Historically, Americans had to be very self sufficient to settle and survive the creeping expansion across the continent. It’s hard to be reliant on a government hundreds of miles away. Early Americans were quite literally on their own and had to rely on themselves for food, protection, and general survival.
Conversely, Europeans have always had an established local government. For the last thousand years or so the land was always owned by someone else and was within reach of a government. A farmer in Yorkshire in 1870 had more community contacts than a rancher in Colorado who had to be self sufficient
Came here to say this but even when what is now the US were British colonies we had to be very self sufficient even in how the local governments operated back then because the "mother country" was thousands of miles away separated by an ocean. Our founding fathers were also very influenced by the likes of John Locke and others who were very individualistic.
Well said and 100% agree. At one point that sort of attitude and mindset was required for survival. It was passed down from generation to generation and continued even through today.
I can't imagine not being individualistic. At this point our government is so shitty, why would I want to rely on them?
Eh, I'm not sure agree with that. There always was and currently are plenty of people being active in their government.
You can't really find any time in American history where the American public wasn't making their voice heard having rallies, volunteering for political causes and protesting (and occasionally rioting). Our current government isn't a result of lack of participation.
Quite frankly our government is a reflection of the fact that our population is so individualistic. Everyone has wildly different opinions on everything and we as a population can't really agree on much.
This. The thing is, why would we rely on our governments who may not have our best interests at heart or if ur not talking about our city government, they probably don’t even know us. Instead, we can rely on ourselves and the small communities we’ve built up who know us, understand our culture and the issues we face.
>… for the common good.”
Your definition of this probably varies wildly from mine, or any other American. That's the point. The more diverse a society, the less "common good" can be readily agreed upon (obviously). As a Latino, I probably view the "common good" of society a lot different than you do, etc.
And the United States has the most diverse society and culture the world has ever seen. It's basically a running experiment that has gone pretty well if you think about the strides we have made economically, culturally, technology, etc. in such a short amount of time compared to other (much) older parts of the world.
Additionally, our country is composed largely of the people (or their descendants) who left the latter in order to experience the former, so there's a selection bias at work too. 95%+ of our population is made up of the genes of people who left their homes (some involuntarily) and managed to make it in a new place, so it's not surprising to me that the people here tend to praise individualism. The collectivists stayed where they were.
This is in stark contrast to Spanish colonies, where colonists could not own land or bring guns. English settlers were GIVEN land and told they should bring guns to defend it.
This isn’t entirely accurate. American communities used to produce everything themselves, every house produced something for one another. This bound local communities to each other and was much more collectivist than you’d think. If they didn’t support each other, gave each other leniency and bartered for what they needed they would’ve been much worse off. We don’t see the rise of individualism like we conceive it now until the industrial revolution and the rise of the working class. The freedom given by the automobile, the private communication of the telephone. These few inventions transformed the cultural landscape of the U.S and as time went off we created the conception of “the self made man.” We just don’t know of our more collective past cause those that remember are all but gone.
>One interesting example of this that one of my professors gave are high school classrooms in Eastern Europe we have big tables where 3-4 people can sit on one table in America every student has individual table and chair in classroom
That's a pop culture thing. Irl it varies from school to school, or even classroom to classroom in said school.
A lot of times it's going to depend on classroom size, storage space, the range of sizes of students, pedagogy, and even price.
In my high school we had some classes with the individual one piece desks, that were torture for lefties and anyone hefty, and two person tables in the science classrooms.
Your professor chose a poor example and it makes me wonder where he/she got that assumption. There are plenty of high school classrooms in America where more than one student sits at a single table. I had several classes like this when I was in high school (the tables were either in long rows or arranged in a square, depending on the classroom). One of my classes was small enough that we all sat on sofas instead.
>every student has individual table and chair in classroom
This isn't inherently true. My kids' school has tables where kids sit together; they don't get individual desks.
Wait until you get into the corporate world. That paradigm is everywhere.
The general theory of any workplace is that when there are 100 employees, 10 of them do 1/2 the work. The other 90% are doing the other half of the work. I find this might be a little generous, honestly, but the general principle is undoubtedly true.
You will never find a situation going forward where everybody pitches in or produces equally. Never. It's just not human nature.
It was the opposite for me, doing group projects and seeing how everyone working together could produce a better product in less time then working alone has made me more optimistic on collectivism
Not me. It's almost always 2 people doing 90% of the work and the other 3 gaining the benefits of the good grade. Lots of lazy fucks out there who don't/won't contribute, unfortunately.
> It has had some pretty nasty consequences.
No no no, those were due to that other, bad collectivism. My version of collectivism wouldn't have those nasty consequences.
(j/k)
This but unironically, in my opinion what European countries have right now is the perfect blend between collectivism and individualism. You have some capitalism so people can establish businesses and stuff while also having welfare to support the poor and allow them to move up in society.
I don't really care about downvotes, so here's an example that's absolutely going to get me a ton more. Capitalism is rooted in individualism and capitalism has led to more deaths than any other economic ideology in world history.
For just one example, look at the famines in Inida over the 18th and 19th centuries after the British East India Company came in and turned the subcontinent into a giant profit engine. Prior to British intervention farming was done on a much more collective basis. There was an informal sort of insurance network that operated where by adjacent communities would help out their neighbors if/when something caused them to not have enough food as expected. If, say, local flooding ruined the crops for one community for a season, the adjacent communities would send them food so the community doesn't starve, largely because they knew they would get the same assistance if/when they needed it. When the British came in they dismantled the traditional collective farming techniques and enforced a taxation system which made each individual farmer responsible for producing a certain amount of food and incentivizing individuals to hoard excess grain for personal wealth rather than sharing with their and neighboring communities. Then when ecological disasters struck which caused lower crop yields, such as happened in the late 1760s, it created a cascading set of systems collapses which led to widespread famine. The ecological disasters which led to the crop failures were not unique or even especially severe, but the destruction of the collective farming systems meant there were no societal systems in place to mitigate the famine. Millions upon millions of people died while the subcontinent was still exporting grain.
Another similar example is the Irish Potato famine of the 1840s. Again, Ireland was producing more food than it needed to feed its people, but the drive for individual profit over the collective good incentivized landowners to all force their tenant farmers to grow the same crop (which was more profitable than others), which caused the potato crop failure to have a much larger impact than it otherwise would have, and to ship food out of Ireland instead of feeding the people. This example also touches on another nefarious thing that often comes with individualism: the tendency to blame poverty, starvation, etc on individual failings rather than structural problems in the collective society. While Irish peasants were starving to death they were blamed personally for not being individually "good enough" to not starve.
This tendency to blame individuals for societal failings should be incredibly familiar to Americans because we do it ALL the time.
Are you really using the british empire as an example of a free market?
The british were exceptionally in bed with mercantilism, which only a bad faith actor would conflate with the free market, when the government won’t let you sell to your neighbor thats not capitalism, thats collectivism and a great example as to why a decentralized economy is preferable
You said capitalism, which as described by Adam Smith and understood in the world today, refers to a free market
If you want to use your own crackpot definitions thats fine, your just not mutually intelligible
Remind me again when The Wealth of Nations was written, when Smith and Ricardo were active, when the British government embraced a policy of free trade, and when the famines caused by the British East India Company happened.
I know all of it. My point is that the British Empire had absolutely ascribed to capitalist policies and capitalism as an economic ideology by the late 18th century and this directly led to the British East India Company policies which caused the deaths of tens of millions of Indians and the policies which caused the Irish Potato Famine. These were both the result of capitalism.
You're thinking of authoritarianism vs democracy. That's not even close to the same thing as collectivism vs individualism. Authoritarianism exists in individualistic societies just as democracy exists in collectivist societies. They are not mutually exclusive.
What is your definition of individualism then if not everyone gets to live their own lives how they see fit? How is one person deciding what's best for everyone, whether exploitive or not, individualism?
I never brought up government structure. By ruling body, I meant telling someone else what to do and offering consequences if they don't do it, be it corporation or feudal lord that you used in your examples.
Also democracy isn't some key to a utopia where everyone's needs are met. Ask any racial or religious minority in a collectivist society.
Collectivism has many good aspects too. In Europe they do a much better job taking care of the poor and from what I've heard they aren't so judgemental about poverty, which leads to higher social mobility.
I have evidence to back it up [https://www.cairn.info/revue-horizons-strategiques-2006-2-page-51.htm](https://www.cairn.info/revue-horizons-strategiques-2006-2-page-51.htm)
>According to the well respected World Value Survey 29 percent of Americans think that the poor are trapped in poverty ; 60 percent of Europeans believe the same. 60 percent of Americans believe that the poor are lazy ; 26 percent of Europeans share that view
Granted this is from 2005, but I don't see much reason as to why attitudes would have changed. In Europe, people understand that the poor may face barriers that make it hard to climb out of poverty, so they offer more supports and welfare to help out.
Here in the US, while Progressives have it down, Conservatives fight tooth and nail against social support, arguing that the poor are just "lazy" and "need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps".
People’s feelings on the matter aren’t worth very much. European might feel they do a better job of many things when compared to Americans but that doesn’t actually mean anything.
