Where Feet Tread: Desire Paths and the Reconciling of Individualism and Collectivism

By Aidan Simardone

Also available as a downloadable/printable PDF (A4 size).

As much as COVID-19 has kept us inside, it has brought us out. When indoor gatherings disappeared in 2020, walking helped kill time. Even as restrictions lift, many of us continue our aimless journeys. It is one of the few joys of the pandemic.

When the pandemic began, sidewalks were not prepared for social distancing. Soon, a custom developed where one person would move from the sidewalk onto a front lawn, yielding to the other. As social habits changed, so did the land. Desire paths—paths created from the erosion of foot traffic—emerged parallel to sidewalks, allowing uninterrupted walking.

Desire paths crop up everywhere: parks, roundabouts, and university campuses. Their function is clear, whether getting us faster from A to B, ensuring social distancing, or avoiding a spooky area. Yet they seem spontaneous. Unlike sidewalks, there is no city planner or corporate architect. Nor do they mirror leftist agitation. People do not have meetings about or protest for desire paths. Desire paths are not created for class consciousness, communism, or revolution. Rather, they emerge from the individual and immediate interests of pedestrians.

This individual benefit is not the same as the capitalist private accumulation we usually associate with “individualism.” Each person who treads erodes the ground, creating a clearer path for others to use. This is an individualism against the status quo—a micro-rebellion against planners and private property. More than an alternate pathway, desire paths symbolize the reconciliation of individualism and collectivism.

Individualism and collectivism? The two seem opposed. Leftists often see individualism as synonymous with capitalism, while individualist anarchists denounce Marxism and anarcho-communism as subordinating the individual. This betrays both sides’ theorists. Individualism is found in Karl Marx’s work. Among individualist anarchists like Max Stirner, the individual cannot "be" without collective action.

So too, desire paths emerge from individual motives and create new paths for everyone’s enjoyment.

Capitalism = Individualism?

“There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women.” So proclaimed Margaret Thatcher in 1987. In the name of individual freedom, worker rights and social services were cut. While laughable now, Thatcher’s rhetoric was effective, earning her high levels of support. Today the political establishment continues to embrace the ideology that capitalism equals individualism.

Despite leftists adopting Marx’s call for “the ruthless criticism of the existing order,” they too have readily accepted Thatcher’s statement. The only difference is whereas neoliberals believe individualism is good because it is part of capitalism, for leftists it is bad for the same reason. Rather than challenge the presumption that capitalism guarantees individualism, the left has embraced it.

Individualism has become the left’s punching bag. This is most evident with COVID. The spread of COVID is blamed on the “the incessant promotion of individualism and the lowest social instincts by the bourgeoisie,” as stated on the World Socialist Web Site. COVID denialism “has accelerated the individualism at the core of neoliberal capitalism, transforming it into an almost narcissistic rejection of the common good” according to Jacobin. “[I]ndividualism is at odds with the vast majority of ordinary people who recognize that a certain degree of individual sacrifice is necessary in order to protect society at large,” per the Socialist Alternative.

If capitalism is individualism, then individualism is everything bad: greed, violence, selfishness, isolation. But is individualism the problem? What if capitalism could be resisted not through fighting individualism, but by embracing it?

Radical Individualism

If you are online as much as I am, you have likely seen his cartoon face, with circular glasses shading his eyes and upright hair.

Recently German philosopher Max Stirner has become a meme, depicted trolling others and calling things “spooks.” Considered the father of individualist anarchism, he has become popular at a time where individualism is allegedly killing us and making us miserable.

Stirner’s philosophy has been misunderstood since the publication of the The Unique and Its Property (often mistranslated as the Ego and Its Own) in 1844. After an initial ban, Prussian authorities allowed its publication since it was considered too complex to be understood—a similar fate as Marx’s Capital in Tsarist Russia. Because his work can be interpreted in many ways, he has received praise from a diversity of actors: White supremacists, post-modern philosophers, sex positive feminists, Wall Street bankers, militant anarchists, fascists and avant-garde artists. While there is no “correct” interpretation of Stirner, some interpretations make more sense than others.

