Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality

INDIVIDUALISM AND INDIVIDUALITY

1997
Dr Peter Critchley
(From Beyond Modernity and Postmodernity vol 2 Active Materialism by Peter
Critchley).
Critchley, P., 1997. Individualism and Individuality. [eboo!" #vailable throu$h% #cademia &ebsite
'htt(%))mmu.academia.edu)PeterCritchley)Pa(ers
Critchley, P., 1997. Individualism and Individuality. In % P. Critchley, Beyond Modernity and
Postmodernity: *ol + Active Materialism. [eboo!" #vailable throu$h% #cademia &ebsite
'htt(%))mmu.academia.edu)PeterCritchley),oo!s
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr Peter Critchley is !hil"s"!her# $riter %& t't"r with a first degree in the field of the
Social Sciences (History, Economics, Politics and Sociology) and a PhD in the field of
Philosophy, Ethics and Politics. Peter works in the tradition of Rational Freedom, a tradition
which sees freedom as a common endeavour in which the freedom of each individual is
conceived to e co!e"istent with the freedom of all. #n elaorating this concept, Peter has
written e"tensively on a numer of the key thinkers in this $rational% tradition (Plato, &ristotle,
&'uinas, Dante, Spino(a, )ousseau, *ant, Hegel, +ar", Haermas). Peter is currently
engaged in an amitious interdisciplinary research pro,ect entitled Being and Place. -he
central theme of this research concerns the connection of place and identity through the
creation of forms of life which enale human and planetary flourishing in unison. Peter tutors
across the humanities and social sciences, from & level to postgraduate research. Peter
particularly welcomes interest from those not engaged in formal education, ut who wish to
pursue a course of studies out of intellectual curiosity. Peter is committed to ringing
philosophy ack to its Socratic roots in ethos, in the way of life of people. #n this conception,
philosophy as self!knowledge is something that human eings do as a condition of living the
e"amined life. &s we think, so shall we live. .iving up to this philosophical commitment, Peter
offers tutoring services oth to those in and out of formal education.
-he su,ect range that Peter offers in his tutoring activities, as well as contact details, can e
seen at http/00petercritchley!e!akademeia.yolasite.com
-he range of Peter%s research activity can e seen at
http/00mmu.academia.edu0Peter1ritchley
Peter sees his e!akademeia pro,ect as part of a gloal grassroots learning e"perience and
encourages students and learners to get in touch, whatever their learning need and level.
1
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
THE INDIVIDUAL AND INDIVIDUALITY
-he conception of the individual in +ar"2s writings is much richer than the
dominant understanding of the individual. +ar" enales us to distinguish
etween individuality on the one hand as the full realisation of human
powers and individualism on the other as egoistic, monadic and as making
the individual 2the plaything of alien powers2.
Perhaps mar"ism generally has historically neglected the individual as
such. Even worse, the concentration upon attacking 2the individual2 of
ourgeois society and politics has given the impression that mar"ism is
anti!individual, a point which lierals have een 'uite happy to repeat.
+ar", 3emia argues, denies the moral and ontological ultimacy of the
individual (3emia 4556). +ar" does indeed deny that the individual is some
sovereign, self!contained entity cut off from others. +ar"2s criticism derives
from his argument that the individual is no astraction outside of society
ut is the ensemle of social relations (Theses on Feuerbach). 3emia
interprets this as a social determinism that denies the individual whereas,
in truth, +ar" was attempting to reach the real individual, in a social
conte"t, as opposed to some fictional eing e"isting outside of history and
society (4556). 3emia2s 2ultimacy%, pressed to its logical conclusion,
consumes the real individual in a pure egoism that not even Stirner ! his
provocative assertions to the contrary ! argued.
7hat needs to e argued is that there is no opposition for +ar" etween
the individual and society and the fact that 2society% could indeed ecome
an astraction opposed to the individual (+ar" E7 EP+ 4589/69:)
indicates how the instrumental relationships of ourgeois society, with
individuals having to use each other as means to private ends, have cut
human eings off from the society of others.
;evertheless, the feeling that mar"ism has neglected or, even, denigrated
the individual has provoked some theorists working within the mar"ist
tradition to egin to install the individual as the asic unit of analysis. -his
is most evident in the methodological individualism of those who have
imported into mar"ism ideas drawn from 2rational choice2 or games theory.
-hus, Elster spends the opening section of his attempt to 2make sense% of
+
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
+ar" searching for evidence of +ar"2s methodological individualism and
using this to criticise his methodological collectivism (Elster 45<9/=). #f for
nothing else, analytical mar"ism may e credited either in making it clear
that ehind the >social> world and its forms there are individual human
actors making choices or for forcing mar"ists to more ade'uately present
the individual human actor.
?ut there are etter ways of recovering the individual within mar"ism and
that, indeed, the rational choice perspective introduces into mar"ism that
very monadic, astract conception of the individual that +ar" criticised in
ourgeois society and thought as antagonistic to the real individual (3ores
455:/"iii "v@ +c1arney 45<:/5:). +ar"2s analysis of the individual in
society constitutes a powerful criti'ue of individualism and maintains a
conception of true individuality which contrasts markedly with the individual
of ourgeois society (3ores 455:/"iv). +ar"
seemed to have assumed that humankind could ecome developed to
such a degree that this constituted a powerful enough historical force
for the destruction of social organisations which restricted the full
realisation of human capacities and ailities.
3ores 455:/"i"
#ndividuals are at the centre of +ar"2s thought, in his historical work, in
his critical analysis of capitalism and in his vision of the future. 7hilst +ar"
$dispensed with the understanding of the individual that dominated the
ideologies of his day, ut he did not ,ettison his interest in an individual
e"istence of a radical kind%. +ar" affirmed a developmental view of human
nature and therefore of individuality. $3ar from individuals ceasing to e"ist
with the withering away of the state, he saw a history unfolding where
individuals could truly and freely e"ist.. +oreover, the flowering of human
capacities and their individual e"pression was, for him, the unfolding of that
history. #ndividuals, that is, are the su,ects and agents of +ar"ian
historical change% (3ores 455:/"i").
