| Popis: |
It is often suggested that the distinguishing characteristic of public opinion in contemporary Western societies is a lack of shared moral guidelines in life: everything goes. The only ideal left is what is often called individualism, namely that of not accepting any given roles, values or ideals in life but instead striving towards being as free as possible to behave as one pleases. In the thesis that this chapter forms a part of, I offer a different understanding of the much discussed culture of individualism. In later chapters, I shall present data that allow us to question existing assumptions regarding the empirical nature of individualistic values. In this chapter, however, I begin by addressing what I believe is still an un-settled issue of just as much, if not even more, importance: the concept of individualism and how to define it. This chapter aims to equip us with the theoretical Wellingtons we need before venturing into the empirical swamp of individualism. We still know too little about individualism as a set of moral ideals concerning how human beings and society ought to behave. The root of the problem, I suggest, is that we lack a theoretically sound definition of what this kind of normative individualism is and what it is not; which in turn means we have no existing framework for making systematic comparisons between different versions of individualistic ideals. Here, I develop a definition of normative individualism and such a framework. In doing so, I do not only contribute to a more thorough understanding of individualism, but also to two closely related debates in political theory. Normative individualism, it is shown, amounts to valuing individual liberty of different kinds. Thus, the concept of individualism provides a new and rewarding entry to two classic conceptual questions which I also discuss: how to define freedom and how to define moral autonomy. Presented at the Nordic Network in Political Theory, 8th Annual workshop, Uppsala, Sweden, October 2008. |
