|
Sample Student final exam answers 2018 (2018 final exam assignment) Part 3: Model Research Reports |
LITR 4340
|
 |
Tammy Tran
Collectivism: More than a Cog in the Machine
A common association to collectivism is the phrase “a cog in the machine,”
meaning an important but small part of a larger whole. Although it has its
similarity to the idea of collectivism, the phrase is commonly used with a tinge
of negativity, suggesting the person is just an object or tool and almost
insignificant to the bigger picture. In other words, this phrase used to
illustrate collectivism is colored by the lens of individualism. In an effort to
remove the colored lens, I explore aspects of collectivism in order to depart
from simple phrases to describe the ideology. Collectivism also relates to U.S.
immigration because there are people who come from collectivist countries;
immigrants and their children must then grapple with conflicting ideologies, so
examining collectivism will illuminate immigrant identities and how it affects
assimilation in America.
To start with something that may be more familiar, a general definition of
individualism is an ideology that prioritizes the individual’s identity and
values over those of a group. A common example of an individualist country is
the U.S. because people there tend to value independence, individual choice and
rights, and competition (Leake and Rhonda 21). On the other hand, collectivism
is generally defined as an ideology that values group identity and cohesion over
an individual. Many refer to China as a collectivist nation. Characteristics of
collectivism include interdependence, group roles and achievements, and family
(Leake and Rhonda 21).
Of course, reality is always more complicated than labels or categories make
them out to be. Although the U.S. is known for its individualist ideology,
people still incorporate some collectivist characteristics, like the value of
group work within corporations. The same goes for collectivist countries. The
difference is suggested in the definitions, which is whether the group or the
individual is prioritized over the other. However, first understanding
collectivism is difficult when also adding these complexities into the equation.
In order to examine the theory of collectivism more easily, I will refer to
people or nations leaning more towards collectivism as collectivists or
collectivist countries.
Within collectivism, there are two subgroups: vertical and horizontal
collectivism. Vertical collectivism is seeing oneself as part of a group and
accepting hierarchy within the group, while horizontal collectivism is
identifying oneself as an aspect of the group and seeing all members as equals
(Singelis 240). In Candelaria’s “El Patron,” the narrator describes the
hierarchy Dios (God), El Papa (the Pope), and el patron (the boss) as cherished
by his father-in-law Senor Martinez, a collectivist (221). This hierarchy is an
example of vertical collectivism, where each respect those above them.
Interestingly, these two subgroups relate to gendered power dynamics in the
family as well. Senor Martinez in “El Patron” is also a vertical collectivist
because he follows the traditional hierarchy of the family, where men have more
authority and women maintain the supporting role (Candelaria 222).
However, the definition of horizontal collectivism suggests that not all
collectivists necessarily stick to traditional gender roles, debunking the
assumption that all collectivists embrace inequality. Additionally, vertical and
horizontal collectivism are not complete separate entities, but may overlap and
work simultaneously on a micro- and macro-level (Lucas). For instance, analysts
working together generally illustrate horizontal collectivism but they are also
working as part of a corporation with supervisors and managers, making it also
vertical collectivism. Again, collectivism is much more complex than a simple
phrase could capture.
Whether the family is structured by vertical or horizontal collectivism, it is
generally valued by collectivists. Interestingly, the preferred definition of
family is different for (American) individualists and immigrant collectivists.
Collectivists tend to define family in a way that includes both the nuclear and
extended family, while individualists in the U.S. define family as mainly the
nuclear family, as implied by family and immigration laws that privilege nuclear
families and exclude extended families as “family” (Demleitner 2003). It is not
to say individualists do not believe those outside the nuclear family cannot be
family, but that their focus is generally on the nuclear family members.
