Group identity is a vital component in human life. Finding natural cohesion for our interactions drives us together instead of apart. Finding similarities is the first thing we do when we meet a new person is to try to find common points. Maybe we are interested in finding out which language the person speaks if we are in a foreign land. Younger people might ask if the other person like a certain console game or play some sport. Older people could be interested in asking about profession or family. Conversations can quickly converge to a common topic of interest if the persons share similar passions. We feel better surrounded by individuals who share our views. Unlike popular culture likes to state, opposite poles don't attract each other.
Similarities bring people together with agreement. We feel satisfaction when we realize someone supports our opinion. At least in the most common cases, we like to find understanding and common ground. Constantly clashing with others leads to a certain degree of isolation which further presses on the differences of the disagreement. The feeling of anguish when one is unable to find company drives people apart with resentment. On the other hand, a close group that came naturally together will find a way to keep its members connected, rather than pushing them aside.
Belonging to a group does not mean we need become the group identity. The group identity could be described as the collection of common values and characteristics pertaining to the people in question. It contains the core that represents for what the group stands. The members share most of their traits with the group identity, but they are complemented by their own ideology and values as a person. Being part of the group doesn't mean that one has no opportunity to pursue own ambitions.
We could think of individuality in terms of the group identity and the person's characteristics. If we remove the characteristics that describe the group from the member, what remains is his individuality. This raises the question of which extent of individuality let's us have be best cohesion in a group while still have a feeling of self. If we surrender our whole identity to the group, we lose our self. Since all of the values are taken from the group's identity, our freedom of choice is reduced to the extent that the group allows for divergence. Being defined by the group rather by the individuality suppresses both the feeling of responsibility and guilt. When our actions are dictated by an abstract notion of group, we lose control of our decisions.
Being an outcast without belonging to a group can also be detrimental, as stated before. If someone cannot find a common point with which to connect with others, the person is driven further apart. When someone is unable to find a connection with a group, he is seen as extravagant or rare, which usually alienates humans. We are able to distinguish patterns quickly, which means that we can find irregularities just as easily. Extravagance stands out, be it physical or behavioral.
Being different can make a person bitter by pushing him aside. Especially in closed communities, the limit for divergence is smaller. More liberal societies allow different opinions to be tolerated, while more conservative societies have lower tolerance for divergence. In terms of the groups identity, a liberal group's identity has a pool of values that exceed those of that a conservative society has. The liberal society's identity is less clear, but it lets more people inside the group. A conservative society's identity is well-defined and does not allow for easy entrance to the group.
Those two societies have levels of openness. There is not a dichotomy of groups, where all groups have the same size of openness. Just as there can be a group that has no group identity, there can be a singularity group, which refers to a person without common values with anyone. There is no better society, but only a convergence of way of living. That is the curse of individuality. An existing group already has its members, but when a child is born, his individuality might not match that of the group. Be it due to nature or nurture, being raised within a society that rejects the person will drive him away. The feeling of independence given by the individuality of the person is not easily given up in exchange for acceptance.
The more complex societies have posed a new problem: group identities are forced beyond their natural bounds. Moreover, two groups might be forced to merge identities artificially under the law. The law tries to act a least common denominator of values, setting the most liberal option that can let the people belong to the nation or group. These rules are enforced artificially, resulting in unhappiness, especially from liberal groups. Liberal groups will feel the law breaks their individuality. On the other hand, more conservative groups could be forced with the use of force to respect the individuality of liberals.
Each person needs to be able to distinguish who he is and where he belongs. Losing sight of individuality and becoming the group's identity leads to a feeling of emptiness. As stated previously, the law only tries to create a group identity that binds different groups in a peaceful manner. If everyone becomes as individual as the law allows, the low becomes more and more conservative, creating stagnation in the society. On the other hand, an increasingly liberal society could lead to a lack of cohesion, resulting in alienation. It is of utmost importance to remember that we are not meant to become the spirit of the law. We are not the rules imposed, and the groups should be able to acknowledge the importance of their counterparts.
There is no simple answer to how open or closed a society should be, but if everyone strives to be able to retain their individuality we could find a point of flexible equilibrium. We won't be able to converge to perfect peace, but at least we won't lose our freedom by spiraling into alienated or stagnant societies.
