| Kasz216 said: Yeah, i'm used to the term. I just think it's a crazy way to live. Sociology mostly bears this out. Collectivism is the philosophy of those willing to be exploited. |
Thats a bad way to look at a social construct. Try to think of it as as a trade-off, with one culture not being right while the other is wrong, even though thats very difficult because you are already set in one cultural idealogy.
Peoples in a collectivistic culture may not want to question leaders higher up on the social ladder, but that doesn't mean that the leaders are not required to generously provide for the group. In the West, if a leader (be it political or business) gains a lot of wealth for himself at the expense of others, our individualistic society see nothing wrong with that, but in the East if a leader does the same thing, the collectivistic society looks down on it. Note that when I say 'at the expense of others' you probably dont agree with that, but thats how other people look at it. Similarly, I could say that a leader rules ' without the consent of the people of his country' and some people would disagree because they dont look at it that way.
In an Invidualistic society, leaders are questioned but their personal gains are acceptable, they have limited political power and unlimited economic power. In a Collectivisitc society, leaders are not questioned but their personal gains are not acceptable, they have unlimited political power but limited economic power. Different means but the desired end result is the same, keeping the higher ups in check.
When you consider political science, this makes perfect sense. Take America for instance: Democrats want the government to control the economy, but they want the government to stay out of people's social lives. Republicans want the government to stay out of the economy, but they want to government to have control of people's lives (Gay Rights, Abortion Rights, etc.). Its practically the same thing as the cultural characteristics previously mentioned.
