Arguments Against Individualism

The United States of America was founded by immigrants of Great Britain; after sailing to America, colonies were settled and a new hope was in the air. Immigrants soon became our forefathers who created the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and what we know today as the Constitution of the United States. The U.S. Constitution established America's national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens. It was signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, presided over by George Washington. Over 200 years ago, a nation of immigrants and a vastly diverse community of people created history. Everyday we see individuals of all shapes, sizes,

American author and journalist, Michael Pollan, in the article titled, “Why Bother?”, published in The New York Times Magazine, addresses the topic of environmental issues and argues that the phrase, “why bother?”, is what is keeping society from changing the ways citizens use up resources. His main focus of reasoning is supported by his idea that specialization has a significant role in reducing the average consumer’s chance of changing their lifestyle and also highlights that planting your own garden would be a task which in turn would benefit the consumer in many ways, while also decreasing their carbon footprint size. He concludes that these actions taking place could have a chain reaction that would spread these practices across the nation and lead to positive impacts on the environment.

Radically Individualism represents a hero or villain. Hudson (2013) defines the traditional celebration in the United States,” A hero or villain are representative of America’s celebration in novels, moves, and television often carries over into perception of the real world” (p.106). For example, in the late of 1980s to 1990s, many kids watched cartoon shows every Saturday in the early mornings. They observed the similar and difference roles of superheroes in good or evil deeds. The relationship between children’s exposure to superheroes and their development of moral values depict their both positive and violence behavior clearly while learning in the definition of their individualism and liberty rights (McCrary, 1999; Martin,2007). The

Many people across the world have their own definition and beliefs of the word individualism. There is nothing selfish to be able to express ones personality and internal emotions. Being an individual alone could value a person’s overall true character. The claim presented would be opposed by many because people like to feel independent and self-reliant. Individualism in today’s society lets people express themselves, and helps create something small into something big. For a long time now individualism has existed since the founding of our country. History was created by those who showed independence and proved that an individual can do it all.

Growing up in Oregon has presented me with many opportunities. As an Oregonian I believe I possess an elevated sense of my environmental responsibility. It is hard not to when you are raised in an environment with lush green landscapes that encompass one of the most eco-friendly cities in the world. Regardless of a green city or not, because of the pressure we have put on the earth, we have needed to create practices and products to relive some of that pressure. Not only has “going green” become a “trend”, but it has become a market. Consumers will pay a premium price for organic food, and eco friendly products such as biodegradable containers, low emission vehicles, green cleaning products, and are even charged for preferring plastic bags

1) An individualist is considered to be someone with personality and character, someone who is not easily intimidated by social pressure or customs, someone with a personal opinion and a singular view of the world. Because modern society finds it important that people think independently, decide autonomously and take personal initiatives, the concept of individualism has acquired a positive connotation. However, individualism is also linked with the tendency to withdraw from social life and turn in towards oneself.

According to Jhally, surveys were done about what makes people happy and most of the responses were the social aspects of life like self-esteem and having a happy family life, not the material aspects. Using this information, advertisers attach what makes consumers happy socially to products to make them feel as if they need these products to reach their goal. Advertisers use consumers’ emotions to make products to sell back to them. This is causing an ever-expanding economic growth that is clearly having major environmental impacts. However, because people center their life around goods, a conversation will never be able to be brought up about the future of economic growth and the environment unless the consumer changes his or her attitude

Individualists come from all around the world. Writing poetry, and books, and other types of literature. But they don't have to be authors to be an individualist, along with any other chosen career. Other individuals like myself describe themselves as individualist through variations of optimistic perspectives. We all differentiate each other, we have different personalities and different career choices. By reinforcing the values of difference, personality and career choices, some of the greatest authors have helped shape our american individualism.