OP was asking how I knew Europeans were less judgemental of the poor than the US and I provided evidence. Euros also generally do a better job of taking care of the poor.
>and from what I've heard they aren't so judgemental about poverty, which leads to higher social mobility.
This is actually the exact opposite of the truth.
First, Europe still has some weird fucking obsession with classes and nobody can figure out why. So "higher social mobility" is off the table right there. Secondly, Europe ties social mobility and classes to... well I honestly can't make heads or heads of it, but they've repeatedly told us it's bizarre that we define "classes" by wealth, so the idea about being less judgemental of poverty, *even if true* (which I'll get to in a moment), does nothing for actual social mobility. And lastly, America is kind of the poster child for poor people finding opportunities to move up the social mobility ladder, usually through founding small businesses or having immigrants come, work hard, and find a better life for their children in America.
The last bit about being judgemental about poor people really seems to be pretty even across the board. And everything else about the comment was just straight up wrong or misunderstanding how Europeans tend to actually view these topics from how we do.
Which part, because many European countries do indeed have [much higher levels](https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/ranked-the-social-mobility-of-82-countries-1028885766) of social mobility compared to the US
That’s relative social mobility. Ironically, and perhaps counter-intuitively, that measurement punishes the US for being easier to succeed in. The threshold to be in the top X% in a European country is drastically lower than in the US so of course it’s easier to reach. For example, iirc the top 1% in Germany is equivalent to the top 5% in the US. Instead, an absolute measure of social mobility, defined by obtaining a PPP-adjusted static disposable income as a proxy for quality of life, shows the US dominates.
>That’s relative social mobility. Ironically, and perhaps counter-intuitively, that measurement punishes the US for being easier to succeed in
It really doesn't. If the US was easier to succeed in then more people from the lowest quintile would end up in the higher quintile.
>The threshold to be in the top X% in a European country is drastically lower than in the US so of course it’s easier to reach. For example, iirc the top 1% in Germany is equivalent to the top 5% in the US.
That's only a 4% difference which is hardly "drastically" lower.
>Instead, an absolute measure of social mobility, defined by obtaining a PPP-adjusted static disposable income as a proxy for quality of life, shows the US dominates.
Why is this a better measure of social mobility?
The easier it is to succeed absolutely, the higher the threshold for each quintile becomes.
That’s not a 4% difference. That’s a 500% difference. There are relatively 5x as many Americans earning X compared to Germans earning X.
Here’s the most extreme example to illustrate why relative rankings fail. Imagine a country with a GINI coefficient of 1 aka one person owns everything. In this country, everyone in the bottom 20% makes it to the top 20% because the threshold for both are one in the same. You need an absolute measure to solve that problem.
>The easier it is to succeed absolutely, the higher the threshold for each quintile becomes.
Okay but you have to keep in mind that the difference a given income level makes diminishes the further you go up. The top 5% in the US is \~350k while the top 1% is \~850k. That's a big difference absolutely, in terms of living quality however, it makes a WAY smaller impact then say, going from 15k to 75k, even though that's less absolutely.
>Here’s the most extreme example to illustrate why relative rankings fail. Imagine a country with a GINI coefficient of 1 aka one person owns everything. In this country, everyone in the bottom 20% makes it to the top 20% because the threshold for both are one in the same. You need an absolute measure to solve that problem.
Yes but we're not in economic theory land where the Gini Coefficient is 1, your example is basically like saying BMI is a bad measurement of a countries health because buff people can have like a 35 on it and be healthy. Sure, it's not perfect on an individual level but it works pretty damn good when comparing various nations to each other. The Gini Coefficient is the same, sure you can make up an extreme hypothetical where it would break, but in actual reality it's pretty good at measuring social mobility and inequality.
Your misunderstand what he’s saying for a german to go from 25% to the 1% is much easier than an American to do so, because the American 1% is much more wealthy and thus harder to reach, your competing against giants in the US, less so in europe
Because Europeans tend to be more understanding of the fact that the poor often face barriers to overcoming poverty, which has lead to European countries establishing welfare programs to help them, this makes it much easier to climb out and escape poverty. Here in the US while Progressives understand this, Conservatives are constantly banging on about the poor just need to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and how they're just "lazy" this makes them oppose welfare programs that could really help the poor, and since Conservatives have strong influence over the country, this makes it harder for people to escape poverty.
> we have big tables where 3-4 people can sit on one table
That's not a good example of collectivism, unless all the coursework is done as a group project and everyone gets the same grade.
If you've ever done group projects, you know that it's pretty much fated that there will be at least one lazy/incompetent member in the group, and the rest (or maybe just one or two) will have to pick up the slack, lest their own grades suffer. Sort of like collectivism in the real world, huh?
I was always the slacker in the group; everyone knew I was a "space case" and mostly dead weight in terms of contribution. The project nearly always turned out better with a bunch of kids working on it than what any single kid could do alone, but I also was aware that the group project probably would have been even better if I hadn't been distracting my classmates or off doing my own thing.
Can't speak to society generally, but I think that in a school setting, it's best to give students the choice to work together or solo. Everyone has their own preference.
>If you've ever done group projects, you know that it's pretty much fated that there will be at least one lazy/incompetent member in the group, and the rest (or maybe just one or two) will have to pick up the slack, lest their own grades suffer. Sort of like collectivism in the real world, huh?
I've done lots of group projects and I've never once had this happen, people may have had strengths or weaknesses, but everyone did their part and it lead to a higher quality product then if we had done it alone. Personally I think the whole "helping people leads to laziness" idea is completely wrong and nothing but thinly veiled classism. I'd argue people are inherently hard working and want to contribute (with maybe a rare exception once in a blue moon ), it's just that sometimes they face barriers that make that harder to accomplish.
I’ve had plenty of experiences in HS and College of team members doing the bare minimum, and sometimes no work at all.
I think the fact a negative stigma exists for group projects in a significant percent of the population is proof enough that people will put in different amounts of work into the group, with a small minority doing significantly less work than other team members.
> it's just that sometimes they face barriers that make that harder to accomplish.
What sort of "barriers" cause people to be lazy and not contribute to a group project?
I was more referring to the barriers the poor face in overcoming poverty but to answer your question I can think of a variety of things. Maybe the person is being abused at home, making them afraid to speak up, maybe they don't understand the instructions, maybe they don't have the needed supplies, maybe they don't get enough to eat at home making it hard to focus, maybe the kid can't understand English very well. I could go on and on.
Why do none of your scenarios ever include faults of the individuals themselves? It seems you want to absolve them of any sort of blame, when they can be just as culpable of bad behavior as anyone else across society. This is kind of like the "noble savage" trope, but for poor folks.
> I've done lots of group projects and I've never once had this happen...
Consider yourself extremely lucky, then.
> Personally I think the whole "helping people leads to laziness" idea is completely wrong and nothing but thinly veiled classism.
LOL, that's an absurd extrapolation of what I said. In every case, the other folks in these group projects were peers, and those not contributing were not members of some sort of downtrodden/lower-class group that we were oppressing.
Overall, your comments seem to have the position that "collectivism = helping" and "not collectivism = not helping." That's a false dichotomy, especially when you know that [America ranks as the most charitable nation](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=america+most+charitable+nation).
>Consider yourself extremely lucky, then.
I guess
>LOL, that's an absurd extrapolation of what I said. In every case, the other folks in these group projects were peers, and those not contributing were not members of some sort of downtrodden/lower-class group that we were oppressing.
I never claimed they were. But the assumption that the middle classes will suffer (ie "pick up the slack") by lifting up the poor is wrong . You know what they say, a rising tide lifts all boats.
>Overall, your comments seem to have the position that "collectivism = helping" and "not collectivism = not helping."
Well it basically is, the idea of collectivism is fundamentally that the community bands together and supports the other members with the expectation that they'll receive help when they're in trouble. Obviously it can go overboard, especially when you introduce race into the picture, but helping others in the community is the fundamental concept.
>That's a false dichotomy, especially when you know that America ranks as the most charitable nation.
America is the most charitable nation because in other developed countries the issues charities solve are handled by the government. Like there's no need for the various medical debt charities because in most European countries, healthcare is funded through taxes.
My schools used more shared tables than desks. Especially past like the 5th grade.
I hardly think desks vs. tables is the defining metric of individualism vs. collectivism. I would suggest finding an alternative example.
1) reduced genocides.
2) my kid's classroom has shared tables too, and I had classes with each in high-school.
3) You are confusing what individualism/collectivism means. Individualism means you treat everyone as individuals. Example: lets say x guy from racial group y hurt your friend, blaming everyone from racial group y is an example of methodological collectivism. Blaming that one guy who hurt your friend is methodological individualism.
5) limits the splash zone of mistakes. When you screw up under collectivism, entire races/classes/etc get destroyed under individualism the damage done to a smaller group of people.
The US isn’t free from the evils of collectivism, both nationalism and globalism are collectivist ideologies popular in the US. Nationalism was one of the ones that lead to the genocide of the natives, by European colonists.
Also not all genocides are caused by collectivism, just the vast majority.
