Map of Individualism (vs Collectivism)

So Maciamo, if I trust your map, it means that there is a direct correlation between individualism and economic success. At the risk of being politically incorrect I would even say that there is a link between individualism and hardworking.
This is not difficult to understand. the more efficient and productive you are, the more individualistic you tend to be.

Not necessarily. East Asians are strongly collectivist (more than southern Europeans), but among the hardest working people in the world. You can see they are collectivist by how much they (the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese) care about their national image, and their governments are willing to (occasionally) distort statistics to make them look better in international comparisons. In Europe, the genes for hard-working tend to correlate with individualism (both are higher among Germanic people, probably due to a founder effect before the Bronze-age Germanic expansion), but that doesn't mean that they are the same genes !

A hermit (or an Indian Sadhu) would be an example of a very individualistic person who choose a life of not working. Hippies also somewhat fit in that category.


In modern society the greatest industrial and technological achievements almost always start with a personal success.
when you force collectivism on People (like in the Soviet Union) people lose their motivation and very little intiatives take place.

You cannot force collectivism (in the meaning of genetic trait of character used in this thread) on people. A collectivist-minded majority in a country's population can create a more social or communal society, the extreme of which being communism, but they are completely distinct things. Collectivism isn't about redistributing wealth; this is about egalitarianism (and the most egalitarian societies on Earth are the Scandinavian and the Japanese; the former being strongly individualistic, the latter strongly collectivist).

It's absolutely vital to understand this thread that you clearly separate some concepts in your mind.

- collectivism : caring about what others in your group think of you, caring about the image of your group from the outside. It's essentially about image, respect, interpersonal relationships and emotional dependence on the group.

- egalitarianism : feeling/opinion that other people in society deserve the same fundamental rights (which nowadays has come to include social security and education, in addition to freedom).

- socialism/communism : economic system in which the state owns a large part of the economy and plays a strong role as a regulator (using restrictive laws, taxes, subsidies, etc.).

None of these are related with one another other than by chance and circumstances.

Collectivism is a character trait set in the genes.

Egalitarianism is a variable opinion that depends a lot on the (genetic and cultural) homogeneity of society, but also on basic cultural values that evolve with time.

Socialism is a political and economic system which popularity depends on the electorate, the socio-economic history of a region, the current economic climate, and many other factors.
 
The conservatism-liberalism opposition is completely different from individualism-collectivism. Conservatism is almost a purely political term; it's not a personality trait.
Sorry for not being more specific. When I mentioned conservatism, I meant it literally: risk avoidance, uncertainty avoidance, thus in turn sticking to circumstances to which one was already accustomed. (Conservation, conserving, preserving, etc. ... you know.) Many people who still vote for communists in Russia are conservatives, because they want communism back to which they once got accustomed and they feel safe in environments they used to know.
 
Another issue with using Hofstede is that, in addition to there being entire countries missing, the regional differences within countries is unrepresented.
Indeed. I expect in particular a strong difference between urban/industrial and rural areas. England and Holland are highly industrialized and densely populated. The Balkans and Portugal are very sparsely populated and very rural.
 
Not always, because if you go back far enough we all descend from bacteria. :rolleyes:

If you go back a few hundred years, the picture was pretty much the same. The only nations where private individuals left of their own initiative to create population colonies were individualistic ones (English, Scottish, Dutch, Scandinavians, some Germans, a few North French).

The only regions that adopted Protestantism, willingly breaking off with over a millennia of traditions and taking the risk to be at war with the rest of Catholic Europe, were also individualistic ones.

As society, culture and lifestyle (and even languages) have changed tremendously since the Renaissance, I really don't think that individualism is simply acquired through culture or the local environment. It must be genetic, and therefore only changes as fast as the gene pool does. Alleles for individualism can increase or decrease in a population through natural selection, but this takes time (many centuries for a few percent of change... unless there is a cataclysmic event, like plague or a genocide).

"Collectivism is a character trait set in the genes."

Few hundred years are not not enough to consider individualism as a character trait set in the genes. Or do you suggest that some major genetic mutation occurred in early middle ages in some part of Europe?
 
The only regions that adopted Protestantism, willingly breaking off with over a millennia of traditions and taking the risk to be at war with the rest of Catholic Europe, were also individualistic ones.




There is also the explanation of Fernand Braudel that the Protestant/catholic boundaries almost matches the border of the Roman Empire with the exception of Ireland and Poland.

Also, the nations that were at war with the Habsburg empire were not all protestant
 
If you go back a few hundred years, the picture was pretty much the same. The only nations where private individuals left of their own initiative to create population colonies were individualistic ones (English, Scottish, Dutch, Scandinavians, some Germans, a few North French).