-
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
+ar" thus looks to go eyond the individualism of ourgeois as a denial of
individual freedom, of true individuality. -he personal independence from
feudal ties that ourgeois relations have achieved have een replaced y
the o,ective dependence of all upon capital. +ar" looks further than this
o,ective dependency (+ar" 4586/4A60=) towards a society of freedom
ased upon new, free individuals living in a true e'uality (3ores
455:/44=).
MAR()S COMMUNIST INDIVIDUALITY
-he recovery of the individual from within the mar"ist tradition is long
overdue. 3or +ar" upholds a conception of individuality which takes the
individual much further than the individualism of ourgeois society and
which rests upon the free and full development of each individual ( Capital
#). +ar"2s materialist premise, as stated in The German Ideology, pertained
to the e"istence and activity and relations of 2real individuals2. #n truth, for
+ar" there is no antithesis etween the individual and society. #t is
ourgeois relationships and the individualism that these entail that creates
this antithesis, separating the individual from other individuals, from
society, from their own human powers (3ores 455:/44A 448 44< 445
4450B:).
7hat is noticeale in +ar"2s works, especially The German Ideology and
Grundrisse, is the e"tent to which +ar" does indeed refer to and proceed
from 2real individuals2. 1lass, as such, enters the critical analysis as a
designation imposed y social relations, a designation that constrains the
development of individuality and which is to e aolished for that very
reason (+ar" and Engels 4555).
7ith the domination of a narrow conception of the individual in the 45<:2s
and 455:2s, oth in. politics and society and also in intellectual fashion, it is
perhaps worthwhile considering +ar"2s introductory comments in the
Grundrisse.
.
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
#ndividuals producing in society .. is of course the point of departure.
-he individual and isolated hunter and fisherman, with whom Smith and
)icardo egin, elongs among the unimaginative conceits of the
eighteenth century )oinsonades.. #t is .. the anticipation of 2civil
society%. #n this society of free competition, the individual appears
detached from the natural onds etc. which in earlier historical periods
make him the accessory of a definite and limited human conglomerate.
Smith and )icardo still stand with oth feet on the shoulders of the
eighteenth century prophets, in whose imaginations this eighteenth
century individual ! the product on one side of the dissolution of the
feudal forms of society, on the other side of the new forces of
production developed since the si"teenth century ! appears as an ideal,
whose e"istence they pro,ect into the past.. &s the ;atural #ndividual
appropriate to their notion of human nature, not arising historically, ut
posited y nature. -his illusion has een common to each new epoch
to this day.
-he more deeply we go ack into history, the more does the individual,
and hence also the producing individual, appear as dependent, as
elonging to a greater whole ... Cnly in the eighteenth century, in 2civil
society2, do the various forms of social connectedness confront the
individual as a mere means towards his private purposes, as e"ternal
necessity. ?ut the epoch which produces this standpoint, that of the
isolated individual, is also precisely that of the hitherto most developed
social (from this standpoint, general) relations. -he human eing is in
the most literal sense a zoon politikon, not merely a gregarious animal,
ut an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society.
Production y an isolated individual outside of society .. is as much an
asurdity as is the development of language without individuals living
together and talking to each other. -here is no point dwelling on this
any longer. -he point could go entirely unmentioned if this twaddle . .
had not een earnestly pulled ack into the centre of the most modern
economics..
/
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
+ar" Drundrisse 4586/<60=
+ar" succeeds in the Grundrisse in destroying that astract individualism
which the rational choice theorists are now attempting to import into
mar"ism (3ores 455:/BB4).
+ar" is arguing that the individual is a social eing ut he is also arguing
more. -he isolated individual capale only of a monadic freedom develops
with, 2civil society%. #t is this 2civil society2, with its instrumental relationships
and its individualism, that +ar" is concerned to criticise as inimical to the
freedom of individuals (EP+). #n the Grundrisse, +ar" argues at length that
the individual has een emancipated from ties of personal dependence
under the feudal system only to ecome su,ected to the 2o,ective
dependency2 of all under the capital system (+ar" 4586/4A609). -his
o,ective dependency is perfectly compatile with the individualism which
ourgeois theorists e'uate with the freedom, of the individual. +ar" is
e"posing the illusory nature of this freedom and hence demanding a real
freedom of the individual.
-he dominant conception of rationally choosing, self!centred, self!
contained individuals prevalent in contemporary politics, society and social
science ! even entering within mar"ism ! is to e understood as the further
life of the isolated individuals of 2civil society2. #t is, from +ar"2s conception,
an impoverished conception of the individual and, not coincidentally, it has
een associated with the impoverishment, materially and culturally, of the
2societies2 which have cultivated such an individual (+c.ellan in 3ores
455:/"i).
MAR( RADICALISES THE BOUR*EOIS INDIVIDUAL
#t is which makes the recovery of the richer conception of the
individual from within +ar"2s work highly contemporary, as well as highly
suversive. 3or +ar" offers a way of challenging ourgeois society and its
0
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
politics and ideas on its chosen ground, that of the individual and individual
freedom. +ar" does not denigrate the idea of the individual or the process
of individual emancipation ! he radicalises it (+iller 45<B/460=).
3ar from susuming the individual under some homogeneous
species eing or under class identity, +ar" looks to dissolve e"ternal
designations imposed y social relations and the division of laour so that
the individual could indeed emerge as a free, autonomous eing in a self!
determining social conte"t. Sartre is correct to note the e"istential
character of +ar"2s core concepts of alienation and fetishism (Sartre 45A<).
