Our capacity for lasting coexistence

  Some time ago, it was pointed out to me that individual patterns—including those within intimate spheres—tend to extend across the entire social structure. Coexistence, or alignment in values and norms—along with peaceful living together—is a characteristic desired both at the individual and the societal level. As is often the case, however, we face the challenge of translating or implementing these desired traits into our daily lives.

In intimate relationships, we tend to seek an ideal, conflict-free image of a partner. In principle, at least, we also look for compatibility in core personality traits. We hope that our own individualism will mesh with that of the other person, ensuring a peaceful domestic environment and a smooth journey through our shared life, free from major upheavals. After all—at least in the beginning—no one wants the significant turbulence that can arise from discord or misunderstandings between partners, especially regarding the fundamental principles of a life shared together. Furthermore, it is worth noting that empathy toward others has become a social norm. Empathy is the capacity to recognize, understand, and feel the emotions and experiences of another person—and to take these into account within our interpersonal relationships.

Despite this pursuit of individual and relational compatibility, as well as the cultivation of empathy, data from Eurostat indicates that the European Union (EU) currently sees 1.6 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Admittedly, this rate has decreased slightly from the 2.1 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants recorded in 2006. One might argue that by fostering empathy and developing relationship skills, we have achieved greater stability in partnerships; however, we must also consider data regarding single living. Statistics from Eurostat, the European Union’s statistical office, indicate that approximately 20.5% to 22.5% of the adult population in the European Union lives alone (either as single individuals in their own households or as single parents). Single-person households—where an individual lives entirely alone—now account for more than a third of all households in the EU (around 37%), a figure that has risen by nearly 20% over the last decade. Based on this data, one could suggest that Europeans are discovering that living alone—a state that might be linked to a non-conflictual form of individualism—is, in fact, the most suitable way of life.

Naturally, living alone—or individualism—should not be considered a social problem, as it does not infringe upon the rights of others; rather, it is a personal right. Choosing to live alone causes no harm to anyone. A problem or conflict only arises when one attempts to impose one’s own lifestyle—whether it be individualism or a family-centered existence—upon others.

The same principle applies at the societal level. If a nation or state chooses self-isolation, it does not thereby harm another nation or state, nor does it infringe upon their rights. Each person should be free to choose their own form of social participation—and, by extension, their own distinct identity. Individualism, meanwhile, should find its place within this framework of shared participation.

Social participation (or engagement) refers to the active involvement of an individual—as well as a nation or a state—in the life of the broader community and society. This encompasses more than just political activity (such as voting in elections); it includes a wide spectrum of actions through which people shape their environment, connect with others, and contribute to the common good. Social participation is considered a cornerstone of a healthy democracy and a high quality of life, as it helps prevent social isolation and strengthens a sense of belonging.

Only time will tell whether the root of certain conflicts lies in a form of social participation that has devolved into the imposition of one’s own lifestyle models upon others. In any case, the principle holds that individualism should not cause harm to anyone. Yet, it is possible that by mandating participation, we are imposing lifestyle models upon individuals or nations that simply do not suit them. A model for a "better life"—whether within a partnership or in society at large—is not necessarily the right fit for everyone.

It is also possible that such participation creates opportunities for the targeting of victims, especially given that crime rates are on the rise. The latest data from the European statistical office, Eurostat, reveal mixed trends regarding crime in the European Union: while violent crimes—such as homicide and sexual violence—have been on the rise in recent years, the number of property-related offenses (theft, burglary) has seen a slight decline. Due to variations in legislation and police recording practices across member states, a comprehensive comparison of overall crime rates between countries is not entirely precise; consequently, Eurostat analyzes safety and crime in greater detail by examining specific categories of offenses. Notably, rates of sexual violence, intentional homicide, and corruption are increasing within the EU. Conversely, the rate of other property-related crimes appears to be decreasing, even as instances of vandalism or damage to property—often captured and shared on social media—are on the rise.

This leaves us with an ongoing debate concerning individualism, empathy, and participation, and the extent to which they contribute to the public good—and, indeed, to the global common good. Naturally, the question of whether individualism or collectivism is preferable also remains open; the two approaches seem difficult to reconcile, as they frequently lead to confrontation or conflict.