what is Janteloven : is it true that rich Scandinavians are really frowned upon?

[Angela]

When those bronze age invaders and the people they absorbed emerged into history in the Scottish highlands, they weren't serfs that were forced to farm as a group, as was the case in England and some parts of the Scottish lowlands, as well as other parts of Europe. The highland clans were kinsmen who chose to live partly collectively, with each family farming their own little croft and sharing pasture land with other members of their clan. It was a very extended view of family ties that was very old and tribal but survived for a very long time, and I think that may have been the case in other parts of Europe where people had choices, and I suspect it was also the case back in the Neolithic. Those who stuck together survived better.

The extent of collectivism varied, of course. My ancestors came from an area where livestock were collectively moved to higher ground for better grazing in the summer, which encouraged a strong group spirit. However, some Scottish clans in the lowlands operated a less collective farming economy, partly because the soil was richer and they had less need to pool their resources, so even though clan ties were still strong in the lowlands, there was apparently more individuality on an economic level. Plus, the Gaelic influence wasn't as strong in the lowlands. And in some places feudal practices were introduced to the lowlands, so the degree of collectivization was dependent on the wishes of the landlord. So I think it was partly a practical thing and partly a cultural thing. I think it's difficult to generalize other than to say that a fairly collectivist approach, often based on family or clan ties, was common in many places until recently. And I think cities encourage more individuality, which may be why change in ideas and technology generally came from the cities. I think that in rural areas where everyone is related to everyone else, there's a fair bit of pressure to conform and a fair bit of resistance to change even when change may be beneficial.

Again, I would agree with that, and the later that industrialization occurred, the more one can see the traces and sometimes more than the traces of the "old" ways. That certainly would apply to Italy, which industrialized much later than a country like Great Britain for example.

I do also think, however, that certain cultures are more resistant to change of this kind. For whatever reason, Italian culture has been very resistant to any kind of change to the family structure. And while many millions were forced by utmost necessity to immigrate far away to North and South America for example, the ones who remained have in some cases managed to use the very infrastructure of an industrialized world to try to hold on to some of those "old" ways.


Just as an example, there is a great reluctance among Italians to relocate for work in the way that is undoubtedly necessary in a modern, capitalistic society. Obviously, many do even today, moving to London or Australia or wherever. They will go to great lengths not to move, however, even if they have to engage in horrendous commutes. It's always made perfect sense to me. It was only when I saw the situation mocked in a book by an English expat named Tim Parks that I realized it would seem odd to other people. He wanted to live in England...that was a non starter for his Italian wife. Leave her mother if not forced by absolute necessity? Never. So, they move to Italy. However, his teaching work is in Milano. while her family is in the Veneto. Move to Milano and see her family on the week-ends? Even I was willing to do that when I moved to New York. Absolutely not; it wasn't even a consideration. So, the man commuted two hours each way to work and back every day and then with more seniority, arranged his schedule so he worked 14 hours a day three days a week so they could live in her town near her family. One reason that the Italian railways keep fares so artificially low is precisely to facilitate these kinds of commutes. And Fiat built huge dormitories for its male workers precisely because the men never moved their families there. They leave to go "home" every Friday night.

The same thing happens with university. Not one of my cousins or their children lived at university. Most don't even have student housing. They were bought cars or motorbikes and went back and forth to university in Parma, or Firenze, or Genova. In my area, the mezzadri and even the peasants who owned their own land abandoned farming en masse in the 1950's. During most of the year, the little towns are pitiful shadows of themselves. (There are more British ex-pats in some of them than Italians...well, that's an exaggeration.) Yet, the people who actually did have to emigrate to Milano or Torino or Genova or Switzerland or Germany or Belgium have faithfully refurbished many of these old places and in August they all come back. They pay the people who remained to look after some vines and olive trees, and if at all possible they return for the harvest. And those harvests are processed by the grape and olive "collectives" which dot the countryside.

As to El Horsto's question about whether things aren't different in the cities, Italy doesn't really have large cities. Rome is the largest, with about 3 million, Milano is about 1.2 million, Torino about 900,000. I don't know precisely what it's like in those cities. I have family in Genova, however, with a population of about 600,000, and it's not quite like when they lived in our home town, but despite all their complaints it's nothing like living in an American city of the same size. As I said, I don't know about the big housing blocks in Torino or Milano, but from what I've heard, certain buildings became virtual recreations of villages in Calabria or Sicily, and they still empty out in the summer so everyone can go "home".


