Queenston Hard Protective Individualism vs. Kelley Hard Projective Individualism

Abstract

During my field work in the New York City area, I observed the ways in which children were socialized into hard styles of individualism, within which various substyles of individualism, each with its projective and protective stances, also emerged. Hard individualism emphasized a tough, resilient self that was hardy enough either to protect itself from violence, poverty, and misfortune (as in Queenston) or project itself into a higher social class (as in Kelley). Hard protective individualism involved protecting the child’s self against the violence and hardships of the local world that surrounded them. It involved a more defensive stance of putting up shields of armor through pride, self-sufficiency, privacy, independence, toughness, and self-resilience. Projective individualism involved a more outgoing, upward-moving trajectory in which the sky was the limit and one’s socioeconomic terrain could be bettered with each successive generation. An “offensive” rather than a defensive trajectory was woven into strands of individualism such as self-assertiveness, self-confidence, self-reliance, doggedness, and persistence. In this chapter, I try to highlight the differences between these projective and protective trajectories, and the ways in which they are woven into specific strands of individualism.