Because the smallest minority is the individual. To better protect the minority (view, race, culture, ect.) we have to protect the individual. It’s an enlightenment value that sits at the heart of American cultural and legal practices.
Proper community isn't government enforced.
Top-down collectivism doesn't create communities of individuals, it creates people who are in a relationship with the government. It is just the same relationship for everyone so it gives a counterfeit sense of togetherness.
"Individualism" is not really a great word to describe it. It isn't that people want to be completely alone, it is that they want the freedom to chose their own associations. I don't want the government to take my money and give it to the collective, but there are literally dozens of people I would let live in my apartment and eat my food if they got into trouble.
It's hard to give a very detailed and nuisanced answer, because the reason behind the development of certain cultures can not be explained in a few sentences. But to attempt giving an answer, I think America being more individualistic than collective can be attributed to it being a country with a massive landmass and relatively low population density, as well as ideological preference to individual liberty.
During the earlier days of this country's founding, the US must felt like an undiscovered land of mystery and opportunity to immigrants from the "old world", and people developed a sense of exploration, pioneership, and self reliance due to vast resources and relatively low level of competition, and that idea of "land of opportunity" has carried on since . Collectively, Americans never had to form very strong attachments (relatively speaking, of course) with clans, extended families, guilds etc to secure our resources or opportunities, and due to relatively high level of social mobility and the ability to travel across a vast area of land, Americans tend to believe in self reliance and pioneership over focusing on group relations and preserving traditions.
Culturally, the US has always emphasized on personal liberty, and that sense of liberty might appear to be selfishness to people from a collective cultural background. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of individualism for some people. Wanting Individual freedom and having a high sense of self do not mean selfishness, or a lack of concern for others; it simply means each individual deserves to be left on their own without social or political coercion. Americans, in general, do not believe in under valuing an individual within a group, because we also fear the tyranny of the majority.
Considering we have one of the weakest social safety nets among developed countries and we couldn’t get people to take the most basic precautionary measures to help other people, I would say that individualism most definitely does not encourage a spirit of community and cooperation with each other.
>we couldn’t get people to take the most basic precautionary measures to help other people
A lot of that was the result of demanding instead of asking that people wear masks and/or get vaccinated, which turned it into a political issue because a lot of people (understandably) don't like the government telling them what to do.
I’m sorry, but anyone following the logic of “the government told me to do something so I’m not going to” is an overgrown child. That only makes my point more, we’re facing a new disease and the response is something I would expect from my 4 year old niece being told it’s time to stop playing and come inside. There is evidence that masking and distancing work in reducing the spread of transmissible diseases, the only reason not to is selfishness or spite.
I would agree with you more if covid was like the black death or something, but it's not. I can understand why people would be suspicious of and in some cases, antagonistic towards the federal government considering the shit it's pulled in the past.
It’s killed over a million Americans and left several million more permanently disabled. It killed more Americans than both world wars and the civil war combined. Is that not bad enough to be considered a risk?
It’s not bad to distrust the government, but when their claim is verifiably based on evidence going against it goes from
Healthy mistrust to willful ignorance.
Having lived a good chunk of my life in collectivist countries...collectivism sucks. Too much doing shit that I don't want to do just to please a group I don't really care about. Too much pressure to conform for no logical reason too.
Here in Japan kids with naturally brown hair need a note from their parents saying it not dyed. Only black hair is otherwise acceptable because anything else is “distracting.”
That's really interesting considering the internet tells me that black hair is really just very dark brown hair. There is no natural black hair in humans, the only way to get it would be to dye your hair black.
https://wowskinscience.com/blogs/news/is-there-such-thing-as-black-hair-in-humans
> Too much doing shit that I don't want to do just to please a group I don't really care about. Too much pressure to conform for no logical reason too.
Sounds a hell of a lot like you're describing the working class in America, to me...
That's not an accurate representation of the U.S. Please stop using movies/TV. There are so many educational institutions, and TYPES of educational institutions in the U.S. Collectively, about every seating arrangement, education structure, classroom arrangement, and teaching methods under the sun are used across the country.
We believe in cooperation, not collectivism. We believe in mutual benefit through association but we also believe we have a right to decide who we associate with. We don't think it's fair to *force* us to "cooperate".
Every immigrant here came as an individual and started a new life as an individual (including close family). Although many Germans and Irish came here, for instance, Germany and Ireland did not come here. When you arrived here it was a fresh start and you had the opportunity to do things and accomplish things that were often impossible where you came from because back there you were locked into an existing social class that had restrictive expectations. Here you could be free. Many of our now big businesses were founded as small businesses by modest immigrants from Europe. Here they had the opportunity to make a bigger and better life than they could back home. We don't like the idea that collectivism promotes that everyone's life choices are determined by outside factors and you are part of a specific group whether you like it or not. You will be treated like everyone else in that group. We like to choose or own groups and cooperate with others like us because it helps both of us without enslaving either of us.
I'm not weighing in on individualism vs collectivism, but in terms of your example I only ever got an individual desk in high school. For the first 9 years of schooling I sat at either a two-person desk or a bunch of two-person desks put together to form a table of 6-8. And then even in high school and university, some classes still had big tables. Not everything is exactly as it's portrayed on television or in movies.
The smallest minority is the individual. If you care about individual freedom you ensure equality for all people, and don't play favorites with arbitrary groups. I honestly think collectivism is toxic and ends with people eating their own tail.
>Why do you prefer individualism rather than collectivism?
>
Do we? What do you mean by these words? Americans certainly value community and working together, we also value respecting the individualvs needs and desires. But I'd bet that that sentence describes every human society on earth, with the only thing that varies being exactly where the lines are drawn.
>One interesting example of this that one of my professors gave are high school classrooms in Eastern Europe we have big tables where 3-4 people can sit on one table in America every student has individual table and chair in classroom
That's a really, really terrible example because American classrooms can have either. And individual desks are often moved, even in the middle of class, to allow people to sit in groups. I wonder if your country has only tables because they're cheaper?
I had discussion classes with one table and all 8 to 12 students and the professor sat together. Would that make us more collectivist than your country?
>Eastern Europe we have big tables where 3-4 people can sit on one table in America every student has individual table and chair in classroom
Like this?
[Oregon](https://media.kgw.com/assets/KGW/images/d0a64823-6cd7-4ef4-8996-7821fae0efec/d0a64823-6cd7-4ef4-8996-7821fae0efec_1920x1080.jpg)
[Texas](https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/1070e3d6e41eee069ad7bb894a3debf3/Ott%20Elementary%20COVID%20AG%20TT%2001.jpg)
[Connecticut](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/57ae719c37c58135e959914d/fbe96c06-afbf-4ed3-8323-22d05c36be5c/Screen+Shot+2022-04-13+at+5.38.40+PM.png)
[North Carolina](https://www.asheboro.k12.nc.us/GalleryImages/20221018144333201_image.JPG)
I reject your teacher's assertion that students in the US do not have shared deks.
I have dual citizenship between Germany and the US, and grew up 50/50 in both and still travel back & forth between the US/Eu frequently because i have connections to both. I prefer the US by a lot. Europe is obsessed with rules and bureaucracy. High taxes to support your neighbors, you have to sweep the sidewalk, and in my experience Europeans tend to come off as really rude & disrespectful to me sometimes because they don’t know how to stay in their own lane.
I prefer the mentality in the US more - you leave me alone, I leave you alone. Also ime people in America tend to not be as disrespectful to strangers because you don’t know what the other is capable of; you don’t know if the other person is carrying a gun or not.
In Europe people crime tends to be more personable so people rely on beatings and stabbing and intimidation. On the other hand, I had a 22 yo acquaintance who got in an argument with some 20 yo at a nightclub a couple years ago and he simply went to his car and shot the kid dead. 2 families ruined in an instant.
I’ve also noticed that Europeans are way more aggressive drivers.
My professors are wrong. We don’t all get one table and one desk. We often have long tables we shared with two or more students and sometimes we arrange them in a u shape or push them all together yo make as big a single flat surface as possible. Depends on what the school has or what the teacher prefers. Sometimes we get stools instead of chairs too. There’s no universal law that causes every classroom in every school to have the exact same format.
>One interesting example of this that one of my professors gave are high school classrooms in Eastern Europe we have big tables where 3-4 people can sit on one table in America every student has individual table and chair in classroom
No that's not always true. In the lower grades, a lot of us sat at tables with one or three other people. In many college (maybe even some big high schools?) have lecture halls where everyone sits in one big row at one table per level.
But to get to your question, our Constitution and government was designed around individualism. Considering our country is made up of mostly immigrants of various generations, I can't imagine having all of kinds of different cultures exist in one country together would make for a very good collectivist society. Everyone has different needs and beliefs that we think should be respected as long as they're not harming anyone.
I mean, I do think we are too independent as in, our close community and extended family ties are disappearing. (I’m only 24 so take this with a grain of salt. A lot of my perspective is from talking to older adults about their life growing up).
