Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And if it is, what then motivates a person to go to university for an advanced degree, or write a concerto, or even risk some capital to start a business. I've always thought ambitions like that are driven to some extent by a sense of exceptionalism, or the desire to be exceptional.
We have to keep in mind that darwinism/competition exists for both individuals and groups (as individual groups, groups as a collective and physical entity). Where selfishness, individualism and being special refers to fight for survival of an individual person (or family unit) against other individuals within the same group. Likewise collectivism and conformism apply to group survival, making a group stronger in competition against other groups. In both cases darwinism is live and kicking.Being exceptionally better than others is not the only possible motivation. A relative underperformer is exceptional too, so this is already one motivation for avoiding underperformance (see Japan for instance where conformism/collectivism coexists with social darwinism/competition). Other motivations are fascination for a topic (in research), desire for economic security, desire for societal acceptance and mere idealism.
We have to keep in mind that darwinism/competition exists for both individuals and groups (as individual groups, groups as a collective and physical entity). Where selfishness, individualism and being special refers to fight for survival of an individual person (or family unit) against other individuals within the same group. Likewise collectivism and conformism apply to group survival, making a group stronger in competition against other groups. In both cases darwinism is live and kicking.
In this sense collectivism is individualism of a group. It gives a group one united personality, character and a goal, and as such will outperform groups of "multiple personality" or of not common goals.
On one side of this spectrum is Germany where more or less people are united in economic and political trends and more eager to chip in for communal purposes. On the other side we have Greece with strong political and economical personality disorder, and people less willing to pay taxes or support charities. Actually, other side of spectrum from Greece will be North Korea, where collectivism is forced by government, even telling citizens what to think, and individualism pretty much is totally eradicated.
It looks like a proper balance between collectivism and individualism has to be struck for success of a country. Germany is a good example of it, with enough collectivism making this country strong among nations, and with enough individualism to give citizens all sorts of freedoms and opportunities, to pursue personal happiness.
I didn't disagree, let's say I expended a thought on the subject. I should have been more clear though.Sure, I don't see where you disagree with what I said.
Depending on leadership this collectivism, and especially compliance, can be disastrous. A bit of individualistic rebeling might be healthy to have.Regarding Germany, I'm not so sure that it's success has much to do with the right balance of "individualism" or collectivism. It is more the particular phenotype of collectivism (actually similar to Jantelag, but less severe), which forces each individual to obey to group rules, thus leading to high success of the group .
Being exceptionally better than others is not the only possible motivation. A relative underperformer is exceptional too, so this is already one motivation for avoiding underperformance (see Japan for instance where conformism/collectivism coexists with social darwinism/competition). Other motivations are fascination for a topic (in research), desire for economic security, desire for societal acceptance and mere idealism.
Scandinavians are also known for their team work abilities, so there is also the possibility to make exceptional achievements as a team.
But I think most of Jantelag is generally prevalent in sparsely populated areas because of low anonymity, and Scandinavia is sparsely populated. I think Jantelag is not exclusive to Scandinavia, but it is certainly very strong there. Those countries which are labelled as "individualist" like Netherlands, England and north Italy happen to be the most densely populated areas of Europe. The anonymity (enabling individualism) of big cities well known. Scandinavia is also labelled "individualist" by some, but I'm sure this is a mistake.
Depending on leadership this collectivism, and especially compliance, can be disastrous.
A bit of individualistic rebeling might be healthy to have.
Very interesting. I've never been a big fan of these individualist/collectivist formulations, because I just know how too many cultures don't fit the models or the definitions. This does, however, explain the situation in Japan to some extent, so that's helpful.
I'm still not all that sure how these models fit northern Italy, to be honest. If you're talking about provinces like Emilia and the Veneto, for example, which are doing better now than Milano and Torino, there are no really large cities by European standards. Instead, there are many small cities, and you're never all that anonymous in cities like Reggio Emilia or Vicenza, even if your family migrated rather recently from the south, not in the way that you can be anonymous in an American city of even similar size. Italian culture just doesn't permit it.
The businesses are also often family owned and operated. It's a different kind of capitalism. (Even in the case of Torino, Fiat is still a family owned and run company, sort of, which may be part of its problem.)
In terms of a "collective" spirit, the pre-eminent collective is the family, and not the nuclear family but the extended family. That spirit does exist outside the family, but "geographically" the scope is usually only the comune or village of one's people, unfortunately. In times of hardship and disaster, there is great generosity of spirit and mutual aid among the inhabitants, but they don't trust governments, and the further away, the worse it is, which I think has something to do with the fact that so much of Italy was fractured into separate city states that were in addition often ruled by France, or Austria, or Aragon, or whomever.
