What is monist atomism?

A way of thinking about society in terms of only two things, separate individuals and a single whole that binds them (such as the nation), while overlooking the overlapping groups in between: families, workplaces, religions, localities. The book Plurality coined the name to contrast this view with its own position.

You are probably an employee of some company, a resident of some town, a member of some family, and part of a circle of friends who share a hobby. Yet in an election or at a government office, you are counted only as "one individual". The groups in between are almost invisible to the system. Monist atomism is the name the book ⿻ Plurality gives to this view that sees only the individual and the whole.

In short

Monist atomism is a view of society as made up of only two things: individual people, and the nation as a whole (or the world as a whole). "Atom" means something that cannot be divided further; here it refers to the individual person. "Monist" means that there is just one whole that binds them together.

The book criticizes this view for overlooking the overlapping groups in between, such as families, workplaces, religions and localities. It is a term the book coined to contrast with its own position (Plurality, written with the symbol ⿻) [1].

For example

The book names three institutions at the foundation of modern social organization as the sharpest examples of this view: "Three foundational institutions of modern social organization represent this structure most sharply: property, identity and voting" [2].

Voting: one person, one vote. "In most liberal democracies, the principle of 'one-person-one-vote' is viewed as a sacred core of the democratic process", with the idea "that numerical majorities (or in some cases supermajorities) should prevail regardless of the social composition of groups". The book writes that this contrasts with decision-making structures through most of history, "including ones that gave voice to a range of social groups, from guilds to religious communities to ethnic groups" [3].

Identity: documents issued by the state. Birth registration, passports and national identity cards treat people not on the basis of "who they know" or "where they fit", but as abstract individuals in relation to the state. The book calls this "WEIRD" (Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic) universalism, which "broke with the social embedding of identity" [4].

Property: private ownership and the joint stock company. "Most homes are owned by a single individual or family", and "Most non-governmental collective ownership takes the form of a standard joint stock company governed by the principle of one-share-one-vote and the maximization of shareholder value". The book says this, too, contrasts with the property regimes of most human societies through history [5].

In more detail

A common root of two ideologies

Chapter 3-0 of the book names two current visions of the future: technocracy (the idea that a small number of experts should manage society through technology) and libertarianism (the idea of freeing individuals from the state as much as possible). The two are opposites on whether authority should rest with the whole or with the individual. But, according to the book, they share a common element: "both consider the world to be made up of atoms (viz. individuals) and a social whole, a view we call 'monist atomism'" [1].

Both, the book writes, "miss the core idea of ⿻ 數位 Plurality, that intersecting diverse social groups and the diverse and collaborative people whose identities are constituted by these intersections are the core fabric of the social world" [1].

Also a way of seeing science

Chapter 3-1 describes this not only as a view of society but as a view of science: "the belief that a universal set of laws operating on an fundamental set of atoms is the best way to understand the world" [6].

The book also acknowledges this view's successes. Newton's mechanics, Darwin's theory of evolution, economics and Turing's universal computer achieved great things under it. And "scientific management" (Taylorism) in factories and high modernism in architecture supported technocracy, the book writes [6].

The book then argues that 20th-century mathematics, physics, biology and neuroscience moved beyond this view, turning to complexity, properties that emerge from below, multiple levels of organization and causation in many directions. ⿻ applies this to human society, the book says [7]. Drawing on the sociologist Mark Granovetter, the book sums it up: "There is no basic individual atom; personal identity fundamentally arises from social relationships and connections. Nor is there any fixed collective or even set of collectives: social groups do and must constantly shift and reconfigure" [8].

Why modern institutions took this shape

According to chapter 3-2, this regime began to develop during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, when commons-based property and community-based identity, among other things, "were swept away for the 'rationality' and 'modernity' of what became the modern state". It spread across the world in the 19th century and peaked in the mid-20th century, the book writes [9].

The book does not simply call this bad. Its simplicity allowed it to scale up, and let people from different backgrounds quickly understand each other. Distributing pensions and unemployment benefits widely required flat, clear lists of recipients [10].

