The Social Animal Meets the Digital Individual | Gen Z Series - Part V

There’s a troubling paradox at the heart of modern digital life. The internet promised us unprecedented freedom to be ourselves, to find our tribes, to escape the suffocating conformity of traditional communities. Yet anxiety and depression rates have skyrocketed, particularly among the most connected generation in history. What if the problem isn’t a bug in the system but a fundamental mismatch between what digital spaces encourage and what human beings actually need to thrive?

The argument goes like this: humans evolved as intensely social creatures who survived by working together. Our brains are literally wired for cooperation, compromise, and collective action. But digital spaces train us to be radical individualists—to curate our personal brands, to never compromise our authentic selves, to block anyone who challenges us. This isn’t just a cultural shift; it’s a violation of our basic psychological architecture. And the result is a generation that’s more anxious, isolated, and conflicted than any before it.

This isn’t an argument against individualism or for returning to some imagined past of perfect community harmony. It’s about understanding that human flourishing has always required a delicate balance between individual expression and collective belonging—a balance that digital spaces may be destroying.

Why We’re Wired for “We” Not Just “Me”

To understand why unlimited digital freedom might be harmful, we need to start with a basic fact: humans are alive today because our ancestors were exceptionally good at working together. As anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy puts it, “It takes a village to raise a human child” isn’t just a nice saying—it’s a biological necessity.

Unlike most mammals, human infants are born essentially premature, unable to survive without extensive care for years. This extended dependency created what researchers call cooperative breeding—whole communities involved in raising children. The humans who survived weren’t the strongest individuals but those who could build alliances, share resources, and subordinate personal desires for group success when necessary.

This shaped our neural architecture in profound ways. Psychologist Michael Tomasello’s research shows that human children, unlike even our closest primate relatives, spontaneously engage in what he calls shared intentionality—the ability to pursue goals together with a genuine sense of “we.” When a two-year-old helps you clean up blocks, they’re not just imitating; they’re participating in a genuinely collective goal. This capacity is hardwired into our brains.

The neuroscientist Matthew Lieberman takes this further in his book “Social,” arguing that our brains have a default network that automatically thinks about social relationships whenever we’re not focused on specific tasks. In other words, our brains’ resting state is social thinking. We’re not individuals who happen to be social; we’re social beings who developed individuality.

Consider what anthropologist Christopher Boehm calls reverse dominance hierarchies in hunter-gatherer societies. When individuals became too assertive or selfish, the group would collectively suppress them through mockery, ostracism, or in extreme cases, exile. The message was clear: individual ambition that threatens group cohesion is literally a death sentence. Those who insisted on pure individualism didn’t survive to pass on their genes.

Individual Freedom Versus Social Being

This evolutionary background creates what philosophers have long recognized as a fundamental human tension. We want to be free, autonomous individuals, but we also desperately need to belong, to be recognized, to be part of something larger than ourselves.

Aristotle captured this in his concept of humans as political animals (zoon politikon). For Aristotle, this didn’t mean we’re interested in politics but that we can only fully realize our human potential within a community. A human being outside society isn’t a superman—they’re either a beast or a god, but definitely not fully human.

The German philosopher Hegel developed this further with his concept of recognition (Anerkennung). We don’t just want to be free; we want others to recognize us as free beings worthy of respect. But here’s the catch: genuine recognition requires limiting our freedom to acknowledge others’ equal claim to recognition. It’s a dialectical process where individual and collective are inseparable.

Even John Stuart Mill, that champion of individual liberty, acknowledged in “On Liberty” that individual freedom has natural limits where it impacts others. His harm principle isn’t just about preventing damage; it’s recognition that human beings exist in webs of relationship where pure individualism is both impossible and destructive.

More recently, philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that the modern ethics of authenticity—the idea that each person has their own original way of being human—can become what he calls “the malaise of modernity” when taken to extremes. When being true to yourself becomes the only moral imperative, you lose the ability to recognize obligations beyond personal fulfillment.

When “Be Yourself” Becomes a Trap

Enter social media and digital spaces, which seem to resolve this ancient tension by promising both complete individual expression and infinite community. You can be exactly who you are and find millions who appreciate you for it. No compromise necessary.

But sociologist Sherry Turkle’s extensive research reveals the illusion here. In Reclaiming Conversation, she documents how digital communication allows us to edit ourselves into exactly who we want to be, avoiding the messy negotiations of face-to-face interaction. We’re “alone together”—connected but not genuinely relating.

