A functioning Society: Individualism v. Collectivism

Oftentimes during one's adolescence stage, we are taught ideas that "sharing is caring," "teamwork makes the dream work," soon after, we are bombarded with the ideas that "selfish people live longer," or "be yourself." From early stages in life, people are pulled in every direction from trying to work with other people to create harmony and unity in a community, but at the same time taught that to succeed in this life, we need to consider our individuals before our community; be selfish when it comes to your life.

When discussing nations driven by Individualism, the United States often comes to mind for many, as America is suitably dubbed the 'land of the free," referring to the many freedoms that Americans take for granted. From freedom of speech or the freedom of complete government censorship on the internet, many Americans view these freedoms as our rights as human beings. The American philosophy that a functioning society is better if everyone brought their Individualism to create a diverse society is rooted within these freedoms. It drives Americans to be an individual and passionate not to let anyone, especially the government, take control of our Individualism. On the other hand, other nations have a different philosophy when it comes to a functioning society, putting society's needs before the needs of your own. Within communities that practice Collectivism, collaboration imposes a mutual obligation to help function the government.

So, we may wonder: is society better if we were driven by Individualism or Collectivism? Delving into this topic, this paper will uncover the definition of Individualism and Collectivism while comparing how each society will function in three scenarios: wartime, economic growth, and national emergency. Through research and analyzing different nations, this paper will conclude if Collectivism or Individualism is a better option for a sustainable and functional society.

Defining Individualism:

First, we must have a unified definition of Individualism that will be referred to in this paper. Using social psychologist Greet Hofstede's definition, an individualist society is one "where the ties between individuals are loose: Everyone is expected to look after her/his immediate family only" Hofstede (2001). According to Hofstede, Individualism-centered societies see individuals as independent persons with the freedom to make their own choices, making people motivated by their preferences and goals. Individualist culture awards personal accomplishments such as artistic exploration, scientific innovations, and anything that encourages individuals to stand out.

Studies conducted by Verymind conclude that Individualism focused nations produce more social behavior that tends to be dictated by the preferences of individuals. The study points out that characteristics of an individualistic society include a greater emphasis on being unique, and the rights of individuals tend to take higher precedence. In individualistic cultures, people rely on pulling themselves "by the bootstraps" and accomplishing goals independently without having to rely on assistance from others. Many Americans usually view this idea as important to understanding the American value system. In America, your well-being over the group's good is preferred; individuals must always have a choice.

However, other people see Individualism as selfish and unproductive when it comes to creating a properly functioning society. Many arguments have created a narrative that communities that follow the beliefs of an individualism-fueled society create a disconnect between government and other community members. With self-interest at the forefront of many decisions, many see this as a disastrous form of government, as there would be no harmony between people. However, American sociologist Robin M. William Jr. disagrees. In his book, American Society, Williams rejects the notion that Individualism encourages a "lone cowboy" culture. Instead, he argues, "American' individualism,' taken in broadest terms, has consisted mainly of a rejection of the state and impatience with restraints upon economic activity; it has not tended to set the autonomous individual in rebellion against his social group" (Williams,485). Williams argues that Individualism does not mean people who value their freedom and independence shut out their social groups.

Still, it allows for personal responsibility and accountability, all necessary for a well-functioning society. William emphasizes that people must focus on a specific type of individual, which he calls American voluntarism. American Volunteerism refers to the belief of a combination of being "an autonomous self but also committing to a freely formed group" (Williams, 1970). American voluntarism looks at both tradeoffs between individual and group interests. It frequently favors group commitment, disproving the belief that individualistic societies tend to formulate selfish beings, which will be later expanded upon.

Defining Collectivism

While Individualism emphasizes personal freedom and achievement, in contrast, Collectivism encourages conformity and discourages individuals from straying away from group thought. When studying collectivist nations, Hofstede surveyed 30 IBM employees from 30 countries to measure cultural differences within equivalent jobs. From the research, it was concluded that countries heavily influenced by Individualism did not internalize collective interests and had a harder time coordinating group activities. However, nations influenced by Collectivism ideals had an easier time with group coordination due to their emphasis on group interests.

