[The Anti-Heathenism ideology]




High Priestess Mish Daya Mystique Lee-Prce

Mystique Mish – The Wayfinder

The term “Individualism” in the simplest and generalized definition is an “I’m alright Jack, bugger the rest of you” attitude and view-point.

The consideration for family, community, clan and tribe is at no time a relevant focus of the Individualism ideology. Individualism is about the "I" and it is only when the individual chooses to be a part of community that the society becomes important. Family, community, clan and tribe are if anything seen as controlling factors in the Individualists lives and even can be a hindrance.

Wikipedia (the free on-line encyclopedia) states:

“Individualism is a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook, which stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists promote the unrestricted exercise of individual goals and desires. They oppose any external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society, the state, or any other group or institution. Individualism is therefore opposed to collectivism, which stresses community and societal goals over individual goals.

Individualism has a controversial relationship with egoism (selfishness). While many individualists are egoists, they usually do not argue that selfishness is inherently good. Rather, they argue that individuals should not be constrained by any socially-imposed morality; they believe that individuals should be free to choose to be selfish (or to choose any other lifestyle) if they so desire.”[2}

Individualism is anti-socialism and therefore, anti-society and a philosophical ideology that is corrosive to the moral and ethical social structure of tribal ideology. It could therefore be concluded that Individualism would be the anti-thesis of Heathenism. Individualists can and may be pro society but rarely pro-socialist. Socialism undermines the interests of the individual at the expense of the interests of society. You also can not separate politics and philosophy from a discussion of community and society even when the focus is on religion. They are all focal points that impact on our headspace. Is an individual really pro society though if it is conditional on the goals of the society being subordinate to those of the one?

In my article on Shamanism [3] I wrote:

“It is obvious that ‘Individualism’ is the bane for all spiritual growth in Communities.

 Individuality is the process of developing personality and uniqueness in a Society/ Tribe/ Clan/ Community as opposed to Individualism, which is the pursuit of the individuals’ own needs, wants and desires at the expense of the wider community.”

 In the American “Declaration of Independence” Thomas Jefferson et al scribed:

 "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness --”

 No one denies the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness of the individual. The individual has also, the right of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom of or from religion. However, it is worth noting that the very government and culture which produced the ‘Bill of Rights’ is in essence the same government and culture which is slowly stripping its population and its allies populations of those rights. These rights are articulated if not enforced whether it be the American "Bill of Rights", the Australian Constitution, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights or any other such papers.

The most recent news from the USA of the Bush administration’s call for a National Real ID Card [4] and the scientific community’s acknowledgement that in the not to distant future “small Biometric Chips could be inserted into the human brain [5]” clearly shows a future of a government controlled and enforced collective. In actual fact, the onslaught of Globalization and Capitalism; the fact that Britain already has a National Identity Card and the Australian governments’ many attempts to introduce one; and the continual call for a global economy could see a ‘World’ Identity Card coming into existence. The frightening scenario as portrayed in the science-fiction series ‘Star Trek – The Next Generation’ of the Borg Collective could be one possible prophetic future.

Individualism, however, as a political tool opposed to the overpowering controls of government enforced Collectivism is not a bad thing but as a means to undermine the cultural spiritual values of a society it is in essence and actual fact devaluing Society itself.

Ayn Rand [6] who has been widely accepted as one of the biggest advocates of Individualism and a forerunner of the area of political thought said:

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."

She is also, quoted as stating:

"The three values which men held for centuries and which have now collapsed are: mysticism, collectivism, altruism.  Mysticism -- as a cultural power -- died at the time of the Renaissance.  Collectivism -- as a political ideal -- died in World War II.  As to altruism -- it has never been alive.  It is the poison of death in the blood of Western civilization, and men survived it only to the extent to which they neither believed nor practiced it. ..." [7]

Indeed, in this Modern Society these three values have been killed off and supplanted by Capitalism, Individualism and Globalization.

