08 November 2009

Individualism depresses us

As I hope many readers will know, the Christian gospel has a nuanced relationship to cultures: on the one hand it has adaptability and can, indeed should, find expression within human cultures. There are issues of identity, of communication and translation involved in that. Indeed, in some cases the gospel even acts to affirm and develop vernacular cultures (see Lamin Sanneh's work on the way that missions impacted west African culture). On the other hand the gospel drives critique of culture (and so campaigns to change things: suttee in India (William Carey being a big name there), or the slave trade).

This research indicates the psychological effects of culture with implications for social and individual health. The article sent to me by a colleague is this one Britain's 'me culture' making us depressed - Telegraph:
'Nations with greater individualism showed higher prevalence of anxiety and depression,' she said. She said that in contrast, the collectivist and conformist cultures of East Asian countries such as China and Taiwan seem to 'buffer' the inhabitants from poor mental health.
What we should notice here, broadly speaking, is that this is an affirm /challenge issue for the gospel: there is a great deal of Christian affirmation of taking individual and personal responsibility and of personal decision which works well with individualism. On the other hand we recognise that we are social beings both in creation and in redemption (solidarity in Adam and -at least potentially- in Christ) and that there is a huge streak of biblical stuff about being our neighbour's keeper and exercising and developing solidarity for justice and the common good.

So now, with this research emerging, we need to take on board how the balance of things affects aggregate health. Another cause to reflect on texts like that about causing 'little ones' to sin, perhaps ... ? How should Christians act and do mission and pastoral care to build greater and healthy solidarity without eroding right degrees of individual and personal responsibility; this is clearly now a missional question. Indeed, do we need to ask further questions about how this works? Who does it bear down most heavily on? Who does it marginalise most? How does paying attention to the most affected by it help us to understand the sinningness of our society?

And who'd'a' thunk it? It turns out we're more individualistic than the USAmericans ....

That said, there are some relevant questions from comments on the page. Predictably, for the Torygraph, a lot of questioning which is thinly veiled contempt for 'socialised' stuff and a riding of ideological hobby horses which is less convincing because of a conflation of individualism with matters such as freedom and government regulation.

The problem with individualism as an ideology is that it tends to hide social 'mentalities'. As a Christian, I do feel I have to challenge that particular act of elision: the appearance of 'principalities and powers' etc in the NT indicate a reality of social entities and collective spirituality which can be recognised as being spiritually significant. As some readers will recall, this is an area I'm doing some thinking and writing (when I've a moment or three) about, so this article has gone towards the resources for that. I hope that I'm going to be able to track down the research report on Science Daily.

3 comments:

Steve Hayes said...

Today being the feast of St Michael and all Angels in our tradition, I preached about prncipalities and powers, and was interested to see that half the readings for the day dealt with fallen angels, linked with political power, like the Lucifer passage in Isaiah, which the church has always seen as a kind of type of the fall of Satan.

And so I feel like rereading Charles Williams's The place of the lion, and wonder about the extent to which principalities and powers are egregores.

ClayBarham said...

Imagine how depressed are those who must depend on themselves for their prosperity, as is the case with individual freedom and the kind of libertarian existence defined by those 19th century Democrats led by Jefferson in America. Just too much prosperity and freedom goin' on out dere. We need an Obama and the modern Democrats who say community interests are more important than are individual interests, so we can appreciate being the many ruled by the few elite who know so much better how we should live our lives without depression, like they did in the USSR and do under Castro.

Andii said...

I wouldn't want to say community interests are more important that individual: that way lies bullying and tyranny if it's not balanced by respect for and seeking justice for persons. It's all about the balance between community and individual but without seeing them as opposed. We need to be aware that 'I am because we are' -and vice versa and seek virtuous cycles. But, of course, this does mean recognising that there are social dimensions which support individual achievments and abilities to achieve. To strengthen the communal in the right ways actual increases the capacity of individuals to excel and in turn this can help communities to be even better.

Christian England? Maybe not...

I've just read an interesting blog article from Paul Kingsnorth . I've responded to it elsewhere with regard to its consideration of...