Yes, it's more anonymous nowadays, and getting more so as time passes, but you really can't get away from other people in Italy, not that they want to...Trust me on this one...I've always had a desire for some solitude, to read or play the piano or just think. (My mother always said it was my father's mountain genes. The real Italian word sort of has the connotation of hillbilly genes. )That's certainly been fostered by all my time in the U.S. So, I will occasionally pull out a book while sitting at a cafe alone. It's impossible. Anyone I've ever met even for five minutes, and often perfect strangers, feel sorry for me that I'm all alone and pull up chairs or drag me to their table. It's no good saying that I really would like to be alone. They would consider it perverse. It's perfectly ok to read my book in the middle of a din of talking people, but not to be 'actually' alone. And as for eating alone, they'd be shedding tears for you. :grin:Just going to the movies is an ordeal; if you don't ask everyone you know they'll be mortally offended not to be included, and then nobody can agree on what to see or the day or the time, so you miss the show. Oh, and you can't meet at the sagra or festival that is held in one town or another every week-end during the summer, you have to all go together, preferably in one car even if you fill it to bursting, and if not in a damned caravan of cars. And for the big holidays, as people marry and have children, the group gets larger and larger, because you all have to spend it together, but where on earth can you find a venue that will fit everyone?

So, maybe there is a genetic component, at least in terms of the family and close relationships. But then... the very fact that these things cause me a twinge of annoyance nowadays is proof this is not all genetic.

I suppose the culture could be said to resemble the Corsican or Genovese polyphonic groups like the ones I posted in the Mediterranean music thread. You're allowed, even encouraged, to sing in your own individual way, and even to improvise, but you have to sing in harmony and very close together.

 

[Aberdeen]

LOL, Angela. Have you ever thought of making a comedy movie about an extended family that occupies an entire apartment building in Genova? You could have scenes depicting endless arguments about what movie to go to, wedding celebrations that rent the town square in order to have a large enough space for the entire extended family, etc. And of course trips back to their ancestral village for the harvest. It could be a more sunny and modern version of 1900. I'd for sure go to see something like that.

 

[Angela]

Funny you should say that...I'm working on it, or a version of it...:grin:

 

[LeBrok]

I wrote this earlier today...

I agree with this. For all of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and beyond, farmers didn't have their own land; they were tied to the land of the lords as serfs, even if they had a few small individual plots. Some peasants in Italy did have small bits of their own land, but even then, they all lived together in the walled town, going out mornings and returning in the evenings from their plots. It was for protection as well as for mutual aid. In the Pianura Padana in the north, they were agricultural workers who all lived together in huge farmhouses on land owned by wealthy people. The movie 1900, which I highly recommend, by the way, very accurately portrays that life. Tuscany was different; there, the land was usually farmed under a sharecropping sort of system called mezzadro, where the tenants kept half the harvest in return for seed and equipment. In that case, they did live on separate farms, but that area was the exception, not the rule.

As ElHorsto mentioned beforehand, the feudal structure of few hundred years during Middle Ages in Italy, didn't had much bearing on evolutionary process of farmers in Italy, with farming history reaching 8 thousand years or so. During most of the time small villages of separate farmer families were more of a norm. I'm sort of guessing here, but I can see that whenever there is a possibility people will work for themselves rather than for the collective, for one major reason. It is a difficult task to split group resources equally and according to labour input, and keep everybody happy and not rebeling. (A boss is needed for every group larger than few adults, otherwise group is unmanageable.) For that reason it is much easier and peaceful when people work on their own land.

On a side note, in Poland or central Europe in general before WWII half of the agrarian land belonged to individual small farmers, and half to big landlords, nobilities. Surplus of village population worked for big landlords and was supplied in return with communal housing and food. Individual farmers had to pay customary 10% tax to the church and public administrators.

The way that I see it, every human being belongs to a "collective" or series of collectives. It just depends how many there are, and, as was said, how much of a commitment is made to them, or, said another way, what is their relative strength?

If it comes to group formation there are two important elements. One being genetic/natural social side, and there is a cultural side giving character to a group.
Without a genetic propensity it would be impossible to unite people at all. It is highly visible on cat and dog analogy. A cat is naturally solitary animal and socializes with people or other cats only on occasions, preferring to spend most of the time alone. A dog however, wants to spend all the time around others, and only retreats on occasions. It is also visible that dogs are more social, compromising, complacent; and cats being individualistic, stubborn, strong willed(?).
Anyway, I was getting to the point, that people like to belong to a group, even need to belong to feel good and healthy. This is not negotiable. However the cultural side of a group might take many forms. This aspect could be taught, grown in, or even consciously selected according to one's liking. We belong or like to associate ourselves with a village group, district and big nation groups, religious group, political or even racial groups. What group we belong to is a nurture part of humankind and is solely based on life experience. As being such we can influence and change group associations. According to this line of thinking, world peace is possible and will occur when most of people will start thinking as belonging to one global group, that all people belong to the same one group. If we all belong to one group there is no other group to fight against. USA is a great example how it can happen. From a divided country in the past, North-South, slaves, Indians, French, Spanish, Blacks, etc everybody is now a proud American pretty much.