You will note how Rand mentions that Mysticism – as a cultural power – died at the time of the Renaissance. If this be so, it must be asked what is a Pagan or Heathen without their mysticism. Likewise, Rand states that Altruism has never been alive. This statement alone, tears at the fabric of Wicca, Buddhism and other Spiritualist paths.

Altruism in its purest definition is the practice of placing others before oneself. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and central to many religious traditions. In English, this idea was often described as the Golden rule of ethics. In Buddhism it is considered a fundamental property of human nature. [8] In the Wiccan Rede – “Harm ye none do what ye will …” and several other Spiritual paths, altruism is the underlying guiding principle.

If Altruism “has never been alive” then these spiritual concepts actually mean nothing.  Individualism has devalued the ideology behind each.

In his article, “Do we have the right to call ourselves Community?” Leif Njordsson wrote:

“My understanding of Community is perhaps something a little more than a
group of individuals who follow a similar spirituality and sometimes meet
together for discussions and drinkies.

I used to believe that "community" involved mutual support, caring, actually doing things for each other, and he's pulling together if things get or got tough or one of the community was having a difficult time or indeed a member of the community was under attack.

If people were hungry they got fed, if people needed help or got sick they were looked after, If people needed an ear to bash or were in physical or emotional pain they got listened to and supported and helped over it - person to person - not from behind a screen. When a baby was born into the community it became the community’s responsibility and the oohs and ahhs were not expressed over a
computer screen but in person and in practical terms. The whole community
would start knitting, food and nappies would appear, people would take the
baby for a time to give the mother a break etc etc. The baby would be
physically "presented to the community and the community would take
"responsibility" in real terms.”

Some may believe that the ideology expressed above would border towards Collectivism, Altruism and Socialism. Not so. What is expressed above, although the ideology has collectivism traits is purely a perspective on the Pagan/ Heathen communal structure.

Senator Hillary Clinton (ex-first lady) and a noted anti-individualism advocate states:

"We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society."

Hillary Clinton epitomizes some of the problems individualism faces in contemporary America. Beginning with the sensible if often exaggerated proverb that "it takes a village" to raise children, she ends up, in her book It Takes a Village, calling on all 250 million Americans to raise each child.

"CHILDREN are not rugged individualists. They depend on adults they know and on thousands more who make decisions every day that affect their well-being. All of us, whether we acknowledge it or not, are responsible for deciding whether our children are raised in a nation that doesn't just espouse family values but values families and children"[10]

In ancient tribal society it was the village which raised the children. If a child was interested in learning a particular craft or showed gifted abilities they were fostered out to others within the community to serve an apprenticeship of kind, and as Leif Njordsson stated in his article: “When a baby was born into the community it became the communities responsibility … The whole community
would start knitting, food and nappies would appear, people would take the
baby for a time to give the mother a break etc etc. The baby would be
physically "presented to the community and the community would take
"responsibility" in real terms.”

Prof. Tibor R. Machan wrote on Individualism

"This right to life, this right to liberty, and this right to pursue one’s happiness is unabashedly individualistic, without in the slightest denying at the same time our thoroughly social nature.   It’s only that our social relations, while vital to us all, must be chosen -­ that is what makes the crucial difference."[11]

As opposed to an enforced government collective, we as individuals have the unique freedom of choice and as such we have the freedom to be collectivist and altruistic. We can, if we have a mind to wish to serve our community in the same vein as our ancestors did those many centuries ago.

The “I’m alright Jack, bugger the rest of you” ideology of Individualism denigrates the Tribal ideology of Heathenism and undermines the family, community, Clan and Tribe values that all Heathen paths hold dear.

The Tribal and Communal Structure of Ancient society would NOT exist at all had the ideology of Individualism became as prevalent as it has in modern society. I am of the earnest opinion that the concept of “selfishness” and egoism would not have been even tolerated in our ancestral society.

