This is an odd article. On the one hand, it points to what may be a genuine mischaracterization of collectivism. On the other hand, it uses loaded terminology and feels like it may be an attempt to mislead readers. Your call. Here's the gist: our traditional view of East versus West is that the former is more collectivist while the latter is more individualist. However, the authors assert, studies fail to find that distincction in practice. They propose splitting the defition of collectivism into 'warm fuzzies' and 'responsibilism'. These are distinct in the the former favours general affirmations of obligations to wider groups and strangers, while the latter emphasizes responsibilities to close knit groups like families and communities. Reapples, the scale predicts differences in Eastern cultures (deemed 'responsibilist') and Western cultures ('warm fuzzies'). "Although warm fuzzy collectivism is not the same concept as individualism, it is paradoxically more common in individualistic cultures... Warm fuzzy collectivism and responsibilism are different ways of prioritizing social relationships, not a walling off from relationships."
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
