A summary from Britannica:
The French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) identified two types of individualism: the utilitarian egoism of the English sociologist and philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), who, according to Durkheim, reduced society to “nothing more than a vast apparatus of production and exchange,” and the rationalism of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1788), and the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), which has as “its primary dogma the autonomy of reason and as its primary rite the doctrine of free enquiry.”
I'm studying the essay Individualism and the Intellectuals at the moment and reading up about the matters that relate to the essay such as utilitarianism and utilitarian thinkers like Spencer, as well as individualism and liberalism. The more I read up about it, the fuzzier Durkheim's distinction is to me. He rejects 'utilitarian' individualism, with its emphasis on individual welfare and interest, as well as "the cult of egoism". In its place he posits the individualism of Kant and Rousseau who, he argues, dictate that moral actions come from being human (which is very fuzzy to me in itself) and that we have a duty to reject actions that come from personal motives. I don't know Kant's ethics well, but looking up about Kant and individualism, I came across this:
No one can compel me to be happy in accordance with his conception of the welfare of others, for each may seek his happiness in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he does not infringe upon the freedom of others to pursue a similar end which can be reconciled with the freedom of everyone else within a general workable law — i.e. he must accord to others the same right as he enjoys himself.
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/immanuel-kant-philosopher-of-freedom/
Which at first glace actually sounds rather consistent with Durkheim's description of utilitarian individualism and its selfishness. Moreover from what I've read of Spencer and Mills, they strove to combine utilitarian goals with liberal individual rights. Kant also strongly supported individual rights (according to that article), as does Durkheim in his essay. The crux of the distinction he makes is that one should reject the 'commercialistic' individualism of utilitarians and instead embrace the individualism centered on individual rights and dignity. Yet, from what I've read of his nemesises, they don't actually seem to contradict with his conception of individualism, nor do they seem to conflict with Kant's conception.
All of that leads me to remain confused about what Durkheim really is getting at. Is it that there's really no such distinction between these types of individualism? Could it be that he's simply less keen on individualism and personal freedom and rather than say so he conjured up a distinction? The essay after all has been written in the context of the Dreyfus affair and he responded to the anti-individualism of the anti-Dreyfusards. Maybe he wanted to put some distance between him and them?
I'm not at all knowledgeable in these matters. Just annoyed that his distinction remains as unclear after having read up about related subjects.
