land of freedom from freedom from being told how to think, how to behave, who to be.

I believed our country's success came from rebelling against those who wanted to rule us, that we came here to escape control.

I can remember being in elementary school, singing my country tis of thee. I remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance and feeling so proud, proud that we stood for the right of the individual to be, to make their own way, that we didn't all have to be alike to belong.

But as we all know, history is deceptive and the story of individualism is tricky. It pretends to be freedom, but it's really ⁓ more like a survival strategy. It trains us to be self-sufficient, to fend for ourselves, to perform independence, almost like a moral duty. Individualism demands that we protect ourselves.

even if it isolates us from each other.

It disguises control and precarity as liberation.

I think it actually pretends to be a desirable identity, but instead is actually a way we are divided and isolated. A belief system that has been twisted, but then I kind of wonder if that was maybe the point all along.

To me, individuality is different. Individuality is relational. It invites others in a way to be distinct and still connected. It's the part of us that recognizes difference, that understands curiosity, that allows complexity.

Individuality emerges from being held, not striving, not controlled, but supported in a way that allows risk, exploration, and care.

And y'all, this is where social security comes in and not the government program or a check in the mail, but the deeper sense of security that exists when we are held by each other. When falling down doesn't mean disappearing from view and when succeeding doesn't mean diminishing what you've done.

Imagine what if what if your life your failures your Experiments didn't depend solely on your strength your work your ability to survive alone What if your survival and your freedom was relational? built through trust care and mutual support What if it wasn't survival at all

but mutual thriving.

Under individualism, scarcity drives us. We hoard, we hide, we perform, we try to do it all alone. And when we fail, the weight lands on our own shoulders. That's what I lived as a child, as a parent, as a partner, as a friend.

This myth of independence made me believe I had to be enough on my own and when I wasn't I blamed myself.

I shut down, my struggles.

and convinced myself that needing anyone was weakness, which will be a whole other episode.

I notice we need each other in ways that, when they are allowed, create a new social story. It seems like individualism is about assimilating, not about being different.

Individualism actually frowns on difference. It wants everyone to be the same as long as you can be the same by yourself. It holds out security as something you aspire to. It's a training. Remember, it's about survival. Individuality is relational.

It is a freedom that is personal and still invites others in. Individuality is about being different, unique. It's an expression. It's what gets lost when you try to create security with money, with power over, and with institutions.

Individuality can hold difference. It understands it. It almost demands it. It is natural. It is the common ground that we stand on when we create security from the ways we are different together.

Individuality is not a divider. It makes a mutual respect of recognition and relationship that allows room for complexity and curiosity.

It's really interesting to me how individuality and individualism are ways to recognize each other. I remember trying so hard to differentiate myself while still trying to fit in. And it's that duality that forces individuality over into the realm of individualism. It says one thing, but means another.

That was such a confusing place for me, trying to do everything myself, being more and more self-sufficient, and somehow still failing anyway. I believed that if I could just do it all myself, then I would fit in. So I shut myself down more and more. I hid the ways I struggled and the things I didn't understand.

I was trying to be a good person, not need anyone. I believed that if I could do that, that this light would come on and everything would finally become clear.

I knew I was different. I felt like that was wrong. I didn't understand how to do it my way, but also do it the right way.

I think now that individualism creates a myth of security that relies heavily on failure and self-blame. It gives us control and yet leaves out invisible interdependence, acts like those things don't even exist. It allows the system to shirk responsibility over and over again.

a one-way relationship that exhausts us and shames us and then makes it our fault.

⁓ if only I were... whatever. I need to try harder. I need to do better. Have you been there too? Doing it your way, relying on your own strength, your own resources? How much did I do that as a parent, as a wife, as a friend? What did that take away from my connections with my children, my husband, my friends?

How did not needing anyone keep us all more alone?

So the idea I'm exploring now is how individuality can replace individualism as a way of seeing ourselves in the world. How the tenants of individualism corrupted individuality and what we can do about it.

I'm imagining what it would be like to let go of the judgment and shame it takes to be in a society that upholds individualism as gospel and instead free fall into the individuality like a spiral into the depths of humanity we've never experienced before. How human can we be? How natural can we get?

How can we create security from the thing we all already have so much of that there is no need to create more?

What are the ways we can recognize ourselves in one another, even as we embrace our curiosity about being more and more ourselves and become secure from the resonance of our relationships, not from our monetary wealth?

When social security enters, when we are held by each other in meaningful ways, the story changes. Individuality can flourish. We can take risks. We can experiment. We can be curious, complex, different. The ground we stand on isn't made of fear and self-surveillance.

It's relational support, trust, and recognition.

Social security is a way to create long lasting, substantial and reliable security that bases its success on relationships, not institutions. It feels risky, which is exactly what individualism wants you to feel because it's based on the individual fending for themselves while knowing that we are more

powerful together.

Under individualism, scarcity drives us. We hoard, we hide, we perform. Under Social Security, scarcity doesn't rule us. We take risks, we experiment, we grow because failure does not erase us. Real individuality, the freedom to be different, curious, even fail,

requires a form of social security. Without it, individuality can't thrive. It becomes survival theater, performance, and isolation.

Y'all, there's an urgency to this, but also not. It's something that feels like it wants to be shared, but not rushed. This series is about rebellious curiosity, about looking at the system from within the system and then questioning it without needing certainty, without needing a neat wrap-up or even instructions or next steps. Can we hold the space of not knowing

while we learn to know.

What would it mean to be secure? Not from money, not from power, but from the ways we are held by each other.

How can this change the way we see ourselves, our neighbors, our communities?

How can we live as individuals who are not isolated but connected, whose freedom comes not from going it alone, but from doing it together?

Individualism tells us independence is everything. Social security shows us that connection is everything. Individualism breeds anxiety and self-blame. Social security allows individuality to breathe.

This series isn't about giving answers. It's about curiosity, about listening, about noticing the tension between who we've been told we are and who we can be.

And what I really wonder is can we stand being insecure long enough to create a new idea about security with each other?

Thank you so much for listening. I'm looking forward to seeing you again in a couple weeks.

Have a good holiday.