 In an article “The Principles of the Ancient Ways – Aeonism” I wrote:

 “The fundamentals of human society; family, clan and tribe with their attendant rituals did not spring de novo from the mind of humankind. Our societies, with their passions, complexity, happiness and unhappiness mirror that of gods. We MUST mirror the gods, not because we are inferior parrots, but because the closest of reciprocal relationships provides the most complete, multilevel nourishment for ALL, both the gods and us. The mirror reflects reciprocity and the possibility for the healthiest of symbiosis. If our social and mytho-poetic structures did not mirror 'heaven' then the reciprocal nurturing behavior which leads to the best of all possible 'worlds' would be much more difficult. When our Bicameral Minds Broke Down (c.3, 000 BC - 0 AD) and Consciousness with its Self Awareness and narrative 'I' appeared, we lost the easy ability to talk to the gods. We MUST regain it if our overall 'health' is to be restored. Isolated regions of recovery, as promoted by Western reductionist science when working alone, will not suffice.”[12]

It is not the purpose of this article to undermine the individual’s rights or freedoms and as previously mentioned, Individualism as a political tool opposed to the overpowering controls of government enforced Collectivism is not a bad thing. However, if every individual was allowed and afforded the ability to ACT upon their rights and freedoms, we would not have Society, we would have Anarchy.

 Individual rights and freedoms in a tribal ideological structure can only devalue the meaning of Tribe and Community and unlike society at large; the pagan and heathen social structure is as much connected to its Spirituality as it is with its every day existence.

Such a destructive ideology as Individualism would therefore, hinder our community’s ability to mirror our gods and to connect to our dreamtimes and greatly affect our spiritual growth.

We, as individuals, have the FREEDOM to choose to exist in a tribal collective or to isolate ourselves. It is our right to work in and for a community which is supportive of our needs, wants and desire “and the pursuit of Happiness”. We as Heathens need Tribe.

 In the Star Trek movie, “Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan” Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy) in his dying breath uttered:

 “The needs and wants of the many … far out-weight the needs and wants of the ONE or the few.”

The old adage and catch cry also comes to mind:

"United we stand and divided we fall!"

That statement in itself speaks volumes in relationship to Tribe and Community in the Heathen structural sense.

As I have stated many times in other articles that I have written and I will reiterate the statement here, that "Words and languages I believe are often inadequate in describing the true nature of things; the feelings we have; the emotions we strive to control, both Positive and Negative -the Yin Yang. As a wordsmith (poet), I struggle often to find the words to get a message across. I write from the heart and find that words often fail to project my true feelings. Here also, I may use words that the reader may stumble across and therefore, feel confused by the structure of my philosophy."

As such let us look at the word 'Individual' itself and play with it:

I _Now_DIVDed_from_U_ALl (I now divided from you all).

We are afforded the rights and freedoms of self, self-expression, self-determination and relationship that we personally follow between our chosen deities and ourselves but they are rights and freedoms given to us not by society or governments … they are freedoms and rights that we are born with and given by the Divine Universal being(s).

It is other men and governments that attempt to oppress us and strip us of these freedoms and rights.

The Community is made of the Individual. "In our Ancestral days and in the more modern era, the early "settlers" (i.e., non-Natives) in any country formed collectives" (settlements/towns) in order to survive. Each person depended on the others to do work to benefit all. The only individualism there was perhaps that some farmed, some fished, some repaired tools, etc. Even children were expected to contribute other than working at their family's work. (Perhaps they fished for "fun", however, the fish that were caught were brought home and either eaten by that family or given to another family, etc.)"[13]

Society is Community and Community needs Individuals and as such, Individuals need community. Human beings are gregarious and social animals, so to deny the Individual of community is not natural and inhuman. To deny Tribe the Individual would be equally criminal and in actual fact result in Tribe, Clan, family and community ceasing to exist.

 To support my argument we need to be absolutely clear on the definition of “Individualism”. Rather than just relying on the Wikipedia definition and my own knowledge of this socio-political ideology we need to expand upon the information at hand.

