posted
In the following I will give you a very short introduction to the idea of individualism and collectivism.
Both collectivists and individuals theories begin with the image of the individual, but the former claims that there are social attachments which determine the self and thus individuals are constituted by the community of which they are a part. Individuals also fail to see that the social attachments which determine the self are not necessarily chooses ones.
Collectivism is, thus a philosophy which takes the common good of the political community as its first object of concern. The collectivisms arguing the premises of individualism such as the rational individual who chooses freely are wrong or false, and that the only way to understand human behavior is to refer to individuals in their social, cultural, and historical contexts. That is to say, in order to discuss individuals one must look first at their communities and their communal relationships. Collectivisms asserting that the premises of individualism give rise to morally unsatisfactory consequences. Among them are the impossibility of achieving a genuine community, the neglect of some ideas of the good life that should be sustained by the state, or others that should be dismissed, or-as some collectivisms argue-an unjust distribution of goods. In other words, the community is a good that people should seek for several reasons and should not be dismissed.
Liberal political theory has generally responded to the collectivism critique in several ways. The first has been to argue that the fact of social pluralism makes it difficult to regard political community as a feasible ideal, and that political society cannot be a community. This view has been put forward by John Rawls. The second respnse has been to suggest that there is a sense in which liberal society does constitute a community insofar as there is a distinctive set of liberal virtues, settled around a shared commitment to the idea of public justification, Such a view has been defended, for example, by Stephen Macedo, who has argued that in liberal society there is a shared public morality, and a distinctive set of liberal virtues appropriate to such a community.
This is only a very short introductory to this big issue. I will come back with concrete examples which illustrate the topic until then share your ideas and enrich the topic.
-------------------- Peace and Love Grace Posts: 340 | From: Sweden | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As you note, Grace, this is indeed a very big topic. The term "collectivist" still stirs up my old Ayn Rand perspectives, but I see where you're going.
I guess you're putting individualism and collectivism as polarities on a continuum. Is that right? My understanding of collectivism is that it places the common good as the highest value, while individualism places individual rights as the standard which must be safeguarded in the community. Obviously, there is a tension between these two, and almost every society has worked out some kinds of compromises between the two extremes, with communism being more on the collectivist pole and democratic capitalism on the individualist one.
A huge question here has to do with the role of government. As you point out, there is no ignoring the relation between the individual and society. Is it the role of government, however, to foster the development of communities around values promoted by the government (e.g. communist and many socialist states), or should communities form on their own as individuals with common values and interests come together freely to pursue these (democratic capitalism)? My own leaning is decidedly in favor of the latter, recognizing that some securities are forfeited in favor of keeping the government at a distance.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I'm putting individualism and collectivism as polarites and to understand how they function we need to look how societies governed. In my previous post I promised to come back with concrete examples. The type of government we see in West is liberal democracy and their philosophical ground is liberalism/individualism. When it deals with collectivism I'm not talking about socialist/communist countries. In contrast to liberal democracy there are other countries which governed by illiberal type of democracy and their philosoiphical ground is collectivism. In this post I will focus my attention to the illiberal type of democracy.
Political leaders and their intellectual supporters in East and Southeast Asia are challenging Western conceptions of democracy. Claiming to promote and Asian version of human rights, they criticize Western attempts at ideological hegemony. They argue that Asians share cultural values and traditions that have contributed substantially to their rapid industrialization. Hard work, frugality, the paternalistic family, education, and the ethical responsibilities of political leaders are values that have conditioned Asians growing up in a Chinese cultural setting. They envisioning alternative and Asian understandings of democracy and human rights.
Singapore has come to be regarded as a leading critic of Western conceptions of democracy and human rights and a champion of ASIAN VALUES. The official proclaimed opinion concerning Asian values today in Singapore is to a large extent a construction in order to find a way of maintaining the political system in Singapore. These ideas are built on the ideas of Confucianism, Buddhism, and political pragmatism of today. None of the various ideas and ideologies have been based on individualism in the sence as it i.e. perceived in most European countries, which is probably one of the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western countries. This is the most general remark which can be made about the differences. Any further analysis has, in my opinion, to look much closer to the history, culture and political development of each country or area. A former prime minister and now Senior minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew argue that whilst democracy and human rights are worthwhile ideas, we should be clear that the real objective is good government. Lee identifies the socio economic prerequisites of democracy as political stability and adequate levels of education and economic development.
The argument presented by the proponents of Asian Values says that Asians think interms of collective and not individual values. Asian societies are not built on the individual but on the family. This indicates that responsibility to the collective takes precedence over the individual’s self interest and individual pursuits defer to cooperation with other group members.
Advocates of Asian democracy argue that, Westerners are more concerned about processes than outcomes, which is all very well, so long as the system generates a productive, just and humane society. The problem, say the Asian democrats is that the Western system of democracy is failing to produce this kind of society and, using the example of the United States, they make reference to the widespread violence and crime in American cities, arguing that the US has gone too far in protecting the rights of the individual at the expense of the rights of society as a whole. Moreover, the Asian democracies have provided legitimacy to authoritarian governments around the world. China has learned from Singapore that turmoil may result from the lack of strict public order and a priority focus on development. Asian democracy is not necessarily a contradiction of democracy, but it certainly challenges democracy as defined within the frame of liberalism.
