indahnesia.com - Discover Indonesia Online

    
You are currently in > Forum > Other talk > View topic

17-01-2015 18:16 · [news] Three more bodies of AirAsia victims to Surabaya hospital  (1 reaction)
17-01-2015 01:23 · [news] Fuel prices lowered, again  (0 reactions)
17-01-2015 00:14 · [news] President dismisses Sutarman as national police chief  (0 reactions)
16-01-2015 12:44 · [news] Alleged terrorists shot dead three villagers in Poso  (2 reactions)
16-01-2015 02:15 · [news] Indonesia to execute six drug convicts  (0 reactions)

AnisJ
User
User icon of AnisJ
spacer line
 

Nowadays the 'Asian issues' of (H-)India and China is almost heard everywhere
and many topics and items about these countries are 'unspoken', one can hardly say that there is not any .....

  • Sometimes it seems that the Western world is in panic because of the 'penetrating progress' these countries made in such a short while ....

  • But is this panic more & more not based on the fact that 'Asian collectivism' nowadays prove that it is prevailing 'Western Individualism' .......

    Therefore my main question is:


    Should Asian countries cope the Western idea of 'Individualism', or rather will they develop their own consept of 'Asian collectivism' .......


    In Indonesia 'collectivism' is no strange idea too .....



  • 'Ahu kura ahia, mansia nia'

    Sugi5
    User
    spacer line
     

    I think that as people get richer, societies tend to become increasingly individualistic. In a rich society, there is less need for the safety net of belonging to a group and greater scope for personal choices. I think its likely that Asian collectivism will slowly be transformed as many countries become richer. Greater access to higher level education will also play an important role.

    And that would be a good thing too. Because they cannot compete on price anymore, most rich economies now rely a lot on (individual) creativity and innovation to grow, much more than on standardized (collective) mass labour. It would seem to me that Asia as the factory of the world can do very well under a collectivist mind-set, but for it to become a center of innovation and to move to the next stage of economic develoment, more asians will need to claim their individuality!



    Albert
    User
    User icon of Albert
    spacer line
     

    Again a topic without a clear intro. I only read Individualism & collectivism.

    First mention what people do not do for each other in Individualism or what is wrong with such a system (west).
    Second mention what people do not do for each other in collectivism or what is wrong with such a system (east).

    Third mention what people will do for each other in Individualism, etc.
    Fourth mention what people will do for each other in collectivism, etc.

    Both have their positives sides as well as negative sides.

    Who says that Individualistic people are not in their own way a strong collectivism.
    Who says that Collective people are not in their own way Individualistic.

    When you open the link which is always below in my message. You will read about Onness. Which means to become all really one. There is no longer a I. You might say some sort of REAL Communism, everything is from everybody and nobody has more then the other one. And everybody loves each other the same.
    That is collectivism, there is no real collectivism in the world at this time.

    So from one point of few, the system in Europe can have a lot more positive points, and from somebodies elses few the system in Asia has a lot more positive meanings.

    With other words experience is all we can write down. complain about Asia especially about Indonesia or complain about the west.

    As long as Anis does not come with a clear and detailed statement, it will be useless to discuss it.


    Wil je ook meester van je eigen leven zijn? http://www.goudenera.nl

    Yogya-Bali
    User
    User icon of Yogya-Bali
    spacer line
     


    On 13-12-2007 17:54 Sugi5 wrote:
    I think that as people get richer, societies tend to become increasingly individualistic. In a rich society, there is less need for the safety net of belonging to a group and greater scope for personal choices. I think its likely that Asian collectivism will slowly be transformed as many countries become richer. Greater access to higher level education will also play an important role.

    And that would be a good thing too. Because they cannot compete on price anymore, most rich economies now rely a lot on (individual) creativity and innovation to grow, much more than on standardized (collective) mass labour. It would seem to me that Asia as the factory of the world can do very well under a collectivist mind-set, but for it to become a center of innovation and to move to the next stage of economic develoment, more asians will need to claim their individuality!


