Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a whole, the US is a pretty individualist country rather than collectivist but individualism and collectivism isn't completely even in the country. Which part do you think is the most collectivist? Most individualist?
This gets a little more complicated than they may think because a question is collectivism for or by whom?
I would offer that California, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Vermont, and perhaps Hawaii tend to be more collectivist in a sense because they have laws that tend to favor protection of consumers, employees, etc., but that are sometimes seen as less friendly towards businesses and people with established power, and some people see this as being over regulated.
On the other hand, very conservative states, such as Mississippi, Texas, etc., tend to be much more laissez faire when it comes to letting business and those with established power do whatever whatever they want, having laxer labor laws on business, etc., but then they enforce social norms (formerly and informally) much more strictly than California, particularly urban California.
A stranger walking down the street with an unusual costume in San Francisco won't attract the kind of negative attention that they would in rural Mississippi. Also, some of these places may be very suspicious of the government being collectivist but wants the church or some private organization to provide everything, subject to meeting their conditions.
I hope this is addressing what your question is about. I worked hard to think of it and I say this optimistically per your username phrase.
I will propose the opposite of what some may assume. I say the most collectivist are those areas with the largest concentrated religious groups, particularly areas with large numbers of Mormons and Evangelical Christians (Utah, the South, rural areas, etc), and where most people share the same racial/ethnic/religious background. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down" in these places.
The most individualistic areas are primarily concentrated in the cities, where despite the high levels of interdependency, essentially each of the separate groups (racial, ethnic, class, religion, etc) often operate independently of one another and there is a greater opportunity for individuality overall. This is where innovation thrives. It is possible in the places to "be alone in the crowd" and do things outside of the view and judgment of others.
No place is fully one or the other, but there are many places where you can have individualism on more levels.
In other places it might be difficult to escape the collectivism.
I would disagree with the assessments of previous posters by suggesting places like California, especially the more liberal areas, there is an expectation of conformity that would make rural Mississippi look far more accepting. Being familiar with rural areas of the south, it seems to me there are a lot of misconceptions of how things operate there.
An outlier of any sort would probably fare much better in Texas than a straight-laced conservative would in many accepting (supposedly) areas of California.
Heavily populated areas(generally): conform. Collectivism. Even when you have the freedom to express yourself, there is a heavy expectation to just go with the flow not to mention all the heavy-handed government stuff.
In rural areas, individualism, especially in less agricultural places. You can often do whatever you want on many levels simply because everyone there just wants to be left alone. Even when the government has restrictions, they are often loosely enforced.
Outside of Utah, I can’t think of very many areas where religious cohesiveness is strong enough to cause expectations of conformity to amount to anything. In the south, when someone doesn’t want to conform to some church’s teachings, they can just find another church or quit going altogether. They’ll still have plenty of company either way.
IMO, the most collectivist communities are conservative/religious communities and younger liberal "organic" urban communities, among other similar variations (such as younger liberal rural communities).
The common denominator is that these groups generally do not trust higher authorities to be able to solve local issues. They rely more on individual action in a local collectivist context to solve an issue. While the two aforementioned groups are typically thought of as opposites, they are often times quite similar in how they behave. They are only separated by their beliefs.
More individualist thought permeates in states like MA, NY, CA, etc., where there is a reliance on higher government to act, thus absolving or lessening the emphasis on the individual to act in a collectivist manner.
In general, lower income areas is more likely to be collectivist: more dependency on means tested benefits, higher density housing, more public transit use, higher birth rates: more kids in government schools, more likely to be employed by the government.
Wealthier areas can afford to be more individualistic, make their own decisions, more freedoms due to economic flexibility.
No place is fully one or the other, but there are many places where you can have individualism on more levels.
In other places it might be difficult to escape the collectivism.
I would disagree with the assessments of previous posters by suggesting places like California, especially the more liberal areas, there is an expectation of conformity that would make rural Mississippi look far more accepting. Being familiar with rural areas of the south, it seems to me there are a lot of misconceptions of how things operate there.
An outlier of any sort would probably fare much better in Texas than a straight-laced conservative would in many accepting (supposedly) areas of California.
Heavily populated areas(generally): conform. Collectivism. Even when you have the freedom to express yourself, there is a heavy expectation to just go with the flow not to mention all the heavy-handed government stuff.
In rural areas, individualism, especially in less agricultural places. You can often do whatever you want on many levels simply because everyone there just wants to be left alone. Even when the government has restrictions, they are often loosely enforced.
Outside of Utah, I can’t think of very many areas where religious cohesiveness is strong enough to cause expectations of conformity to amount to anything. In the south, when someone doesn’t want to conform to some church’s teachings, they can just find another church or quit going altogether. They’ll still have plenty of company either way.
Being very familiar with each region (especially South/West/New England), this post is pretty accurate.
Outside of Utah, I can’t think of very many areas where religious cohesiveness is strong enough to cause expectations of conformity to amount to anything. In the south, when someone doesn’t want to conform to some church’s teachings, they can just find another church or quit going altogether. They’ll still have plenty of company either way.
I disagree with this. The Southern Baptist church is powerful enough in the South (especially the rural areas) to both formally and informally enforce its social norms. If you go to states like Arkansas you still have dry counties, largely due to Southern Baptist influence. Oklahoma still had 3.2% beer until last year because of Southern Baptist influence. Highly Southern Baptist states will likely be among the last to legalize recreational weed. Yes, people don't have to go to a Baptist church or can go to another type of church, but the dominant culture will still ostracize those who don't conform. Also, many of the other churches that dominant the rural South may not be Baptist but they are similar in theology and culture. Many non-denominational churches for instance are simply Southern Baptist churches with some slight differences on various issues. The overall culture is still the same.
I disagree with this. The Southern Baptist church is powerful enough in the South (especially the rural areas) to both formally and informally enforce its social norms. If you go to states like Arkansas you still have dry counties, largely due to Southern Baptist influence. Oklahoma still had 3.2% beer until last year because of Southern Baptist influence. Highly Southern Baptist states will likely be among the last to legalize recreational weed. Yes, people don't have to go to a Baptist church or can go to another type of church, but the dominant culture will still ostracize those who don't conform. Also, many of the other churches that dominant the rural South may not be Baptist but they are similar in theology and culture. Many non-denominational churches for instance are simply Southern Baptist churches with some slight differences on various issues. The overall culture is still the same.
I’m from Arkansas. I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s as impactful as it seems. By and large, people do whatever they want.
Also, it certainly seems no worse than liberal states where far more basic freedoms are infringed upon. It’s like they throw people a bone with various issues that affect relatively small portions of the population while micromanaging everything else.
Texas, Nevada, and, Arizona for the most individualist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
