By Ardain Isma
CSMS Magazine Staff WriterAmerican culture has so many contradictions that it is very difficult to talk about a genuine and homogeneous culture when it comes to the United States. But according to Kim, “There are similar characteristics that all Americans share, regardless of their age, race, gender, or ethnicity.” Of course individualism and materialism are at the core of these culture traits shared by all in this vast and cosmopolitan country. In describing the dominant American culture patterns, Larry Sonovar explains, “the single most important pattern in the United States is individualism.” Also described by many as the cornerstone of American culture, it is where other pertinent values spring from. This assertion is strongly echoed by Gannon in pointing out the link between individualism and other values. “Equality of opportunity, independence, initiative, and self reliance,” he writes, “are some of the values that have remained as basic American ideals throughout history.” oweverHAlthough independence and self-reliance may be true, it is questionable the notion of equality of opportunity. Mirage is the best word to describe this naïve assertion.Sometimes in the quest to be politically correct and in an obsession to retain “mainstream” cognitive ability status, many scholars write, publish and walk down a hollow stream just to withhold what they have accomplished in the past by projecting an opportunistic image to write about what is traditionally accepted as the norm. Illusory conception as it is, equality is at best a façade, a false belief fore-grounded on the premise of social justice for all. It is rather a tacit way to camouflage the gap between the haves and the have-nots.This hypocritical way of thinking takes roots from the early days when the founding fathers claimed that this country is the “land of liberty…..All men are created equal.” Of course, these beautiful words or at least those who wrote them could not see the plight of millions still living and rotting in slavery. And throughout its 200 years of existence, racial-equality struggle has always been put in the forefront to hide the true meaning behind social or class struggle in America.However, not all thinkers have sworn to uphold this official line. Macionis is one who has taken a different path in explaining the contradictions that sometimes exist when individualism and equality are being compared. “Despite prevailing ideas about individualism and freedom,” he writes, “many people in the United States still evaluate others according to their sex, race, ethnicity and social class.” And he goes on to affirm that “although we describe ourselves as a nation of equals, there is little doubt that some of us rank as ‘more equal than others.’” Macionis’ observation is also reinforced by Hanson who writes, “Not all citizens have had equal rights throughout the course of the country’s history, but Americans nevertheless value the notion highly and strive toward this ideal.”The notion of equal rights, especially the right to an education, healthcare, a decent job ratified by the fourth Geneva Convention, has long been an integral part of the universal values—not just in the United States. It is a natural instinct that every human being desires a comfortable life, and those who are trapped by misfortunes, whether in America or elsewhere, cherish the same dream of bettering their lives in whatever way they could. Poverty is a circumstance, it is not who a person is.
Materialism: the drive behind the quest to have it all
There are few countries on earth where the obsession for an extravagant lifestyle and the desire to live lavishly, grandiosely surpass that of The United States. Americans consume more than everyone else in the global village. Hip Hop star 50 Cent sums it well when he says, “Get rich or die trying it.” For every opportunity to fulfill this elusive dream, whether illusory or real, millions rush to jump on the bandwagon, which explains why when the party goes bust—Real Estate or Wall Street—the suffering is hard to be suppressed.Stewart and Bennett cannot be clearer. “Americans consider it almost a right to be materially well off and physically comfortable,” they point out. Althen goes further when he asserts that American materialism “is natural and proper.” Sonovar in Communication between cultures quotes a popular bumper sticker that makes it clear, “The person who dies with most toys wins.” And Sonovar reinforces his point with some undisputable facts. “Americans expect to have swift and convenient transportation (preferably controlled by themselves), a large variety of food at their disposal, clothes for every occasion, and comfortable homes equipped with countless labor-saving devices.”This explains why so many Americans find it somewhat normal to live beyond their means. As if the American dream will not be realized unless one can secure his own spot in the most exclusive neighborhood, living in the largest and most sophisticated home and driving the fanciest car.
