FOLD

What is the nature of the individual’s relationship to wider society? Specifically, how is that relationship impacted when the political system and society tasked with promoting strong, independent individuals has expanded and matured?  

One of my favorite sculptors, Antony Gormley, is well known for his investigations of the body as “place,” and the interior and exterior environments to which it relates. His pieces often show a human form extending beyond its normal boundaries into the surrounding space, reminding the viewer of their critical relationships to others and nature.

Inspired by Gormley’s idea of extension, I wanted to investigate the complexities of the socio-political individual, particularly how individual freedoms and agency extend into and depend on external material and social structures.

My interest here is to engage with some of the recent criticisms of individualism (the weakening of communal relationships, exploitation of the environment, and unsustainable inequalities to name a few). By individualism (also known as liberalism), I’m referring to the idea that was carved out largely in the 17th and 18th centuries, which opened up political space for individual liberties and created possibilities for expression and pursuit outside of the strictures of one’s clan, kingdom, religion, or socioeconomic status. 

The negative effects of liberalism–some of which are noted above–are certainly ripe for critique. But I contend that the positive fruits of liberalism—democracy, the rule of law, individual rights, the pursuit of equality, scientific progress, economic and career opportunities, overall reductions in poverty, improvements in health, and robust infrastructure of all kinds—have so successfully receded into the background of our existence that widely applied critiques from both the left and the right miss the mark.

Examining what’s behind our successes may enlarge our appreciation of both individuals and the societies in which they exist, and help us advance both a freer and fairer society going forward.

It’s hard to imagine an existence where we do not get to choose our own path and follow our own desires and interests, but historically, individual choices were severely limited. “[It] is in fact individualism and not sociability that developed over the course of human history,” says Francis Fukuyama in Origins of Political Order, adding “[t]hat individualism seems today like a solid core of our economic and political behavior is only because we have developed institutions that override our more communal instincts.”

There are many good reasons why we developed such institutions that are beyond the scope of this essay, but abuses against the individual and centuries of religious and political wars would certainly top the list.

But social contracts, by their nature, require self-imposed limits on individual freedom when it affects the greater good. We can’t speed through intersections or school zones, for example. Even John Locke had his proviso stating that individuals could pursue their own interests “at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.”

A closer examination of the embedded nature of individuals (even “rugged” ones) and their dependence on other people and realities outside of themselves, could give shape to the future of liberalism and possibly resolve some of the valid concerns surrounding the limits of self-interested pursuits. Further, considering how agency likewise extends beyond the individual can solidify the idea that a truly atomistic individual is an impossibility.

One typically thinks of agency as an attribute residing solely within each person, as it’s often defined as “the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.” But individuals never truly act independently, and other forces—material, political, economic, and cultural—are constantly acting with and against the individual. Expanding our definition of agency to include these various influences may better reveal our shared reality and open a dialogue toward a more cohesive and functional society. The following is a brief introduction to this idea.

Nature

Many people, past and present, inherited a view from ancient religion and philosophy that taught that we are distinct from or above nature. This has often led to a disconnect of our actions from the environment. But individuals are not bounded, isolated beings from nature. And humans, as environmental ethics philosopher Holmes Rolston noted, “...do not have to get out of their skins to reach what’s really there: there are windows out and in—they are called eyes, ears, noses, hands.” “Life,” he said elsewhere, “is impossible without transactions across skins, mediated for the fauna by their senses, by limbs with which they step around in the world, by mouths with which they take in the world.”

These “windows” afford us both wonder and tragedy. If what we take in is good, health is the result. If bad, disease follows. But Rolston’s language, though sympathetic, can lead us astray—as if nature is out there waiting to get inside somehow. Even talk of “saving” nature can have the same distancing effect. We are not simply in nature. We are nature. There is no outside. If we dump something in a river, we will drink it. If we bury something in the ground, it’s still with us, breaking down, percolating.

Our embeddedness means every single act is dependent on nature—every breath, every movement, everything we drink and eat, every built thing, and everything it’s built with.

