Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).
It seems to me that psychologists and researchers are apt to classify their research material into categories, even if none are necessary. While psychologists and researchers try to hold true to positivist thought and maintain complete objectivity, it is quite impossible to remove themselves entirely from human nature and, some might argue, from the research itself (Gergen, 1985). It appears to be a human tendency to classify. Our ancestors classified according to type and we continue to classify according to qualities.
Of late I have been reading about Individualism and collectivism. I am aware that Deaf studies researchers have classified Deaf culture as collectivist and my thesis hinges on what many perceive to be collectivist traits. Individualism and collectivism are not new categories in psychology. The concepts have been around for over a century (Fiske, 2002). That these categories exist is a testament to human need for clear boundaries. Earlier research I’ve read (and some later ones, too, but we won’t go into that right now) have attempted to establish certain cultures as either collectivist or individualist. Western culture, for example, is usually classified as individualist and eastern culture, collectivist (Fiske, 2002; Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Culture; however, is not so stark. Individualism and collectivism, for example, are not exactly opposites (Fiske, 2002). When describing individualism and collectivism in general terms, psychologists tend to refer to the person’s relationship to the group (Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Collectivists tend to derive a sense of self from their role in the greater community. Individualists derive a sense of self from their own desires. There is; however, no negative correlation between individualists and collectivists (Fiske, 2002). In most dyad categories, the categories themselves are polar opposites. Black is the opposite of white, so given two categories, an item is either black or white. Culture, according to Fiske (2002) is neither black or white, but a rainbow of colors. While we like our nice boundaries between individualist and collectivist cultures, researchers have found that very rarely is a culture completely individualist or completely collectivist (Fiske, 2002).
Trandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) attempted to ameliorate this situation with the terms, “idiocentric” and “allocentric”. While it was helpful to classify cultures as collectivist with idiocentric qualities or individualist with allocentric qualities, the terminologies still allowed for broad classifications. A good comparison would be gender. Some people insist that there are only male and female genders. Trandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990)’s terminology allows for men with feminine characteristics or women with masculine characteristics. Fiske (1990) on the other hand, would argue that even Trandis, McCusker, & Hui’s classifications are still too extreme. How might one measure a gender trait? Is it a masculine trait to prefer sports over dolls? Fiske (2002) believes that it may be impossible to truly classify a culture as either individualist or collectivist.
Let’s begin with the general distinction that western cultures are individualist and eastern cultures are collectivist. Recent studies have shown that Japanese culture, in many ways, is more individualist than western cultures, depending on how the studies are set (Fiske, 2002). Korea is just as collectivist as North American cultures (Fiske, 2002). Given that two of the major countries in the “east” are individualist, it is a misconception to claim that eastern cultures are generally collectivist. Fiske (1990) mentions that it is also improper to assume that country has a set culture which is either collectivist or individualist. American does not have a singular culture because it is not homogenous. This holds true for other countries as well. Japan, which is considered pretty homogenous, has many different cultures, each with different norms and values (Fiske, 2002). That society is so heterogeneous makes it hard to use general terms, at least when culture is involved.
There is also not a singular type of individualist or collectivist culture (Fiske, 2002). Cultures considered collectivist will not be similar. What a particular culture values as important for its collective soul is not the same as what another culture values for its collective soul. The collective cultures of China and India are not the same. That there are many types of collective cultures holds true for individualist cultures as well. Individualist cultures are not all self-serving, hedonists (Fiske, 2002). Scandinavian culture, which is more individualist than North American culture, is non-competitive and finds referring to the self, shameful (Fiske, 2002).