The economy today runs on an antiquated ritual of exploiting, plundering, devastation, and manipulation of land for material wealth, profiting the wealthy and condemning the poor. This mindset is no more sophisticated than feudalism, a system so bad it had to be outlawed along with witchcraft. The idea that exploitation of land is justified has brought plastics to the ocean and leveled rainforests. Large corporations have grown larger by manufacturing and production, depleting the planet’s resources in the process. Now, companies must make a combined effort to put the environment first, before profit. Because of their harmful practices, consumers have the right to know where products come from, how they’re made, and the impact on the environment. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the large corporations to change their harmful practices, to make strides towards ending climate change and use clean, sustainable methods.

On your weekly trip to the supermarket it’s easy to find a number of products, from coffee to dishwashing soap, that flaunt their green attributes” (American Psychological Association, 2010). With such rumors of greenwashing, consumers are more confused than ever. However, some consumers know the tricks and are coming to find that there are companies whose marketing practices are legit, not exaggerated or deceiving. APA also found that, “people are willing to spend more of their hard-earned green on green products, according to a 2008 survey of 9,000 adults performed by the global business firm Boston Consulting Group” (American Psychological Association, 2010). Consumers who are willing to pay more for a product or service are assuming that they are purchasing a healthier, safer, and better quality product or service for the environment.

Goleman’s latest book is Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything. The book argues that new information technologies will create “radical transparency,” allowing us to know the environmental, health, and social consequences of what we buy. As shoppers use point-of-purchase ecological comparisons to guide their purchases, market share will shift to support steady, incremental upgrades in how products are made – changing everything for the better.

Political consumption is the conscious act of buying (buycotting) or refraining from purchasing (boycotting) various products and services for social and ethical reasons. Political Consumerism is “defined as consumers’ use of the market as an arena for politics in order to change institutional or market practices found to be ethically, environmentally, or politically objectionable and is a specific form of participation that characterizes individualized responsibility taking” (Stolle and Micheletti 2013, page 39). Political consumption is the purchasing or avoidance of certain products and services in an effort to bring about social change. Political consumers believe that consumption is a means to promote change, because as demand increases for products that are socially or environmentally superior there will be a corresponding decrease in the demand for those that are not. This pressure, ideally, forces corporations to adjust their practices to maintain their customer base and revenue stream. The hope, for the political consumer, is that this shift in purchasing will eventually eliminate the socially and or environmentally harmful products, and supplant them with ones that are less damaging to the world writ large.

In the last decade, society has become increasingly worried about the impact that humans have on the environment. Many people believe that climate change is actively going to change the way how people live in the future. In response to the public concern, many companies are searching for greener methods of energy output. Instead of coal and gasoline, corporations are becoming more socially responsible in their actions. For example, long standing establishments like Walmart has installed LED lighting in all of their stores to cut down on energy consumption and more restaurants are switching to locally sourced and organic ingredients. Although many companies focus on particular aspects of their business, a fairly new automobile company is

Sunchips provides not only a “healthier” chip but also uses renewable energy and a biodegradable bag and encourages consumers to join their eco movement. Other companies, such as Pepsi and Volkswagen, are joining in too. The “Refresh Everything” project launched by the major soda chain is attempting to make its product more environmentally friendly, and Volkswagen is taking even bigger strides with its movement, “The Fun Theory,” which encourages customers to be green while making the process fun (Park 1). Other major corporations jumping on the green bandwagon include Hewlett Packard, which boasts its recycling efforts and energy efficiency, and Ben and Jerry’s with its effort to “Lick Global Warming” and employ other eco-conscious practices (Rottkamp 1). While these strategies have shed light on being friendly to our planet, the fact remains that the large portion of our population simply is not embracing it.

Intrinsic motivations appear to be the reason why conservation and environmentally minded consumers adopt eco-friendlier products (Bamberg 2003). For example, intrinsically driven consumers buy hybrid cars to reduce the effects of their driving on the environment. However, there is another stream of literature utilizing other research methods that have found that pro-environmental products are often not purchased because of pro-environmental motives (Barr, 2004). In fact, in a wide-ranging study that employed dissimulated surveys on a range of products, Bamberg (2003) reported only a low to mitigate association between consumers’ concern about the environment and adoption of consumption deportment that was considered to be environmentally cordial. If this is the case, is it possible that there are other reasons behind adopting ‘greener’ products?