The purpose and focus of the lecture is to discuss and define the topics of individualism and collectivism from a cultural viewpoint. The information provided in this lecture will allow one to differentiate between the two attributes. In the conclusion, one will present the positive and negative effect of each attributes from a cultural perspective. Individualism and collectivism are essential terms that researchers use to help one understand culture differences and the impact they have on group behavior. It is important that one obtain the knowledge of both attributes because it can help individuals understand and recognize the different attitudes and behavior of other cultures. Although each attribute has its own advantages and disadvantages, they do share some similarities; and are believed to be the opposite of each other. However, for one to understand the full concept of individualism; one must first have an understanding of collectivism. The concept of both, individualism and collectivism involves the aspects in which individuals live their lives in today’s society. Therefore, the idea of each attribute is to help one understand the difference between individual thinking and collective thinking from a cultural perspective. Both individualism and collectivism play a critical role in determining the scale for which people in today’s society function or think, whether individually are in a social setting. According to Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002), from a cultural perspective, individualism and collectivism are both attributes that explain the differences in how one understands the relationship between individuals and groups” (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Comparing Individualism and Collectivism In comparin... ... middle of paper ... ...sonalities and behavior traits of different cultures. The information provided in this lecture describes individualism as social patterns that involve an individual’s priority for self motivation, self confidence, self oriented, and self competent, self responsibility. Collectivism also involves social patterns, however collectivism involves individuals who are collective, which means these individual prefer to be a part of some type of group. These groups may be internal or external. In conclusion, one has discussed and defined the topics of individualism and collectivism from a cultural perspective. The purpose for information provided in this lecture was to help one to differentiate between the two elements. In addition, the concept the positive and negative effect of each attributes was presented from a cultural perspective based on the text information.
In the article “Individual Autonomy and Social Structure”, Dorothy Lee talks about individual autonomy. She goes through the topic by examining different groups such as; the Wintu Indians of California, the Sikh family, the Navaho Indians of Arizona and New Mexico, and the Chinese culture. All of these different groups and societies give personal freedom to the individuals regardless of age groups. The example of Navaho Indians is used by Lee to demonstrate how “personal autonomy is supported by the cultural framework” (Lee, 1959, p.5). She points out the individual autonomy of non-western societies to the individuality of western society. One group gives full independence to an individual while the other does not and puts restrictions in place through some form. She states “...in a heterogeneous society such as ours, and in an era of induced change and speeded temp of living, it has been difficult to implement this tenet in the everyday details of living” (Lee, 1959, p.5). She points out the fast living pace of western society, where the personal autonomy given from the other cultures is lacking.
Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low cont...
... middle of paper ... ... The metaphysical basis of collectivism is, "There are no men but only the great WE." The moral basis is, "We exist through, by and for our brothers." The implication is that things that exist have the right to exist, and things that do not exist have no right.
This article provides me a detailed research on a group of American and Chinese adults with plenty of data and analysis. They provided a lot of real and objective opinion on the comparison between individualism and collectivism. The fact of the whole respondents are students gives me an advantage on finding better ways to understand and use this research in my
The next communication gap concerns with the individualism- collectivism dimension, which is the degree an individual is integrated into groups in a society (Hofstede, 2001). Individualistic cultures like the U.S put a strong emphasis on individual autonomy and independence, whereas collectivist cultures like Vietnam believe in belonging, obligation
“Individualistic cultures, in the western-hemisphere, [such as the United States,] emphasize… personal identity and self-determination. Conformity is far less pervasive in individualistic societies because democratic choices and laissez-faire viewpoints are somewhat considered.”
The primary difference between Eastern and Western philosophies concerns the overarching concept of the person. “Collectivism” and “individualism” are ultimately psychological terms used to describe and explain how human beings identify themselves among society, prioritize their ...
Individualism in today’s society is the “belief that each person is unique, special, and a ‘basic unit of nature’.” The individualism concept puts an “emphasis on individual initiative” where people act independently of others and use self-motivation to prosper. The individualists “value privacy” over community the individual thrives to move ahead in life (U S Values).
