Individualism still rules - why groups don't win the X-factor

The X-factor Finalists 2010 - who do you relate to?

Some of the big thinkers of the modern tech world, Tapscott, Leadbetter, Shirky, tell us again and again that collaboration is the new black and that our social and cultural norms are shifting towards an online space where the 'mash-up' rules.  This is a place where everyone contributes (and has a right to contribute) - where nothing belongs to individuals, where creativity is about re-hashing, building on, shaping the work of others into something new.  A wiki world where nothing is static, nothing is fixed.

To an extent I agree - we are living in a time where the sands are shifting, but this comes at a cost.  Creating something real and valuable is losing its worth, and value is increasingly elusive, particularly online. I also believe the idea that we are all fully signed up to this happy collaborative, this divestment from ownership and control, this free-for-all, is to ignore some of the fundamental aspects of human nature.  Yes, society depends on the social - on groups of people working together to create stable environments in which we can live - but we are also individuals, and when a situation is created where individuals' ability to succeed (or their perception of it) is compromised by participation in a group, there is likely to be a negative reaction.

We are still attuned to seek personal success - our aspirations may be partially for our families, our friends, etc. but they can always be traced back to our individual goals and objectives for ourselves, the things that make us feel worthwhile - a search for personal meaning in life.

So, what does all this have to do with the X-Factor?  Well, when we are presented with a choice between five people with different stories and experiences who clearly have each other to rely on, who have a close bond (e.g. 3rd placed boy-band One Direction), it is more difficult for us to project our own personal goals and ambitions on them.  However, an individual with a unique personal talent (Rebecca Ferguson or winner Matt Cardle) is much easier for us to relate to.  The success available to them as a single human being is more tangible to us, and feeds our need for personal success.  So, we are attracted to those individuals who symbolise opportunity or personal success for us.  A vote for them is a vote for ourselves.

I am, of course, speculating wildly here - I have no evidence on which to base the above - but my personal opinion is that in a world where we are creating new, and multiple identities for ourselves both on- and off-line, and where the lines between reality and fantasy, ownership and openness, control and freedom are increasingly blurred, we will continue to seek to elevate those who represent a world where opportunities are available to the individual, and where unique talents are rewarded - and until we see collaboration as a route to individual success, the groups won't get a look in.