There is a book by Daniel Hurewitz called Bohemian Los Angeles and the Making of Modern Politics, and Martin Duberman has reviewed it. The review starts like this:
What is the self? Do we all have one? Is it best treated with Botox or with books? Is it grounded in genetic concrete or manufactured by cultural circumstances? How can you tell the ersatz from the genuine article–and who’s the best judge? Is having a self the same as having an identity, or are the two sequential, a successful excavation of one’s “inner essence” leading to association, political and otherwise, with a group of like-minded essences?
Hurewitz’ book studies artists, Communists, and homosexuals coexisting in the subdivision of Edendale (now Echo Park and part of Silverlake) from the 1920s through the 1960s. It has to be entertaining.
In the review, Duberman makes some remarks which are applicable more generally. Here they are:
For women, the common enemy remains the patriarchy. For blacks and Latinos, it is still white racism. For gay people, heterosexual oppression. None of these movements function effectively when the focus is on catering to the diverse needs of those enlisted in the ranks; the diversity can be acknowledged and supported, but a shared purpose must, for maximum effectiveness, remain the point of concentration. The common assumption that political action should be based on a fully shared–even identical–set of values and perspectives among those committed to a cause isn’t a good operational guide for effective organizing. Within a given movement, differences are bound to exist among the rank and file in regard to class, race, gender, age, geographical location, religious belief and so on. But when those differences become the prime focus of attention, the energy that should be saved for working against a common oppressor gets diverted and sapped. To form powerful, effective political organizations, individuals cannot be allowed to let the differences that separate them usurp the agenda. One central reason movements for social reform in this country have rapidly run aground is our commitment to the ideological belief (not the practice) of the supreme importance of the individual.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
Damned skippy! Which is why “Habits of the Heart” (reminding us what Alexis de Tocqueville had to say about “individualism” and pointing out that he was apparently right) got so much attention. The White male’s power (recognizing that homophobia is just another manifestation of the patriarchy that reduces women) is pretty safe as long as the rest of us are focused on our differences as paramount.
The indigenous perspective, wherein we are all part of Mother Earth, on the other hand, brings it right down to a basic dissolving all else–in the best interests of all the life forms.
interesting reading — thanks for making me think today!
You’re always causing me to think. Yes, we need to start thinking in terms of “We.” That has hindered us in this country. I guess that it’s just human nature to an extent. We should always strive to rise above those things we deem “human.” Thanks.