Individuals+in+Society

In this essay Simmel uses his notion of form and content to expand on the ideas of group expansion and the relationship to the progression of individuality. In order to explain the effect of the group on an individual Simmel first explains the development and growth of groups (300). Simmel finds that, //“Individuality in being and action generally increases to the degree that the social circle encompassing the individual expands.”// The more diverse and expansive a group is the more an individual becomes unique and develops. While groups often have different content from each other, they tend to have similar forms. Because they groups share forms they will eventually develop to look more like each other (301). An example of this is the American Presidency and The Papacy. While both groups have different messages and purposes which represent the content, they both have similar hierarchies with a clear leader (the president and the pope), and clear structures which represent the form (senators representatives and cardinal and bishops etc). The longer these groups are established the more they will look the same (solidarity). Also, if the groups develop too large they begin to break the “homogeneous whole” (301). Once division of labor becomes distinguishable both internally and externally, there is inequality (302). Simmel explains how an individual is influenced by the “//circles//” or groups that one belongs to. He notes that if a person is a member of a small and constricted circle, it will limit the development of the individual’s personal identity. Yet, if a person is member of many broad circles they will have the opportunity for varied personal identity (304). This idea is similar to what we discussed in class about rural v. suburban/urban cultures. The more groups you belong to the more varied your personality becomes as you take characteristics of all the groups you belong to. In order to help explain how an individual relates theses identities, Simmel explains a dual existence of an individual. He finds that individuals live both as member of circles, yet are differentialable from other members of that circle, and a collective circle different from other circles (305). An example of this is how member of the feminist movement are very different from each other within that circle, and how the “//circle//” of feminist is different from conservative circles. Simmel uses differentiation drive to explain the heuristic principle (“//a notion of learning and discovery//” Merriam-Webster) within circles (306). To understand this differentiation, one must look at circles. If there is a group of athletes once can generalize them as such by clothing they are wearing, yet if you asked one them about their clothing they would point out how different they are. The family plays a “//sociological dual role//” (308). First, family is a circle that is exclusive to an individual’s blood relations and feels as an “//extension of one own personality//”. Secondly, family helps construct an intricate way a person differentiates themselves and develops a sense of “//selfhood and an antithesis//” (308). The concept of individual freedom is defined through the “//diversity of our provinces of interest//(310).” Simmel uses the example of spousal choice to help illustrate the complexity of the definition of individual freedom. Through the maturation of culture the number of possible marriages partners is substantially higher through integration of circles, removal of religious constraints, greater mobility, etc (310). Yet, Simmel points out that there is a conviction of humanity that there is soulmates or two people “//meant”// for each other. This show how though there is more freedom of choice for an individual, the notion freedom actually decreases. For example, though there are many more choices for possible spouses, many people have the idea of a “perfect” husband or wife. This makes ones choice more narrow, because what one wants has become more defined and specific (310). Simmel notes that individuality can be defined in two ways. First individuality as responsibility for “//oneself”// from the general social conditions (311). This has respect on what is “//generally human//” and unites people (312). Secondly, individuality as qualities to help differentiate “//from all others…suit him alone// (311)//.”// This empathizes what separates people (312). The first definition being more about man in general and the individual power of man to explore the range of choices open to everyone used 18th century ideas (312). The second focuses on the role of man to use choice to define himself and creates division (312). Simmel contents that these definitions are meant to contradict each other, but they do in fact “//coincide” (312)//. This happens as the circles grow larger through the ideas of the first definition, it supports the second (311).
 * //Group Expansion and the Development of Individuality//****: Essay Review by Casey Barnett**
 * Group Expansion:**
 * Personal v. Collective Identity**:
 * Dualistic Drive**
 * The Differentiation Drive as a Heuristic Principle:**
 * The Sociological Duality of Family:**
 * Freedom and Individuality:**


 * Discussion Questions:**

1. Simmel contends that as groups expand they become more alike. Using Simmel’s theory can you compare Benedictine College and a Rehabilitation Program for Drug Offenders? What makes them become alike? 2. Looking at the example of the athletes. Why do you think that when you asked people from within a group they define themselves, they distinguished themselves as different, but when you ask an outsider all group members appeared the same? How does this relate to the idea of dualistic drive? 3. Which definition of individuality do you agree with? Is Simmel correct in his assertion that they work together?

