If I am not mistaken, these two readings, along with the corresponding map derive from the same sociologist. This helps to explain the remarkable unity between the sources you assigned. The main idea of the two readings is that cultures can be compared by proposing spectrums upon which each would fall somewhere according to the relevant trait being measured. Some of the traits from which these spectrums can derive are Power Distance Index, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance Index, Monochronitism-Polycronitism, Internal-External, and Direct-Indirect Communication. I find this form of analysis problematic because it is at once meaningless and superficial, and potentially harmful.
The sociologist claims certain things are dichotomous. His Individualism-Collectivism spectrum is a good example of this claim. The exercises he presents at the end of each section are supposed to lead to his conclusion. However, the answers to the questions depend heavily on one’s own understanding of factors this sociologist does not factor into his reasoning. For example, “Companies give employee-of-the-year awards” is supposed to be marked with an “I,” thus showing such competitions are characteristic of individualistic cultures. However, if one understands one of the main functions of such awards, one must also see them in the framework of class-warfare as a technique to divide and rule as well as to create the image of a meritocracy that will motivate other wage-slaves to be more productive. That the sociologist sees this as a sign of individualism of a culture is simplistic. Further, other events of similar frequency happen, often in the same workplaces that might, if he focused on them, by the same methods, lead him to the opposite conclusion. Team-building events and employer sponsored social gatherings (such as pizza parties) are intended to focus on the group, that is, the collective. These two are not necessarily exclusively cultural characteristics, but also economic ones and should be seen likewise within the framework of class warfare.
Another problem with this way of viewing the world is that is fundamentally ahistorical. The world, is static in this representation. Anglo-phone cultures are presented as particularly individualistic (this may be the case, though I do not think it is as clear as the author presents it.) However, go back in time and see how individualistic pre-capitalist England was. The peasants of England were no more individualistic than the collectivistic Bedouin of Arabia. It is not clear these catagories (individualistic and collectivistic) would have been meaningful then due to a relative uniformity in communal and family interdependence. What changed? Capitalism evolved into the dominant economic system of the world through empire and inequal trade. The peoples of the imperial states’ social lives then transformed and became one way as those of the subjected regions became another, both owing to economic necessity. Another layer is added to this by the hegemonic control of elite culture, which has remained separate from that of the masses for the majority of history. The author ignores such factors, implying that individualism is inherent to Anglo-phone culture itself. My argument would be that collectivism is the natural way of arranging society and the capitalism has restructured and perverted Anglo-phone culture into one that is individualistic to serve its interests. I could continue on with other examples, but capitalism has made time into a commodity.
These generalizations essentialize how people live. You can say by employing this author’s paradigm, like the 19th Century Orientalists did, that Arabs are fatalistic. That these people are fatalistic is contrasted with our great virtue of being an “activist culture.” Perhaps the best example of evidence to the contrary is ISIS. These people, supposedly, are fundamentalists, Wahabis. Islamic fundamentalism gives more agency to god than humans. If this is so, then you would not see these people trying to establish and Islamic state. Instead, they would be like other Wahabis that resign from political life. However, there is great diversity in the world and in Islam, thus you get those that resign, more liberal believers and even ISIS. To me diversity makes generalizations meaningless.
Replies