Hyper-Individualism & the Entrepreneurial Self
Is there a version of the individual that can serve as the grounds for a more collectivist US-American culture? We turn to contemporary German Philosopher Byung-Chul Han for direction.
American individualism has changed over time, as I’ve written about in The Production of American Individualism. It has gone from one extreme to the other: the rugged individualism that underpins the settler-colonial project (Manifest Destiny and Westward expansion) becomes the non-conformist and politically rebellious subject at the heart of anti-colonial and anti-war activism during the late 1960s and early 1970s protest era. The good news is that individualism in the US-American context is quite adaptable. Since it is becoming increasingly clear that to meet today’s challenges, we need a more collectivist, less self-interested individual, the question becomes: Is there a version of the individual that can serve as the grounds for a more collectivist American culture?
Byung-Chul Han’s Hyper-Individualism & the Entrepreneurial Self
On the face of it, it doesn’t seem like we are moving in that direction. Philosopher Byung-Chul Han provides an insightful critique of individualism and its psycho-political effects in his book "Psycho-Politics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power." His work provides a sharp diagnosis of the pathologies underlying contemporary hyper-individualism.
Han argues that neoliberal capitalism has led to a new form of individualism that is very different from the classical liberal notion of the autonomous, free individual. Instead of being oppressed by external disciplinary powers, the neoliberal subject is compelled to constantly optimize, enhance and exploit themselves. In the era of multiple side-hustles, where our every experience and creation is grist for the social-media mill, this rings true.
Where we were once exploited by the bosses, now we exploit ourselves in the name of the bosses, and this self-exploitation now reaches into the most private and intimate aspects of our lives. Internalizing our own oppressions is not particularly new, but what is new is the level of intimacy. How deep down our throats this reaches... We are being compelled to put on display the soft mushy innards of our psyches, for food.
Han contends that this excessive individualism paradoxically leads to a new form of conformity, where everyone strives to be an entrepreneur, to be free and different, but ends up becoming the same - exhausted subjects caught in cycles of compulsive work, consumption and self-optimization. That we are compelled to be unique and different, but all in the same ways, is a difference that makes no difference in the end.
The political 'rub is that the more we are drawn to others because we share massive common challenges, challenges that cannot be addressed at the individual scale, the more we are compelled to assert our boss-babe hun superiorities or our bio-hacked optimized bro-hood, to set ourselves apart from these others in our midsts. Han doesn’t point this out, but I will: there are girl and boy versions of the entrepreneurial hyper-individualist self, because heteronormativity is capitalism’s linch-pin. In either case, we are led to believe that being better than others is how we succeed, is how we survive and thrive, when in reality we will only become better with others.
According to Han, this new "entrepreneurial self" is driven by an internalized compulsion towards performance, achievement and self-exploitation in the pursuit of success and gratification. Han sees this as a more pernicious form of domination, where the individual becomes an "obedience-training being" subjugated to their own desires and drives. The process of subjugation, of putting one’s own self under erasure to become an object for an Other is well described in decades of feminist philosophy, theory, and literature. For example, Simone de Beauvoir details the paradox at the heart of becoming woman - that we must elide our transcendence if we are to be recognized as viable ‘subjects’. Often, masculinist patriarchal desires are so deeply entrenched in us that we think of them as our own, to the extent that we can we oblivious to our own desires and drives.
Finally, Han connects this to the rise of mental illnesses like depression, burnout and attention deficit disorders, which he sees as pathological byproducts of the psycho-political regime of neoliberal individualism that allows no rest or limits. Again, ask feminist about the pathologizing of what are really appropriate responses to our very personalized oppressions as hysteria and depression. But yes, now that we are all feeling it, it may be time to pay attention.
In the end, his critique highlights how this brand of individualism, rather than fostering true freedom and self-determination, instead produces isolated, indebted, over-worked and psychically fragmented subjects constantly struggling to meet externally-imposed ideals of success. Han calls for developing an alternative "philosophy of the self" that can resist this psycho-political domination and allow for more restful, contemplative and community-oriented modes of being. He proposes a shift towards practices that allow for deep, contemplative attention and foster community connections. This could involve embracing leisure, reducing constant stimulation, and prioritizing collective well-being over individual performance.
I get the sense that this is easier said than done. We are not rewarded for slowing down, becoming more contemplative or community oriented. To do this is to go against a lot of social pressure to produce and be happy. I’m wondering how you, dear readers, have managed to steal away some time and energy to slow down and figure out what really matters. I want to hear from you below.