Even in cultures, whether or not a person has collectivist or individualist tendencies varies with age. Post-college aged adults tend to be more individualist while college-aged persons tend to be more collectivist (Fiske, 2002). That means a person from a culture generally considered collectivist may be, at any point in his or her life, either collectivist or individualist. For me, this points to the fluidity of the sense of self, and for cultural affiliation. A person is not only of one culture (Fiske, 2002). Personally, Deaf culture is not the only culture for which I consider myself a member. I am also a part of Jewish culture as well as an overall American culture. I do not consider my membership in different cultures a bad thing. Many leaders in the Deafhood movement have considered the general American/hearing culture to be a colonial culture. While I understand that hearing culture has served to oppress me and “colonize” my primary culture, I bear no more anger towards it than I do my puppy who occasionally bites me by accident. It is possible that those who lash out at colonial hearing culture may be in the immersion-emersion stage of self-actualization, but I am in no position to judge (Parham & Helms, 1985).
That culture is fluid is a matter of course. I was not born into Deaf culture. I migrated into it. It is questionable whether or not a Deaf person who is actualized into Deaf culture can truly leave it; but I can envision émigrés abandoning their parent culture in favor of an adopted culture. Truly labels cannot contain culture. Gergen (1985) points out that language is a harsh tool for manipulating abstract and subjective concepts. I am inclined to agree with him.
People are rather insistent that things be either this or that. In order to test whether something is either this or that, or in this case, whether a culture is individualist or collectivist, a system of measures need to be developed. In the past, psychologists used tests which consists of a statement and a ranking (Fiske, 2002). For example, a person taking a individualist/collectivist measurement assessment might find a question which reads “I do not mind taking orders from my parents”. The person would then rank the validity of that statement from 1 to 5. There are many immediate problems with this form of assessment. First, the numerical scale used to rank the validity of the statement is arbitrary. Is the statement of a person who circled 4 twice as valid as the statement of a person who circled 2? Even if the statements are measured on an ordinal scale, the numbers have no quantifiable meaning. That a person circled a 4 for the previously mentioned statement tells me nothing about whether or not the person minds taking orders from his or her parents. It is an arbitrary snap-shot statistic which is dependant on the participant’s frame of mind while taking the assessment as well as his or her understanding of the sentence.
Given that language is a social beast means that culture has an enormous impact on how language is used and understood (Gergen, 1985). Two speakers of English from different cultures may have different semantic interpretations of the same sentence (Fiske, 2002). This is particularly true of extremely subjective, vague terms such as “how much”, “privacy’, or various distance adverbs (Fiske, 2002). Two people from different cultures confronted with the same statement may circle different numbers although in truth, their cultures value that particular statement equally. The different interpretation of the sentences destroyed any statistical truth the statement might’ve had. If speakers of the same language might interpret the same sentence differently, we can only imagine the difficulties translation might incur.
Deaf people tend to rely on visual language. Visual language is processed quite differently than verbal. If reality is constructed on language, then a Deaf reality is nicely different than a hearing reality. If a Deaf person were to take the cultural assessment mentioned above, it is likely that Deaf scores could not accurately be compared to hearing scores since each statement would have a different truth bearing for the Deaf person.
Given that measuring individualism and collectivism is meaningless, and it is not likely than an adequate system will be developed soon, it is moot to attempt to classify cultures as either individualist or collectivist (Fiske, 2002). It is pointless to compare cultures since cultures are rarely formed in relation to another (Fiske, 2002). Cultures should be assessed and crystallized as a meaningful self without arbitrary labels.
I have not seen any assessment that proves Deaf culture to be collectivist, but any such assessment would be irrelevant. It would have to compare Deaf culture to other collectivist cultures and individualist cultures. Fiske (2002) has shown the futility of such an endeavor. I do not have enough information to determine the validity of claims that Deaf culture is collectivist; however, I am willing to accept that there is a tendency for deaf people to actualize through the group. This, to me, shows more of a need to communicate fluidly with people who understand the culture than any form of pure collectivism.
Fiske, A.P. (2002) Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin. 128(1). 78-88. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist. 40(3). 266-275. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.
Parham & Helms (1985) Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states of black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 32(3) 431-440. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.
Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5). 1006-1020. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.
