„Kultura i Historia” nr 9/2005
Agnieszka Cybal-Michalska – Individualism and Collectivism as Cultural Normative Orientations
The dichotomy between individualism and collectivism is a theoretical construct used to explain reciprocal relations between the individual and the group and it constitutes a dimension that arranges cultures from those in which there is primacy of the individual over the group (the individual’s needs are given priority over the group harmony) to those in which there is a primacy of the group over the individual (the group is “a primary being” in relation to which the individual is “a secondary being”); which does influence socio-cultural and psychological level of functioning of individuals.
In the literature on the subject the distinguished notional categories do not have univocal connotations, since, on one hand, they are presented as two poles of one dimension, however, the lack of a superior category hinders defining an appropriate dimension for these typological variables, but on the other hand the notional categories are normative orientations constructed in a qualitatively different way.1
The theoretical considerations proposed below are an attempt to outline what the terms individualism and collectivism denote and connote. It is achieved through a review of the most interesting interpretations of those terms, which are pivotal for the description of socio-cultural phenomena and for the sphere of psychological functioning of individuals, as well as through the confrontation of the theoretical assumptions with postmodern phase of the development of societies in the globalization era.
The interest of the arts in the problems of individualism and collectivism dates back to the end of the 19th century. It was then, when the notions “individualism” and “collectivism” were introduced to social sciences, however, it does not mean that the contents associated with them had not been investigated earlier. The earliest theories date back to Ancient Greeks and they refer to the conception of individualism. The beginnings of the scientific research of the two dissimilar and opposing forms of the organization of social life were recorded in the works of F.Toennis. The author emphasized the duality of human social life and differentiated between community (Gemeinschaft) and association (Gesellschaft). E. Durkheim’s idea of solidarity has also significantly contributed to the study of individualism and collectivism. The author stressed the fact that one of the signs of group bonds is the existence of common interests, on the basis of which, he distinguished mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. The first one resembles the bond in collectivistic structures and “is possible only if ideas and inclinations common to all members of the society exceed -in terms of number and intensity- personal inclinations and ideas of individual members of the society.” However, the second type of solidarity assumes diversity among individuals and “is only possible when everyone has their own sphere of activity and their own personality”, which is a mark of individualism.2 Similar views were also expressed by T. Parsons, P. Sorokin and K. Weber.
The differentiated understanding of the notions individualism and collectivism is also influenced by a general theoretical orientation. Researches agree on the fact that “the cultural paradigm” (K.Obuchowski) of our civilization was collectivism.” It was an obvious, though not fully conscious norm, a natural principle of human societies as an element of the natural order of things. “A deviation from the norm of collectivism was then simply activity”, evaluated depending on cultural norms as anomaly, illness or crime, respectively.3 In a mature form, the theory of collectivism was introduced by D.Westen, who distinguished primary communal collectivism and secondary communal collectivism, individuated collectivism and synthetic collectivism.
What makes Westen’s idea original is the significance which he attaches to individuated collectivism. The individual, just as in natural collectivism, is an object, but he can rotate among collectivisms without losing his self-identity, however it is accompanied by the sense of betrayal. Individuated collectivism exists primarily “for itself” although it can also exist “in itself”. A particular role is given to fiction since “the more different from its idealization pattern individuated collective in its shape and function is, the stronger allocation of its members and their emotional engagement must be, as well as more complex mechanisms of the destruction of perceived reality. 4
The conception of synthetic collectivism also refers to categorizing thinking, the essence of which is the conscious coordination of individual interest with collective interest. The individual, conscious of his separateness, chooses a collective, and by doing so, becomes a subject. The collective is an object intentionally created by its constituent individuals, who are joined by the same interests but not by common views. That qualitatively different form of the “in itself” collective may undergo permanent change through a frequent rotation of its members, which indicates a pseudo-collective character of the community.5
For many centuries the problems of individualism have been a domain of philosophy.