Stirner’s conception of the individual can help us understand his philosophy. For Stirner, the individual cannot be reduced to any abstraction—where “abstraction” means any generalization beyond the individual, such as ethics, identity, facts or logic. Because abstractions include language, the individual is literally indescribable.

Confusing, right?

Consider yourself. No matter how you describe yourself, there will always be a part of you that is missing from the description. Sure, you might be a worker or a pagan, and think these are important aspects of yourself. But even if working class politics and paganism helps you fulfill your individuality, they do not fully encompass your individuality. They are aspects of you, but they are not “you.” Stirner often calls the individual “the unique”—a useful term since a thing beyond abstraction is literally unique.

This does not deny that abstractions are important to our individuality. Abstractions are great when they help us. Post-colonial theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak coined the term “strategic essentialism,” where a group of individuals mobilizes based on a shared identity to make demands. But what is often forgotten is that such identities don’t exist for themselves, but rather to serve the individual.

Consider a group of individuals, all of whom are oppressed because of their ethnicity. To “be” individuals—to fulfill their individual dreams, hope and wants—they must overcome this oppression. Because oppression cannot be overcome by one person, the individuals gather and make demands based on their ethnicity.

Here, the abstraction (demands based on being an oppressed identity) serves the individual. However, often a reversal occurs, with the individual serving the abstraction. Perhaps the group has a leader or creates a separate state. Individuals are told to serve the leader and state for the benefit of the group, even when doing so goes against their individuality. They are told to stop acting like the oppressor—adopting their religion or speaking their language—even when doing fulfills their individuality. They are told to work harder, since industrial production is necessary for outcompeting their enemies.

The absurdity of serving these abstractions is clear with desire paths. We have different reasons for taking these paths: a more scenic walk, a quicker route, or to avoid a scary area. Frustrated planners sometimes try to block these paths, putting up railings. In response, we might decide to petition the barrier’s removal or illegally remove it. The desire path is restored for each of our individual enjoyments.

But imagine if once the barrier is removed, we are not merely permitted to use the desire path, but must use it. For those who enjoy the path, this is not an issue. But perhaps we end up in a wheelchair and want to use the sidewalk. Or maybe just as a group identity can be corrupted, the desire path becomes too muddy.

Like desire paths, abstractions sometimes stop being useful for the individual. At that point serving them negates our individuality.

Individualism vs. egoism

What do we do when abstractions (or desire paths) no longer serve us? According to Stirner we dispose them. If the “unique” is beyond abstraction, then any abstraction that overrules the individual negates “me.” To be “me,” these abstractions must be rejected.

Throughout The Unique and Its Property, Stirner rejects many abstractions: God, the state, morality, humanism, class identity, and gender. Both his supporters and opponents have misinterpreted this radical individualism as an endorsement of selfishness. Part of the reason is that Stirner’s philosophy is often called “egoism,” based on the mistranslation of his book’s title as The Ego and Its Own.

But while Stirner uses “ego” to describe the individual, he more often uses the term “unique.” This difference matters. If the individual is beyond abstraction, then even egoism constrains individualism. According to egoism, we are and must be self-interested, where self-interest is understood as pursuing economic and hedonistic needs for ourselves. But what if we are not interested in selfish accumulation? What if our individuality is fulfilled through giving to others?

Desire paths exemplify Stirner’s individualism. An individual might take a desire path to deliver a gift more quickly to a friend. According to the egoist, gifts serve no purpose, unless there is an exchange. But this abstraction—that we should only do things when they directly benefit us—is anti-individualist whenever giving helps fulfill our individuality.

Desire paths are upheld as examples of more efficient walking. But this is not always the case. They might take us on a longer route that is more scenic, such as through a forest or along a stream. To the egoist these paths are pointless, bringing little economic or hedonistic benefit. To the individual, they are useful when they fulfill their individuality.

Altruistic Capitalism and Selfish Communism

If individuals are not egoist, are they altruistic? No. Our individuality cannot be reduced to any abstraction. We should not be egoistic when this goes against our individuality. But we also must avoid altruism when this occurs. To sacrifice one’s individuality for another is to deny “me.”

