Hey, Maggie! Some good and fair points above. I concede that individualism is, no doubt, a vast social theory with much more to unpack than what I’ve done here. In fact, I make it clear early on I intend to respond to merely one consequence of individualism: the idea that dependence on others is often understood as a kind of weakness. That’s the single thing I am hoping to challenge, and I challenge it because I’d like, instead, to show that dependence is not only an asset to our individual and common thriving, but also a more accurate understanding of the interconnected world we live in. In short, we may be free, but we’re also contingent. I think thriving is more possible for more people when we work together, and we work together best when we understand ourselves as connected. 2020 seems (to me) to be making this point loud and clear.

I’m sure I haven’t made any claims about whether humans are born free, and certainly haven’t tried to suggest that the whole of our freedom is expressed in mask patterns. I suspect you and I might disagree about how to define freedom — which could be fun to discuss in depth. I, for example, think we’re born with equal parts agency and contingency, and I think our freedom is best expressed in service to others. What do you think? And how would you define freedom, if you understand this to be the innate condition humans are born into?

Thanks for reading!

One cannot and should not exist without the other: and yes, I mean inherent human freedom (not individuality.) But just as an Individualist is wrong to deny their connectedness to others, so too is a Solidarity-er to deny inherent human freedom. The writer portrays Individualism as selfishness, and freedom as apathy for others—which fits perfectly well within her agenda and narrative—but neglects to consider that this paradox must and will always exist. We are free to act with solidarity (in the ways that our individual selves deem appropriate) BECAUSE we exist in solidarity as free people. Any interference in that chain (forcing others to conform/breaching the integrity of the community—both of which are equally egregious) defies nature, whether it’s inherent or of a construct.

For fear of sounding argumentative, I find it laughable to act like human freedom extends only so far as to the colors we choose for our mask.

Nevertheless, although we may disagree, I appreciate reading your perspective. As always, with an open mind.