The problem isn’t just isolation; it’s what digital spaces teach us about relationships. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman’s concept of liquid modernity captures this perfectly. In traditional “solid” communities, relationships were fixed and limiting but also reliable and defining. In our “liquid” digital world, all relationships are temporary, contingent, disposable. Don’t like someone? Unfollow. Disagreement? Block. Discomfort? Ghost.

This trains us for what psychologist Jean Twenge calls iGen characteristics: decreased tolerance for different viewpoints, inability to handle interpersonal conflict, and expectation that all interactions should be comfortable and affirming. The digital promise of “finding your tribe” often means finding people who never challenge you to grow.

Philosopher Byung-Chul Han argues in The Agony of Eros that digital culture creates what he calls the terror of positivity—a world where negativity, conflict, and genuine otherness are systematically eliminated. But without genuine encounters with difference, we never develop what psychologist Robert Kegan calls self-transforming mind—the ability to examine and revise our own assumptions.

When Freedom Becomes Anxiety

The psychological research on this is devastating. What happens when people trained for unlimited self-expression encounter the inevitable constraints of physical reality?

Psychologist Barry Schwartz’s research on the paradox of choice shows that too many options actually decrease satisfaction and increase anxiety. Digital spaces offer infinite options for self-presentation, infinite potential connections, infinite ways to be. The result isn’t liberation but what psychologist Renata Salecl calls the tyranny of choice—paralysis and anxiety about whether you’re being your “best” or “truest” self.

The work of psychologist Jonathan Haidt is particularly relevant here. His research on moral foundations shows that humans have evolved multiple moral systems: care/harm, fairness/cheating, but also loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Digital culture tends to recognize only the first two—individual care and fairness—while dismissing the more collective values as oppressive or outdated.

But Haidt argues these collective moral foundations serve crucial psychological functions. Loyalty bonds us to groups larger than ourselves. Authority provides structure and meaning. Sanctity creates shared sacred values. Without these, we’re left with what sociologist Émile Durkheim called anomie—a sense of normlessness and disconnection that he identified as a primary cause of suicide.

The clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, controversial as he may be, makes a relevant point about the relationship between responsibility and meaning. Pure individual freedom without social obligation doesn’t create happiness but nihilism. Meaning comes from taking responsibility for something beyond yourself—family, community, cause. Digital individualism often strips away these responsibilities, leaving freedom without purpose.

The Social Consequences: Fragmenting Communities

The individual psychological effects are troubling enough, but the social consequences may be even more serious. Political scientist Robert Putnam documented in Bowling Alone the decline of American civic engagement and social capital. Digital connections, he argues, are no substitute for face-to-face community bonds.

When everyone is curating their individual brand, who does the unglamorous work of community building? When conflict can be avoided by unfollowing, how do we develop the skills for democratic deliberation? When we can always find online validation for our views, why compromise with physical neighbors?

Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild’s concept of emotional labor is relevant here. In physical communities, people do the hard work of managing their emotions for collective harmony—biting your tongue at family dinner, being polite to difficult neighbors, finding common ground with coworkers. Digital spaces eliminate this labor, but also the social bonds it creates.

The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre warned in “After Virtue” that modern individualism would lead to the breakdown of moral discourse—people talking past each other from incommensurable moral frameworks. Social media seems to have accelerated this process. Without shared physical spaces and the necessity of coexistence, we lose what political theorist Danielle Allen calls “political friendship”—the ability to see political opponents as fellow citizens rather than enemies.

What Kind of Creatures Are We?

Ultimately, this debate forces us to confront a fundamental question: what kind of beings are humans, really? The digital age has given us an unprecedented experiment in radical individualism, and the results are troubling.

The evidence from psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, and philosophy converges on a clear answer: we are irreducibly social beings. Not social by choice or culture but by nature. Our brains expect certain kinds of social input—face-to-face interaction, physical touch, shared challenges, collective rituals. When these are replaced by digital substitutes, something essential is lost.

This doesn’t mean we should abandon our hard-won individual freedoms or return to suffocating traditional communities. But it does mean recognizing that unlimited individual freedom, unconstrained by social obligation, isn’t liberation but a kind of prison—what sociologist Richard Sennett calls the tyranny of intimacy, where we’re trapped in our own curated bubbles.

The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas argued that ethics begins with the face of the other—the irreducible presence of another person who makes demands on us whether we like it or not. Digital spaces allow us to avoid faces we don’t want to see, demands we don’t want to meet. But in doing so, we may be avoiding the very encounters that make us human.

