Individualism in twentieth-century america

The question that one would want to ask is whether it is possible that one would be accepted in a group without losing their individuality. Responding to this message requires appreciation of the fact that being accepted in the group while one is individuated will mean to be accepted in the group without conforming to the norms of that particular group.

The possibility that individuals would conform to group norm depends on a number of factors’ first, the group cohesiveness. This is the degree to which individuals are attracted to the group and the benefits that are drawn from that group. The size of the group would also determine whether individuals would confirm or not. Smaller groups tend to pile a lot of pressure for conformity than large groups.

The concept of individualism has been studied in details by two main theorists, Locke and Mills. According to Locke, individualism has been overcome by the pressure particularly that of the government. He suggests that government is a necessary evil that rope people together to conform. His view of individual’s conformity is authoritarian. Mills, however, reveals that individualism was grounded on theories of pleasure and pain. He suggests that individuals are the arbiters of their own actions and therefore they are considered to be one of the strongest proponents for liberalism, checked only by his harm principle. (Mills, Gordon H, 26)

The above argument s indicates clearly that indeed it was possible that individuals would be accepted in groups, even though they may have obtained individuality.