World-building: Cultural Dimensions #1 - Individualism vs. Collectivism

Introduction

 

This is an initial post of a series of posts I would like to do on culture dimension theory, and how it can be applied to world-building. I first came across cultural dimension theory when I was taking a Chinese business culture course in my undergraduate years of university. We read a pair of books called Chinese Business Etiquette, by Scott D. Seligman, and another called Chinese Business Negotiating Style, by Tony Fang (both are great, well-researched books for insight Chinese cultural norms. 

   In Fang’s work, he cites the work of Geert Hofstede, a “… social psychologist, former IBM employee and Professor Emeritius…, well known for his pioneering research on cross-cultural groups and organizations.” Geert Hofstede invented what is called cultural dimension theory, which examines cultural practices in slices based on the values of a culture and how they compare. His study inspired imitators including Fons Trompenaars, whose work is also highly illuminating. Measuring a culture’s values in a scientific way is a tricky task that can be exposed to biases in sample collection and measurement methodology. As a result, in the real world, there is a degree of estimation involved that can wrongly describe a culture, and requires significant care empirically and ethically in getting the most accurate results.

   In world-building, the creator can define cultures and individuals as exactly as needed. The creator of a world, culture, or character potentially has perfect information on the subject, and can decide how accurate a description of the subject is. Since the subjects are generally fictional, the process of describing the culture lacks the same ethical standards as accurately describing a real ethnic group. Defining the fictional people of Adzia as extremely individualistic does not have the same consequences with real people that defining the people of a real culture (like ethnic Han of China or Sunni Muslims) as extremely individualistic would have with real people. One is a creative decision that can be 100% accurate if the author desires, and the other is an opinion that may or may not have quality empirical statistics to back it up. The reason I bring this up is a caution - cultural archetyping is a tool that can illuminate and offend when used without thought, so take care when describing or altering historical and contemporary real-world cultures. 

   I present the first in my series, based on Geert Hofstede’s and Fons Trompenaars’ work, individualism vs. collectivism (or individualism vs. communitarianism in Trompenaars’ model).

Individualism vs. Collectivism

   A relatively new concept, individualism champions an individual’s choice and freedom at the expense of the group’s need. Collectivism, on the other hand, emphasizes group cohesion, loyalty, and helping others for greater collective benefit. Individualist cultures are more insistent on civil rights and civil liberties of individuals, as well as privacy, self-actualization, and limited social obligation and/or responsibility. In contrast, collectivist cultures place emphasis on the needs of the group as a whole, and seek harmony and consensus in society. Individual members of a collectivist society are protected by the group and are also expected to follow the group. Collectivist societies may view individualists as selfish, and individualist societies may view collectivists as controlling.

   Individualism vs. collectivism as a dimension can be compared by the extent of obligations to others. Extremely individualistic cultures disregard any obligation to needs of others before obligation to needs of oneself. An extreme individualist may yet choose to regard and see to the needs of others, but that choice is based on a personal choice to put others first. Another extreme individualist may be selfishly and completely focused on themselves. A more moderate individualist chooses to help others when it is convenient to do so, and may only put their personal obligations on hold when the consequences for not helping others are dire.

   A moderate collectivist sees the world as an opportunity for their group(s). Their group helped them to get to where they are, and they help their group in return. They help the group not simply because helping them in term leads to individual benefit, but because they identify as part of the group – a collectivist’s well-being and self-worth of the individual is a function of the group’s well-being and is dependent on the group’s outcome. An extreme collectivistic culture takes this loyalty and obligation by providing catastrophic disincentives to avoiding group obligations and/or fortunate incentives to those who hew closely to cultural collectivist ideals. Examples of catastrophic disincentives include fines, social exclusion, exile, criminal charges, or a loss of class status or citizenship. Fortunate incentives may include earning special privileges, rewards, and social commendation or honors.

   Individualism vs. collectivism’s degree of scope can be compared by the extent of the group(s). A person’s group can be envisioned as concentric circles: the individual is in the center, with a group of close family immediately containing the individual. That circle is surrounded by another circle that includes extended obligations, such as more distant family or work-related colleagues. Outside that circle includes more distant obligations, which could be a circle of an entire local, tribal, ethnic, or nation group that includes the individual.  Circles of some groups may cut across unevenly to include some but not others: a member of a minority religious sect may find their circle to include some but not all people in the family, some fellow co-workers, people outside your town and maybe including people in the town over. Depending on the values of the culture, obligation to other groups may be considered first before family. Tribal, patriotic, nationalist, or feudal cultures may value loyalty and service to the tribe/kingdom/nation before immediate family. Pious or idealistic cultures may place obligation to religious faiths or ideologies before family. Materialistic or hard-working cultures may place obligation to your occupation and monetary wealth before that of family. 