It’s also a reminder that a lot of the resources we depend on are finite and precious.

Government

The innovation of liberalism was to place the individual in a central and pivotal place with the government’s chief role being to establish the rule of law and administer it to protect individual liberties. If government failed to do this, it could be dispensed. This has promoted a warranted sacredness of the individual that has permeated our contemporary existence. But liberal government is nevertheless a contract, an agreement between parties, and the individual is thus not utterly free to do whatever they wish. John Jay, in The Federalist Paper No. 2, stated: “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers.”

Isaiah Berlin, who famously argued for the individual to be left alone and to be freed from external restraints (also known as negative liberty), conceded that “[it] follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man’s activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way.  ‘Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows’; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others.”

This willingness to give up some of our own liberties gives form to society which, in turn, allows for the free and peaceful movement of people, goods, and ideas. This is why social contracts exist and the environment they create often operates in the background without us thinking about it.

The role that government has played in expanding the agency of individuals has not merely been connected to negative liberties, however. Government is a tool of collective agency. When the action of individuals is not potent enough to achieve some outcome, the institution of government can play a significant role. Roads and bridges are the classic example, but government has played a critical role in nearly every major technological advance in the last 100 years, including: computers, GPS, the internet, cutting-edge drug therapies, energy, aeronautics, space exploration, and lithium batteries. Add to this, robust investments in education by federal, state, and local governments. Together, these collective investments have certainly enhanced the capacity and agency of the individual in multitudinous ways. 

Distributed Knowledge in Institutions and Markets

Although it leaves out critical institutional involvements, the influential economic essay “I, Pencil”  is nevertheless a potent lesson in humility. It demonstrates that no single person could make a simple pencil in their entire lifetime, as the knowledge involved in creating the various parts are too complex—involving mining, processing, logging, agriculture, manufacturing, and chemistry—and spread among thousands of individuals. Imagine the knowledge spread for a computer or airplane. Things we count on everyday are the result of literally millions of people with diverse specialties coming together by way of institutional (government agencies, universities, scientific organizations) and market interactions. Our lives are enhanced and our personal capabilities increased with little to no input from us.

Infrastructure 

We may not often think about it, but the ability to turn on a tap in our house and have clean water to drink is an immense expansion of our agency that, for much of history, did not exist. In many parts of the world, it still does not exist, and the time investment in those places for the individual to acquire water is significant; time that the comparatively lucky few get to spend doing other, more empowering things. Likewise, flipping a switch in our homes and having light is equally advantageous for many obvious ways. In fact, it’s been estimated that a prehistoric human would have to gather and burn wood for ten hours a day, six days a week to equal the light of modern lightbulb shining for just 54 minutes.

What it’s taken to acquire these and other critical infrastructural advantages has taken centuries and the efforts of many. Truly and evidently, no single individual built this. It has been a joint effort of innumerable individuals acting through manifold institutions.

Conclusion

Individual freedoms are essential to a vibrant nation for a number of reasons, but chiefly, the free exchange of ideas and the free pursuit of one’s own passions and interests are the fuel of progress. Such progress, however, is unobtainable without the wider network of relationships and supporting structures within which individuals exist. This understanding can hopefully promote an appreciation for others and generate a willingness to maintain, protect, and expand these relationships and structures which have been vital to our success.

Over time, the shape of these various relationships will undoubtably change. Advances in technology alone will add many new opportunities and challenges. Understanding our embedded nature, however, can add nuance to the age-old tension of security versus liberty, which lays at the heart of many current debates and issues. Embracing both can shift us from an either/or mentality to a both/and or all of the above mentality.  

We individuals have arrived at this point in history, together. This is a purpose-built paradox. Our social contract, the Constitution is the quintessential both/and document: both the protector of individual liberties and the creator of the federal government.

Navigating this relationship successfully and maintaining a balance between all of the diffuse powers involved in a successful society, will continue to be one of our most significant—and worthwhile— pursuits.