Living between individualism and solidarity

The question of the relative importance of the individual and the collective in society may be the oldest in political thought. While philosophies emphasizing the collective over the individual have been articulated and challenged in every era by every human civilization in existence, cohesive theories and systems promoting individualism over collectivism have emerged only over the past 300 years. In contrast to the traditional collectivist view of man as a mere cog in the machine of the state, the individualist liberals saw man as an independent rational being, capable of making his own decisions and being responsible for them. Condemning societies based around order, discipline, and servitude to supra-personal goals, the hallmarks of solidarity, individualists went on to establish free societies emphasizing liberty, toleration, and self-rule. Individualist theories rapidly evolved and diversified, spreading from Europe to the rest of the world. Wherever they went, they met with opposition from some form of collectivist theory, initiating a worldwide ideological debate that continues to this day. The values of modern collectivists differ very little from those of their predecessors, the ancient despots who demanded that their subjects spend their lives erecting pyramids or cathedrals. In discussing individualism and collectivism it needs to be clear that this represents overall philosophical perspectives that aren't confined to simple economic or political interpretations. Rather these ideas permeate human society, its interactions, and the subgroups within it. It is interesting to note that many people want to advocate one philosophical position over another rather than recognizing that regardless of our personal preferences, these viewpoints are a part of human society and are responsible for the social circumstances we find ourselves in. It makes little difference which you prefer, but rather which are a part of your existence and which you must respond to. In general, it seems that the concept of individualism is more positively viewed among people despite the fact that there is little evidence to suggest that it is a viable strategy with which to maintain a cooperative society. Similarly, collectivism is generally frowned upon as a means by which an individual is lost to the "collective" mass and therefore to be distrusted or avoided. This dimension describes the degree to which a culture relies on and has allegiance to the self or the group. Basically, this dimension refers to the degree to which a person identifies with, derives their identity from, and feels they are supposed to be taken care of by their group, which could be their family, community, village or even an organization. In cultures that are highly individualist like the United Kingdom, people have more of a sense of separation from family and community. They expect to be more self-reliant. (Think about this common expression: Stand on your own two feet). People tend to develop a personality independently of their family or any groups they belong to. The individual is defined by his relationships with other people; starting in childhood and throughout the rest of our lives, we internalize the attitudes and values of our community. The community therefore serves as a normative starting point that individuals can later break from, so long as they observe the golden rule. Individuals still depend on their communities no matter what they choose, however, so people must participate in them and respect their morality. The moral voice of the community should play an informal role much like that of the state, and individuals still must contend with some degree of imposed order from both. 2

Great Britain and other countries that score highly on individualism, are also considered guiltcultures: people who break the rules of society will often feel guilty for their individual actions. Guilt is individual in nature, as opposed to shame, which is more commonly felt in collectivist group oriented societies. In collectivist cultures, a person s identity is wrapped up in their group. In such cultures, there is a strong feeling of involvement in each other s lives, as well as a strong feeling of loyalty and responsibility. This means that people in collectivist cultures will often ask for favors, borrow money, or take advantage of a high-status person they know without hesitation. All these things could be considered highly unethical in an individualist society. And, as previously mentioned, collectivist cultures tend to be shame cultures: people who break the rules of the group will feel ashamed, based upon a sense of collective obligation. Individualism is the opposite of collectivism; together they form one of the dimensions of national cultures. Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only. 1 Collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong cohesive ingroups, which throughout people s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. 2 According to Hofstede individualistic societies emphasize I consciousness, autonomy, emotional independence, individual initiative, right to privacy, pleasure seeking, financial security, need for specific friendship, and universalism. Collective societies, on the other hand, stress we consciousness, collective identity, group solidarity, emotional dependence, sharing, need for stable and predetermined friendship and group decision. Although most modern theories contain some collectivist elements as a means of achieving a necessary degree of order, the differences between truly collectivist and individualist modern philosophies can be traced to their differing conceptions of the role played by the community in defining the individual. Collectivists say that the individual is defined by his or her interaction with the community, while individualists emphasize that a community is a voluntary association, one that lacks legitimate authority to assign roles based on some sort of common good. Individualistic cultures like USA (highest score = 1st rank) and the United Kingdom (89 points = 3rd) are more self-centered and emphasize mostly on their individual goals. People from UK, for example, tend to think only of themselves as individuals and as I distinctive from other people. They make just a little difference between ingroup and outgroup communication. They prefer clarity in their conversations to communicate more effectively and come in general directly to the point like the Finns (17th rank) and Americans are doing. An exception here are Germans (15th rank) who indeed are an individualistic culture but their communication style is different. First details will be named
1 2