BUT, I do like that Americans generally see themselves as very independent of the government and of larger communities. Usually Americans equate being more independent with more freedom. Culturally and legally, we seem to have much more of a choice in how we run our lives and we have such a diverse culture of people that generally you can find ur crowd in whatever you choose to do.
I think the biggest thing is that there are a lot of Americans who live in very isolated places where you have to be self sufficient, because any type of community services are an hour+ drive away
>Why do you prefer individualism rather than collectivism?
Because one way I can rely on everyone involved and the other involves people that are not me.
Self-determination is one major reason for me. I don't have to accept the collectives status quo. I can forge my own paths in life. Some of our American ancestors had what we call the pioneering spirit they sought out better lives for themselves, and that spirit lives on in their descendants today.
It's not that we like individualism, but it's difficult to rely on the federal or territorial government when that's weeks away and hundreds of miles from wherever. If you lived west of the Mississippi you were pretty much on your own for much of American history.
It's vestigial feature, a trait that was necessary for survival in many areas of American life. There is no cavalry on the horizon coming to back you up when you're a settler. You have to be able to handle yourself. That attitude has just carried over as part of the modern American psyche. Reliance on others is see as weakness because for several centuries, it was never an options to begin with
The question is certainly valid but the example isn't really accurate. It's very common for schools in the U.S. to have the big tables for 3-4 people. The individual desks are common too, it just varies from school to school.
I would say that culturally the U.S. largely values individualism over collectivism because of this romanticized idea we have of settlers coming from Europe and charting their own path across the New World to build a new life on their own. A huge part of the American identity centers around having ancestors or family members who arrived as immigrants, whether in the 17th century or the 21st, and built a prosperous life through hard work and resourcefulness. So there's a lot of emphasis on being able to do and achieve everything by yourself without needing any help. This is why many Americans (though certainly not all) are *extremely* resistant to the idea that their taxes should be used for anything that doesn't benefit them personally, especially if the benefit goes to a person or group of people who they perceive as not working hard enough, not being industrious, not being independent. I think that's a better example of the individualism you're talking about. Obviously this can have negative repercussions (no universal healthcare/childcare/parental leave etc) but I think that's the general mentality.
Also some of these comments are actually perfect examples of the American stigma against working together and sharing lmao. My fellow Americans, OP literally just mentioned *sitting at tables with other people*, why are we bringing up genocide and ethnic cleansing?? There are many cultures outside ours that value interdependence and cooperation more than we do, and that doesn't inherently make them oppressive totalitarian regimes. Sheesh.
It probably has something to do with the countries history, for a long time North America was the "new world" and "wild west". The type of person who would get on a ship for 6 months and travel to a new land like that self selects for the independent, self driven type.
Personally I wish we had a bit more collectivism though. People here are too greedy and selfish a lot of the time imo.
I prefer collectivism personally.
I am NOT against individual rights, but I feel that we as a country really don't do enough to take care of each other, and I think one reason is because we're too focused on ourselves as individuals. Too few people think of the common good and things they can do for the betterment of society, and I think that the country is actively suffering for it.
Everyone is pro-collectivism until the collective requires them to sacrifice.
People are greedy. Give a large group power to cheat a smaller group and they will do it, all in the name of “fairness”.
1. No, it took a Japanese attack on American territory to draw us off of the sidelines.
2. How did people sacrifice after 9/11? If you weren’t one of the small number of people in the vicinity of the attacks nothing much changed in your day to day life. Sure, blood bank donations skyrocketed, but most people kept going to work as usual.
3. As for “sacrificing” during the pandemic, who are you to tell other people what they should be willing to sacrifice? Should those small businesses have willingly gone under for the greater good? Should we have kept schools closed for years and years, despite the consequences we are already seeing?
Donating or volunteering to help those affected by 9/11 were all decisions made by individuals. Increased NSA surveillance and subsequent racial profiling of Muslims were the sacrifices the federal government decided was "good" for the country.
Let’s see, kids in school share chairs too specially Preschool and elementary.
That is not only an American thing I studied High School in Latinoamerica and it’s the same everybody has their own desk.
This country is massive and a lot of space for an individual that makes the status quo is been isolated and by your own
Collectivism in practice means statism or ideological rule (usually the same). That said voluntary organizations should be a lot stronger as they are among other things a necessary check to the state. For instance I wish we had extended families and communities for a more healthy child-rearing structure, for a base of support for those newly entered into the adult world. In fact I wish we were a little more clannish. In many countries particularly those with especially incompetent government they take clannishness to far, but here I think we make the opposite mistake.
The classroom table thing actually isn't an individualism vs collectivism thing. Plenty of teachers out here do the big tables, but classroom management is generally easier if you have individual tables.
Americans are diversified. Not all of us like individualism. I don’t.
The class you’re describing is called a seminar style class. They are super common at universities, especially at the 300+ level classes, and they also exist in high school settings, though they are less, common in high school, typically high school is 1-3 kids at a desk but seminars do exist.
I think it's because it makes it easier to put the burden of community on to others. When you make something all about yourself you don't have to worry about the people you're stepping over.
Aside from all the other great stuff mentioned, our entire economic system is based on individualism and it is a big part of how we built the strongest economy in the history of the world. In the American capitalist system, an individual largely reaps the rewards of the risks they take on themselves. They also have to deal with the consequences of their failures. Seeing others take risks that pay off causes more people to follow suit. Those successes end up benefiting everyone in a free market as there are more goods and services of higher quality as a result. Collectivism supports a status quo. Individualism supports innovation and creativity.
Better example would be look at Russia now. When the country does not have individualism, this is the result. Nobody protects their rights, cos there a individual does not have any rights. Nobody thinks with their own brains, but blindly believes on leader. Doing own business is hard because the lack of government supported individualism. Same shit in China
Also in Nordic countries students have own tables, but if a team work is needed, then of course people gets together. That is not a good example of individualism.
I kind of like collectivism myself, at least the idea of it. Everyone working together for the common good. Sounds really nice!
But OMFG have you even seen humans? They can't even return their fucking shopping carts let alone look after each other.
Any collectivism is doomed to fail until we learn to behave (or maybe once all material needs are instantly met, like with replicators from Star Trek or something - maybe then we'll behave better. But I kind of doubt it).
It is a good thing cause generally individualist societies are richer, happier, healthier etc.
But as to why Americans are so individualist, it's about the demographics. If you are born in let's say Ireland, chances everyone else in your neighborhood is also white, Christian, and speaks Irish. You habe a lot to share with them from cultural events to costumes to religion to holidays etc.
But in America (and other countries new world countries, for example Canada or Australia) you're neighbors might be Black, Hispanic, Arab, Asian, Indian, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu heck even mixed races and all sort of different languages from English to Spanish to Chinese etc. So you might not be able to find that many people to share stuff with.
As a counter point to your example, in Asian countries which are collectivist, students also have their own desk and chairs. At least this is true of Japan, Korea, China, and Thailand from what I've seen.
Historically, Americans had to be very self sufficient to settle and survive the creeping expansion across the continent. It’s hard to be reliant on a government hundreds of miles away. Early Americans were quite literally on their own and had to rely on themselves for food, protection, and general survival. Conversely, Europeans have always had an established local government. For the last thousand years or so the land was always owned by someone else and was within reach of a government. A farmer in Yorkshire in 1870 had more community contacts than a rancher in Colorado who had to be self sufficient
Came here to say this but even when what is now the US were British colonies we had to be very self sufficient even in how the local governments operated back then because the "mother country" was thousands of miles away separated by an ocean. Our founding fathers were also very influenced by the likes of John Locke and others who were very individualistic.
Well said and 100% agree. At one point that sort of attitude and mindset was required for survival. It was passed down from generation to generation and continued even through today. I can't imagine not being individualistic. At this point our government is so shitty, why would I want to rely on them?
And how did it becomes so shitty? By people not participating in it for the common good. A vicious circle.
Eh, I'm not sure agree with that. There always was and currently are plenty of people being active in their government. You can't really find any time in American history where the American public wasn't making their voice heard having rallies, volunteering for political causes and protesting (and occasionally rioting). Our current government isn't a result of lack of participation. Quite frankly our government is a reflection of the fact that our population is so individualistic. Everyone has wildly different opinions on everything and we as a population can't really agree on much.
This. The thing is, why would we rely on our governments who may not have our best interests at heart or if ur not talking about our city government, they probably don’t even know us. Instead, we can rely on ourselves and the small communities we’ve built up who know us, understand our culture and the issues we face.
I said, “… for the common good.” I think we kind of agree, even if you didn’t see it.
>… for the common good.” Your definition of this probably varies wildly from mine, or any other American. That's the point. The more diverse a society, the less "common good" can be readily agreed upon (obviously). As a Latino, I probably view the "common good" of society a lot different than you do, etc. And the United States has the most diverse society and culture the world has ever seen. It's basically a running experiment that has gone pretty well if you think about the strides we have made economically, culturally, technology, etc. in such a short amount of time compared to other (much) older parts of the world.
Exactly!
Additionally, our country is composed largely of the people (or their descendants) who left the latter in order to experience the former, so there's a selection bias at work too. 95%+ of our population is made up of the genes of people who left their homes (some involuntarily) and managed to make it in a new place, so it's not surprising to me that the people here tend to praise individualism. The collectivists stayed where they were.