-he demand that human eings reappropriate and reorganise their powers
is predicated upon the assumption that, ultimately, there are only real
individuals and the social forms that they create (+es(aros 4559/4< <69@
+eikle 45<9/=90A).
+es(aros rightly points out that +ar"2s criti'ue of the state is not simply
concerned with the determination of a specific form of class rule ! the
capitalist ! ut with something much more fundamental/ 2the full emancipation
of the social individual2 (+es(aros 4559/5:<). +es(aros gives a 'uote from
The German Ideology/ $the proletarians, if they are to assert themselves as
individuals, have to aolish the hitherto prevailing condition of their e"istence
(which has, moreover, een that of all society up to then) ,namely, laour.
-hus they find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto, the
individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective
e"pression, that is, the State. #n order, therefore, to assert themselves as
individuals, they must overthrow the state%.
+es(aros comments/ $-ry and remove the concept of 2individuals2 from this
reasoning, and the whole enterprise ecomes meaningless. 3or the need to
aolish the State arises ecause the individuals cannot 2assert themselves as
individuals2, and not simply ecause one class is dominated y another%
(+es(aros 4559/5:<).
#t is thus possile to challenge lieral social thought on its principal value
! the individual and individual autonomy. Eust how autonomous is the
individual in ourgeois societyF +ar" shows that human eings cannot
affirm themselves as free individuals in this society. #n the name of
7
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
individual freedom, +ar" therefore demands the destruction of social
institutions which restrict and deny true individuality.
+ar" effectively forces the lieral to choose etween lieral institutions !
private property and the constitutional state ! and the main lieral value !
autonomy. -he realisation that autonomy is not fostered to the e"tent
claimed y lieral social theory forces those who affirm this value to
consider an alternative social order. How many lierals are inclined to
consider that the asymmetrical relations of power and resources are class
structured and are effective locks to the development of the universal
citi(enship and to autonomyF -his is the 'uestion that +ar" is forcing upon
the lierals. #t may e a 'uestion that lierals prefer not to answer. .indley
considers that, ultimately, rather than aandon the lieral institutions which
preserve class ine'ualities, lierals would come to 'uestion the value of
autonomy itself.
+any lierals are strongly anti!socialist. Suppose it turned out that
autonomy could e est promoted under socialism. Such a lieral
would face a dilemma. Cne way out would e to aandon the elief
that autonomy is a fundamental vital interest. -his would e a
desperate strategy for a lieral, ecause it amounts to a re,ection of
lieralism.
.indley 45<A/4<<
7hat +ar" does, then, is to show the social conditions re'uired for the
realisation of the lieral value of autonomy. -he prolem that +ar" poses
for the lierals that he shows that the realisation of the central value of
lieralism re'uires the destruction of lieral institutions in so far as these
protect material class ine'ualities. 7ith a contemporary neo!conservatism
protecting these very ine'ualities in the name of individual freedom, it
might e suggested that the development of +ar"2s criti'ue of lieral
society and thought in this aspect is long since overdue.
1
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
Human eings, individuals, are to consciously control the social forms.
-his, the realm of freedom, overthrows the 2o,ective dependency2 of
individuals upon capital and thus completes the process of individual
emancipation egun under ourgeois civil society.
-he liertarian and emancipatory character of +ar"2s argument, in short,
puts the accent upon real individuals. &nd it needs to e set in the conte"t
of +ar"2s criti'ue of alienation. Cne needs to e clear that alienation entails
the loss of the humanity of each individual. -he aolition of alienation is
thus the recovery of one%s humanity.
?ut all these kinds of forms of alienation are in the last analysis one/
they are only different forms or aspects of man2s self!alienation,
different forms of the alienation of man from his human 2essence2 or
2nature2, from his humanity. -he self!alienated man is a man who really
is not a man, a man who does not realise his historically created
human possiilities. & non!alienated man, on the contrary, would e a
man who really is a man, a man who fulfils himself as a free, creative
eing of pra"is.
Petrovic ar! in the id"T#entieth Century 45A8/46<
-o e alienated means in general not to e what man could and ought
to e/ a free, creative, fully developed, socialised eing.
+arkovic 2+ar"ist Humanism and Ethics2, #n'uiry, Gol G# 45A6/B=4
INDIVIDUALITY VERSUS INDIVIDUALISM
#n short, there are far richer and far more radical means of developing the
individual within mar"ism than the analytical mar"ists have een prepared
to entertain. +ar"2s entire pro,ect can e interpreted as an attempt to
assert individuality against individualism (-homas 45<9/B908) and a
developmental conception of human potentiality and growth runs right
through from the 2philosophical2 +ar" calling for self!realisation (EP+), the
scientific +ar" proceeding from 2real individuals2 in their material relations
9
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
(1larke 4554/98) to the political +ar" calling for the association in which
the freedom of each is a condition of the freedom of all (+anifesto) and to
the mature +ar" calling for the free and full development of each individual
(Capital).
#t is in this developmental theme that a far richer concept of individual
freedom as individuality is availale. #ndeed, taking up 3emia2s challenge
on the moral and ontological ultimacy of the individual, it is arguale that
+ar" is doing much more than affirm the social nature of the individual and
of individuality. )ather, as 3ores makes clear, +ar"2s end is the 2free
individual2. #f there are only human eings and the social forms they
engender then the demand for human eings, as individuals, to
suordinate these social forms to their conscious control certainly implies
that human eings are capale enough to dissolve all social institutions
locking or constraining their freedom. -he evidence is that, ultimately,
under full lown communism, human eings would e self!governing and
self!regulating in this way (3ores 455:/4A80<@ 48A@ 4<9ff@ 45B@ B460A@
B6B08).