This contradicts leftist discourse that sees altruism as anti-capitalist. To defeat capitalism, activists and social movements tell us that we must care for others and that human nature is altruistic (and thus capitalism is “unnatural”). They contrast this with the system of private accumulation, which allows individuals to acquire resources at others’ expense.

It is true that selfishness is necessary for capitalism. But this selfishness is only available to the rich. For the working class, private property restricts the fulfillment of selfish desires.

Consider consumerism. On Black Friday, working class people are blamed for being selfish. The frenzy to acquire goods is seen as hedonistic, satisfying one’s immediate needs at the expense of the environment and retail workers. If only people where altruistic, then holidays like Black Friday would not exist! But if people were truly selfish they would steal, instead of exchanging goods for money.

Obviously, it is in our self-interest not to steal when the chance of being arrested is too high. But frequently abstractions, rather than the law, impedes stealing. Stealing is “bad.” We are told to sympathize with the business owner, who would be disadvantaged from stealing. We are told not to take advantage of a business without surveillance, since doing so would betray their trust. Here altruism, rather than selfishness, upholds capitalism.

To understand selfishness and altruism under capitalism, look at desire paths. Like selfishness, desire paths can emerge when they do not violate private property. They are found on public property such as university campuses and parks (although not when planners disapprove). But with private property it’s different. As kids we learn to avoid walking on someone’s front lawn and to obey “no trespassing” signs. Why? Maybe to not get caught. But maybe it was out of respect for another person’s property. “Don’t ruin their grass,” even though grass kills biodiversity; “give them privacy,” even though their property is much bigger than ours. These altruistic abstractions continue to dominate in adulthood, denying our desires.

Deconstructing these abstractions, the individual sees them as illusions. Realizing this, they can now fulfill their desire. Walking across the property, their feet ruffle the grass. A barely visible path emerges. Another pedestrian notices this. Always walking on the sidewalk, they never thought about taking a quicker route through another’s property. Taking the path, the grass if flattened. Another pedestrian notices, and decides to take the path, and so on. Eventually a path emerges, that everyone can enjoy. What once seemed impossible—the reappropriate of property for all—is realized. Rather than emerging from an abstract goal—communism, revolution, class consciousness—this resistance to property emerged from individual desire.

Contrary to leftist discourse, individual action can resist capitalism. While there are physical barriers under capitalism, many barriers are merely abstractions that exist in our head. When we come to value our individuality, these abstractions fade. Taking individual action, we set an example for others.

Praxis

One day, the desire path is blocked. Security guards the property. Our favorite pathway is gone.

Individual action will not do. To fulfill our individuality, we unite with others to reclaim what is ours. Stirner called this the union of egoists, a voluntary and non-systematic association of individuals with a common goal. Insofar as individual action alone cannot overthrow capitalism and given that resisting capitalism is in the interest of everyone except the rich, a union of egoists is bound to emerge. In response to Stirner’s work, philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach recognized that “To be an individual... is also at the same time and indeed unintentionally to be a ‘communist.’”

Stirner and Feuerbach were not the only ones to realize this. While Marx and Engels criticized Stirner’s work, Engels recognized that “we must first make a cause our own” and “take our departure from the I, the empirical, flesh-and-blood individual”. Marx and Engels stated that “The reality, which communism is creating, is precisely the true basis for rendering it impossible that anything should exist independent of individuals”.

But despite their agreement on individualism, there were differences. For Marx, the individual would be liberated through working class revolution. But often this strategy becomes dogmatic, with collective action seen as the only way to foster change.

When collective action is not possible—when workers are pitted against each other, when unionization is too difficult—what do we do? Sometimes we are told to work on creating class consciousness, even when this will not create an immediate benefit. In contrast, Stirner recognized the role of individual action. While the individual cannot eliminate capitalism on their own, individual action can nevertheless help. We don’t need to wait for the abolition of private property, but rather can violate it when it benefits our individuality. Squatting, stealing, trespassing—all of these might benefit us and are possible without collective action.

When public land is privatized, we work with others to reappropriate it. But until the land is given back, why wait? Despite the “no trespass” sign, we walk across the land as if it is ours.

Aidan Simardone

Aidan Simardone is a recent Osgoode law school graduate. He researches and writes critically on law and religion. Find his work at aidansimardone.com.