At least they went with their families (and to low-populated countries) Not the iberian case.

In Europe, the genes for hard-working tend to correlate with individualism (both are higher among Germanic people, probably due to a founder effect before the Bronze-age Germanic expansion), but that doesn't mean that they are the same genes !

Well, romans didn't consider germanics as a hard-working people (and we are talking about late iron age) You are taking genetic determinism too far (and not only from a chronological perspective)
 
I have been active on forums for over 10 years, and I can tell you from experience that Northwest Europeans usually don't care so much about what others say about their country, and often like to criticise it themselves. It's a well known fact that the Brits like to make fun of themselves.

I still doubt this has anything to do with individualism. Here is an alternative explanation: The Brits are historically in a strong position, because they almost never were ruled by others. They can easily afford to make fun of themselves without fear. They were actually the ones who ruled over many others. Same with Dutch and Danes. On the other hand the icelanders are much more aware of their nationality, because they were ruled by danes most of the time. Also Norwegians are more concious about nationality for the same reason. Inferiority complexes may be involved as well as a result. Not to mention balcanic peoples who were ruled up to 500 years by ottomans.
 
Last edited:
This is all based on stereotpyes and ignorance. What is collectivist about spaniards ? If anything nordics are the most collectivist based on how their society and economic system works. As a catalan I can tell you Catalonia is a very industrious and individualistic society.
 
This is all based on stereotpyes and ignorance. What is collectivist about spaniards ? If anything nordics are the most collectivist based on how their society and economic system works. As a catalan I can tell you Catalonia is a very industrious and individualistic society.

You obviously haven't read anything of what I wrote (or if you do your didn't understand anything).
 
Rather than genetic we could see the traditional family system of Europe as a better origin for the individualistic/collectivistic behaviours.


The traditional family system of Europe according to Emmanuel Todd:
Todd%2527s+family+system+map+by+Medynski%252C+English+translation.png



Regions with absolute nuclear families
generate smaller households, a more educated
population, and a higher percentage of population in employment. They lead to greater
formal membership of clubs, perhaps as a form of compensation for the lack of
socialisation within the family. They are currently associated with service societies, and
have generated richer and more dynamic regions, although also more inequitable
societies. Regions with an imprint of absolute nuclear families seem to be early
adopters, first in terms of the transition between an agricultural and an industrial society
and then from the industrial to the service society. It thus may be that the higher
economic dynamism of these areas is most in evidence in periods of change and less so
in periods of stability.


Regions where egalitarian nuclear families tended to predominate have larger
households, lower overall levels of educated population, lower activity rates, and lower
female participation in the labour force. A small but more universally available
inheritance maybe seen as a deterrent for higher education, as would the larger family
size. While there is no big difference with absolute nuclear family areas in terms of
sectoral structure, inequality, and dynamism, these regions tend to be poorer, perhaps as
a result of their weaker ability to adapt to sectoral shifts in the economy.

Regions with a tradition of stem families are associated with larger household size,
lower levels of education and lower participation in the labour force, but not necessarily
lower female participation. They are currently predominantly industrial societies and
tend to be poorer and less dynamic than nuclear family dominated areas.

Regions with communitarian family traditions surprisingly do not lead to bigger
households, or less educated populations, or less overall participation in the workforce.
Such regions tend to be manufacturing societies and poorer, but more equal, than areas
of absolute nuclear family traditions.
 
Rather than genetic we could see the traditional family system of Europe as a better origin for the individualistic/collectivistic behaviours.

Nice correlation, but why should we suspect the causation to go the direction you're suggesting? Doesn't individualism/collectivism dictate the family structure more than the family structure dictates individualism/collectivism?
 
Nice correlation, but why should we suspect the causation to go the direction you're suggesting? Doesn't individualism/collectivism dictate the family structure more than the family structure dictates individualism/collectivism?

Actually this map only reflects the medieval family structure and is supposed to explain the birth of modern ideology such as the reformation, the French revolution, Communism etc

But as you said individualism/collectivism can also dictates the family structure. Obvioulsy if the map was based on nowadays'family structure, I think that all the UK would be in the same color as would be all France etc.

I've found better explanation for the map on the Web:
Todd%2527s+family+system+map+by+Medynski%252C+English+translation.png


1. Absolute Nuclear Family:
a. Spouse selection: Free, but obligatory exogamy.
b. Inheritance: Indifference - no precise rules, frequent use of wills.
c. Family Home: no cohabitation of married children with their parents.
d. Representative Nations, Peoples, Regions: Anglo-Saxon world, Holland, Denmark.
e. Representative Ideology: Christianity, Capitalism, `Libertarian' Liberalism, and Feminism.