With all of the definitions provided, this paper will investigate if Individualism or Collectivism is a suitable way of a functioning government during three scenarios: Wartime, Economic growth, and a state of emergency. Wartime and Chaos

One of the few types citizens will rally for a cause is during times of war. During wartime, individualism or collectivist societies usually create a united front to protect their country or territory. For many nations, when wars begin, governments begin distributing work between citizens, some going to the home front to fight, others working on manufacturing supplies, and others keeping morale for war in high spirits. So how would each society respond in times of war?

In individualism-driven communities, there is a sense that it would be harder for government officials to unite the country to go behind a cause that can be very damaging. Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Author and former CEO of Crisisgroup.org, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preventing deadly conflict, says, "In a world driven by individuals, the idea of the public good loses its appeal…going back to antiquity and the pursuit of private interests." Guéhenno claims that societies with an emphasis on individual triumph cause global malaise. During times of war, a nation must be united and find common ground, as it would create less vulnerability and weakness from within the system. However, if each individual were to express their own opinion beliefs, millions of people would inevitably disagree and not create a united nation. So, if the government and its citizens were not harmonious during wartime, there would be a lack of trust in government and create a disconnect that can destroy the nation from within. If people don't trust the government or with each other to fight for a common cause, it would only cause chaos.

To continue, when discussing Individualism, it can also cause wars or acts of terror. Former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who favored putting individual responsibility before the needs of the country, infamously once said, "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first." Rhetorics like these put enormous responsibility on people, and activists like Guéhenno claim that Thatcher's claims create more division and lead to negative forms of individual agency. Guéhenno says that government officials often forget the luck associated with individual individuals success. When relying too much on individuals to "pull the bootstraps" without government support creates animosity. Other socio-economic standards like family wealth, race, and gender all deal with luck and emphasize individual success. So, for people without extreme luck and who pull their own "bootstraps" and still don't see success, they could manifest their anger into terrorism, causing destruction or war. While the empowerment of individuals is good for individuals to freely express themselves, these ideas can manifest into acts of terrorism during wartime.

However, in Collectivist societies, we would see people working together to reach the same goal; helping the nation. In his paper, The Basis of War-Time Collectivism, author J. M. Clark claims that "War has given us an economy dominated by one supreme end so that all other things take rank according to as they contribute for the country as a whole, the result is a condition in which…the vital problem is to save the people from wanting the absolute necessities." Clark argues that in Collectivism societies, they work together with a common goal to help the nation during times of war, which unites people. While individualistic societies may cause more terror due to their difference in opinion, Collectivist societies are looking for peace during the war, which means an eagerness to rally people together and help their nation.

Developing economic growth

As said above, Individualism is often associated with greed, independence, and selfishness. These types of societies tend to focus on the "M.E.," so their justifications and actions are dependent on whatever suits themselves and not the better of society in mind. In fact, it is due to the "selfishness" of Individualism that we have created a better society, says author Mahmoud Yousef Askari. Askari argues that the need to fulfill one's needs and desires is what fuels the growing economy. For example, because a person may want to feel good about themselves, they are more likely to donate to charity than a selfless person who has no motivation to gain personal satisfaction. Through this personal gratification or "selfishness", it gets innovation and economic growth. Countries like the United States, where individualism spirits are high, are correlated with higher incomes, more education, urbanization, and the highest percentage for altruistic countries in the world.

The individualism idea that people have to be self-resistant and responsible for their needs without other people's help motivates one to accomplish their self-needs. These innovations inversely help society as a whole. For example, if one individual finds an issue with an Apple iPhone and they fix the issue, it benefits society as a whole. Some people attribute individualist culture to expand upon this mindset as a source of our entrepreneurial spirit and turn it into economic growth.

