I notice there seem to be two general camps on the issue of autonomy vs conformity in religious practice. One camp places primary emphasis on the individual. The other places primary emphasis on the community. And then there are some people who are somewhere in the middle.
My own feeling is that both are important and each should get different emphasis at different times and in different places. For example, if a spiritual community is together and each individual is doing their own thing, it's not going to work out so well. There may be room within the bounds of what is normative for communal activity for people to do this, that, or the other, but then that is something determined by the shared consensus of the community regardless of where the authority for directing that consensus may lie.
But then there are situations where I am alone. My actions aren't directly effecting the other members of my community (unless we presuppose some metaphysical connection.) In those situations I think it makes sense that to maintain a higher degree of autonomy.
An example from my own life: when I'm at home and I davven, I do so differently from the way I davven when I'm at shul. I tend to go slower and I do a lot more repetitive chanting. At shul the pace is usually a bit faster and more of the liturgy is covered. I think psychologically there is something satisfying for me as well in that, on the one hand, when I'm alone I can do my own thing and when I'm with other people I can submit to the practices of the community. It feels different. When I have control of the tempo and mood of my practice there is something I don't get that I do get in an externally orchestrated spiritual experience. The opposite is true as well. In addition to the pacing, if I'm part of a larger group there is the possibility for surprise. I can't surprise myself so easily if I davven alone.
On another level there's the individual and their family unit. In that case my view is pretty similar. Individual members of a family are going to have things they do on their own, or don't do on their own, and then as a family unit there are going to be things that are done together. Generally the authority in a family which determines shared practice is the parents, with or without some degree of input from the children depending on the structure of the family. The parents may advise the children on personal practice just as the community or leaders within a community may advise individual members on their own practice.
What are your thoughts? Do you place emphasis primarily on the individual, on the community, or somewhere in between?
My own feeling is that both are important and each should get different emphasis at different times and in different places. For example, if a spiritual community is together and each individual is doing their own thing, it's not going to work out so well. There may be room within the bounds of what is normative for communal activity for people to do this, that, or the other, but then that is something determined by the shared consensus of the community regardless of where the authority for directing that consensus may lie.
But then there are situations where I am alone. My actions aren't directly effecting the other members of my community (unless we presuppose some metaphysical connection.) In those situations I think it makes sense that to maintain a higher degree of autonomy.
An example from my own life: when I'm at home and I davven, I do so differently from the way I davven when I'm at shul. I tend to go slower and I do a lot more repetitive chanting. At shul the pace is usually a bit faster and more of the liturgy is covered. I think psychologically there is something satisfying for me as well in that, on the one hand, when I'm alone I can do my own thing and when I'm with other people I can submit to the practices of the community. It feels different. When I have control of the tempo and mood of my practice there is something I don't get that I do get in an externally orchestrated spiritual experience. The opposite is true as well. In addition to the pacing, if I'm part of a larger group there is the possibility for surprise. I can't surprise myself so easily if I davven alone.
On another level there's the individual and their family unit. In that case my view is pretty similar. Individual members of a family are going to have things they do on their own, or don't do on their own, and then as a family unit there are going to be things that are done together. Generally the authority in a family which determines shared practice is the parents, with or without some degree of input from the children depending on the structure of the family. The parents may advise the children on personal practice just as the community or leaders within a community may advise individual members on their own practice.
What are your thoughts? Do you place emphasis primarily on the individual, on the community, or somewhere in between?
