X-Message-Number: 5787
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 23:54:50 -0500
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <>
Subject: Re: Individualism - collectivism dimension of national culture

In #5774,  (David Stodolsky) wrote:
> "An example of the consequences of a more individualistic or more
> collectivistic self-concept is the case of religious or ideological
> conversion. In western individualist society, converting oneself
> is a highly individual act.... However, the history of all great
> religions is on of collective rather than individual conversions
> (p. 215)."

Sure.  If a million people change religion, that's noteworthy.  If one
person changes religion, that's not usually worth writing about.

Actually, it usually starts with one person.  If that one person has
power, then during most of history, their subjects were forced to go
along.  Alternatively, if that one person *doesn't* have power, they
often gained poshumous fame as a martyr.

> "For the 19 wealthier countries, 1960-1970 economic growth is
> *negatively* related to individualism.

Sigh.  The more individualist countries are wealthier.  The less
individualist countries are moving faster because they are catching
up.  They are able to catch up fairly quickly because they are merely
duplicating what has already been done.  It's the individualist
countries which blazed the trail in the first place.

> This fact (wealth is positively associated with individualism, but
> lower individualism with faster growth of wealth) logically should
> lead to a certain balancing of wealth among wealthy countries: If
> they become too wealthy they become too individualist to grow any
> more (p. 232)."

If this were true, one would expect that the individualist countries
were less individualist in the past when they were less wealthy.
I don't think this is generally the case.

Why is this on Cryonet?
--
Keith Lynch, 
http://www.access.digex.net/~kfl/


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5787