These kind of big picture societal judgement are really hard to pin down. Many different ways you could make an argument. One of the most concrete empirical things I can think of though is looking at participation in group oriented organisations like religious organisations, political parties, book clubs, social groups, local firefighter brigades etc.
From reading history my sense is that participation in these kinds of organisations was *much* higher in the pre-modern period. More recently, in the last 50 years or so, though I think there's actually good data to shore up an argument.
So I have a couple of questions, first of all - are these good measures of what individualistic behavior vs. collectivist behavior should be?
For example, If we're talking about a modern society where people are more or less equal, this is largely a 20th century invention that happened after WWII. If equal rights and equal social participation is a very modern concept, are societies before now really good examples of what a good collectivist societies are?
Secondly, I think the idea of measuring physical participation in things like book clubs and religious organizations fundamentally contradicts at least some forms of social contract. Especially in North America where respective constitutions were laid down as the undeniable fundamentals of societies - the freedom to not conform to social norms is very much a part of the social contract that exists as the constitution of the nation. So, I'm curious why should we as a society care about physical participation in social organizations? By aforementioned notions of social contracts, it doesn't necessarily mean more social cohesion or consensus among members of the society. Would you agree?
Thirdly, if people attend social organizations but are unhappy about doing so, is that considered "not individualistic"?
Lastly, my other question is whether or not you believe that individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive? Because if you consider a fundamental want like the desire to pursue happiness, to avoid tragedy of the commons is very much an act of self-preservation. The concept of social cohesion, at least in Abrahamic religions/societies, is conceivably based on the maxim that the best outcome for the society is the best outcome for individuals.
Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what you think. I personally don't think society today is really more individualistic than ones that existed in the past. I do believe there is more self-determination and freedom to decide what's good for oneself for oneself, but whether or not we should label that "individualistic" is where I see the real debate.
In short, I think you're right this is very difficult things to pin down. It's not obvious you can find the right measure to conclusively prove these kinds of broad cultural descriptions.
I like the measure of group practices because it's empirical. When people do more of these practices they are in greater proximity to a group. They talk more with a group, share more time with a group, and are physically in the same space as a group. When they do less they do that less.
There can't be a direct causal pathway from this to people being more or less group-oriented in the abstract but I think it's as good as we can get.
Fair enough, thanks for the exchange as well! Let's chat more about this sometime in person over dinner or something.
I think proximity to the group helps, but it's no longer a requirement for social cohesion in the modern era.
My "alternative" hypothesis is that before the modern era (in the developed world at least), social contracts were still relatively immature, we needed religious groups, guilds, chambers of commerce, military orders, etc to effect check and balances to protect individual social classes - and these organizations themselves are not without corruption, inefficiencies and pedantry. But in Medieval times, those were the best we got.
The modern world is rather different in my opinion, transportation and communications technologies have shrunk distances and made real-time long-distance interactions possible. Social contracts are now enforceable, and they've grown ever more sophisticated. Modern people, unlike Medieval ones, have the freedom to choose their social interactions and career paths without being married to a social organization.
I think the data points you mentioned - the decline of religious groups, reading groups, etc are actually corroborations for this hypothesis. Another data point I'd throw in there is the decline of Rotary clubs and Lion Clubs in the west despite the growth of charitable activities. We don't need to formally get together in Rotary clubs to do charity the way people did in the 40s and 50s, we have facebook, we have eventbrite, and we have numerous other ways to more efficiently organize, communicate and collaborate with each other.
The same way that full-remote companies are often more productive and collaborative than companies that are full on-site. By the way I'm not saying remote work causes productivity or collaboration, but I do conjecture that the willingness to institute some sort of contract based on more flexible forms of communication and collaboration is indicative of better corporate culture. Not necessarily causation, could be co-occurrence due to a common causal antecedent.
In short, if you look not just as participation in social groups but also at measures of social activity, you'll see that decline in social group participation doesn't necessitate less social activity.
Anyway, food for thought :) I'm not convinced what we see today is good or bad yet.
Do you believe modern society is more individualistic than past societies? If so, what would you use as a reference point?
Hey Arturo! In short, yes.
These kind of big picture societal judgement are really hard to pin down. Many different ways you could make an argument. One of the most concrete empirical things I can think of though is looking at participation in group oriented organisations like religious organisations, political parties, book clubs, social groups, local firefighter brigades etc.