Chapter 3-3 adds another diagnosis. Liberal democracies have formally committed to pluralism, but "almost every country has been forced by the limits of available information systems to homogenize and simplify social institutions in a monist atomist mold that runs into direct conflict with such values". Overcoming this limit with the power of information technology is a central hope of ⿻, the book writes [11].

What is debated

It is not a philosophy that denies the individual. Citing the sociologist Georg Simmel, the book writes that a person's individuality arises from belonging to many different groups. What the book criticizes is not the individual as such, but treating the individual as an indivisible starting point [12]. → Intersectional identity
Is the analogy stretched too far? In notes on the pre-publication web version of the book (December 2023), Jeffrey Fossett wrote that the science discussion in chapter 3-1 might be too broad in scope. Fossett also asks whether ⿻ social science should go as far as making the production of knowledge itself (the mechanisms that turn expertise into a tool of governance) plural and democratic [13]. The book itself cautions against taking such analogies "too literally or universally" [14].
Buterin's reading. In his review, Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Ethereum, sums up much of the ⿻ worldview as accepting that no single model or method can fully explain the world. It is a reading in which many models, each useful in its own setting, are stitched together [15].
The names differ between versions. In the pre-publication version Fossett read, the two contrasting worldviews were called "Abundance Technocracy" and "Entrepreneurial Sovereignty" [13]. In the current version they are "Technocracy" and "Libertarianism".

Where it fits in Plurality

The term appears in chapter 3-0 as the counterpart to the definition of ⿻ [1]. → ⿻ Plurality, collaboration across social difference

In chapter 3-1 it is extended to a view of science, and presented as the common root of technocracy and libertarianism [6]. → Three paths

In chapter 3-2 it is applied to the three institutions of property, identity and voting. The book then introduces Henry George, Simmel, John Dewey and Norbert Wiener as thinkers who went beyond it [2]. → Intersectional identity, emergent publics, supermodularity, The Lost Dao

Later in the book there are chapters that roughly match these three institutions: Identity and Personhood, Property and Contract and ⿻ Voting. This pairing, however, is not stated by the book; it is this article's own arrangement.

In the concluding chapter 7-1, the book asks whether we should "liberate individuals to be atomistic agents, free of constraints or responsibilities", or "allow technologists to solve our problems, plan our future", and answers: "We say, loudly and clearly, neither!" [16].

Sources

Plurality, 3-0 "What is ⿻?" — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-0/eng/ ［CC0］
Plurality, 3-2 "Connected Society", section "Limits of Modernity" — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-2/eng/ ［CC0］
Same, subsection "Voting" — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-2/eng/ ［CC0］
Same, subsection "Identity" — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-2/eng/ ［CC0］
Same, subsection "Property" — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-2/eng/ ［CC0］
Plurality, 3-1 "Living in a ⿻ World", opening — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-1/eng/ ［CC0］
Same, sections "Mathematics", "Physics", "Biology" and "Neuroscience" — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-1/eng/ ［CC0］
Same, section "From science to society" — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-1/eng/ ［CC0］
Plurality, 3-2 "Connected Society", the paragraphs after "Voting" — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-2/eng/ ［CC0］
Same, end of the section "Limits of Modernity" — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-2/eng/ ［CC0］
Plurality, 3-3 "The Lost Dao", opening — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-3/eng/ ［CC0］
Plurality, 3-2, section "Georg Simmel and the intersectional (in)dividual" — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-2/eng/ ［CC0］
Jeffrey Fossett, "Notes on the Plurality Book" (2023-12-27) — https://jeffreyfossett.com/2023/12/27/notes-on-plurality-book.html
Plurality, 3-1 "Living in a ⿻ World", sixth paragraph — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/3-1/eng/ ［CC0］
Vitalik Buterin, "Plurality philosophy in an incredibly oversized nutshell" (2024-08-21) — https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/08/21/plurality.html
Plurality, 7-1 "Conclusion" — https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/7-1/eng/ ［CC0］

We welcome error reports and questions ("What is…?"). Submissions become public issues.

Report an error in this article ・ Ask a question