Individualism versus collectivism
In discussing concepts of power in Chapter 1 we saw that some
writers tend to focus upon collective entities such as societies or
classes in their analysis of politics, whilst others were more prone to
focus upon the activities of individuals. Our earlier discussions in this
chapter suggest that this type of difference may be more than a mere
difference of focus in the method of analysis, but that it may also
reflect a fundamental difference of values. For Bentham and Rawls,
both writing in the liberal tradition, the starting point for political
reflection is the individual. Not only are individuals seen as the
fundamental building blocks from which societies are composed.
More importantly, political arrangements are seen as devices to be
judged by the extent to which they recognise the moral equality of
individuals and allow them to make decisions about their own lives in
an ‘autonomous’ (self-governing) fashion.
Classical and medieval writers tended to see the focus of political
enquiry as the creation of good societies in which, as a consequence of
the wisdom of constitution makers and princes, good men would
flourish. This can be seen in Plato’s assumption that a just society is
one in which there is a correct distribution of functions between its
constituent social groups and that the just individual is the just
society in microcosm. Similarly some medieval writers fondly
compared the just state to a hive of bees or colony of ants in which all
did their appropriate part without a thought for the boredom and toil
implicit in the ordinary ‘worker’ role in such societies. More recently,
as we shall see in the next chapter, fascists have subordinated the60 CONCEPTS
it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure
of right and wrong.
(Bentham, 1948: Preface, 3, para. 3)Justice as fairness – principles (a) ‘equality in the assignment of basic
rights and duties’; (b) ‘social and economic inequalities... are only
just if they result in compensating benefits for everyone and in
particular the least advantaged members of society.’
(Rawls, 1971: 14–15)