In short, belonging to the group is genetic. What group we belong to or group character is cultural.

The casa colonica was also a collective, as were the villages. The comune too. Once you got to larger government entities, the lack of trust meant and means, in some cases, a lack of a willingness to perform the required duties. Much of this is a consequence of history, but it hangs on, even if nowadays some of these divisions are looked upon somewhat humorously. Just as an example, to this day, people of Florence will say, "Meglio un morto in case che un pisano all'uscio"...Better a dead person in the house than someone from Pisa at the door.

I'm glad it is only used as a joke these days. ...unless there is a football match between these two.

In more recent times, political parties became a collective of sorts as well. In my own neck of the woods, there was a strong tradition of communist party membership. The party not only presumably spoke for it's members in the government, but more importantly, it doled out government largesse if it was in power. The party also ran a local community hall, with playing fields, a venue for gatherings etc. There were religious collectives as well. So, it's not that collectives don't exist. It's that they don't exist at the level of a nation, and certainly not as a "volk" the way Germans have seen themselves, or perhaps Slavs do...I also think hunter-gatherer tribes certainly did see themselves as a unit, but they also at the same time warred against other tribes. Look at the history of the interaction between the North American tribes. They were never able to unite as a "people"; the Germans did it. What made one group of hunter-gatherers different from the other?

It is hard to unite for hunter-gatherers under continental entity. Because of unmanageable size, cultural and language differences it was never done, to my knowledge. The uniting process mostly comes from conquering other tribes, or on rare occasions as confederation. In case of American Natives the size of unification was not bigger than a medium state area. It was still not enough to stop farmers from Europe with superior technology and breading fast.
Unification of Germany was much easier to do under cultural, language and economic similarities, and still required armed force.

As for how genetics factors into all of this, I don't know. Is the family so important in Italy because family was all you could count on when everything went to hell fifteen hundred years ago? Or is family so important because the emotional attachment, or the ability to form and maintain this emotional attachment, is stronger in us than in others? I wouldn't want to insult or stereotype other groups by saying their family attachments aren't as strong as ours. Or, as another example, if, during the war, most Italians impeded the Germans in their attempts to round up Italian Jews, was it because they are more predisposed to ignore government rules when it suits them or they think they are inappropriate, or because they were less racist and more humane? I'm not comfortable saying this is all genetic, even if it makes my own people look better than others. For now, I think I'll stick to the effects of different historical forces.

I think you got it right. Surely it is not all genetic but genetic forces are dominant and show in statistics the most, like greater amount of political parties and (anecdotal) as many opinions as citizens, and strong uncompromising opinions. Also stronger family ties come at a price of strong willed father and mother (bordering with dictatorship), their kids not being able to freely express themselves.

 

[bonair]

Its true.. Nobody is better than another in sweden

 

[Konungr68nor]

I rater more. Like this one
Anti-Jante Law "
You are outstanding
You are worth more than anyone can measure
You can which is especially for you
You have something to give others
You've done something you can be proud of
You have vast unused resources
You fit for nothing
You may accept other
You have abilities to understand and learn from others
There is someone who loves you
Erling Førland

 

[Maciamo]

Fascinating...I've had people tell me their parents told them similar things, but I never knew the source.

So, is it a still prevalent mind set?

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.

University is Scandinavia is free, and, at least in Denmark (not sure for Norway and Sweden) students even get paid while attending university. The whole affair is much more informal than in the US, and is seen mostly as an indispensable step in one's life to party and have a good time. In spit of that, only 36% of Danes graduated from university, 6% less than in the US, UK or Australia 12% less than Japan, and 18% less than in Canada or Russia. Scandinavian culture is so egalitarian that CEO's and top managers aren't paid very much more than regular employees. Danish MPs earn only 1.8 times the average national earnings, a sharp contrast to Italian MPs who earn 5.3 times the national average.

