come to focus on control and automation. Recent innovations in natural and social sciences, however, indicate a shift in thinking away from individualism and towards interconnectedness.
Tracing the origins of “the individual,” Davis argues the individual is in fact “social.” And she contends that, understanding such, “the founding assumption of economics, the rational autonomous individual with exogenous tastes, undercuts social solidarity and blocks awareness of interconnections and interdependencies.” From such a foundation, Davis argues the term “individual” is really a legal and economic construct that can be changed. She argues “an alternative to divisions among categories of people with competing claims is to develop ‘Self-realization,’ with an expanded concept of the ‘Self’ because “the belief that money is valuable in itself, and that it accumulates in value, helps to blind us to the degradation of the earth.” In countering individualism, Davis would embrace “the new paradigms and alternative forms of governance, economics, and science which can be developed based on collectives and communities, with new values, frameworks, and world views.” She claims, in fact, that ‘self-conscious, inclusive, deliberative social construction of institutions is the essence of democracy,’ and “collective intentionality,” rather than reification of abstract concepts like “property,” “money,” and the self-regulating market.’5
Science also enters the argument. Michael Foley, an author of fiction and nonfiction books and articles, uses just not philosophy, history, and sociology to argue against individualism but science more generally. Foley cites, for example, neuroscientists ‘who claim that the individual’s sense of a unitary self is an illusion created by the brain to provide the comfort of stability and continuity.’ He also cites the theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, who wrote: “There is no reality except in the relations between physical systems. It isn’t things that enter into relations but, rather, relations that ground the notion of ‘thing’.” This argument of Rovelli, he argues, supports the philosophical argument of Charles Taylor that “the most important environmental influence is other people, and that personal identity is developed not so much by looking inwards to find a true self, as in either acceptance of or resistance to the identities others attempt to impose.”6
Tom Oliver, who was previously mentioned, also turned to science to make his case. He cited scientific discoveries that suggest the perception of a distinct self is an illusion:
Our bodies are made from materials that were once parts of countless other organisms, from ancient plants to dinosaurs. Most of our 37tn cells are directed by a genetic code that is a shared heritage not just of humanity but all of life on Earth. You might think your life experiences define you, but the neural networks in your brain that encode these are constantly changing – you are not even the same person you were when you started reading this article. And the new science of social networks shows how we are linked together so closely that ideas, behaviours and preferences flow between us in a way that makes it unclear where one mind ends and another begins.
Ironically, it is a similar argument to the one made by Heraclitus who argued ‘No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.’7
And, of course, there is the blending of science and economics to make a political case against individualism – particularly, when the effects of globalism are used to make a case for interconnectedness. Diane Coyle, a professor of public policy at the University of Cambridge, provides an example of how such an argument is made when she points to digital technologies being built upon and relying upon the interconnectedness of our world – noting that the data produced by such technologies extend beyond personal data. For example, she states: “very little data with useful information content concerns a single individual; it is the context – whether population data, location, or the activities of others – that gives it value.” Coyle
13