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.
In view of the fact that our modern society is indeed a thoroughly collectivized society, I'd have to say that your rant on rugged individualism, as mans inevitable state, seems to avoid a historical counter to your notions. Mankind survived as long as he did because of his ability to collectivize his efforts, the tribal concept was vital to man's evolutionary path to the modern creature he is today. While the "rugged individuals" passed on in obscurity, the collectives prospered and became the bedrock of modern economics, politics, religion, and last, but not least, the idea that together--we can--and have for thousands of years--overcome the odds against the individual..
Individualism does absolutely NOT require one to go live separately from society, as a hermit, bereft of any technological aids or infrastructure. It has nothing at all to do with individualism.
Solitude and privation are not synonyms for individualism.
Using two opposite extremes, let's take Japan and America. In Japan, the collective is paramount, above all else. In America, it's the exact opposite, the individual is paramount, above all else. But for a healthy functioning society, what do you think is most important?
The collective. We have always been highly social creatures. It's cooperation between people that have allowed up to get where we are.
I look at my country and I see sickness. Family means little if anything, cooperation is at best problematic and inefficient. Western individuality serves only to hasten our failure in this new modern world. That's obvious.
Ok think about the upcoming holidays. Look at a family.... is it possible for everyone to agree? How is it that we should expect an entire nation of people to agree or pull their weight in any situation.
Collective is a nice idea but you can't force everyone to participate.
One of the reasons the US has fallen behind is we let individuals do whatever they want even if the greater society is damaged. Collectivism is stability and stability is prosperity unchecked individualism leads to poverty and tyranny.
Using two opposite extremes, let's take Japan and America. In Japan, the collective is paramount, above all else. In America, it's the exact opposite, the individual is paramount, above all else. But for a healthy functioning society, what do you think is most important?
I think equilibrium between the two is best in the long run and one only becomes more important than the other when there is an imbalance in which case more emphasis/importance needs to be placed on the lesser of the imbalance.
As this thread shows, people have very different, sometimes even opposite views of what Individualism and Collectivism mean.
Collectivism, in cultural theory terms, means that people are embedded in and mutually obligated to larger but still somehow tangible/relatable, often overlapping groups (the extended family, the village or neighbourhood, the local church group, etc.), and derive and confer social status from and to these. Collectivism is taking in a cousin looking for a job in the big city whom you have never met, expecting children to take care of their elderly parents, bragging about your great nephew the doctor/judge, basing important career or family decisions on what your parents/the elders/the community "expect" (and thinking that's how it should be), sending remittances to support the entire family back home, accepting dad's final word even as an adult. Because getting ahead in life often involves calling upon or creating new personal relations, collectivist social norms are typically related to a relatively high acceptance of nepotism and corruption. Most cultures fall in this category.
Individualism, by contrast, means family ties are weaker and mostly limited to the nuclear family, social status derives primarily from one's own actions, rules and contracts override personal ties, children are supposed to be independent, education is supposed to teach kids to think freely and question authority, people should "follow their calling", "live their dreams", "find themselves", etc. This does not at all imply anarchy or preclude a sense or responsibility toward others. On the contrary, individualist cultures are typically more structured and have a stronger sense of "society" (as opposed to the "communities" of collectivist societies). It is no coincidence that true welfare states are really only found in individualist northern European and Anglo countries (the U.S. being an exception to the extent that it has a smaller welfare state), because it is precisely the absence of collectivist social norms that has made the welfare state necessary as a personal safety net (an insurance, if you will), combined with above mentioned ideals of individual self-realization).
Also, political/economic collectivism does not necessarily correlate with cultural/social collectivism. Something as large and anonymous as "the nation", "the international working class", "humankind", etc. is simply too large to be a community in the latter sense. Indeed, the more successful socialist states were those whose culture had more individualist traits and had a more developed sense of society. From a social point of view, it could be argued that communism, with its tendencies toward mass production, equalization and standardization is in many ways the extreme form of capitalism, rather than its opposite.
I'm an American, so the individual is most important. I look at Americans as being similar to ants. Not in a hive mind mentality but if something pi**es us off we swarm and get busy.
Using two opposite extremes, let's take Japan and America. In Japan, the collective is paramount, above all else. In America, it's the exact opposite, the individual is paramount, above all else. But for a healthy functioning society, what do you think is most important?
An intelligent combination.
Why, other than academic exercise, would a choice be given between two extremes?
Japanese justice system favors the police which violate citizens rights, assuming they posses rights, with institutional approval.
Rights are from God, inalienable right as humans, not government as governments are chronically unstable while human rights are a constant.
... Rights are from God, inalienable right as humans, not government as governments are chronically unstable while human rights are a constant.
Prove it.
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.
