AMERICAN INDIVIDUALISM – A FORCE OF UNITY OF DIVERGENCE?

IS SUCCESS OR AUTHENTICITY REALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN COMMON GOOD AND CAN OR SHOULD THAT BE CHANGED?

There’s a term in research that helps understand which theory is best applicable to make credible judgments of situations or phenomena – ‘explanatory power’. In cross-cultural science, explanatory power is the ability of a theory, model, or framework to explicate and predict outcomes across different cultural contexts. Having been observing societal fragmentation and polarizing behaviors preceding and following the latest elections in the U.S., I couldn’t help going ‘back to basics’, to make sense of what’s happening via cross-cultural lens. To do that, it’s helpful to consider individualism, America’s most pervasive cultural dimension, and, simultaneously, the one significant explanatory power¹ when it comes to analyzing national cultures.

I am specifically interested in discerning how American individualism coexists with the country’s predominantly collectivist ethnic subcultures and how its evolution from utilitarian to expressive helps explain the “big why’s” behind U.S. society’s strong propensity to polarization² , perceived economic security as well as tensions between strife for material success and authenticity, as driving forces behind potential changes in U.S. social norms.

Social norms³ are shared expectations about behaviors, considered acceptable or unacceptable in a given community or group, frequently learned through socialization and reinforced by approval or disapproval.

---

Individualism-collectivism⁴ has high cross-cultural explanatory power because this dimension underlies all key behaviors we resort to when functioning as part of and between social groups:

• Independence vs interdependence – the more individualist the society, the less appropriate it is to rely on other people to solve one’s problems, subjugate one’s interests to those of a collective, or view state-level centralization of any kind as a positive phenomenon, giving preference to voluntary associations instead.

• Self-definition and motivation – people in individualist societies define themselves through their interests, views, and achievements, rather than shared goals or groups they belong to; personal preferences, rights, and needs are primary motivators, with pursuing one’s desires being appropriate and encouraged.

• Rational analysis – higher individualism justifies transactionality and cost-benefit approach to making decisions, task-orientation and ability to separate personal from professional; thinking in terms of reciprocal exchanges and deals when entering into relationships.

• Personal goals – individualist social norms encourage prioritizing personal goals over collective ones, and emotional detachment from the numerous groups, to which one belongs, having many superficial social relations as opposed to few deeper ones.

• Social control – individualist societies use guilt as a primary social control measure⁵, arising from violating personal standards or moral codes, rather than group norms; guilt motivates individuals to ‘course correct’, make amends, reflect, and engage in self-criticism – rather than think in terms of contributing to the group’s goals or upholding its values.

---

It was H.Triandis⁶ who first classified individualist and collectivist cultures, based on the social norms that steer group behavior by verticality (competition, status, achievement, authority) or horizontality (cohesion, equality, autonomy, uniqueness). All cross-cultural analysis systems rank the USA among the most individualist cultures⁷ in the world, especially among vertically individualist⁸ ones, characterized by attaining status through competitiveness, achievement and autonomy. Horizontally individualist cultures⁹ (e.g. Finland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands) seek uniqueness, equality, and social cohesion, with less pronounced competition and focus on status – so much so that they’re often mistakenly labelled ‘collectivist’.

Triandis also proved that individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive but distinct dimensions, sometimes coexisting in the same national culture¹⁰ and varying in prominence between different subgroups – family, friends, colleagues, wider public. There are cultures with strongly collectivist in-group relations and prominent individualist out-group ones – of which Ukraine¹¹ is one. As well as there are pronouncedly collectivist cultures with highly independent view of self¹², such as Mexico or Panama.

---

Though the USA is a vertically individualist culture, its most populous ethnic subcultures (according to U.S. Census Bureau, those are Hispanic¹³, African American¹⁴, Asian¹⁵) are horizontal and vertical collectivist.

---

According to Triandis’ system¹⁶, of U.S. Hispanic subcultures, Mexico and Puerto Rico are vertical collectivist (authority-, dutifulness-, sacrifice-oriented), Spain is more horizontal (cooperation-, interdependence-, network-oriented) collectivist, and Cuba combines elements of vertical and horizontal collectivism. Of U.S. Asian subcultures, China, Vietnam, Japan, and South Korea are vertical collectivist, while the Philippines and India combine elements of vertical and horizontal collectivism. African American subcultures (Nigeria, Benin, Barbados, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Guinea Bissau, Angola, to name a few) are mostly collectivist – horizontal, vertical, or a combination of the two.