Post asks why mar"ism should assign importance to the individual. He
argues/
+ar"ists have not tended to pay much attention to the individual as
such, understandaly, since one of their trademarks is an emphasis on
the social. However, within the framework of 7estern +ar"ism there
has een attempts in recent years to install the individual actor as the
asic unit of analysis y ringing in ideas from 2rational choice2 or
games theory. -his tendency has een important in reminding us that
ehind the 2social2 there are many individuals making choices (or failing
to) and acting (or failing to), and thus forcing us to think again aout
the status of the social, which +ar"ists have tended to take for granted.
Post 455A/95
7estern +ar"ism has een attempting to develop a view of the
individual and of individuality which, one may argue, is far richer than that
12
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
of the rational choice mar"ists. -here are etter ways, from within +ar"2s
own work, of addressing the individual and individuality than that of the
analytical mar"ists, whose approach risks degenerating into emptiness
(Howard and *ing vol ## 455B/694).
#t is important for mar"ism to give prominence to the individual precisely
ecause the freedom of real individuals is the end of +ar"2s emancipatory
pro,ect. -he whole point of the victory of the proletariat in the class struggle
is to facilitate the dissolution of the proletariat as a class and of class
division generally. & crucial consideration is that locating the individual
within +ar"2s argument enales us to, hopefully, undercut that deate
etween socialism and lieralism which is showing clear signs of sterility
and stereotype.
#t could e argued that the prominence of the individual in +ar"2s
emancipatory pro,ect could come to displace some traditional nostrums
concerning class, the priority of the social, the pulic realm and collective
action. 1ertainly, locating. +ar"2s communism within the process of
individual emancipation redefines revolutionary politics in such a way as to
leave the e"plicitly collectivist traditions of Social Democracy and
1ommunism far ehind. +ar"ism is developed on its liertarian side. Cne
is certainly ,ustified in scrutinising +ar"2s approach to emancipation of the
individual within the modern political and civil realms so as to reveal that
+ar" did not denigrate individual emancipation ut, instead, demanded the
completion of the process.
+ar", therefore, engages in a positive criti'ue of the ourgeois
individual, as revealed through the rights instituted y the political state
and through the activities within market society. Cne can e"plore +ar"2s
relation to lieralism and stress how ha conceived his pro,ect as that of
transcending rather than re,ecting political lieralism. -ranscending
something implies the retention or preservation of something contained in
that eing transcended.
Cne needs to present the argument in an historical conte"t. -he
e"istence of individualism as an oppositional ideology under the feudal
society shows the emergence of ourgeois market society and capitalist
11
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
social relations. #n this process the individual was emancipated from ties of
personal dependence ut, formally free in a market society, came to
involve the individual in ties of impersonal dependence.
#ndividualism was thus perfectly compatile with the o,ective
dependency of all upon capital (+ar" 4586/4A609). Human eings came to
e entangled in instrumental relationships in which each treats others as
mere means to private ends with the result that all ecome the playthings
of alien powers (+ar" E7 EP+ 4589/BB:).
Dould argues that for +ar" the fundamental entities that compose society
are individuals in these social relations and that 2these individuals ecome
fully social and fully ale to reali(e human possiilities in the course of a
historical development% (Dould 458</4). 3rom Dould2s work one e"tracts a
schema that characterises +ar"2s view of this historical development. #n
the first stage one has personal dependence in community@ in the second
stage one has the personal dependence of individuals comined with the
o,ective dependency of these individuals in a society of individualism and
e"ternal sociality@ thirdly and finally one has free social individuality under
communism (Dould 458</=09). -he reduction of the process of individual
emancipation to the individualism of the second stage is precisely what
+ar" is criticising in favour of the richer conception of individuality in the
third stage. Cne can develop this notion of individuals ecoming playthings
of alien powers further to show how individuals are su,ected to an
astracted, institutional and systemic world which imposes identities upon
individuals and e"ercises an alien control over these individuals. +ar" can,
therefore, e presented as conceptualising and criti'uing the capital
system as systematically denying and destroying the autonomy of the
individual.
Such, indeed, is the logic of arguing that human eings, the true su,ects
creating the social world, come to alienate their powers and have them
turned against them as alien powers. &lienation oth furthers and locks
the process of individual emancipation and it is as such that it is central to
1+
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
mar"ism as an emancipatory pro,ect. &part from anything else, the origin of
7eer2s 2iron cage2, &dorno2s 2administered society2 and 3oucault2s
2panopticon society2 are to e sought in the capital system as an alienated
system of production which denies individuality (1larke 4554/B<<05).
&s a result, the sovereign individual that emerges in the process of
individual emancipation in its ourgeois phase is a parado"ical character
(&ercromie et al 45<A in -urner 4554/A9).
-he capital system, resting upon the alienation of the conscious life
activity of human eings, is predicated upon oth the development and the
dehumanisation of the individual in society. -he progress of the capital
system increasingly e"acerates the conflict etween the development of
all sided individuality that the process of individual emancipation entails
and the possiility of su,ecting these developing faculties to control. &s
individuality ecomes ever richer, so does the development of individuality
come to promise the realisation of fundamental human nature. -his
realisation, however, could not occur under the capital system given its
dependence upon alienated laour (1larke 4554@ 3ores 455:/4450B:).
-he individuality that +ar" proposes in contradistinction to individualism
is not merely a critical reaction to the inade'uacies of ourgeois society.
+ore than this it is a practical e"ploration of human potentialities. 3or +ar",
human eings are in a constant process of ecoming, as they create and
re!create the wealth of, their society and create themselves in the process.
#ndividuals thus ecome what their continuous transformation of society
allows them the freedom to ecome.