When Digital Natives Meet Physical Reality

What happens to a generation that never learns to encounter the demanding “face of the other”? When the fundamental ethical experience of being confronted by another’s irreducible presence becomes optional—something that can be swiped away, muted, or blocked—we get what might be called “unconditional individualism”: the belief that the self should never have to accommodate, compromise with, or even acknowledge realities that don’t align with its preferences.

This isn’t the earned individualism of previous generations, won through struggle against genuine constraints. It’s an individualism that has never known real limits, raised in digital spaces where every feed can be curated, every interaction can be controlled, and every uncomfortable truth can be filtered out. The generation that grew up this way—Gen Z, the first true digital natives—are now stepping out from behind their screens into a physical world that operates by entirely different rules. And their response is telling us something crucial about what happens when unconditional individualism collides with unconditional reality.

There’s something unprecedented happening with Gen Z within the digital culture. Around the world, from Hong Kong to Chile, from France to Bangladesh, young people are taking to the streets with an intensity and urgency that seems to surprise even them. But these aren’t traditional protests with clear leaders and specific demands. They’re often leaderless, viral, and marked by a peculiar combination of digital sophistication and physical volatility.

To understand this, we need to examine how unconditional individualism shapes a generation that learned to be human through screens.

Digital Expectations Meet Physical Constraints

Gen Z grew up in a world where every opinion could find its audience, every identity could find its tribe, and every discomfort could be escaped with a swipe. They were told repeatedly: “Be yourself,” “You do you,” “Never compromise who you are.” Social media algorithms reinforced this by showing them exactly what they wanted to see, creating what researcher Eli Pariser calls filter bubbles—customized realities that never seriously challenge their worldviews.

But here’s the problem: the physical world doesn’t work that way. Governments don’t algorithm-adjust to your preferences. Economic systems don’t offer infinite customization options. Other people, in the flesh, don’t come with block buttons.

Psychologist Jean Twenge’s extensive research on what she calls iGen (those born after 1995) reveals a generation that’s simultaneously more connected and more fragile than any before. They show decreased tolerance for discomfort, lower resilience to challenge, and most tellingly, an expectation that systems should adapt to them rather than vice versa. When these expectations meet immovable physical realities—economic inequality, political systems, climate change—the cognitive dissonance is unbearable.

From Anxiety to Anger: The Violence Pipeline

The progression from digital individualism to physical violence isn’t random—it follows a predictable psychological pattern.

First comes what psychologist Sherry Turkle calls continuous partial attention—the state of being always online but never fully present. This creates chronic anxiety, as the nervous system never fully relaxes into either digital or physical reality. Gen Z shows the highest rates of anxiety in recorded history, with some studies showing over 60% experiencing chronic anxiety symptoms.

Next comes what sociologist Hartmut Rosa describes as social acceleration—the feeling that life is speeding up beyond our control. Digital natives are used to instant feedback, immediate results, viral spread. But social change in the physical world is slow, requiring patience, compromise, and sustained effort. The gap between digital speed and physical pace creates intense frustration.

Then there’s what philosopher Byung-Chul Han calls the violence of positivity. When you’re raised to believe you can be anything, do anything, express anything, the discovery of hard limits feels like oppression rather than reality. Every constraint becomes intolerable, every compromise feels like self-betrayal.

Finally, add what researcher danah boyd (who writes her name in lowercase) identifies as context collapse—when different social contexts merge online, creating impossible social navigation challenges. Gen Z has to manage their authentic self, their family self, their school self, their activist self, all in the same digital spaces where any statement can go viral and destroy your future.

The result? A generation primed for explosive reaction when digital fantasies meet physical realities.

The New Logic of Protest: Viral Violence

Traditional protests followed predictable patterns: organization, leadership, specific demands, negotiation. But Gen Z protests operate by digital logic: sudden emergence, viral spread, aesthetic performance, and often, shocking escalation.

Consider the 2019 Hong Kong protests, where young protesters used Telegram and Signal to coordinate without leaders, creating what they called “Be Water” tactics—fluid, leaderless, constantly shifting. Or the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, which spread globally through Instagram infographics and TikTok videos, turning protest into shareable content.

These movements show sophisticated digital coordination but often struggle with physical-world effectiveness. They can mobilize millions overnight but struggle to convert that energy into lasting change. Why? Because digital organizing trains people for immediate action and visible impact, not the slow, boring work of institutional change.

More concerning is how digital culture’s “call-out” dynamics translate to physical spaces. Online, destroying someone who violates group norms gets likes and shares. But when this logic moves offline, “canceling” can become physical violence. The same impulse that leads to Twitter pile-ons can, in the streets, lead to actual destruction.

