In Sprague’s article, “Holy Men and Big Guns: The Can[n]on in Social Theory”, one analytical approach that came under criticism of feminists was the social theory of abstract individuation. Sprague writes that this theory describes how “individuals are seen in isolation from and unconnected with their interpersonal, historical, or physical context” (1997:92). Basically, individuals have become so separated, apart from the collective masses to a rather isolated and alienated species. Not just separated from others but separated from their historical context and physical context. When I see this definition, I think Sprague is trying through this theory of abstract individuation to explain how individuals have become so independent from everything and everyone around them. We as individuals do not need to depend on anything or anyone to propel forward/advance ourselves. In his explanation, he compares individuals from the modern era versus the earlier times. He contrasts how in earlier times, an individual was defined as a representative for the greater collective; however now in the modern times, an individual is defined as separate from the collective- rather the word meant to mean opposite of a collective.
So what if we compared Sprague’s theory of abstract individuation with Marx’s Marxist Methodology? His principles that defined a society seem to greatly contrast with Sprague’s theory. Sprague says that individuals are separate from their historical context yet Marx says that it is history that propels us forward. We use history as a prime resource to interpret and analyze happenings for us to understand and maybe change for the better. Marx next mentions that idea of methodological individualism in which a social phenomenon can only be explained by individual actor’s actions, and is a result in specific results/events. Basically, the actions of one individual can impact all. Marx also mentions the dialectical reasons that an idea can start from one person and expand from person to person to become a completely new idea/opinion. Yet, Sprague argues that individuals are separate from the collective in the physical and interdependent context.
To me, this theory of abstract individuation seems to showcase an individual in such a self-interested/self-consumed light. It makes it seems as if society doesn’t mean people/populations but rather just a group made up of individuals. I don’t think it is 100% one idea over the other but rather an equal mix of both that describes our society. Situations vary and are never a black and white issue. Let’s take an example: which would apply to when the nation infamously all came together as one right after the events of 9/11? This historical event brought millions of people from all the states together as a nation to mourn, support, and fight together to show that America was not to be messed with. I can still remember, hours after the attack was aired, everywhere you went the American flags were brought out and posted proudly. It seemed as though the nation had come together to fight against a common enemy. There was so much teamwork and interdependence of strangers that it was inspiring to see our nation come back from such a horrific attack. Yet as time passed, so did the team spirit. Flags have come down and only brought back out during the anniversary of the attack. We have gone back to our individual lives and haven’t been as united as the days after 9/11. So in your opinion, which theorist was right?
So what if we compared Sprague’s theory of abstract individuation with Marx’s Marxist Methodology? His principles that defined a society seem to greatly contrast with Sprague’s theory. Sprague says that individuals are separate from their historical context yet Marx says that it is history that propels us forward. We use history as a prime resource to interpret and analyze happenings for us to understand and maybe change for the better. Marx next mentions that idea of methodological individualism in which a social phenomenon can only be explained by individual actor’s actions, and is a result in specific results/events. Basically, the actions of one individual can impact all. Marx also mentions the dialectical reasons that an idea can start from one person and expand from person to person to become a completely new idea/opinion. Yet, Sprague argues that individuals are separate from the collective in the physical and interdependent context.
To me, this theory of abstract individuation seems to showcase an individual in such a self-interested/self-consumed light. It makes it seems as if society doesn’t mean people/populations but rather just a group made up of individuals. I don’t think it is 100% one idea over the other but rather an equal mix of both that describes our society. Situations vary and are never a black and white issue. Let’s take an example: which would apply to when the nation infamously all came together as one right after the events of 9/11? This historical event brought millions of people from all the states together as a nation to mourn, support, and fight together to show that America was not to be messed with. I can still remember, hours after the attack was aired, everywhere you went the American flags were brought out and posted proudly. It seemed as though the nation had come together to fight against a common enemy. There was so much teamwork and interdependence of strangers that it was inspiring to see our nation come back from such a horrific attack. Yet as time passed, so did the team spirit. Flags have come down and only brought back out during the anniversary of the attack. We have gone back to our individual lives and haven’t been as united as the days after 9/11. So in your opinion, which theorist was right?