Collectivism: Reality, ideology or ....? An approach towards a problematic expression.

Mirjam Pulver and Nicole Burgermeister

One of the terms we usually associate with post-soviet states is Collectivism. Everybody seems to know: The western society  is based on individualism and in the eastern society it is collectivism which is the base of society. By talking about these terms we have specific pictures in our mind, that’s clear; on one hand we’ve got the traditional, group-based, caring community where values like collective cooperation, family and ascribed roles are important but which is also linked with corruption, hierarchy and a low level of development, and, on the other hand, we’ve got the modern, high-developed society with values such as competition, individuality, autonomy and egalitarianism, but which is also egoistic, inexorable, where nobody cares about anybody else. 
Looking at recent scientific discussions and researches, we found that the distinction I/C is very likely used for any kind of theories and explanations, from psychology over social sciences to crosscultural management or intercultural communication. “It’s not surprising that he acts like he does, because he’s from a individualist culture”, or “the reason why he’s got so much power is that the people are living in a collectivistic society and believe in his authoritarity” are examples which show how our expressions are popular in nowadays debates, be it in the medias or elsewhere in public, but also, as we said, in scientific discussions. 

We’d like to inquire what is really behind these theories. What can they tell us about societies in east and west, are they explaining us reality or is it just an ideology which doesn’t have to do anything with the real situation in the various countries? Which are the opportunities, which are weaknesses and the limits of these theories, and – last but not least – are there possibilities to come over these categories: is there anything beyond individualism and collectivism? 

From Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft

By discussing questions concerning the C/I – theories, you actually get to the roots of sociology, to the most fundamental problems of social sciences. How is a society organized, what kind of relationsships are prevailing in a specific society, which values and norms are  important for social acting? And so on. 
One of the classical theorists in sociology is Ferdinand Tönnies, who published his famous book “Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft” in 1887.  By analizing the different aspects of these two forms of social organization, he laid the foundation-stone for the discussions up to today, including our issue. 
Describing Gemeinschaft (community) as an association of real and organical life, he sees Gesellschaft (society) as an ideal and mechanic association. While Gemeinschaft is constituted by a unit of human will as an original and natural state which is still maintained although theres an empirical separation, Gesellschaft is just a constructed circle of people who are not essentially connected, but essentially separated, as he says. In spite of all their connections, they remain separated, and everybody remains for himself or herself, in a state of tension against all the others. 
While Gemeinschaft is a long- or even everlasting - living together, Gesellschaft is just a temporary and apparent living together. If we say in German  : „sich Gesellschaft leisten“ (translated literally: “achieve society to sb”) we mean “keep sb’s company”. So Gesellschaft is  something that has to be achieved,  an effort that has to be made. We don’t say “jem. Gem  leisten” (achieve community to somebody). And while we say “Religionsgemeinschaft” (Religious community), which is something that’s long-lasting, we say “Handelsgesellschaft” ( translated literally: “trade society”) which is rather short-lasting or can get changed quickly. 

An important expression in Tönnies theory of Gemeinschaft is the expression “consensus”,  meaning understanding, comprehension. He claims that the mutual-common, connecting way of thinking is the social power and sympathy, which keep the limbs of the whole together and presupposes an intim knowledge of each other and an immediate interest in each other. He makes a distinction between 3 types of Gemeinschaft:

-	Relatives, family ( Gemeinschaft of blood)
-	Neighbourhood (Gemeinschaft of place)
-	Friendship (Gemeinschaft of mind)

In this context it might be quite interesting to inquire how strongly different cultures distinguish between these 3 categories. While in our culture theres usually a strict distinction, it seems that other cultures the category “family”may include also people who are – from our point of view – just friends or neighbours. And, while Tönnies points out neighbourhood and friendship as categories of Gemeinschaft, it may be an interesting question if e.g. friendship from a today’s western point of view would still be considered as a Gemeinschaft-relationsship and not merely as a Gesellschaft-relationsship (e.g. Expressions like “make friends”). 