But the idea of Asian values is not easily acceptable for West. Next time I will focus on critique of Asian democracy.
-------------------- Peace and Love Grace Posts: 340 | From: Sweden | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grace, I don't think it's accurate to say that Western democracy places individual rights above the family. There is a very strong conviction that the family is the unit of society in Western culture, especially in its Judeo-Christian roots. Economic factors more than political ones have stressed Western families since the 19th C. E.g., transferring someone to another city away from extended family is one of the most common ways this works. Does this not happen in the East?
You'll not find me nor the other regulars on this board too impressed with China as a paragon of human rights, especially in comparison to the U.S. Maybe they're learning, but from what I'm seeing of their relations with Hong Kong, I think they're still very resistant to democracy and capitalism. As I don't know much about Singapore, I can't compare their human rights records against the U.S. Can you point us to some article or stats?
I think lots of Western corporations have studied Eastern approaches--especially those of the Japanese.
Finally, I'm not sure I understand Westerners are more concerned about processes than outcomes, as it seems to me the old "end justifies the means" approach is very much alive and well in the West.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Phil, it happened even in East but this has to do with modernization than how the base of family is structured. If you look how the component of family is structured in non-western societies, and particularly in Asia, the family forms an indivisible organism. When ancestors and descendants together form a living union, the individual becomes a highly complex conception. It is on the basis of this conception that the individual is defined in communal terms, and the morality comes prior to liberty in non-Western societies. different definitions of the individual imply different definitions of freedom, equality, rights, property, party pluralism, the separation of powers, and the impersonal, abstract state.
For instance, throughout the Asian Pacific region, even in Japan, a country generally considered to have a democratic ethos, the state’s authority is based on the paternalistic model of family life: just as the father carries the obligation to provide for the welfare of his family, the government has the responsibility to secure the well-being of its citizens. Individuals have determinate duties rather than abstract rights, and power is required by the state to carry out its commitments. All social relations are predicated on the authority of those who are superior over those who are inferior, even when positions are filled on the basis of merit or virtue rather than heredity.
Regarding human right I never said neither Singapore nor China are the champion of democracy and human rights. They clearly violate human rights and you can see their record at the official website of Amnesty International. Although it is very controversial it is interesting to see the argument of Singapore againist universal human rights. The argument builds on the right to development, a central point in the Bangkok declaration. In this declaration Singapore together with Malaysia opposed boldly the universal human rights. They argue that human rights as such do not accord with Asian values. Their basic contention is that in an anti-liberal, collectivism state economic issues tend to have practical priority over others, such as political institution-building, because material improvements are the most tangible index of taking care of collective good. These leaders reject the view that there are universal civil and political rights that must be adhered to under all conditions. They say that discipline and conformity to group values are more desirable than individualism and freedom. Lee Kuan Yew has been particularly outspoken in his disdain for Western decadence, deriding the lack of freedom to walk the streets at night in the United states, for example, and comparing that with Singapore’s very low crime rate. He argues that economic development is more rapid when freedoms are curtailed and a strong state prevails. Many freedoms have been limited in the name of assuring compatibility with traditional culture.
-------------------- Peace and Love Grace Posts: 340 | From: Sweden | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
These leaders reject the view that there are universal civil and political rights that must be adhered to under all conditions. They say that discipline and conformity to group values are more desirable than individualism and freedom.
That's fallacious thinking, don't you see? As though individualism and freedom are responsible for decadence and crime! The "disease" has been misdiagnosed, imo, and the "cure" -- government restrictions and enforcement thereof -- can be worse than anything we find in an open society. After all, Saddam's Iraq was relatively crime-free, unless you factor in the government's atrocities. Same goes for the various communist nations.
I understand the point you're making, Grace, but I personally don't see the attraction to limiting freedoms "in the name of assuring compatibility with traditional culture." What traditional culture would that be, anyway? The one the government says is worth preserving? What culture hasn't changed through time?
There are restrictions on human freedom in the West -- mostly laws which prohibit people from harming one another. There is also effort to enforce, although such is a never-ending battle. I don't know what streets Lee Kuan Yew thinks are unsafe in America! Every city has its dangerous areas, it seems to me, but only in the larger ones are decidely unsafe. Even that could be remedied with more police on duty.
I think part of the difference in approach, here, might be that in the West, we are dealing with a highly pluralistic culture, while that might not be the case in the East. We have all kinds of cultures intermingling, and so any attempt to preserve "traditional culture" is doomed from the start. Whose culture would that be? That is why the rule of law is emphasized instead.
[ July 01, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On this topic I have tried to present the argument of some Asian country leaders on democracy, human rights and governance. To understand their philosophical bacground I presented first how individualism and collectivism defined. Yet, I have not presented my own opinion on the issue. I will do it after I present the critique of Asian Values. Tönnesson in his article “Human Rights and Asian Values go together?” NIAS, No.4 December, have identified five critique of Asian Values.