2. Egalitarian Nuclear Family:
a. Spouse selection: Free, but obligatory exogamy.
b. Inheritance: Egalitarian - equality between brothers.
c. Family Home: no cohabitation of married children with their parents.
d. Representative Nations, Regions: northern France, northern Italy, central & southern Spain, central Portugal, Greece, Romania, Poland, Latin America, Ethiopia.
e. Representative Ideology: Christianity (Catholicism); the "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" form of Liberalism.

3. Authoritarian Family:
a. Spouse selection: Parents, little or no marriage between children of brothers.
b. Inheritance: Anti-Egalitarian - inequality between brothers, transfer of patrimony to one son.
c. Family Home: cohabitation of the married heir with his parents.
d. Representative Nations, Peoples, Regions: Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Bohemia, Scotland, Ireland, peripheral regions of France, northern (Basque) Spain, northern Portugal, Japan, Korea, Jews, Romany Gypsies.
e. Representative Ideology: Fascism, various separatist and autonomous (anti-universalist) movements.

4: Exogamous Community Family:
a. Spouse selection: Parents, no marriage between the children of two brothers.
b. Inheritance: Egalitarian - equality between brothers.
c. Family Home: cohabitation of married sons with their parents.
d. Representative Nations, Regions: Russia, Yugoslavia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland, Albania, central Italy, China, Vietnam, Cuba and north India.
e. Representative Ideology: Communism, Socialism.

5. Endogamous Community Family:
a. Spouse selection: Custom, frequent marriage between the children of brothers.
b. Inheritance: Egalitarian - equality between brothers.
c. Family Home: cohabitation of married sons with their parents.
d. Representative Nations, Peoples, Regions: Arab world, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan.
e. Representative Ideology: Islam.

6. Asymmetrical Community Family:
a. Spouse selection: Custom, prohibition on marriages between the children of brothers, but a preference for marriages between the children of brothers and sisters.
b. Inheritance: Egalitarian - equality between brothers.
c. Family Home: cohabitation of married sons with their parents.
d. Representative Regions: southern India.
e. Representative Ideology:

7: Anomic Family:
a. Spouse selection: Free, but without obligatory exogamy; consanguine marriage possible and sometimes frequent.
b. Inheritance: Indifference - uncertainty about equality between brothers, inheritance rules egalitarian in theory but uncertain in practice.
c. Family Home: cohabitation of married children with parents rejected in theory but accepted in practice.
d. Representative Nations, Peoples, Regions:
e. Representative Ideology: Buddhism, Christianity, and Communism, but potentially anything.
 
This one is also interesting:
Inglehart%252C+1999-2004.PNG
Interestingly ,secular ratonial values peak in Northern European and North East Asian(Sweden being second behind Japan) . Traditional values are typicall of Southern Hemisphere people (see how Ireland comes close).
 
Last edited:
I think that individualism or collestivism partly is an inherited trait of character, but they undergoes very big social and economic influence.

And it’s not that strongly individualistic countries tend to be more economically and socially liberal, more entrepreneurial it’s completely opposite! If a country is economically and socially liberal, people have good standard of living they tent to become independent and more individualistic!
Not country’s tradition or DNA determine how individual people can be, but economical wealth and education (which in turn also depends on wealth).

For example in my country many people just forced to live with their parents, because in current state of our country they just can’t survive on their own. (they can’t even loan a flat or get food education). It doesn’t mean at all we like collectivism! Because if someone’s family have a good income they help their children and then these children very soon can find a good job, loan or buy an apartement and run from their parents.

What about Arabs and Africans, who come into Europe. Are they high individualists, if your map is right , they aren’t. It’s just as I said, they search for better life, better wealth.

And speaking about immigrants into New world. It’s much easier to immigrate ti wilderness then into a developed country. Actually I doubt many people have run there without their families.
 
Actually this map only reflects the medieval family structure and is supposed to explain the birth of modern ideology such as the reformation, the French revolution, Communism etc

Too much reductionism imho,,, Ascribing all the developments to some blind historical forces and tendencies..
 
Too much reductionism imho,,, Ascribing all the developments to some blind historical forces and tendencies..


