I deny the existence of society as a valid construct. Debating
   over a phantom mythology.
   In my schema there's:
   a) individuals which are part of:
   b) subcultures (including families, interest groups, places like
   this FB group, each individual carrying various membership cards
   to so speak, and more or less following the norms of one or more
   of the subcultures at any given time that they are a part of)

   Each of those subcultures has written and unwritten rules and
   enforcement.

   c) culture, which is an overarching large population mass, often
   bordered by geographical limits.
   Each of those cultures has written and unwritten rules and
   enforcement.

   In my schema, a hermit decides to move to level a) and be
   satisfied with it.

   When you refer to "opting out of society and becoming a hermit",
   I switch it over to a non-personified verb form:

   "A person choosing not to socialize with other individuals in
   any subculture nor with the surrounding culture".

   Even a hermit is part of a subculture: The subculture of
   hermits.
   They're a part of a culture: it's usually geographically bound.

   But he's choosing not to socialize.

   ie - it's an ACTIVITY, not a personification. As an analogy: I
   don't believe in love as a noun or person. But I believe that
   love is an active verb. Calling it "Love" as if it's a Person
   is, to me, a categorization error that's all too common and
   leads to nothing but trouble... just like referring to
   "socializing" and embodying it in a phantom thing we call
   "society", which does not exist.