-he social and historical foundations of the process of individual
emancipation mean that +ar"2s individuality can also e presented as a
pro,ection of possiilities inherent in modern society under capital rule. -his
may e e"pressed in a numer of forms, depending upon the ways that
individuals create themselves and articulate their e"istence. 1ritically,
1-
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
needs are e"perienced y individuals as human rather than as the wants of
the individual conceived as a private, isolated eing. +ost important of all,
+ar" viewed individuality as pertaining to the free, not merely the social,
individual (3ores 455:/B6A). Simply restoring the links etween individual
and society, which ourgeois relations had torn asunder in making
relationships e"ternal and astract to the individual, does not grasp the
radical and emancipatory nature of +ar"2s argument. #ndividuality, for +ar",
refers to the free and full development of each individual. -his all round
development emerges as the ma,or principle of his view of individuality, and
the one criterion upon which society and its forms could e evaluated.
-his theme of individuality represents a normative ideal and a political
pro,ect in +ar"2s conception of pra"is unifying human eings with the
world.
-here could e no greater incentive for the individuals in any social
order than the aility to control their own conditions of life. ;aturally ..
this is totally denied to them under the rule of capital. Hence the false
opposites which are meant to rationalise and legitimate the e"clusion of
non!individual and non!material incentives. Het, since the actually
e"isting social life process ! from which the individuals cannot e
e"tricated ! is an interpersonal social process, the aility to control the
conditions of life, as an incentive, is inseparaly individual and
collective0social y its innermost determination. &t the same time, it is
also a material and non!material or moral incentive. 3or through the
real involvement of the associated producers in the control of the social
reproductive process it is possile to envisage not only the removal
their formerly fully ,ustified recalcitrance and hostility towards capital2s
alien command over laour, ut, in a positive sense, also the activation
of the individuals2 repressed creative potentialities, ringing ma,or
material enefits to society as a whole as well as to the particular
individuals. ?ut, of course, the importance of this incentive ! which is
feasile only as the regulator of the 2new social life process2 ! is
immeasuraly greater than what could e characterised under the
1.
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
name of 2individual material incentives2. Since, however, the 'uestion of
control is practically pre,udged and must remain an asolute taoo
under the rule of capital, it is precisely the most vital of the incentives
for the life process of the individuals as self!determined autonomous
individuals which cannot appear even for a fleeting moment within the
hori(on of the system2s ideologists. Cn the contrary, the individual
material incentives themselves must e always, conceived and
practically implemented in such a way that they should divide and
actively set the individuals against one another, therey facilitating the
imposition and troule!free management of capital2s alien command
structure.
+es(aros 4559/<6A
+ar" e"plores the material conditions for arguing for the transition to
communism as an historical possiility. 3or individuality, the free individual,
is already in the process of emerging through the material development of
human history. ?efore it is o,ectively and fully realised under communism,
free individuality must already e"ist as an immanent potentiality. #t is this
potentiality that +ar" is concerned to root his communism in.
THE +REE INDIVIDUAL
& comment may also e made on +ar"2s approach to wealth. +ar"2s
communism is not defined y the social ownership of this wealth ut is
eyond the possessive approach that ownership entails. 7ealth is a human
concept for +ar". -hus the degree of individuality and the character of its
e"pression is related to wealth. 3or +ar", wealth comprises individuality.
7ealth is the affirmation and e"pression of essential human powers which
+ar" saw as the end of human social e"istence, and it was as the mode of
production capale of realising free individuality that +ar" presented
communism (&vineri 45A</A= <5@ 3ores 455:/B:80<@ +andel 45A</A8<05).
-he free individual, therefore, is a constantly changing human product.
Human eings as free individuals are constantly transcending themselves
in the process of realising and developing their individuality (Drundmann in
1/
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
Pepper 455B/4B<05). -hey are no longer in a struggle against themselves.
-hus communism is the genuine resolution of the conflict etween
individual and species (E7 EP+ 4589/6=<).
#t is ecause communism is a genuine resolution of the various dualisms
that have characterised historical development ! etween essence and
e"istence, man and man, man and nature, o,ectification and self!
affirmation ! that society is no longer estalished 2as an astraction over
against the individual. -he individual is the social eing2 (E7 EP+
4589/69:). #ndeed, with the free individual there can e no society which is
over against individuals as an astraction, ,ust as there can e no
astraction of self and human nature. Diven this interpretation no individual
can e regarded as a eing completely determined y 2society2, susumed
under a collectivised e"istence as 3emia suggests as +ar"2s position
(3emia 4556).
-his position has implications in determining the nature of socialist
politics as an emancipatory pro,ect. -hus it is not that collectivity created
y capitalist relations, the proletariat, that contains the potential for free
individuality under communism, ut the development of a new individuality
which comes to e articulated with e'ual confidence in oth communalist
and individualist aspects.
+oreover, the power to e"ercise free individuality comes to estalish the
grounds for the continuous development of this individuality, until
eventually the future society no longer presents any ostacles in the way
of the free and full e"pression of individuality.
3ree individuality, therefore, can e properly presented as the central
theme defining mar"ism as an emancipatory pro,ect. +ar"2s fundamental
premise pertains to the e"istence of real individuals in their material
activities (The German Ideology), and the relevance of this premise to the
criti'ue of the condition of the individual under different modes of
production, especially the capital system as an alienated system of
production.
10
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
THE CRITI,UE O+ THE LIBERAL CONCEPTION
& popular view, and one surprisingly well represented amongst scholars
too (3emia 4556@ +er'uior 45<A/9A), is that +ar" had little to say aout the
individual and that what little he did say made the individual a mere product
of social relations. 1ontrary to this view, there are constant references to
the real, the free and the social individual throughout +ar"2s work. +ar"
constantly refers to individuals rather than generally to $people% or $the
people% (+iller 45<B@ +es(aros 4559/5:<) and, more than this, he is
concerned with completing the process of individual emancipation in the
communist society. #t is necessary to point out the many angles from which
+ar" approached the 'uestion of the individual and individual freedom/ 2as
a real, producing and reproducing individual@ as ideological construct, i.e.
role earer@ as historical su,ect@ as part of a change process, i.e.
revolutionary agent@ as a memer of a class@ as an e"emplar of a
theoretical dispute etween +ar" and 2individualist% thinkers@ as an
e"pression of human nature under given conditions@ as an e"pression of
human nature viewed from the long historical perspective2 (3ores
455:/B6A).