Cultures and Organizations Intercultural Cooperation and its importance for survival Hofstede, Geert (1994) 3

and discussed and after that they will come to the point. The British and Finns might feel annoyed because they say first what it is about and explain afterwards. People in the United Kingdom emphasize their success/achievements in job or private wealth and aiming up to reach more and/or a better job position. Especially here the fight about jobs and trying to climb up in the hierarchy ladder is something very common. It just counts to get there less caring who will be left behind. In business the British try to improve their connections and to gain more value out of them, not for establishing a good relationship but just to be involved in a calculative way. Employees are expected to defend their interests and to promote themselves whenever possible. Asian collectivist cultures like China (Hong Kong 37th rank), view other companies with less collectivistic philosophy as cold and not supportive. Collectivistic cultures have a great emphasize on groups and think more in terms of we . Harmony and loyalty within a company is very important and should always be maintained and confrontation should be avoided. In China it is out of question to disagree with someone s opinion in public. You will do that in a more private and personal atmosphere to protect a person from the loss of face . In collectivistic cultures a direct confrontation will be always avoided, contrary to the British. Expressions or phrases are used which describe a disagreement or negative statement instead of saying no. Saying no would mean to destroy the harmony in the group. The relationship between employer and employee or business partners is based on trust and harmony and a deep understanding of moral values. The wealth of the company and the groups inside are more important than the individual one s. David Yaou-Fai Ho, a Hong Kong social scientist defines Loosing face as follows: Face is lost when the individual, either through his action or that people closely related to him, fails to meet essential requirements placed upon him by virtue of the social position he occupies. (Hofstede, 1976) This can be compared with self-respect in individualistic cultures. There is understanding and help for employees who have poor performance. Christopher Earley, a researcher, gave 48 management trainees from southern China and a matched group of 48 management trainees from the United Kingdom an in-basket-task consisting of 40 separate items requiring between two and five minutes each. The task involved such activities as writing memos evaluating plans and rating job candidates application forms. Half of the participants from each country were given an individual goal of 20 items; the other half were given a group goal of 200 items to be completed in one hour by 10 people. In addition, half of the participants from either country, both from the group and from the individual goal subsets, were asked to mark each item with their name; the other half turned them in anonymously. The Chinese, collectivist, participants performed best when operating with a group goal and anonymously. They performed worst when operating with individually and with their name marked on their work. The individualist British participants performed best when operating individually and with their work attributed to them personally, and performed very poorly when operating as a group and anonymously. In truth, collectivism tends to dominate the social scenery ranging from the attitude among family and friends up to the national levels even in Great Britain. Each group represents a collective to which concessions are made and some degree of reciprocity is expected. People often vehemently defend or support family and friends, simply because they are recognized as being a special social group and, in many cases, people will risk everything to sacrifice for such a group. Similarly, 4

depending on the relative importance of the social group to the individual, all manner of sacrifice and/or risk may be undertaken to advance such a group. We have all heard the phrase about being a "team player as strong indicator of the collectivist mindset. Institutions such as the military, police, and fire departments are based on being a member of a team (or collective) to which you maintain loyalty and a willingness to sacrifice for the group. This is true for every country including the United Kingdom or USA. National sports teams are similar examples of team behavior that extend beyond the abilities of individual players. Team sports often emphasize the need for being a team player as being significantly more important than simply being skillful. In fact, individual skills may often have to be suppressed or tempered to engage the team rather than being maximized for individual gain. Team sports naturally are all about the team, but it is critical to focus initially on individual players. Businesses have adopted concepts from team sports for years, and now coaches are applying business concepts to team sports to gain a competitive edge. Even in the workplace the British have a sense of being loyal to one's employer and participating with the group to achieve objectives. While such an identity can be more difficult to maintain as the group becomes larger and more diverse, there is nevertheless a strong impetus desire to ensure that the success of the group is considered above that of the individual. Arguably our most individualistic activities such as Olympic sports are based on belonging to a team rather than consideration as individual competitors. While individuals are certainly recognized for their achievements as competitors, it is within the context of the larger group (i.e. the team or even the country) gaining the benefit of their accomplishments. There is no question that the individuals are often recognized, even heroically, for their actions, but there can be little doubt that such recognition occurs against the backdrop of the group, collective, or team. The entire basis of leadership presumes the existence of a collective over which such a trait can be exhibited. Heroism is a much higher attainment than anything that occurs in sports. To be a hero requires taking risks and exposing yourself to jeopardy. Heroism requires nobility of purpose, some goal that is outside your own self-interest. And heroism may require sacrifice. So what causes so many British people to resist the notion of collectivism in favor of individualism? Probably this occurs because while they recognize their role in the "collective" they also want to be recognized as individuals for their own contributions to such a group. It is precisely such motivation that provides the "glue" which causes some groups to be strong. Fame and fortune are sought after because they provide a greater recognition within the social group (perhaps even all human beings), which is what holds the appeal. In addition, most British and people all over the world are strongly opposed to the idea of being coerced into group participations. So it would seem that their urge to consider themselves as individualists hinges more on having the freedom to determine which groups they associate with, than any issue of true individualism. However, even coercion is tolerated to a fair degree if it doesn't

