The phrase "atomistic individualism" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in discussions related to philosophy, sociology, or political theory, particularly when addressing concepts of individualism and the nature of society.
Example: "The theory of atomistic individualism suggests that individuals are the fundamental units of society, each acting independently of one another."
Alternatives: "individualistic atomism" or "atomistic selfhood".
On the other hand, the existence of institutional roles with internal relations does undermine the attempts of certain forms of atomistic individualism to reduce institutions to the individual human agents who happen to constitute them; ex hypothesi, the latter are not qua individual human persons in part defined in terms of their relations to institutional roles.
Libertarians deny that their views imply anything like atomistic individualism.
Surface water users embrace a cooperative, community-oriented ideal, while groundwater users express an atomistic individualism.
Liberals are often accused of ignoring the place of collective institutions and civic society in the maintenance of a civilised order, of advocating an atomistic individualism.
Inspired by Spinoza's metaphysics, another key feature of Næss's deep ecology is the rejection of atomistic individualism.
Three other well-known cases have already been discussed (section 3 above), namely: ecofeminism (which identifies X with those patterns of thought that are characteristically patriarchal), deep ecology (which takes X to be atomistic individualism), and the new animism (which regards the disenchantment of nature as the X-factor).
The fall of three elites – an intellectual clerisy, public service professionals, and working-class leadership – paved the way for the rapid triumph of an atomistic, relativistic individualism, market logic in economics, and supine obedience in the civil service.
Opponents of libertarianism often refer to libertarian individualism as "atomistic," arguing that it ignores the role of family, tribe, religious community, and state in forming individual identity and that such groups or institutions are the proper sources of legitimate authority.
In response to critics who view his empiricist metaphysics as distinct from his political thought, this article argues that James's empiricism shifts the centre of gravity of his anarchic liberalism away from an atomistic vision of the self and towards a relational or molecular individualism.
We get trapped in the narrow, atomistic, 17th-century image of social life that grounds today's crude and arid individualism.
It's individualism rampant.
