Critical Sociology 34(1) 117-137

http://crs.sagepub.com

Three Ideologies of Individualism: Toward Assimilating a

Theory of Individualisms and their Consequences

T. William Greene
Black Hills State University, South Dakota, USA

Abstract
Accompanying capitalism, individualistic beliefs have advanced individual rights and freedoms.
Social critics, however, argue that individualism justifies inequalities by suggesting that barriers to
economic well being exist only in the psyches of individuals, and not also within social structures.
A single ideology of individualism could not effectively cross all lines of social difference in the USA.
Consequently, supplemental ideologies emphasizing full self-reliance and high self-esteem emerged
at historically important junctures, reaching diverse populations and circumventing structural strain.
Separated or intertwined, these ideologies may contribute to negative social consequences.
Americans are described as simultaneously ‘too individualistic’ and ‘not individualistic enough.’

Keywords
culture, ideology, individualism, Marx, structural strain

Introduction
The USA is individualistic. While tendencies toward individualism ‘exist within every
individual and every society’ (Triandis, 1995: xiii), these tendencies are argued as being
most prevalent in the USA (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1994; Vandello and Cohen, 1999).
Deeply woven into American culture and social institutions, individualism often sym-
bolizes the freedom of the American way of life. Cultural excesses of individualism, how-
ever, have been associated with such social problems as high divorce rates (Macionis,
2002), environmental destruction (Cairns, 1998), interpersonal violence (Hsu, 1983),
incivility (Peck, 1993), high violent crime rates (Messner and Rosenfeld, 2001), and
widespread self-absorption (Leinberger and Tucker, 1991).
A commonly used definition of individualism is ‘sociocultural beliefs and practices
that encourage and legitimate the autonomy, equality, and dignity of the individuals’

© 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) DOI: 10.1177/0896920507084628
118 Critical Sociology 34(1)

(Frank et al., 1995; Horwitz and Mullis, 1998: 122; Lukes, 1973). That numerous beliefs
and consequences are associated with this term creates theoretical challenges. Depending
on social location, region, culture, and even individual idiosyncrasies, individualism may
imply the protection of individual rights, individual wealth, personal growth, noncon-
formity, self-fulfillment, outdoor adventure, individual achievement, ‘rugged individual-
ism,’ and/or the ‘American spirit’. From the time ‘individualism’ was coined in 19th
century France the term carried at least three meanings (Swarth, 1962). One involved the
doctrine of laissez-faire and the utilitarian value of self-interest. A second meaning
emphasized the ‘egalitarian implications of the rights of man’ (Swarth, 1962: 77). The
third meaning referred to the ‘aristocratic cult of individuality’ (Swarth, 1962: 77). To
this day, economic, political, cultural, and agential shifts continue to shape new mean-
ings and manifestations of individualism.
Among the first to use the term ‘individualism’ – and to predict problematic conse-
quences from its excesses – was De Tocqueville in 1840. His belief was that individual-
ism will dry up ‘the source of public virtues... and will finally be absorbed in selfishness,’
(2000[1840]: 482). Bellah et al. revisited these ideas 145 years later. Individualism, con-
cluded the authors, ‘lies at the very core of American culture’ (1985: 142). It ‘has come
to mean so many things and to contain such contradictions and paradoxes that even to
defend it requires that we analyze it critically’ (1985: 142). Their research illuminated
four separate traditions of American individualism: ‘biblical’, ‘civic’, ‘expressive’, and
‘utilitarian’ (1985). The pervasiveness and ambiguities of each type were posed as factors
perpetuating isolation and alienation in modern, American life.
A Marxian perspective would illuminate how individualism generates the beliefs that
sustain and perpetuate capitalism. Individualism and capitalism are intertwined in sev-
eral important respects. The self-interest fostered by individualism creates material
demand across various lines of social difference. Individualism also supports capitalism
ideologically. Lower classes are unlikely to move past ‘false consciousness’ when they too
are focused on their own material desires (Marx and Engels, 1978). Class consciousness,
and a more structural way of thinking about social problems, are inhibited as a result. For
example, Macionis (2002) points out that 60 percent of Americans believe that personal
laziness is the primary reason why certain citizens ‘live in need’. This contrasts to the 25
percent of Mexicans and 17 percent of Swedes holding similar beliefs, who are otherwise
more likely to attribute poverty to social injustice. Meanwhile half of lower-class
Americans believe that laziness is the primary cause of poverty (Inglehart et al., 1998).
Individualistic beliefs may foster a sense or illusion of empowerment among the oth-
erwise disempowered. Among lower-class Americans, for example, 69 percent believe
that they have a great deal of free choice and control over the outcomes of their lives, as
opposed to only 19 percent of lower-class Japanese, and 40 percent of lower-class French
(Inglehart et al., 1998). While the lower classes still encounter significant obstacles to
their economic betterment, internalized cultural beliefs may inform them that they can
still succeed in the USA, and have only themselves to blame if they do not.
A Durkheimian view, on the other hand, might instead emphasize an outcome of ‘self-
ish behaviors’ associated with excessive individualism. Durkheim’s ‘cult of the individual’
 Greene: Three Ideologies of Individualism 119

(1951[1897]) refers to the unmitigated individualism that occurs when individual

interests and needs ascend beyond what is necessary for participation in a differentiated
society. As individual selves become imbalanced – with self-concerns becoming overde-
veloped and social consciousness staying underdeveloped – egoism results. Lasch’s (1979)
‘culture of narcissism,’ and Leinberger and Tucker’s (1991) account of the ‘self ethic’, are
compatible with this line of thinking.
Messner and Rosenfeld (2001) synthesized Durkheimian anomie with a critical per-
spective of capitalism in constructing their ‘institutional strain’ model of crime. These
authors suggested that the ‘American Dream’, constructed on foundational values of indi-
vidualism and materialism, has led to anomic cultural conditions. The ever-expanding
power of capitalism has usurped much of the traditional ability of religious, family, and
educational institutions to temper the self-interested behaviors it encourages. Cultural
values more ‘collectivistic’ have become displaced. As more societal attention is given to
individualistic and materialistic ends, further expansion is created for economic institu-
tions, which in turn generates even more individualism.
Although assuming different directions, individualism theory and research have illu-
minated important potential consequences of a culture’s heavy-handed emphasis on indi-
vidual self-interests. While amplifying material demand, individualism also appears to
make ‘individualistic attributions for social problems’ more likely among American citi-
zens. This, in turn, allows for questionable business practices and environmental destruc-
tion (Cairns, 1998) to proceed relatively unchecked. Meanwhile the uninsured, the poor,
and the homeless are seen as having their own bad choices to blame for their situations.
These perceptions, in turn, guide social policy. The USA lacks universal health care, but
at the same time is a world leader in incarceration per capita. Highly individualistic val-
ues may also encourage selfish behaviors beyond what is necessary for subjective well
being and participation in a differentiated society – influencing divorce rates (Macionis,
2002), and factoring into a general decline of American civility (Peck, 1993).