Mead and Simmel-Jessie Schiffer 2/19/10

George Mead and Georg Simmel are different from our previous sociologists in that they are symbolic interactionists. This means that they deal in micro sociology, i.e. with smaller groups/individuals and their respective contribution to society instead of how society impacts the individual. First, we look at George Mead. Mead’s philosophy depends on the concept of **pragmatism**, the idea that there are no fundamental truths (note*: to be continued). Instead, truth is relative to time, place, and purpose of the moment (Allan, p. 108). From this, we are to understand that truth is found in the actions of people, more specifically, their practicality. Mead would say for example, that as students, we respect the classroom environment because we know it will contribute a good grade. In that social action, we create a truth that is useful for our success. Essentially, (subjective) truth directly flows from our **interactions.** Interactions are the constant blending of individual actions and meanings through three steps, cue, response, response to response (Allan, p. 111). Before we can even act, however, we need a **self**, and in order to create a self, we need a **mind**. A mind, according to Mead is capable of the following (Allan, p. 113):
 * Recall that Mead argues for no fundamental truths, but he also says that based on our human interactions, we create an objective reality. So there is room for the existence of absolute truths, but we can never understand them in their entirety.

-using symbols to signify objects -using symbols as its own stimulus (talking to itself) -reading/interpreting another’s gestures and in turn using them as further stimuli -delaying a response -rehearsing its own behaviors before actually carrying them out

Specifically, the mind goes through three stages on the way to creating a self; the play stage, the game stage, and the generalized other stage. The **play stage** is when babies/children take on the role of **significant others** (our emotional/material dependents). For example, when a child “plays house” with a doll, she is **role-taking** that of a parent. She is acting outside of herself, but at the same time she is acting toward herself. This is important because the child is developing her perspective, her “self” (through which she acts) (Allan, p. 115). Next is the **game stage** where the child takes on the role of several others, but they (the others) remain individuals. The example used is team sports. You could take on the role of each player to predict behavior while simultaneously knowing the rules. The child does not have a fully formed self until moving on to the last stage, the generalized others stage (Allan, p. 115). The **generalized others stage** is when the child can think about general or abstract others. The previous two stages are very specific to individuals, but here, the child is literally “generalizing others” and forming him/herself accordingly. For example, when we come to class, we dress to fit a profile of what a “student” looks like. We might avoid dressing in clothes that make us look “uncool, lazy, etc.” because that is “in general” what we think is expected of us. According to Mead, this is how “the community exercises control over the conduct of it individual members” (Allan, p.115). Once we create our “self” we can then act. Mead would say that humans do not //re//act, we //act// (Allan, p. 109). In every act there are four elements; impulse, perception, manipulation, and consumption. In every situation, we feel the initial drive to act (impulse), then we take in the environment (perceive), next we play out all the scenarios of what could happen in our head (manipulation), after considering all the consequences, we are then positioned to act (consumption). The idea behind all four elements is that we are doing them symbolically. We are thinking about how our potential actions will be received by the general others, or society. So, social behavior requires the “presence of a mind capable of symbolic, abstract thought and a self able to be the object of thought and action” (Allan, p. 109). Why does Mead care about human action/interaction? Because society (and in turn truth) derives itself directly from it. (mind + self)= ability to act-->interactions-->society-->(results in formation of) truth