Individualistic doctrine can be traced in numerous scientific assumptions of Scotto, Occham, Montaigne, Hobbes, Leibniz, Rousseau or Herbart. M. Stirner’s theory, the first one completely devoted to individualistic conception of man, has gained a negative connotation. The author claimed that “just like God, the society is a hypostasis, something that does not exist in reality. The only ones to exist are the individuals. They will never be free, independent or themselves unless they break the fictitious dependence.
The first to define the category of individualism in a social aspect was A. Adler. The context for his study was set by the claim that “the individualistically oriented individual can achieve his goals and gain satisfaction from them only when he is driven by social interest. In any other case the individual’s actions will lead to defeat, social or mental pathology and failure of further actions.”6 However, the main wave of academic interest in extra-biological aspect of individualism occurred not earlier than in the 1960s, when humanistic psychology embracing the autonomy and creative potential of the individual was shaped. The origins of scientific approach can be found in the works of K.Goldstein, K. Horney, A. Maslow or C.Rogers. Humanistic individualism was about “drawing conclusions from anarchism – it is what natural collectivism turned out to be with reference to human problems. It was a project of an autonomous, creative and happy individual”7 whose motive to become the self was the actuation of his inherent potential.
The notional categories “individualism” and “collectivism”, in spite of numerous conceptions describing their designates, carry relatively fixed meanings, which allow to differentiate cultural orientations and refer to the importance of individual initiatives as opposed to the importance of social formation in which the individual is settled, and as social standards of evaluation they differentiate a system of values.8 In this sense, they are opposing categories and the differences concern not only the outlook on life – the conception of social world and the conception of human nature – but also the mechanisms of individual functioning expressed in the conception of oneself, personal and social identity, the rules of undertaking activities determined by internal and external motivation.
The context for the general use of “individualism” and “collectivism” is defined as hidden normative assumptions which occur in the course of socialization and are derived from the generalization of social experience; thus, they are elements of culture in a distributive sense. The subject of collective life is unaware or only partially aware of these assumptions; and they constitute a binding system of norms and values implicating social image of a desired status necessary to avoid anomy which results in social disintegration and adaptive difficulties of individuals. The hidden normative assumptions presented in terms of relations between the individual and the group (society) are pivotal components of individuals’ mentality resources understood as a system of general rules used by man and community to process data about social life.9 A key feature of “the collective conception of the world” is an assumption that the group is a “primary being” and an autonomous one, with reference to which the individual is a “secondary being” and an integral part of a larger wholeness (group, clan, collective, nation, country) on which it is dependent and to which it is subordinate. The fate of the individual is immanently related to the fate of the community which takes over the responsibility for the individual in return for his sacrifice for the common good. At the opposite pole is “the individualistic conception of the world”, according to which social life is a result of interaction among individuals who are autonomous, independent and sovereign beings, who determine their own fate, take responsibility for themselves and base their relations with others on the principles of exchange, cooperation and competition.10
Postmodern thought on the structure and function of the normative assumptions in the life of the individual is located among the most important considerations around essential dimensions of socio-cultural mentality. The importance of the problem grows particularly in the context of globalization and the reflection of modern man who is forced to permanent crystallization of his possible identifications. The reference system for the study of the individualism vs. collectivism will consist of the discussion of the opposition in a cultural aspect.