I have noticed that many young Danes aren't very ambitious and will gladly settle for an ordinary job without going to university. That is partly because the social welfare and redistribution are so good, and they know the government will provide excellent healthcare, child care, education, infrastructure, and so on. Scandinavians in general prefer not to stand out socially. Everybody is considered equal whatever their education and salary. In sports clubs or hobbies associations (Scandinavians like clubs as much as the Brits) you will see CEOs and academics socialising with builders and cleaners. The big difference with the UK is that social classes don't matter in Scandinavia. The Brits have their courtesy, feigned modesty, politeness and hypocrisy to help them socialise with people of other social classes. Scandinavians don't need that. They can talk informally and bluntly with anyone, even with their Prime Ministers, as if they were all old school friends (well I exaggerate maybe a bit, you you get the gist of it). In such an environment it is not surprising that individual achievements aren't valued.

 

[Maciamo]

I also think that collectivism-individualism is highly debatable.
Regarding Italy, I referred to the individualism-collectivism scores from Maciamo's map, which is based on a study from Hofstede. He also regarded Scandinavia to be above average individualistic.

Scandinavians are relatively collectivist when it comes to the economy, government/politics, and even upholding traditions, but they can be very individualistic when it comes to their free time, their hobbies, the way they dress, their opinions, personal relationships, and their behaviour in general. More Scandinavians live by themselves than in practically any other country. Like the Brits they are not very socially minded and prefer to retreat to the comfort and privacy of their home. When travelling, the Brits, Dutch and Scandinavians are also the most individualistic people on Earth. It is common for young people of university age to backpack on their own around the world, even for women, while Southern Europeans and even Americans usually prefer to travel in group and stick with people of their own nationality when abroad.

That's why overall Scandinavians get a mixed score for individualism and collectivism. British people are more individualistic as British society is not so much ruled by rights and duties as a general sense of fair play, courtesy and privacy. In Britain you can do whatever you want, be as eccentric as you want, as long as you remain fair and polite to others and don't encroach on their privacy. There is no unwritten rule that people should be equal like in Scandinavia, quite the contrary.

 

[Maciamo]

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.

I agree with this part.

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.

There is some logic in your argument that HG must be collectivists to survive, while farmers can afford to be more individualists. Yet, we observe the exact opposite in terms of ancestry.

Southern Europeans, who have more Neolithic farmer ancestry, are the most collectivist-minded. They place a lot of importance of family and social relationships. They live in close-knit communities where people know each others, gossip a lot and privacy is limited. They have strong cultural rules about how people should cook, eat, dress or behave, and so on. When travelling abroad they usually do it in group with family, friends, or at least other people from their country. When they emigrate abroad, they like to stick with people from their country or region of origin. In southern Europe it is hard to exist without being part of the community. You can't live an anonymous life completely independent of your neighbours and family as you would in English-speaking countries, or even in the Netherlands or Scandinavia.

East Asians, who are also descended from Neolithic farmers (except the Japanese who have about of third of DNA from Jomon HG), are extremely collectivistic. They cannot imagine their existence outside of the group, and groups exist on several levels, be it the family, one's company or society in general. Traditionally, the worst punishment for a crime in Japan or China was not death penalty but banishment. For many centuries in Japan, people who left the country to travel or trade abroad were not allowed to come back. Even today, Japanese people who have lived abroad for many years (or even worse grown up abroad) may not be considered true Japanese any more and won't be accepted by other Japanese as true members of "The Group". They become outsiders by adopting elements of foreign culture or mindset. For this reason, Japanese companies like Toyota have a policy to send expats to branch offices around the world for maximum 3 years, so that their minds won't be corrupted by foreign culture. They also prefer to send married couples rather than sending single men, as the latter could get a foreign girlfriend and become more easily corrupted, which would make his return to Japan very difficult.

I believe that the reason why farmer-derived societies are more collectivistic is that farmers could maintain larger populations and were the ones who established the first villages, towns, then cities. Farmers developed better social skills and the sense of belonging to a larger community than one's family. If people in the most populous country in the world can still feel like they belong to a unified group (China) and they are often still willing to put their country/group's interest ahead of their own personal interests, and adhere strictly to the societal rules, then it means that there is no real limit on the size of a collectivist society. The reason Southern Europeans care more about their province or region than their country is that the local geography (mountains and seas) has secluded groups from one another for millennia and led to the development of a multitude of minor states, which were only unified by foreigners. In contrast, China remained united through most of its history, and the only real historico-cultural cleavage is between north and south - but even so it appears less sharp then between northern and southern Italy.