From reading history my sense is that participation in these kinds of organisations was *much* higher in the pre-modern period. More recently, in the last 50 years or so, though I think there's actually good data to shore up an argument.
The book Bowling Alone (I haven't read) appears to have collected a lot of data on these things: http://bowlingalone.com/?page_id=7
There's obviously no one data point, or even set of data points, that could conclusively prove something like this but this chart of church affiliation showing a slow steady decline is indicative of a broad range of measure that I've seen: https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/1mlbpqjqyuma9i2skgqowa.png
Interesting points!
So I have a couple of questions, first of all - are these good measures of what individualistic behavior vs. collectivist behavior should be?
For example, If we're talking about a modern society where people are more or less equal, this is largely a 20th century invention that happened after WWII. If equal rights and equal social participation is a very modern concept, are societies before now really good examples of what a good collectivist societies are?
Secondly, I think the idea of measuring physical participation in things like book clubs and religious organizations fundamentally contradicts at least some forms of social contract. Especially in North America where respective constitutions were laid down as the undeniable fundamentals of societies - the freedom to not conform to social norms is very much a part of the social contract that exists as the constitution of the nation. So, I'm curious why should we as a society care about physical participation in social organizations? By aforementioned notions of social contracts, it doesn't necessarily mean more social cohesion or consensus among members of the society. Would you agree?
Thirdly, if people attend social organizations but are unhappy about doing so, is that considered "not individualistic"?
Lastly, my other question is whether or not you believe that individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive? Because if you consider a fundamental want like the desire to pursue happiness, to avoid tragedy of the commons is very much an act of self-preservation. The concept of social cohesion, at least in Abrahamic religions/societies, is conceivably based on the maxim that the best outcome for the society is the best outcome for individuals.
Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what you think. I personally don't think society today is really more individualistic than ones that existed in the past. I do believe there is more self-determination and freedom to decide what's good for oneself for oneself, but whether or not we should label that "individualistic" is where I see the real debate.
Hey! Thanks for such a thoughtful reply.
In short, I think you're right this is very difficult things to pin down. It's not obvious you can find the right measure to conclusively prove these kinds of broad cultural descriptions.
I like the measure of group practices because it's empirical. When people do more of these practices they are in greater proximity to a group. They talk more with a group, share more time with a group, and are physically in the same space as a group. When they do less they do that less.
There can't be a direct causal pathway from this to people being more or less group-oriented in the abstract but I think it's as good as we can get.
Fair enough, thanks for the exchange as well! Let's chat more about this sometime in person over dinner or something.
I think proximity to the group helps, but it's no longer a requirement for social cohesion in the modern era.
My "alternative" hypothesis is that before the modern era (in the developed world at least), social contracts were still relatively immature, we needed religious groups, guilds, chambers of commerce, military orders, etc to effect check and balances to protect individual social classes - and these organizations themselves are not without corruption, inefficiencies and pedantry. But in Medieval times, those were the best we got.
The modern world is rather different in my opinion, transportation and communications technologies have shrunk distances and made real-time long-distance interactions possible. Social contracts are now enforceable, and they've grown ever more sophisticated. Modern people, unlike Medieval ones, have the freedom to choose their social interactions and career paths without being married to a social organization.
I think the data points you mentioned - the decline of religious groups, reading groups, etc are actually corroborations for this hypothesis. Another data point I'd throw in there is the decline of Rotary clubs and Lion Clubs in the west despite the growth of charitable activities. We don't need to formally get together in Rotary clubs to do charity the way people did in the 40s and 50s, we have facebook, we have eventbrite, and we have numerous other ways to more efficiently organize, communicate and collaborate with each other.
The same way that full-remote companies are often more productive and collaborative than companies that are full on-site. By the way I'm not saying remote work causes productivity or collaboration, but I do conjecture that the willingness to institute some sort of contract based on more flexible forms of communication and collaboration is indicative of better corporate culture. Not necessarily causation, could be co-occurrence due to a common causal antecedent.
In short, if you look not just as participation in social groups but also at measures of social activity, you'll see that decline in social group participation doesn't necessitate less social activity.
Anyway, food for thought :) I'm not convinced what we see today is good or bad yet.