"Individualism VS Collectivism" is one of the six dimensions of national culture proposed by Professor Geert Hofstede. The remaining five are:
- Power Distance Index: This dimension expresses how much the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This index shows how a society handles inequalities among its members.
- Masculinity VS Femininity: The Masculinity side of this dimension represents a preference for achievement, heroism, self-confidence, and monetary rewards for success. Masculine societies are very competitive. The Femininity stands for a preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life. These societies are much more consensus-oriented.
- Uncertainty Avoidance Index: The Uncertainty Avoidance dimension expresses what a society feels towards uncertainty. Some countries maintain rigid, traditional codes of belief and behavior, while other maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles.
- Long-Term VS Short-Term Orientation: This dimension demonstrates how a society maintains links with its past while dealing with the challenges of the present and the future. Some societies value long-term (pragmatic) orientation, while other gear towards short-term (normative) approach.
- Indulgence VS Restraint: Indulgence stands for a relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint stands for strict social norms and suppressed fulfillment of needs.
Out of the mentioned remaining five dimensions of natural culture, Masculinity VS Femininity is the most similar to the dimension that we are talking about today - Individualism VS Collectivism.
On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose - everyone is expected to look after himself and his immediate family. In this idea, the individual has an absolute right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. Thus, the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern.
On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which protect them in exchange for loyalty. Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the society of which he is a part and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the collective (greater) good. According to collectivism, the society is the basic unit of moral concern, which sets the rules of behavior.
My personal opinion is that, like in almost all things in life and philosophy, it's important to find a balance. A completely individualistic society (total anarchy) would cause serious problems with protection from violent individuals as well as with the inability to conducts large beneficial community projects such as bridges, highways, or hospitals. On the other side, a completely collectivist society would turn us into slave robots serving the society. Thus, none of the extremes is good and the only question is on which side of the optimum are we today.
On the map above you can see the Individualism VS Collectivism scores around the globe. Red countries are highly individualistic, while the green ones are oriented towards collectivism. If we would judge quickly, we would conclude that a tendency towards individualism is good, since high individualism is generally found in the most developed parts of the world. But, hey, take a look at this:
That is the happiness around the world map, with happiness being defined as the ability to live a long, happy, environmentally sustainable life. While some highly individualistic and developed countries are also happy (most of the Western, Central, and Northern Europe, as well as New Zealand), other seem to be unhappy (USA, Canada, and Australia). On the other hand, although mostly poor, the countries of the Caribbean (ahoy, pirates) rank top in both collectivism and happiness scores.
As I already wrote in one of my past articles, I believe that wealth can secure most of our physiological and safety needs, but it can help little with our love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization needs (these are five groups of human needs according to Maslow). What do you think is the best option for those three groups of needs that money can't buy - individualism or collectivism?
If you liked this post, then you would probably also like my recent article: Bystander Effect: What is it & What to do about it?
Have a wonderful day, week, and life!