Map of Individualism (vs Collectivism)

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).



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).


The caption with the first map is quite bad, I've found it on a paper that use Todd'system to explain nowaday's economic disparities between regions.
The second caption is more appropriate.
 
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.


Todd's family system only explain why ideologies are dominant in some regions of the world. As I said the first caption doesn't reflects Todd's view accuratly. They took its modals to make their own economic theory.
For instance, Authority of the father and equality among the brother in the community family explains why Comunism was more successful in the Community family area.
 
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).

Then why are they so individualistic in your map?
 
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.
My dislike with modern anthropologists is that generally they are politically biased and project modern realities on past populations and discard all the data which don't fir to their fancy theories... Take that silly goddess cult for example which as if existed in old times and got destroyed by warlike brutal patriarchalists...
 
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).

The blue and yellow area (nuclear family) are those that reflect the most the paleolithic family structure. In Todd thesis, the nuclear family is the first family structure among modern humans then the Community family appeared in Asia.

I think that the community family was brought in Europe by IE invaders and West Asian neolithic farmers .
 
Regions with absolute nuclear families</b> 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.
Thanks! This means that "individualism" leads to just a different kind of collectivism which is more dynamic. As a side effect, it pushes progress and is less conservative (in strict sense). It's good for modern market economy and not so good for static land farming because a markes work best with flexible participants, while land owners benefit from stability (conservatism). I again don't see north-europeans to be less collectivist. For them it is still very important to belong to a group, while it is less important to which one. For south-europeans it's just the other way around.
 
Then why are they so individualistic in your map?

As I have explained many times, collectivism has nothing to do with egalitarianism. Actually most countries in the world are collectivist (the default of humanity) but very few are egalitarian.
 
Thanks! This means that "individualism" leads to just a different kind of collectivism which is more dynamic. As a side effect, it pushes progress and is less conservative (in strict sense). It's good for modern market economy and not so good for static land farming because a markes work best with flexible participants, while land owners benefit from stability (conservatism). I again don't see north-europeans to be less collectivist. For them it is still very important to belong to a group, while it is less important to which one. For south-europeans it's just the other way around.

True individualism rejects club membership too. Don't try to twist and meddle everything up. I am not aware that club membership is higher in Scandinavia or the Netherlands anyway (Britain may, but especially among the upper classes, and that only started in the 19th century as a kind of fashion, so it's not at all representative of all British society in the last 500 years). The Japanese adopted the British fashion for clubs in the 20th century, yet they are extremely collectivist.
 
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.

You forgot that England, Wales and a third of the Netherlands were Roman but became Protestant, because they were just too individualistic. Then, most of the Czech Republic was never Roman (like Poland) but became Catholic because Slavs are more collectivist. Then Orthodox Christianity was also Roman and surely as collectivist as Catholicism, but extended to Ukraine, Belarus and Russia that were never Roman. Once again, collectivist people adopt collectivist religions, regardless of their history or past connections. Slavic countries could easily have become Protestant as they were closer geographically, historically and politically to North Germany and Scandinavia than to Mediterranean Europe, but they didn't because they were not individualistic enough (actually North and West Poland could, and was Protestant under German rule, the modern borders only dating back from the 1945 redistribution).
 
As I have explained many times, collectivism has nothing to do with egalitarianism.

I think that egalitarianism is at least as important as individualism when it comes to learn about a country's society.
What distinguishes Scandinavians from other european is rather egalitarianism than individualism.
 
Once again, collectivist people adopt collectivist religions, regardless of their history or past connections.

You forgot that when European adopted christianity, it was the same religion for all. The collectivist/ individualist dichotomy only appeared in the XVIth century.
 
Last edited:
What is interesting is that it was always the Protestant migrating somewhere else, even if it meant away from the known civilisation in the wilderness of 17th-century North America. In regions that became Protestant, Catholics didn't move to Catholic countries or migrate to the Americas. They just blended with the rest of the group. This shows how fundamentally different the two ways of thinking are.

This is not true. Just one example, there was once quite large (for a XVI century) immigration of catholics Scotts into Poland, seeking religious freedom. Catholics from Poland were also migrating en masse into America; under kulturkampf in Poland Catholics have not blended into rest of the group, ont he contrary, they resisted it.
 
Collectivism mentality is very high in states like Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, and a lot more in the region. So collectivism is not considered in lower scales such as extended families or kinship ties, collectivism is when a whole nation creates an identity that is exclusive to someone who does not speak the same language, does not have the same religion and does not accept the same flag and culture. So, one cannot be considered a Greek if has a wrong religion or a different rite. Same goes for Serbs who are among the top 10 most collectivist accordign to a study of 53 nations by David P. Schmitt and Juri Allik http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs. One cannot be a muslim Serb. I think that the original map presented by. Maciamo shoul be revised. As for Albanians, there is a saying by Italians "tutti Albanesi tutti capitani" which describes individualism. Albanians have a national pride but lack desperately a collectivist mentality which was costly throughout our history.
 