Individualism versus Collectivism
It would not be fair to relate the individualistic pattern solely to American values. Many industrial societies have adopted individualism as their own, noticeably Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand to name a few. In these societies, the emphasis is on the individual. His individual achievement is highly praised, his uniqueness is quintessential; and to achieve that, independence—not interdependence—is emphasized. Goleman enumerates some great points in these terms. “People’s personal goals take priority over their allegiance to groups like family or the employer. The loyalty of individualists to a given group is very weak; they feel they belong to many groups and are opt to change their membership as it suits them, switching churches, for example, or leaving one employer for another.” The latter assertion, which relates to the individual employer, is of utmost understanding, knowing the fact that millions of Americans are statistically unhappy with their workplace. But if a quick understanding can be found over the issue of employees’ dissatisfaction with their job environment, it is not so easy to pinpoint the true logic behind the switching of allegiance or the quick pack-up-and-leave attitude from those who hold the monopoly of economic power in industrial societies. Two hundred years ago, when the security of institutional mercantilism rested on the power of those who maintained the political and military power of the day, patriotism took a backseat and gave way to greed, as it was the case in Saint Domingue—former name of Haiti before independence in 1804—where French planters switched allegiance like one changes his clothes daily. And when France, the mother country, passed laws to raise taxes in order to boost the French economy, they [the planters] immediately switched to become Americans as the young country of the United States was in desperate search for new market to develop its bourgeoning free market system. In other colonies, settlers simply turned to independence and have succeeded when it became clear that the mother country could no longer guarantee the eternal longevity of their privilege. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa are some examples of this category.But can we say that this capitalistic greed of centuries ago helped craft the true nature of today’s self-reliance so stressed in industrial societies? Many scholars, anthropologists and psychologists have put forward pertinent taxonomies that could be utilized for in-depth analyses on key behavior pattern displayed in many cultures. They have yet, however, to explain why in today’s western societies, the culture of individualism is so manifested in almost all aspects relating to financial success. In collectivism, however, the emphasis is stressed on what Sonovar calls the in-groups, meaning “relatives, clans, [and] organizations.” According to Sonovar, people put their faith in these groups for protection and financial success “and in exchange for that they believe they owe absolute loyalty to the group.” Although few industrial societies like Russia and now China nurture a culture of collectivism, the bulk of it can be found in most of developing countries. In many countries in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia and in the Caribbean, there is a strong belief that a person is born to assure the infinite stay of the family tradition, and when one family member goes astray, the shame falls on every member. In certain societies where collectivism is the norm, the arrival of children in the family plays an important role. Children are considered the family biggest asset. However, many of these culture traits are symptomatic to financial malaise; and the understanding is that if one person cannot do it alone, collective work will definitely bring to bear financial stability. A collective understanding such as this can only bring positive results. But not everyone agrees to this assertion. Those who favor the individualistic approach to society claim that collectivism defeats the whole purpose of self-reliance and individual independence. Meyer is one of the thinkers who have been promoting such idea. “With individual rights severely subordinated, group action has been a distinctive characteristic to Chinese society,” he writes. And he goes on further to prove his point. “No matter how stout, one beam cannot support a house,” he says, referring to a Chinese proverb. Many scholars claim that the collectivistic culture such as this breeds antidemocratic and autocratic rule, whether within the family structure or within the State bureaucratic machine. Jacques Bonenfant, a distinguished scholar from Nova Southeastern University (NSU), rebukes this “false assertion”, claiming that if collectivism favors collective decisions over individual ones and beliefs shared with the in-group are holistic and highly valued rather than beliefs that distinguish self from in-group, to insure the prevailing factor of the views, the needs, and the goals to the benefit of all, then the collective approach seem to bring more democratic entities than the individual approach. Collectivism promotes the prevailing view of the majority, and there is a symbiotic relationship between the etymological meaning of democracy and decisions based on the views of the majority. Self-reliance is embraced in societies where the structure is designed to sustain it, thereby feeding a false conception that one is better off going it alone instead of being subordinated to the views or the desires of the majority. Western and industrial societies seem to have fit this profile. Collective decision in the other hand will suit better a majority of countries of the world, where collective efforts will strategically bear more desired results.
References
Gannon 2001, Cross-Cultural Perspective. Yamouth, ME: Intercultural Press.Stewart and Bennett (1991), Cross-Cultural Perspective. Yamouth, ME: Intercultural Press.Kim E. Y. (2001), The Yin and yang of American culture: A paradox. Boston: Pearson.Macionis (1997), Society: the Basic, 4th edition. NJ Prentice Hall.Hanson, M. J. (1998) Families with Anglo-European Roots, in Developing Cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with children and their families, 2nd edition. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Goleman, D. (1990) The group and self: new focus on a cultural rift. New York Times. Page 40.Meyer, M. (1994) China and its culture. New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield.Sonovar, L. A. (2005) Communication between culture, 5th edition. Belmont California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Bonenfant, J. (2005) Personal conversation.Note: More one individualism and collectivism can be found in Sonovar 2006 edition.Also see Multiculturalism and Cross-cultural Awareness: Not Really Intertwined (Part I)Multiculturalism and Cross-Cultural Awareness: Not Really Intertwined (Part II)Multiculturalism and cross-cultural awareness: Not really intertwined (Part III)Dr. Ardain Isma teaches Cross-Cultural Studies at Nova Southeastern University. He is the publisher of CSMS Magazine. He is also a novelist. He may be reached at [email protected]