The Problem of Individualism(s) and Social Theory

Despite advances in individualism studies, important fundamental theoretical issues have
still not been adequately addressed. Theory, for example, has tended to conceive of indi-
vidualism as a single monolith; that is, as a single set of dominant cultural beliefs that
permeates class boundaries. But what if instead there are several different (but no less
consequential) versions of individualism operating in American culture? This problem
has troubled monolithic views since Merton’s ‘Social Structure and Anomie’ (1938).
Lower and middle-income citizens, knowing they are unlikely to ever become wealthy,
may strive for some ‘American Dream’, but not the same American Dream as the more
fortunate. Nonetheless, such alternative cultural individualisms may still be conducive to
‘individualistic attributions for social problems’ and ‘selfish behaviors’.
This article argues that the most pressing challenge for individualism studies at this junc-
ture is a theoretical one. For if individualism is not a single belief set, then the individualism
120 Critical Sociology 34(1)

that one study associates with divorce may be a somewhat different phenomenon than the
individualism that another relates to violence. In addition, if several distinct sets of indi-
vidualistic beliefs are influential, social theory would also want to capture the complexities
of their relationships. Separate individualisms may create different outcomes, yet still share
common structural antecedents. In light of these issues, a theory better able to see individ-
ualism as a culmination of several different belief systems – that may nonetheless share sim-
ilar roots – would provide a more solid foundation for future research.
The purpose of this article is to assimilate a broadened theoretical lens from the work of
numerous scholars. This article adopts the Marxian premise that individualistic beliefs have
ascended in the USA largely due to their support of capitalism. Individualism supports cap-
italism directly. Self-interest creates demand. Individualism also buffers capitalism ideolog-
ically. Less fortunate, individualistic citizens engaging in ‘selfish behaviors’ and making
‘individualistic attributions’ are less likely to question the overall equity of the resource dis-
tribution system. This article also accepts the idea that Durkheim’s ‘egoism’ and Marx’s ‘false
consciousness’ may be related to the same fundamental capitalism–culture relationships.
The intended contribution of this article emerges from its next premise. This article
will propose that American culture also promotes supplemental ideologies of individual-
ism that serve to reconcile structural strain. These strains result from a culture that pro-
motes lofty individual benchmarks to social groups that lack the means of reaching them.
Supplemental ideologies advance new markets, while simultaneously preserving social
class arrangements. They dissuade class consciousness. Ideology will be defined as ‘cul-
tural beliefs that justify social stratification’ (Macionis, 2002: 193).
It will first be argued that an initial such ideology, the ideology of self-willed success,
emerged during the post Civil War reconstruction period as a means of unifying
American culture. Since not all Anglo men could become wealthy, however, structural
strain was created. American culture responded to this strain by creating a supplemental
ideology of full self-reliance. This belief system offered consolation prizes to Anglo males
blocked from economic fortunes. Anglo men of all classes, in other words, could attain
some cultural value if they mastered self-reliance. Still, a third period of structural strain
arose in the 1970s when American earnings stalled and women entered the workforce in
greater numbers. These conditions created the need for another ideological supplement,
the ideology of high self-esteem. The culturally emphasized goal of actualizing high self-
esteem offered yet another individualistic avenue to persons blocked from both Anglo
male definitions of self-reliance and self-willed success.
Supplemental individualistic belief systems have been maintained through processes
of cultural supply and demand. Structural strain, first of all, facilitates a demand for new
ideas, scripts, mythologies, and themes that validate persons blocked from economic suc-
cess. On this demand side, less fortunate citizens who have internalized the cultural
premise that success defines their value will likely desire alternate means of validation.
From the supply side, supplemental ideologies of individualism are not only profitable
but sustain the ideological premises of the culture as well. In short, if new avenues for
individualism were not opened, less advantaged citizens would more likely have
questioned the basic premises that justify unequal social arrangements in the USA.
 Greene: Three Ideologies of Individualism 121

Through cultural supply and demand processes, American society allows individuals
to substitute one type of individualistic pursuit for another. This substitution factor, to
some degree, allows for all social classes to view barriers to culturally approved ends as
existing largely within individual characters or psyches, and not also within social struc-
tures. As a consequence, these three ideologies may predispose all American classes to
make ‘individualistic attributions for social problems’ and/or engage in ‘selfish behaviors’.
To understand individualism as a culmination of several distinct but related ideologies,
social theory can make strides toward unraveling the actual complexities of American
individualism.

Paradoxes of American Individualism

American individualism is wrought with paradox. In any individualistic society, large
degrees of self-reliance, self-esteem, and opportunities for individual betterment are nec-
essary for citizens’ social participation and well being. Embedded in American culture
and social structures, individualism does contribute to many strengths of the overall
society. Individual-promoting beliefs and social systems have facilitated numerous
advances in the development of the individual self and spirit. Aligned with social con-
sciousness, individualistic values have also fueled advocacy for social justice, human dig-
nity, and responsible individual freedoms. One paradox of American individualism,
then, is that these basic individual-emphasizing values that provide advocacy for human
dignity and liberties on one hand, may help to make the USA a world leader in divorce,
violent crimes, and practices deemed environmentally destructive on the other.
The USA is also highly collectivistic in some respects. For instance, Americans embody
higher degrees of individualism than their European counterparts but, at the same time,
display higher rates of religiosity as well (Inglehart et al., 1998). Related American pro-
clivities for conformity, magnified by the rise of the ‘religious right’ and conservative
worldviews, have raised the concerns of civil libertarians. In Jeffersonian thought, indi-
vidualism was seen as a primary social antidote to political tyranny. In the light of recent
political trends, however, it is possible that excessively individualistic Americans may not
be individualistic enough to preserve important social liberties. This too is paradoxical.
Toward assessing both the complexities and paradoxes of American individualism, this
article will:

1) Describe the historical development of supplemental ideologies of individualism,

arguing that these were fueled by cultural supply and demand processes that
emanated from structural strain;
2) Suggest that the three ideologies of individualism are currently intertwined in
American culture and economic structures, while also being maintained by social
controls;
3) Argue that each of the three ideologies of individualism may be conducive to
individualistic attributions and selfish behaviors; and then
122 Critical Sociology 34(1)

4) Assess certain paradoxes of American individualism.

Implications of this theoretical view of American individualism for US society will then
be discussed in the conclusion.

