Individuality versus Structure

I was glancing through the book, Dumbing us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling by John Taylor Gatto the other day, when something caught my attention. In his book, John Gatto lists and describes seven lessons that children get from compulsory schooling. One of the lessons he called emotional dependency. He begins describing this lesson with this sentence: “By stars and red checks, smiles and frowns, prizes, honors, and disgraces, I teach kids to surrender their will to the predestinated chain of command.” What caught my attention was how individuality (the kids will) was pitted against structure (chain of command).

So are individuality and structure pitted against one another? I think so. People express their individuality by being different, by following their own lives the way they want to, by trailblazing. This is all well and good, to a point. While it is true that individuality results in the creation of new and inventive ideas and products (how could new ideas emerge is everybody thought the same way), on the other hand, what would happen if we took individuality to its logical extreme? To put it another way, what would happen if everybody was able to freely express themselves with absolutely no constraints? That would be anarchy (every man doing what is right in his own eyes).

Structure (by which I mean, rules, order, and authority) prevent anarchy, but structure can become as harmful as anarchy when human structure becomes absolute (or near absolute). Governments with excessive amounts of structure become tyrannical.

So we have these two competing ideas: individuality and structure. Left to themselves, they work toward opposite ends. What then can be done? Should a balance be struck between the two?

The problem with suggesting that individuality and structure should be balanced is: where should the balance be? One person’s legitimate structure is another person’s intrusion on individuality. Another person’s expression of individuality is another person’s debauchery. For example, one person supports the legalization of drugs in the name of free choice, while another sees unfettered drug use as a deplorable condition some authority should have the right to prevent. Another person does paintings of nude figures to “get an understanding of human anatomy,” while another person seeing nude paintings as a devaluing of humanity.

As an aside, why is it that individuality has such a strong hold in art? Some artists seem to think that it is their birthright to create or perform offensive works or acts all in the name of “expressing themselves.” First off, it is ironic that our society is becoming more and more structured (restricted), often in the name of making sure no one is offended by the public actions of a person, yet artists are free to offend traditional values as much as they want, and get state funding for it to boot. Who were the idiots who first made the argument that nude figures are a legitimate expression of ideas? Who were the idiots who believed them? Nude figures do express “ideas,” things like lust and sensual pleasure, which, if left to grow and develop unchecked, lead to adultery, broken commitments, broken families, and broken lives. Anyway, enough about my anti-freedom-of-the-arts rant, back to the subject at hand.

A balance between individuality and structure can not be found because no two people will be in agreement as to where that balance should rest. What can be done about this? I would suggest that individuality be abolished in favor of absolute authority.

Did I just say that I am in favor of total tyranny? Well, yes. The only thing I did not specify (yet) is who would be the tyrant. Actually, I don’t think it is a matter of specifying who would be the tyrant, it is a matter of recognizing who is the tyrant. Oh, and rather than calling Him tyrant, calling Him God.

Maybe it is because I am a structure kind of guy and I prefer to be given instructions and rules as opposed to being told to make it up my own way, but one of the prominent ways I view God is as the ultimate lawgiver (this is related to the other prominent way I view God: as Creator; He made it, He sets the rules [and we humans are part of the “it” He created]). All Christians should see Him as the ultimate authority in all areas of life, which pretty much describes an ultimate dictator. Now, I am not trying to imply that God is tyrannical (meaning, mean, cruel, and harsh), but if He is the ultimate authority for everything then every aspect of our life has to conform to His will. His will is given in the Bible in the laws and commandments He gave to men. There is still freedom within those laws, areas inside the laws where individuality can be expressed. But freedom and individuality are not entities that exist on their own, they must exist within the confines set for them by God.

So that is how I see the conflict between individuality and structure as being settled: God sets the rules, follow them, and any areas of freedom inside the rules can be used to express individuality.