 From the Encyclopedia of Marxism, the following glossary and definitions are supplied:

“Individualism is the ethos which emphasises the autonomy of the individual as against the community or social group. The word was first used in a translation of de Tocqueville's Democracy in America in 1835.

Collectivism is the ethos which emphasises the priority of the community as a whole or the group as against the individual. The word came into the language in the 1880s as a direct result of the work of the First International (International Workingmen’s Association) of September 1864, originally as a synonym for common ownership of the means of production.

The growth of individualism in the 18th century played a crucial role in further bolstering the development of bourgeois society upon which it had been founded, and the thorough breakdown of feudalism.

In Tribal Society, individual consciousness is absent, and only begins to develop on the basis of a social division of labour and in particular, the emergence of private property. In feudal and ancient society, individual consciousness is quite undeveloped; while the names of kings and queens are well-known, the craftspeople who built the great mediaeval cathedrals, for instance, remain anonymous.

Collectivism is the dominant ethos in communities where private property is not dominant, and this includes poor working class communities in modern capitalist societies; powerful social movements also tend to overshadow individualism and trade unions, national liberation and other struggles are generally characterised by a strong collectivist ethos.

Socialism entails a collectivism which does not suppress the individualism of bourgeois society, and in contrast to the ‘crude’ collectivism of very poor working class communities, is a collectivism which transcends (or sublates) individualism.” [14]

Although it is reported above that the individual consciousness was absent in a Tribal society, this was only true in the primitive and ancient world when the members of a community would pledge their allegiance to the King, Chieftain or head of the village/ clan/ tribe. In the age of Feudalism, serfs and others were born into the positions which would not only govern there place in the community but also their very existence.

In more modern Heathen communities, free-thinkers are embraced and encouraged as long as their individual behaviour or actions do not encroach upon the welfare, values or honour on the tribal community or kindred.

As previously mentioned, "we, as individuals, have the FREEDOM to choose to exist in a tribal collective or to isolate ourselves. It is our right to work in and for a community which is supportive of our needs, wants and desire "and the pursuit of Happiness". We as Heathens need Tribe."

As such, those individuals who exist in such a community should be aware and prepared to accept a hierarchy within that community and do all in their power to adhere to the moral and ethical conduct of the Tribe.

In his article (soon to be book)"Living True", Leif Njordsson wrote:

"In the modern Western countries, religion is increasingly an individual matter. People meditate or pray, seek self-improvement, search for personal spiritual enlightenment, or find individual salvation. Religion is only a set of beliefs and practices, which can be chosen by the seeker as easily as we buy a new car - and changed for a new one even more easily.

This is a very new notion, one that has risen in direct proportion to our separation from nature and from our ancestors. To people in traditional cultures, this self-centered interpretation of religion is strange indeed.

Certainly all spiritual or religious paths have an individual component that is valid and worthy of pursuit. In western society, however, we have often focused on the individual to the exclusion of the group aspect. This has unfortunately been also true amongst followers of the Elder Folkway where individualism has received greater emphasis than it should have. The Elder Folkway recognizes that "community" is a core element in our ancestral psyche, and this role as a provider of community has become even more vital as our families disintegrate under the pressures of modern living.

What Westerners do not understand is that folk religions - native religions, indigenous religions, whatever you want to call them - are linked to a particular cultural and biological group...a people. Religion is not something apart from the life of the group; indeed, it is one more manifestation of the group's existence. Religion springs from the very nature of the people and is an expression of the totality of their experience from the beginning of time."[15]

The extremely pro-individualism views of Ayn Rand can actually only be taken on face value. The reader of her arguments and philosophies supporting this ideology should be aware of Ayn Rand's history and the era in which her philosophies and dogmas came into being. Rand was a defector from an oppressed Soviet Russia to America where she came to enthusiastically embrace the Freedom that the United States expounded. She wrote:

 "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

This is a philosophical point which is not reflected in reality. Rights are both awarded and removed by the prevailing social ethos. Rights are not some "absolute nebulous philosophical construct." Ayn Rand suffered from the greatest fault of all writers - Self deception.

