New Reply

Post a Reply

Thread: Individualist and Collectivist Cultures

Title: (100 characters at most)

Content: ( 3,000 characters at most, please )

You can add emoticons below to your post by clicking them.

[quote=GUESTLUKA,450851]I see your point, but i think you are making a big mistake by finding the individual who goes against what the norm for his society/ culture is, and then trying to use that as a basis to prove there is no difference between 'individualistic' and 'collectivist' cultures.

Obviously within a collectivist culture there are some people who act and think based on 'individualism' and within individualistic societies there are some groups, or families who have 'collectivist' lifestyles.

The point should be clear. That humanity is collectivist by nature and individualism, was only made possible in the very modern world. But even here it is a facade. Imagine a modern business man, living completely on his own, right? Actually he relies on a huge army of people, from the electric company, to his restaurant waitress. But the collectivist mechanism is not family or tribe, in this scenario, its 'industry'. Its linking mechanism is financial, currency. He is collective in his actions because he must protect and serve the interests of his business associates, he must strengthen personal ties with his banker or accountant, and he must conduct himself in a way pleasing to them.

Therefore the discussion has been made inappropriately comparing 'collectivism and individualism' when one of the two is never really possible. A more realistic way of looking at things would be to compare the collectivist mechanisms of western 'industrial' societies and eastern 'theological, family, and tribal' societies. For instance money is the collectivist mechanism for New York city, while family and tribal ties still play a big role in Tripoli, and Benghazi, linking people together in a way not well understood in the west.

[/quote]

characters left

Name:

Get a new code