The Development of Individualistic Ideologies

Individualistic belief systems accompanied capitalism in its expansion across nations. In
Europe and Northern America, individualism established foundational values for pro-
moting individual spending and the growth of a market society. In the USA, however,
these beliefs also became a cultural mantelpiece. American ideas of individual autonomy
are not only widely promoted, they are constructed as metaphors and symbols of the
overall society. The view of America as the ‘land of the free’ refers to individuals unen-
cumbered by political or religious tyranny. ‘Land of opportunity’ myths allude to
autonomous individuals finding pathways to wealth, success, status, and the like. The
bald eagle – a solitary hunter – is depicted as the official national symbol of a country of
free, autonomous individuals.
The unique developmental circumstances of the USA set the stage for individualistic
beliefs to not only proliferate, as in Europe, but for these beliefs to serve additional ide-
ological purposes. In Western Europe the advance of individualism accompanied shifts
from feudalism to industrial capitalism within more established ideological frameworks.
Bloodlines and cultural traditions had justified unequal distributions of resources for cen-
turies. As individualism emerged, Europeans reconciled conceptual changes of the liber-
ties and rights of the individual within extant parameters defined by monarchies and
traditional class systems. In the USA, however, capitalism expanded while cultural pat-
terns were under construction. The American Revolution rejected monarchical rule. In
the process, dominant Anglo culture banished a fundamental ideological template for
explaining systems of inequality – that unequal resources flow from the dictates of the
rulers. In the same period, democratic ideals declared that all men are created equal. Thus
while class systems were prominent in the new society, justifications for them had neither
ruler-ship nor tradition to rely upon.
With large wealth disparities, the USA still needed a system of beliefs to justify unequal
resource distributions. This need intensified during the post Civil War reconstruction,
when establishing a unified American culture became a priority (Trachtenberg, 1982).
Religion could serve this purpose, but only to a certain degree. As Weber has argued, asce-
tic Protestant individualism viewed wealth as a sign of God’s favor (1992[1930]). Many
citizens, though, were not ascetic Protestants. In addition, religious views had lost some
degrees of cultural jurisdiction through separations of church and state. The unionizing
culture needed a standardized ideology to justify unequal distributions of wealth across
social classes and ethnic divisions. Ideological options did not include state religions,
royalty, or the sanctity of tradition.
In this context the individualistic ideology of self-willed wealth ascended. While
American culture became incorporated during the ‘gilded age’, bourgeoisie ideals become
 Greene: Three Ideologies of Individualism 123

touted as everyone’s ideals. Popular ‘rags to riches’ stories stressed that self-willed wealth
was attainable for any determined American regardless of class position. Determined
individuals not only should succeed economically, but also had something of a social
obligation to do so. This supply of self-made success stories fit an ideological need.
American culture needed to justify economic inequality within its new paradigm, while
the ideology of self-willed wealth directed attention away from the actual limitations
imposed upon individuals by class systems. It suggested that the poor might simply lack
determination (Trachtenberg, 1982).
Ever-increasing numbers of urban poor in the 19th and 20th centuries, however,
raised doubts about the ‘generalizeability’ of self-willed success myths, evidenced by labor
strife, racial conflicts, civil unrest, etc. In actuality, the ideology of self-willed wealth may
have intensified the strain of less fortunate persons wanting to justify themselves by the
new standards of the culture. For American mythology to retain its ideological functions
– that is, to perpetuate credible beliefs that individual success arises solely from individ-
ual self-determination – this ideology needed to be supplemented. The poor needed a
means of validating themselves. In the interests of ideology, they also needed to still
believe in self-determination.
During this same time period, ‘western’ folklore was becoming immensely popular
(Trachtenberg, 1982). A ‘frontier’ mythology was emerging from the numerous dime
novels and newspaper articles supplied to the American public (see Slotkin, 1992). While
many of the persons who ‘went west’ were guided by dreams of economic success, many
of their dreams did not pan out. Giving expression to these harsh economic and physi-
cal struggles, western lore redefined protagonism as a success of the human will rather
than as attaining a padded pocketbook. Whether economically successful or not, the
trappers, homesteaders, cowboys depicted in the print media were glorified in their self-
reliant attributes that allowed them to survive hostile environments.
While full self-reliance was a survival prerequisite for actual westerners, it was also
something of a philosophy of life. The ‘west’ was colonized by a disproportionate num-
ber of unattached former southerners. The self-reliant worldviews that they brought with
them emphasized contempt for the union government and the importance of defending
one’s personal honor (Courtwright, 1998). Dime novels captured this essence, often con-
trasting corrupt bourgeoisie landowners with honorable and courageous self-reliant pro-
tagonists. Meanwhile, in the overcrowded cities, a poor man could extrapolate from
western lore an individualistic code of honor of his own. Struggling for self-reliance
within disadvantaged circumstances, he could still feel validated (within the cultural par-
adigm) so long as he did not ask for help.
The supplemental ideology of full self-reliance re-calibrated cultural values so that the
honor of facing life’s struggles single-handedly could be more desirable than wealth. This,
in turn, offered ‘consolation prizes’ to the determined poor while protecting the actual
class systems. By creating cultural allowances for economic failure, western mythologies
allowed for the contradictions inherent to the ideology of self-willed wealth – that it
depended upon a belief in endless opportunities, yet urban poverty was expanding – to
find temporary resolution.
124 Critical Sociology 34(1)

This frontier mythology became even more popular in American culture in the 20th
century, long after the frontier was declared ‘closed’ (Slotkin, 1992). Theodore Roosevelt,
for example, promoted the self-reliant virtues of a ‘strenuous life’ and established national
parks for their expression. The boy scouts began teaching self-reliant values to a post-
frontier generation of young males. As a cultural bypass to strain, demand remained high
for self-reliant scripts. In the ‘Roaring Twenties’, frontier mythology splintered into
‘urban detective’ fiction (Bellah et al., 1985), depicting uncompromisingly self-reliant
protagonists exerting their individual wills against an urban ‘night frontier’ (Melbin,
1987). Television reinvigorated the western in the 1950s, bringing self-reliant frontier
characters into the living rooms of the American masses (Rawhide, Bonanza, Gunsmoke).
In the 1970s, cultural emphases returned back to their self-reliant urban counterparts
(Kojak, Baretta, Mannix).
At present, self-reliance is one of the most dominant of American values (Hitchcock,
1994). Men of all classes may espouse its virtues. A particular appeal of these values to
the American lower classes, however, is that self-reliance is one cultural prize that the less
fortunate can, to some degree, still attain. American working classes, for example,
emphasize the self-reliance and security of home ownership (Macionis, 2002). Miller
(1958) emphasized how ‘autonomy’ was a particularly salient focal concern of American
lower classes. The American working class also composes the fanbase for the ‘western’
themes of country music (Fox, 2004). Lower-class Americans may symbolize their self-
reliance through firearms collections, trucks, or hunting/fishing trips. On even lower
rungs of the social ladder, many homeless men manage their spoiled identities by defin-
ing their lifestyles as embodying American self-reliance (Snow and Anderson, 1993).
The cultural prerogatives of full self-reliance and/or self-willed wealth were sufficient
to circumvent the structural strain of the first three quarters of the 20th century. The
American workplace was largely Anglo male dominated, while the standard of living
improved for each generation. New structural strains, however, had emerged by the
1970s that were less easily reconciled by existing ideologies. Earnings had stalled for the
average American family. Costs of living continued to increase, and the ‘American
Dream’ fell under scrutiny. For many, optimism about upward mobility turned to cyni-
cism about the ability of common Americans to attain the expected individual rewards,
status and possessions. Meanwhile greater numbers of women and minorities entered tra-
ditionally male occupations, raising questions about the idea of self-reliance as the
province of Anglo males.
At this crossroads, American culture faced the dilemma of confronting deep-seated
ideological assumptions, or providing supplemental fora through which these beliefs
could be validated by Anglo men, women, and minorities. In this context, the ‘self ’
became promoted as a gender-neutral avenue for individualism (Lasch, 1979).
Individualism became redefined ‘in entirely psychological terms’ (Leinberger and Tucker,
1991: 11). Self-esteem, self-fulfillment, and self-actualization became new culturally val-
idated individual pursuits. Popular psychology, self-help books, celebrities modeling ‘a
healthy self love,’ and common discourse supplied scripts for a ‘self ethic’ (Leinberger and
Tucker, 1991), or an ‘expressive individualism’ (Bellah et al., 1985).
 Greene: Three Ideologies of Individualism 125