There is no more marginalised individual than that of a Pagan or Heathen who practices a faith in a Christian influenced society.

 Where it is evident that Tribal Communal Society has traits of both Altruism and Collectivism within its simplistic structure, it is quiet clear that both Individualism and Collectivism are opposing ideologies.

Individualism and collectivism are conflicting views of the nature of humans, society and the relationship between them. Individualism holds that the individual is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny that societies exist or that people benefit from living in them, but it sees society as a collection of individuals, not something over and above them.

Collectivism holds that the group---the nation, the community, the proletariat, the race, etc.---is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny the reality of the individual. But ultimately, collectivism holds that one's identity is determined by the groups one interacts with, that one's identity is constituted essentially of relationships with others.

Individualists see people dealing primarily with reality; other people are just one aspect of reality. Collectivists see people dealing primarily with other people; reality is dealt with through the mediator of the group; the group, not the individual, is what directly confronts reality.

Individualism holds that every person is an end in himself and that no person should be sacrificed for the sake of another. Collectivism holds that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the collective good so requires.

Individualism holds that the individual is the unit of achievement. While not denying that one person can build on the achievements of others, individualism points out that achievement goes beyond what has already been done; it is something new that is created by the individual.

Collectivism, on the other hand, holds that achievement is a product of society. In this view, an individual is a temporary spokesman for the underlying, collective process of progress. [16]

“Individualism and collectivism are contradictory positions---there is no middle ground between them. Collectivism maintains that the group is an entity in its own right, a thing that can act upon people. Individualism denies this. Collectivism sees us being influenced by the group; individualism sees us being influenced by other individuals. Collectivism sees us cooperating with the team; individualism, with other people. Collectivism sees us building on the ideas and achievements of society; individualism, on the ideas and achievements of individuals. These are contradictory positions; it's either-or. “[17]

On Altruism and Collectivism, pro-Individualist and an expondant of Capitalism, philosopher and novelist Dr. Andrew Bernstein wrote:

“Altruism demands that an individual serve others, but doesn’t stipulate whether those others should be one’s family, or the homeless, or society as a whole. Collectivism states that, in politics, society comes first and the individual must obey.  Collectivism is the application of the altruist ethics to politics."

Dr. Bernstein, globally known as the author of "The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire" equates Altruism and Volunteerism/ Voluntary Employment as Slavery. Like all pro-advocates of the Individualism ideology he is a firm believer that Global Capitalism is the only solution to World Oppression and Poverty. [18]

Individualism is not Spirituality. It is focused solely on the Individual’s pursuit of material comforts and the trappings of success and therefore lacking in any spiritual qualities at all.

"Individualism is scarcely a principle, for it exhibits too many degrees, and it is too general to be called a theory or a doctrine. Perhaps it is better described as a tendency or an attitude.

In ancient Greece and Rome, political theory and practice were anti-individualistic; for they considered and made the State the supreme good, an end in itself, to which the individual was a mere means.

Directly opposed to this conception was the Christian teaching that the individual soul had an independent and indestructible value, and that the State was only a means, albeit a necessary means, to individual welfare. Throughout the Middle Ages, therefore, the ancient theory was everywhere rejected. Nevertheless the prevailing theory and practice were far removed from anything that could be called individualism. Owing largely to the religious individualism resulting from the Reformation, political individualism at length appeared: at first, partial in the writings of Hobbes and Locke; later, complete in the speculations of the French philosophers of the eighteenth century, notably Rousseau. The general conclusion from all these writings was that government was something artificial, and at best a necessary evil. According to the Social Contract theory of Rousseau, the State was merely the outcome of a contract freely made by its individual citizens. Consequently they were under no moral obligation to form a State, and the State itself was not a moral necessity. These views are no longer held, except by professional anarchists. In fact, a sharp reaction has occurred. The majority of non-Catholic ethical and political writers of today approach more or less closely to the position of ancient Greece and Rome, or to that of Hegel; society, or the State, is an organism from which the individual derives all his rights and all his importance. The Catholic doctrine remains as always midway between these extremes. It holds that the State is normal, natural, and necessary, even as the family is necessary, but that it is not necessary for its own sake; that it is only a means to individual life and progress."[19]