Cne should rememer from where +ar" developed his argument. &gainst
the astractions proposed in Hegel2s political philosophy, which in turn
represent astractions in the social world, +ar" sought to recover the
human su,ect (&vineri 45A6/B8). #t is a pro,ect of democratisation in the
sense that +ar" is seeking to trace social forms ack to the demos and,
moreover, is looking to make the demos an active force governing these
social forms instead of eing governed y them. -hus +ar" descries
democracy as 2the essence of all political constitutions2, of socialised man
(E7 1HDS 4589/<<). +ar" seeks to found the political constitution on its
true ground/ 2the demos as a whole%, 2real human eings and the real
people@ not merely implicitly and in essence, ut in e"istence and reality%
(1HDS 4589/<8). #t is thus plain that the materialist premise that +ar"
defines in The German Ideology derives from +ar"2s criti'ue of political
alienation. #t is a criti'ue that developed, in time, to a criti'ue of the capital
system and of alienated laour as the alienation of the conscious life
17
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
activity of human eings. -here are only the individuals constituting the
demos and the social forms they create. +ar" is arguing that these forms
e suordinated to the conscious common control of individuals (The
German Ideology 4555).
Human individuality can e developed to such an e"tent that it ecomes a
consciously determining force ale to aolish those social forms preventing
the full realisation of human capacities and ailities.
-here are, then, strong grounds for arguing that +ar"2s mar"ism is
inherently a liertarian pro,ect concerned with individual freedom. Cne
needs not look outside of mar"ism for the theoretical means to emphasise
the importance of the individual@ the resources are availale within mar"ism
and, indeed, constitute the central theme of +ar"2s argument. 3rankly, this
liertarian concern with real individuals, social control e"ercised y real
individuals, the realisation of free individuality, the reduction of social forms
to individuals as self!conscious, self!determining actors, has not received
the prominence that it merits. +ar"ists could even e accused of fetishi(ing
their own concepts, failing to perceive the lieratory goal that lay ehind
the conceptual apparatus.
-he view that +ar" virtually e"tirpates the individual is to e decisively
re,ected. -here is room for deate as to whether +ar" denied the moral
and ontological ultimacy or primacy of the individual (3emia). 7hat +ar"
certainly did deny is the idea of the individual as an astraction outside of
society and history. -he ultimate and prime individual, if one follows the
logic of 3emia2s assault on +ar"2s determinism, is utterly lacking in content.
Cne is reminded of )oyden Harrison2s comment here on this astract
individual/ 2se"less, raceless, classless, the great ourgeois nothing%.
?ut it can e accepted that there has een a tradition within mar"ism !
perhaps even the dominant one ! that has denigrated the individual as a
ourgeois conception. +ar"ism has conceded possily its greatest asset,
the real individual, to its political and theoretical opponents.
11
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
-his directly challenges the conventional view that +ar" is antithetical to
the individual and individual freedom. He certainly formulates the 'uestion
! and the process leading to individual freedom ! differently to lieral!
individualism. ?ut +ar"2s criticism is that lieral!individualism rationalises
the capital system which itself systemically denies individual freedom.
+ar"2s repudiation of lieral!individualism contains a commitment to free
individuality as a determining and creative force in history.
-he argument that +ar" looks to recover the human su,ect also
challenges those interpretations of mar"ism as a scientific enterprise which
views history as a su,ectless process. History has su,ects and +ar" is
looking to recover them. &nd it is to call for a more nuanced presentation of
+ar"2s class politics.
#t challenges those interpretations of mar"ism which proceed from the
e"istence of classes over aove individuals. Here class forms the real
asis for mar"ist politics. ?ut can mar"ism e a truly emancipatory process
if it only relates to class e"istenceF #n The German Ideology +ar" makes
his argument 'uite e"plicit on this issue. 1lass is a designation imposed
upon individuals y social relations and is to e aolished as a denial of
individual freedom. -here is no denial here aout the centrality of the class
struggle in what is a class divided society. ;o devaluation of the class
struggle in favour of some classless 2true socialist% humanism is implied.
)ather, it is an attempt to underline that +ar"2s class politics are oriented
towards the dissolution of class so as to enale individual freedom.
2Society2 can come to appear and e e"perienced as a 2single su,ect2,
$an astraction vis a vis the individual2, as an entity which accomplishes the
mystery of generating itself (Deneral #ntroduction to the Grundrisse@ $P@
The German Ideology). ?ut this does not mean that individual freedom is to
e defined against society, in some private and monadic sense.
19
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
-his may e the view of lieral individualism. +ar", however, is
concerned to relate the creation of society as an astraction over against
the individual to estrangement, to alienated laour, the instrumental
relationships of ourgeois society, and to the separation of human eings
from each other and hence from their communal essence (CEI). -hus,
whilst human eings have een 2emancipated from ties of personal
dependence the very material grounds of this emancipation ! capitalist
social relations and its hierarchical division of laour ! is at the same time
the root of a systemic o,ective dependency% (+ar" 4586/4A9) in which
social relations which impose an identity and a 2fi"ity2 (The German
Ideology) of occupation upon individuals have escaped human control and
otained an independence in themselves.