    Don't give a title like "Does Asian collectivism beat Western individualism???" but name it just "Does collectivism beat individualism???"
    This thesis has nothing to do with Asia or West; it has all to do with the sociological terms collectivism and individualism. You need individualism for innovation. Without freedom in thinking (which one doesn't have in collectivism because then you are forced to make a commitment to the group standards) there will be no innovation. So-called pure collectivism towards pure individualism is an unlike comparison.
    So countries with a "collective" (group) culture mostly move towards a more individualistic society to gain the same economic prospects like the other "individual" based societies.
    This has nothing to do with any value judgement, but with reality. A society can move from a more "group"-based society to a more "individual" based culture but not the opposite. I don't think that anyone in the world - who have enjoyed all the freedoms one experienced in an individualistic society - will return to the basics. Only the brutal (ab)use of force can do that.




    AnisJ
    User
    User icon of AnisJ
    spacer line
     

  • In all your arguments I miss something(-s) that Individualism could lead into Egoïsm of the individual , the more you are 'selfish' and personal the more this could lead into carelessness about your 'surroundings' (world) ..... in collectivness at least you will have a 'group' of your own.


  • 'Ahu kura ahia, mansia nia'

    Sugi5
    User
    spacer line
     


    In all your arguments I miss something(-s) that Individualism could lead into Egoïsm of the individual , the more you are 'selfish' and personal the more this could lead into carelessness about your 'surroundings' (world) ..... in collectivness at least you will have a 'group' of your own.


    I am not sure I understand your point either. Let's take global warming as a concrete example.

    The biggest polluter in the world is America, an "individualistic" country. The second biggest polluter is China, a "collectivist" country. Perhaps we could say americans are individually careless about the environment, but then the chinese would be collectively careless. A group may be just as careless and selfish as an individual, just on a larger scale.

    Actually I think the issue is one of leadership. The "quality" of the leadership in collectivist countries is very important, because when one direction is given it may be extremely difficult to reverse, even if most members in the group actually think it is wrong.

    In Individualistic societies on the other hand a great diversity of directions will be explored at all times. But it may be hard to get somewhere at all sometimes because so many interests may oppose. Both have pros and cons. But individualistic societies naturally believe that each individual is best placed to determine what is good for himself.

    Sure that may lead to greater egoïsm of the individual as you say, but is that so different from the egoïsm of the group, which is just as real?




    AnisJ
    User
    User icon of AnisJ
    spacer line
     


    On 17-12-2007 09:50 Sugi5 wrote:

    ...


    I am not sure I understand your point either. Lets take global warming as a concrete example.

    The biggest polluter in the world is America, an "individualistic" country. The second biggest polluter is China, a "collectivist" country. Perhaps we could say americans are individually careless about the environment, but then the chinese would be collectively careless. A group may be just as careless and selfish as an individual, just on a larger scale.

    Actually I think the issue is one of leadership. The "quality" of the leadership in collectivist countries is very important, because when one direction is given it may be extremely difficult to reverse, even if most members in the group actually think it is wrong.



    In Individualistic societies on the other hand a great diversity of directions will be explored at all times. But it may be hard to get somewhere at all sometimes because so many interests may oppose. Both have pros and cons. But individualistic societies naturally believe that each individual is best placed to determine what is good for himself.


  • With 'individuals' one could east play 'divide & rule' .......


    Sure that may lead to greater egoïsm of the individual as you say, but is that so different from the egoïsm of the group, which is just as real?


  • Sugi5 are you not "mixmaxing" collectiveness with "vastness" :

    meaning: the total population of China is vaster (in Dutch 'omvangrijk' ) than the U.S.A. ...... Emoticon: Shiny Emoticon: Shiny


  • 'Ahu kura ahia, mansia nia'

    AnisJ
    User
    User icon of AnisJ
    spacer line
     


    Bridging Cultures in Our Schools: New Approaches That Work
    Contrasts Between Individualism and Collectivism.


  • To begin, Table 1 contrasts the two value systems by highlighting features that are most likely to influence classroom communication and learning. Although no society can be characterized entirely by one or the other system, the first column reflects value preferences that will probably be familiar to most readers. The traditional American faith in free enterprise, the virtues of self-reliance and self-improvement, inculcated throughout the 19th and on into the 20th century – from the pulpit, in McGuffey Readers, and on political platforms – all rest on a sense of competitive individualism that is firmly established in much of U.S. society. We need only look at popular awards – sales representative of the month, season MVP, Oscar winner, or even teacher of the year – to be reminded of the countless ways this society singles out the special worth of individual achievement.