It is precisely because neither individuals nor small groups can be fully self-sufficient that cooperation is necessary for human survival. The destruction of the Old Ways and replacing them with more “modern” ideas has resulted in many societies and communities struggling if not collapsing totally. The gap between the rich and the poor gets larger everyday. The Individualists struggle for his own freedoms and success comes at the cost of society.

It is clear that Individualism can be best described as an ideological tool of Capitalism and Globalization. It is not conducive with a Heathen Tribal Community. It is anti-collectivism; anti-socialism; anti-Marxism; anti-altruism; anti-mysticism and anti-spiritualism.

Individualism is fundamentally egoistic materialism, totally Hedonistic, against human nature and nothing more than the selfish pursuit of Happiness at all cost.


In the Introduction to this article I posed a series of questions:

"Would you trade 'consciousness', 'self awareness' and the 'narrative
I' for a greater sense of spiritual well being? Would you trade
modern technological Western society, with all of its material
wonders (including this computer!) for a near guarantee of spiritual
happiness? Is it necessary to trade; is this concept of gains and
losses beside the point? Can we have it all? Can we have great
technological understanding with its unavoidable, intense use of the
ecology and a Unicameral Mind that is at ease with communication with
the gods and is capable of benefiting from such a relationship? Can
you imagine a technological West with compassion towards Gaia and all
the beings?"

 Can we walk away from our computers and cars and television sets???”

 Modern Society lacks the "Dreamtime" of our ancestors. Western Culture, Technology, Christianity have bastardized everything our heritage was.

 We are governed by a society that places us in a box. We become out-cast or ostracised because we are the `square pegs' which do not fit into the round holes. As Heathens we appear as very square pegs.

 We have become a Society of Consumers. We work for Governments which are not that far removed from the Feudalism of Old.

 I would gladly walk away from a Society of Individualism. Modern Society is one governed by CONSUMERISM, Capitalism, Globalization and the onslaught of the Individualism ideology.

Individualism undermines family values and the kindred of tribe and Community.

This Globalized, Capitalist State wants us like the "Borgs" of the Star Trek – Next Generation series, a society of mindless, docile, uniform lemmings willingly following the dictates of the State even if that is over the precipice.

 If I had complete freedom to be TRUE to my natural instincts and the financial means to be self-sufficient … I would walk away from this society of modern technology and comfort and "be out hunting and farming simply to stay alive and to provide food, for my wife and my family".

Could and Would YOU?

·        Footnote (on Writing Style): I have Aspergers syndrome and I am partially blind.

·        Appreciation for assistance in writing this article to Leif Njordsson, Kathleen Maybin (Spirit),  Joseph Dismore, Kathleen Connor and my Dragonfly, Louise O’Brien.


Glossary and Dictionary

 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 


One entry found for individualism.

Main Entry: in·di·vid·u·al·ism
Pronunciation: "in-d&-'vij-w&-"li-z&m, -'vi-j&-w&-, -'vi-j&-"li-
Function: noun
1 a (1) : a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount; also : conduct guided by such a doctrine (2) : the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals b : a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action, and interests; also : conduct or practice guided by such a theory
2 a : INDIVIDUALITY b : an individual peculiarity : IDIOSYNCRASY

The American Heritage® Dictionary




1a. Belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence. b. Acts or an act based on this belief. 2a. A doctrine advocating freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a person's economic goals. b. A doctrine holding that the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the state or social group. 3a. The quality of being an individual; individuality. b. An individual characteristic; a quirk.




1a. The belief that individual people should lead their lives as they want;

Thesaurus: egoism, libertarianism, freethinking, independence, self-direction; Antonym: conformity, conventionality.