It seems to me that psychologists and researchers are apt to classify their research material into categories, even if none are necessary. While psychologists and researchers try to hold true to positivist thought and maintain complete objectivity, it is quite impossible to remove themselves entirely from human nature and, some might argue, from the research itself (Gergen, 1985). It appears to be a human tendency to classify. Our ancestors classified according to type and we continue to classify according to qualities.
Of late I have been reading about Individualism and collectivism. I am aware that Deaf studies researchers have classified Deaf culture as collectivist and my thesis hinges on what many perceive to be collectivist traits. Individualism and collectivism are not new categories in psychology. The concepts have been around for over a century (Fiske, 2002). That these categories exist is a testament to human need for clear boundaries. Earlier research I’ve read (and some later ones, too, but we won’t go into that right now) have attempted to establish certain cultures as either collectivist or individualist. Western culture, for example, is usually classified as individualist and eastern culture, collectivist (Fiske, 2002; Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Culture; however, is not so stark. Individualism and collectivism, for example, are not exactly opposites (Fiske, 2002). When describing individualism and collectivism in general terms, psychologists tend to refer to the person’s relationship to the group (Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Collectivists tend to derive a sense of self from their role in the greater community. Individualists derive a sense of self from their own desires. There is; however, no negative correlation between individualists and collectivists (Fiske, 2002). In most dyad categories, the categories themselves are polar opposites. Black is the opposite of white, so given two categories, an item is either black or white. Culture, according to Fiske (2002) is neither black or white, but a rainbow of colors. While we like our nice boundaries between individualist and collectivist cultures, researchers have found that very rarely is a culture completely individualist or completely collectivist (Fiske, 2002).
Trandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) attempted to ameliorate this situation with the terms, “idiocentric” and “allocentric”. While it was helpful to classify cultures as collectivist with idiocentric qualities or individualist with allocentric qualities, the terminologies still allowed for broad classifications. A good comparison would be gender. Some people insist that there are only male and female genders. Trandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990)’s terminology allows for men with feminine characteristics or women with masculine characteristics. Fiske (1990) on the other hand, would argue that even Trandis, McCusker, & Hui’s classifications are still too extreme. How might one measure a gender trait? Is it a masculine trait to prefer sports over dolls? Fiske (2002) believes that it may be impossible to truly classify a culture as either individualist or collectivist.
Let’s begin with the general distinction that western cultures are individualist and eastern cultures are collectivist. Recent studies have shown that Japanese culture, in many ways, is more individualist than western cultures, depending on how the studies are set (Fiske, 2002). Korea is just as collectivist as North American cultures (Fiske, 2002). Given that two of the major countries in the “east” are individualist, it is a misconception to claim that eastern cultures are generally collectivist. Fiske (1990) mentions that it is also improper to assume that country has a set culture which is either collectivist or individualist. American does not have a singular culture because it is not homogenous. This holds true for other countries as well. Japan, which is considered pretty homogenous, has many different cultures, each with different norms and values (Fiske, 2002). That society is so heterogeneous makes it hard to use general terms, at least when culture is involved.
There is also not a singular type of individualist or collectivist culture (Fiske, 2002). Cultures considered collectivist will not be similar. What a particular culture values as important for its collective soul is not the same as what another culture values for its collective soul. The collective cultures of China and India are not the same. That there are many types of collective cultures holds true for individualist cultures as well. Individualist cultures are not all self-serving, hedonists (Fiske, 2002). Scandinavian culture, which is more individualist than North American culture, is non-competitive and finds referring to the self, shameful (Fiske, 2002).
