Individualism, Collectivism & Us

In this “collectivist approach” competitiveness is not stressed. There is nothing that says, “Be first.” “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.” “I can make it to the top.” It might say, “ Be the best you can in your team.” A worker would simply see himself as a team player whose motivations were shaped by the group. This “group think” mentality is largely responsible for the success of the Japanese automobile industry and their other technological fields.

Generally speaking, Chinese citizens whose lives depend on the State are most concerned in achieving State goals. Such incentives lead to workers toiling long hours without extra compensation. The State is viewed as supreme in their lives. Western critics raise opposition to such conditions. Orwell, in his classic book 1984, provides an exposition of how such control would have devastating
consequences on societies.

Orwell’s paradigm has much to say about government’s intrusion in the personal lives of citizens. This is a major problem in a collectivist society where institutions and companies are government-owned and controlled. What news and information citizens receive are censored by their governments to reflect the government’s party views and State goals. To put it another way news, information and directives are managed. Such State policies could be best summed up as “the ends justifying the means.”

In such cultures some form of Marxism exist with a blend of democratic principles. Such societies claim that ideologically they are adherents to social democratic values or some variation of it. Such is the case of Russia today.

Unlike a democracy Marxism like in Cuba would look at the relationship of class distinctions in an economic context as being paramount in State policies. Social democracy then would embody democratic principles in combination of a Marxist approach that their proponents hope would better reflect the economic, cultural and social goals of their nations.

There has to be a balance between the “individualistic” and the “collectivist” approach. It would not be prudent to simply dismiss one system in favor of another.

In instances the emphasis on the individual would be necessary. In a Rwanda genocide story of 1994, it took individuals from the Red Cross and journalists that were willing to remain behind to bring the world the atrocities that pervaded that nation. This they did this at their own risk. The United States and the European governments and UNESCO were not going to be further involved.

In other situations, teamwork is important. “Individuality” could be a necessary bedfellow with “collectivity.” One important consideration is when best and under what conditions must such an approach’ be used? There would never be an orchestra that stressed playing as one likes. It would be chaos. For a journalist or individual, it would best be to determine what is productive as opposed to what is destructive.