First, Most Asian states have a constitution that builds on the idea of popular sovereignty, and most states say they want to respect the rule of law. This means that Asians have adopted a great many of the universal principles and institutions that characterize a democratic system of government. Why should free and secret elections be more in conflict with Asian values than manipulated elections where the result is determined in advance? If the whole point is to ensure stable government for the life time of the present power-holder, there should be no need for elections at all.
Second, Asian Values don't exist at all because Asia consists of an enormous cultural mosaic. Even if we confine our interest just to Southeast Asia, all the main world religions are manifestly present. They intermix, and there are thousands of radically different languages. In such a cultural mosaic there can be no inherited shared values which we may call Asian. Values are either local or universal. Moreover, they argue, many so called Asian values such as respect for traditions, strong family ties, and communitarianism, can also be found in Western countries and so are not uniquely Asian.
A third objection is that religious and philosophical texts can be interpreted in so many ways. Asian values can be deducted from Confucian, Buddhist or Islamic texts, but uphold equally well be taken from the Bible.
A fourth objection is that the rhetoric about Asian values is the language of power. It does not represent the voice of the weak against an arrogant, imperialist west. Instead it is the language of powerful national leaders pursuing their own goals and interests.
The fifth and the last objection is that most Asians are not as concerned with duties and collective values as their think tanks and leaders pretend. There is no doubt that family ties remain stronger in most Asian countries than in Europe and America, but the idea that the nation is a kind of superfamily has not penetrated deeply into the popular conscience.
-------------------- Peace and Love Grace Posts: 340 | From: Sweden | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep going. I'm listening. You've obviously given this lots of thought. Maybe you can share something about how you came to have such a deep interest in this topic.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phil, this subject East vs. West interested me since long time ago. I was perplexed by those different approach of democracy particularly in developing countries. The dominant roll of World Bank and IMF and their pre condition on liberal democracy interested me to look alternative ways. Particularly the case of Singapore interested me because the country achievied its higly developed economy only within the last four decades. To look their way of governance is one way of understanding the issue of economic development and democracy. In addition the countrie's strong argument on the distinctivness of their culture and the rejection of liberal democracy attracted me to study Singapore. Therefore, I chose Singapore as a case study for my masteres thesis in 1997. Now, to my concluding remarks.
As I tried to show on the above posts some Asian leaders say that democracy and the freedoms that come with it are exclusive products of Western civilization. Asian values they contend are significantly different from, if not diametrically opposed to, democracy. They suggest that Asians have fundamentally different needs in terms of personal and social fulfillment. I do not share this view point because it is very hard to find any real basis for this intellectual claim in the history of Asian cultures, especially if we look at the classical traditions of India, the Middle East, Iran, and other parts of Asia. Sometimes the advocates of Asian values have tended to look primerly at East Asia as the region of particular applicability. Even East Asia itself, however, is remarkably diverse, with many variations to be found not only among Japan, China, Korea, and other countries of the region, but also within each country. Confuicious is the standard author quoted in interpreting Asian values, but he is not the only intellectual influence in these countries. I will quote Amartya Sen, winner of the 1998 Noble Prize for Economics ” In Japan, China, Korea for example, there are very old and very widespread Buddhist traditions, powerful for over a millenium and a half, and there are also other influences, including a considerable Christian presence. There is no homogeneous worship of order over freedom in any of these cultures.” It is my fundamental belief that all human beings share the same basic aspirations: we alll want happiness and we all experiernce suffering. Like Americans and Europeans, and the rest of the world, Asians wish to live life to its fullest, to better themselves and the lives of their loved ones. India the birth place of Mahtama Gandhi and the concept of nonvilonce is an excellent example of an Asian country devoted to a democratic form of governemnt.
The fact that democratic reforms are on the rise around the globe, it is testimony to the strength of the ideals that democracy embodies. As more and more people gain awareness of their individual potential, the number of people seeking to express themselves through a democratic system grows. These global trends illustrate the universality of the desire for a form of government that respects human rights and the rule of law. The idea of cultural diversity, which is often supposed to call the universality of human rights into question, in fact reinforces the case for human rights and democracy, because, only if human rights are respected and the voice of the people is heard, can we reliably know which cultural values call for recognition.
-------------------- Peace and Love Grace Posts: 340 | From: Sweden | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Here is one of the best articles I've found discussing the relationship between personal status issues in the Arab world, its governments and struggles to engage local reform and geopolitics:
posted
My impression so far, Grace, (haven't read everything yet) is that Asian countries (and others) are looking at the U.S. or Europe and defining a successful democracy as an economically successful democracy. But if they looked just a little bit closer at the United States (and our founding documents) the most they'd find about commerce is a few words about who handles treaties and tariffs. The rest is about how to put together a government in order to best secure moral freedoms and it does so based on some profound and fundamental principles that have little to do with the price of tea in China. I was astonished at this quote: A former prime minister and now Senior minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew argue that whilst democracy and human rights are worthwhile ideas, we should be clear that the real objective is good government. I believe the prime mistake Europe is making with all this EU stuff is that, it seems to me, they are founding their confederation primarily on economic issues. To me it's the equivalent of marrying a man or a woman only for his or her money. And I do think many of the problems we're running into today in this country is because we're losing touch with the idea of securely establishing the freedom "to pursue happiness" and are more involved with trying to put the cart before the horse and securing security itself (particularly economic security).