If we factor in the migration data¹⁷ for the last ~20 years, the countries¹⁸, from which the largest number of migrants came to the U.S., Mexico (23%), India (6%), China (5%), Philippines (4%) and El Salvador (3%) are all collectivist cultures - horizontal, vertical, or both. U.S. Census Bureau data show¹⁹ that in 2019 most of America’s population under 16 years of age identified as a racial or ethnic minority, of which Latino, Hispanic, or African American residents comprise ~40% of the population.

• It appears, America is diversifying rapidly and doing so through increasingly populous collectivist subcultures interacting with individualist institutions, regulations, business and communication practices. With the Census Bureau's forecast of the U.S. becoming a ‘minority white’²⁰ society in terms of ethnic composition by 2045, a logical question would be – how strongly the country’s populous collectivist subcultures are ‘buying into’ its overarching individualism and how actively they practice collectivist social norms outside the trusted in-groups (as inside these norms are practiced by default).

---

To answer that question, it’s worth looking at embeddedness – the strength of one’s identification with their ethnic group’s culture, as defined by Shalom Schwartz, which depends on several factors²¹:

- Ethnic homo- or heterogeneity – with upward of 20 countries²² being source of migration that shaped and continue to shape U.S. cultural landscape, it’s fair to say the country’s highly ethnically heterogenous. Nearly 4 of 10 Americans identify²³ with a race or ethnic group other than white, and growth of this indicator is especially prominent in youth under 25 years old. In societies like that, identification with one’s ethnic group, sharing its goals and upholding its values are important as sources of meaning, protection, and reciprocal provision of goods and services.

• Therefore, it’s highly probable that high ethnic heterogeneity in the U.S. stimulates its various subcultures to maintain horizontally and vertically collectivist social norms to a significant degree - instead of adapting purely individualist ones from the overarching American culture²⁴.

- State institutions’ longevity and development - developed formal institutions in the country (e.g. laws, governments, schools, courts, hospitals, armies, companies, etc.) reduce the degree of reliance on informal groups of trusted people. Functioning institutions encourage and recruit individuals based on their skills and interests, with national culture factoring in that process less significantly. As a result, autonomy orientation is strengthened in a society, promoting individual talents, interests, and preferences. Pew Research Center’s retrospective of public trust in U.S. government 1958-2024²⁵ shows 1958-1960s as the peak, with ~75% of Americans trusting the government, with subsequent erosion during the Vietnam War and continued decline in 1970s after the Watergate scandal. 1980s-1990s was a period of brief rebound followed by a drop in mid-1990s. A three-decade high was achieved after 9/11 attacks, but since 2007 public trust has remained low, never exceeding 30%. In 2024, 35% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners trusted the government, while 11% Republican and Republican-leaners did. When it comes to national subcultures in the U.S., figures are low as well, with 36% Asian, 30% Hispanic, and 27% African American adults trusting the government.

• Recent statistics indicate that, despite the USA occupying high positions in ratings measuring the strength of institutions, such as World Bank Governance Indicators or Doing Business, citizens’ trust in these institutions has been eroding for decades, which has likely been increasing the degree of U.S. subcultures’ embeddedness. Consequently, reduced reliance on formal institutions means greater reliance on one’s ethnic groups’ cultural norms, the cumulative majority of which in the U.S. are collectivist.

- Existence of a dominant religion - the more pervasively religious laws govern all citizens’ behaviors, the stronger it promotes embeddedness in the respective ethnic groups’ culture and vice versa, the weaker the governing power of religion over daily life, the lower the embeddedness. Pew Study of U.S. Christianity Decline-2025 shows that, though declining in dynamic, Christianity remains a dominant religion, with ~62%-68% of Americans identifying as Christians. 29% of Americans are religiously unaffiliated, 2% identify with Judaism, 1% with Islam, and as many - with Buddhism or Hinduism. When it comes to different religions’ impact on embeddedness, Islam is found to increase it, while Catholicism and Protestantism are found to decrease it.

