Yes, the very title of this article is contradictory. You can’t mass-produce (create large quantities of identical items) an inherently individualistic philosophy. It erodes the core meaning of both words. In fact, you can’t mass-produce philosophies, such as individuality, at all.
But let me explain what I mean. Have you ever scrolled through Pinterest for the perfect outfit, only to step outside and spot someone wearing almost the same thing? Walked around GHS at MUJ and realized half the population here has Bonkers sweatpants on? You must have at least seen a niche aesthetic explode overnight, suddenly plastered all over TikTok and Instagram, worn by thousands who all thought they were onto something unique. It’s not just with fashion… it’s been happening with music, art, and even personality traits. Subcultures are commodified, and packaged into fleeting trends. Personally, it makes me feel nauseous. Makes me feel like my quirks, my tastes, the little things that made me me…everything is just fake and fabricated. Our little quirks are all copied and sold back to us. Individuality is dissolving into a pattern of repetition.
individuality as a commodity
Actually, it isn’t just dissolving. It’s being manufactured like any other commodity, which is where my argument of mass production comes in. See, think about how mass production works: a design is created, replicated on a massive scale, and then sold for profit. Now look at what happens with individuality: personal tastes and niche aesthetics are discovered and curated, then amplified for a bigger audience, and finally mass-marketed till they lose all uniqueness. Individuality is being processed like a product, and then repackaged into transient trends for easy consumption.
In the 1700s, mass production replaced craftsmanship. Today, the shift from handmade to factory manufacturing has extended beyond products and to people. Now, it’s reshaping individuality. There’s a pattern here: it seems to be replacing all things human.
Defining individualism and uniqueness
But what is individualism? And what is uniqueness?
It feels like the same word, doesn’t it? Both are tied to the self, both revolve around personal qualities. But Wikipedia defines individualism as “the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, and social outlook that emphasizes the intrinsic worth of the individual.” and the Cambridge Dictionary defines uniqueness as “the quality of being unique.”
If the two still seem interchangeable, that’s because we’re confusing performative individualism with true uniqueness. Uniqueness is something inherent, something that exists without external validation. Individualism, on the other hand, is a construct. A balancing act—being just different enough to stand out, but not enough to disrupt the system.
And the system plays a massive role in this entire discussion.
The illusion of choice in a structured world
Individuality has been razed to the ground in favor of homogenized lifestyles, because a population that thinks alike is easier to control. People are less likely to question the system when everything exists in the same framework… and it is definitely beginning to! We live in a society where everyone is consuming the same trends, the same media… deviation is minimal. Corporations benefit just as much as governments, capitalizing on predictable consumer behavior. And with less individuality comes less opposition. The more people conform, the less they rebel.
In his heart every man knows quite well that, being unique, he will be in the world only once… He knows it but hides it like a bad conscience—why? From fear of his neighbor, who demands conformity and cloaks himself with it
Friedrich Nietzsche
One might argue: but isn’t it easier to find each other now? And sure, it is. But doesn’t that same logic apply to wild animals that recognize each other through similar traits and behaviors? Our uniqueness is what makes us human.
Of course, not everyone accepts this erosion of individuality. But even the rebellion against it falls into a paradox. Countercultures formed to reject the mainstream often develop their own form of uniformity. Niche communities, and alternative movements… all claim to reject mass conformity, but they inevitably create their own version of it. Take ‘Dark Academia’ as an example. Originally, it was an aesthetic rooted in intellectualism and vintage fashion. But as it gained more and more traction online, it was distilled into an easily recognizable ‘look’—brown blazers, turtlenecks, leather-bound books with stained pages. It became less about academia and love for literature, and more about fitting into a predetermined aesthetic.
And yet… I don’t think that necessarily has to be a bad thing.
the balance between imitation and uniqueness
Humans are social creatures. We form identities in relation to others. Subcultures don’t just reject the mainstream; they create new spaces for self-expression. In fact, their very existence proves that people resist total homogenization. And since we are on the topic of niche online communities, let’s talk about how we are constantly curating marketable versions of ourselves for social validation—which isn’t really bad either. Humans have always easily adapted to social contexts. Social media has just accelerated this.
I said at the beginning of this article that nothing is original anymore. Even that isn’t a bad thing. Creativity and originality can’t exist in isolation; they need influence to thrive. Look at the Renaissance movement. Would that have ever come about with only pure individuality and without shared inspiration? Consider the Romantic movement, when poets like Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth drew inspiration from one another, or Impressionist painters like Claude Monet and Pierre-Auguste Renoir who did the same. Art, literature, and innovation have always been a collective effort, proving that originality is born from shared influence.
So maybe individuality was never truly unique to begin with. Maybe I’m just ranting into the void, frustrated by a world lacking deeply in authenticity. I just think it’s important to be aware of how mass production influences identity, but that doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting everything. See, the real challenge isn’t avoiding these trends entirely—that’s unrealistic, and honestly, unnecessary. Instead, it’s about making sure they don’t define us. The key is balance: understanding the system without falling into extremes of either conformity…or forced nonconformity. Mass production may shape what we consume, but it should not dictate who we are.
For more such articles, check out Her Campus at MUJ.