    Table 1: Salient Features of Individualism and Collectivism

  • Individualism

    (Representative of prevailing U.S. culture)

  • Collectivism

    (Representative of many immigrant cultures)


    1. Fostering independence and individual achievement 1. Fostering interdependence and group success

    2. Promoting self-expression, individual thinking, personal choice? 2. Promoting adherence to norms, respect for authority/elders, group consensus

    3. Associated with egalitarian relationships and flexibility in roles (e.g., upward mobility) 3. Associated with stable, hierarchical roles (dependent on gender, family background, age)?

    4. Understanding the physical world as knowable apart from its meaning for human life 4. Understanding the physical world in the context of its meaning for human life

    5. Associated with private property, individual ownership 5. Associated with shared property, group ownership


  • In every study comparing American parents to those of other cultures, even in other industrialized nations, the goal U.S. parents overwhelmingly stress is making their children independent – socially and economically . This primary emphasis on self-reliance, Small notes, colors everything American parents do to socialize their children, "as if this were the most natural and normal – in fact the only – way to proceed through life" (Small, p. 104).

  • Collectivist societies, however, point their children in a different direction. Many immigrant parents from traditional cultures, for example, see their children’s primary role as contributing members of the family unit (Quiroz & Greenfield). Children are expected to understand and act on a strong sense of responsibility toward the group, the family, and the community. Self-worth and esteem are not defined chiefly in terms of individual achievement. They derive, rather, from "the performance of self-sacrificing acts that create social links and bonds" (Quiroz & Greenfield, p. 6). In sharp contrast, young people in individualistic societies are typically expected to make educational and occupational choices that develop their own potential – not necessarily with any consideration for how their success would benefit their families.

  • Human experience is far too complex to fit neatly into any conceptual scheme.
    No society is all one thing or another.
    Before looking at how these differing orientations can play out in the home and classroom, it’s important to reiterate an obvious caution. To generalize is always to simplify, but this dualistic framework is not intended to stereotype cultural behavior. Human experience is far too complex to fit neatly into any conceptual scheme. No society is all one thing or another. Each "strikes a particular balance between individual and group, between independence and interdependence" (Greenfield 1994, p. 4). Even within a particular ethnic group, members are extremely diverse – in education, in socio-economic status, in whether they come from a rural or urban background, in their personalities. Hence, they vary in the degree to which they reflect the dominant values of their group. Cultures themselves also change over time and as they come in contact with each other. Second generation Mexican American girls, for example, have more role flexibility than their mothers did (Goldenberg & Gallimore 1995). Nevertheless, many child-rearing values, taken into new contexts, persist over several generations (Lambert, Hammers, & Frasure-Smith 1979).


    The framework’s power lies in the way it generates insights and understandings that enable teachers to bridge cultural differences – the way it gets us questioning, trying to identify for ourselves what social expectations and ethical values are at work in a frustrating classroom situation or a parent—teacher conference. Teachers are finding that it helps them rethink daily school-related behavior, their own and that of their students and students’ parents. Using it as a tool, teachers can generate their own solutions to problems, make effective instructional decisions, and work with parents as true partners.

    The framework’s usefulness has been most thoroughly explored in classrooms in several communities whose large recent immigrant populations are composed chiefly of families from poor, rural communities in Mexico and Central America. Nevertheless, both research and experience suggest that the framework can also be helpful in understanding other immigrant groups, as well as some U.S.—born students and parents from more collectivistic communities. For instance, studies of Korean immigrants and American Indians show that their collectivistic values often conflict with those of the more individualistic U.S. culture (Kim & Choi 1994; Suina & Smolkin 1994).

    In fact, given how this framework works to surface underlying beliefs and expectations, we believe it can help generate questions (and answers) about how cultural values operate in all groups.

    Individualism and Collectivism at Home

    Collectivism and individualism reflect fundamentally different perceptions about knowledge, cognition, and social development. Collectivistic societies are quite hierarchical, and social interaction is strongly defined by age and gender. Children in such societies are less likely to be asked to formulate and share their opinions or to talk about what they are learning in school. The role of sharing opinions and knowledge is reserved for people with higher status (Delgado-Gaitan 1994), and children are taught to respect their elders as the sources of knowledge and wisdom for their community.

  • Individualistic societies , in contrast, do not see knowledge and wisdom as the special province of designated elders. The self-expression children commonly exhibit toward adults in much of American society would be interpreted as a lack of proper respect in a collectivistic society (Valdés 1996).