Ideologies only dominate in some specific familial systems.
Emmanuel Todd predicted the fall of the Soviet Union because the satellite states (like Poland) and internal (Moslem) `satellite states' will prove non-absorbable.
The anglo Saxon feminism (linked with the absolute nuclear family) is one of the reason of the USA/Islam clash of Civilization.
The French revolution and the motto "Liberté, égalité, fraternité (Liberty, equality, brotherhood) has its root in the Egalitarian Nuclear Family of Northern France with its liberal and egalitarian values. Liberty of the children and equality among the brothers legitimated the idea of equivalency of men and people.
Economic liberalism has its roots in the Absolute nuclear family because it enables economic Liberty (Free market, Laissez-faire) but accepts inequality (consequence of the free market).
The gypsies, refuse to be absorbed by other cultures because of their family structure even though they have no identifiable ideology.
Christianism was easily replaced by Islam in Anatolia because of the Endogamous Community Family.
 
Last edited:
Ideologies only dominate in some specific familial systems.
Emmanuel Todd predicted the fall of the Soviet Union because the satellite states (like Poland) and internal (Moslem) `satellite states' will prove non-absorbable.
The anglo Saxon feminism (linked with the absolute nuclear family) is one of the reason of the USA/Islam clash of Civilization.
The French revolution and the motto "Liberté, égalité, fraternité (Liberty, equality, brotherhood) has its root in the Egalitarian Nuclear Family of Northern France with its liberal and egalitarian values.
Economic liberalism has its roots in the Absolute nuclear family because it enables economic Liberty (Free market, Laissez-faire) but accepts inequality (consequence of the free market).
The gypsies, refuse to be absorbed by other cultures because of their family structure even though they have no identifiable ideology.
Christianism was easily replaced by Islam in Anatolia because of the Endogamous Community Family.
If we follow this way of reasoning where should we look for the roots of "Egalitarian Nuclear Family of Northern France with its liberal and egalitarian values"?!
 
If we follow this way of reasoning where should we look for the roots of "Egalitarian Nuclear Family of Northern France with its liberal and egalitarian values"?!


I'm not an expert in Anthropology, I'm jut exposing Todd thesis. If you want to learn more, his book is called The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure and Social Systems.This is the one I've found in English.

In a book only available in french (L'origine des systèmes familiaux) , he explains that Europe kept the most archaic form of Familial system. Paleolithic people had nuclear families according to him.
The community family first started in Asia.
After the end of the middle ages, the nuclear family enabled Europe to develop faster than the other part of the world because the community family was paralyzing economic growth.
 
Rather than genetic we could see the traditional family system of Europe as a better origin for the individualistic/collectivistic behaviours.

Unfortunately this study looks at things the wrong way round. Family traditions are not responsible for the disparities in economic systems or level of education. It tends to be the other way round, but the correlation is a weak one. British or Scandinavian children did not start leaving the parental home because of the industrial revolution, or because Britain got wealthier earlier. It was already like that at least since the Renaissance.

What I see on this map are very old genetic divisions that mirror the distribution of ancient ethnic groups, phenotypes, and even haplogroups to some extent. The yellow areas are North Germanic (the Dutch, English and Scots being closer to the Danes and Norwegians than to the Germans). The green areas (except in Scandinavia) have a strong Celtic substrata. The Neolithic/Near Eastern influence is very strong in the red regions (not just in the Balkans, but in central Italy, Provence, Auvergne, Languedoc ad South Portugal, all regions with higher percentages of G2a, J1 and J2). The parts of the map in blue also show some Near Eastern influence (less in Poland than elsewhere) and especially have a high percentage of E1b1b and/or I2a (two haplogroups which could represent Mesolithic South Europeans).

Interesting to note again the big disparities within France, which were already discerned by Carleton S. Coon in 1939 in the Races of Europe (see my colourised map), and which showed up again in the haplogroup distribution (especially the G2a-J1-T hotspot around Auvergne, or the I1-I2b-R1a in the Northeast).


Regions with absolute nuclear families
generate smaller households, a more educated
population, and a higher percentage of population in employment. They lead to greater
formal membership of clubs, perhaps as a form of compensation for the lack of
socialisation within the family. They are currently associated with service societies, and
have generated richer and more dynamic regions, although also more inequitable
societies
. Regions with an imprint of absolute nuclear families seem to be early
adopters, first in terms of the transition between an agricultural and an industrial society
and then from the industrial to the service society. It thus may be that the higher
economic dynamism of these areas is most in evidence in periods of change and less so
in periods of stability.

This description may be appropriate for Britain, but there is no way that the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway are more inequitable societies. They are among the most egalitarian countries in the world (lowest Gini coefficient).
 
Actually this map only reflects the medieval family structure and is supposed to explain the birth of modern ideology such as the reformation, the French revolution, Communism etc

The map is supposed to reflect the medieval family structure, but the descriptions seem to refer to the situation now. Britain and Scandinavia were much poorer than southern Europe in the Middle Ages.
 

This thread has been viewed 375407 times.

Back
Top