Even in cultures, whether or not a person has collectivist or individualist tendencies varies with age. Post-college aged adults tend to be more individualist while college-aged persons tend to be more collectivist (Fiske, 2002). That means a person from a culture generally considered collectivist may be, at any point in his or her life, either collectivist or individualist. For me, this points to the fluidity of the sense of self, and for cultural affiliation. A person is not only of one culture (Fiske, 2002). Personally, Deaf culture is not the only culture for which I consider myself a member. I am also a part of Jewish culture as well as an overall American culture. I do not consider my membership in different cultures a bad thing. Many leaders in the Deafhood movement have considered the general American/hearing culture to be a colonial culture. While I understand that hearing culture has served to oppress me and “colonize” my primary culture, I bear no more anger towards it than I do my puppy who occasionally bites me by accident. It is possible that those who lash out at colonial hearing culture may be in the immersion-emersion stage of self-actualization, but I am in no position to judge (Parham & Helms, 1985).
That culture is fluid is a matter of course. I was not born into Deaf culture. I migrated into it. It is questionable whether or not a Deaf person who is actualized into Deaf culture can truly leave it; but I can envision émigrés abandoning their parent culture in favor of an adopted culture. Truly labels cannot contain culture. Gergen (1985) points out that language is a harsh tool for manipulating abstract and subjective concepts. I am inclined to agree with him.
People are rather insistent that things be either this or that. In order to test whether something is either this or that, or in this case, whether a culture is individualist or collectivist, a system of measures need to be developed. In the past, psychologists used tests which consists of a statement and a ranking (Fiske, 2002). For example, a person taking a individualist/collectivist measurement assessment might find a question which reads “I do not mind taking orders from my parents”. The person would then rank the validity of that statement from 1 to 5. There are many immediate problems with this form of assessment. First, the numerical scale used to rank the validity of the statement is arbitrary. Is the statement of a person who circled 4 twice as valid as the statement of a person who circled 2? Even if the statements are measured on an ordinal scale, the numbers have no quantifiable meaning. That a person circled a 4 for the previously mentioned statement tells me nothing about whether or not the person minds taking orders from his or her parents. It is an arbitrary snap-shot statistic which is dependant on the participant’s frame of mind while taking the assessment as well as his or her understanding of the sentence.
Given that language is a social beast means that culture has an enormous impact on how language is used and understood (Gergen, 1985). Two speakers of English from different cultures may have different semantic interpretations of the same sentence (Fiske, 2002). This is particularly true of extremely subjective, vague terms such as “how much”, “privacy’, or various distance adverbs (Fiske, 2002). Two people from different cultures confronted with the same statement may circle different numbers although in truth, their cultures value that particular statement equally. The different interpretation of the sentences destroyed any statistical truth the statement might’ve had. If speakers of the same language might interpret the same sentence differently, we can only imagine the difficulties translation might incur.
Deaf people tend to rely on visual language. Visual language is processed quite differently than verbal. If reality is constructed on language, then a Deaf reality is nicely different than a hearing reality. If a Deaf person were to take the cultural assessment mentioned above, it is likely that Deaf scores could not accurately be compared to hearing scores since each statement would have a different truth bearing for the Deaf person.
Given that measuring individualism and collectivism is meaningless, and it is not likely than an adequate system will be developed soon, it is moot to attempt to classify cultures as either individualist or collectivist (Fiske, 2002). It is pointless to compare cultures since cultures are rarely formed in relation to another (Fiske, 2002). Cultures should be assessed and crystallized as a meaningful self without arbitrary labels.
I have not seen any assessment that proves Deaf culture to be collectivist, but any such assessment would be irrelevant. It would have to compare Deaf culture to other collectivist cultures and individualist cultures. Fiske (2002) has shown the futility of such an endeavor. I do not have enough information to determine the validity of claims that Deaf culture is collectivist; however, I am willing to accept that there is a tendency for deaf people to actualize through the group. This, to me, shows more of a need to communicate fluidly with people who understand the culture than any form of pure collectivism.
Fiske, A.P. (2002) Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin. 128(1). 78-88. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist. 40(3). 266-275. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.
Parham & Helms (1985) Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states of black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 32(3) 431-440. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.
Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5). 1006-1020. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.
posted by Jon at 12:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home