Then we shouldn't forget that for many millennia after the onset of agriculture, Neolithic farmers also lived from hunting game and gathering. They did not exclusively survive from farming, as it was too seasonal and too unreliable in its primitive state - notably before the invention of irrigation, which didn't become widespread in the Mediterranean and the Middle East until 3000 to 2500 years ago, during the Iron Age. It's also the time when chickens arrived from East Asia, which provided a cheap source of meat for most of the population, and the added daily proteins from eggs. Irrigated fields and chickens made the classical ancient civilisations more reliant on agriculture and less on hunting, which might have freed up men from hunting and allowed rulers to build vast armies.

 

[ElHorsto]

Very interesting, Maciamo.

From what I learned about Southern Europe: SE collectivism/conformism comes mostly from the family. Then, most societal norms are merely derivatives of family norms, thus much less sanctioned by society than by family. If I got it right norms in SE focus on honor, heritage, family, sexuality, pride, sticking out by status. These norms are often conflicting with norms of bigger groups's, like state, city. These norms also discourage too close ties between unrelated families ("we are better than them").
My impression is that North Europeans are much more open to socialize with foreign people or families, provided they are of similar age and culture. In their childhood, they more often distance themselves openly from their parents in order to gain status among peers. This complies with Jantelagen. I might be wrong, but South European would certainly not be proud of distancing themselves from their parents in favour of others.

But there are huge differences within SE. My impression of northern Italy was of a very individualistic country, more than Germany and especially Denmark. Everyone cared for himself and was not interested in other peoples behavior, habits, style etc. That being said, I'm convinced that population density is the most important factor in Europe with regards to collectivism. North Italy is densely populated. I didn't spend time in italian villages.

My impression is that Japanese society, which I never experienced, has both, harsh sanctions against unfit individuals (duty) and at the same time each individual intrinsically thrives to comply with societal norms (sense of duty). Or is the latter merely an implication of sanctions?. In any case is this conformism. Is japanese collectivism actually conformism? Is collectivism and conformism the same? I don't know.

I see more similarities between north Europe and Japan, rather than south Europe and Japan, despite the freedom for different life style in NE. For instance the Hikikomori phenomenon is typically japanese, and it is not absent in northern europe, but I can not imagine Hikikomoris in Southern Europe. Also Jantelagen is a similar sanctioning mechanism as in Japan, but I'm not aware of anything remotely similar in Southern Europe. I suspect Hikikomori is not a sign of individualism but rather a result of excessive collectivism.

This is all very confusing.

 

[Maciamo]

My impression is that North Europeans are much more open to socialize with foreign people or families, provided they are of similar age and culture. In their childhood, they more often distance themselves openly from their parents in order to gain status among peers. This complies with Jantelagen. I might be wrong, but South European would certainly not be proud of distancing themselves from their parents in favour of others.

I agree that North Europeans do socialise more easily with outsiders and are less bound to their own family or even ethnicity. That's exactly what is meant by individualism. The focus is on individuals and when it comes to socialising it doesn't really matter what family, country or ethnic group others come from. That's what enabled English-speaking countries to become so multicultural and multi-ethnic. The Romans were a bit like that too, but modern Italians have lost that facet of individualism.

But there are huge differences within SE. My impression of northern Italy was of a very individualistic country, more than Germany and especially Denmark. Everyone cared for himself and was not interested in other peoples behavior, habits, style etc. That being said, I'm convinced that population density is the most important factor in Europe with regards to collectivism. North Italy is densely populated. I didn't spend time in italian villages.

Northern Italy is more Central European than Southern European in term ethnicity (about half Celto-Germanic and half Near Eastern) and that is reflected in their behaviour. South Italians may be typical collectivists, bit North Italians are quite individualistic in comparison. In fact I have noticed that individualism correlates fairly well with the percentage of R1b (meaning also that it is more of a Celtic trait than a Germanic one, as Celts have far more R1b). Dutch and English people, for instance, are far more individualistic than German, Swiss, Austrian and Scandinavian people, and what differentiate them within the Germanic family is their higher percentage of R1b. The same observation works between North and South Italy. The Irish and the Scots are extreme individualists, more so than the English, and they have the highest percentage of R1b. Even in Spain the Catalans tend to be more individualists than the rest of the country, as suggested by their greater level of entrepreneurship.

My impression is that Japanese society, which I never experienced, has both, harsh sanctions against unfit individuals (duty) and at the same time each individual intrinsically thrives to comply with societal norms (sense of duty). Or is the latter merely an implication of sanctions?. In any case is this conformism. Is japanese collectivism actually conformism? Is collectivism and conformism the same? I don't know.