I think all heavily state-controlled economies are doomed to failure…or at least doomed to mediocrity. That the Asians have a tradition, apparently, of dealing well with, and abiding by, a strong authority from above can simply be looked on as short-term capital that is being used by the state. It can and does work…at least in the short term. But Japan has had severe economic problems of late and I would expect the same from other parts of Asia. When things go wrong, as they always do (depressions will hit from time to time), do they have deeper principles upon which to fall back on? I wonder.
You presented a lot of interesting things to think about, Grace. Well done with your presentation.
[ July 18, 2004, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Brad Nelson ]
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for individualism vs. collectivism, I think it's easy to forget or overlook just how we came to our prosperity. We got it by unleashing the power of the individual. After the fact I suppose it's easy to miss this point, to perhaps credit our success with the ingenuity of the state instead of the individual (and ours is an ingenious state indeed), and thus some will try to come up with the best darn State that they can in order to produce economic prosperity or social order and fairness. It's an easy enough mistake to make given that we are an extremely social species. But we can and will organize under a variety of systems, from liberal democracies to totalitarian dictatorships…all of which are entail or produce different social structures. I think that one such structure can and will easily blur into the other without a proper and due emphasis on the individual. And it's interesting to see other countries experiment with freedom and democracy and then lecture us on our shortcomings. Good. Our goal should be improvement, not face-saving or excessive pride. But it's easy for cultures that are basically monocultures to find quick unity and make quick burst of economic speed. But try doing so (and be amazingly successful at it) when your system of government not only has to accommodate a wide variety of cultures, lifestyles, beliefs and habits, but actively tries to do so by basing itself on principles so broad, yet so simple and defining, that it can do so. These principles are all founded on individual rights and the limitations of the state, and they're all aligned to promote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They are not aligned, at least on the first order, to promote an economically prosperous and cohesive social structure. From these simple principles all else flows, because the first order of business, whether a culture is more in tune with a tight family structure or whatever, is making a living for yourself and/or your family. We would need no state whatsoever if it weren't for larger considerations such as national defense. People who have the freedom to feed themselves, who have the freedom to be busy and industrious, who are in charge of their own lives, will sort out their own social structures. But if one starts out with the idea of making social or economic structure Job 1, and particularly Job 1 of the state, then I think one has it tragically backward.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why the war all through history between what we today refer to as liberal and conservative? According to Ken Wilbur, because we fail to think Integrally. Integrous individuals, currently less than 5% of the population, have the ability to put it all together.
People who think in what Wilbur refers to as the "ascended" grid think of "the I and the it." The one rather than the many. The up and the trancendant. The "descended grid" feels what is down, the many, the feminine and the earth. Wilbur contends that we need the best ideas from the "left and right" and the "ascended and descended" portions of the grid. As human consciousness evolves, Integral thinkers will grow and have more influence.
I was thinking of this today when I picked up the paper and saw groups in my metro area who live as separate family units, but share recreation and dining areas in common.
Bill Wilson and Doctor Robert Smith, cofounders of AA, came up with this idea.
"Our common welfare should come first, personal recovery for the greatest number depends upon unity."
They were also great champions of individual rights, but the groups came first.
posted
Wilbur contends that we need the best ideas from the "left and right" and the "ascended and descended" portions of the grid.
I'll take that, Michael. But if one could live by the ideas of only the (modern) left or the right I think we could get by quite nicely with genuine conservative ideas (and I will concede there are many, what I would call, counterfeit conservative ideas as practiced by some on the right). To see the result of purely leftist ideas one need only visit Cuba.
As human consciousness evolves, Integral thinkers will grow and have more influence.
With all due respect, I sincerely hope not – at least when it comes to forming governments. As to forming personal ethics and beliefs, I can't think of anything better than to consider total strangers, even if half a world away, as being a true brother or sister.
AA founders said: "Our common welfare should come first, personal recovery for the greatest number depends upon unity."
Yes, but our common welfare is only achieved, can only be achieved, one individual at a time. We are not some Star Trek-like species like the Borg that have directly shared thoughts and feelings and who are indeed a collective by nature. We might like to think of ourselves in that way, and on some deeper level it might even be true, but as soon as we govern as if people were a group first we start stomping all over the individual. That's not just theory. That's world history.
They were also great champions of individual rights, but the groups came first.
Well, there are techniques of therapy, getting people to soften their control over, or identity with, their egos in order to function better socially (and ultimately so that they, as individuals, can function better) and there are techniques of governance. Governments in which "groups" came first have historically been incredibly oppressive because this nebulous notion of "groups" can and does mean just about anything, depending on what those in power wish to achieve. In a group orientation, one is ultimately forced to decide what is best for the group (and which group?) and that inevitable leads to intrusions on the only group that matters when you get down to it: the individual. If one stands apart from the supposed worthy goals of the group then that person becomes an enemy of the group. This leads to an unhealthy homogeneity where dissent itself is less likely to penetrate group behavior and less likely to be tolerated and appreciated. Since we are not an infallible species we must ever be open to the ideas of the individual or we quickly decay and degenerate. And you can count on those in power having agendas other than perfectly benign ones. Even honest, well-meaning people, using group thought, can make huge messes of things because, ultimately, the group is an abstract concept while the individual is a real thing. When people become abstract objects this can and does lead to all sorts of abuses.