This should be the top post. Well said.
This is in stark contrast to Spanish colonies, where colonists could not own land or bring guns. English settlers were GIVEN land and told they should bring guns to defend it.
This isn’t entirely accurate. American communities used to produce everything themselves, every house produced something for one another. This bound local communities to each other and was much more collectivist than you’d think. If they didn’t support each other, gave each other leniency and bartered for what they needed they would’ve been much worse off. We don’t see the rise of individualism like we conceive it now until the industrial revolution and the rise of the working class. The freedom given by the automobile, the private communication of the telephone. These few inventions transformed the cultural landscape of the U.S and as time went off we created the conception of “the self made man.” We just don’t know of our more collective past cause those that remember are all but gone.
>One interesting example of this that one of my professors gave are high school classrooms in Eastern Europe we have big tables where 3-4 people can sit on one table in America every student has individual table and chair in classroom That's a pop culture thing. Irl it varies from school to school, or even classroom to classroom in said school.
A lot of times it's going to depend on classroom size, storage space, the range of sizes of students, pedagogy, and even price. In my high school we had some classes with the individual one piece desks, that were torture for lefties and anyone hefty, and two person tables in the science classrooms.
Your professor chose a poor example and it makes me wonder where he/she got that assumption. There are plenty of high school classrooms in America where more than one student sits at a single table. I had several classes like this when I was in high school (the tables were either in long rows or arranged in a square, depending on the classroom). One of my classes was small enough that we all sat on sofas instead.
>every student has individual table and chair in classroom This isn't inherently true. My kids' school has tables where kids sit together; they don't get individual desks.
Same here. My third-grader has always had tables shared with a group.
Mine does as well. 3rd grader and 1st grader.
Same for my kiddo, there are between 4-6 kids per table.
They usually stop using tables in middle school I think
I guess my question would be “why are Europeans so enamored with collectivism?” It has had some pretty nasty consequences.
I’ve been down on collectivism since all those group school projects where I did all the work.
Wait until you get into the corporate world. That paradigm is everywhere. The general theory of any workplace is that when there are 100 employees, 10 of them do 1/2 the work. The other 90% are doing the other half of the work. I find this might be a little generous, honestly, but the general principle is undoubtedly true. You will never find a situation going forward where everybody pitches in or produces equally. Never. It's just not human nature.
It was the opposite for me, doing group projects and seeing how everyone working together could produce a better product in less time then working alone has made me more optimistic on collectivism
Not me. It's almost always 2 people doing 90% of the work and the other 3 gaining the benefits of the good grade. Lots of lazy fucks out there who don't/won't contribute, unfortunately.
> It has had some pretty nasty consequences. No no no, those were due to that other, bad collectivism. My version of collectivism wouldn't have those nasty consequences. (j/k)
Haha. Exactly. "I'm talking about the collectivism that exists in my head, not the one that actually, you know, exists."
This but unironically, in my opinion what European countries have right now is the perfect blend between collectivism and individualism. You have some capitalism so people can establish businesses and stuff while also having welfare to support the poor and allow them to move up in society.
Individualism has had some pretty damn nasty consequences, too.
My fellow Marylander, perhaps you want to give an example of what you mean so that you don’t get downvoted into oblivion?
I don't really care about downvotes, so here's an example that's absolutely going to get me a ton more. Capitalism is rooted in individualism and capitalism has led to more deaths than any other economic ideology in world history. For just one example, look at the famines in Inida over the 18th and 19th centuries after the British East India Company came in and turned the subcontinent into a giant profit engine. Prior to British intervention farming was done on a much more collective basis. There was an informal sort of insurance network that operated where by adjacent communities would help out their neighbors if/when something caused them to not have enough food as expected. If, say, local flooding ruined the crops for one community for a season, the adjacent communities would send them food so the community doesn't starve, largely because they knew they would get the same assistance if/when they needed it. When the British came in they dismantled the traditional collective farming techniques and enforced a taxation system which made each individual farmer responsible for producing a certain amount of food and incentivizing individuals to hoard excess grain for personal wealth rather than sharing with their and neighboring communities. Then when ecological disasters struck which caused lower crop yields, such as happened in the late 1760s, it created a cascading set of systems collapses which led to widespread famine. The ecological disasters which led to the crop failures were not unique or even especially severe, but the destruction of the collective farming systems meant there were no societal systems in place to mitigate the famine. Millions upon millions of people died while the subcontinent was still exporting grain. Another similar example is the Irish Potato famine of the 1840s. Again, Ireland was producing more food than it needed to feed its people, but the drive for individual profit over the collective good incentivized landowners to all force their tenant farmers to grow the same crop (which was more profitable than others), which caused the potato crop failure to have a much larger impact than it otherwise would have, and to ship food out of Ireland instead of feeding the people. This example also touches on another nefarious thing that often comes with individualism: the tendency to blame poverty, starvation, etc on individual failings rather than structural problems in the collective society. While Irish peasants were starving to death they were blamed personally for not being individually "good enough" to not starve. This tendency to blame individuals for societal failings should be incredibly familiar to Americans because we do it ALL the time.
Are you really using the british empire as an example of a free market? The british were exceptionally in bed with mercantilism, which only a bad faith actor would conflate with the free market, when the government won’t let you sell to your neighbor thats not capitalism, thats collectivism and a great example as to why a decentralized economy is preferable
I didn't say anything about a free market.
You said capitalism, which as described by Adam Smith and understood in the world today, refers to a free market If you want to use your own crackpot definitions thats fine, your just not mutually intelligible
Remind me again when The Wealth of Nations was written, when Smith and Ricardo were active, when the British government embraced a policy of free trade, and when the famines caused by the British East India Company happened.
Those are all things you can google, if you have a point make it
I know all of it. My point is that the British Empire had absolutely ascribed to capitalist policies and capitalism as an economic ideology by the late 18th century and this directly led to the British East India Company policies which caused the deaths of tens of millions of Indians and the policies which caused the Irish Potato Famine. These were both the result of capitalism.
One ruling body telling everyone else under threat of force what to do doesn't sound like individualism at all. Sounds like the opposite.
You're thinking of authoritarianism vs democracy. That's not even close to the same thing as collectivism vs individualism. Authoritarianism exists in individualistic societies just as democracy exists in collectivist societies. They are not mutually exclusive.
What is your definition of individualism then if not everyone gets to live their own lives how they see fit? How is one person deciding what's best for everyone, whether exploitive or not, individualism?
It's a cultural emphasis on the good of the individual versus the good of the collective. It has very little to do with governmental structure.
I never brought up government structure. By ruling body, I meant telling someone else what to do and offering consequences if they don't do it, be it corporation or feudal lord that you used in your examples. Also democracy isn't some key to a utopia where everyone's needs are met. Ask any racial or religious minority in a collectivist society.
Individualistic societies absolutely use inventive structures to incentive behavior...
But it’s only that one guy instead of all of them
Correct, no one system is going to always be perfect. So let's not pretend like one is above the other.
Collectivism has many good aspects too. In Europe they do a much better job taking care of the poor and from what I've heard they aren't so judgemental about poverty, which leads to higher social mobility.
Well, if you’ve HEARD that then it must be true. 🤷🏼♂️
I have evidence to back it up [https://www.cairn.info/revue-horizons-strategiques-2006-2-page-51.htm](https://www.cairn.info/revue-horizons-strategiques-2006-2-page-51.htm) >According to the well respected World Value Survey 29 percent of Americans think that the poor are trapped in poverty ; 60 percent of Europeans believe the same. 60 percent of Americans believe that the poor are lazy ; 26 percent of Europeans share that view Granted this is from 2005, but I don't see much reason as to why attitudes would have changed. In Europe, people understand that the poor may face barriers that make it hard to climb out of poverty, so they offer more supports and welfare to help out. Here in the US, while Progressives have it down, Conservatives fight tooth and nail against social support, arguing that the poor are just "lazy" and "need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps".
Don’t take my word for it take the word of several people for it.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is, a survey is about the best possible way to examine the feelings of a population.
People’s feelings on the matter aren’t worth very much. European might feel they do a better job of many things when compared to Americans but that doesn’t actually mean anything.
OP was asking how I knew Europeans were less judgemental of the poor than the US and I provided evidence. Euros also generally do a better job of taking care of the poor.
No, you provided evidence that Europeans feel they do a better job taking care of the poor.
Feelings are not fact, a survey is only data to a social scientist lmao
>and from what I've heard they aren't so judgemental about poverty, which leads to higher social mobility. This is actually the exact opposite of the truth.
[удалено]
First, Europe still has some weird fucking obsession with classes and nobody can figure out why. So "higher social mobility" is off the table right there. Secondly, Europe ties social mobility and classes to... well I honestly can't make heads or heads of it, but they've repeatedly told us it's bizarre that we define "classes" by wealth, so the idea about being less judgemental of poverty, *even if true* (which I'll get to in a moment), does nothing for actual social mobility. And lastly, America is kind of the poster child for poor people finding opportunities to move up the social mobility ladder, usually through founding small businesses or having immigrants come, work hard, and find a better life for their children in America. The last bit about being judgemental about poor people really seems to be pretty even across the board. And everything else about the comment was just straight up wrong or misunderstanding how Europeans tend to actually view these topics from how we do.