Sociologist Randall Collins’ research on violence shows it typically requires what he calls forward panic—a collective emotional state that overrides individual restraint. Social media excels at creating exactly these conditions: emotional contagion, dehumanization of opponents, and most crucially, the sense that everyone else supports escalation.

United in Anger but Divided in Vision

Here’s the strangest part: these collective actions are driven by radical individualism. Gen Z protesters often can’t articulate shared demands because they’ve been trained to never compromise their individual truths for collective coherence. They’re united in anger but divided in vision.

Political scientist Francis Fukuyama calls this the politics of resentment—when groups unite not around shared goals but shared grievances. Digital culture, with its emphasis on personal trauma and individual oppression, creates protesters who know exactly what they’re against but struggle to articulate what they’re for.

This differs markedly from previous protest generations. The civil rights movement had clear, specific demands and hierarchical organization. Even the 1960s counterculture, for all its chaos, had communal ideals. But Gen Z protests often feel like millions of individual grievances happening simultaneously rather than collective movements.

The philosopher Slavoj Žižek argues this represents the ultimate triumph of neoliberal individualism: even our rebellions are individualized. We protest not as citizens demanding collective change but as consumers angry that reality isn’t meeting our personal expectations.

Digital Natives, Physical Consequences

The most troubling aspect is how digital thinking shapes attitudes toward violence itself. In online games, violence has no real consequences—you respawn, you restart. In social media fights, the worst outcome is usually getting blocked or banned. But physical violence has irreversible consequences that digital natives seem unprepared for.

Research by psychologist Patricia Greenfield shows that digital media consumption correlates with decreased empathy and increased acceptance of violence. Not because video games cause violence directly, but because constant digital interaction reduces practice with face-to-face empathy. When you primarily interact through screens, other people become abstractions.

Add to this what researcher Gideon Lichfield calls the extremism algorithm—how social media platforms inadvertently promote extreme content because it drives engagement. Gen Z has been marinated in increasingly extreme discourse their entire lives. What seems like normal political expression to them would have been considered radical even a decade ago.

The Protest as Performance

Perhaps most tellingly, Gen Z protests often seem designed more for digital consumption than physical impact. The aesthetic is carefully curated—think of the umbrellas in Hong Kong, the choreographed dances in Chilean protests, the Instagram-ready signs at climate strikes. The medium has become the message.

Sociologist Jeffrey Alexander’s theory of cultural trauma helps explain this. For events to create social change, they must be performed in ways that create collective meaning. But when the performance is primarily for digital audiences rather than physical communities, it loses transformative power. It becomes what Daniel Boorstin called a “pseudo-event”—something that exists primarily to be reported on.

This isn’t to dismiss Gen Z’s genuine grievances. They face real crises: climate catastrophe, economic inequality, political dysfunction. But their digital conditioning may be undermining their ability to address these challenges effectively. They’ve been trained for viral moments, not sustained movements; for individual expression, not collective action; for digital metrics, not physical change.

When Individual Freedom Becomes Collective Failure

Understanding these dynamics doesn’t mean condemning Gen Z or dismissing their concerns. It means recognizing that unconditional individualism—the ideology they’ve been fed since birth—is failing them at the exact moment they need collective action most.

The tragedy isn’t that Gen Z is broken—it’s that we’ve given them tools and ideologies that break the very connections they need to heal the world they’ve inherited. Their protests, their rage, their digital sophistication and physical confusion all point to the same underlying crisis: we’ve created a generation of radical individualists at the precise historical moment when our survival depends on radical cooperation.

Climate change, inequality, democratic breakdown—none of these can be solved by individuals optimizing their personal brands or finding their authentic selves. They require exactly what unconditional individualism has taught Gen Z to reject: patient coalition-building, uncomfortable compromise, and the willingness to be changed by encounter with others. This generational predicament illuminates an existential fracture facing all of us in the digital age.

The rise of digital technology has created an unprecedented challenge to human social nature. For the first time, we can imagine ourselves as pure individuals, unconstrained by physical community, free to be exactly who we want to be. It’s an intoxicating vision.

But the evidence is clear: this vision is making us miserable. Anxiety, depression, loneliness, and social fragmentation aren’t bugs in the system but predictable consequences of violating our basic psychological architecture. We evolved for community, compromise, and collective action. Digital individualism, taken to extremes, wars against our nature.

To be continued in the next part…

Articles in this series:

Discover more from Numerons

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Table of Contents