Recall that Mead argues for an objective world mediated through symbols. The only way that we can know/experience/categorize the world is based on the frameworks in our mind, i.e. through **symbols** or **significant gestures**. We use significant gestures intentionally to communicate something to another. They are abstract, arbitrary, and become significant when the “idea behind them arouse the same response in the self as others” (Allan, p. 110). They are abstract in that they exist in our mind. They are arbitrary in that we made them up at random. For example, we use the word “two” to designate a number of something (two things). The word “three” could have meant “two things,” but we just decided to use “two” instead. Another important thing to note about symbols is that **meaning** directly **emerges** from our consensus on significant gestures. For example, when I hold up my index and middle fingers and fold the rest together, you know that I am giving you the “peace” sign. We give it the meaning of peace, or the meaning of peace directly emerges from that interaction because of how we respond. Remember that that “significance” is totally arbitrary. The meaning of the peace sign could have easily been switched with that of the middle finger, but because as a society, we accept the peace sign, and cringe (sometimes) at the middle finger, we have given a specific meaning to the symbol of two fingers versus one. Another example is a coffee mug. I could use that for drinking, eating soup out of, growing a plant out of etc. That cup becomes whatever I need it to be whenever I need it to be. I give meaning to that cup based on my specific interaction with it. The last thing to note about Mead is the concept of the “I” and the “Me.” As we progress through the stages of creating the self, we develop certain conscientiousness about our social behavior. This “Me” is restricted by social ramifications and as such, cannot do certain things that the “I” can do. This is because the “I” is the “unsocialized and spontaneous” (Allan, p. 118) part of the self. So, you might want to jump on the tables in the middle of class and dance, but your better judgment says that that is probably not a good idea. If we return to Marx or Durkheim, we remember that society exists outside the individual and it (social world) in turn creates him/her. Mead would say that the individual is the social actor who actively creates the world around us (Class notes). “Society exists as sets of attitudes, symbols, and imaginations that people may or may not use and modify in interaction…society exists as sets of potential generalized others with which we can role-take” (Allan, p. 117). (As an example, think of the Smith agents from the Matrix. They can take on the role of anyone that they need in order to accomplish their goal). Next, we look at Georg Simmel. Simmel is very similar to Mead, but he also brings two new ideas to the table; objective culture and urbanization. The difference between subjective and objective culture is that **subjective culture** is that which we “have the ability to embrace, use, and feel” (Allan, p. 122). For example, Tony Hawk wore skateboard shoes because he needed them for a practical purpose. He was connected to his shoes because they were important for his everyday life of skateboarding. Tony Hawk is retired from skateboarding professionally, so he probably does not wear those shoes every day. I own a pair of skateboard shoes but I cannot skateboard. The transition from only skateboarders wearing those shoes to the non-skateboarding world owning and wearing shoes is where we see objective culture happening **Objective culture** is “made of elements that become separated from the individual or group’s control and reified (become real) as separate objects” (Allan, p. 122). This idea of objective culture is essential to Simmel because it means that “once formed it can take on a life of its own and it can exert a coercive force over individuals” (Allan, p. 122). I wear skateboarding shoes because they are “stylish, cool, etc.” not for any practical use. No one told me to wear the shoes; I picked up on the trend and got the shoes. Where does the desire to “fit in” or “be cool” come from? For Simmel, it comes from human interaction in society, or the influence of **social forms**. Social forms come directly from the interactions and “exert influence over the individual” (Allan, p. 121). They are our thoughts and cognitions ordered by society which are developed through habitualization and can exist beyond or outside of us (Class Notes). Some examples from class are marriages, standard greetings (handshake etc.), fashion as an identifier, etc. The important point here, is not only that we learn these forms which serve as our mental guide for navigating human interaction, but also, that they can move from being subjective into the objective. So take blue jeans for example. Jeans used to be a durable pant that served those in the manual labor profession. Today, jeans are a fashion statement with styles ranging from the skinny jean, low rise, boot cut, etc. **Jeans**, after **repeated interactions**, went from being a part of the **subjective** to the **objective** culture. There are three variables of objective culture. If they increase, then culture becomes less and less subjective. They are absolute size, diversity of components, and complexity. Simmel also talks about three forces of modernity that can increase objective culture. They are urbanization, money, and social networks. In **urbanization** people move from the country to the city. This drives division of labor and the increase in the use of money. Increase in division of labor brings about a trivialization of culture as we become more and more removed from it. While money increases individual freedom and allows value free exchange, it also “discourages intimate ties with people (Allan, p. 126)” and “decreases moral constraints (Allan, p. 126)” which leads to anomie. On the positive side, money can create greater exchange groups which in turn strengthen the level of trust within a society. Urbanization also results in a change of **social networks**. Within society, we have primary and secondary groups. **Primary groups** are based on close ties, like our families. **Secondary groups** are those that are utility oriented. In rural societies, most of our relationships are from our primary groups. This changed as society made the shift from rural to urban. When they come from secondary groups, individuals can form unique personalities and identities, but at the same time, this increases anomie (without norms) (Class Notes). The effects of urbanization on the individual are important in that they “directly influence the level of objective culture” (Allan, p. 132) which in turn will have its effect on the society, as it is the individual who creates the social environment.