Additionally, a common term in family research on Latin Americans is familism,
which is a social structure that is centered on family rather than individual
demands (Lucas). This term illustrates the collectivist value of family over the
individual, although that is not to say individualists do not value family; the
determining factor is whether family is viewed as more important than the
individual. Interestingly, collectivist families tend to prioritize the children
and elderly parents while individualist families generally prioritize the
romantic spouses (Lucas). Moreover, Latin American youth tend to disclose more
information to their parents (Lucas) and Asian American youth consistently
assist their parents in later years than white parents in the U.S. (Tseng 980).
Nuclear and extended families are significant to the identity of collectivist
people.
Religion can be as much a part of their lives as family. Whether people are more
or less religious than others, humans tend to rely on religion or religious
texts to alleviate their overwhelming distress. Thus, religion has a great
impact on people and how they act. For instance, Christianity and Buddhism
differ in how they boost certain emotions. Christian texts are found to promote
high-arousal-positive (HAP) emotions, such as enthusiasm and elatedness, while
Buddhist texts encourages low-arousal-positive (LAP) emotions, such as calmness
and peace (Cohen, et al. 1244). The emotions each religion promotes seem to
match their general categories; Christianity stimulates HAP emotions that are
more purposed for the individual while the LAP emotions nurtured by Buddhists
are more for collective harmony. However, religions cannot be confidently
categorized as collectivist or individualist because many religions have both
qualities. To use the same examples, Christianity is generally seen as
individualist because they support personal faith in God but also foster an
involved community of believers, a more collectivist characteristic due to its
focus on a group identity. Buddhism, on the other hand, is generally seen as
collectivist, but it also focuses on the inner-self (Cohen, et al. 1241).
Collectivist identity can thus comprise of their relationship with family and
religion. To explain, it seems easy to define the self for individualists
because identity refers to the self and they tend to think about the self
frequently. It then seems a bit counterintuitive to contemplate how a
collectivist sees the self when he/she/they prioritizes the group over the self.
Nevertheless, a collectivist does have a sense of self, although it may be
different than that of an individualist. Lieber describes the collectivist self
as “a locus of shared biographies: personal histories of people’s relationships
with other people and with other things. The relationship defines the person,
not vice-versa” (72). In other words, the self is not entirely a separate entity
from everything else but a part of a vast network of relationships. My mother,
an immigrant from a collectivist country, always tells me that I am not the only
one in my life. My actions affect the family and those around me whether I like
it or not. Interestingly, as a person born in America and raised by immigrant
parents, I seem to possess both individualist and collectivist values that make
up my identity. People born in an individualist country but are raised by
collectivist parents pick up both ideologies and must negotiate between them.
Regardless of having a collectivist identity or a combination of both
ideologies, people can experience complications if they attempt to assimilate
into an individualist culture. Although no person or country is purely
collectivist or individualist, these values can clash. As mentioned before,
people who share both collectivist and individualist values must find ways to
pick one or the other, or negotiate between them. For instance, parents from the
“model minority” are more inclined to encourage or force their children to take
up certain successful occupations, such as those in the medical, engineering,
and business fields. However, most U.S. college advisors tend to encourage
students to pursue their passions. American-born children from collectivist
families must negotiate between parental expectations and their personal
interests, which may or may not align.
Sometimes social structures in an individualist country force collectivist
families to assimilate or find other ways to work around the system. For
example, employee health insurance generally cover the nuclear family. Workers
who want to cover their parents must find additional coverage for them, even if
they live in the same household. Additionally, the insurance does not cover
adult children, despite those in collectivist families who tend to stay with
their parents until marriage or even after marriage. The value of keeping
families together clashes with a structure that does not broadly promote family
cohesion, and collectivists must decide to assimilate or find other ways to
preserve such values.
However, the negotiation of ideologies may prove favorable. For instance, Le Ly
Hayslip in Child of War, Woman of Peace
uses Buddhism, a generally collectivist religion, as a way to ease her distress.
In addition to the dominant culture’s refusal to accept her, Hayslip is
confronted by a misty place, resembling the home of the terrifying Mang Xa.
