bringing the last couple of posts into proximity, the only alternative to individualism (which i mean in the sense daniel gives, as respect for each person's autonomy and value and dissent from majority opinion) is, precisely, forced collectivization. the only opposite i can think of to individualism is collectivism. both are both ontological theories of personhood and political programs. as an ontological theory, collectivism says that we (whomever that is at a given time and place: a class/race/nation/gender/everybody) are really not distinct; we are one thing, one will, one consciousness, one taste, etc. then they demonstrate extremely concretely that they know that's bullshit: they will force each person to nod along with a gun to her head. it's the most ridiculous position ever: even its most extreme proponents don't believe it at all.
now on the other hand, we really are connected in infinitely many ways, and we really do share languages, for example, and people can share the same values and so on. but dissent emerging from a single human body is always possible and is continuously necessary. anyway, if you don't believe in individualism i would try this test: take the person you are closest to in the world, or select at random someone in your race, nation, gender, social class, or whatever you think is the locus of collective consciousness. tell that person to sit at home. now, sometime in the next twenty-four hours, you tell him, you at your place will drop a bowling ball on your own foot. no doubt he will feel your pain, for the locus of cosciousness is collective. so get him to tell you exactly when it happened. then tell him to get his foot treated and see whether you feel better.