Conformism is one aspect of collectivism.

I see more similarities between north Europe and Japan, rather than south Europe and Japan, despite the freedom for different life style in NE. For instance the Hikikomori phenomenon is typically japanese, and it is not absent in northern europe, but I can not imagine Hikikomoris in Southern Europe. Also Jantelagen is a similar sanctioning mechanism as in Japan, but I'm not aware of anything remotely similar in Southern Europe. I suspect Hikikomori is not a sign of individualism but rather a result of excessive collectivism.

I believe that a lot of hikikomori actually suffer from mild autism or Asperger's. That may have nothing to do with culture itself.

 

[ΠΑΝΑΞ]

Maybe both tensions -Collective/Individual- well appeared at all the basic social units, let that be: Family, Village, Town, City, State, etc., in all time, all the ages of human evolution.

It looks, that at a very primitive stage, a deep knowledge/perception inside us, that we been borned and die alone, allready indicates a "fate" or determination of a special individual of a special moment, which derifies us, one from another, the example of the twins fight inside their mother's belly for the best place, is enough to recognize that from very early we have the sense of "our's" individuality.
But ...
As said of evolution what really interest -us:the questioners-, actually is When we coexisted as members/atoms to a greater social unit.
Isn't that time, that our History beguns...? That day we first communicate, let that to say intellect and the perceivement of the common symbols, the sounds, words writtened or not;
-Isn't that an upgrade, which homogenize all that special individuals into a common enviroment, (family,city,state) a human; creation into the physical enviroment, most of the times hostile against for the human interests/comforts and will?
At that time I'll take in use the Extended phenotype it is usefull for the understanding of the debated issue.
(kindly provided from @Maciamo in a recent thread)
I will also mind Jungian's archetypes & the collective unconsious (successfully applied from @Angela to a recent thread)


From my perspective the human evolution stands mostly in favor for the collectivism behaviour, firstly as a part of later development of communication and secondly the deeper perception of a greater physical/spiritual enviroment.
It looks that we are programed to commonize as also to derify, to not just build also to destroy, but Architects is not just to build, architecture is the reflects of the needs and the perception of the enviroment, is also an updated spiritual reflection of our space, it looks that it take more than ones experiance to create, and more than one... for succesfully living. I use the paradigm of architecture because is the finest indication for our economy, politics, ethics and in general a total cosmotheory at it's present time.
Is it Aristotle at Politics mentions us: that man is a political creature/animal.
The reptiles are also animals but without any political intentions! I suppose that ''I am here'' to "mate/not to mate" are enough for their living, something not enough for the mummals which repeatedly embrace their unigue codified communication expressing more complicated feelings.
Allthough the later mentality development looks for the collectivism, that dont suggest that I undermind the contribution of individualism to human exelixis/evolution/progress, but that I would address that it is inherited from a very deep past.
Generally I would said that humanity, -Excuse my metaphor- is in a boat which:
"Usually get aboard in tact, But untact abandon it."
so meaning to say is that there are times and times which reguires different responses and other needs.


My undrestanding for the issue is that we having both -in all ages-, the two mentality tensions, the one looks the primordial/previous while the other is the most recent development of human self consious.
There is no age of human history without both tensions, briefly I would said that Individualism represent all these regeneration forces ,the power of creation from -rhetorically- zero. It could well also signifies the turbulent times of history with a big need for something to be change. Innovation but deconstruction also, let it that say so, it well represent the spirit of dispute and dubious interpretations of the establishment and that would be as an Axial period to prepare possibly or ignite I would said, a new Age commonly.
While on the other hand all the foundations of the civilizations we know that well stand under the influence of collegiality spirit, preserving the tradition, not to just innovate but getting deep comprehension into the each subject, a good example of it is the thousand of years after Plato's death and the avocation upon the deep study of his work from Roman/Byzantines scholars, while probably at the days of Plato to enjoy his company would be rather "expensive'' or better with high risk if not dangerous.


Today without doubt Individualism is the dominion idea. I think it signifies the need for changes and other forms of sociality, it is not kinship which we bonded by blood, but an affiliation for the same interests. Allthough both ideas ind./col. their prime attempt is to convince for it's efficiency, but it is time and it's challenges which decides.