This whole matter of "individualism" is also more complicated than appears in these theories. I don't know how "individualist" Italians are in terms of an individualist/conformist continuum as usually formulated. Rules govern everything in Italy, what you wear, when and what you eat, how you interact with family or in courtship or business, how you decorate your home, how you raise your children...it's just that the rules are different from the rules in northern Europe, not that there aren't rules. Although to be fair, the rules are "elastic", always able to be stretched for human need, should the situation arise. Well, so long as it doesn't involve family or food! There we are intransigent.
I think it's the same way the modern western world views or viewed hunter-gatherer or at least more primitive cultures like those of Polynesia or that of the North American Indians. Those cultures aren't more "free"; they're very rule bound. It's just that we aren't or weren't privy to the rules.
As for being told you're not exceptional, it's the polar opposite...I was repeatedly told I was the most beautiful, smartest, and most wonderful girl in the world, particularly by my father.And as for what my brother was told by my mother...well...words fail me. I'm of two minds about it, seriously. It can be a jolt if the rest of the world doesn't hold you quite so highly. On the other hand, if your parents don't see you that way, who will? It's not bad to have a healthy sense of self esteem.
You know, a friend once told me that her mother taught her never to complain when she was ill or things were going badly, because no one cares how you feel. Is this related? I almost fell over at that one. I can't tell you how 'foreign' it seemed.
Exactly.
The way I see it:
Membership in a group is a social contract, a group is a set of social contracts.
A social contract comprises of rights and duties.
Therefore collectivism can be basically rights-oriented, duty-oriented or both, more or less.
I would say that Rights and Duties are the final manifestation of basic character of a group. When for the organization and better consolidation of a group the contracts and laws are established and protected. However everything starts with basic character of individual people, and I have a hunch it is very closely related to our evolutionary past, to the ways of our ancestors, as genetic and cultural inheritance. Where natural/instinctive way of behaviour comes from genetics, and being reinforced by customs and culture. Rights and Duties being the custom part.
I believe that instinctive/genetic character of individual people is the strongest factor and given long enough time it will overwrite "foreign" or forced elements and revert to their natural way. But this might be left for another discussion.
In short, in largely generalized terms, the Hunter-Gatherer's ways are more collective. They hunt together, they gather together, they dance around fire together, etc. Individual is only successful when the whole group is successful and survives.
The farmer's way is more individualistic, due to fields being a private property and worked individually by one family. Also, families are run by one man in patriarchal farming societies, and his individualistic decision can make or break family, but not the whole village. Economic-survival side of village is very individualistic, everybody works for themselves and their close family. Village comes second. Another important fact is that groups of farmers are 10 fold more populous than HGs, therefore death of few unsuccessful folks doesn't affect survival of the whole group, as in HGs groups. Other words, the farmers could afford to be more selfish and individualistic, not affecting the survival of the whole group much.
According to this train of thoughts, Norther Europe with higher West Hunter Gatherer and Ancient North Eurasian admixtures, should be more collective in character.
Southern Europe being mainly Early European Farmers should be more individualistic.
PS. What skews understanding of these terms is that collectivism is frowned upon as almost a derogatory thing and individualism is considered a praised virtue, in today's world of everybody being "special". As a personal trait it might be the case, but if it comes to well run countries, the balance of these two is the most important factor, and any exaggerated trait will give grave consequences.
Yes farmers a partially collective too, we are just exaggerating these traits in populations to have more transparent conversation. I think these traits were "developed" much faster during failed crops, droughts, harsh winters, the "bottle necking" times. In such times farmers could find last potatoes to feed their kids. They didn't need to help neighbors to survive. More skilful (most hard working) farmers survived and their families and repopulated village again, carrying more selfish/rebel/individualistic gene mutation with them.Actually, farming as an individual enterprise is a fairly recent innovation. It used to be much more of a collectist affair in many different parts of the world. My ancestors in both Scotland and England had their own little plots of land but also shared common land with the other people in their village. Collectivism was the natural state of farmers before technology changed things. The fact that the ham-fisted efforts of Stalinists to create large farm collectives was a failure doesn't negate the fact that, when left to their own devises, farmers generally acted in a collective manner back in the day.
Actually, farming as an individual enterprise is a fairly recent innovation. It used to be much more of a collectist affair in many different parts of the world. My ancestors in both Scotland and England had their own little plots of land but also shared common land with the other people in their village. Collectivism was the natural state of farmers before technology changed things. The fact that the ham-fisted efforts of Stalinists to create large farm collectives was a failure doesn't negate the fact that, when left to their own devises, farmers generally acted in a collective manner back in the day.
I wrote this earlier today...
The discussion about farming refers rather to the neolithic than middle ages, at least from my side. The serfdom to land lords which you describe emerged in the middle ages and is already something different which didn't last as long as the original paleo-farming.
Common theories from Gimbutas and alike believe that neolthic farmers were more collectivistic than the bronze-age invaders, but this does not mean that hunter-gatherers were not even more collectivistic.
What you describe about italian villages seems quite collectivistic, quite normal for rural regions. But I suppose in larger italian cities it is different?!
This thread has been viewed 30933 times.