This ‘ideology of high self-esteem’ side stepped the new structural strains emerging
in the 1970s and 1980s. It allowed fundamental assumptions of American ideology to
remain intact. Barriers to self-esteem were presented as located solely within the indi-
vidual psyche – overcome by ‘unlocking one’s unlimited potential’ – and not also
within resource or power structures. Moreover, this ideology diverted cultural foci
away from the more structural thinking of the ‘hippie’ era. Many structural revolu-
tionists of the 1960s became ‘me-generation’ proponents of the 1970s, in fervent
pursuit of self-actualization.
Like self-reliance, a high degree of individual self-esteem is a necessity for effective
functioning in a differentiated society. Numerous mental health studies, for instance,
have shown that self-esteem mediates and moderates exposures to modern stressors
(see Thoits, 1999). As a hidden consequence of the ‘self-help movement’, though,
American culture has been promoting self-esteem on a level of importance greater than
that of a beneficial personal resource. Having high self-esteem became a cultural
imperative, a social obligation (Leinberger and Tucker, 1991). It became intertwined
with ideology.
Amplified by structural strain, the demand for high self-esteem encompasses a wide
range of Americans. Fox-Genovese (1991), for example, suggested that the women’s
movement was fueled by self-help individualism, channeling ‘male’ individualism into
directions attainable for women. Public school systems have for years been guided by
‘student centered’ philosophies designed to instill high self-esteem in a whole genera-
tion of children. As a latent function, this serves to prepare American children ideo-
logically for facing the strains of a service economy. Not all children can grow up to be
self-reliant or successful, but they can still have high esteem. In television culture,
countless athletes, musicians, and celebrities role model the flaunting of high self-
esteem. The pursuit of high self-esteem among adolescents appears in such profitable
fads as body art, buying name brand clothing, and wearing replicas of one’s favorite
athlete’s jersey.
The ideology of high self-esteem suggests that social location does not affect its real-
ization. Contrary to widespread beliefs, though, social location does appear to matter.
American women still generally score lower in self-esteem than men (Rosenfield, 1999).
Similarly, class differences in self-esteem become evident among adults (Rosenberg and
Pearlin, 1978). By adulthood many disadvantaged Americans have learned to see them-
selves as having failed to capture wealth or self-reliance. This still affects their esteem. In
the interests of American capitalism, however, the fact that the less powerful pursue high
self-esteem is what is most important.
This article will next define these ideologies, provide an illustration of their suggested lin-
eage, and then discuss ways in which self-esteem, self-reliance, and self-willed wealth are cur-
rently promoted in the USA. Each ideology is also grounded in the premise that barriers to
its particular end exist solely in individuals, and not also within social structures.
Consequently each ideology promotes values that are, under some circumstances, conducive
to the outcomes of ‘individualistic attributions’ and ‘selfish behaviors’, among others.
These three suggested ideologies of individualism are abbreviated as follows:
126 Critical Sociology 34(1)

1) The Ideology of Self-willed Wealth: economic success is an individual’s primary goal

and a valid measure of human worth. Willed and determined individuals should
always be able to attain economic success in America.
2) The Ideology of Full Self-reliance: individual self-reliance is the primary measure of
individual worth. Those with strength and resolve can overcome any obstacle
without needing to rely upon others or the system.
3) The Ideology of High Self-esteem: realizing ‘unlimited’ individual potentials and loving
oneself are primary goals. Barriers to self-esteem exist only in the mind. Any deter-
mined individual should be able to achieve high self-esteem.

Figure 1 approximates the ideological lineage of individualism in the USA. The ide-
ology of self-willed wealth has, for centuries, ignited capitalistic development in the USA
while justifying unequal resource structures as fair. The ideology of full self-reliance, in
turn, provides less-advantaged males with means for generating pride as men and
American citizens. The ideology of high self-esteem redefined individualism in psycho-
logical terms, making it seem attainable across gender, social class, and racial/ethnic lines.
Each version focuses attention on individual-serving ends, while diverting attention from
key limitations imposed by social structures.

Three Ideologies: Supply and Social Control

Empirical evidence suggests that self-esteem, self-reliance, and financial success are each
among the most dominant of American values (Hitchcock, 1994). On the individual
level, having a healthy degree of these attributes is necessary for participation in a differ-
entiated society. While wealthier citizens may materialize all of these values, the less for-
tunate may at least try to develop full self-reliance or high self-esteem. This article will
now discuss ways in which American society currently facilitates and then supplies
demands for individualistic themes and materials.
George W. Bush’s slogan for his 2004–8 presidential term was ‘The Opportunity
Society’. The ideology of self-willed wealth is still a galvanizing force in contemporary
American culture. Positive American identities are often predicated upon economic pro-
ficiency, successful playing of the stock market, and simply knowing how to find the best
deals. Among current ‘rags to riches’ icons are professional athletes. Millions of fans wear
replicas of athletes’ sports jerseys (to gain high self-esteem), vicariously connecting with
their successes. The ideology of self-willed wealth, sometimes coupled with economic
necessity, also contributes to the millions of Americans seeking job changes each year –
while holding multiple jobs in the interim.
Merton’s (1938) ‘innovators’ of today – persons seeking shortcuts to individual
wealth – come in many forms. Illegal drug dealing, fraud, and identity theft remain
constant social problems. Non-conventional success opportunities are also widely
sought through popular lotteries, gambling casinos, and eBay trading. ‘Get rich quick’
schemes are staples of ‘info-mercials’ and electronic mail. Capitalism itself provides a
 Greene: Three Ideologies of Individualism 127