• Given that Protestants make up²⁶ ~33%-40% of the U.S. population and Catholics ~19%-22%, with 43-48% Hispanics identifying²⁷ as Catholics and 21%-23% African Americans identifying as Protestant, as well as 34% of Asians identifying as Christians, it’s safe to say that the factor of religion is rather decreasing the embeddedness for U.S. subcultures in their respective ethnic in-groups.

---

As cross-cultural analysis applied to the statistics above shows, the most populous ethnic subcultures in America are predominantly collectivist and are likely to practice collectivist social norms - in addition to or instead of individualist ones, peculiar to the overarching U.S. culture. That includes family and other in-groups, as well as workplace behaviors and professional relationships within formal institutions. Given the population growth and migration trends, the impact of these norms on American society will be increasing. The question is whether U.S. ‘individualism’ today is the same ‘individualism’ it’s been throughout the country’s history - are we talking about the same set of norms and behaviors then and now?

---

When it comes to manifestations of individualism in U.S. culture, it’s worth considering the evolution of this cultural dimension throughout history. Yes, America remains vertically individualist as it’s always been, but what that entails – is not the same in 2025 as it was, say, in the 1800s. Understanding the nature and the consequence of this evolution allows us to make informed conclusions about the existing societal behaviors, which the nature of American individualism made possible.

Sociologists, prominently R.Bellah²⁸, categorize individualism as utilitarian and expressive²⁹, which differ in focus and manifestation, with the latter emerging as a reaction against the former. Some, such as Y.Nakamura³⁰ and R.Bellah³¹, believe that the conflict between these types of individualism contributed to American society’s fragmentation and increased disappointment in political participation and civic involvement. The idea behind this conclusion is – because in individualist societies personal interests and benefits supersede the group’s, when exacerbated by societal distrust towards institutions (government in particular), expectations of economic insecurity, and perception of boundaries as ‘limitations’, individualism causes society to fragment into factions with different and often incompatible worldviews and goals.

• Fannie May data³² on U.S. consumer perceptions of economic insecurity show that 78% of American adults believe the economy is on the ‘wrong track’ because of the inflation. Northwestern Mutual study³³ reveals that 52% of Americans believe their household income is growing slower than inflation, with only 11% saying it’s growing faster. Consumer Price Index-2025³⁴ shows that U.S. consumer purchasing power has generally decreased by 2.78% over the past year, and ~65% of middle-income respondents believe³⁵ their income is not keeping up with the cost of living. Regardless of the real state of the American economy, this sentiment shows concern with economic insecurity. In individualist cultures, this, combined with the eroding public trust, acts as a polarizing force.

Utilitarian individualism³⁶ emphasizes pursuing financial success and material self-interest, postulating that when as many individuals as possible in a society prosper, common social good follows through unregulated markets. Among the key ideologists of this idea was John Locke³⁷, asserting that society emerged from voluntary agreement of individuals who tried to maximize their self-interest. Adam Smith³⁸ expanded this idea to economics, basically justifying self-centered competition, which leads to public benefit if utilitarian-minded individuals are not meddled with. Benjamin Franklin³⁹ was a big believer in this philosophy, particularly that anyone can prosper through self-improvement. Utilitarian individualism in its purest form peaked at the end of the 18^th century. D.Potter⁴⁰ further expanded the understanding of utilitarian individualism by adapting ‘frontier’⁴¹ concept to it, focusing on practicality, fighting for one’s aspirations, and acting alone. Another notable aspect of utilitarian individualism was common commitments and obligations serving as a binding force⁴² for individuals, associations, and communities exercising their liberties.

• So, viewing life achievements purely through economic and career terms became and remains to be the basic premise for many Americans. The more money and the better job one had, the more successful one was considered. Gallup study of trends in U.S. values⁴³ shows that 79% of Americans in 2025 believe money to be ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important. In 2002, only 27% of Americans thought so.

Expressive individualism⁴⁴ (term coined by R.Bellah) emerged as a reaction to utilitarian one among those who did not consider material prosperity and career achievements to be adequate measures of life success – poets, writers, philosophers, educators, etc. At the heart of expressive individualism lay the freedom of self-expression, uniqueness of feelings and authenticity against all constraints and conventions. Personal growth and self-realization before material success – was the idea. Walt Whitman, Charles Taylor⁴⁵, and Jean-Jaques Rousseau⁴⁶ were among the key proponents of this philosophy, with the latter also being its critic, emphasizing the importance of the moral aspect of self-expression instead of pure self-interest. This form of individualism interprets self-reliance differently from the utilitarian one. It’s no longer about competing to pursue one’s material and career goals, but rather about ‘breaking free of limitations’ – with social commitment (including work and family), established career paths, society’s needs and goals being among those.

