Plural Individuation

This set of writings is mostly based upon our own experience as a system. Should you have different opinions, that is perfectly understandable. We do hope that it serves its purpose, though.

Individuation as philosophical concept

    Individuation, for the purpose of this essay, is the idea of the awareness of separation within a plural group. It emphasises individual identity within a plural group, rather than mere membership. It is seeing a system as an association of separate entities with their own goals and interests, rather than an organism which works as one.
Individuation in practice
    As groups come to know themselves as individuals within a multiple system, rather than as an ersatz ‘single person’, differences become more apparent. They have moved from seeing themselves as an ‘I’ to a ‘we', or from an organism to an association.

    We do not think that it is particularly healthy for many non-median groups with many active fronters to continue to see or conduct themselves as a single person willingly (not by means of ‘behaviour filters’ or enculturation) in situations in which it is unnecessary. We are not talking about situations in which it would be harmful for the collective to act as themselves, but times at which it would probably be safe to act as individuals. That is because it implies, to us, that it is preferable to suppress individuation in order to pretend to be ‘normal’, even in situations in which it is not warranted, and that expressing plurality is inherently ‘worse’.

Individuation in social interactions as a system

    The idea of individuation is important to social interactions with plural groups because of the group’s own level of individuation, along with the other party’s recognition of the group’s individuation. Groups whose members are extremely individuated from each other are more likely to act differently socially, speaking in different voices, discussing different interests and making it extremely clear when they are present. This often makes it much easier for those speaking to them to recognise the system-members as discrete individuals, rather than a ‘single person with many facets’.

    Some groups encounter singlets (or other plural systems who have not become accustomed to themselves) who seem to treat them as though they are a ‘single person with many facets’, failing to use plural pronouns (‘You should be proud of yourself’ to an entire system with differentiated members, which has happened to us a few times) and failing to recognise on a deeper level that the members of a system can be as separate as people occupying different bodies. For example, these people will assume that everyone in the system shares the same interests, emotional reactions, ideas, opinions and tastes, when that is not necessarily what is going on. To them, there may as well be a ‘multi-faceted singlet’ there, simply using different names and different voices. The system is interpreted as an organism, rather than an association. Individuals are merely organs, rather than separate entities.

    Concerning those who are just coming to terms with a system’s plurality, such errors are typical and understandable (and should be treated with patience), but in the case of those who have been aware of a system for an extended period of time, such behaviour seems disrespectful. Keep in mind that this does not refer to idle errors, which happen occasionally (people are fallible) but repeated behaviour.