DescentBB

This article raises some interesting questions about individualism vs. collectivism. The article itself is about the Democratic agenda. For the sake of this thread, please refrain from the Dems v Reps debate. I am more interested in how you feel about individualism vs. collectivism both as an individual and as a culture, where you stand along the individualism/collectivism continuum, and why.

I have always heard, (I have no specific sources so feel free to correct me), that when it comes to individualism vs. collectivism, Americans as a general rule, are so far to the individualism end of the spectrum that we arenâ??t anywhere near the average, even compared to countries/cultures we most closely resemble. I personally view that as a good and productive place to be, although I recognize that there are some downsides to that.

What are your thoughts? Is American culture skewed that far to one side? How do members from other countries view us? How do they view themselves? What are some of the advantages or disadvantages to being primarily individualist or collectivist as a culture?

I have been pondering.

Humans are, by nature, both individual AND collective beings, and there's an interplay between those two aspects. Our collectivism comes from the relationships we form as individuals, and it should always be treated that way -- the networks we form as individuals should be the basis for our collectivism. We as Americans have kind of fallen away from that, in the sense that many of us don't form very strong networks (either we have too few friends, or they're not very good or reliable friends.) We need to get back to investing time in relationships, not just with family but with those in our communities (work, church, school, neighborhood, etc.)

Rabid "I don't need anybody else, I'm a lone ranger" individualism, which our culture has embraced, is at odds with this. It treats relationships as unimportant, as though our community is just a hinderance. (EDIT: in a recent comment on Chicago Boyz, Steve suggests this was caused by the automobile. I contend that the automobile only served to amplify the trend.)

Government-mandated ultra-large-scale collectivism is also ultimately at odds with this. It seeks to replace community (a network of relationships) with government (a faceless heirarchy). This is where I think much of Europe has gone wrong. It's not that they're too collectivist -- it's that they're the wrong kind of collectivist.

We should respect both individuals and communities. Our form of individualism AND our form of collectivism should function together. If they don't, it means we've got at least one of them wrong.

Lothar, "...the networks we form as individuals should be the basis for our collectivism."

The longer I live the more I realize this is true. All collectivism is not evil, but forced, institutionalized collectivism on the state level is. In fact, I have come to support, in my later thirties, a local style of communism, that, in order to divorce it from its Marxist connotations, I call "communitarianism." I think it is in our tribal nature to form voluntary, cooperative social mechanisms amongst neighbors to protect our property and augment our livelihoods.

Charity and mutual assistance within this limited and localized construct is efficient, accountable, and beneficial to all. But the problems occur when it is extended over large geographic areas, and when it encompasses faceless beneficiaries. It becomes unaccountable and prone to the grinding effects of corruption and free-loading.

That being said, I believe a model of development that elevates the self-sufficient individual as the basic unit of our families towns, cities and nations is the best one in the abstract. It guarantees that there will be multitudes with the available resources to selflessly contribute to any local collective when the community's needs arise.

It's a yin-yang thing; this issue about one or the other is moot. What is needed is to find a harmonious balance of both. One of the things that makes humans successful as a species is their ability to cooperate in community for their mutual well-being. However, you need creative sets of ideas to adapt to constantly changing conditions, and the individualism required to discover and develop those ideas.

In a sense I think that American culture can be (or pretend to be) more individualistic because so much of the communalism is built-in to our infrastructure, at least in urban settings. That's not necessarily a good thing because it means we don't have to think about anymore the things we have to do individually to build up community structures. In smaller scale communities where the infrastructure is less commonly supplied, then individuals DO have to work harder to build those relationships.

I think if American infrastructure disappeared tomorrow that you probably would have a set of people that wouldn't have the skills to adapt easily to smaller cooperative communities (the "sheep" from your earlier thread). However, I think over time smaller communities would develop as people relearned some of these communal skills.

dissent wrote: In smaller scale communities where the infrastructure is less commonly supplied, then individuals DO have to work harder to build those relationships.

Tell me about it. My community is in transition at the moment from a pure collective ideal to full on individualism. And the crowd are getting restless.

I'm not sure i'm gonna like going back to real life after seventeen years.

i see when everyone is trying to be individuals, they are silently steamrolled by collectives - naturally more powerful - that tend to spring up and surprise you.

in a sense, the collectives are seen as cheating - breaking the rules. it's like a playground game, where a few friends band together and suddenly everyone HAS to band together into groups or they just can't compete - you suddenly find yourself playing an entirely different game that you didn't really want to be playing when you started out.

i'm speaking from a sense of how corporations are steamrolling over everyone on the playground. to us it seems like they are cheating, they arn't being fair, they are too powerful. unfortunately our playground rules wern't really written in stone anyway so they really can do whatever they want. there would need to be better playground rules written if collectives and individuals are to get along, atm i don't think what we have is working. the rules are ok for individuals, but are seemingly nieve of collectives and their inherent powers.

Communes were tried in the 60's...and died out.

The term "collective" is so broad, most of us aren't even talking about the same thing.

Usually when people complain we're "too individualistic" they mean we don't do enough to help others, that is, we don't have enough relationship-based collective behavior (my post). We don't take care of friends or neighbors when they need it, for example. We're too selfish and too self-centered. We need more of that sort of collectivism -- more caring for those we know, and also for those we don't know directly but who are within our communities. (It's also good to care for those we don't know who are in other communities -- from the guy in the bad neighborhood across town to the people in Afghanistan and Sudan -- but I wouldn't call that "collectivism" so much as "humanitarianism".)

When people complain we're "too collectivist" they usually mean we have too many government-imposed collective ventures (dissent's post) or else they mean we have too many economic-based collective ventures (roid's post).

Government-imposed collectivism is a form of collectivism that doesn't respect individuals, and that doesn't require individuals to *actually* care about one another (Mirabilis' post). Far too often, I see people claim they "care for the poor" because they pay taxes -- yet they clearly don't give a [bleep] about the poor people they actually know. Now, I'm not saying that form of collectivism is bad -- certainly it's good to have things like infrastructure and government assistance for those in the most dire circumstances. But it should only be taken so far; beyond a certain point, it starts to choke out both individualism and relationship-based collectivism (and also tends to breed corruption.)

Economic collectives, whether they're corporations or unions or co-ops or something else, are essentially a competitive mechanism. Some are more geared toward maximizing profits, while others are more geared toward minimizing risk. (Roid views corporations as sort of cheating and needing to be restricted; I view most unions the same way. But that's a whole other discussion.) I think, ultimately, I respect or disrespect these collectives based on what they do to individuals and to relationship-based collectives. FC's kibbutz, for example, sounds like it was an economic collective that also strengthened relationships, and I have a lot of respect for that. Microsoft, on the other hand, is a big collective that is neutral (at best) in terms of individuals and relationships (and has questionable business practices, which I think are best left for another discussion.)

So... we need more individual/relationship-based collectivism, probably less government-mandated collectivism, and we should find the right balance with economic collectivism based on how the particular economic collective interacts with communities, relationships, and individuals.

Lothar wrote:So... we need more individual/relationship-based collectivism, probably less government-mandated collectivism, and we should find the right balance with economic collectivism based on how the particular economic collective interacts with communities, relationships, and individuals.

So isn't this where religion comes into play? Most churchs I know do respond to the needy, especially within their respective communities. I think Bush may have got it right in allocating federal aid money to faith based organisations. Better them than the amoeboid collective of a federal or state welfare system.

Maybe you can take it even a little smaller scale. Maybe "Pay It Forward" was a little sappy message for a movie, but it really wasn't such a bad idea, was it? Think of it as selfish unselfishness.