I was thinking of this today when I picked up the paper and saw groups in my metro area who live as separate family units, but share recreation and dining areas in common.
A government should be so instituted so that people can form in groups as they wish. Some people prefer a commune-like atmosphere. Others prefer good, sturdy fences. These small, seemingly cheerful microcosms never translate well into larger organizations and structures.
That's not to say that groups aren't wonderful things. We are a social species and groups are vitally important to our way of life; so much so that they are mentioned in the first amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. But ultimately I think we must be sure to focus on the level of the individual being free to enter and exit groups as he or she desires, to accommodate various groups, and, as the Founding Fathers wisely planned, to allow for competition between various groups to actually strengthen our society, rather than weaken it. It seems ironic that orienting toward the individual in the larger structures, such as governments, leads to healthy groups, and lots of them, while orienting toward groups in these structures does not lead toward healthy groups.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good discussion, and I think you all identify the issues very nicely.
I've revealed my own biases on this issue above, and tend to a philosophy where government is not so much about "promoting" the common good (ultimately, socialism), as protecting against abuses that would jeopardize its realization (anti-trust interventions, criminal activity, etc.). The latter moves in the direction of democratic capitalism, which is indisputably the champion in history when it comes to safeguarding individual rights and unleashing the creative potential in a society. I agree with Brad that any society that violates the fundamental principles of democratic capitalism eventually has to contend with major problems that government only exacerbates. The growing welfare state in the U.S. and the attitude of entitlement that characterizes so many who benefit from it is a regrettable case in point.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Brad:
Those are some excellent posts. I'd like to copy them, with your name of course, to my Word document. You really do summarize these notions well. O.K. with you?
Michael:
Groups composed of people who are acting upon/struggling with their individuality, and that find in the process they are drawn to common notions that don't supercede that ongoing struggle, are quite different than groups regulated with preconceived notions, even the principles of AA. The principles may be sound from a certain perspective, but whether a particular person comes to find it worthwile depends largely on what kind of meaning is culled from reflecting upon it; otherwise we're just trading the risks of our own intelligence for a group drug-effect.
For instance, families comprised of individuals with a significant degree of emotional intelligence, not just I.Q., will develop relationships with each other that encourage diversity and separatness, while generating a closneess and intimacy that supports each person as they go through the existential crisis of being an individual. These families aren't perfect, but they experience a flexibility and trust that keeps the group together from the inside-out, rather than resorting to coercive measures to maintain dependency. This is sort of the microcosm of what Brad described between individuals and the state. IOW, one can see the dynamic within families as well.
As Brad has alluded to before, human selfishness and the survival instinct often merge, and so trying to force group concepts onto individuals before they have had the opportunity to express their ingenuity in forming the group themselves, tends to underestimate the power of the need to find one's individual identity. This is mostly the crisis of Muslim and Arab cultures. Even moreso than Brad's response to Grace re: Asia, the Middle East has yet to find a governing system that taps its cultural and social roots in ways that are successfully modernizing. One problem, of course, is that modernity is now largely western in character, and so the way forward is full of iconoclastic risks in terms of evolving ideologies. Since patrilinear family systems are pervasive throughout the Middle East, harnassing the power of individual aspirations, including women, is resisted at the grass roots level, and makes changes in economy alone facile.
posted
Sorry, Phil. I just read a little more of this thread and realize I stated some of what you had already stated. Anyway…
I think all this "collectivism vs. individualism" often comes down to "Which system is the best for the avoidance of harm?" (And I should add that I think this is often done overlooking the importance of the maintenance of personal liberty, which is no small oversight in my opinion.) And I think when we speak of harm we're speaking of harm to the individual. Because, frankly, while we do and should care about the well being of others, it's of little use if everyone else is okay but your rights are being trampled upon, unless one wants to live in a state of permanent martyrdom. Some, for whatever reason, find safety in numbers. And this should come as no surprise, considering that we are highly social beings and instinctively organize ourselves into cities, neighborhoods and tribes, for various reason, and often various good reasons. But it appears, at least as best I can tell, that proponents of highly-collective social orders find safety only in numbers. That, I think, may be an underlying bias and not a totally unjustified one given many people's experiences in this life. The individual next door is unlikely to come to my aid (or be able to do much even if they do) should I have a medical emergency, while a collective response (911) is just the ticket. But again, we shouldn't loose track that 911 comes to the response of individuals in need. They don't put the bandages on any kind of a collective body.
