Collectivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Collectivistic)
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with collecting or collectivization.

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture). Collectivist orientations stress the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an "in-group", in what specific context it is defined) and in some cases, the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists often focus on community, society, nation or country. It has been used as an element in many different and diverse types of government and political, economic and educational philosophies throughout history and most human societies in practice contain elements of both individualism and collectivism. Some examples of collectivist cultures include Pakistan, India and Japan.

Collectivism can be divided into horizontal (or egalitarian) collectivism and vertical (or hierarchical) collectivism. Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization and egalitarianism. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and on moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization and hierarchy. A cooperative enterprise would be an example of horizontal collectivism, whereas a military hierarchy would be an example of vertical collectivism.[1]

Typology[edit]

Collectivism has been used to refer to a diverse range of political and economic positions, including nationalism, direct democracy, representative democracy and monarchy. In modern times, collectivism is sometimes thought to be synonymous with the political culture and system of the former Soviet Union,[citation needed] specifically to the ideologies of Leninism and Marxist-Leninism for their emphasis on a Vanguard party and paramilitary organizational principles, though collectivism more accurately simply means "group oriented" or "group orientation." Collectivism does not require a government or political system to exist (an example of that would be a religious organization that stresses "group goals" within it that is not backed by a government like American or Canadian society), but it can also exist within a political system rather than simply "on the ground". Primarily, collectivism describes how groups orient themselves naturally within a society.[citation needed]

Collectivism can be typified as "horizontal collectivism", wherein equality is emphasized and people engage in sharing and cooperation, or "vertical collectivism", wherein hierarchy is emphasized and people submit to specific authorities.[2] Horizontal collectivism is based on the assumption that each individual is more or less equal, while vertical collectivism assumes that individuals are fundamentally different from each other.[3] Social anarchist Alexander Berkman, who was a horizontal collectivist, argued that equality does not imply a lack of unique individuality, but an equal amount of freedom and equal opportunity to develop one's own skills and talents,

equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence.[4]

Indeed, horizontal collectivists argue that the idea of individuals sacrificing themselves for the "group" or "greater good" is nonsensical, arguing that groups are made up of individuals (including oneself) and are not a cohesive, monolithic entity separate from the self. But most social anarchists do not see themselves as collectivists or individualists, viewing both as illusory ideologies based on fiction .[5]

Horizontal collectivists tend to favour democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups.[3]

Culture and politics[edit]

Collectivism is a basic element of human culture that exists independently of any one political system and has existed since the founding of human society ten thousand years ago. It is a feature that all societies use to some degree or another and therefore an inherent feature of human nature. For example, monarchical societies often had a system of "social ranks" which were collectivist because the social rank one had or did not have was more important than his or her individual will, and the specific rank in question could only be overridden in very limited cases. An example of collectivism in more modern times are the police and fire departments. All individuals (except in rare cases) are expected to pay taxes to these organizations and their will has been overridden in making them do so under law, thus they are collectivist institutions. We also see, that in regards to a police department, an individual can be detained whether he or she wishes to or not, overriding his or her will as an example of collectivism.

An example of a collectivist political system is representative democracy, as in such systems, after voting occurs and a leader has been chosen by the populace everyone is expected to accept that individual as their leader regardless of whether they voted for them or not. For example, in the United States Presidential election of 2012 Barack Obama received a majority of the electoral college votes cast, and the opposition was expected to submit to letting him lead them whether or not they had originally voted for him. The will of the "collective" (President Obama voters) mattered more and is considered "collectivist" because ultimately, the totality of decision by the voters in the country, expressed through the electoral college system, was more important than the will of any single individual in that context.

Though all human societies contain elements of both individualism and collectivism by definition (if not they would become unstable), some societies are on the whole more collectivist and some on the whole more individualist. In collectivist societies, the group is considered more important than any one individual and groups in such societies are expected to "take care" of their members and individuals are expected to "take care" of the group (usually called an "in-group") that they are a member of. Harmony within these groups is considered paramount. For example, it may be considered "inappropriate" for a member of an in-group to openly criticize another in public (though they are often allowed to do so in private). Collectivism does have its advantages as compared to individualist societies as people in collectivist societies almost always have access to a "group" and as such are known to be considered "happier", "less lonely", and have lower rates of mental illness in studies done by psychologists and political scientists. People in individual societies are known to feel "lonely" at some times or another compared to their collectivist counterparts. Many people also find it easier, to live in a society where social harmony is stressed and groups by definition remain more cohesive than in individualist societies where groups are observed to be inherently less stable. However, it depends on the preference of an individual if they wish to live in a collectivist society like Japan or an individualist one like the United States. One type could not be said to be better than another and both are known to come into existence naturally as a consequence of human nature.