Figure 1 Development of Three Ideologies of Individualism

means of innovation in the form of credit cards, enabling those with diminished means
to continue chasing the American Dream, fueling the economy while increasing their
disadvantage.
Contrary to the ideology of self-willed wealth, the richest 20 percent of families in the
USA own about 80 percent of the nation’s assets (Macionis, 2002). Although some
upper-class individuals are quite generous with their wealth, others associate charity with
tax write-offs. Others yet practice dishonesty in their income tax reporting. Nonetheless,
the indoctrinated American public still seems more at ease with questionable financial
behavior on the part of rich citizens (like Martha Stewart, who was questioned about
insider trading and convicted of obstruction of justice for her part in the incident), or
corporations such as Enron, which cost billions of dollars to society – than with petty
robberies committed by street criminals.
128 Critical Sociology 34(1)

Being another foundational cultural value, full self-reliance is exploited in the

marketing of consumer products. Countless brands of pick-up trucks and ‘Sport Utility
Vehicles’ have drawn upon American ‘frontier’ symbolism, and the self-reliance it con-
notes, to give their models marketable names (‘Explorers’, ‘Pathfinders’, ‘Trailblazers’,
etc.). Entering the outdoors for a Saturday of self-reliant adventures is a popular recre-
ational practice for many Americans, advancing sales of all-terrain vehicles, boats, moun-
tain bikes, kayaks, and motorcycles. In American homes, the savings and self-reliant
satisfaction yielded through ‘do it yourself ’ projects are heavily advertised by home
improvement stores. In living rooms, ‘reality television’ dramatizes the tests of individual
will and self-reliance of common Americans on ‘survivor’ shows.
The idea that individuals can create high self-esteem regardless of their social circumstances
fuels American consumerism as well. Self-esteem sells. A plethora of advertisements regularly
inform Americans that they are but a product away from feeling good about themselves. Sales
of cosmetics and dieting products have both led to multi-billion dollar industries. Americans
can choose from a wide range of cosmetic surgeries, breast augmentations, work-out clubs,
weight-loss programs, teeth-whitening products, hair pieces, body piercings, erectile medica-
tions and the like to bolster their self-images. In addition, counseling and psychoactive drug
industries have greatly expanded for those seeking extra assistance in elevating self-esteem.
Examples abound of materials and ideas promoted as yielding success, full self-
reliance, and high self-esteem. But while consumerism provides the ‘carrots’ for individ-
ualism, social controls wield the ‘sticks’. For deficiencies in individualism not only
impede persons’ abilities to participate in social institutions, they also threaten the under-
lying American ideological belief that individuals can completely determine their own
fates. Not doing for oneself is akin to not doing for society. Such social controls are par-
ticularly evident in the shaming of the impoverished (failing to seize opportunities for
success), welfare dependent (failing at self-reliance), or the overweight (failing at self-
esteem). Moreover, those blocked from the opportunities for self-determination are not
necessarily encouraged to pursue non-individualistic alternatives, such as assisting others.
Indoctrinated individuals may try harder for individual gain, attempt to purchase self-
esteem, or perhaps turn to chemical substances for relief.

Too Much Individualism?

The following three sections will assess questions of whether the USA is indeed ‘too indi-
vidualistic’, or even ‘not individualistic enough’. Thus far this article has argued that
American individualistic values gained pre-eminence by becoming intertwined with an ide-
ology that fuels markets and justifies class systems as fair. Evidence suggests that while self-
reliance, personal achievement, and economic success are valued in many cultures, they are
among the most salient of American values (Hitchcock, 1994). To reach across various
social locations, individualistic ideology has splintered into these distinct but related belief
systems. Signs that the USA encompasses ‘too much’ cumulative individualism would
appear in the outcomes of ‘selfish behaviors’ and ‘individualistic attributions’.
 Greene: Three Ideologies of Individualism 129

The more Durkheimian outcome of ‘selfish behaviors’ could be indicated by a number

of practices. Wasteful personal spending, crimes that are not economically motivated,
chemical and lifestyle addictions, environmental disregard, and a high divorce rate are
but a few possible indicators. Individualistic attributions, on the other hand, may influ-
ence the common attitudes toward the disadvantaged that shape voting practices and
social policies. As mentioned, the USA is the only industrialized nation that does not
guarantee health care to its citizens. Simultaneously, it incarcerates criminals at rates
much higher than do Europeans.
This article suggests that these two categories of outcomes – ‘individualistic attribu-
tions’ of social problems and ‘selfish behaviors’ – are influenced not so much by a uni-
versal American individualism per se, but by each of the three distinct ideologies of
individualism as they differentially affect social groups. Although empirical research has
not assessed these outcomes as they pertain to particular ideologies (of self-willed wealth,
full self-reliance, and high self-esteem), there is at least some evidence that suggests that
this scenario is indeed likely.
The public school system, for example, has emphasized building high self-esteem in
its students for nearly two decades. Recent research, though, has revealed a ‘dark side to
high self-esteem’ (Baumeister et al., 1996). High self-esteem may be related to poor self-
regulation skills (Baumeister et al., 1993). Similarly, children whose high self-esteem is
not balanced by pro-social values are likely to develop narcissistic tendencies, possessing
grandiose views of themselves while generating hostile attitudes toward others
(Baumeister et al., 1996). When unmitigated, the over-emphasized ideology of self-
esteem seems very conducive to ‘selfish behavior’ outcomes.
Some evidence also exists that the ideology of self-reliance contributes to ‘selfish behav-
iors’ among Anglo males. M. Scott Peck (1993), for instance, argued that ‘rugged indi-
vidualism’ prevents many men from being able to ‘drop their guards’, work collectively
with others, and develop empathy. Stoicism, or even drowning sorrows in alcohol, may in
some men’s circles be preferable to confronting vulnerabilities. Moreover, marginal
American men may be equally unwilling to compromise the persona of self-reliance that
still validates their identities in American culture (see Snow and Anderson, 1993). Failing
to attain the economic American Dream, marginal American men may see an alienated,
nomadic form of individualism – despite its related ‘selfish behaviors’ – as a lesser evil than
surrendering a façade of self-reliance that they believe garners pride and deflects stigma.
The ideology of self-reliance also contributes to ‘individualistic attributions’. In his case
study of poor Kansans who voted overwhelmingly for George W. Bush in 2004, Frank
(2004) determined that the lower class’s denial of the economic basis of social difference
was a pivotal factor. Poor Kansans viewed the Democratic Party not as the voice of the less
fortunate, but as the group intent upon taking away their gun rights (self-reliance) and
increasing their taxes. In a follow up expose in Nebraska, Hovey asked residents of rural
Loup County, consistently one of the poorest regions of the country, why they maintain
overwhelming support for the Republican party despite the fact that its proposed agricul-
tural budget cuts are expected to adversely affect them. A respondent answered, ‘We are
independent people and we don’t want government to do everything for us.’ (2005: 6A)
130 Critical Sociology 34(1)