1b. Behaviour governed by this belief. See also laissez-faire.
2. The theory that the state should in no way control the actions of the individual. Compare socialism, collectivism at collectivize.
3. Self-centredness; egoism.

Etymology: 19c.


    1. Belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence.
    2. Acts or an act based on this belief.
    1. A doctrine advocating freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a person's economic goals.
    2. A doctrine holding that the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the state or social group.
    1. The quality of being an individual; individuality.
    2. An individual characteristic; a quirk.


Select bibliography and source:












[12] personal communication between myself and Mistress Bloodmoon









 Further and Recommended On-line site:

Selected Books Bibolography:

  • Alexander, Jeffry. 1987. The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Cohen, G. A. 1982. “Functional explanation: Reply to Elster,” Political Studies 28 (1):129-135.
  • Elster, Jon. 1982. “The Case for Methodological Individualism,” Theory and Society, 11: 453-482.
  • -----. 1985. Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • -----. 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fodor, Jerry. 1980. “Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Science,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3: 63-73
  • -----. 1987. Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Goldstein, Leon. 1958. “The Two Theses of Methodological Individualism,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 9: 1-11.
  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1984/87. The Theory of Communicative Action, 2 vols. trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, 162: 1243-1248
  • Hardin, Russell. 1982. Collective Action. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Hayek, Friedrich von. 1942. “Scientism and the Study of Man I,” Economica, 9: 267-91
  • -----. 1943. “Scientism and the Study of Man II,” Economica, 10: 34-63.
  • -----. 1944. “Scientism and the Study of Man III,” Economica, 11: 27-39.
  • -----. 1955. The Counter-Revolution of Science. New York: Free Press.
  • Heath, Joseph. 2001. Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Hobbes, Thomas. 1949. De Cive, or the Citizen. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Jeffrey, Richard. 1983. The Logic of Decision, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lukes, Steven. 1968. “Methodological Individualism Reconsidered,” The British Journal of Sociology, 19:2, 119-129.
  • Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Parsons, Talcott. 1937. The Structure of Social Action, 2 vols. New York: Free Press.
  • Parsons, Talcott, and Edward Shils, eds. 1951. Toward a general theory of action. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Popper, Karl. 1944a. “The Poverty of Historicism I,” Economica, 11: 86-103.
  • -----. 1944b. “The Poverty of Historicism II,” Economica, 11: 119-137.
  • -----. 1945. “The Poverty of Historicism III,” Economica, 11: 69-89.
  • -----. 1966. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Samuelson, Paul A. 1954. “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 36: 387–89
  • Schumpeter, Joseph. 1908. Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie, Leipzig: Duncker & Humbolt.
  • -----. 1909. “On the Concept of Social Value,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 23: 213-32.
  • Sperber, Dan. 1997. “Individualisme méthodologique et cognitivisme,” in R. Boudon, F. Chazel & A. Bouvier (eds.) Cognition et sciences sociales. Paris: Presse Universitaires de France, pp 123-136.
  • Stanovich, Keith. 2004. The Robot's Rebellion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Stinchcombe, Arthur. 1968. Constructing Social Theories. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
  • Udehn, Lars. 2001. Methodological Individualism. London: Routledge.
  • Watkins, J.W.N. 1952a. “Ideal Types and Historical Explanation,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 3, 22-43.
  • -----. 1952b. “The Principle of Methodological Individualism,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 3, 186-189.
  • -----. 1955. “Methodological Individualism: A Reply,” Philosophy of Science, 22, 58-62.
  • -----. 1957. “Historical Explanation in the Social Sciences,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 8, 104-117.
  • Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley: University of California Press.

This article is not up for general discussion in any forum without the author's permission and unless the author specifies

To Menu

© Copyrighted 2019 Mish Daya Mystique Lee-Price 'Mystique Mish'. All Rights Reserved.

Repoduced here with consent.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
Or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author.