Among the main concerns⁴⁷ with expressive individualism are:

• Everyone having ‘their own truth’ based on perceived authenticity instead of discipline, common obligations, and common laws - based on A. de Toqueville’s⁴⁸ notion of revolution in the U.S. being “Produced by a mature and thoughtful taste for liberty, and not by a vague and undefined instinct for independence. It was not based upon passions for disorder; on the contrary, it proceeded with love of order and legality”. Does that mean belonging to a certain group automatically give rights or privileges in a society, founded on the principles of hard work and self-reliance?

• Authenticity as guiding principle based on passions and freedom from commitments lacking self-restraint and being the opposite of what individualism was about in the Founding Fathers’ view - based on M. Novak’s⁴⁹ notion of individual rights (free speech, press, intellectual inquiry) permitting wide diversity and - imposing disciplines of restraint, tolerance, and willingness to be patient with procedures that take time and effort. Does that mean making effort to adjust and respecting limitations imposed for communal good make one less free?

Expressive individualism is viewed as a force to form new types of commitment, through customized products, shared experiences and storytelling. However, at the heart of its criticism is propensity to undermine social cohesion⁵⁰ - as a result of people prioritizing personal autonomy over communal responsibilities. For instance, “Do Americans Care For Each Other?”⁵¹ and “Loneliness in America: Just the Tip of the Iceberg?“⁵² studies by the Harvard Graduate School of Education show some concerning trends, illustrative of challenges in the American society, which can be at least partially attributed to expressive individualism:

(1) Uniting the country is among top priorities - ranked 8 out of 10, with 71% of respondents being ‘troubled by the moral state of America’ and 13% disagreeing with that statement.

(2) Affective (emotional) polarization⁵³ is high - 46% of Americans view civil war as ‘likely’, while 43% - view it as ‘unlikely’, with younger people (53%) being more concerned with civil war possibility than older people (31%). 56% are disinterested in talking political issues with people of different views, with only 15% being interested in doing so. However, 61% would like to be ‘listened to carefully’ by those with different political views.

(3) Concern for challenges of others is mostly limited to one’s family or community, united by political views and/or ethnic culture - 38% of Americans believe in having responsibility outside their family/friends circle, but 63% - are either neutral or don’t feel that responsibility; majority reports low level of concern with problems faced by other ethnic groups.

(4) Prioritizing one’s happiness over caring for others - 62% report their happiness being more important than engaging in active acts of care for others, which 32% of Americans put first. High school students view their parents as ‘3 times more likely’ prioritizing their good grades over them being caring community members in class and school.

(5) “It’s not me - it’s them” - Majority of Americans view biases as someone else’s defect or failing, but not their own. 55% indicated they were (much) less racist than people they regularly interact with outside family circle and 66% - that they were (much) less racist than the typical person in the country. The share of those who viewed themselves as more racist in both instances was 6% and 4%, respectively.

(6) Loneliness is a serious societal issue - 21% of Americans reported being ‘seriously lonely’ - in socio-economic and existential sense. 67% of highly lonely adults report not being part of meaningful groups, 61% - not having enough close friends or family, 65% - feeling fundamentally disconnected from others, and 63% - not finding their place in the world relevant or important.

---

Historic data and current statistics show that U.S. individualism’s transformation from utilitarian to expressive created tensions in society around what being ‘successful’ means. Is it financial success or authenticity? Does personal achievement leave a place for common interests? It also exacerbated the dilemma of whether individualism entails prioritizing personal advancement over communal good. Does ‘being free and happy’ cause withdrawing from responsibilities outside the trusted circle? Steady, decades-long decrease in public trust towards government and growing economic insecurity have been skewing this balance⁵⁴ towards personal advancement and freedom. When foundational institutions lose citizens’ confidence as able to moderate societal order, the propensity to rely on oneself and close in-group is a logical step in culture as individualist as the U.S. Factoring in relatively strong in-group embeddedness in mostly collectivist (coherence and authority-oriented) ethnic subcultures helps to see additional reasons of existing polarization. High levels of loneliness and the demand for unity and moral guidance suggest the need to re-think the role government, business, and community institutions currently play in American society, as weakening of that role leads to societal fragmentation and lack of coherence across its various groups.

