Myth Of Individualism Book

This book reads more like a promotion and defense of the sociology field. Peter Callero's real arguments are muddy and his glaring appeals to Marxists, Feminists, African Americans and Jewish are a distraction from the true social science in this book. Early on, he sets up a colorful dichotomy between Skinner's utopian collective world of unity in Walden Two and Orwell's dystopian collective world of unity in 1984. I would have liked to see more of this comparison. Some of Callero's economic argument makes sense in that there is a dark side to individualism linked to egoism and selfishness that corporate leaders and international banks have used to promote their economic means, but I'm not convinced that individual thought and self reliance are responsible. That would be a matter of greed.

Callero steps way off when he equates individualism with the most extreme example possible: the Unabomber. Ted Kaczynski is used an extreme example of someone who believed in individualism, but this is a stretch and weak analogy. Most people, radical thinker or not, do not kill people for satisfaction. If we use this same line of thinking we should point to the mob mentality of mafias and gangs. They act in groups; should we assume all collectiveness is evil?

Callero even recognizes that "modest expressions of individualism can be beneficial and constructive" and that "social isolation can facilitate self-reflection and a sense of inner peace." but who's really advocating the Unabomber's sense of isolation? Thoreau certainly doesn't push us towards violence, yet in an act that almost sent this book to the shredder, Callero states "Ted Kacynski has eerie parallels to that of Henry David Thoreau" (p. 23). In the very next line, he writes, "Like Kacynski, Thoreau also attended Harvard." This is like saying the Craig's List killer attended Boston College, so anyone else at that institution has a potential to kill prostitutes.

With numerous examples of deviant behavior and conformity and questions about why so many obey immoral orders, the reader is led to the obvious answer of lack of individualism, but is this what Callero is trying to show? Why? No one ever said we are a society of individuals. Is Callero just trying to show that it doesn't exist at all, for better or worse? He doesn't reveal his thesis until page 164: "a sociological perspective represents a shift in perception away from the dominant individualistic point of view and toward an orientation that sees social relationships and social forces as primary and fundamental." So this is it? Individualistic perspective is selfish? The book points at people who are not living like individuals and even points out the problems with people who conform and don't question authority, yet Callero claims in the final chapter that individualism is the problem.

His call to action: "Removing the blinders of individualism is a first step toward achieving this change [stopping harm, inequality, and discrimination]" (p. 166). Yet there's no real argument or examples of why and how individualism causes harm, inequality, and discrimination. Instead we have generalizations, stretched analogies, and a litter of logic fallacies. Even still, Callero's book is a well worth read that will help you think about the complexities involved with individualism and opens up more inquiry into the group vs. individual crux.