-his fi"ation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves
produce into an o,ective power aove us, growing out of our control,
thwarting our e"pectations, ringing to naught our calculations, is one of
the chief factors in historical development up till now. -he social power,
i.e., the multiplied productive force, which arises through the co!
operation of different individuals as it is determined y the division of
laour, appears to these individuals, since their co!operation is not
voluntary ut has come aout naturally, not as their own united power,
ut as an alien force e"isting outside them, of the origin and goal of
which they are ignorant, which they thus cannot control, which on the
contrary passes through a peculiar series of phases and stages
independent of the will and the action of man, nay even eing the prime
governor of these.
+ar" D# 4555 ch 4.
3or +ar", this makes the personal independence which the lieral
ourgeois conception e'uates with freedom 2merely imaginary%, 2merely an
illusion2 (Grundrisse). -his passage makes clear the distinction etween
ourgeois individualism, as the negation of the human ontology within an
+2
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
o,ective dependency, and +ar"%s free social individuality through control
of social relations/
#n the money relation, in the developed system of e"change (and this
semlance seduces the democrats), the ties of personal dependence, of
distinctions of lood, education, etc. are in fact e"ploded, ripped up (at least,
personal ties all appear as personal relations)@ and individuals seem
independent (this is an independence which is at ottom merely an illusion,
and it is more correctly called indifference), free to collide with one
another and to engage in e"change within this freedom@ ut they appear
thus only for someone who astracts from the conditions, the conditions o%
e!istence within which these individuals enter into contact (and these
conditions, in turn, are independent of the individuals and, although
created y society, appear as if they were natural conditions, not
controllale y individuals). -he definedness of individuals, which in the
former case appears as a personal restriction of the individual y another,
appears in the latter case as developed into an o,ective restriction of the
individual y relations independent of him and sufficient unto themselves.
(Since the single individual cannot strip away his personal definition, ut
may very well overcome and master e"ternal relations, his freedom seems
to e greater in case B. & closer e"amination of these e"ternal relations,
these conditions, shows, however, that it is impossile for the individuals
of a class etc. to overcome them en masse without destroying them. &
particular individual may y chance get on top of these relations, ut the
mass of those under their rule cannot, since their mere e"istence
e"presses suordination, the necessary suordination of the mass of
individuals.) -hese e"ternal relations are very far from eing an aolition of
2relations of dependence2@ they are rather the dissolution of these relations
into a general form@ they are merely the elaoration and emergence of the
general %oundation of the relations of personal dependence. Here also
individuals come into connection with one another only in determined ways.
-hese ob&ecti'e dependency relations also appear, in antithesis to those o%
personal dependence (the o,ective dependency relation is nothing more
than social relations which have ecome independent and now enter into
+1
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
opposition to the seemingly independent individuals@ i.e. the reciprocal
relations of production separated from and autonomous of individuals) in
such a way that individuals are now ruled y abstractions, whereas earlier
they depended on one another. -he astraction, or idea, however, is
nothing more than the theoretical e"pression of those material relations
which are their lord and master.
+ar" Dr ;4 4586
So consistent and thorough is +ar"2s criti'ue of the lieral ourgeois
conception and the individual under ourgeois society that it is understood
how easily, though facilely, it can e argued that +ar" denigrated individual
freedom. #n (n the )e#ish *uestion, however, +ar" clearly affirms
ourgeois emancipation as an advance presaging further advance. +ar"
did not denigrate individual freedom and political and civil rights, he
criticised them. -his criticism, however, was oriented towards taking the
process of individual emancipation further. Cnly y acknowledging political
and civil individualism as an emancipation could +ar" make the criticisms
of ourgeois society that he does (-urner 4554/A9).
-he task is to e"amine +ar"2s criti'ue of political emancipation in such a
way as to indicate how +ar" sought to realise the universalistic character
of citi(enship through human emancipation. 1ommunism is not anti! ut
post!lieral democracy and assumes the fullest development of
emancipation within the astraction of the political state. +ar" thus seeks
the transcendence not the repudiation of political emancipation. -he point
that his criticism is concerned to make is that the 2astract individual2
whose political and civil rights lieral!individualism celerates as freedom
is the representation of a su,ect who e"ists not in real society taut in the
astract realm of the state (-urner 4554/AA).
+ar" is to e credited with having formulated a conception of the human
eing as a real individual developing and, indeed, self!developing through
history through their practical transformation of their social world. +ar" has
overcome the old materialism which made human eings react to
sensations. He has also overcome the old idealism which would, in *antian
++
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
manner, impose a categorical imperative as an impotent moral ought.
#nstead, +ar" has developed an active materialism driven y the material
mediations of laour and its forms.
THE REALM O+ +REEDOM
+ar" refers to the reduction of necessary laour and hence the
corresponding increase in free time at the disposal of human eings as
enaling human eings to develop freely and fully as individuals in the realm
of freedom (1apital # +es(aros 4559/<69). ?y the $realm of freedom%, +ar"
means a free society in which, as distinct from the realm of necessity, the
greatest possile amount of time is rought under the control of each
individual as control over their life. -he freedom of individuals is thus defined
in contradistinction to their enslavement as individuals under the realm of
necessity. 3reedom thus means the overcoming of the artificial, o,ective
necessity of the capital system. -he material condition for freedom is the
aility to reduce the time e"pended upon necessary laour. -his reduction
creates free time for the individual. Human self!determination thus involves
the possiility for individuals to control and use time for their self!
development as individuals apart from necessary laour.