   For individualistic cultures, the circles that identify groups of people of importance are increasingly self-defined the more individualistic they are. A somewhat individualistic person may place their closest friends inside or closer than their family circle, but otherwise follow an ordinary model of social obligation. A highly individualistic person may combine social groups into one, have asymmetrically defined obligations to people across groups, and feel obligations to which none of their peers belong to. Asymmetric obligations in individualistic people results in wearing unusual clothes, being enamored of thinkers outside the mainstream, conforming to chosen groups and people that are outside those interacted with in daily life, violating common traditions and customs, and being less concerned with consequences of being different (sometimes their self-worth increases as they contrast more with others).

   Each culture lies on a continuum in terms of the degree to which individualism or collectivism is important as a social value. Cultures on this continuum dimension will share more common values as compared to other cultures that are either more or less individualistic or collectivistic. Within each culture, the adherents and members of that culture also lie on a continuum. One person may be very collectivist for an individualist culture, while another may be less collectivist than that person but be more but belong to a more collectivist culture, and vice versa. The more culturally homogenous the culture in question is, the more likely the continuum of personal attitudes to individualism vs. collectivism will be clustered. People are people, and there are always outliers to cultural attitudes at either end.

Examples

So what does this mean in practice? Take a few examples of hypothetical situations:

a) You are running late for an important meeting with a client. The client and the meeting have consequence to your business and reputation. However, a friend that you like (but are not close to) is having trouble with the wheel of their vehicle. The wheel needs repair so they can get to work, and they are late because of the broken wheel. Your friend needs your help to fix the wheel and you are confident you can successfully fix the wheel in an ideal situation. However, if you help, you are fairly sure you will not be able to meet your client at the appointed time. What do you do?

o Stop everything to help your friend, and deal with the consequences of the meeting later.
o Take as much as time as you think you use to help while still not being late for the meeting.
o Offer to come back after informing your client you will be late due to assisting you.
o Offer to come back after your client’s meeting is over to assist.
o Find someone to assist to help your friend, and all of you work to fix the vehicle.
o Find someone to assist to help your friend, and offer to do a favor for the person assisting your friend while you take care of your meeting.
o Politely decline to help as you don’t want to be late yourself, and deal with the consequences of not helping your friend later.

b) You are planning a party, such as a celebration or a wedding. You have 10 close members of your family, 20 members of extended family, 20 members of your work, 10 close friends, 20 friends, 20 people in a shared social group. 10 people across these groups, you owe a favor for things they have done for you. You can only afford to invite 50 people. Who do you invite?

o I invite people that I personally value the most, first.
o I invite members of my family first, friends second.
o I invite people I am closest to in each group.
o I invite those I owe a favor over those I am close to.
o I invite more than I can afford, taking additional financial loss for the benefit of others.
o I ask for assistance from my closest members to help support a larger party to increase the invitation list.

c) You have a strong personal interest in something considered unusual for your group. This can be a love for an ideology, a desire to switch religions, a lifestyle, or simply a taste in unusual clothes. When you express yourself in this fashion, you experience pushback because it is different. How do you react?

o I recognize that this does not reflect our group, and I seek to actively manage or change my attitude to the group.
o I recognize that this does not reflect our group, but reflects me, and I seek to minimize expression or keep my attitude to myself.
o I recognize that this does not reflect our group, but I seek to express myself how I see fit despite different views.
o I recognize that this does not reflect our group, but I seek to convince the group to change their opinion.
o I recognize that this does not reflect one of my groups, but it reflects one or more other groups I identify with.
o I recognize that this reflects me, and I seek to express myself in a manner true to myself.
o I recognize that this reflects me, and I seek to convince others to change their opinion.
o I recognize that this reflects me, and actively seek to challenge opposition to my attitudes from my group and outside my group. 

Individualism vs. Collectivism Random Table

Do you want to have a table to randomly determine an attitude for an person, creature, town or culture? Below is an adapted version of the table I created for myself to aid designing my current world.

 

d100	Individualism vs. Collectivism
01-10	Extreme Individualism
11-20	Very High Individualism
21-30	Significant Individualism
31-40	Moderate Individualism
41-50	Minor Individualism
51-60	Minor Collectivism
61-70	Moderate Collectivism
71-80	Significant Collectivism
81-90	Very High Collectivism
91-00	Extreme Collectivism

Afterword

I am going to continue this series. Cultural dimensions I am looking to go into detail in the near future include (but are not limited to): Restraint vs. Indulgence, Foreignness, Universalism vs. Particularism, and Power Distance.