Why there is no such thing as an individual!

A friend asked me to explain what I mean when I say that there is no such thing as an individual and suggested I make my answer into a post on this blog. I am happy to do so, but need to apologise as it will necessarily be a long post which you may not want to read. I will however give my reasons as succinctly as I can to preserve sanity and you can accept or ridicule them as you see fit. The best description of the reality of individualism I know is to be found in Marx's publication The Grundrisse when he tells us that

"The human being is in the most literal sense a zoon politikon, not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society. Production by an isolated individual outside society – a rare exception which may well occur when a civilised person in whom the social forces are already dynamically present is cast by accident into the wilderness – is as much of an absurdity as is the development of language without individuals living together and talking to each other". (a zoon politikon was Aristotle's description of the human being as a political animal)

I have discussed many times on this blog how neoliberalism and modern free market economics are grounded in the concept of the individual and individualism, on Thatcher’s dictum that there is no such thing as society. It is self-evident and hardly worth stating that each human being is a unique individual, but what does that actually mean? In order to understand the theories of modern economics it is crucial that we establish the significance of the terms of reference that motivate economic theory and policy-making in order that we can have a clear understanding of why they have failed so spectacularly and caused so much social damage. It is therefore necessary to clarify what I mean when I discuss the individual and the relationship of the individual with society. Let me be clear from the start, each person born is an individual human being; however, that individual human being is born into a social situation (the family) and a defined social structure (society). Regardless of whether the individual is born into a conventional family with a parent of each gender, a single parent family, a family with two carers of the same gender, or into a situation where the principal carer(s) is (are) not the parent(s) of the individual, the individual must be fed, nurtured and cared for or it will die. It is not self-sufficient. It is not an atomised individual. It is said that each human being is born an egoistic being motivated solely by egoistic sensations such as hunger and thirst. I would question that and argue that whilst each human being may be conceived egoistic, the socialisation of that egoistic individual begins within the womb. However, even if the individual is born a completely egoistic being, as that individual grows and develops, he/she grows and develops within a social situation and learns from other human beings. Thus, the life and development of each individual is externally provided for and a social consciousness develops within each human being in addition to their egoistic consciousness. As a result, the concept of an individual human being, self-reliant, independent of society and independent of a wider social framework of human intercourse, an asocial human being, is a ridiculous concept. It is not only ridiculous, it is impossible; such an individual would not survive a few days nor develop as a truly human being.

Now, as I continually ridicule the false assumptions of free market neoliberalism, it is interesting to note how Adam Smith viewed the individual. Smith was an empiricist whose writings were founded on empirical and historical facts and not on speculative reasoning. Thus if we contemplate the historical development of the human species and employ an empirical perspective as Smith did, it becomes self-evident that the human being is a social being and that the modern free market concept of individualism cannot claim reference from Adam Smith. Smith demonstrates how it is the social nature of the human being within commercial society that establishes their individual independence. It is only in commercial society, founded on economic and social interdependence through the mechanisms of production, trade, exchange and the division of labour that each individual is free from dependence on particular masters, free to move and sell their labour, to change jobs and location and control their own affairs in a way that was previously extremely difficult if not impossible. For Smith, it is the interdependence of the market social system, an interlocking system of production, trade and exchange that demonstrates both the social nature of the individual and their genuine independence as a human being. Thus, individuality, as Marx states, is only possible within a social setting, and Adam Smith is in complete agreement. Why, I have always asked, was I never taught, in six years studying politics, sociology and economics, that there is a great deal of commonality between Karl Marx and Adam Smith on the fundamentals of human nature? I now know why. Indeed it is the existence of such freedoms, the freedom to change occupation, location, to dispose of your own affairs etc. that Smith defines as true freedom and that characterises commercial society as so distinct from previous as such freedoms were not universally existent in earlier societies. Thus, for Adam Smith individuality is social and necessarily interdependent and interactive, but the crux of Smith’s argument is that in commercial activity the independent individual freely commits to the interdependent nature of commerce thus retaining his/her independent nature and social status. The key to this ability to retain individual independence in an interdependent environment is the ‘regular administration of justice’.
Before there is an individual human being, there is a collective society of human beings and the very act of human procreation is itself an interactive social experience. In addition we are all born into a society in whatever form it may take. There is a society of human beings in existence before each of us and we are born into that society, are nurtured within it and learn from it. If I am born a male I am not born with the knowledge that I am a male, I become aware that I am a male through interaction with other people. I am told I am a male by other human beings and learn what it is to be a male as distinct from a female. In other words, my consciousness of myself is socially developed; it is not innate but is an empirical process, that is, I learn from my experience as a male and become aware of my identity as a male from a recognition of other males. Thus, my consciousness of myself as an individual male is neither speculative nor psychological, it is practical and empirical. In addition, not only am I an individual in a social sense, but my consciousness is a social construct as well. Whilst society cannot exist apart from the individuals who compose it, the individual cannot exist apart from society. The individual may take a decision to remove him/herself from society, but by the time they take that decision they are a fully developed social being and the decision itself is, as Marx shows us in the above quote, a social decision, it is a response to particular social situations taken by a ‘civilised person in whom the social forces are already dynamically present’. In addition, their survival will be dependent on ideas and concepts they learned within society and carry from it. I have already noted how each individual human being can only be called truly human in a social situation, and how our individuality is shaped and developed by the nature and character of the society we were socialised in. As a result, the concept of the egoistic atomised individual posited by neoliberal and free market ideology is essentially anti-social, but more importantly is non-sensical, such people do not exist. This becomes evident when we actually examine the basic human biological drives such as eating, drinking, sexual activity, clothing and securing accommodation to protect us from the elements. All such basic motivations become transformed within society and develop their own social norms, customs and practices. For example, in Western society we eat with utensils and not with our hands, clothing is transformed into fashion, we devise many norms and values concerning sexual activities and practices, homes are transformed from being shelters to expressions of our own individuality etc. All of these activities are expressions of social and interactive living, as Marx writes in Wage, Labour and Capital
"Our desires and pleasures spring from society; we measure them, therefore, by society and not by the objects which serve for their satisfaction. Because they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature".
We therefore have the situation where social, economic, and national policy is founded on a completely unrealistic and distorted view of the human being and his/her place within society; based on the philosophical notion of a human being who does not exist in reality. Such policy is anti-social and motivated by a desire to cater for particular interests, as opposed to the interests of real empirical human beings. What is important to remember is that whilst we are all indeed individual human beings, our individuality is an expression of our social experience as we grow and develop, and that our individuality is dynamic, it alters and changes as we develop as a conscious human being. It is expressed through our experience in our family, education, community, social class, religion and all of the other external influences that have made us the individual person we are. People are inescapably interdependent, no man is an island. Any and every social and economic policy that fails to address this fundamental concept will also fail to address reality and real pressing human problems and needs. I repeat; the neoliberal free market form of capitalism that has held dominance within the UK for the last forty years is profoundly anti-social. It treats people as if they were all individual working purchasing and consuming atoms with no need to consider the needs and requirements of others. It ignores the multiple interdependencies of every human being and the multiple interactions of daily existence. As a result, we have an unstable economic and social system and an unstable state, because the dominant elite, pursuing free market ideological goals, fail to understand the nature of human individuality and therefore the nature of economic and social stability itself. You have been warned

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat