A study of characterisation in the novels of George Eliot

151.
nym not of altruism but of collectivism. It is now used to describe the
"social theory which advocates the free and independent action of the
individual, as opposed to communistic methods of organisation and state
interference." (OED, "Individualism", 2)
In ~ Open Society ~ its Enemies, Karl Popper expresses concern at
the fact that individualism, because of these two 'quite' distinct usages, can
be, and often is taken as the opposite of both altruism and collectivism.
He declares that "it is interesting that for Plato, and for most Platonists,
an altruistic individualism (as, for instance, that of Dickens)
cannot exist. According to Plato, the only alternative to collectivism
is egoism; he simply identifies all collectivism with altruism, and all
individualism with egoism," Thus !lin defending collectivism, he can appeal
to our humanitarian feeling of unselfishness; in his attack, he can
brand all individualists as selfish, as incapable of devotion to any-
80
thing but themselves."
It is easy to see how this criticism of Plato could also' apply to
George Eliot and other nineteenth century thinkers who saw no problem
in the identification of individualism '.'lith egoism. Stephen Lukes, discussing
the various "unit-ideas" of the term "individualism" comments
on the prevalence in the first half of the nineteenth century of the
pejorative meaning signified by the French vlOrd,·individualisme, which
implied the "social, moral and political isolation of rootless, selfinterested,
and acquisitive individuals tmco:1cerne(". ','rith social ideals
and unamenable to social control." 81 It is individualism in this sense
that so threatens George Eliot and explains Wordsworthts prayer in his
-Co protect him against
"unchartered freedom" or "the weight of chance-desires." George Eliot
characters either embrace duty or flounder helplessly by insisting on
their o,'m claims. George Eliot may not have been willing to go alI the