Is an individual’s opinion more important than the consensus of the whole? I everyone agreed on one matter in society, it would benefit the majority of the people. Above all, collectivism drives society to contribute to the common good. People could be further altruistic and subsidiary towards others. On the contrary, individualism encourages only self-encouragement and turns society apart. Collectivism conveys the value of the whole and binds society closer. To set against social corruption and the spurious abundance of greed that an individualistic society would establish, collectivism should be valued above individualism.
Collectivism and individualism, both have a fair share of issues. The articles that exemplify both collectivism and individuality are “1984”, “Anthem” and a poem called “Unknown Citizen”. Collectivism and individualism have an even amount of dilemmas, both collectivism and individualism come from totally different perspectives. The Struggles associated with a collectivism is that everything, every action, every thought, every person acts as a whole in unison, so there isn’t any room for different opinions and thoughts, as for an individualist society people have to sacrifice themselves both physically, mentally and overcome their
Individuality and conformity both play a major role in society. No matter what it may be individuals will need to choose appropriately between conforming and acting individualistically about their situation. Individuality allows individuals to freely express themselves while conformity offers safety under the protection of other conformers. Both of these aspects are beneficial to many individuals and is a key to maintaining societal order; however, it is disastrous to have too much of either side of the spectrum. Therefore, there should be a balance between individuality and conformity because having too much of either side morally and physically harms components of society, such that it pressures and forces individuals to do tasks against their will, and causes individuals to think selfishly and worry solely about themselves.
Individualism and Collectivism are two accepted theories that are commonly used when dealing with one’s culture and political views. According to Kemmelmeier, H. M. and Coon, Individualism and Collectivism concepts has been used to “depict, clarify, and envision divergence in people’s opinion, behavior, principles, attribution, self perception, socialization, and communication.” Nonetheless, individualism and collectivism has shared some mutual views as well as incongruous stances on humanity, the disposition of human beings, the affiliation of society and the characteristics of people in the individualistic culture. Individualism and Collectivism have shared common goals, nevertheless they agrees on what should be achieve, but their opinion differ in how we should attain what needs to be achieved. Many philosophers has pinpointed a difference in these two theories explaining that “societies can be contrasted along an individualistic-collectivistic axis, with those toward the individualistic end emphasizing the “I” and those toward the other end emphasizing the “we” in thinking about, evaluating, and enacting communicative conducting.” Individualism has been associated with the I- identity and collectivism being associated with the We- identity. In using these pronouns as identification it speaks volume as what each theory is about. The individualism or the I-identity has been categorize as persons that place emphasis on themselves or their immediate family, it has been evident that certain countries has put this identity into practice such as The United States of America, Australia, France, and Canada. Individualist centralize their lifestyles surrounds self actualization and individual achievement; they believe in equality bu...
Singelis comments on a study by Triandis, who proposed that each person has three aspects of the self: private, public, and collective (Singelis, p. 582), similar to the self-construal concept. He conceptualized the idea that different cultural and situational contexts promote the development of certain types of self within an individual (Singelis, p. 582). Singelis also suggests a spectrum for interdependent and independent, but this understanding can only be used for cultural groups, not individuals (Singelis, p. 588). He concludes that although cultures overall must have some preference, individuals can indeed self-identify with both self-construals, and the dominant is based on the cultural and situational
Individualism (Japan 46: India 48): Individualism score is medium for both India and Japan. Japanese put harmony of the group above the expression of individual opinions but at the same time in-groups are situational. Similarly in India there is a high preference for belonging to a larger social framework where individuals act in accordance to the greater good of
In the end, what we learn from this article is very realistic and logical. Furthermore, it is supported with real-life examples. Culture is ordinary, each individual has it, and it is both individual and common. It’s a result of both traditional values and an individual effort. Therefore, trying to fit it into certain sharp-edged models would be wrong.