**Alex DeLuca- Mead and Zimmel**
Mead and Simmel are truly unique out of all the sociological theorists we have examined this semester. Both Mead and Simmel are labeled symbolic-interactionists and they focus on smaller groups of people and how they operate. Mead’s main interest is the self and how it influences our perspective on the world. Mead’s main influence was the philosophy of pragmatism. Pragmatism rejects the idea of any fundamental or universal truths. Instead, it emphasizes that truth is only relative to our time, period, and place in society. Mead argues that our self is essential in everyday interaction. The self guides our behaviors and permits us to act socially. Pragmatism denies that our actions and decisions are predetermined by society or set in stone. Rather, our decisions and ethics are constructed through interaction that is driven by our self. Mead is basically saying that through interaction, we can achieve action. Interaction allows us to speak to each other through the use of significant gestures or symbols. A gesture is considered significant when it raises the same response in the self as in others. For example, if someone were to yell “Fire!” in the auditorium then most likely everyone would have the same response to the situation. They would try to leave as soon as possible. This language, unique to humans, allows us to create a symbolic framework in our mind that makes it possible for us to interpret a situation. After interpreting a situation, we are finally ready to act. Mead says, “this is where society becomes possible”.

How is a self created? For Mead, we create our sense of self and the ability to be social through the process of role-taking. Role-taking enables us to put our self in the place of another in order to see your own self. Role-taking provides us a means by which we can form a perspective of our self. The “self is the perspective and the object is our actions, feelings, or thoughts” (Allan 113). The self becomes meaningful through our personal qualities and individual behaviors. According to Mead, our self is formed in four distinct stages: The Preparatory Stage (although this one is more implied, than stated), The Play Stage, The Game Stage, and The Generalized Other Stage. In the Prepatory Stage, Mead concentrates on the mind. The mind is a behavior that can use symbols to denote objects, interpret gestures, suspend response, and rehearse our behavior before it actually happens. Our mind is something that evolves. It begins with our infant dependency and continues to progress as we further understand our environment and the language required to communicate in it. The next stage is the Play Stage. This is where a child can take a role or assume the position of a significant other. This stage gives the child a perspective outside of their own and makes it possible for them to better understand the self as a social object. The Game Stage follows the Play Stage. Here, the child learns to take the perspective of several others and incorporate the rules of society. However, an individual still does not have a fully formed self until the Generalized Other Stage. The generalized other “refers to sets of attitudes that an individual may take toward him- or herself-it is the general attitude or perspective of a community” (Allan 115). Only in this stage can we fully conceptualize our self and who we are to those around us. Mead also says that our self has two parts: the “I” and the “Me”. The Me is the self that is the creation of role-taking and helps us analyze our own behaviors. The I is our impulse and drives. Essentially, the Me looks at things rationally and the I is our underlying desire.

Simmel believed in the integrity of the individual but, he also wants to recognize society as a true force. Simmel thinks society “exists as social forms that come about through human interaction…” (Allan 121). Sounds similar to Mead right? Yet Simmel goes on further and state “…society continues to exist and to exert influence over individual through these forms of interaction” (Allan 121). Simmel differs from Mead by suggesting that there is a possibility that our signs, symbols, ideas, social forms, etc. can exist outside of the person and in an objective sense. Objective culture is not known on an intimate level. Simmel is interested in how social forms and the relationship between the subjective experience of the individual and the way that ties into objective culture. Subjective culture can also transform into objective culture through repeated interactions. For example, blue jeans were once used for manual labor and now they have become a fashion statement with a wide variety of styles.Simmel describes culture as subjective in small and more closely-knit communities. Culture starts to become objective when interactions are expanded to a larger and more distant scale. Objective culture is difficult to see as a whole because of it’s increasing size and complexity. For culture to appear more objective and less subjective, any of three different variables need to increase. They are absolute size, diversity of components, and complexity. Simmel says we are all motivated by individual needs and desires. Our encounters with others are molded to social forms so we can have reciprocal exchanges. This is the core of society for Simmel.

