"The people claiming to be ‘freethinkers’ in the pandemic might actually be sheep," By Dominic J. Packer & Jay J. Van Bavel

Here is a piece to chew on. In captures a paradoxical feature of North American identity, namely, that "individualistic norms can create a 'herd of independent minds.'” What mediates this tension between the individual and the herd is the following: Inasmuch as so-called individualism leads to a nation of specialized roles, we become more—not less—dependent on one another. 

The pandemic should have served as a reminder of just how dependent we are on each other, translating into actions that support the well-being  of the whole. Countries that have gone down this path have fared better in terms of COVID infection rates and deaths. Those that have not, like the U.S., have paid a high price for the illusion of independence that is itself a manifestation of conformity. It's helpful to see how research supports this.

-Angela Valenzuela

Op-Ed: The people claiming to be ‘freethinkers’ in the pandemic might actually be sheep

A demonstrator at a protest against vaccine and mask mandates near the state Capitol in Santa Fe, N.M., on Aug. 20. Social researchers find that American individualism is just another norm determined by the group.

(Cedar Attanasio / Associated Press)

BY DOMINIC J. PACKER & JAY J. VAN BAVEL | Nov. 15, 2021 | Los angeles times

Now two years into the pandemic, we continue to hear constant fights about the fundamental antagonism between being an independent individual and being a good group member. You must be either a “freethinker” or a “sheep”!

But research suggests this is not the case and that the two often go hand in hand. Indeed, individualism may be the ultimate form of American conformity.

Individualism is a core part of American identity, with individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. This contrasts sharply with the collectivism expressed in other parts of the world, where the needs of the group are often prioritized over individual rights.

Yet even in 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville in “Democracy in America” noted an apparent paradox in the American way of life: an unprecedented individualism was combined with mass involvement in “voluntary associations.” Far more than citizens in his native France, Americans were joiners, belonging to “associations of a thousand … kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or diminutive.”

As we found in our research, the groups we identify with, including our nation, shape our understanding of what it is to be a person. The ways in which we strive to be an independent self are influenced by the norms of the groups we care about. Over time, these values fundamentally become part of who we are. As philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah has said, “In constructing an identity, one draws, among other things, on the kind of person available in one’s society.”

American identity has strong norms of independence, emphasizing personal autonomy, responsibility and individual rights. Does this mean that American individualism is just another norm determined by the group?

Research suggests that indeed it is. In one study, for example, social psychologist Jolanda Jetten and her colleagues measured how much American and Indonesian citizens identified with their respective countries. Respondents were asked, for example, how glad they were to be an American or Indonesian and how connected they felt to their fellow citizens. The researchers then assessed these citizens’ levels of individualism by asking them how much they agreed with statements like, “One should be independent of others as much as possible” or “When faced with a difficult personal decision, it is better to decide yourself rather than follow the advice of friends or relatives.”

American citizens were more individualistic than Indonesians, which aligns with a large body of research on cultural differences. Crucially, Americans who were strongly identified with their country reported higher levels of individualism than Americans who identified less. It was the opposite in Indonesia, where citizens who identified strongly with the nation were less individualistic than those who were weakly identified.

In other words, it was identification with their nation — intersecting 

with the nation’s social norms — that determined individualism.

This study is entirely consistent with what social scientists and commentators have long noted about a paradox in American identity. In the memorable phrasing of art critic Harold Rosenberg, individualistic norms can create a “herd of independent minds” — people who strive for independence are often doing it to fit in.

It also turns out that autonomy and interdependence are highly intertwined. A study of 42 nations (as well as comparisons across the 50 U.S. states) found that in places where people are more individualistic, they also become more dependent on others.

This counterintuitive pattern might appear surprising. But it occurs because the more individualized and specialized our roles, the more dependent we become on other people to function effectively.

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a stark reminder of just how interdependent we all are. Our individual vulnerability to COVID-19 is highly dependent on the actions of the people around us and, with the rise of variants, responses around the world. As we noted in an April 2020 study, fighting a pandemic requires large-scale cooperation — which means having people get vaccinated, wear masks and take other precautions to protect their communities.

A major problem with public health communication during this pandemic has been the failure to dispel the false choice between personal freedom and collective well-being. New Zealand, for instance, found that the populace acting collectively to mitigate the virus early on has actually allowed far more freedom overall during the pandemic.

Evidence suggests that countries with norms that place greater value on independence, like the U.S., (what the social psychologist Michele Gelfand calls “loose cultures”) have had a harder time coordinating their citizenry and slowing the spread of the virus, ultimately suffering higher rates of infection and mortality. Yet the autonomy people believe they are proving by refusing to conform to health protective behaviors is largely an illusion, itself a type of conformity.

