[443] of these two characteristics, primitive collectivism^a went to pieces. Why? In the first respect, in primitive collectivism, the collective is guilty. And if an individual^b is singled out for punishment, the primitive mind does NOT believe that this individual is especially guilty--he is not more guilty than the other--but he REPRESENTS the others. The primitive mind HAS these strong forms of mystical identification and participation^c. Now this participation makes an individual guilty because the COLLECTIVE is guilty. And the way of singling him out is done in a magic way, not

in the way of finding out whether he was REALLY guilty of something. But slowly the divine commandment, especially in Judaism^d, made the INDIVIDUAL^e responsible and not the nation as a whole any more. And after this has happened, we have the responsible, independent individuals who have to carry their guilt, who have to expiate their guilt, and who may be forgiven individually. Now this took a long time. Even in later periods of Jewish history^f, the period of the Psalms, for instance, the guilty ego is usually the congregation--the sacred nation--but not an individual within it. But then step by step, especially under the prophetic attack, every individual

became responsible for what he has done. It is not so any more--I think Jeremiah says that the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the teeth of the children have become dull, but everybody who does something has to carry the consequences himself. This is one of the most revolutionary statements over against primitive collectivism: THE INDIVIDUAL AS SUCH has to take upon himself his own guilt. HE must answer, he is REsponsible, he OUGHT to answer, has the duty to answer, for his own being. On this basis the independent person, on an [?] individual basis, could establish himself