Skitka et al. (2002) concluded that individualistic ideologies affect the initial attribu-
tions of American ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ alike. Both were highly likely to initially
assume personal attributes caused individual poverty, homelessness, crime, and other
social problems. Those who also possessed complementary humanistic or egalitarian
beliefs, however, were more likely to perceive errors in their initial judgments, and then
revise their attributions to include situational and/or structural considerations. A likely
cumulative consequence of individualistic ideologies is that 50 percent of American
lower-class individuals attribute poverty to ‘personal laziness’ rather than to social injus-
tice (Inglehart et al., 1998).
Excessive cultural emphases on individualism(s) appear to play roles in many of the
social problems of the USA. Before concluding that excessive American individualism is
primarily a product of the cultural, however, ‘nature versus nurture’ issues must be noted.
A hedonistic tendency toward pursuing self-interests is most likely inherent to the human
species. Possessing a built-in individualism, human beings do not necessarily require cul-
tural encouragement in order to be self-interested. Turnbull’s (1972) ethnography of the
Ik illuminates this point. Shortly after losing their traditional hunting rights, this African
culture disintegrated. A shared sense of culture was abandoned. Facing starvation, each
Ik began to only look out for his/her own self-interests. Religion was lost, tribal music
was forgotten, and an aggregate of cut-throat individualists emerged who believed that
sharing was foolish and saw it as acceptable to not feed starving elders. Ikian individual-
ism actually arose from an absence of culture; that is, from a group of anxious individu-
als who no longer held a shared sense of pro-social values.
Turnbull’s study of the Ik suggests that individualism is most likely a joint product of
nature and nurture. An inherent individualism appears to emerge in under-socialized indi-
viduals, particularly when facing harsh survival concerns. On the other hand, individual
self-interests can be refined through socialization, then guided toward culturally valued
ends (such as consumer spending). A culture that heavily promotes individualism gives
expression to both its under-socialized and its socialized individualists. Unsocialized indi-
vidualism, for example, is often referred to as ‘anti-social personality disorder’. Anti-socials
are often ascribed with the trait of being hard to detect by laypersons. While part of their
ability to evade detection results from their employing ‘masks of sanity’, this ability is itself
facilitated by the surrounding cultural context. Normal self-interested behaviors, in other
words, may be hard to differentiate from abnormal extremes of self-interested behaviors in
an individualistic culture. While American ideologies of individualism give direction to
the self-interests of the socialized, they may also provide a cultural veneer to the id of the
under-socialized.

Collectivism
A paradox, though, is that the USA is also very collectivistic. Despite the expansion of
American capitalism, the power of its ideologies, and the possible weakening of the abil-
ities of family, religious, and educational institutions to mediate self-interested behaviors
 Greene: Three Ideologies of Individualism 131

(Messner and Rosenfeld, 2001), many Americans still strike balances between their own
interests and family and/or community affairs. This section will address some of the
social factors that counterbalance American individualism, despite its cultural emphases.
The issue of whether or not USA collectivism adequately affects ‘selfish behaviors’ and
‘individualistic attributions’ will then be raised.
Family systems perform primary mediating functions for the society. Healthy systems
instill values of sharing, helping others, and community service that temper excessive
self-interest. A highly mobile society with a high divorce rate, however, cannot rely
solely upon the family institution for this to occur. In the USA, voluntary associations
and social networks are also major factors tempering individualism (De Tocqueville,
2000[1840]; Putnam, 2000). While more Americans ‘bowl alone’ (Putnam, 2000)
today than in previous generations, leagues, clubs, and civic organizations still link
many citizens to social networks and larger, collective goals. In addition, the social
virtue of charity is emphasized through many fundraisers, golf tournaments, and even
motorcycle rallies for such causes as cancer research or mental impairment. Similarly,
popular sports leagues teach the concept of teamwork to youth, telling participants that,
‘There is no ‘I’ in team.’
The dominant US culture encourages high degrees of collectivism in times of crisis.
An outpouring of American support, for example, was provided to victims of Hurricane
Katrina. Americans have also shown a high degree of support for their military’s engage-
ment in Iraq despite the questionable premises that led to their deployment. It is inter-
esting to note, though, that to staff a volunteer military the armed forces have added
individualistic spins to their recruitment slogans. The antiquated US Armed Forces slo-
gan of ‘Uncle Sam Wants You’ sufficed during draft years among the more collectivistic,
Depression-era generation. When the ideology of self-esteem gained a cultural foothold
in the 1980s, recruitment suffered. Slogan changes that started with ‘Be All That You
Can Be’ have now shifted to ‘An Army of One’.
Churches, historically, have also elevated non-individualistic values of their congrega-
tions beyond those standards established by the larger culture. It is no accident that
Americans score higher on religiosity and individualism than Western Europeans.
Americans are comparatively more likely to volunteer for church organizations, and to
state that religion is very important to them. Similarly, Americans rank second to the
Irish in their rates of church attendance (Inglehart et al., 1998). To the degree that indi-
vidualism fosters individual alienation in US society, church attendance provides weekly
antidotes for it.
Degrees of individualism also vary by social location. American women, for instance,
have traditionally been socialized into fulfilling less individualistic ‘expressive’ roles. In
addition, minority men are more likely to be collectivistic than are majority males.
Vandello and Cohen’s study (1999), for instance, illuminated regional variations on an
individualism–collectivism dimension in the USA. States ranking higher in minority
group concentration, such as Hawaii, the Deep South, and even ‘Lone Star’ Texas scored
higher on collectivism. On the other hand, Anglo-concentrated ‘Great Plains’ and
‘mountain west’ states generally scored higher on individualism.
132 Critical Sociology 34(1)

To a certain extent, family systems, religious systems, national crises, and social net-
works still mediate some outcomes associated with excessive American individualism. In
particular, they appear to temper ‘selfish behaviors’. It is perhaps largely due to the abil-
ity of these systems to still temper selfishness, as well as to innate needs of members of
Homo Sapiens for belongingness, that the proliferations of three individualistic ideologies
have not produced even greater levels of egoism and incivility in the USA.
What is less likely, though, is that social institutions curtail American proclivities for
‘individualistic attributions’. For example, many God-fearing Americans adhere strongly
to the belief that ‘God helps those who help themselves’ (Nussbaum, 1998). Toward
explaining social disadvantage, this belief suggests that God would indeed help the poor
if the poor so desired, or if they assumed more moral responsibility. Consequently, many
of the same religious institutions that mediate selfish behaviors simultaneously perpetu-
ate individualistic attributions. They give religious legitimacy to these views. When indi-
vidualistic attributions cannot logically be applied however, such as in the case of New
Orleans after the flood, Americans can be highly generous. This generosity is granted to
those who clearly cannot be blamed for their misfortunes.

Not Enough Individualism?

While being highly individualistic and selectively collectivistic, Americans may also be
paradoxically deficient in individualism. These deficiencies are problematic in two major
respects:

1) A large number of people living in the society do not possess sufficient degrees of
individualism; and
2) Other important directions of individualism are either not emphasized or are actively
discouraged by the culture.

