vidualism and expression that a given individual might be able to express in a system that adopted a more parliamentary /multiple party system of governance. Obviously, the construct of individualism is as much of a personal identifier as it is a sociological one. As such, this essay will attempt to grapple with both of these concepts in order to adequately describe and illuminate the topic.
Firstly, with regards to the United States representing an assimilated society, such a construct necessarily takes away a great deal of individualism just based on the most basic understanding of such a concept. Whereas an individual is expected to transform himself/herself in order to ascribe to what can only be defined as a “least common denominator” among peoples, key elements of individuality are necessarily lost. Moreover, in such a sociological understanding of the term assimilation, there is no individuality that is championed; rather, the collective identify of an imagined society and the bonds that it shackles those that subscribe to such a belief necessarily constrict any expression or hope of individualism that might otherwise exist within the given system.
Additionally – if one were ascribe to the belief that the United States is no longer an assimilated society and ascribes more to a definition of a pluralistic mixture of peoples rather than a great melting pot (as promoted by the understanding of assimilation), there is still an issue with the individualism that could be exhibited in such a situation. For instance, whereas a foreign émigré would need to ascribe to the beliefs and mores/norms of the United States in the assimilation model, the same émigré would be expected to subscribe to a unique subset of culturally applicable norms/mores within their own community of ethnically similar émigrés were they to ascribe to the cultural pluralism that has defined much of the political and social landscape for the past few decades. In this way, the