Tönnies mentions the village community as an example for Gemeinschaft, where everybody is a part of the whole, dependent from the others, and property is often shared. 
For Tönnies, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft represent two different ages; the age of Gemeinschaft is followed by the age of Gesellschaft. While there is still some kind of Gemeinschaft in cities, according to him, as soon as these societies get a higher level of urbanization the family life is loosing its importance, falls apart, because everybody is busy with business, interests and pleasures. Gemeinschaft gets more and more towards a Gesellschaft. Gesellschaft is seen as a quantity of natural and artificial individuals who are connected through certain interests and wills, but still independent from each other. Interactions with the others are based on mutual exchange of goods and favours, but everybody is just doing something which is - or might be - useful for her- or himself, nodody is doing anything without expecting something coming back. 

New models 

Coming to modern social psychological theories of C/I, we will recognize many distinctions that Tönnies showed in terms of the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft-opposition in the comparison of Collectivism and Individualism. As we already mentioned, social-psychological surveys who use the C/I- opposition as a basic ground for any kind of crosscultural-studies started spreading some years ago. We put a list together with a selection of elements prescribed either to Collectivism or Individualism: 

I/C-diagram based on theories by Triandis and Hofstede

	Individualism

	Collectivism

	
basic unit of social perception	individual	group
	
self-definition	independent entity

	member of an in-group
	
foundation	liberalism

	traditionalism	
fundamental assumption	rationality and reason

	relatedness and interdependency
	
norms 
values	-     autonomy
-	independence from in-group self-direction
-	self-reliance
-	uniqueness
-	assertiveness
-	privacy
-	freedom of choice
-	self-fulfillment
-	pleasure
-	non-interference
-	detachability
-	achievement
-	competition
-	freedom
-	financial security
	-	interdependency 
-	embeddedness in in-group
-	common fate
-	collective welfare
-	succorance 
-	nurturance
-	compliance 
-	security
-	obedience
-	duty
-	in-group harmony
-	affiliation
-	solidarity	
Achievement for	-	self-glory
-	exhibition
-	power
	-	the group’s sake
-	endurance	
success	attributed to own ability	attributed to help from others	
failure	attributed to external factors	attributed to lack of support	
In-group 	-	defined by similarity in achieved attributes, 
-	cooperation as long as in-group meets own interests
-	many in-groups
-	little distinction between in- and out-groups
-	little willingness to self-sacrifice for in-group
-	debates, confrontations are accepted
-	defined by similarity in achieved attributes
-	little difference if person is in- or out-group
-	easy entry and exit from groups
-	personal face saving	-	defined by similarity in ascribed attributes 
-	few in-groups
-	strict distinction between in- and out-groups
-	much concern for integrity
-	harmony required
-	in-groups influences many behaviours deeply
-	big difference if person belongs to in- or out-group
-	mutual face saving

	
Relationsship 	-	little emotional involvement
-	relationships are casual
-	mostly non-intimate relations
-	people appear sociable, but relationships are superficial
-	relations depend on social exchange and contracts
-	regulated by attitudes, cost-benefit computations, generalized public norms	-	relationships are close
-	difficult to get friends
-	intimate relations after they are established
-	regulated by in-group norms
-	based on trust	
Mates 	physically attractive and exiting personality	maximize family integrity	
major calamity 	dependency on others	Ostracism, exclusion from the group	
status	Defined by achievement	Defined by ascription	
legitimation of power	- based upon the principle of common agreement among independent individuals	- power is executed for the sake of group interest  legitimacy to power holders	
Accepted structure	-	egalitarian	-	hierarchical	
state	governed by elected officials 
	extension of the family, paternalism
	
justice	laws, rules and regulations 	roles, duties, obligations

Conflict resolution	Adversial arbitration	Conciliatory compromise	
Human and political rights	- based on principle of individual freedom	- based on suprimacy of rights of a group over rights of individuals	
Access to ressources	- regulated by norm of equity 	- regulated by equality or needs	
Economy	-	based on competition
-	individual ownership	-	based on cooperation
-	common goods
-	sharing	

Critique 

Introduction to Critique and Discussion

We know – at least from the Swiss students – and we expect it also from the Armenian students – that they do not at all agree with this table, as both Nicole and me were pretty unsatisfied and somehow shocked by putting together this table. 

So we would like to ask you to discuss for 5-10 minutes with your neighbors what you think about it. Then we will collect the critiques, maybe add some more from our side and continue with our speech.