I think also both they are parallel syndrom pheanomena, rather than a conseguential autonomous symptoma.
An example: The archetype of the homerical hero, -"I can and I do"- in contrast with the phallanx hoplite of 500 B.C.E. which the key phrase would be something like: -"Stand by me", there are in a total different behaviour, allthough they recorded as greek soldiers


Anyway it is a deep subject, nevertheless intriguing.
I agree with @Maciamo perspective about south Europeans, but i cannot support the discussion for the genetic influence of the subject hence I have not deep studies for the matter, thence i believe that spirit is more penetrable than sperm, anyway.
Thanks for your opinions it was a nice saturday evening gentlemen discussion.


p.s The one, with extended phenotype would also contributes to an also recent discussion -for why human less their hair-!
(Did we enough shocked from the above and getting bald now!) :grin:

 

[LeBrok]

There is some logic in your argument that HG must be collectivists to survive, while farmers can afford to be more individualists. Yet, we observe the exact opposite in terms of ancestry.

I think the picture is mixed, and I have to admit that I can't find total sense in this issue.

Southern Europeans, who have more Neolithic farmer ancestry, are the most collectivist-minded. They place a lot of importance of family and social relationships.

Actually, we have to look at family as (single individual case). Family used to be run by strong father, and now mothers are holding it together, with their hearts and home cooking. There is also infamous example of Mafia from Sicily. Sort of extended family run by dictatorial one man. Family matters, but the city or country exists only to take benefits from.
So, on one hand we have small but strong social structure, the family. On other hand it is run as hegemony, not by collective.

They live in close-knit communities where people know each others, gossip a lot and privacy is limited. They have strong cultural rules about how people should cook, eat, dress or behave, and so on.

Yes, they are more traditional and very aware of current fashion and trends. This is a strong collective function.

When travelling abroad they usually do it in group with family, friends, or at least other people from their country. When they emigrate abroad, they like to stick with people from their country or region of origin. In southern Europe it is hard to exist without being part of the community. You can't live an anonymous life completely independent of your neighbours and family as you would in English-speaking countries, or even in the Netherlands or Scandinavia.

Yes, but on other hand it is easier for Northern Europeans to, as you mentioned before, to mingle with people of the whole world. North seems to be more organized and economically stable than south of Europe. Aren't these collective qualities?

East Asians, who are also descended from Neolithic farmers (except the Japanese who have about of third of DNA from Jomon HG), are extremely collectivistic. They cannot imagine their existence outside of the group, and groups exist on several levels, be it the family, one's company or society in general. Traditionally, the worst punishment for a crime in Japan or China was not death penalty but banishment. For many centuries in Japan, people who left the country to travel or trade abroad were not allowed to come back. Even today, Japanese people who have lived abroad for many years (or even worse grown up abroad) may not be considered true Japanese any more and won't be accepted by other Japanese as true members of "The Group". They become outsiders by adopting elements of foreign culture or mindset. For this reason, Japanese companies like Toyota have a policy to send expats to branch offices around the world for maximum 3 years, so that their minds won't be corrupted by foreign culture. They also prefer to send married couples rather than sending single men, as the latter could get a foreign girlfriend and become more easily corrupted, which would make his return to Japan very difficult.

I wouldn't call it collective but rather feudal and conservative controlling. It looks collective, but not more than German Nazi or Soviet Communist forced collective behaviour.

I believe that the reason why farmer-derived societies are more collectivistic is that farmers could maintain larger populations and were the ones who established the first villages, towns, then cities. Farmers developed better social skills and the sense of belonging to a larger community than one's family. If people in the most populous country in the world can still feel like they belong to a unified group (China) and they are often still willing to put their country/group's interest ahead of their own personal interests, and adhere strictly to the societal rules, then it means that there is no real limit on the size of a collectivist society. The reason Southern Europeans care more about their province or region than their country is that the local geography (mountains and seas) has secluded groups from one another for millennia and led to the development of a multitude of minor states, which were only unified by foreigners. In contrast, China remained united through most of its history, and the only real historico-cultural cleavage is between north and south - but even so it appears less sharp then between northern and southern Italy.

It reminds me of a good example of social behaviour. People from northern Europe are more quiet and noninvasive, from south are more expressive and invasive, in social contexts. Which traits would you call are more beneficial for harmonious society?

I'm still looking for explanation that fits all. I might need to go to Sardinia to observe true genetic farmers, lol. Other fly in the ointment might be that various HG groups could have had various social characteristics. Natufians, already in bigger groups, could have been more social than lonely and frozen smaller groups of EHG of the North.