In individualistic American society, healthy degrees of self-esteem, self-reliance, and

opportunities for achievement are needed in order for individuals to fulfill institutional
roles and live quality lives. Toward this end, teenagers are tacitly expected to rebel from
their parents and carve new identities. Adults, in turn, are expected to acquire private
property, discover their vocation, manage their finances, set and achieve their own goals,
and solve their own problems, to name a few. Deficiencies in these prerequisites may be
associated with adverse mental health outcomes and stigmatization. Contrary to ideolo-
gies, actual barriers to many of these pursuits – particularly to economic self-sufficiency
– are anchored in social structures. Many Americans do not possess the resources needed
to live with full autonomy. This is one major deficiency.
Moreover, a different type of individualism is needed in a culture to ward off group-
think on the interactional level, and political tyranny on the societal level. In Jeffersonian
thought, a high degree of individualism meant preserving individual freedoms from polit-
ical oppression. Recent societal events, however, suggest that individualistic Americans
 Greene: Three Ideologies of Individualism 133

may not have enough of this kind of individualism to maintain the dissent needed to
preserve their current level of democracy. Eland (2003), for example, emphasizes how
American civil liberties have been threatened by the Patriot Act. Governmental entities can
now perform some searches without warrants and peruse library records of American cit-
izens. Similarly, Giroux (2005) argues that the rise of religious fundamentalism (and sub-
sequent increase in conformity) has shifted American politics toward more of an
authoritarian model. Trends toward corporatization, in turn, further concentrate wealth,
political influence, and ideological power into the hands of the privileged few.
The ability of the American press to correct ideological falsehoods may be declining
as well. According to the ‘Reporters Without Borders’ annual Press Freedom Indices, the
USA press was ranked as the 17th most free in the world in 2002. This rating decreased
to 44th in 2005, however. Similarly, many news stories that might otherwise threaten
elite interests are being censored before reaching the general public. Among Censored
2005’s top news stories that Americans did not receive are ‘Wealth Inequality in Twenty-
First Century Threatens Economy and Democracy’ (Storino and Beard, 2004), ‘Bush
Administration Manipulates Science and Censors Scientists’ (Friedel, 2004), and ‘New
Bill Threatens Freedom in Area Studies’ (Manning, 2004).
The USA possesses many ideologies of individualism, yet appears to lack ideological
individualism. Related to existing ideologies, a long-standing tradition of ‘anti-intellec-
tualism’ (Hofstadter, 1962) is another factor that has helped ensure that most Americans
think in similar terms. Many individualistic Americans prefer pragmatism and orienta-
tions toward action over contemplative or reflective thought. Anti-intellectualism sup-
ports pragmatism. It also reflects a cultural resistance to refined, independent thinking
(negatively associated with intellectuals and communists). Cultural resistance to intellec-
tualism is maintained by American individualistic ideologies. This perhaps explains why
only 15 percent of Americans cite ‘respect for learning’ as an important personal value,
as compared to 69 percent of East Asians (Hitchcock, 1994).
An ideological individualism, imagined as a cultural emphasis on the importance of
individuals discovering truths for themselves, would not benefit American capitalism. The
contemplative and introspective endeavors required would neither be efficient nor
marketable. More importantly, an intellectual individualism would not insulate American
ideology. To the contrary, ideology is maintained through the cultural absence of more
independent, contemplative modes of thought. Individuals who are more autonomous in
their thinking may, for instance, question consumerism, social injustice, political author-
itarianism, or the validity of an ideology itself.
Upon reviewing the issue of ‘too little’ American individualism, this article cautions
that an excessive amount of American self-interest in today’s marketplace may not be suf-
ficient to ward off potential tyrannies; that is, the tyrannies that seize minds rather than
personal possessions. Paradoxically, to reconcile this situation requires more individual-
ism. The individualism that is needed, though, would come less in the forms of con-
sumerism, and more in the forms of purposeful dissent, ‘postconventional moral
reasoning’ (Kohlberg, 1981), and persons generally intent upon drawing their own
informed conclusions. These ideological individualists may then need to affiliate with
134 Critical Sociology 34(1)

like-minded others in order to advocate for the preservation of civil liberties. Meanwhile,
common Americans continue to feign individuality through their consumer choices. In
doing so, they may feel a disturbing alienation from a sense of purpose.

Conclusions
In summary, this article argues that the USA is vulnerable to the consequences of having
‘too much’ and ‘too little’ individualism. Capitalism and its ideologies benefit immensely
from the cultural prerogatives of self-willed wealth, full self-reliance, and high self-
esteem. Consequently, reduced social welfare spending and health care deficiencies can
be justified by ideologies emphasizing complete self-determination for all individuals.
Meanwhile, attention is deflected from more structural causes of social problems. To
address these problems on a significant level would not only require structural changes,
but major shifts in cultural paradigms as well.
To improve social problems related to selfish behaviors, for example, would require
one paradigm shift. Peck (1993) argued that value of individual autonomies would bet-
ter serve individual and collective interests if culturally promoted as a ‘means norm’,
rather than as an ‘ends norm’. Individual self-reliance would then be envisaged as a means
to greater interdependent affiliations between autonomous individuals. For this to occur
on a significant scale, however, the ideologies embedded in major American social insti-
tutions would require modification. This is a tall order indeed, since the market condi-
tions of the US economy depend, to some extent, upon excessive individualistic
ideologies in their current forms.
Similarly, addressing the problems associated with individualistic attributions would
require other major paradigm shifts. Put simply, structural thinking would need to co-exist
with individualistic thinking within the same dominant paradigm. Toward this end, col-
lege sociology courses offer to a few citizens the opportunity to try out different modes of
social reasoning. In a similar respect, some Catholic theologians have been introducing the
concept of ‘structural sin’ to their following (Litonjua, 2003). Structural sin refers to eco-
nomic and cultural conditions that make personal sin more likely. A major paradigm shift,
though, would induce sweeping changes to welfare, health care, education, etc. Much ide-
ological and political resistance would assuredly stand firmly in its path of change.
Nonetheless, aware American individuals can at least struggle to reconcile these issues
for themselves. The task at hand may be conceptually difficult. Individuals need to
develop the degrees of self-reliance, self-esteem, and financial security required for their
own satisfactory survival and subjective well being. These degrees assuredly vary from
individual to individual. While mastering their own lives, citizens may also need to con-
front the fact that other Americans are blocked from developing the same degrees of indi-
vidualism that they themselves have gained through hard work. To reconcile these issues
individually requires an independence of mind that, at this juncture, may only come
from being comfortable with intellectual non-conformity.
 Greene: Three Ideologies of Individualism 135

This theoretical view of three ideologies of individualism has been offered as a means of
better understanding the paradoxes associated with American individualism. While the
author has criticized the over-generalizations of monolithic views of individualism, he is very
aware this theory of three individualisms (instead of one) is still guilty of over-generalizing.
Hopefully future research on the complexities of individualism(s) – macro and micro, quan-
titative and qualitative – will be better able to iron out these difficulties. The author is also
of the opinion that insights yielded from a critical view of individualism should be weighed
dialectically against those gained from more positive views. Individualisms are complex. US
citizens are not uniformly capable of full self-determination, yet this component of individ-
ualism is central to human dignity and subjective well being, even in smaller degrees.