However, when she sees a deer, a symbol of goodness in Buddhism, Hayslip
narrates, “Good and evil lie down together and peace blooms like the buds of
enchanted antlers” (125). Hayslip uses a Buddhist lens to make sense of her
suffering and blessings. Consequently, Buddhism helped her feel the LAP emotion
of peace, leading her to embrace her husband and son when they return. Religion
became a way for her to express her collectivist value of harmony while giving
her courage to continue living in an individualist country.
Moreover, voices inside and outside collectivist cultures are weighing in on
scholarly discourse and challenging strictly individualist structures.
Sociological studies continue to reveal the ever-changing reality of family
structures; not only are there nuclear families and extended families, but there
are also single-parent families, blended families, families of choice, and
skipped-generation households. Individualist structures continue to be
challenged by collectivist values and modern reality. Furthermore, not only do
immigrants assimilate to the dominant culture, but the dominant culture can
slightly assimilate to the immigrant culture as well. There are research
articles and websites detailing factors that contribute to stable families and
cooperative workplaces. Immigrants from collectivist countries give insight on
group cohesion and harmony that the dominant culture can benefit from, like the
family therapist Yudum Akyil who emigrated from Turkey and used her collectivist
lens to help re-establish a mother-daughter relationship. In fact, she uses both
her upbringing on collectivist values and the individualist theories she learned
in the U.S. to better understand the disconnect between the two family members;
individualism helped her see the family’s perspective and collectivism helped
Akyil perceive other characteristics in diverse families that may be lacking in
individualist families (167-168). Even though these ideologies clash, an
understanding of both collectivism and individualism seem to grant broader
perspectives about family, the self, and human life.
Despite the attempt to include the complexity of collectivism in family,
religion, identity, and assimilation, I admit to only scratching its surface.
Collectivism has many more intersecting layers, and scholars are continually
exploring and challenging the categorical usage of “collectivism” and
“individualism” themselves. However, gathering information on collectivism
allowed me to better understand and recognize its validity; I have come to
empathize with not only collectivist people but also with myself as someone with
both collectivist and individualist values. In a way, this research is a
reminder of collectivists’ humanity, making them more than simply cogs in the
machine.
Works
Cited
Akyil, Yudum. “Being a Family Therapist in the United States: Multicultural
Competency through the Lenses of an Immigrant Therapist.” Journal of Family
Psychotherapy, vol. 22, no. 2, Apr. 2011, pp. 157-171.
Candelaria, Nash. “El Patron.” Imagining America: Stories from the Promised
Land, edited by Wesley Brown and Amy Ling, Persea Books, 2002, pp. 221-228.
Cohen, Adam B., et al. “Religion and Culture: Individualism and Collectivism in
the East and West.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 47, no. 9,
2016, pp. 1236-1249.
Demleitner, Nora V. “How Much do Western Democracies Value Family and Marriage?
Immigration Law's Conflicted Answers.” Hofstra Law Review, vol. 32, no.
1, 2003, pp. 273-311.
Hayslip, Le L. Child of War, Woman of Peace. Immigrant Voices, Volume
2, edited by Gordon Hutner, Penguin Group, 2015, pp. 107-125.
Leake, David, and Rhonda Black. Essential tools: Cultural and linguistic
diversity: Implications for transition personnel. ICI Publications, 2005,
pp. 17-24,
http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/diversity/EssentialTools_Diversity.pdf.
Lieber, Michael D. “Lamarckian Definitions of Identity on Kapingamarangi and
Pohnpei.” Cultural Identity and Ethnicity in the Pacific, edited by
Jocelyn Linnekin and Lin Poyer, University of Hawaii Press, 1990, pp. 71-101.
Lucas, Amy. Personal interview. 20 March 2018.
Singelis, Theodore M., et al. “Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of
Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement.”
Cross-Cultural Research, vol. 20, Aug. 1995, pp. 240-275.
Tseng, Vivian. “Family Interdependence and Academic Adjustment in College: Youth
from Immigrant and US‐born
Families.” Child Development, vol. 75, no. 3, May 2004, pp. 966-983.
Wiley Online Library, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00717.x.