Critique Nicole

1)	Pejorative meaning
 One aspect we critize is the pejorative meaning which is often associated with the term collectivism. By talking about the distinction between collectivism and individualism, we must be aware of the value-laden connotations of the two terms: while “collectivism” is often associated with  group pressure, crowd behaviour, deindividuation, ethno-centrism, corrupt government etc. , “individualism” is associated with aspects like higher complexity, progress, equality, etc. which are seen as positive aspects in our society. This shows that most of these theories are from a western point of view which is not differenciated at all.

2) Link with modernization theory
 Another problematic point is the link with theories of modernization: in the theories we are talking about  it’s always collectivism which is first and will be replaced by the higher-devoleped individualism. And this is hardly put into question!
Hofstede and Triandis consider individualism rather than collectivism to be compatible with social organization, economic development and cultural and social complexity. But this is very problematic: One example which doesn’t fit into this theorie is Japan, which has a high economic development and a society of high complexity. But if we compare it to the I/C- modell it is found to be very collectivistic!
It is similar with India: Indians were found to be more competitive than Canadians in surveys! This shows that it is too simple just to categorize societies within these two types of social organization. 
Kagitçibasi says that often the societal characteristics associated with I/C  (like modernization) may have more to do with socioeconomic development, level of affluence and education, rural or urban residence, than with a collectivistic or individualistic form of social organization. Our distinction  may make sense at the level of shifts from tribal-agrarian to urban liefestyle (as Tönnies points it out ), but not in context of I/C. Most of societies today are urbanized and are highly complex (and even if they are not considered to be complex, we have to be aware that the criterias whether a society is complex or not are mainly western-made and not objective at all!).

3) No distinction between micro and macro level
Hardly any differenciation is made; there is always a shift between micro-and macro-level, between individual and social level in these kinds of theories. And its very stereotypical:
C/I are viewed as polar opposites, but as we already mentioned: most of societies are somewhere between I and C, like  India: In indian cultures we can find many aspects with are more individualistic, others are more collectivistic. It also depends on the position of the specific person, culture, etc. 
These theories also don’t mention that – if a difference between two kinds of social organization can be found - we have to make distinctions between different types of Collectivism as well as different types of Individualism: As less as we can put  Russia and Namibia into one category, we can hardly put Switzerland and the United States into the same category.

Critique Mirjam

1.	No distinction between values and norms
No distinction is made between norms and values. Researcher treated the following questions the same:
-	„What should it be like“
-	„How is it in reality“
So it is never clear what they do research on and if the articles are written about reality or about moral standards. 

2.	Terms used as weapons for power struggles
The description of one group, nation, country or region as collectivist is often used as a weapon for power struggles, to stress differences. 

3.	Only descriptions, no explanations
Researchers are only interested in the explanation of the situation, but almost none of the researchers in the field of I/C asks for reasons. 

4.	Feminist Critique

If not mentioned in the seminar:
What does this table remind you of? Have you ever seen or heard of similar differences in completely different contexts?

When we were trying to put together this table we were not at all happy with the output, but it took us a long time to find out why. Now this is our explanation, which we can all discuss later.

This table reminded us of the differences that are made in the description between women and men. 

The norms and values used in the description of individual societies are really very close to the norms and values of western white middleclass men, as are the collectivist norms and values pretty much the same as western white middleclass woman’s norms. 

go through the table to show some examples!

Let me say some words to gender differences and why we think that this is in this context very important: 

Masculinity and Femininity are usually defined as being completely distinguishable and very different. 
Masculinity is considered as the normal, usual, all human part. On the other side, femininity is described as the other, different from the norms.

This relationship between the normal and the other is not only made in the gender discussion. You can find it also in other dichotomies:
for instance the other as the non-male, non-civilized, non-european, non-reasonable.....

So we argue that the whole table of individualism and collectivism is influenced completely by this gendered view:
the individualistic side is considered as the normal way of organizing a society, the rest is just considered as the other, the different, the somehow not understandable. 

The normal form always needs an explanation, as the male norms, values, history, always needs explanations. So it was with our speech: we found tons of books about individualism, individualization, western society. 