conflict too radically with their basic desires. A military draft may be considered too coercive, while the idea of getting a job or obeying the law is generally considered reasonably acceptable. True individualism is not common and in our society is typically marked as being a sociopath. This is an individual for whom no social connections matter, and there is little ability to empathize with fellow humans. Even the strongest advocates of individualism, like the people from the UK or the US, rarely argue in its favor as much as they argue that individuals need to be recognized and acknowledged within the larger social group. The typical argument focuses on the desire to freely choose which collective one participates in rather than arguing against collectivism. An individualist requires no such acknowledgement nor recognition, since they have no need of the social group's approval. However, the majority of people enjoy the groups they belong to and will strongly identify with many of them that share similar values and ideals. This doesn't deny our individual identities, nor does it deprive us of the choices we make regarding such group participations. In fact, it is precisely our ability to curtail our individualist tendencies that have given rise to the society and achievements we can claim as human beings. If humans evolved as individualists, they would probably still be sitting in the trees or hunkered down in a savannah someplace. When it comes to the purpose of education, in individualist societies and in the United Kingdom things are different from what is in collectivist cultures. For an individualist, education will not only improve the holder s economic worth, but also his/her self respect. Also, in individualist societies it is not enough to just have a diploma: what you do with it is also very important. In other words, you need to have done something with your knowledge to achieve status. In collectivist (group-oriented) cultures, the role of education is that of social acceptance. A diploma is a great honor not only to the holder but also, or more importantly, to his/her group. Such proof of education provides entry to higher status groups, to a better life. What confers status is the diploma, and less how well you did in school, or what you did with your knowledge. The social acceptance that comes with the diploma is more important than the individual self-respect. The role of parents and teachers, as well as the relationship between them, is very different in individualist and collectivist societies. In collectivist societies, the parents role is mainly to teach children to behave, to rear well-behaved and respectful children. In the UK, one of the most common questions that parents ask teachers is how is my child doing in school with little or no concern about group integration. Collectivist teachers are perceived as having a lot of authority, and their main role is to teach children knowledge. Individualist teachers expect to be challenged; they expect their students to offer opinions, and formulate their own thoughts/theories such is the case for Great Britain. Below are Hofstede s more detailed characteristics of Collectivist and Individualist classrooms: 6

Collectivist Societies Individualist Societies 1 Positive association in society with 2 Positive association in society with whatever is rooted in tradition whatever is new 3 The young should learn; adults 4 One is never too old to learn: cannot accept student role permanent education 5 Students expect to learn how to do 6 Students expect to learn how to learn 7 Individual students will only speak up 8 Individual students will speak up in in class when called upon personally by class in response to a general invitation the teacher by the teacher 9 Individuals will only speak up in small 10 Individuals will speak up in large groups groups 11 Large classes split socially into 12 Subgroupings in class vary from smaller cohesive subgroups based on one situation to the next based on particularist criteria (e.g. ethnic universalist criteria (e.g. the task at affiliation) hand ) 13 Formal harmony in learning 14 Confrontation in learning situations situations should be maintained at all can be salutary; conflicts can be times (T-groups are taboo) brought into the open 15 Neither the teacher nor any 16 Face-consciousness is weak student should ever be made to lose face 17 Education is a way of gaining 18 Education is a way of improving prestige in one s social environment one s economic worth and self-respect and of joining a higher status group based on ability and competence 19 Diploma certificates 20 Diploma certificates have little are important and displayed on symbolic value walls 21 Acquiring certificates, even through 22 Acquiring competence is more illegal means (cheating, corruption) is important than acquiring certificates more important than acquiring competence 23 Teachers are expected to give 24 Teachers are expected to be strictly preferential treatment to some impartial students (e.g. based on ethnic affiliation or on recommendation by an influential person)

Of course this is just dense material. Even though Hofstede assigns a nice number to several countries to indicate whether it leans more towards individualism or collectivism, it s obviously not that simple to determine the nature of a country.

Conclusions
At every stage of our lives we are bombarded with millions of experiences with different meanings and varying degrees of significance. The individual that results from this accumulation of experiences is not the result of some arithmetic process in which the number of experiences supporting different sides of an issue are compared to determine the individual s opinion of it. People are capable of reason, interpretation, and skepticism. When we have an experience, we interpret it and the lesson we learn may be quite different from that of another person. We all have some natural inclinations, drives, and needs that give us some common ground, but our ongoing process of self-definition is 7

based on reason, personality, and instinct, none of which originate from outside ourselves. From our very first conscious experience, we begin to learn, interpret, and discover our identity, all in a pattern and direction that we determine for ourselves. Experience can lead us to alter that direction, but that shift is our response to the experience, not the consequence of having absorbed the experience. People change at the rate they want to change. While we may be happier and have access to richer experiences when we have a close bond with a primary group, this does not justify the collectivist conclusion that the community is more vital to individuals than freedom of thought and expression. Through reason, some people will develop values that lead them to collectivism; others individualism. The freedom to develop one s own values and explore their consequences is a necessary and important part of life, and one that I don t believe can justifiably limited in the name of any common good. It is extremely important to balance the values of individualism and collectivism, because both are valuable and important to society, but that neither should monopolize the society s values.

Bibliography
Cultures and Organizations Geert (1994) Intercultural Cooperation and its importance for survival Hofstede,

Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantage by Lisa Hoecklin 1995 www.wikipedia.org Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Triandis; McCusker (1990). When should the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many Alistair Schofield