• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
service to self is necessary for the individual to grow physically and psychologically/spiritually.

once the basics are met, then that one can share its excess through philanthropy


thank you
No problem, so long as it's done voluntarily,
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Imo it really depends more on culture. Britain isn't what I would call a two-party system and we tend to be individualistic in contrast to many nations, but when compared to the US we can be quite collectivist.


We are unique...
Just like everyone else.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Bit of a misrepresentation imo. It's not really a dichotomy, but 2 points on a continuum where modern societies fall somewhere in between.

Individualism in this context is not really about 'relying only on themselves', it's about the extent to which a given society places emphasis on the rights of the individual vis-a-vis the rights of the group (tribe, family, religion, nation, etc.).

The greater the degree of collectivism the more the individual is expected to subjugate some of their own desires to fulfil traditions or limit their behaviours to meet group expectations.
Not really
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
The greater the degree of collectivism the more the individual is expected to subjugate some of their own desires to fulfil traditions or limit their behaviours to meet group expectations.
and there it is...how far that line goes is always the question....the imbalance we see when injustice prevails, wars, strife, dirty competition, attrition, etc.
How far will one be expected to bend for the greater social good..... history shows all manner of barbarism and sadism which show just how far people are expected to bend by obviously deranged and wicked individuals and institutions.
so what rights then does one have that cannot have a lien put against them, via some kind of contract...like this invisible social contract we are assumed to have and are presumed to uphold, yet inequity is the order of that game where the bottom rung of the societal ladder is expected to give all while the few on top never do....I haven't seen any kind of sign of some kind of truly benevolent system yet.....people are savage barbarians, hell bent on enslaving each other.
always some kind of consideration involved in everything people do.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I'll elaborate...
People are social animals in a spectrum.
Some lean more in the individualism direction.
Others in the hive direction.
It's not about extremes....purity is a rarity.
Implying that individuals are the opposite of society, which is terrible nonsense
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
"We tend to be individualistic" is one of the most ironic statements I've read in a long time.

I think that individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive. There can be individual freedoms that benefit the collective.

For example, personal property is an individual freedom that benefits the collective.

And it goes both ways.

For example, public property is collective principle that benefits individuals.

It is not even accurate to say that individualism and collectivism exist as opposite poles on a dynamic scale. IMO, that fails to describe the relationship of the individual to the collective and vice versa.

The question should be: What sorts of things are best managed collectively and what sorts of things are best managed individually?
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I think that individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive. There can be individual freedoms that benefit the collective.

For example, personal property is an individual freedom that benefits the collective.

And it goes both ways.

For example, public property is collective principle that benefits individuals.

It is not even accurate to say that individualism and collectivism exist as opposite poles on a dynamic scale. IMO, that fails to describe the relationship of the individual to the collective and vice versa.

The question should be: What sorts of things are best managed collectively and what sorts of things are best managed individually?
Personal property is not an individual freedom, it's a social obligation. Otherwise I agree.
 
Not really

Really.

Collectivist values are characterized by moral frameworks and social behaviours which emphasize the group and its interests and therefore favour in-group interests (such as communal, societal, or national interests) over the interests of its individual members, and further favour the interests of in-group members over those of out-group members. Individualistic values, on the other hand, favour the interests of the individuals over the interests of in-group as well as out-group members; they therefore value the independence, self-reliance and self-realization of the individual over communal, societal, or national interests

Individualistic values are related to an increase in the outbreaks of infectious diseases and zoonotic diseases | Scientific Reports
 
Top