Simmel also discussed how urbanization, money, and one’s social network increase objective culture. The primary principle for Simmel is urbanization. He goes on to say “It increases the level of the division of labor and the extent that money and markets are used, and it changes one’s web of affiliations from a dense, primary network to a loose, secondary one” (Allan 124). Division of labor propels us to become specialized and focus on only a small piece of the bigger picture of the production process. Once we start to consume the products we produce, we begin to associate our self with them more and more until they shape our self-concept and image. Simmel also sees the other side. The products we are using are changing. There is an excess of products in our world and they can be substituted for at any moment. This makes it difficult to become attached to them and their mass production leads to a trivialized and less valued product. Products are made according to current fashion trends and to the markets demands. As mentioned, urbanization increases exchange in society and therefore, the use of money. Money has a variety of effects. These effects become more intense when more money is used. Money can increase individual freedom by allowing people to pursue a variety of activities. Yet, as a drawback we are less attached to these things and start viewing them as the “price-tag” they came with. Money also discourages ties with people by dominating our relationships and encouraging “a culture of calculation”. Money increases the number of exchanges we have and expedites the speed of our exchanges. Money can also decrease moral constraints and increases the possibility of anomie. Our lives start to become engulfed by the amount of money we have instead of the morals we possess. Simmel also talks about social networks. There are primary groups and secondary groups. Strong ties to affection and loyalty characterizes primary groups. Conformity is also common. Primary groups are found mostly in small rural settings. Secondary groups are found in modern urban settings. Group membership is subject to individual freedom and conformity is less prevalent. People join social groups for rational reasons and not for emotional ones. Although we have are more likely to create our own unique identity, we could be subject anomie: a state of normlessness where we feel lost and disconnected. Mead and Simmel are both pioneers in the sense that they emphasized the mind and how they incorporated the idea of a “self” into the bigger picture of society. “Collectively, Mead and Simmel give us an insightful theory of how the self is created within the context of modernity” (Allan 134).

Simmel says that there is a distinct relation between individuality and group size. “Individuality in being and action generally increases to the degree that the social circle encompassing the individual expands.” (300) As the size of a group goes up the social differentiation of the members within that group will also go up. Because differentiation within all groups is similar, when two separate groups grow they become more and more similar. When all members work for the group there is a kind of equality established between them. However, when some work to trade with other groups it creates an inequality within their own group. This does gain access to external groups and their offerings. If we limit ourselves to a small group we have less individual freedom but the mall group is individual itself. If we are part of a large group we have more individual freedom but the large group is less unique. We are all individuals in our social circles, different from other people in the same social circle. We are also members of our own social circle, and thus different from people of other social circles. This allows us to differentiate and integrate when necessary. In order for us to develop individuality in larger social circles, we need small circles, or families, to interact with and learn from. A family reflects your self, but you also define yourself as separate from other members of the family. The role of the family changes. Groups, or social circles, are relative to the others that a person belongs to. Larger social circles promote freedom, while smaller social circles limit freedoms. Also, as individuality goes up freedom often goes down. This is because as individuals people accept less than they would otherwise. Individuality can mean different things. First, individuality can be defined by responsibilities and freedoms. Second, it can have a kind of “qualitative meaning.” In this sense being different is good in itself. Historically the meaning of individuality has changes between the two types. In larger social circles people become more aware of personality and ego. Discussion Question: 1. When Simmel talks about the dualistic drive he says we lead a “doubled” or “halved” existence so that if there is need we can realize “individuation and its opposite”. Based on modern society, do you think this is true? 2. Simmel discusses families and small groups and their expansion. According to Simmel, how small can a group be? Can two people be a group? 3. How reliant is individuality on groups? Are there other aspects of individuality that are not affected by groups?
 * Group Expansion and the Development of Individuality: Review by Cameron McMillan**

