Rise of individualism

KIRAN KARNIK

MANY claim that we are entering an era which marks the end of ideologies and the death of “isms”. Communism dissolved with the Soviet Union. Capitalism is seen as cruel. Idealism has been trumped by cynicism, but the latter too is frowned upon; after all, who likes naysayers and pessimists? Whether or not one agrees with this thesis, there is certainly one “ism” that now rules the roost: individualism.

Seniors will recall the arrival of the first television set in their neighbourhood. Everyone crowded into that privileged home to watch special events — often “live” — on television: cricket Tests (no ODIs or T20s then!) or the Asian Games (hosted in India just when colour TV first came to the country). Crowd-viewing extended also to the once-a-week movie on Doordarshan and, later, to the weekly super-hit Mahabharata or Ramayana episodes. It was taken for granted that entry was on a walk-in basis, with the hapless household expected to not only provide chairs to all, but also tea!

For the set-owner, there was the compensation of an elevated standing in the community. Naturally, the TV set, as a status symbol, was installed in the hall, which also led to a positive feedback loop between accessibility for outsiders and the number who walked in. As TV sets rapidly proliferated, the crowd waned; soon, viewing was limited to the family. For many years, families watched programmes together — even after the TV was sometimes moved, in bigger homes, from the hall to the dining room.

The telephone of yore was another such “community asset”. Phone connections, a rarity, were treated as public access devices, available to all neighbours, known and unknown. Incoming calls too were sometimes for a neighbour, and it was the duty of someone from the household to go and inform him/her. Partly for this reason, but equally for its status-signalling, the telephone, like the TV, was installed in the drawing room. This also facilitated its continuing use (after neighbours got their own phones) by all in the household at all times. Thus, like the TV set, the telephone too continued to be a family device. So was the radio, in earlier years, when the family sat together to hear the cricket commentary or the news. Even the famed Binaca Geetmala, probably the most popular music programme of all time, was family listening.

The transistor radio was the first harbinger of change. Its advent marked the beginning of portability and hence of individualized listening, further facilitated by earphones. From the mid-1990s, the spread of mobile phones — at first very slowly, but then accelerating at breakneck speed — brought both mobility and individualization to telephones. Development of this technology, especially the amazing versatility of the handset, brought text, photos, and video to the mobile phone. Meanwhile, the invention of laptops and tablet computers, along with easy and cheap broadband connectivity, took video to one more screen. These largely replaced the fixed-place personal computer and rendered redundant the TV set, while making computers mobile and aiding individualization. Music has seen a similar journey: from radiograms (a drawing room showpiece) or record players, to Walkman and mobile audio-cassette players, to the mobile phone.

This transition of commonly used devices from a fixed place in the home and use by all family members to mobility and individualization is a historical trend. Consider time devices: they moved from the community (clock towers) to the home (wall or table clocks) to individuals (wristwatches and now mobile handsets). The same with movies: from large theatres to TV sets to PC/laptop (or even mobile phone) screens.

This background — how devices have moved from household ownership (typically, one per home) and family use to individual ownership and use — is an analogy or metaphor for what is arguably a sociological trend. Today, depending on the level of wealth, everything is moving to personal rather than family use. The mobile phone is probably the best exemplar of this, with every youngster desirous of his/her own handset. What does this portend for societal organization? Does individualization imply a reluctance to share? Which is the cause and which the effect? Does migration, with individuals leaving their family home in search of livelihoods, amplify the trend?

Nowadays, one notices growing selfishness and considerable narcissism, best exemplified by the endless selfies being taken, with much preening and posturing, even in public places. Technology has contributed to this, in a way: from the mirror at home (which one looked at before stepping out) to the mirror in the “compact” in a woman’s handbag (used before entering a meeting or a restaurant) to the self-image viewed on the mobile screen (sometimes every few minutes): each has been easier than the previous one.

The lack of civic sense and courtesy on roads, and the driving, are also examples of selfishness, of the I-me-myself mentality, especially amongst youngsters. Are these tell-tale signs of a more individualized identity? Will the transition from multi-generation joint families to nuclear families move next to childless single-generation families of two, as fertility rates continue to plummet? As marriage becomes less universal and people prefer only temporary partners, will we see the next logical step: one-person households?

Technology is aiding individualism, as noted in the earlier examples. Even advertising, fuelled by artificial intelligence, targets people with individualized ads, based on gigabits of data about all aspects of each one’s life. Simultaneously, technology is also creating — through WhatsApp groups, for instance — group identities. One also sees, possibly as a Newtonian reaction to individualism and loneliness, growth in cults and interest groups, globally. In India, identity around caste and religion-related groups seems to be growing.

Will the future see this growing tension between the thesis of individualism and the antithesis of group identity being resolved in some form of synthesis? It is not clear what form this synthesis may take, but it could well also mark the resurrection of the family, even joint family, that now appears to be endangered. What does seem likely is the emergence, in the coming decades, of new societal structures.

Kiran Karnik is a public policy analyst and author. His most recent book is ‘Decisive Decade: India 2030, Gazelle or Hippo’