 

[LeBrok]

i believe that spirit is more penetrable than sperm,

I love to believe in it, hence human character was always more attractive to me than human body. However, how can we explain that all of new year resolutions, promises of self-improvements and our glorious plans are never accomplished?
Isn't it the fact that our genetic body is stronger than our free will, stronger than our spirit. Can we say that we are slaves of our genetics?

 

[ΠΑΝΑΞ]

@Lebrok
If I understand well,... I also tend to agree that there is a form of "power" which decide for us, as also believe that there are some "qualities" that derifies, as to unites "us". These "qualities" are visible (physical characteristics) but also and a non visible (psychological state). I dont know if these qualities are genes or expressed by some genes.
but is still too deterministic for me.
I have no certainty, I am not an expert neither a specialist or so skilled. I wish not to be particullar but also not to over generalize but under the power/rule of Need and Circumstances, (the place Forum, the keyboard, the language, etc). I will be briefly and synoptical for all that my eyes have saw and what my mind digest it. -My brother.

when I said:
"spirit is more penetrable than sperm"
I ment that the "invisible" is greater than the "visible", to name it for the discussion -"Causes".
Admitting the unabillity of our senses (sciences) to clear our guestions, in total and absolut terms, it looks that we have to make also an "hyperational" jump for a deep understanding for the chicken/egg pseudo-dileema. Words are the most elegant creation/construction but we cannot rely them in big trust, for example:
-Why we are talking about "Big Bang" while there wasn't any ear to hear it?
-How to name the period before the Big-Bang ?


(my thesis)
On. - A table!
There are four legs for the table to stand stable!
Allthough we know there are four same in size legs, there is no position to stand viewing the table and support the information that all legs are same in size, we know that from not what we see but what we... Believe what a table is. Even if it is about a table theory, it well apply to the question of Universe while there are -some;- four major elements/factors almost like the legs of a table, 'same in "size", value and contribution for the absolut system to run.
So.
The evolution of the biological phaenomena of the incident we commonly address as "Life"- in human scale, in all our appreciations and measures, requires:
Good "Genes", good "Field", good "Time" and...good "Luck"!


The factor "Luck" is the most intriguing because describes in general form the Human standard/scale of relatively ignorance of Causality or just the deep unconcious knowledge of Randomness.


If you love what I believe, I believe that I could love you.
Watch you dont break my table...

 

[Tsimiski]

It's the 'Jante's law' (loven = law)

The ten rules state:

You're not to think you are anything special.

You're not to think you are as good as we are.

You're not to think you are smarter than we are.

You're not to imagine yourself better than we are.
You're not to think you know more than we do.

You're not to think you are more important than we are.

You're not to think you are good at anything.

You're not to laugh at us.

You're not to think anyone cares about you.

You're not to think you can teach us anything.

 

[Angela]

It's the 'Jante's law' (loven = law) ������

The ten rules state:

You're not to think you are anything special.

You're not to think you are as good as we are.

You're not to think you are smarter than we are.

You're not to imagine yourself better than we are.
You're not to think you know more than we do.

You're not to think you are more important than we are.

You're not to think you are good at anything.

You're not to laugh at us.

You're not to think anyone cares about you.

You're not to think you can teach us anything.

You're joking, right?

Good grief! I complete and utterly disagree with every single one of those! Well, maybe not number 5. The rest make absolutely no sense. I particularly dislike two and nine.

 

[Tsimiski]

The Law of Jante, the Danish 10 commandments, are just as Danish as 'hygge'. The Laws were penned by a Danish author Sandemose in his book: 'A fugitive crosses his tracks' published in 1933. I think most Danes will deny that the Laws are a fair judgement on the Danish people today but it's still an underlying Danish trait to discouraged selv promotion.
Some of the comments here are nevertheless slightly speculative.

 

[RVBlake]

Fascinating...I've had people tell me their parents told them similar things, but I never knew the source.

So, is it a still prevalent mind set?

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.

A while back I was watching a Youtube series hosted by a young Norwegian lady giving instructions in the Norwegian language...Naturally she spoke fluent English. She briefly mentioned the concept, I forget the name. Basically a social concept of "don't get above yourself."

 

[Angela]

A while back I was watching a Youtube series hosted by a young Norwegian lady giving instructions in the Norwegian language...Naturally she spoke fluent English. She briefly mentioned the concept, I forget the name. Basically a social concept of "don't get above yourself."

Well, how about "You're not to think anyone cares about you"? That's a rather bleak view of human nature, and a false one, from my perspective and experience. I would never have told my children such a thing and was certainly never taught that myself.

"You're not to think you're as good as we are" also is putting other people down.

Do you know the source or the impetus for this mindset?