To further expand on the claim that individualism ideology is beneficial for economic growth, research conducted by professors from UCLA found that "when working the more able members of society collectively produce less per unit time than when working alone – so a greater degree of collectivism decreases the wealth of the high ability members of society and hence the bequests they leave" (Ahuja, Van der Schaar, Zame). The professors found that working as a collective group actually slowed down productivity and produced less units than when people worked alone. Their research suggests that for people that are able to work at a high capacity working alone may be more helpful, as people who are independent could be confident in their skills that they do not need confirmation from other people, or they are used to accomplishing something on their own.

When looking at a Collectivist society for the benefit of economic growth, it is assumed that Collectivism's increased coordination capacities lead to higher efficiency in the economy, but it does not guarantee that working with others equals more productivity.

Author and researcher Andreas P. Kyriacou claims, "By imposing social obligations on individuals to share their resources with other group members, collectivism may dull individual incentives to maximize income to the detriment of economic growth." In other words, Collectivism does not create an incentive for economic growth. Kyriacou's research suggests that, in individualist cultures, the ideology of personal achievement and self-reliance are what pushes people to be more innovative and create the economic changes that will benefit society through long-term growth and fostering a space for entrepreneurship. However, in collectivist societies, when people are not self-motivated, it does not give them an incentive to work outside of their comfort zone, and they are not pushed by others to do more than what they could. Because the collectivists are a "dull" stand-still, it does not generate economic growth.

State of Emergency

In March 2020, when Covid-19 impacted the whole world, the difference between life and death depended on the unity of the country. Countries like South Korea and Hong Kong saw fairly low infection rates and very low death rates; however, in the United States, we saw death and infections increasing every day. So, what was the difference between the two governments? When looking at Individualism through the lens of a state emergency, the actions of the United States can be directly applied. As mentioned before, individualistic cultures valued personal freedom, so when health experts and scientists advocated for masks, testing, contact tracing, and vaccine mandate, the individualistic societies went ballistic. Some people citing personal freedom of choice, decided not to wear masks in public places because they felt that their personal needs were not being met, even after health officials listed the health benefits for others. Without a general census that people needed to help other people during the pandemic, the messages were muffled in individualistic societies where the line between personal choice and social responsibilities was blurred.

Which is how one study concluded that collectivists are more efficient functioning societies during a state of emergency. The results suggested that, "collectivist social norms are considered to have a protective effect against infectious pathogens." Due to collectivist social norms that favored stricter governmental guidelines like social distancing, contact tracing, and testing made it easier for the government to contain and control any outbreaks from occurring in a collectivist society, where social responsibility trump's desire, everyone did their part in promoting safe conduct during the current pandemic to keep the entire community safe.

In individualistic societies that were studied in the same research, researchers found that individualistic cultural communities had more infection rates of Covid-19 and an accelerated rate of conspiracy theories that deterred people from following social distancing rules. The nature that individualist societies promote personal freedom hindered many people from supporting the idea that the masks and testing were helping others in the community. So, looser cultures like Spain, Italy, and the United States saw a spike in infections and deaths compared to collectivist nations like Taiwan and South Korea.

Overall, the data points to the idea that because collectivist societies already carry the values of putting the community's needs first, they are more likely to follow government guidelines, knowing that it is for the good of society. However, individualist communities had a harder time managing the pandemic due to valuing personal freedoms above the community's needs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has given an insight into how individualist and collectivist societies would react in three different scenarios. Within wartime collectivism, societies are more suitable for a functioning government because the unity of the country and national spirit is easier to rally upon than individualistic communities, where personal thoughts could cause internal violence or terrorism. Next, when looking at economic growth, evidence and research suggested that individualistic societies would create a better functioning society by increasing productivity and innovation. An innovative nation fuels economic growth, whereas working as a collective group can decrease productivity. Finally, when reviewing the two ideologies, evidence suggested that collectivist societies are more suited for a functioning government due to the value of benefiting the community over oneself and trust in government.