Individual Collectivism

Thursday, 7 December 2006
7.04pm
Koningsstraat, Amsterdam

I was in the toilet (don't ask) when I started reading Arya's textbook (again, don't ask). Geert Hofstede was explaining about a research conducted in nine European countries. What would you prefer, freedom or equality? Of course the most preferrable is both, however if you had to choose, would you choose: A. Ensuring freedom for all, that is, everyone has a chance to develop themselves; or B. Ensuring equality, that no underpriviledged gets left behind.

The results were that the more individualistic the country, the higher possibility they would chose freedom. The more collectivistic the country, the higher possibility they would choose equality. Thus, freedom is a typical ideology held by an individualist country and equality is a consistent ideology held by a collectivist country.

Of course, Inaya would self-reflect (self-centered as she is) and deduct the findings on a personal level as today she was especially bugged. I wrote a paper with everything I had, I structured it the best I could, I proof-read it, I did my readings - but I got a 7,5. Which is not bad... Until I peeked to the grades others got...

The disappointment that surged into me because I knew I didn't do as good as other people did - as an academic I would objectively say the reaction falls into the indicators of individualist behaviour. Competition, the concept of winning and losing. While in my head, theoretically speaking, I am a strong arguer for cooperation as opposed to competition, discussion as opposed to debating and so forth (you get the idea). But on a personal level, it is pretty astonishing to see how I can't even be consistent applying my theoretical frameworks into my empirical everyday life.

I guess knowing things doesn't necessarily mean you could incorporate it comprehensively and consistently in all aspects. Maybe knowing is one step and applying is the next step.

I talked this over with Arya and he argues that he would characterise me as masculine (assertive, aggressive, competitive) which to some extent also relates to individualistic behaviours. Then again, how come I choose feminine (collective, caring, social) fields to work in (NGO, education)? The inconsistencies bug me tremendously.

Perhaps it's personal preference, at the end of the day - about knowing yourself and what you want. Personal validation and ways to cope with failures. It's what you're aiming and ways to achieve them. If I want to share, therefore individualistic ideas cannot accomodate that purpose. If I want to excel, then individualistic ideas are mandatory. Or maybe it's never that simple. You might need individualistic characteristics in certain situations and collectivistic in others.

Perhaps the main rationale is: what it is you want and what means you should adopt to achieve them. After all, there is no absolute right and wrong. There are alternatives and considerations and consequences. If you are really lucky, you might learn something in the process. And sometimes, or at many times, that's the thing that counts the most.