Given this formulation, we can explain phenomena that would seem to disconfirm the correlation at issue here, one of which is the following from the history of the United States. The Anti-Federalist party, which first called itself the Republicans, then the Whigs, then the Democrats, defended the autonomy and the sovereignty of the states at the expense of centralization and of national authority—but always with an appeal to the principle of individual freedom, of noninterference by the totality in the affairs of the individual. On no account does this contradict the relationship of individual freedom to just the relatively large circle, for here the sense of individuality has permeated the narrower circle enclosing many individual persons, and thus the narrower circle serves here the same sociological function as the discrete individual would otherwise.

DEFINE: Explains how a collective (like a state) can serve the sociological function of an individual person in defending freedom against larger centralizing authority. XREF: Connects to the concept of subsidiarity and how intermediate associations shield individuals from centralized power, echoing later libertarian and federalist thought.

XREF: Relates to the historical American Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate and Simmel's broader argument about social circles and individuality.

Georg Simmel, on individuality and social…, loc. 633