Independence and interdependence are not antagonistic, and we need to exercise both at the same time. It is our collective strength that allows for our individuality to flourish. There’s no clearer example of this fact than what we’re living through now.

Dominic J. Packer is a professor of psychology at Lehigh University and Jay Van Bavel is an associate professor of psychology and neural science at New York University. They are authors of “The Power of Us: Harnessing our shared identities to improve performance, increase cooperation, and promote social harmony.”

The Sociology of Surviving the Coronavirus by Amitai Etzioni

We cannot under-estimate the harmful effects of social isolation.  Social media can help combat this—as long as those aspects aren't toxic, I might add.  We at the university just had our first departmental meeting remotely.  It felt really good to see everybody in our Zoom Conference call. This is a "new normal" for us all. We're all coping.  

Let's make it a daily practice to share words of love, caring, and encouragement with those around us—even if virtually so. 💗

-Angela Valenzuela

March 16, 2020  

The Sociology of Surviving the Coronavirus

The much-maligned social media realm can help people avoid the detrimental effects of social isolation during this pandemic. Otherwise, the psychological effects of isolation could further compound the multi-faceted damage caused by the deadly virus.

by Amitai Etzioni

There is another name for social distancing—a mainstay of the campaign to contain the spread of the coronavirus—social isolation. Much has been made of the economic effects of COVID-19. However, we should not overlook the social and psychological effects. The containment campaign basically greatly reduces the contacts people have with one another, by canceling numerous social events and urging older people and those with special health conditions not to leave home. Many of these elders live on their own, as their partners have died. For all, it means fewer opportunities to see family and friends. One should also note that many people have social contacts at work, so teleworking—introduced widely in an effort to stop the spread of disease—undermines these contacts.

The Effects of Isolation

Isolated individuals exhibit major health problems. James House, Karl Landis and Debra Umberson found that “[m]ore socially isolated or less socially integrated individuals are less healthy, psychologically and physically, and more likely to die.” In an article based on her 2017 testimony before the U.S. Senate Aging Committee, Julianne Holt-Lunstad reports that, physically, “[l]acking social connection carries a risk that is comparable, and in many cases, exceeds that of other well-accepted risk factors, including smoking up to 15 cigarettes per day, obesity, physical inactivity, and air pollution.” She also notes that people who are isolated may have less effective immune systems, higher blood pressure, and increased inflammation, and they are less likely to follow medication and treatment plans. John Cacioppo and Louise Hawkley demonstrated that social isolation engenders a ripple of mental and physical health risks, including depleted ability to cope with stressors, poor sleep, and slower healing. Holt-Lunstad finds that “those who are isolated are at increased risk for depression, cognitive decline, and dementia.” Hawkley and Cacioppo  suggest “ that loneliness is the social equivalent of physical pain, hunger, and thirst.”

The new rules are particularly hard on those who left their elders or partners in nursing homes—those who used to visit their kin daily are now shut out. The virus also poses heart-wrenching moral dilemmas around the question of whom to see and whom to avoid. One example will stand for all the others: A family's college-age son is in Italy. He felt well and wanted to rush home, just before Italy locked down. His family urged him to stay, lest he brings the virus home and infects them—leaving him to fend for himself in highly-infected Italy!

The much-maligned social media realm can help people avoid the detrimental effects of social isolation during this pandemic. The World Health Organization’s March 6 release of “Mental Health Considerations during COVID-19 Outbreak” suggests that people in isolation “stay connected via e-mail, social media, video conference and telephone.” While some might scoff at this form of connection, there is research that supports the idea that technology can help people to feel less lonely. According to research conducted for Pew, “[t]he average user of a social networking site has more close ties and is half as likely to be socially isolated as the average American.”  Weixu Lu and Hampton found that “Facebook status updates and private messaging are independently associated with perceived support” and Hampton reports that, over time, the use of social networking sites is correlated with reduced psychological distress. These benefits are not limited to those who were practically born with a smartphone in their hands. Two European studies found positive effects of social network use by older populations: André Hajek and Hans-Helmut König report that feelings of social isolation typically occur less frequently among those ages forty and older who report daily use of social networks than among their peers who use social networks less often or not at all. Orsolya Lelkes reports that “social isolation is lower among internet users aged 65 or older.” Inventive Italians add another touch: isolated in their homes, they are getting together on their porches—to sing. In short, people confined to their homes can reach out to others and improve their psychological condition.

Amitai Etzioni received his PhD in sociology from the University of California at Berkeley in 1958 and served as a professor of sociology at Columbia University, Harvard, and The George Washington since then.