Acknowledgements
The author expresses his thanks to Dr. Eviatar Zerubavel for his guidance with the early
development of these ideas. I am also indebted to anonymous reviewers from the
American Journal of Sociology and Critical Sociology, as well as to Tania Greene and Dr.
Stephen Lahey.

References
Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F. and Tice, D.M. (1993) When Ego Threats Lead to Self Regulation
Failure: Negative Consequences of High Self-Esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64(1):
141–56.
Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L. and Boden, J.M. (1996) Relation of Threatened Egotism to Violence and
Aggression: The Dark Side of High Self-Esteem. Psychological Review 105(1): 5–33.
Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A. and Tipton, S. M. (1985) Habits of the Heart:
Individualism and Commitment in American Life. University of California Press: Berkeley.
Cairns, J. Jr (1998) Excessive Individualism Today Threatens Liberty Tomorrow: Sustainable Use of the
Planet. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 19(5): 397–409.
Courtwright, D.T. (1998) Violent Land: Single Men and Social Disorder from the Frontier to the Inner City.
Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
De Tocqueville, A. (2000[1840]) Democracy in America. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Durkheim, E. (1951[1897]) Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Free Press: New York.
Eland, I. (2003) Bush’s Wars and the State of Civil Liberties. Mediterranean Quarterly 14(4): 158–75.
Fox, A.A. (2004) Real Country: Music and Language in Working-Class Culture. Duke University Press:
Durham, NC.
Fox-Genovese, E. (1991) Feminism without Illusions: A Critique of Individualism. University of North
Carolina Press: Chapel Hill.
Frank, T. (2004) What’s The Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America.
Metropolitan Books: New York.
Frank, D.J., Meyer, J.W. and Miyahara, D. (1995) The Individualist Polity and the Centrality of
Professionalized Psychology: A Cross-National Study. American Sociological Review 60(3): 360–77.
136 Critical Sociology 34(1)

Friedel, D. (2004) Bush Administration Manipulates Science and Censors Scientists. Censored 2005: The
Top 25 Censored News Stories, pp. 45–8. Seven Stories Press: New York.
Giroux, H.A. (2005) The Conservative Assault on America: Cultural Politics, Education, and the New
Authoritarianism. Cultural Politics 1(2): 139–63.
Hitchcock, D.I. (1994) Asian Values and the United States: How Much Conflict? Center for Strategic and
International Studies: Washington, DC.
Hofstadter, R. (1962) Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Vintage Books: New York.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences. Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.
Horwitz, A.V. and Mullis, J.S. (1998) Individualism and its Discontents: The Response to the Seriously
Mentally Ill in Late Twentieth Century America. Sociological Focus 31(2): 119–32.
Hovey, A. (2005) What’s the Matter with Loup County? Lincoln Journal Star Sunday, 13 March: 1A–6A.
Hsu, F.L.K. (1983) Rugged Individualism Reconsidered: Essays in Psychological Anthropology. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville.
Inglehart, R., Basanez, M. and Moreno, A. (1998) Human Values and Beliefs: A Cross-Cultural
Sourcebook. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
Kohlberg, L. (1981) The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages.
Harper and Row: New York.
Lasch, C. (1979) The Culture of Narcissism. Norton: New York.
Leinberger, P. and Tucker, B. (1991) The New Individualists: The Generation After The Organizational
Man. HarperCollins: New York.
Litonjua, M.D. (2003) Structures of Sin, Cultures of Meaning: Social Science and Theology. AuthorHouse:
Bloomington.
Lukes, S. (1973) Individualism. Harper & Row: New York.
Macionis, J.J. (2002) Society: The Basics, 6th Edition. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.
Manning, R. (2004) New Bill Threatens Intellectual Freedom in Area Studies. Censored 2005: The Top
25 Censored Stories, pp. 84–6. Seven Stories Press: New York.
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1978) The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd Edition. Robert C. Tucker (ed.). Norton:
New York.
Melbin, M. (1987) Night as Frontier: Colonizing the World After Dark. Free Press: New York.
Merton, R. (1938) Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review 3(5): 672–82.
Messner, S.F. and Rosenfeld, R. (2001) Crime and the American Dream, 3rd Edition. Wadsworth:
Belmont, CA.
Nussbaum, S. (1998) The ABCs of American Culture: Understanding the American People Through Their
Common Sayings. Global Mapping International: Colorado Springs.
Peck, M.S. (1993) A World Waiting to be Born: Civility Rediscovered. Bantam Books: New York.
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community. Simon and
Schuster: New York.
Reporters Without Borders (2002) Worldwide Press Freedom Index. URL (consulted 20 June 2007):
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116
Reporters Without Borders (2005) Worldwide Press Freedom Index. URL (consulted 20 June 2007):
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554
Rosenberg, M. and Pearlin, L. I. (1978) Social Class and Self Esteem Among Children and Adults.
American Journal of Sociology 84(1): 53–77.
Rosenfield, S. (1999) Gender and Mental Health: Do Women Have More Psychopathology, Men More, or
Both the Same (and Why)? Allan V. Horwitz and Teresa L. Scheid (eds) A Handbook for the Study of
Mental Health: Social Contexts, Theories, and Systems, pp. 348–60. Cambridge University Press: New York.
 Greene: Three Ideologies of Individualism 137

Skitka, L. J., Mullin, E., Griffen, T., Hutchinson, S. and Chamberlin, B. (2002) Dispositions, Scripts,
or Motivated Correction? Understanding Ideological Differences in Explanations for Social Problems.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(2): 470–87.
Slotkin, R. (1992) Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America. Maxwell
Macmillan Canada: Toronto.
Snow, D. and Anderson, L. (1993) Down on Their Luck: A Study of Homeless Street People. University of
California Press: Berkeley.
Storino, G. and Beard, P. (2004) Wealth Inequality in Twenty-First Century Threatens Economy and
Democracy. Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories, pp. 40–42. Seven Stories Press: New York.
Swarth, K.W. (1962) ‘Individualism’ in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (1826–1860). Journal of the
History of Ideas 23(1): 77–90.
Thoits, P.A. (1999) Self, Identity, Stress, and Mental Health. Carol A. Aneshensel and Jo C. Phelan
(eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health, pp. 345–68. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers:
New York.
Trachtenberg, A. (1982) The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age. Hill and
Wang: New York.
Triandis, H.C. (1994) Culture and Social Behavior. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism and Collectivism. Westview Press: Boulder.
Turnbull, C.M. (1972) The Mountain People. Simon & Schuster: New York.
Vandello, J.A. and Cohen, D. (1999) Patterns of Individualism and Collectivism Across the United
States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(2): 279–92.
Weber, M. (1992[1930]) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Routledge Classics: London

For correspondence: T. William Greene, Black Hills State University, J 123 History and Social Sciences
Dept., 1200 University St., Spearfish, SD, 57799, USA. Email: [email protected]