The sources of individualism and collectivism as interiorised hidden normative assumptions are sought in culture. In the light of empiria (Hofstede) there are grounds to distinguish cross-cultural variations in this aspect. It is proved by the fact that European and North-American cultures are classified in the area of cultural phenomena with individualistic tendencies; but African, Asian and South-African cultures are classified as those which correspond with collectivistic characteristics. Consequently, it means that for most societies of the world collectivism is a proper and natural form of social life, which is significant for globalization tendencies of the modern world’s transformations. The ideal of collectivism is exemplified in the statement that “people from collective cultures show significantly stronger tendencies towards defining themselves in terms of group membership and they perceive the group, i.e. as a system of bonds, and they value obligations to their own group higher than the obligations to impersonal norms of justice.”11 The collective viewpoint is based on a conviction that cooperation, harmony and group solidarity is superior to the maximization of individual profits, which can seemingly give grounds for regarding collective orientation as the one which facilitates social life. It is important that natural foundations of collective thinking contain mechanisms largely divergent from the direction of the development of modern societies. “Individualism”, in comparison to collectivism, presents a different view on the quality of relation between the individual and the group (man is perceived as a sovereign and autonomous being who, regardless of blood ties, regional or cultural bonds, is guided by his own choice), however, it is largely analogous to the civilization progress of societies revealed in a more and more complex form of socio-cultural life (politization, urbanization, economy, technology). Collectivistic orientation, as stressed by Reykowski, can be regarded as socially dysfunctional since a tendency towards a strong identification with the group, towards absolute protection of its interest and conformism impedes pro-progressive attitude of individuals. Individualism can thus be identified with the idea of social progress, and by pointing at the cyclic character of socio-cultural changes it can be concluded that individualism will replace collectivism. Socio-cultural character of these considerations questions such a conclusion since the direction of historical transformations of social reality does not have to be of a linear nature.12 Individuals indeed outlive the existing cultural material and give it an individual meaning, but the claim that “man born in a given culture adopts a given system of assumptions determining univocally his way of thinking”13 can be challenged. The classification of a culture under individualistic category is not the same as the claim that all its members show individualistic normative tendency. Beside individualistic majority there is a minority with a collectivistic attitude. Analogically, in a collectivistic culture where a decisive majority shows collectivistic orientation only a small number of its members has individualistic orientation.14 The ability to individualistic and collectivistic way of thinking is typical of every individual. Therefore, cross-cultural or individual differences in terms of individualism and collectivism orientations should be presented as “a specific composition” of individualistic and collectivistic normative assumptions that depend on a balance system between personal and social identity.15
The picture of individualistic and collectivistic system of normative assumptions which are essential to the description and interpretation of social phenomena, is made of a multi-aspect reception of social world.
A crucial feature of the individualistic conception of the world is the formulation of the social life as a collection of individuals who are independent beings. The individual as a separate and autonomous being rejects others’ right to impose their views and behaviors, is responsible for his own self, controls his fate, seeks optimal conditions for his development, estimates what is good or bad for him and defines the quality of his relations with others. The individualistic thought in its extreme form interprets social life as a battlefield in which, after the example of the animal world, better adapted individuals win. An individualist believes that social environment does not have to have but also can not have a positive influence on his personal formation. In a moderate version a rule of enlightened “egoism” is applicable. It seems that social coexistence is conditioned by the internalization of “the rule of a social game” the compliance with which lies in the interest of every participant of social life.16
The reflection of collectivistic conception of social life is connected with an assumption that the individual is not “a separate being” but a part of a larger social whole (collective) of a functional character. There is a process of interaction among individuals, understood in terms of competition, cooperation and dependence; therefore, the society should be considered rather as a system than a collection.
The opposition between individualism and collectivism presented as the crucial dimensions of individual and social mentality implies a reference to the considerations over globalization which, in a cultural aspect, is an adaptational machinery for the individual and societies. The actuation of modern man’s individualistic or collectivistic way of thinking and of acting who is forced to permanent self-creation will substantially depend on contextual factors.