---

What’s fascinating about American individualism, is that its traditional form was intended to balance competitive strife to attain one’s individual goals with abstaining from taking that focus on self-interest too far. And strong public opinion has been one of such balancing factors - on the one hand, freedom of speech was encouraged, but on the other, open dissent with those with common interests gave no benefits at all. For that reason, strong civil society organizations, think tanks, media, education/research institutions, and various associations served as countervailing social forces, voicing issues and concerns businesses and politicians were less comfortable raising. With individualism evolving into its expressive form, amplified by social media, in which polarized society quickly fragments into echo chambers⁵⁵, these voices were weakened by institutional distrust, perceived economic insecurity, and desire for authenticity as freedom from constraints of any kind. Contribution to public good and deliberate acts of care don’t appear to be in this picture - based on the above survey data.

In concluding remarks, I’d like to leave four open thoughts for reflection and discussions:

1. If individualism, the underlying dimension of U.S. culture and Americans’ primary value, produces undesirable social effects, should its balancing with (some) collectivist norms be an option? Especially considering the predominantly collectivist nature of most U.S. ethnic subcultures. In reality, the probability of adapting some collectivist social norms is a matter of time - given the trends in demography and migration. The question is, will they be acknowledged and legitimized institutionally?

2. How to re-focus on the common good and transcending ingroup (political, ethnic, etc.) boundaries as individualistic social norms, which they once had been? What is the role of government and big business in that process? Which social norms do these most powerful institutions in America really role model and enforce today?

3. Given that the frontier concept, deeply ingrained in U.S. individualism, entails rejection of limitations (‘you can be anything’, ‘sky is the limit’, ‘anything is possible’) and extreme self-reliance (‘us against the world’), how can these concepts be re-thought in times when individuals can feel deprived of pereivedly deserved success because some one else is to blame⁵⁶ - frequently, from a social group, different from theirs, usually ethnic or political?

4. If the U.S. society is divided to the point of being ready to break the rules and backtrack on commitments out of fear that the other side will do it first (subversion dilemma⁵⁷), and this concerns other countries, not just U.S. societal subgroups, is this the form of individualism that’s going to yield America benefits?

1. Michael Minkov, Anneli Kaasa, “Do dimensions of culture exist objectively? A validation of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture with World Values Survey items and scores for 102 countries”, Journal of International Management, Volume 28, Issue 4, 2022.

2. “Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says. What can be done about polarization in the United States? Reviewing a decade of research reveals unexpected findings”,

3. Liu RW, Lapinski MK. 2024, “Cultural influences on the effects of social norm appeals”. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 379:20230036.

4. Soler-Anguiano FL, Rivera-Aragón S and Díaz-Loving R (2023) “Cross-cultural measurement invariance evidence of individualism and collectivism: from the idiosyncratic to universal”. Front. Psychol. 14:1150757.

5. “The Role of Language and Cultural Orientation in Guilt and Shame Experienced by Bilingual Female Speakers”, Khadija El Alaoui, Maura A. E. Pilotti, Huda Mulhem, Ebtesam, Ahmad Tallouzi, Mona Mohammed Abdullah Al Mqbas, Journal of Muslim Mental Health, ISSN1556–4908, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2018.

6. Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., S. Bhawuk, D. P., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). “Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement”. Cross-Cultural Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939719502900302

7. Freakonomics podcast “The Pros and Cons of America’s (Extreme) Individualism“, episode 407, 2021.

8. Soler-Anguiano FL, Rivera-Aragón S and Díaz-Loving R (2023) “Cross-cultural measurement invariance evidence of individualism and collectivism: from the idiosyncratic to universal”. Front. Psychol. 14:1150757.

9. “Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Achievement Values: A Multimethod Examination of Denmark and the United States”, Michelle R. Nelson and Sharon Shavitt, 2002; 33; 439.

10. Singelis, Theodore & Triandis, Harry & Bhawuk, Dharm & Gelfand, Michele. (1995). “Horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism: a theoretical and measurement refinement”. Cross-cultural Research - CROSS-CULT RES. 29. 240-275. 10.1177/106939719502900302.