-he emphasis upon free individuality represents a shift within the dominant
perspectives of mar"ism and, moreover, is a reak with the collectivist modes
of thought and organisation in socialism generally. -hese perspectives came to
stress the collectivist aspects of life to the virtual e"clusion of the individualist
character of e"istence. Such a stress carried with it ovious tendencies to
estalish 2society% again as an astraction over against the individual. 3rom the
perspective of contemporary political developments, it is significant that the
reaction against socialism towards a privatising conservatism could e
propagated in terms of the freedom of the individual. -heoretically and
politically socialism somewhere lost the individual and lost +ar"2s premise of
proceeding from real individuals. #n the attempt to overcome ourgeois
individualism and its deleterious social conse'uences, the stick could e ent
too far ack. -he repositioning of mar"ism within the historical process of
individual emancipation offers a way past the impasse into which socialism has
fallen. &nd central to this repositioning is +ar"2s idea of free individuality as the
+-
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
end of the historical process. +ar"2s argument is that this free individuality can
only e attained under communism.
#t is no e"aggeration to argue that some dominant positions within mar"ism
have viewed the individual as an ostacle to the creation of a socialist society.
Cne may 'uote Stalin for the clearest instance of how far mar"ism lost touch
with the individual and with individuality.
-he point is that +ar"ism and &narchism are uilt upon entirely different
principles, in spite of the fact that oth come into the arena of the struggle
under the flag of Socialism. -he cornerstone of &narchism is the individual,
whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for
the emancipation of the masses, the collective ody. &ccording to the
tenets of &narchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossile until the
individual is emancipated. &ccordingly, its slogan is 2Everything for the
individual%. -he cornerstone of +ar"ism, however, is the masses, whose
emancipation, according to its tenets of +ar"ism, the emancipation of the
individual is impossile until the masses are emancipated. &ccordingly, its
slogan is 2Everything for the masses2. /
Stalin &narchism or Socialism +oscow 459B/504:
3or +ar", however, free individuality is the highest stage of communism, its
very content and raison d+etre. #t is proposed, therefore, to reinstate the
individual and the process of individual emancipation as integral to +ar"2s
emancipatory pro,ect and as part of the humanist, normative dimension of this
pro,ect.
#t is when faced with the moral wasteland of the totalitarian realisations of
mar"ism that one needs to recover the individual and insist that the universal
cannot e realised without the individual2 (*earney 45<A/B69). &nd it needs also
to e demonstrated that +ar"2s communist ideal in no way implies the
suordination of the individual to the collective or to some homogeneous
species eing.
+.
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
&s *olakowski points out/
-he restoration of man2s full humanity, removing the tension etween
individual aspirations and the collective interest, does not imply a denial on
+ar"%s part of the life and freedom of the individual. #t has een a common
misinterpretation y oth +ar"ists and anti!+ar"ists to suppose that he
regarded human eings merely as specimens of social classes, and that
the 2restoration of their species essence2 meant the annihilation of
individuality or its reduction to a common social nature. Cn this view,
individuality has no place in +ar"ist doctrine e"cept as an ostacle in the
way of society attaining to homogeneous unity. ;o such doctrine, however,
can e discerned from The German Ideology, in which +ar" distinguishes,
as a fact of history, etween the individual and the contingent nature of life.
*olakowski 458< vol # 4A4
+ar"2s communism resolves the dichotomy etween individual and society.
-he freedom of the individual is possile only through social relations enaling
the individual to relate fully and freely to other individuals constituting the social
group (+arcovic 455:).
3or the free and full development of the powers of the individual, in various
directions, through the development of the productive powers (1ohen 455:)
was the very purpose inscried at the heart of +ar"2s emancipatory pro,ect.
-his free and full development of each and all actually is human emancipation
in general. #t is when one actually determines to present free individuality as the
end of +ar" pro,ect that one can understand why +ar" does re,ect the lieral
ourgeois conception of the individual. ?eginning with the criti'ue of lieral
individualism can encourage the false impression that +ar" is anti!individual,
especially given the domination of lieral conceptions which e'uate individual
freedom with ourgeois society.
+ar"2s emancipatory pro,ect patently is not e"hausted y the development of
the productive forces and their conscious socialisation. -his development of the
+/
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
productive forces is thus the development of the productive potential of society
for the displacement of time away from necessity and towards freedom. -he
development of the productive forces estalishes, therefore, the material
conditions for human enrichment, wealth.
-he truly human man, for +ar", must e a total, integrated, harmonious
life, which is necessarily a fully social life in a community of integrated,
harmonious men.
*amenka 45<B
&s to the material conditions, one can refer to +ar"2s view that the more that
human eings know and control 2the more remote natural conse'uences of
production, the more will they 2not only feel, ut also know themselves to e
one with nature2 (1apital ### <4B).
-his entire argument re'uires the fullest elaoration. 3or this, one may refer
to 3ores (455:). Cf concern here is the implications of this centrality of
individual emancipation and free individuality within mar"ism as an
emancipatory pro,ect. -he points made here are intended to indicate why, given
the history of mar"ism, given the need to re,uvenate socialism, and given the
ease with which the individual has een appropriated for reactionary political
pro,ects, there is a need to make good the loss of the individual. -he call to
re,uvenate mar"ism is an old one. ?ut, in so far as regaining or reinventing or
reconstituting mar"ism is thought important, one may suggest no etter starting
point than the strong theme of the emancipation of real individuals and the
commitment to free individuality that runs right throughout +ar". -his recovery
of the individual and of the process of individual emancipation puts mar"ism
ack on the right track.
Cne should conclude with this 'uote from .ukacs
#t will e impossile to redirect the energies of commercial society toward an
organised pra"is leading to the enhancement of human life unless the
economic is seen as the o,ect of human teleological design. -he force of
+0
Dr Peter Critchley Individualism and Individuality
individuality is limited, for the removal of the enslaving character of the
division of laour cannot e overturned y the individual acting alone.
.ukacs 4554/4==
-he passage makes perfect sense in the light of the points estalished in the
aove argument. 7hat may stimulate further comment is the argument that the
economic is to e conceived as 2the o,ect of human teleological design2.
+7