Of course, for certain leaders (either those elitist leaders who arrogantly think they know best, or deceptive leaders who desire only power) a tight collective social order is the perfect breeding ground for seizing control and abusing its members. All else being equal, and because men are not angels (and never will be, at least on this earth), we should always err on the side of individualism. After all, America has worked and worked quite well. And it's not at all oriented toward majority rule. Far from it. It's oriented away from any kind of tyranny of the majority. Any group, organization or state that is worth its salt can be judged by how it treats its weakest members. It's one thing to have weak members in a free society. That's the sort of diversity that freedom and a capitalistic democracy give you. It doesn't guarantee equality of outcome. But in a more collective state it's seen as a virtue that all members are equally strong. This creates a major problem. The only way to achieve this kind of equality is to make everyone equally miserable. Collectivism is able to sweep its weakest members under the carpet by forcing them to conform to some nebulous group social order and by the overbearing redistribution of wealth, and then it declares victory in the game of equality. That only hides the problem of the overbearing state and the abused individual. It doesn't correct it. And it doesn't facilitate the creation of wealth and prosperity that depends almost exclusively on the individual and his or her motivations to do so (such as the freedom to do so and the ability to largely keep what one has earned). Collectivism by its very nature is a disincentive to the creation of wealth, and thus prosperity. It couldn't afford its own success even if it were to achieve it.
It's interesting listening to the disingenuous "two Americas" speech form John Edwards, VP Democratic nominee. That's Class Warfare 101 as far as I'm concerned. The message is basically that someone else is doing better than you so let's go grab some of his stuff. After all, what those people have must be ill-gotten gains. That is not a message to send people, particularly in this age that has seen the rise and fall of communism, and the disastrous economic and human price that was paid. The message ought to be a positive message that America can and should be a place where everyone is free to make of themselves what they can. A certain amount of a collective social safety net is a good thing, and one that, thanks to our capitalistic democracy, we can afford to a certain extent. But one should never forget what brought us this wealth in the first place. It wasn't government. I think many do believe otherwise (no thanks to our biased and brainwashing education and media systems) and see America through the lens of government having provided what we have. Nothing could be further form the truth and is one of the most potentially disastrous misconceptions we could have. Government, at best, can sort of play the traffic cop in this game of life. It can make sure that the playing field is fair. And it can take care of those things which only government can do (national defense, etc), which people themselves can not do. But if people like Edwards (and there are plenty like him) believe that people can not do basic make-a-living stuff without the help and interference of government, then we are on the road to the kind of government dependency that is little different from tyranny.
[ July 18, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Brad Nelson ]
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those are some excellent posts. I'd like to copy them, with your name of course, to my Word document. You really do summarize these notions well. O.K. with you?
You're very kind, WC. Of course you may.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There has been very interesting discussion on this thread. Brad's insightful analysis of individualism/collectivism, Micke's assertion based upon Ken Wilber's evolution theory is refreshing, w.c's and Phil's comment on the issue is very good. I can't comment one by one all of your very good posts but I will try to give you additional complementary viwes from both parties (individualists and collectivists). Brad, I will return back to you on the sustainabilty of Asians societies who abide by strong authoritarian states.
The most common criticism put against liberal political theory by its collectivism critics is that it not only undervalues community, but also rests on premises which are unable to account for the place of the individual in the political order. The deepest problem with liberal theory, the argument goes, is that it ”continues to pay homage to the enlightenment ideal of the autonomous subject who successfully extricates herself from the immediate entanglements of history and the characteristics and values that come with that entanglement.” Ultimately, liberal theory is unable to explain why such disentangled individuals should accept the obligations that arise out of their membership in the political sphere. Thus, liberalism mistankely advocates a way of life which emphasizes reflection, self-examination, and choice, while assuming that individuals are not ”deeply bound up in the social world” in which they find themselves.
The individualist response to the collectivism illustrated in John Rawls book. He provides an extremely interesting response to the collectivism argument that liberalism, so far as it is individualistic, rests on mistaken metaphysical premises. Rawls sees this challenge as irrelevant to the discussion of justice, or indeed to the discussion of politics in general. The image of individualist may very well be true; however, this image only serves as a theoretical device to construct a theory likely to gain consensus in a society whose members are deeply divided on conceptions of the good. Other individualists like Kymlicka agreeing that the concept of the community as a good is not alien to individualism or liberalism, this does not necessarily contradict the priority of the right. He argues that rights can be a means of achieving some of the collectivism goals of community, as well as defending communities of minorities, and that a policy of neutrality (one of the main liberal institutions) is not excessively individualistic.
For those finding liberal theory and society too fragmenting and alienating, collectivism theories offer an alternative. Collectivismism does not forsake difference, but it does seek to reconcile diversity into higher unity. Such theories typically begin by analysing how conflicting identities are defined and produced within a common social and historical context, and then strive harmonize identities using this communal base. The collectivism promise is to reduce or eliminate conflict through a politics of gentle assimilation and reconciliation. But this approach has suffered great difficulties sustaining the conceptions of shared values, moral sources or spheres of justice upon which integration depends.
What all collectivisms hold in common, if and when they refer to the political sphere, is the advocacy of involvement in public life, increased participation in small communities, firms, and clubs. Because of the importance of these mediating structures, collectivisms are less fearful of the emergence of an oppressive government as a result of the politics of the common good, whereas like Brad and many individualists argue that the politics of the common good is likely to result in intolerance and semi or fully totalitarian regimes.