Criticisms[edit]

Classical liberal criticisms[edit]

There are two main objections to collectivism from the ideas of individualism. One is that collectivism stifles individuality and diversity by insisting upon a common social identity, such as nationalism or some other group focus. The other is that collectivism is linked to statism and the diminution of freedom when political authority is used to advance collectivist goals.[6]

Criticism of collectivism comes from liberal individualists, such as classical liberals, libertarians, Objectivists, and individualist anarchists. Perhaps the most notable modern criticism of economic collectivism is the one put forward by Friedrich Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944.

Ludwig von Mises wrote:

On the other hand the application of the basic ideas of collectivism cannot result in anything but social disintegration and the perpetuation of armed conflict. It is true that every variety of collectivism promises eternal peace starting with the day of its own decisive victory and the final overthrow and extermination of all other ideologies and their supporters. ... As soon as a faction has succeeded in winning the support of the majority of citizens and thereby attained control of the government machine, it is free to deny to the minority all those democratic rights by means of which it itself has previously carried on its own struggle for supremacy.[7]

Socialist criticisms[edit]

Many socialists, particularly libertarian socialists, individualist anarchists, and De Leonists criticise the concept of collectivism. Some anti-collectivists often argue that all authoritarian and totalitarian societies are (vertically) collectivist in nature. Socialists argue that modern capitalism and private property, which is based on socialized production and joint-stock or corporate ownership structures, is a form of organic collectivism that sharply contrasts with the perception that capitalism is a system of free individuals exchanging commodities.[8] Socialists sometimes argue that true individualism can only exist when individuals are free from coercive social structures to pursue their own interests, which can only be accomplished by common ownership of socialized, productive assets and free access to the means of life so that no individual has coercive power over other individuals.[9]

George Orwell, a dedicated democratic socialist,[10] believed that collectivism resulted in the empowerment of a minority of individuals that led to further oppression of the majority of the population in the name of some ideal such as freedom.

It cannot be said too often – at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough – that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of.[11]

Yet in the subsequent sentence he also warns of the tyranny of private ownership over the means of production:

... that a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state.[11]

Marxists criticize this use of the term "collectivism," on the grounds that all societies are based on class interests and therefore all societies could be considered "collectivist." The liberal ideal of the free individual is seen from a Marxist perspective as a smokescreen for the collective interests of the capitalist class.[citation needed] Social anarchists argue that "individualism" is a front for the interests of the upper class. As anarchist Emma Goldman wrote:

'rugged individualism'... is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by the [ruling] classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit ... That corrupt and perverse 'individualism' is the straitjacket of individuality. ... [It] has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions driving millions to the breadline. 'Rugged individualism' has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking 'supermen.' ... Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one of the many pretenses the ruling class makes to mask unbridled business and political extortion.[12]

In response to criticism made by various pro-capitalist groups that claim that public ownership or common ownership of the means of production is a form of collectivism, socialists maintain that common ownership over productive assets does not infringe upon the individual, but is instead a liberating force that transcends the false dichotomy of individualism and collectivism.[13] Socialists maintain that these critiques conflate the concept of private property in the means of production with personal possessions and individual production.

Other criticisms[edit]

Ayn Rand, creator of the ideology Objectivism and a particularly vocal opponent of collectivism, argued that it led to totalitarianism. She argued that "collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group," and that "throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good." She further claimed that "horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by altruists who justify themselves by the common good."[14] (The "altruists" Rand refers to are not those who practice simple benevolence or charity, but rather those who believe in Auguste Comte's ethical doctrine of altruism which holds that there is "a moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good.").[15]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995)
  2. ^ Triandis, Harry C. (2001). "Individualism-Collectivism and Personality". Journal of Personality 69 (6): 909. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696169. 
  3. ^ a b Triandis, Harry C.; Gelfand, Michele J. (1998). "Converging Measurement of Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (1): 119. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118. 
  4. ^ Berkman, Alexander. The ABC of Anarchism, p. 25
  5. ^ A.2 What does anarchism stand for?
  6. ^ Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 122
  7. ^ The Fallacy of Collectivism
  8. ^ Capital, Volume 1, by Marx, Karl. From "Chapter 32: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation": "Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent laboring-individual with the conditions of his labor, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labor of others, i.e., on wage-labor. As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers."
  9. ^ Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists, by Schweickart, David; Lawler, James; Ticktin, Hillel; Ollman, Bertell. 1998. From "Definitions of market and socialism" (pp. 58–59): "The control over the surplus product rests with the majority of the population through a resolutely democratic process...The sale of labour power is abolished and labour necessarily becomes creative. Everyone participates in running their institutions and society as a whole. No one controls anyone else."
  10. ^ Orwell, George Why I Write
  11. ^ a b George Orwell, review of The Road to Serfdom (1944)
  12. ^ Red Emma Speaks, p. 112 and 443
  13. ^ http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/n.htm#individualism
  14. ^ Rand, Ayn. The Only Path to Tomorrow, Readers Digest, January 1944, pp. 88–90
  15. ^ Smith, George H. Ayn Rand on Altruism, Egoism, and Rights