**
Tel Quel, Moroccan magazine
Translated by Dr. Roberto Barducci
Is man, first of all, an individual, or is he essentially a member of the social body? And why should these two positions be contradictory?
Some say “persons”, the others reply “group”. The first ones defend the idea of “individual”, whereas the latter raise their voice in the name of “community”. The “Call for the Defence of Individual Liberties”, because this is once more what we are dealing with, keeps on arising debates. Good news, since this is how societies progress.
Let us leave aside the inevitable by-products of this debate (disinformation and personal attacks) and let us go back to the two fundamental questions: Is man, first of all, an individual, or is he essentially a member of the social body? And why should these two positions be contradictory?
According to the encyclopaedia, “individualism” (*) is a political and social doctrine that relies on two basic principles: “moral autonomy”, that is the right of each individual to elaborate his own thought, and “individual freedom”, that is the right to take care first of the condition of the individual and then of the society. This doesn’t mean that the individual lives inside a bubble, where he doesn’t share any solidarity with anybody. He only freely chooses with whom he wants to solidarize (trade unions, currents of thought, adept of a certain type of art, etc.).
Contrary to individualism, we find “holism”, a doctrine according to which an individual can be taken into consideration only as part of a group or of a community. Even worse: if he leaves it, he becomes its enemy. As the old say goes. “only the devil can extract himself out of the community”. Solidarity is also an essential component of this doctrine. Except that, this time, it is “mechanically” (this adverb has been used by philosopher Durkheim) applied to the members of the group to whom it is sensed to belong, de facto, right from their birth.
To cut it short, it is “I” against “Us”. There is no doubt that, presently, Moroccan society is overwhelmingly in favour of “Us”. Why? Because Islamism, political current whose cornerstone is the “umma”, is deeply reshaping our collective psychology. And because Islamism is fundamentally opposed to the idea of “I”, in the name of “our ancestral values”. On the contrary, individualism is, beyond any doubt, an imported doctrine, as islamists say. Those who defend it, answer that it is universal, which means that it is valid anywhere and in any time. Undoubtedly, but this is no sufficient argument for Moroccans to understand it and adopt it.
However, historically, as sociologist Jamal Khalil argues, Islam was meant to promote individualism. The great conquest of the initial period have been made possible only in reason of strong personalities, those of the Prophet and his Companions, who revolted against the traditional established order. After that, everything has been plastered inside vertical hierarchies. Those that originated “Islamic kingdoms” … Anthropologist Hassan Rachik goes further: “Traditional Islamic law has been always based on negotiation, circumstantial arbitrages between individuals and rules”. If all this has been deviated, if today pressure anti-individuals is so strong, it is not the fault of Islam but of those who make a political use of it: Islamists of course, but, most and foremost, the State.
In conclusion we will borrow from the Iranian intellectual Reza Zia-Ebrahimi; “When it becomes a supreme value, collectivity, whose welfare comes ahead of the one of the individual, leaves only little room for democracy that is, by definition, the kingdom of added individualities”-
“Democracy”, one more imported concept …
(*) obviously not to be confused with egoism, because an egoist only takes into consideration his own personal interests, whereas an individualist takes into consideration everybody’s interest, not just his own.