  • Parents in collectivistic cultures tend to cultivate both more psychological and physical closeness with their children. Such closeness is associated with teaching and managing children by "osmosis" more than by verbal means (Azuma 1991). Children are held more and often sleep with their parents when small; infants are carried or otherwise physically close to mothers or other caretakers at all times. In contrast, parents in more individualistic cultures often encourage children to amuse themselves independently and discourage them from requiring constant adult attention (Greenfield & Suzuki 1998).

    Even the role of toys is different in collectivistic and individualistic societies. In a collectivistic culture, a toy is an opportunity for sharing. In a more individualistic society it is a source of independent activity, often seen as an opportunity to foster a highly valued "technological intelligence" [analytic thinking removed from its larger social context, as defined by Mundy-Castle (1974)].

    The collectivistic orientation also extends to notions of property, with the boundaries of ownership less fixed (Quiroz & Greenfield). Personal items such as clothing, books, and toys are readily shared and are often seen as family rather than private property. These culturally different approaches to material goods include land and natural resources. Indigenous peoples have traditionally regarded the earth as something humans have custody of but do not own. The legacy of these orientations is with us today. Collectivist societies still tend to share resources and cooperate to carry out tasks in agriculture and animal husbandry, as well as in other realms. Though many environmentally conscious citizens in this country would prefer a more cooperative and caring approach to preserving the planet, the ethos of private property presents a formidable obstacle. The United States has created public parks and preserves, but the notion persists that each person is solely responsible for his or her own property.

    Individualism and Collectivism at School

    These differing world views lead parents to prepare children for school quite differently. In the classroom, as we have noted, differences appear with regard to independence, personal achievement, self-expression, and personal choice. U.S. schools, in line with the individualistic orientation of society, encourage children to become independent thinkers and doers who focus on their own achievement and on fulfilling their own individual needs. Authority, they are taught, does not reside solely in the teacher. They are encouraged to consult texts, build their own knowledge, and even "explain" it to adults at home. In contrast, children raised in collectivistic communities form a sense of self from recognizing their place in the community hierarchy and from affiliation with the group – principally the family. So, for example, when children with this latter orientation are asked to assert their opinions publicly in the classroom, while at home they are expected to listen respectfully, an inner conflict may stifle their participation.

    The two orientations also typically lead to different organizational patterns of learning in the classroom. While collectivistic cultures tend to teach to the whole group and allow students to learn from each other (peer-oriented learning) (McAlpine & Taylor 1993), individualistic societies tend to focus on the individual and emphasize individual responsibility for learning, even when instruction is given to the whole group (Estrin & Nelson-Barber 1995). For their many group-oriented immigrant students, the Bridging Cultures Project teachers have to explain why students are not allowed to help each other on state-sponsored achievement tests. For these children, if left to their own devices, learning is nearly always a cooperative venture.

    In American education, concepts and facts are often treated as objects or things in themselves, capable of being understood outside of their social context (see The Field Trip). One criticism many American Indian educational leaders have leveled against U.S. schools is that they teach facts independent of their social and ethical implications (Estrin & Nelson-Barber). In contrast, American Indian societies (like other collectivistic cultures) stress that learners need to consider the social consequences of knowledge and actions on living people and future generations. In earth science, for example, many U.S. teachers might tell students how ores are extracted from mines and smelted for industrial purposes, while a Navajo teacher would probably raise questions about whether digging a mine was good for the community and its descendants.

    Source : www.wested.org/online_pubs/bridging/part3.shtml


  • No comment ....... Emoticon: Shiny Emoticon: Shiny




  • 'Ahu kura ahia, mansia nia'

    AnisJ
    User
    User icon of AnisJ
    spacer line
     

  • " ..... is the U.S.A convinced for 'collectivism' due to the Economic Crisis or is it still growing to stay put on 'induvidualism' ......


  • 'Ahu kura ahia, mansia nia'


    You have to be logged in to post a message. You can login by clicking here.
    If you do not have an account yet, you can register yourself here.



    50,016,505 topic views - 222,257 posts - 13,491 topics - 16,273 members - last post @ 25-09-2017 13:13 CET

    Created by indahnesia.com · feedback & contact · © 2000-2017
    Other websites by indahnesia.com: ticketindonesia.info · kamus-online.com · indonesiepagina.nl · suvono.nl

    90,132,463 pageviews Discover Indonesia Online at indahnesia.com