This would seem to be the hyper-individualist response.
Our environment/context influences our behavior. Saying, "well, technically any given person could ignore their environment/context and act however is optimal!" isn't very helpful.
This article is acknowledging the environmental/systemic/contextual reality
All the advice in the article is about what you can do as an individual, for yourself. And I'm critiquing that advice as essentially sophomoric.
I don't know what you're inventing "hyper-individualist" out of, and the article doesn't give any advice on any "environmental/systemic/contextual reality".
“hyper-indivisualist” (atomization) surely refers to this part of the article:
> The project of atomization is the great illusory emancipatory freedom layered over an ever-constraining normality, atomization allows only for greater normality to be imposed on an individual level, away from families, groups and communes which will potentially have a sturdy and stable enough leader to disrupt the process of modernity.
Noe that I think about it, I seem to agree with you: it does seem suspect that the solutions to problems induced by atomization would not involve collaboration.
Our environment/context influences our behavior. Saying, "well, technically any given person could ignore their environment/context and act however is optimal!" isn't very helpful.
This article is acknowledging the environmental/systemic/contextual reality