Page 59 - CULTURE IN THE COMMUNICATION AGE

EDUARDO NEIVA

individuals in the swarm corrects the course of the pattern and its constant
possibility of disintegration. No totality governs the pattern, the pattern
happens. Each individual is linked to another individual organism and all
of them, through reciprocity, adjust themselves, avoiding disintegration. In
human societies, clear legal definitions of rules respected by each individual can
bar disorder.
Equality is the dominant rule in individualistic morphologies. Lévi-Strauss
(1946: 643) would say that, in the United States, the chief ideology is that ‘what
is valuable for the part is equally valid for the whole’. This does not mean that
in egalitarian societies there are no rules. With egalitarian relations as its rule,
life in America, for instance, moves through a deep and ingrained desire for
uniformity. The individualistic streak that this morphology fosters is reduced
by a constant demand to conform, to become part of what is considered main-
stream. Mediocrity is encouraged. The viewpoint of the common human
being is deemed as valid as the extraordinary realizations of the exceptional
achievers.
In his trip to America during the 1830s to review its legal system, Alexis de
Tocqueville (1994, vol. 1: 254–87) perceived this contradiction in United
States society, pointing to the possibility of a tyranny of the majority. The
action of an individualistic morphology is present in all areas of American
social life. The First Amendment to the Constitution sanctifies the freedom of
the press, preventing the government from creating laws that would restrict free
speech. It is an amendment against the government, phrased to protect the
individual, and to ensure the universal right of free access to individual con-
sciousness. All over the social fabric, civil and contractual rights are extended to
singular members of the community. Collective entitlements are under con-
stant criticism, even if upheld. In personal terms, ‘fun’, ‘pleasure’, to be a ‘nice
person’, ways of being cherished by the community as special individuals, are
constantly prized in America. In this social setting, entertainment becomes a
major industry. The discourse on the social role of individuals is centered more
around rights than duties. Hierarchical morphologies are just the opposite:
duties come first.
In societies where individualism prevails the purpose of social interaction is
easily turned into the pursuit of individual happiness. The economic system is
an end in itself, the market is a self-regulating and autonomous sphere (Polanyi
1968, 1975), exactly like the individual social actors. The economy exists to
permit and to encourage individual accumulation of wealth. It is very different
from traditional societies that bridle economic to social interests.

Conclusion

Whoever accedes to the anthropological concept of culture cannot go much
further than identifying the cultural rules of a group. The rest, even dissent
and social negotiation, is supposed to come without any other assumption or

48