Individual in Modern Society: In studying the individual in modern society, we turn to a sociologist that focus’ on symbolic interaction. Mead gives us his theories about how the self is created in society. Mead believes in symbolic-interactionism, we defined in class, as a micro sociology, when focused on smaller groups of people. They also both use the philosophy of pragmatism. Pragmatism (Allan p. 108) that this rejects the notion that there are any fundamental truths and instead purposes that truth is relative to time, place, and purpose. Mead tells us his theory about the self, what it is and how it works. He gives his theory about how the self becomes in society. Mead mentions that human action develops interaction. Through socialization, socially formed beliefs and values to which they appear natural, a person is formed and influenced to the person they become. With this Mead gives us another term to help us understand his theory, which is emergence. Emergence (Allan p.108) is the process of something that meaning emerges out of different elements of interaction coming together. He gives us an example of a hammer. The hammer is an object, but the meaning for this object can be different from person to person. In one situation it is used to force a nail into a board to hold something together, when someone more violent may use it to hurt someone. The meaning is decided through interaction. Symbolic meaning is important in a society as well. It would not be hard to imagine how confused our society would be if we could not understand each other’s language. We could easily have a simple conversation using body language and gestures, but this conversation would not last long at all. This brings us to the next thing Mead talks about, creating the self (Allan p.113) First is role-taking, this is done by putting ourselves outside of our own to form a perspective of ourselves. Mead then explains the mind, he tells us that it is a behavior and it involves five different abilities: · To use symbols to determine an object · Use symbols as its own stimulus · Read and interpret another’s gestures and use them to further stimuli · To suspend response · To imaginatively rehearse one’s own behaviors before actually behaving The next stage is the play stage. This is where the child literally gets outside of itself in order to see the “self”. An example would be when children play school teacher and they view the children in the classroom how they feel they are being treated. The game stage comes after this and happens when the child takes on roles of several other people. The last stage is the generalized other stage, this is based on how you see yourself how others in society see you. An example in the book (Allan p. 115) tells how a woman looks in the mirror and sees herself as the media thinks a woman should look.

Selina Valles In Georg Simmel’s essay of “Group Expansion and the Development of the Individual”, he explained that an individual’s personality is influenced from the group that he is included in and that individuality only goes as far as it is in relation with group expansion. He explained, “Individuality in being and action generally increases to the degree that the social circle encompassing the individual expands” (p. 300). As a certain group tends to grow, it will eventuality bring about more opportunities or “social differentiation” (300). As groups grow either similarly or in opposite directions, they will reach a point in which they become similar. Growing groups will give way to differentiation within those groups or specialization. In time, regardless of the relationships between subgroups, they eventually become similar due to the fact that “ After all, the number of fundamental human formations upon which a groups can build is relatively limited” (p.300). In past times, equality among workers only lasted to a certain degree. With every person working in a group for the same purpose and same job, it left out the opportunity for people to be good at whatever they did because there was no competition in the system. Simmel gave an example of guild workers (301). The production of the worker was limited to what all the guild workers had achieved. In such a way, the master only sold what his workers had produced instead of the most he could possibly produced which limited the guild master’s business to a smaller business. This equality among the guild workers finally was dissolved and inequality occurred. The workers began to specialize in their work. Whoever could produce the most and at the same rate of quality did well. Now, what the master guild man produced was influenced by his potential of producing. The guild workers were in beginning at a stand still in what was produced due to the fact it kept equality among businessmen. Later on, however, it brought about freedom to competition and the business expanded. A similar situation occurred in Simmel’s example of the serfs (302). The serf had worked in property that was not his own. The owner and laborer were working for the same goal. The serf never could call the land which he worked his own. When finally the system dropped the owner and the serf became different, their relationship became dependent to one another. Simmel went to say that the size of the group in which we are involved in influences our individuality. The smaller the social circle we are in the more restriction we have on our individuality. A large group gives people more of an opportunity to grow and form different personality without beginning judged as much. This is due to the fact that in a larger group many different subgroups tend to form while in a smaller group the growth is limited. People in smaller setting tend to be closely tied to family and the people that are around them. Freedom to develop individuality is limited to how the rest of the people in the group see it. Even so, Simmel explained that a small group lacks in individual freedom but as whole it practices individuality from the rest of the other groups (303). On the hand, the larger group provides personal individuality, freedom, but our “uniqueness” as a whole is limited (303). His example of the Quakers gave a good explanation. The Quakers are different from the rest of society and have uniqueness as a whole group, but as far as individual family matters or just in the personal freedom of individuality it is limited and guarded. With the group increasing and subgroups getting more differentiated our personal individuality increases as well, but it also changes our freedom of wants because it is limited. We can decide how we want to be or act but our options of who we may want to be in limited in the sense that it can be limited to what is out of our list of choices. Whatever our choice is it is probably going to be what the collective is doing or people in our group. So, we may think that whatever we chose is out of freedom to choose whatever we want, but in reality, it is chosen by our group. Thus, our individual freedom is limited; we choose only to the given choices that are present by the whole group.

Discussion questions: Is it possible to break out of the limited freedom of individuality and attain total freedom of personality? In what ways could this process of become free individual lead to? From the guild merchants till now, what will people start to head toward? Do you think we have reached a point where people believe they are free to be who they want to be or what radical direction could people go for?