11. Maryna Starodubska, “Excessive Brotherly Love? -'Fraternity' of Russians and Ukrainians as a Russian Propaganda Narrative”, March 2023, Connections The Quarterly Journal QJ 21(no. 3 (2022)):47-66.

12. Krys K, Vignoles VL, de Almeida I, Uchida Y. “Outside the "Cultural Binary": Understanding Why Latin American Collectivist Societies Foster Independent Selves”. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 Jul;17(4):1166-1187. doi: 10.1177/17456916211029632. Epub 2022 Feb 8. PMID: 35133909; PMCID: PMC9274794.

13. SEPTEMBER 12, 2024, “Who is Hispanic?”, MARK HUGO LOPEZ, JENS MANUEL KROGSTAD, JEFFREY S. PASSEL, Pew Research Center.

14. JANUARY 23, 2025, “Key facts about the U.S. Black population”, MARK HUGO LOPEZ, GRACIE MARTINEZ, MOHAMAD MOSLIMANI, Pew Research Center.

15. “Asian Americans: A Survey Data Snapshot”, 2022, Pew Research Center.

16. Wei-Na Lee, Sejung Marina Choi, “The Role of Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism in Online Consumers’ Responses toward Persuasive Communication on the Web”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 11, Issue 1, 1 November 2005, Pages 317–336,

17. “Where do US immigrants come from? The largest increase in immigration came from Mexico, with more than double the number of immigrants coming to the US in 2022 compared to 2006”. Updated August 12, 2024 by the USAFacts team.

18. SEPTEMBER 27, 2024, “What the data says about immigrants in the U.S.”, MOHAMAD MOSLIMANI, JEFFREY S. PASSEL.

19. “The nation is diversifying even faster than predicted, according to new census data”, William H. Frey, July 1, 2020, Brookings.

20. “The US will become ‘minority white’ in 2045, Census projects. Youthful minorities are the engine of future growth”, William H. Frey, March 14, 2018, Brookings.

21. Shalom Schwartz, “Causes of culture: National differences in cultural embeddedness”, January 2009, In book: “Quod Erat Demonstrandum. From Herodotus’ ethnographic journeys to cross-cultural research”, Chapter: Causes of culture: National differences in cultural embeddednessPublisher: Pedio Books PublishingEditors: A. Gari & K. Mylonas.

22. SEPTEMBER 27, 2024, “What the data says about immigrants in the U.S.”, MOHAMAD MOSLIMANI, JEFFREY S. PASSEL, Pew Research Center.

23. “The nation is diversifying even faster than predicted, according to new census data”, William H. Frey, July 1, 2020, Brookings.

24. “Individualism and Collectivism A Psychological, Cultural and Ecological Analysis”, Uichol Kim, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, NIAS Report Series, No. 21, First published in 1995, reprinted in 1997, 1999, 2001 by NIAS Publications, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS).

25. JUNE 24, 2024, “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024”, Pew Research Center.

26. “Americans decreasingly call religion important to their lives and are divided over its role in society”, Jennifer Agiesta, CNN, February 26, 2025.

27. “2023 PRRI Census of American Religion: County-Level Data on Religious Identity and Diversity”, PRRI Staff, 08.29.2024.

28. Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, Steven M. Tipton. “Habits of the Heart : Individualism and Commitment in American Life”: Updated Edition with a New Introduction. Berkeley :University of California Press, 1996.

29. Bellah, R. N. & Madsen, R. (2006). “Liberal individualism and the crisis of citizenship”. In W. F. Grover & J. G. Peschek (Eds.), Voices of dissent: Critical readings in American politics (pp. 60-68). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.

30. “Consideration on American Individualism II: Individualism Transformed and its Subsequent Impasse”, Yoshimi Nakamura, 2012.

31. Bellah, R. N. & Madsen, R. (2006). “Liberal individualism and the crisis of citizenship”. In W. F. Grover & J. G. Peschek (Eds.), Voices of dissent: Critical readings in American politics (pp. 60-68). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.

32. “Consumers Increasingly Sour on Economy, Blame Inflation”, November 7, 2023, Fanni Mae.

