Merge pull request #1023 from chatch/typos

fix 3 typos in 3-2-connected-society.md

contents/english/3-2-connected-society.md

@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ In his view, humans are deeply social creatures and thus their identities are de
 
 [^Sahlins]: Marshall Sahlins, *Stone Age Economics* (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972).
 
-As this occurs, people come to have, on average, less of their full sense of self in common with those around them at any time; they begin to feel “unique” (to put a positive spin on it) and “isolated/misunderstood” (to put a negative spin on it).  This creates a sense of what he called “qualitaitive individuality” that helps explain why social scientists focused on complex urban settings (such as economists) tend to favor methodological individualism.  However, ironically as Simmel points out, such “individuation” occurs precisely because and to the extent that the “individual” becomes divided among many loyalties and thus dividual.  Thus, while methodological individualism (and what he called the "egalitarian individualism" of nation states we highlighted above that it justfied) takes the “(in)dividual” as the irreducible element of social analysis, Simmel instead suggests that individuals become possible as an emergent property of the complexity and dynamism of modern, urban societies.  
+As this occurs, people come to have, on average, less of their full sense of self in common with those around them at any time; they begin to feel “unique” (to put a positive spin on it) and “isolated/misunderstood” (to put a negative spin on it).  This creates a sense of what he called “qualitative individuality” that helps explain why social scientists focused on complex urban settings (such as economists) tend to favor methodological individualism.  However, ironically as Simmel points out, such “individuation” occurs precisely because and to the extent that the “individual” becomes divided among many loyalties and thus dividual.  Thus, while methodological individualism (and what he called the "egalitarian individualism" of nation states we highlighted above that it justified) takes the “(in)dividual” as the irreducible element of social analysis, Simmel instead suggests that individuals become possible as an emergent property of the complexity and dynamism of modern, urban societies.
 
 Thus the individual that the national identity systems seek to strip away from the shackles of communities actually emerges from their growth, proliferation and intersection.  As a truly just and efficient property regime would recognize and account for such networked interdependence, identity systems that truly empower and support modern life would need to mirror its ⿻  structure.
 
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ Thus the individual that the national identity systems seek to strip away from t
 
 If (in)dividual identity is so fluid and dynamic, surely so too must be the social circles that intersect to constitute it.  As Simmel highlights, new social groups are constantly forming, while older ones decline. Three examples he highlights are for his time, the still-recent formations of cross-sectoral 'working men’s associations' representing the general interest of labor, the emerging feminist associations, and the cross-sectoral employers' interest groups. The critical pathway to creating such new circles was the establishment of places (e.g. workman’s halls) or publications (e.g. working men’s newspapers) where this new group could come to know one another and understand, and thus to have things in common they do not have with others in the broader society. Such bonds were strengthened by secrecy, as shared secrets allowed for a distinctive identity and culture, as well as the coordination in a common interest in ways unrecognizable by outsiders.[^SecretSocieties]   Developing these shared, but hidden, knowledge allows the emerging social circle to act as a collective agent.
 
-In his 1927 work that defined his political philosophy, *The Public and its Problems*, John Dewey (who we meet in [A View from Yushan](https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/2-1/eng/?mode=dark)) considered the political implications and dynamics of these “emergent publics” as he called them.[^PublicProblems]Dewey's views emerged from a series of debates he held, as leader of the "democratic" wing of the progressive movement after his return from China with left-wing technocrat  Walter Lippmann, whose 1922 book *Public Opinion* Dewey considered "the most effective indictment of democracy as currently conceived".[^Westbrook]  In the debate, Dewey sought to redeem democracy while embracing fully Lippmann's critique of existing institutions as ill-suited to an increasingly complex and dynamic wold.  
+In his 1927 work that defined his political philosophy, *The Public and its Problems*, John Dewey (who we meet in [A View from Yushan](https://www.plurality.net/v/chapters/2-1/eng/?mode=dark)) considered the political implications and dynamics of these “emergent publics” as he called them.[^PublicProblems]Dewey's views emerged from a series of debates he held, as leader of the "democratic" wing of the progressive movement after his return from China with left-wing technocrat  Walter Lippmann, whose 1922 book *Public Opinion* Dewey considered "the most effective indictment of democracy as currently conceived".[^Westbrook]  In the debate, Dewey sought to redeem democracy while embracing fully Lippmann's critique of existing institutions as ill-suited to an increasingly complex and dynamic world.
 
 [^Westbrook]: Robert Westbrook, *John Dewey and American Democracy* (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).