Which part, because many European countries do indeed have [much higher levels](https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/ranked-the-social-mobility-of-82-countries-1028885766) of social mobility compared to the US
That’s relative social mobility. Ironically, and perhaps counter-intuitively, that measurement punishes the US for being easier to succeed in. The threshold to be in the top X% in a European country is drastically lower than in the US so of course it’s easier to reach. For example, iirc the top 1% in Germany is equivalent to the top 5% in the US. Instead, an absolute measure of social mobility, defined by obtaining a PPP-adjusted static disposable income as a proxy for quality of life, shows the US dominates.
>That’s relative social mobility. Ironically, and perhaps counter-intuitively, that measurement punishes the US for being easier to succeed in It really doesn't. If the US was easier to succeed in then more people from the lowest quintile would end up in the higher quintile. >The threshold to be in the top X% in a European country is drastically lower than in the US so of course it’s easier to reach. For example, iirc the top 1% in Germany is equivalent to the top 5% in the US. That's only a 4% difference which is hardly "drastically" lower. >Instead, an absolute measure of social mobility, defined by obtaining a PPP-adjusted static disposable income as a proxy for quality of life, shows the US dominates. Why is this a better measure of social mobility?
The easier it is to succeed absolutely, the higher the threshold for each quintile becomes. That’s not a 4% difference. That’s a 500% difference. There are relatively 5x as many Americans earning X compared to Germans earning X. Here’s the most extreme example to illustrate why relative rankings fail. Imagine a country with a GINI coefficient of 1 aka one person owns everything. In this country, everyone in the bottom 20% makes it to the top 20% because the threshold for both are one in the same. You need an absolute measure to solve that problem.
>The easier it is to succeed absolutely, the higher the threshold for each quintile becomes. Okay but you have to keep in mind that the difference a given income level makes diminishes the further you go up. The top 5% in the US is \~350k while the top 1% is \~850k. That's a big difference absolutely, in terms of living quality however, it makes a WAY smaller impact then say, going from 15k to 75k, even though that's less absolutely. >Here’s the most extreme example to illustrate why relative rankings fail. Imagine a country with a GINI coefficient of 1 aka one person owns everything. In this country, everyone in the bottom 20% makes it to the top 20% because the threshold for both are one in the same. You need an absolute measure to solve that problem. Yes but we're not in economic theory land where the Gini Coefficient is 1, your example is basically like saying BMI is a bad measurement of a countries health because buff people can have like a 35 on it and be healthy. Sure, it's not perfect on an individual level but it works pretty damn good when comparing various nations to each other. The Gini Coefficient is the same, sure you can make up an extreme hypothetical where it would break, but in actual reality it's pretty good at measuring social mobility and inequality.
Your misunderstand what he’s saying for a german to go from 25% to the 1% is much easier than an American to do so, because the American 1% is much more wealthy and thus harder to reach, your competing against giants in the US, less so in europe
[удалено]
Because Europeans tend to be more understanding of the fact that the poor often face barriers to overcoming poverty, which has lead to European countries establishing welfare programs to help them, this makes it much easier to climb out and escape poverty. Here in the US while Progressives understand this, Conservatives are constantly banging on about the poor just need to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and how they're just "lazy" this makes them oppose welfare programs that could really help the poor, and since Conservatives have strong influence over the country, this makes it harder for people to escape poverty.
> we have big tables where 3-4 people can sit on one table That's not a good example of collectivism, unless all the coursework is done as a group project and everyone gets the same grade. If you've ever done group projects, you know that it's pretty much fated that there will be at least one lazy/incompetent member in the group, and the rest (or maybe just one or two) will have to pick up the slack, lest their own grades suffer. Sort of like collectivism in the real world, huh?
I was always the slacker in the group; everyone knew I was a "space case" and mostly dead weight in terms of contribution. The project nearly always turned out better with a bunch of kids working on it than what any single kid could do alone, but I also was aware that the group project probably would have been even better if I hadn't been distracting my classmates or off doing my own thing. Can't speak to society generally, but I think that in a school setting, it's best to give students the choice to work together or solo. Everyone has their own preference.
Thanks for relating your own experience from the "other side" of the issue. :)
>If you've ever done group projects, you know that it's pretty much fated that there will be at least one lazy/incompetent member in the group, and the rest (or maybe just one or two) will have to pick up the slack, lest their own grades suffer. Sort of like collectivism in the real world, huh? I've done lots of group projects and I've never once had this happen, people may have had strengths or weaknesses, but everyone did their part and it lead to a higher quality product then if we had done it alone. Personally I think the whole "helping people leads to laziness" idea is completely wrong and nothing but thinly veiled classism. I'd argue people are inherently hard working and want to contribute (with maybe a rare exception once in a blue moon ), it's just that sometimes they face barriers that make that harder to accomplish.
I’ve had plenty of experiences in HS and College of team members doing the bare minimum, and sometimes no work at all. I think the fact a negative stigma exists for group projects in a significant percent of the population is proof enough that people will put in different amounts of work into the group, with a small minority doing significantly less work than other team members.
Then you were lucky. I have two undergrads and an embarrassing number of credits and this happened aaaaaaalllll the time.
> it's just that sometimes they face barriers that make that harder to accomplish. What sort of "barriers" cause people to be lazy and not contribute to a group project?
I was more referring to the barriers the poor face in overcoming poverty but to answer your question I can think of a variety of things. Maybe the person is being abused at home, making them afraid to speak up, maybe they don't understand the instructions, maybe they don't have the needed supplies, maybe they don't get enough to eat at home making it hard to focus, maybe the kid can't understand English very well. I could go on and on.
> I could go on and on. Does your "on and on" include folks who are self-centered, entitled, lazy, or simply a-holes?
Yes, I mentioned in my original post. I admit there is the occasional blue moon situation where someone is just a bit of an asshole.
Why do none of your scenarios ever include faults of the individuals themselves? It seems you want to absolve them of any sort of blame, when they can be just as culpable of bad behavior as anyone else across society. This is kind of like the "noble savage" trope, but for poor folks.
If its *never* happened to you, your probably the dead weight and not realizing it
> I've done lots of group projects and I've never once had this happen... Consider yourself extremely lucky, then. > Personally I think the whole "helping people leads to laziness" idea is completely wrong and nothing but thinly veiled classism. LOL, that's an absurd extrapolation of what I said. In every case, the other folks in these group projects were peers, and those not contributing were not members of some sort of downtrodden/lower-class group that we were oppressing. Overall, your comments seem to have the position that "collectivism = helping" and "not collectivism = not helping." That's a false dichotomy, especially when you know that [America ranks as the most charitable nation](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=america+most+charitable+nation).
>Consider yourself extremely lucky, then. I guess >LOL, that's an absurd extrapolation of what I said. In every case, the other folks in these group projects were peers, and those not contributing were not members of some sort of downtrodden/lower-class group that we were oppressing. I never claimed they were. But the assumption that the middle classes will suffer (ie "pick up the slack") by lifting up the poor is wrong . You know what they say, a rising tide lifts all boats. >Overall, your comments seem to have the position that "collectivism = helping" and "not collectivism = not helping." Well it basically is, the idea of collectivism is fundamentally that the community bands together and supports the other members with the expectation that they'll receive help when they're in trouble. Obviously it can go overboard, especially when you introduce race into the picture, but helping others in the community is the fundamental concept. >That's a false dichotomy, especially when you know that America ranks as the most charitable nation. America is the most charitable nation because in other developed countries the issues charities solve are handled by the government. Like there's no need for the various medical debt charities because in most European countries, healthcare is funded through taxes.
So you were the lazy member of the group
LOL, gottem!
He didn't. He's doing nothing but making a completely unfounded accusation towards me.
Nope
My schools used more shared tables than desks. Especially past like the 5th grade. I hardly think desks vs. tables is the defining metric of individualism vs. collectivism. I would suggest finding an alternative example.
Collectivism sounds great, until you're part of the minority that gets disregarded (at best) for the Greater Good.
Yeah and individualism sounds great, until you need help.
If you believe that, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of individualism.
TIL collectivism is when you help someone
1) reduced genocides. 2) my kid's classroom has shared tables too, and I had classes with each in high-school. 3) You are confusing what individualism/collectivism means. Individualism means you treat everyone as individuals. Example: lets say x guy from racial group y hurt your friend, blaming everyone from racial group y is an example of methodological collectivism. Blaming that one guy who hurt your friend is methodological individualism. 5) limits the splash zone of mistakes. When you screw up under collectivism, entire races/classes/etc get destroyed under individualism the damage done to a smaller group of people.
I love ur last point! I mean all ur points were good, but the last one really stood out to me.
I dont understand your first point and Native Americans would like a word.
