An English state of mind

There is no such thing as 'the individual' or 'an individual', or a 'society of individuals'.

That is in stark contrast to the idea (perhaps 'myth' would be a better word) that the English have always been individualistic. The very life blood of English culture is nothing without an understanding that Liberty is the pulse that keeps it flowing. 

This notion of an 'essentially' highly individualistic people is sometimes related to 'English eccentricity' and sometimes to a natural isolation and shyness. Individuality, then, is equated to either simply being atypical or to an almost suffocating fear of contact (on the latter, you only have to mistakenly bump into someone and note how quickly the words "sorry" or "excuse me" are proffered). Individuality is in that sense really a manifestation of a highly developed desire for privacy, and to be left alone.

All of that is-as any myth of uniqueness is bound to be-quite comforting (parallel, perhaps, to the American myth of the rugged individual). Emphasize psychological explanations over social ones, and stick to the idea of continuity rather than change. By doing so one can crowd out other dispositions that might also be seen to be natural (such as social or altruistic ones), and one can in addition also find a justification for all sorts of harsh positions and policies (which is what, in fact, Thatcher managed to do) under the false assertion that one is only helping to reassert the fundamental, timeless and unique traits of  the English people.

Of course, the truth is radically different. England has always suffered from an incredible sense of class differentiation and deference to authority. Note the reaction to a simple sign such as "Keep off the Grass" or the passion with which people will form themselves into queues. Or, think about how easy it is to put someone in their place by pointing out how they've mispronounced a particular word. Equally telling is the way in which industrialisation generated mass conformity in habits, ways of thinking (the docile acceptance of these changes), and the way in which (newspaper) reading habits are shaped by a highly concentrated media industry. It is hard to imagine genuine individuals so easily accepting the trash produced by the cultural and educational industries or, indeed, the vast inequalities in income and wealth. 

What we've actually seen in the age of neo-liberalism is a process of "de-individualization". A gambler or an addict is not, in any recognizably familiar sense, an individual. Our addiction to consumption (cars, food, images, political and celebrity gossip) suggests that we're more slaves of our desires than individuals who possess the capacity to determine their own fate. (I say "our" because in reality the English state of mind is one that is symptomatic of the conditions produced, to varying degrees of intensity, in many other countries that are in thrall to the market). 

If to be an individual is to be 'free from' the determinations charted by family, tradition, church and state then in what sense are we individuals when so much of our lives is governed by the corporations and the war machine? 

But the more central question remains: to what extent can we even be individuals without social relations and attachments to specific places, objects, ways of life, language, people. The 'thin', ahistorical, rootless or cosmopolitan view of the individual, it turns out, is hardly a person at all, and one who is ripe for manipulation by the state, the media and the market.