I would say that individualism always exists within the context of collective society, no matter how individualistic a person is. If you talk to other people, you're part of collective society. If you live in a neighborhood, you're in collective society. If you don't grow all your own food, trap your meat, make your clothes, and provide for everything else, you're in collective society. Even if you are very independent in relation to both self sufficiency and need for interaction, if you come down from the mountain every now and again to buy some supplies, guess what: you're in collective society. I don't separate out the social from the economic, in that I think that they run concurrently together, and are always found together, with complex interactions on both sides, but that's for later. In any case, being interdependent with other people is the default and almost unavoidable mode of existence. But within that interdependence there can be more or less room for individual variation.
Recognition that we're all enmeshed within collective bonds doesn't mean that individualism is over. Different societies allow for different levels and kinds of individual variation within them, some preferring tight social controls over behavior, others letting it all hang out. But in the organization of society, the idea that any of us is truly completely self made is just not the case.
What makes a person a self-made man in the United States is different than what makes a person a self made success story in East Africa. It's all about the social context that you do your self making in.