Individualization, specifically, occurs through people and groups of which one is a part of; they are made made, not born.

Are you saying an individual is simply the absence of group connections or affiliations and that that's unnatural or wrong or even not possible? Is it because no person can spring up out of the ether and people are always the products of the coupling of others?

If so, and I mean no disrespect, but that seems like an arbitrary perspective. Why draw the line at humans? We don't exist without 3.9 billion years of evolution, so why is "the basis of humanity... family" -- assuming human family -- and not all life? We need to eat other non-human living things to exist, after all. Why isn't the basis of humanity all non-living matter, since we're all just made up of inert fragments of different compounds?

The idea that humans are, by default, a collective, that being an individual is "wrong," but that no other branches of life (or non-life) are also part of that collective seems completely arbitrary to me. You can't have existed without other people, but... you can't exist without hydrogen either.

The other issue I have is your non-individual perspective presupposes entitlement to or from others. By not being an individual foremost, you're suggesting a moral requirement that others support you and/or you support them in some way. What fundamental physical law of nature says I owe anyone anything? If that doesn't exist, then your position is a moral one.