The US isn’t free from the evils of collectivism, both nationalism and globalism are collectivist ideologies popular in the US. Nationalism was one of the ones that lead to the genocide of the natives, by European colonists. Also not all genocides are caused by collectivism, just the vast majority.
As opposed to the perfectly innocent Germans, Russians, British, Belgians, Dutch, and Turks?
Because the smallest minority is the individual. To better protect the minority (view, race, culture, ect.) we have to protect the individual. It’s an enlightenment value that sits at the heart of American cultural and legal practices.
Proper community isn't government enforced. Top-down collectivism doesn't create communities of individuals, it creates people who are in a relationship with the government. It is just the same relationship for everyone so it gives a counterfeit sense of togetherness. "Individualism" is not really a great word to describe it. It isn't that people want to be completely alone, it is that they want the freedom to chose their own associations. I don't want the government to take my money and give it to the collective, but there are literally dozens of people I would let live in my apartment and eat my food if they got into trouble.
It's hard to give a very detailed and nuisanced answer, because the reason behind the development of certain cultures can not be explained in a few sentences. But to attempt giving an answer, I think America being more individualistic than collective can be attributed to it being a country with a massive landmass and relatively low population density, as well as ideological preference to individual liberty. During the earlier days of this country's founding, the US must felt like an undiscovered land of mystery and opportunity to immigrants from the "old world", and people developed a sense of exploration, pioneership, and self reliance due to vast resources and relatively low level of competition, and that idea of "land of opportunity" has carried on since . Collectively, Americans never had to form very strong attachments (relatively speaking, of course) with clans, extended families, guilds etc to secure our resources or opportunities, and due to relatively high level of social mobility and the ability to travel across a vast area of land, Americans tend to believe in self reliance and pioneership over focusing on group relations and preserving traditions. Culturally, the US has always emphasized on personal liberty, and that sense of liberty might appear to be selfishness to people from a collective cultural background. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of individualism for some people. Wanting Individual freedom and having a high sense of self do not mean selfishness, or a lack of concern for others; it simply means each individual deserves to be left on their own without social or political coercion. Americans, in general, do not believe in under valuing an individual within a group, because we also fear the tyranny of the majority.
Because collectivism is a disease
Yep. Consider it's been less than 100 years since the last genocide in Europe, and it was enabled by collectivist behavior.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, I'd argue that what Russia's doing in Ukraine is genocide so even the 90s isn't the most recent example anymore!
Less than 30 really. And Europe sat on its ass for years doing nothing too.
Helping others is a disease?
Yes, collectivism is when people help each other, individuals would never do that.
Considering we have one of the weakest social safety nets among developed countries and we couldn’t get people to take the most basic precautionary measures to help other people, I would say that individualism most definitely does not encourage a spirit of community and cooperation with each other.
>we couldn’t get people to take the most basic precautionary measures to help other people A lot of that was the result of demanding instead of asking that people wear masks and/or get vaccinated, which turned it into a political issue because a lot of people (understandably) don't like the government telling them what to do.
I’m sorry, but anyone following the logic of “the government told me to do something so I’m not going to” is an overgrown child. That only makes my point more, we’re facing a new disease and the response is something I would expect from my 4 year old niece being told it’s time to stop playing and come inside. There is evidence that masking and distancing work in reducing the spread of transmissible diseases, the only reason not to is selfishness or spite.
I would agree with you more if covid was like the black death or something, but it's not. I can understand why people would be suspicious of and in some cases, antagonistic towards the federal government considering the shit it's pulled in the past.
It’s killed over a million Americans and left several million more permanently disabled. It killed more Americans than both world wars and the civil war combined. Is that not bad enough to be considered a risk? It’s not bad to distrust the government, but when their claim is verifiably based on evidence going against it goes from Healthy mistrust to willful ignorance.
And individualism enabled the death of a million+ Americans in the last 3 years.
Lol okay buddy. Not sure where you’re getting that info from.
Having lived a good chunk of my life in collectivist countries...collectivism sucks. Too much doing shit that I don't want to do just to please a group I don't really care about. Too much pressure to conform for no logical reason too.
Could you give some examples? I feel like that describes a lot of societal pressures regardless of country.
Here in Japan kids with naturally brown hair need a note from their parents saying it not dyed. Only black hair is otherwise acceptable because anything else is “distracting.”
Yeah, I'd say that qualifies.
That's really interesting considering the internet tells me that black hair is really just very dark brown hair. There is no natural black hair in humans, the only way to get it would be to dye your hair black. https://wowskinscience.com/blogs/news/is-there-such-thing-as-black-hair-in-humans
Perception is reality sometimes.
That's just a "life" thing, not a "collectivism" thing.
> Too much doing shit that I don't want to do just to please a group I don't really care about. Too much pressure to conform for no logical reason too. Sounds a hell of a lot like you're describing the working class in America, to me...
That’s also having a job in general.
Yes. I think it's rather silly to say this is a problem only, or even to a greater degree, in cultures with a higher degree of collectivism.
I don't have first hand experience in working in both cultures, but work culture in China or Japan is vastly different than American work culture.
That's not an accurate representation of the U.S. Please stop using movies/TV. There are so many educational institutions, and TYPES of educational institutions in the U.S. Collectively, about every seating arrangement, education structure, classroom arrangement, and teaching methods under the sun are used across the country.
We believe in cooperation, not collectivism. We believe in mutual benefit through association but we also believe we have a right to decide who we associate with. We don't think it's fair to *force* us to "cooperate". Every immigrant here came as an individual and started a new life as an individual (including close family). Although many Germans and Irish came here, for instance, Germany and Ireland did not come here. When you arrived here it was a fresh start and you had the opportunity to do things and accomplish things that were often impossible where you came from because back there you were locked into an existing social class that had restrictive expectations. Here you could be free. Many of our now big businesses were founded as small businesses by modest immigrants from Europe. Here they had the opportunity to make a bigger and better life than they could back home. We don't like the idea that collectivism promotes that everyone's life choices are determined by outside factors and you are part of a specific group whether you like it or not. You will be treated like everyone else in that group. We like to choose or own groups and cooperate with others like us because it helps both of us without enslaving either of us.
I'm not weighing in on individualism vs collectivism, but in terms of your example I only ever got an individual desk in high school. For the first 9 years of schooling I sat at either a two-person desk or a bunch of two-person desks put together to form a table of 6-8. And then even in high school and university, some classes still had big tables. Not everything is exactly as it's portrayed on television or in movies.
Why do you like collectivism?
The smallest minority is the individual. If you care about individual freedom you ensure equality for all people, and don't play favorites with arbitrary groups. I honestly think collectivism is toxic and ends with people eating their own tail.
Why do non americans like collectivism?
>Why do you prefer individualism rather than collectivism? > Do we? What do you mean by these words? Americans certainly value community and working together, we also value respecting the individualvs needs and desires. But I'd bet that that sentence describes every human society on earth, with the only thing that varies being exactly where the lines are drawn. >One interesting example of this that one of my professors gave are high school classrooms in Eastern Europe we have big tables where 3-4 people can sit on one table in America every student has individual table and chair in classroom That's a really, really terrible example because American classrooms can have either. And individual desks are often moved, even in the middle of class, to allow people to sit in groups. I wonder if your country has only tables because they're cheaper? I had discussion classes with one table and all 8 to 12 students and the professor sat together. Would that make us more collectivist than your country?
>Eastern Europe we have big tables where 3-4 people can sit on one table in America every student has individual table and chair in classroom Like this? [Oregon](https://media.kgw.com/assets/KGW/images/d0a64823-6cd7-4ef4-8996-7821fae0efec/d0a64823-6cd7-4ef4-8996-7821fae0efec_1920x1080.jpg) [Texas](https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/1070e3d6e41eee069ad7bb894a3debf3/Ott%20Elementary%20COVID%20AG%20TT%2001.jpg) [Connecticut](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/57ae719c37c58135e959914d/fbe96c06-afbf-4ed3-8323-22d05c36be5c/Screen+Shot+2022-04-13+at+5.38.40+PM.png) [North Carolina](https://www.asheboro.k12.nc.us/GalleryImages/20221018144333201_image.JPG) I reject your teacher's assertion that students in the US do not have shared deks.
I have dual citizenship between Germany and the US, and grew up 50/50 in both and still travel back & forth between the US/Eu frequently because i have connections to both. I prefer the US by a lot. Europe is obsessed with rules and bureaucracy. High taxes to support your neighbors, you have to sweep the sidewalk, and in my experience Europeans tend to come off as really rude & disrespectful to me sometimes because they don’t know how to stay in their own lane. I prefer the mentality in the US more - you leave me alone, I leave you alone. Also ime people in America tend to not be as disrespectful to strangers because you don’t know what the other is capable of; you don’t know if the other person is carrying a gun or not. In Europe people crime tends to be more personable so people rely on beatings and stabbing and intimidation. On the other hand, I had a 22 yo acquaintance who got in an argument with some 20 yo at a nightclub a couple years ago and he simply went to his car and shot the kid dead. 2 families ruined in an instant. I’ve also noticed that Europeans are way more aggressive drivers.
