Collectivism

Conceptual Overview

Such approaches are seen to be problematic. They are seen to rest on simple binarisms whereby collectivism is contrasted and explained in terms of individualism. However, the complexity of collectivism is rarely discussed by those critics who deride Marxists and leftwing accounts of it. These critical views of collectivism are propelled by the belief that there has been a decline in collectivism due to the development of a more marketoriented, neoliberal society where the individual is the predominant player. There is also the argument that we are in a postindustrial and postmodern society where traditional forms of industrial constituencies such as mining, steel, and docks play a less significant employment role, and therefore remove large clusters of organized working-class communities from the political landscape. The problem with such narratives is they deny the more complex dimensions of collectivism and its quite varied uses. Collectivism is not solely the preserve of Marxian political economy or industrial relations paradigms that highlight the role of class conflict or institutional relations such as collective bargaining. It is easy to forget the importance of the notion of collectivism to Durkheim's social theory, i.e., the way associational and occupational identity functioned, the role of collective symbols, and the importance of collective representations within societies. While this approach is not anchored in any belief in a structural economic relation, as with Marxian perspectives, the importance of collective intermediation is significant to a major branch of sociological theory. More recently, with regard to organizational theory, Hofstede has applied similar concepts in the attempt to explain national variations in organizational culture, suggesting that individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: Everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. According to Hofstede in 1991, collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people are integrated from birth into strong, cohesive in-groups that protect them throughout their lives in exchange for loyalty to the group. It is ironic that at a time when collectivism is seen by many to be an inappropriate term, it is used quite unproblematically and loosely by so many contemporary observers of a non-Marxist persuasion, and also just when its use is seen as passé.

...