Individualism

Historical Foundations

European political philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries, including John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Alexis Tocqueville, provided some of the foundation for the contemporary conceptions of individualism and collectivism by debating ideas about individual freedom versus the collective right within the state. Significant historical events such as the 1775 American and 1789 French Revolutions, both emphasizing equality and liberty, brought attention to the idea of individual freedom. Additionally, many of the early U.S. citizens who had fled Europe because of religious and political oppression were influenced by ideals expressed in the French Revolution. These ideals also came to shape the U.S. Constitution and its focus on protecting individual rights and also the U.S. culture at large.

In many parts of the world, there appears to be a movement toward individualism from collectivism, with prosperity playing a key role. As individuals become more financially well off, they become increasingly independent from their ingroup (e.g., family, tribe, nation), which is a sign of individualism. It is further argued that the more complex a culture is, the more likely it is to be individualistic. Indices of complexity include product per capita, personal computers per capita, the size of cities, and percentage of the population that is urban. Additionally, increased social and geographic mobility, exposure to mass media from individualistic countries, small families (small families tend to raise their children with a more [Page 1178]individualistic mind-set) are all believed to contribute to individualism. Raising children to be self-reliant and independent, in turn, supports individualism at a cultural level.

Variations and Types

Whereas some suggest that individualism and collectivism are dichotomous variables representing opposites on a bipolar continuum, others argue that they can coexist and that individuals can present with aspects of both individualism and collectivism. Harry C. Triandis suggested that there may be different dimensions of individualism and collectivism, such as that American individualism differs from Swedish individualism, and the collectivism of Israeli kibbutzim is different from that of Korean collectivism.

Trying to uncover variations among the individualism-collectivism construct, Triandis and Michele Gelfand identified four types of individualist-collectivist patterns (horizontal individualism, vertical individualism, horizontal collectivism, and vertical collectivism). Horizontal patterns entail the self being different from others, emphasizing hierarchy, whereas vertical patterns assume that the self is similar to others, emphasizing equality. Countries such as Australia value equality, and others, such as the United States and India, value hierarchy. More specifically, horizontal individualists are characterized by self-reliance with a desire to be unique but not distinguished. Vertical individualists are also self-reliant but with a desire to be distinguished, and they do this through individual competition with others. On the other hand, vertical collectivists are willing to sacrifice their own goals for those of the group, and they only value competition when it is between their ingroup and other groups.

...