-------------------- Peace and Love Grace Posts: 340 | From: Sweden | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the other side of collectivism (as I understand the term) is that we do indeed need to have some shared things in common in order to function as a society. What those particular things are depends on whether we can then function as a peaceful, productive and moral society. As Phil pointed out, the rule of law is one of those elements in the West. Another, at least in America, is the ideas proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as well as in the Federalist Papers. Perhaps not as fundamental (but surely from where the previous points derive) is our Judeao-Christian heritage, a heritage that is, of course, highly religious but, particularly given the nature of, and circumstances for, our colonization of American, it's a heritage that is the impedance for tolerance (religious or otherwise), the principle of limited government, and for the unalienable rights of the individual. And whether the language of English is also something around which we need to organize is a legitimately debatable idea.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that collectivism isn't necessarily a bad thing when expressed at the higher levels. It just depends around which ideas we are collected. I think the reason that in America we formed around rather broad, flexible and quite timeless principles is because, first of all, we were starting from scratch and had the help of some amazing minds with great wisdom who had a good idea of what not to do. And second, America was, even two hundred years ago, quite a diverse and eclectic place. I we were ever to bring together thirteen such different colonies, the ideas were somewhat forced to be broad and fundamental in nature. Now, whether more homogonous societies can skirt some of these broader principles remains to be seen. But given the successful democratic experiments in both Germany and Japan, I think it's safe to say that there's no reason that broad principles that are able to accommodate any race or religion, even though one might live in a relative monocultures, can't work anywhere. It's best to build upon a strong foundation because you just never know what history has in store.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brad, in the following quote you put very interesting question which has to do with sustainability and it is worth to quote the whole paragraph "I think all heavily state-controlled economies are doomed to failure…or at least doomed to mediocrity. That the Asians have a tradition, apparently, of dealing well with, and abiding by, a strong authority from above can simply be looked on as short-term capital that is being used by the state. It can and does work…at least in the short term. But Japan has had severe economic problems of late and I would expect the same from other parts of Asia. When things go wrong, as they always do (depressions will hit from time to time), do they have deeper principles upon which to fall back on? I wonder." I don't have clear answer but I will try to give you some information based on the socio-economic reality of Singapore.
East and Southeast Asian economies have enjoyed high growth rates, driven by production and export manufacturing and financed by foreign investment. The integration of East and Southeast Asia into the global economy has led scholars to speak of an economic “miracle” until the advent of Asian economic crisis in 1997 to what has been called the Asian contagion with the crisis rippling outward from Thailand through out much of Asia and beyond. And it looks like Asian values, previously discussed in my post, was one casualty of the crisis.
There are many reasons that Asia ran into these crises. According to Linda Low the factors which afflicted the East Asian economies are: Balance of payments deficits, poor positions in official reserves, fiscal deficits, high external debts, high extent of non-performing loans, gross financial indiscipline, and economic mismanagement stemming from corruption, nepotism, political patronage and cronyism. There are obviously many other reasons that Asia ran into these problems, but the lack of transparency and disclosure in the financial sector played its part and cannot be easily dismissed. This is because it reflects the more important issue of the rule of law in its broadest sense, which is a critical factor in underpinning local, regional and global commerce. Without trust in the system to uphold contracts, enforce regulation, and ultimately establish and maintain a level playing field, confidence erodes.
Singapore was less affected by this crisis than other countries. This relative immunity from damage during the 1997 crisis was probably due to its financial strength and to the measures it adopted to meet the challenge. One of the main measures took by the Government of Singapore to meet the challenge is the adaptation of “Committee on Singapore’s Competitiveness”. The committee saw the outstanding problem as a loss of competitiveness resulting from cost increases outstripping productivity gains and as a result of it the committee recommended more cost cutting. It also envisaged a competitive knowledge economy, and that Singapore would soon build up an infrastructure and a workforce to promote growth in information technology (IT). This indicates that the government of Singapore have realized the new reality presented by the Internet: Singapore might not be able to become successfully immersed in the global economy if the government tried to control the flow of information by attempting to regulate the web.
On the political scene, Singapore’s authorities have been slowly and cautiously, and with some back-pedaling, loosening the restraints on civil society since the late 1980s. There are several reasons for this. First, Singapore’s Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and his team wanted a kinder and gentler Singapore that was more open to discussion and debate. Second, there was a growing realization that educated Singaporeans were finding the socio-political restrictions stifling, and that this was a contributing factor to the problem of emigration. Third, the government realized that it had over-extended itself in trying to manage all facets of society, and that this was less feasible in a complex, fast moving, global setting . Following this trend, during 2003 restraints on civil society have been loosening, some of them are: 1. Prime minister Goh Chok Tong announced that Lee Hsien Loong (the son of Lee Kuan Yew) would succeed him some time before the next election. 2. Singapore’s much –publicized ban on chewing gum will thus be lifted; however it will only be sold for therapeutic purposes. 3. Cosmopolitan magazine, banned for more than two decades for purveying promiscuous values will be removed from the list of prohibited publications. 4. Regulations on entertainment venues have been eased. 5. The public sector ban on employing homosexuals would be dropped.
