Individualism
Caveat: These are solely MY (Kerry Dawkins') opinions on system solidarity and individualism. These opinions are not representative of this entire system.
The issue of individualism vs system solidarity has come up quite a bit in the plural community. I think that it's a complicated issue, although I do hold certain opinions on individualism that apply to me, and my perception of our system.
Even though we all do share a body, we're still individuals in our own right, and it's sometimes difficult for people--especially those who aren't familiar with plurality outside the 'multiple personality' paradigm, or those groups who have different operating systems--to get that we do act as individuals in a lot of situations. I may be really irritated at someone, but Richard may just let it slide. Someone might not be particularly compatible with me, and the way I handle things, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't get along well with Noel or M.D. or someone else. As I've said elsewhere, I have a very strong sense of self, and become irritated when my opinions are seen as system gospel or something similar, when it's just me.
The issue is messy, though, because sharing a body and front-life complicates things. Sometimes, things leak. Sometimes people get blendy. Those things happen, and the issue has to be handled delicately. There's also the matter of individual vs system responsibility in a conflict.
Where individualism is important
I personally believe that unless someone is going to do something that is unequivocally wrong (eg murder, rape, etc), or will affect the front body adversely, that individual responsibility takes precedence. For example, if I say something that you're not particularly happy with, for whatever reason, just take it up with me. Noel didn't say it; Richard didn't say it; M.D. didn't say it. I did. I'll gladly deal with my own stuff, but I don't think that it's necessarily right to make an entire group responsible for the opinions of a single person, in most cases.Subjective situations, like personal disagreements, tend to be 'in the eye of the beholder', and when plural systems are involved, there tend to be quite a few beholders!
I know that in complicated interpersonal situations, we tend not to have a 'system opinion', unless someone has done something egregiously wrong, like advocating murder or rape or something equally disgusting. There are just times when I cannot stand someone and the way they act, but Richard or Darwin might think they're absolutely wonderful. Where normal social interactions are concerned, I prefer to be seen as an individual.
Of course, there are other situations in which individualism is most important--subjective likes and dislikes fall under that category. I really cannot stand heavy metal music, but that doesn't mean that everyone else here thinks it's awful. (In fact, M.D. listens to it, and it drives me insane, but that's really not related to the subject at all.)
Where system responsibility and solidarity are important
Nevertheless, there are situations in which system responsibility does take precedence over individual responsibility, or is concurrent with it. For example, if Member A of the Samples talked about wanting to blow up the supermarket, and no-one stopped Member A, even when they knew that they were going to do such a thing, the entire system SHOULD be held responsible for condoning a clearly immoral act. System responsibility would also take precedence when someone decided to do something that affected the entire system adversely. For example, if I were to take up a cocaine-smoking habit, and everyone let me get away with it, yes, we should all suffer the consequences for it. (In this situation, natural consequences would follow, because of the adverse effects on health that cocaine has, but that's neither here nor there.)Social situations in which a plural group is not presenting as plural (whether out of social necessity or out of personal choice) also require a degree of system responsibility, simply because others ARE dealing with what they perceive as a single person.
There are also times when we can say that systems do have a general opinion on things, especially if certain people gravitate towards fronting in a system. For example, the vast majority of us are liberal, and I think it would be fair to say that 'we're mostly progressive liberals'. I'd still probably use a qualifier like 'mostly', because some outspoken members of this system really don't identify as liberal, like Richard, who's a bit of a progressive Tory, and doesn't identify with any American political party.