{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013448607108549471, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.472049689440993, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A CRITIQUE OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SUBJECT: TOWARDS RELATIONAL INDIVIDUALISM

The bifurcation between holism and individualism is essential to understand the contemporary debate in political theory. In this article I argued that both traditional and modern societies have elements of holism and individualism. I also argued that individualism is not radically opposed to holism because it is impossible to imagine a human society without authority, tradition, and taboos. Moreover, the pre-theoretical norms and values of holist societies have rational foundation within a certain context. Thus, it is possible to imagine an individualist society which is grounded in a holist social ontology. I argued that collectivist and tribal societies are not totally opposed to individual liberty since one of the morally relevant advantages of rationality is to foster cordial relations with others. I argued that Habermas’s intersubjective communicative scheme is appropriate to account for the pre-theoretical norms and values of holist societies