And recently on April 16, 2004 The Strait Times posted in its website on the declaration of Remaking Singapore Committee over 74 proposals mainly aimed at relaxing rules in many spheres of life.
These loosening of restrictions don’t mean that the government of Singapore does accept the idea that civil society must or should be opposed to the state. For the government of Singapore and its political party, PAP, the main emphasis has always been onto the preservation of its communitarian society. The government of Singapore struggled to sustain on the one hand the continuity of its liberal economic development and on the other hand on the preservation and continuity of its illiberal type of democracy. Nobody knows if the government of Singapore will be succeeding to sustain both its economic and political structure of the society in the future. To change the authoritarian character of the PAP government will not be an easy task. We don’t know either if it is possible or not. As long as the structure of the Singaporean government remains authoritarian, albeit some loosening of restrictions, we can conclude that there are many challenges to overcome both domestically and internationally to sustain the system of PAP.
The current economic development is about information and communication, and about innovation and creativity. To achieve these goals, controls are anathema. The government has largely foresworn any battle to control the Internet, and it is trying slowly to loosen the reins on civil society. Will it loosen enough, in time, is a key question. To get ahead globally in this new economy, Singapore needs to nurture an innovative, adventurous, and Internet-proficient citizenry. The question is, does the IT revolution undermine the Singaporean development model, or can the Singapore system now make appropriate changes to produce a culture of creativity and innovation? Further, what can Singapore do about low fertility rates and the problem of losing some of its best brains to emigration? Answering this and other related questions (such as those I mentioned earlier) can determine the sustainability of the Singapore system.
-------------------- Peace and Love Grace Posts: 340 | From: Sweden | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
3. Cosmopolitan magazine, banned for more than two decades for purveying promiscuous values will be removed from the list of prohibited publications.
That's interesting, Grace, although I think Cosmo should be banned for making men's lives miserable as they've been forced to live up to an ideal that no man – including Spider-man -- could ever do!
There's certainly no end to the politicians in this country trying to tinker with the economy. I'm not quite sure how much good they ever do, but they have a long record of doing harm. A basic capitalistic rule of thumb is that for every dollar the government spends or controls that's one dollar taken out of the economy that some entrepreneur could use more productively and wisely. There's just no way that the typical politician is ever going to be as smart as a private businessperson, nor, due to the nature of politics, can they move as fast to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. But the politicians feel they must be seen to be doing something because that's now what voters expect. We might thank FDR for that and George Bush is no exception.
Central planning is slow, inefficient, and as I think you see with Singapore and others, the government has to always try and re-tool to meet whatever new thing is out there (like the internet). Even private business leaders (such as Bill Gates) can miss such things because the economy and consumers are fairly unpredictable. But I picture in my mind that by the time Singapore gets on the IT bandwagon there will be some new thing that comes along that they will then need to react to – and then, once again, they will start out years behind. Their best bet is to get out of the way and let their people do what they do best because it surely seems that they've taken to capitalism. Sure, there are cultural differences. Some people are (rightly, I would say) a bit afraid of a more liberalized society. One minute people are chewing gum freely. The next they may be selling drugs on the street corners to kids in broad daylight. But another factor is that anyone who is in government feels compelled to justify their jobs. I mean, the reality is that most of those economic planners are probably not needed, as well as a host of other bureaucrats. The same can be said of any government no matter how it is formed. That's why I think it is very important, particularly if one seeks economic prosperity, let alone individual rights, that an electorate be expectant of limited government, for a government will grow, and keep growing, until either tyranny is reached or an economic collapse sparks a serious re-thinking. We had a minor one of those ourselves when the era of Jimmy Carter ushered in the Reagan Revolution.
Further, what can Singapore do about low fertility rates and the problem of losing some of its best brains to emigration?
You know, Grace, that's something I just don't get. Apparently Japan is having the same "problem" of a declining population. I thought the world was in dire straights because of overpopulation. Now it's considered a problem if the population growth rate slows or even shrinks. I think that problem is highly overrated, if it indeed is a problem at all, because it can simply be countered by increased in productivity and, dare I say it, out-sourcing. No matter one's population the trick is to do the most with what you've got. If Singapore wants to stop whatever brain drain they're having then they need to be able to compete with the rest of the world and that surely means getting government out of the way and letting the market work.
But if you take a macro view of all this, and barring any wars of conquest, you can see the various countries competing very much as if they were individual companies. Some companies (countries) become top-heavy with management and/or mission plan and need to spin-off into several independent divisions and specializations in order to remain competitive. It's the open competition on the world stage, unless one desires above all else dictatorial control, that will even this all out. The greatest mistake politicians make is that they think they have real power in the long run to make a difference. Well they do, but only to screw things up! The short term gains that a country like Singapore may achieve can give them a heavy dose of hubris as they attempt to micro-manage their way to capitalistic success. But in the end they have to compete with some heavy hitters on the world stage who aren't constrained by inefficient, slow and often backward government interference.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You've obviously given this lots of thought. Maybe you can share something about how you came to have such a deep interest in this topic.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