Multidimensionality of globalization with a strong tendency towards both unification and differentiation processes will release the use of individualism and collectivism as different normative patterns (typical of a specific individual) and ethoses (orientations common to particular social groups) depending on socio-political reality. Although globalization also has its connotations in the processes of “feeling-at home” and “deterritorialization”, its contents comprise mainly “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities” (Giddens 1990), which points to the fact that in a long term one of the most important tendencies of changes in mentality (the source of which is the ethos of a given group) will be the increased role of the individualistic pattern. Previous collective forms of human existence hindered social development, mainly due to a strong conformistic tendency. This critique of collectivism is presented in H. Schoeck’s study, where “mankind emerges from stereotyped and coagulated forms of existence to a level which merely allows to survive, exclusively thanks to independent individuals and men of initiative, who were strong enough to free themselves from the social control imposed on behalf of the interests of the whole society.”17
The discourse on social premises of individualism also leads to a critical reflection on the distinguished normative orientation and a cultural tendency. Frequently raised objections include social consequences such as ruthless competition, isolation and alienation of humans, treating others instrumentally by manipulating them to gain personal profits, in line with the rule that “life is a zero-sum game: when one wins, the other one loses”.18 The further axiological and assessing discussion on prototypical ethoses of collectivism presented as a collectivistic & hierarchical pattern (with the prevalence of identification processes and vertical arrangement) and collectivistic & egalitarian pattern (with the prevalence of identification processes and horizontal arrangement), and on ethoses of individualism presented as an individualistic & hierarchical pattern (with the prevalence of individuation processes and vertical arrangement) and individualistic & egalitarian pattern (with the prevalence of individuation processes and horizontal arrangement) has led Reykowski to formulate a new mentality pattern, called a democratic ethos.19 The tendency described above may be interpreted as overcoming the opposition between individualism and collectivism and creating a notional structure of a higher order which would coordinate individualistic and collectivistic elements and also hierarchical and egalitarian elements which so far have seemed contradictory.
The theoretical framework of democratic ethos based on the coordination of the opposing normative assumptions indicates that the distinguished normative system should constitute a basic component of individuals’ and societies’ mentality in the postmodern era.
Socio-cultural aspect of globalization connected with a spate of many different forms of social & cultural organization and the increase of the social awareness promote and force the coordination of the following processes: separating individuals and combining autonomous subjects into an integrated coherent social whole through thinking in “we” categories on trans-local, trans-national, trans- civilizational levels. With reference to democratic mentality there is no question about the relation between the individual and the group in terms of superiority and inferiority. The rights and interests of individuals are agreed with the collective’s rights and welfare which is accompanied by the drive for maintaining balance between individual and social interests, so there is no primacy of the individual over the society nor the primacy of the society over the individual. Democratic ethos, however, delineates the range of hierarchical order’s rationality and allows to form a system of rules that define circumstances, goals and conditions of the occurrence of asymmetric relations. In consequence, a constitutive issue for the conceptualization of different variants of democratic ethoses is “formulating social reality as a system of relations among equal and autonomous beings who respect one another, and thus acknowledge the welfare of others as an autotelic value.”20 Social order is not based solely on the criteria of blood ties, regional, cultural or civillizational bonds but also on the protection of interests of all members of the collective with regard to their diversified needs. The image of society, irrespective of its putative character since it shows the desired direction of social evolution, presents a type of social order based not on a utilitarian perspective but it points at the society as the creating factor of the individual. The formation of social organization based on democratic ethos determines specific psychological dispositions of society members. The dispositions result from adopting –as the basis for social bonds -subjectivity and autotelic value of the other individual with the observation of the mutual respect rule as the principles that integrate human collective. In terms of distribution of goods, the assumptions of democratic ethos implicate the rule that the fair distribution includes not only the distribution of goods according to merits, but also the needs and potential of the society members, thus it takes into account the welfare of social wholeness. From a democratic perspective, the general responsibility lies with the individual – it includes responsibility for the self, but it does not eliminate responsibility for others, which should be inversely proportional to the individual’s potential to take the responsibility for himself.21
The socio-cultural character of the transformations in the world under globalization triggers the need to blur the borders between individualism and collectivism, and it sheds a different light on the possibilities of shaping mentality based on the coordination of the distinguished perspectives. The answer to the existing demand is the intensified focus on the most favorable psychological & social conditions for the development of the individual and societies in the globalization era.
T he shaping of democratic orientation means that instead of moving from one pole of the dichotomy i.e. collectivism to the second one, i.e. individualism, it is feasible to have a different process of development of societies, based on the coordination of the presented normative orientations.
——————————————————————————————–
Materiał udostępniany na zasadach licencji
CC Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 Generic
——————————————————————————————–