I believe that individualism is an innate (hence genetic/hereditary) trait of character. It's opposite is collectivism. Please check the thread How individualistic are you ? for a preface. I believe that the individualism-collectivism dichotomy is responsible for many fundamental cultural differences between European countries.

Strongly individualistic people leave the parental home at a younger age, would rather choose to live alone than with a flat mate, have a higher divorce rates, are more flexible about moving to another city or country, and prefer travelling by themselves than with a group or organised tour.

Individualists are motivated by self-improvement (their own ego) rather than by the approval or respect from others. In sports, individualists care more about beating their own records than by beating others. For example, a collectivist-minded sprinter will care about winning the race, while an individualistic-minded sprinter might be disappointed to win if he didn't do a good time.

Individualistic societies do not put a lot of importance on the group and are therefore more open to outsiders (outsiders are taken for who they are as individuals not what group they used to belong to). Consequently they tend to be more socially liberal (giving more freedom to individual expression). This is because the USA, Canada or Australia were all individualistic societies to start with that they could become the cosmopolitan immigration countries that they are now. Strongly collectivist countries like Japan, China, or most Mediterranean countries have much more trouble accepting outsiders to their group, even from similar neighbouring countries.

Individualistic people can also be more entrepreneurial and economically liberal, but only if their uncertainty avoidance is low at the same time.

Collectivist people care more about personal ties, belonging to a group, feeling accepted and respected within the group, but tend to be more clannish too and to distrust people outside their group. Collectivists are first and foremost approval seekers, who care about their image and what others think of them.

It is vital to understand that collectivism is a totally different concepts from egalitarianism, socialism or communism.

- 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). Egalitarian societies also prone lower income inequalities and equal salaries between men and women. Nordic countries, which are individualistic, are usually regarded as the most egalitarian. This doesn't prevent some strongly collectivist countries to be egalitarian (e.g. Japan). Some English-speaking countries are quite egalitarian (Ireland, Canada, Australia), while others are among the least egalitarian in the world (USA), but all are resolutely individualistic. There is absolutely no correlation between egalitarianism and individualism.

- 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.). Historically socialism was never really implemented before the 20th century, but all developed countries now have at least some socialist policies. The only countries that still lack the socialist system of tax redistribution in public health care, education, pensions and other public services are all strongly collectivist countries (mostly in Africa). The most individualistic countries in Europe have some of the most generous socialist systems too (obviously Scandinavia, but also Britain which has one of the few completely free health care in the world). Therefore socialism is a really more an index of socio-economic development and is completely unrelated to the individualism level.

None of these three concepts 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 deep-rooted 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.


I have expanded more about individualism in this thread (not just the OP, but posts further down too) especially about its relation to entrepreneurialism and the establishment of population colonies.

individualism-map.gif


I have used Geert Hofstede's scale of individualism vs collectivism to make the map. There was a lot of data missing in Eastern Europe, which I had to infer from the score for neighbouring countries and based on the genetic and cultural similarities. Genetic traits don't fit neatly within a country's political border. In general I have found that the percentage of Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-L11 (Celto-Germanic) correlates fairly well (though not perfectly) with high scores for individualism. The strongest matches seem to be the S21/U106 and S28/U152 subclades.

Italy has a strong north-south gradient. In Germany and Poland it is a weak east-west gradient. In France I followed the genetic curve separating the more Celto-Germanic north and east against the more Neolithic/Mediterranean centre and southwest.

Bulgaria and Romania had a score of 30, but knowing that Romania had a substantial Hungarian (and German) community in the Northwest of the country, I increased the score for that region and lowered in for the rest of the country to keep the average. I gave Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia and North Greece is lower score than Romania, Bulgaria and the Greek average because these societies are are some of the best examples of collectivism in Europe (e.g. the strong local communities isolated from each others for centuries, strong family ties, strong distrust of the government...).

The Arab World got an average score of 38, but West Africa of 20, so I gave the Maghreb an intermediary score.


EDIT : I have made a new map using different colours for individualism (blue), collectivism (red) and an intermediary purple. I also changed the scale.

individualism-map-2.gif

Ur map of Individualism is pretty close to the maps of Y DNA spread by Germanic speakers or just Germanic areas. so southern Scandinavia not all of Scandinavia and deifntley not Finland doubt it means anything. I doubt it means anything or is genetic. Seeing u explain those traits is kind of shocking because it explains what i have thought and felt i did not know other people had. I have always been pretty individualistic almost all of those traits matched what i have done my whole life or felt like doing pretty well. But i do care alot about my groups i really really don't like accepting outsiders and foreigners and always very faithful to things and i care about representing my group. And i care alot about keeping things traditional and not new. Like i dont like throwing away old toys and other stuff.