33. “Inflation is Americans' Top Financial Concern and Most Say Their Income is Not Keeping Up, According to Northwestern Mutual's 2025 Planning & Progress Study”, Northwestern Mutual, Mar 10, 2025.

34. “US Consumer Price Index: Purchasing Power Of the Consumer Dollar” (I:USCPIPPO) 31.30 for Feb 2025.

35. “NATIONAL SURVEY: PURCHASING POWER OF MIDDLE-INCOME AMERICANS IMPROVES, WHILE MAJORITY OF FAMILIES STILL REPORT FALLING BEHIND DUE TO COST OF LIVING”, January 31, 2025, Primerica.

36. Cf. Singer, P. & de Lazari-Radek, K. (2017). “Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 1.

37. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research ISSN 2348-3164 (online), Vol. 7, Issue 2, pp: (148-152), Month: April - June 2019, Available at: www.researchpublish.com, “The Concept of Individualism in the Liberal theories of Locke, Kant and Mill”, Shyamalima Borgohain.

38. “Fleischacker, Samuel, "Adam Smith’s Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

39. Sanders, Thomas, “Benjamin Franklin and the American Ideal: Critical Assessments”. World History Connected 4.2 (2007): 153 pars. 12 Mar. 2025.

40. Journal of American Studies of Turkey, 17 (2003) : 79-92, “The Frontier Myth in Modern American Politics”, Ole O. Moen.

41. “The Significance of the Frontier in American History”, 1893, American Historical Association archive primary document.

42. Novak, Michael, "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism" (1984). Speakers & Events. 2463. https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/av_events/2463.

43. NOVEMBER 20, 2023, “Measuring Trends in Americans' Personal Values”, FRANK NEWPORT, Gallup.

44. “Expressive Individualism: What Is It?” TREVIN WAX | OCTOBER 16, 2018, The Gospel Coalition.

45. No. 3615 | May 27, 2021, “How Expressive Individualism Threatens Civil Society”, Carl R. Trueman, PhD, Heritage Foundation.

46. Bertram, Christopher, "Jean Jacques Rousseau", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.).

47. “American Individualism, Rightly Understood”, November 21, 2022, Samuel Gregg, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation.

48. Tocqueville, Alexis de, 1805-1859. “Democracy in America”. New York :G. Dearborn & Co., 1838.

49. Novak, Michael, "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism" (1984). Speakers & Events. 2463. https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/av_events/2463.

50. Mayer G, Alvarez S, Gronewold N, Schultz JH. “Expressions of Individualization on the Internet and Social Media: Multigenerational Focus Group Study”. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Nov 4;22(11):e20528. doi: 10.2196/20528. PMID: 33146622; PMCID: PMC7673976.

51. “Do Americans Really Care For Each Other? What Unites Us—And What Divides Us”, Richard Weissbourd, Milena Batanova, Eric Torres, Joseph McIntyre, and Sawsan Eskander, makingcaringcommon.org, December 2021.

52. “Loneliness in America: Just the Tip of the Iceberg?”, Milena Batanova, Richard Weissbourd, and Joseph McIntyre“, makingcaringcommon.org, October 2024.

53. “CROSS-COUNTRY TRENDS IN AFFECTIVE POLARIZATION”, Levi Boxell, Matthew Gentzkow, and Jesse M. ShapiroThe Review of Economics and Statistics, March 2024, 106(2): 557–565, © 2022 The President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

54. “We Have Put Individualism Ahead of the Common Good for Too Long”, RICHARD WEISSBOURD (Senior Lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the Kennedy School of Government), CHRIS MURPHY (United States Senator representing Connecticut), APRIL 11, 2023.

55. “The Hostile Audience: The Effect of Access to Broadband Internet on Partisan Affect”, Yphtach Lelkes, Gaurav Sood and Shanto Iyengar, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 61, No. 1 (JANUARY 2017), pp. 5-20.

56. “Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and violence: considering the Isla Vista mass shooting”, October 2017, International Journal for Masculinity Studies 13(3):1-17, DOI: 10.1080/18902138.2017.1390658, Christopher Vito, Christopher Vito, Amanda Admire, Elizabeth Hughes.

57. “Why voters who value democracy participate in democratic backsliding”, May 2023Nature Human Behaviour 7(8):1-12, DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01594-w, Alia Braley, Gabriel S. Lenz, Dhaval Adjodah, Alex Pentland.