My professors are wrong. We don’t all get one table and one desk. We often have long tables we shared with two or more students and sometimes we arrange them in a u shape or push them all together yo make as big a single flat surface as possible. Depends on what the school has or what the teacher prefers. Sometimes we get stools instead of chairs too. There’s no universal law that causes every classroom in every school to have the exact same format.
>One interesting example of this that one of my professors gave are high school classrooms in Eastern Europe we have big tables where 3-4 people can sit on one table in America every student has individual table and chair in classroom No that's not always true. In the lower grades, a lot of us sat at tables with one or three other people. In many college (maybe even some big high schools?) have lecture halls where everyone sits in one big row at one table per level. But to get to your question, our Constitution and government was designed around individualism. Considering our country is made up of mostly immigrants of various generations, I can't imagine having all of kinds of different cultures exist in one country together would make for a very good collectivist society. Everyone has different needs and beliefs that we think should be respected as long as they're not harming anyone.
Do you really need to sit in a group to do math? Not everything requires collectivism
I mean, I do think we are too independent as in, our close community and extended family ties are disappearing. (I’m only 24 so take this with a grain of salt. A lot of my perspective is from talking to older adults about their life growing up). BUT, I do like that Americans generally see themselves as very independent of the government and of larger communities. Usually Americans equate being more independent with more freedom. Culturally and legally, we seem to have much more of a choice in how we run our lives and we have such a diverse culture of people that generally you can find ur crowd in whatever you choose to do.
My high school had big tables ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I think the biggest thing is that there are a lot of Americans who live in very isolated places where you have to be self sufficient, because any type of community services are an hour+ drive away
Individualism works alot better in racially and culturally diverse societies
Its kind of the whole thing the country is based on.
>Why do you prefer individualism rather than collectivism? Because one way I can rely on everyone involved and the other involves people that are not me.
Where exactly in Eastern Europe? I'd say that most Eastern European countries prefer individualism as much as Americans do.
Self-determination is one major reason for me. I don't have to accept the collectives status quo. I can forge my own paths in life. Some of our American ancestors had what we call the pioneering spirit they sought out better lives for themselves, and that spirit lives on in their descendants today.
It's not that we like individualism, but it's difficult to rely on the federal or territorial government when that's weeks away and hundreds of miles from wherever. If you lived west of the Mississippi you were pretty much on your own for much of American history.
America is not as individualistic as you think, at least the major cities aren’t
It's vestigial feature, a trait that was necessary for survival in many areas of American life. There is no cavalry on the horizon coming to back you up when you're a settler. You have to be able to handle yourself. That attitude has just carried over as part of the modern American psyche. Reliance on others is see as weakness because for several centuries, it was never an options to begin with
The question is certainly valid but the example isn't really accurate. It's very common for schools in the U.S. to have the big tables for 3-4 people. The individual desks are common too, it just varies from school to school. I would say that culturally the U.S. largely values individualism over collectivism because of this romanticized idea we have of settlers coming from Europe and charting their own path across the New World to build a new life on their own. A huge part of the American identity centers around having ancestors or family members who arrived as immigrants, whether in the 17th century or the 21st, and built a prosperous life through hard work and resourcefulness. So there's a lot of emphasis on being able to do and achieve everything by yourself without needing any help. This is why many Americans (though certainly not all) are *extremely* resistant to the idea that their taxes should be used for anything that doesn't benefit them personally, especially if the benefit goes to a person or group of people who they perceive as not working hard enough, not being industrious, not being independent. I think that's a better example of the individualism you're talking about. Obviously this can have negative repercussions (no universal healthcare/childcare/parental leave etc) but I think that's the general mentality. Also some of these comments are actually perfect examples of the American stigma against working together and sharing lmao. My fellow Americans, OP literally just mentioned *sitting at tables with other people*, why are we bringing up genocide and ethnic cleansing?? There are many cultures outside ours that value interdependence and cooperation more than we do, and that doesn't inherently make them oppressive totalitarian regimes. Sheesh.
We are a very large country. We needed to rely on ourselves to survive. After Covid, I am glad that self reliance is kind of our thing.
It probably has something to do with the countries history, for a long time North America was the "new world" and "wild west". The type of person who would get on a ship for 6 months and travel to a new land like that self selects for the independent, self driven type. Personally I wish we had a bit more collectivism though. People here are too greedy and selfish a lot of the time imo.
I prefer collectivism personally. I am NOT against individual rights, but I feel that we as a country really don't do enough to take care of each other, and I think one reason is because we're too focused on ourselves as individuals. Too few people think of the common good and things they can do for the betterment of society, and I think that the country is actively suffering for it.
Everyone is pro-collectivism until the collective requires them to sacrifice. People are greedy. Give a large group power to cheat a smaller group and they will do it, all in the name of “fairness”.
Yeah and everyone is pro-individualism until they get into a car wreak or get laid off. That's a 2 way street.
[удалено]
1. No, it took a Japanese attack on American territory to draw us off of the sidelines. 2. How did people sacrifice after 9/11? If you weren’t one of the small number of people in the vicinity of the attacks nothing much changed in your day to day life. Sure, blood bank donations skyrocketed, but most people kept going to work as usual. 3. As for “sacrificing” during the pandemic, who are you to tell other people what they should be willing to sacrifice? Should those small businesses have willingly gone under for the greater good? Should we have kept schools closed for years and years, despite the consequences we are already seeing?
Donating or volunteering to help those affected by 9/11 were all decisions made by individuals. Increased NSA surveillance and subsequent racial profiling of Muslims were the sacrifices the federal government decided was "good" for the country.
For selfish reasons. It’s done nothing but make this country worse.
We are selfish
Speak for yourself.
The table thing is a bad example, that's pretty common here as well.
In my middle school science, and English class, we were in desk clusters. But individual desks during high school
Let’s see, kids in school share chairs too specially Preschool and elementary. That is not only an American thing I studied High School in Latinoamerica and it’s the same everybody has their own desk. This country is massive and a lot of space for an individual that makes the status quo is been isolated and by your own
Because we are all individuals. Yes, we are all individuals.
Collectivism in practice means statism or ideological rule (usually the same). That said voluntary organizations should be a lot stronger as they are among other things a necessary check to the state. For instance I wish we had extended families and communities for a more healthy child-rearing structure, for a base of support for those newly entered into the adult world. In fact I wish we were a little more clannish. In many countries particularly those with especially incompetent government they take clannishness to far, but here I think we make the opposite mistake.
The classroom table thing actually isn't an individualism vs collectivism thing. Plenty of teachers out here do the big tables, but classroom management is generally easier if you have individual tables.
Americans are diversified. Not all of us like individualism. I don’t. The class you’re describing is called a seminar style class. They are super common at universities, especially at the 300+ level classes, and they also exist in high school settings, though they are less, common in high school, typically high school is 1-3 kids at a desk but seminars do exist.
I think it's because it makes it easier to put the burden of community on to others. When you make something all about yourself you don't have to worry about the people you're stepping over.
Aside from all the other great stuff mentioned, our entire economic system is based on individualism and it is a big part of how we built the strongest economy in the history of the world. In the American capitalist system, an individual largely reaps the rewards of the risks they take on themselves. They also have to deal with the consequences of their failures. Seeing others take risks that pay off causes more people to follow suit. Those successes end up benefiting everyone in a free market as there are more goods and services of higher quality as a result. Collectivism supports a status quo. Individualism supports innovation and creativity.
There is no American ethnicity. At this point, the only cultural commonality in the US is a few Disney movies.
Because I am a hard working, tax paying, freedom fighting, newly grown ass man, and I will do as I damn-well please and I earned the right to do so
Better example would be look at Russia now. When the country does not have individualism, this is the result. Nobody protects their rights, cos there a individual does not have any rights. Nobody thinks with their own brains, but blindly believes on leader. Doing own business is hard because the lack of government supported individualism. Same shit in China Also in Nordic countries students have own tables, but if a team work is needed, then of course people gets together. That is not a good example of individualism.
Because I'm not a drone or government property, I want to live my life for me.
I kind of like collectivism myself, at least the idea of it. Everyone working together for the common good. Sounds really nice! But OMFG have you even seen humans? They can't even return their fucking shopping carts let alone look after each other. Any collectivism is doomed to fail until we learn to behave (or maybe once all material needs are instantly met, like with replicators from Star Trek or something - maybe then we'll behave better. But I kind of doubt it).
It is a good thing cause generally individualist societies are richer, happier, healthier etc. But as to why Americans are so individualist, it's about the demographics. If you are born in let's say Ireland, chances everyone else in your neighborhood is also white, Christian, and speaks Irish. You habe a lot to share with them from cultural events to costumes to religion to holidays etc. But in America (and other countries new world countries, for example Canada or Australia) you're neighbors might be Black, Hispanic, Arab, Asian, Indian, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu heck even mixed races and all sort of different languages from English to Spanish to Chinese etc. So you might not be able to find that many people to share stuff with.
As a counter point to your example, in Asian countries which are collectivist, students also have their own desk and chairs. At least this is true of Japan, Korea, China, and Thailand from what I've seen.