I dont think anyone is 100% of what u showed as individualistic or collective. It is amazing how u can explain traits so well. I think everyone at least some what of a mix of the two. I never understood why coaches said we should be disappointed after loosing a un important game i have almost always only cared about how well i did. Almost all the individual stuff matched. The main one that did not is being open to outsiders and not caring about groups or treating outsiders equally.

I dont think genetics have anything to do with personality. Ethnic groups are young look at America ethnic groups are a mix of diff people that lived before that ethnic group formed. No one is 100% from one line except maybe native Americans. U would except People whose ancestors were in Celtic and Germanic tribes so all western Europeans and south Scandinavians. To show off alot and be very cockey in a similar way to Inner city hip hop culture, to be individualistic, Wild and alot of other things. But look at western Europe since the mid ages they have been the oppiste of what their Germanic and Celtic ancestors were. Look at cultures in west Africa which are very traditional and about family and clan then look at African american families were most don't grow up with fathers. All humans races have naturally the same personality traits diff things that cause their cultures to form cause them to use diff traits more or less.
 
It also correlates with the population density if it is urban (England, Holland, NW Germany, N Italy, Budapest(?)). Urban life is usually much more individualistic than in villages. Probably USA would reveal similar results with New York being much more individualistic than Alabama for instance?


800px-EU_NUTS_2_population_density_2007.svg.png
 
It also correlates with the population density if it is urban (England, Holland, NW Germany, N Italy, Budapest(?)). Urban life is usually much more individualistic than in villages. Probably USA would reveal similar results with New York being much more individualistic than Alabama for instance?


800px-EU_NUTS_2_population_density_2007.svg.png

How do u know how indvidulistic a area is. Maciamo says intresting stuff but it has nothing to do with genetic's. ur argument about urban stuff makes more sense.
 
Maciamo shoul be revised. As for Albanians, there is a saying by Italians "tutti Albanesi tutti capitani" which describes individualism..
I agree with this. I can't point my finger at it yet, due to lack of time of free thinking (my hobby), but something is a bit off.
The strongest forms of collectivism came from North, where the most individualism should be. Very nationalistic Germany leading to WWII, and communism started with Marx and Engels in the West and introduced to Russia. In Scandinavia people easily pay taxes and work for companies or general good of country together.

When we take South of Europe, it is reversed. People take care of themselves and their families first before they do something for communal good. Fascism wasn't successful in Italy, and Italians didn't care for fighting for it either, or Mussolini's wars abroad. Italians can easily mouth to policeman and go where they want, but it verges on impossible in Germany or Sweden.
In Greece everybody avoids paying taxes, like it was a national sport, and there is huge divide between them-government and us-people.

We have a very peaceful Scandinavia working together for good of all 3 countries, and the world, with widely known companies like Volvo, Ikea, Ericsson. On other hand we have many smaller, not to say individualistic, countries in Balkans that can't come to even simple cooperation, and hating each other.
I'm not saying that individualism and collectivism is better than the other. I think they need better definitions in this context.

PS. There are other proverbs:
One Jew - two political parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FBS
It also correlates with the population density if it is urban (England, Holland, NW Germany, N Italy, Budapest(?)). Urban life is usually much more individualistic than in villages. Probably USA would reveal similar results with New York being much more individualistic than Alabama for instance?


800px-EU_NUTS_2_population_density_2007.svg.png

Wow it correlates really well with the collectivism/individualism map. Nice post!
 
It also correlates with the population density if it is urban (England, Holland, NW Germany, N Italy, Budapest(?)). Urban life is usually much more individualistic than in villages. Probably USA would reveal similar results with New York being much more individualistic than Alabama for instance?


800px-EU_NUTS_2_population_density_2007.svg.png

Actually I see little correlation. Scandinavia and Ireland is more on the individualistic side, but has a low population density. Places in southern Italy like Campania, Apulia or Sicily are very collectivist, but as densely populated as England, and much more than Scotland or Ireland.

In France we could say that northerners are more individualistic than southerners, although this is not reflected in the population density.

In Belgium the Dutch-speaking north is more densely packed than the French-speaking south, but that doesn't make them more individualistic. Actually I'd say that Walloons are often more individualistic than Flemings.
 
If you would make a suicide rate map, we could compare it with these.
 

This thread has been viewed 375414 times.

Back
Top