The paradox of individual action

part I

by author

An elderly man is living in my neighborhood. He is probably in his eighties. Each morning, around 9 am, he walks along the small river close by with his 4-wheeled walker. Hanging on the walker is an empty plastic bag from Lidl. In his right hand, he carries a gripper. Whenever he comes across a piece of garbage (and there is a lot of garbage around), he stops, grabs the trash with his gripper, places it in the plastic bag, and keeps walking a few more steps until he arrives at the next piece of garbage. Each day. Every day. Winter, summer, storm, and rain.

As an academic working in the field of sustainability, constantly confronted with the immensity of the problems we face, I can't help to wonder: do his actions matter? Or is he just a cute old man acting cutely?

The question of individual action matters is usually answered as follows:

Antagonists

• Individual action is a waste of time; we need system change.

• Individuals don't cause the problems; it's big cooperations, the oil industry, and a few super-rich people. They are the ones that need to change.

• An individual's Carbon Footprint is so low compared to the industry that it doesn't make sense to waste energy on this.

• You are the system. Individuals can't act sustainably because they are inherently part of an unsustainable system.

Proponents

• Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead.

• "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi.

• "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito." - Dalai Lama.

• "The personal is political." - Carol Hanisch.

• If you act sustainably as an individual, you signal virtues that others might then copy.

• If every individual acted sustainably, then we wouldn't have those problems in the first place.

• You are the system. When individuals act sustainably, the whole system transforms.

Both sides have valid points, and if you lean towards one side or the other depends primarily on your worldview. A rather mechanistic worldview will make it more likely that you don't propose individual action, and a rather relational worldview will make it more likely that you endorse individual action.

I strongly advocate individual action.

But instead of going into the details of the antagonists and the proponents, I would like to question if the debate might be superfluous when we re-consider the idea of the individual.

Individual action presupposes that there is an individual that can take action. My research on relational paradigms that are grounded in process philosophy, systems thinking, ecology, and indigenous knowledges makes me question this assumption.

In this week's and the following week's articles, I will offer a different understanding of individual action.

We can distinguish between four different perspectives of the individual: the individual, the dividual, and the transindividual and - as Layman Pascal recently pointed out - the interindividual.

So for today, let's look at those four different perspectives.

Individual

An individual describes a person and how they think and act as a closed entity that physically ends at the skin and metaphysically ends at the brain circuits. An individual's organs are separate inside their skin. As an individual, we are different from our surroundings and other beings, both physically and in a deeper sense. Being an individual allows us to collaborate with other individuals, act autonomously, and have our own agency.

Dividual

A dividual means that we are not just ourselves but many selves all working together. It's like having a symphony or a mix of different sounds that make up who we are.

The term was primarily introduced by the anthropologist Marilyn Strathern. In her influential book "The Gender of the Gift" (1988), Strathern utilized the concept of the "dividual" to analyze social and kinship structures in Melanesian societies, particularly in Papua New Guinea.

Strathern's understanding of the dividual challenges the Western notion of the individual as a self-contained entity with fixed boundaries. Instead, she emphasizes the relational and interconnected aspects of personhood, where individuals are seen as composed of multiple social relationships and connections. In her terms, the dividual is 'a person constitutive of relationships.

According to the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze, the dividual challenges traditional notions of individuality by emphasizing the multiplicity and fluidity of identities. He argued that the dividual is not a fixed, unified subject but a collection of different and interconnected elements. He viewed individuals as composed of various social, cultural, and political forces that shape and influence their identities. Instead of focusing solely on individual characteristics or traits, Deleuze emphasized the relational aspects of identity formation.

The dividual, for Deleuze, exists within a network of social and power relations. These relations are dynamic and constantly changing, allowing individuals to adopt multiple identities or be influenced by different social contexts.

Many scholars today join Deleuze and Strathern's understanding of the Dividual. For example, the biologist and philosopher Andreas Weber says that "living agents bring each other into being by establishing relationships." The Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh coined the term interbeing as the quality of the Dividual, which was also picked up and made prominent by the philosopher Charles Eisenstein.

The concept of the dividual challenges the idea of a stable, self-contained individual and highlights the interplay between subjectivity and the external forces that shape it. It underscores the complexity and multiplicity of human identity, moving beyond the notion of a singular, fixed individual and acknowledging our existence's diverse and fluid nature.

We can also experience our dividual-ity. Depending on the situation, different parts of ourselves pretending to be the main person we think of as ourselves. Our thoughts and feelings are often all over the place; they come from different parts of us that work together or sometimes fight with each other. With sufficient self-awareness, we begin to see that we are made up of many different selves forming a unique whole or self - a dividual.

Transindividual

A transindividual is a term coined by French philosopher Gilbert Simondon to describe the interconnected and transformative nature of human existence. It refers to the idea that individuals are not isolated and independent entities but are deeply connected to others and their environment.

In Simondon's view, the transindividual represents the collective and dynamic aspects of being. It emphasizes the ongoing processes of individuation, where individuals develop and define themselves through their interactions with others and the broader social and cultural context.

The concept of the transindividual challenges the notion of a fixed and self-contained individual. Instead, it highlights the relational nature of human existence and the constant exchange of information, effects, and potentials between individuals and their surroundings.

Essentially, a transindividual recognizes that our identities, experiences, and growth are shaped by our connections and interactions with others. It underscores the interconnectedness and interdependency of individuals within a complex network of relationships, emphasizing the transformative nature of existence.

The difference between a Dividual and a Transindividual is that dividuality emphasizes the coexistence and interplay of multiple selves within an individual. At the same time, transindividuality focuses on the interconnectedness and transformative nature of individuals within a broader network of relationships and interactions.

Interdividual

According to Layman Pascal, the Interdividual synergizes three other words: individuality, dividuality & interbeing. According to him, the interdividual is about how we become more connected and creative when we join forces with others. It's like a continuous flow of ideas and actions that emerge when we harmonize and communicate well. It's a bit like a shared space where we can process our thoughts and emotions together without suppressing anyone's voice. It's a space where new ideas and actions can come up and don't belong to just one person or group.

This kind of interdividuality seems to make individuals stand out more and have their own unique qualities. It might encourage them to take on specific roles as the group explores different possibilities. It's interesting because it brings together growth, a way of seeing things as interconnected, and a sense of spirituality that embraces both individual and collective perspectives.

Even more fascinating is that this interdividuality values our physical bodies and our environment. It's about understanding ourselves as part of a larger interconnected web of digital, social, and neural networks that shape our lives in today's world. It also relates to ancient cultural patterns where people found ways to come together, create meaningful rituals, and work on projects that truly mattered to them.

Looking at the above definitions, an "interdividual" perspective might suggest a deeper understanding of how individuals both interact with others and also contain various selves or dimensions within themselves. The interdividual recognizes the ways in which our interactions with others shape and influence our internal selves and how our internal selves, in turn, influence our interactions with others.

Before concluding, I will look at the characteristics we need to integrate into an understanding of an indi-, di-, trans- or interdi-vidual—next time.