But we almost didn’t find any literature about collectivism. And what we found is what we have presented you here. Collectivism was defined and described only by being the opposite of the norm, so the opposite of individualism. 

This is the reason that we state here, that in this context, collectivism is only a gendered ideology of the west, and not reality in the east. 

Maybe some of the description of collectivist societies are true, maybe most of them are somehow true. But the theoretical explanation has just been proofed as being wrong. 

For this reason we have been looking for another sociological theory by which we could describe the differences between individualism and collectivism. This theory should not be based on modernization theory, shouldn’t judge between individualism and collectivism, it should explain individualism and collectivism in the same values system.

Maybe we haven’t found the perfect theory yet, at least we found one theory. We found out, that the theory of Bourdieu, a French contemporary sociologist,  could be able to explain some differences between individualism and collectivism.
Bourdieu himself has neither written about collectivism nor about eastern societies or postsovjet societies. He has done his ethnological studies in Algeria, in the kabylie. But his theory seems applicable to our interest. 

So let us present you his theory and keep in mind that this is just a try to get another explanation. In the discussion we can then see if it is a useful theory.

Economic, Social and Cultural Capital by Bourdieu

Bourdieu is a contemporary professor of Sociology in Paris whose theory got known in the late 80s of this century. It mainly consists of classical Marxist theory and modern cultural sociological research. 

His model of society is based on the idea of the economic capital, to which he adds also different kinds of capital.  

But let us start with his definition of Capital:

Capital is accumulated work, in form of material or in incorporated form.

He differs between three different kinds of capital:

1. Economic Capital 	consists of material resources, mostly of money, possessions 
  				and property. 

2. Cultural Capital		consists mostly of education and is transmitted in the family and 
  				in school
				
     incorporated form 	disposition, cultivation of a person, 
needs time to learn, in school or in family, 
not possible to give it to another one

	objectivated form	cultural goods, books, pictures, 
		materially changeable, 
		one needs economic capital to get objectivated cultural capital, to get objectivated cultural capital incorporated cultural capital is needed!

	institutionalized form	education, titles, 
		institutional acknowledgment,
		prove of cultural competence, 
		titles are usually the transformation of economic capital to cultural capital

3. Social Capital	Consists of the social contacts of a person, of the social network one has access to 

So it is the total of the actual and potential resources that are based on a consistent network of relationships, acquaintances and appreciation 

The amount of social capital one owns is dependent on two factors:
1.	expansion of the net of relationships that one can mobilize
2.	amount of economic, cultural and symbolic capital that the people in this network possess. 

So the social capital has a multiplicating effect on the other capitals.

the network is the product of personal and collective investment strategies that are linked to the creation and maintainances of social relations that could later bring profit.

apart from relationships in the family acquaintances that happen by chance – for instance neighborhood, friends from work – are important. Some of them are transformed in a constant process to special, important and useful relations that will demand obligations. 

Relations are reproduced by constant exchange through words, gifts, help.... 

So a group is reproduced by reciprocal acknowledgement. Trough this process its boarders are confirmed. This has two effects:
1.	Every member of the group is a guardian of the groups boarders. 
2.	New group members are somehow dangerous, as the definition of the membership of this group is questioned. So new members need to be confirmed by all the group.

The reproduction of social capital needs constant work on this net, on the relationship in form of consistent exchange actions. For this work a lot of time and money is needed!

In all groups there are more or less institutionalized forms of delegation of the power. So all the capital is given to one person or one small group. The authorized or empowered person is appointed to represent all the group, to act and talk in the groups name. 

In western societies the main capital is the economical capital. So all kinds of capital can be bought by economical capital, but the price for the transformation is sometimes very high. Either it costs a lot of money, usually a lot of time!

The more the official transformation and transfer of economical capital is hindered or forbidden, the more important social and cultural capital get, the more the structure of a society is defined by social and cultural capital.

So I would say that Armenia was a society in which economic capital was hindered, either because it was a traditional society or a socialist society. Because of this, social capital plays a crucial role. 

In order not to use the individualist and collectivist concepts any more we could describe the difference between Armenia and Switzerland by saying that different capital is important in these two countries. Where economic capital is most important society must be structured differently than where social capital is most important. 

So the predominant capital influences and shapes the structure, form and relationships in a society.