Relda wrote: Paradoxically, the more individualistic a people, the less varied its culture.

Dear Relda,

I was once involved in setting up an intentional community. We were going to buy Durville Island between North and South Island in New Zealand and call ourselves “Philia.”

We carried on an intensive correspondence but didn’t meet as a group until we got together in a State Park in New Jersey. Most of the women including my wife appeared to be leggy, busty blondes wearing black stockings. Many of the men had beards of varying hues.

A discussion of the nature of the proposed community revealed a schism. A man from Indiana asked whether proceeds from items produced in our spare time would go to the community or the individual. Another countered, “What spare time? We are going to live as a community, and the community will give meaning and direction to our lives!”

It appeared that most of the people there were informed by Skinner’s “Walden II” and looked for a community that would minimise personal decisions (eg If they voted in a political election, following discussion or direction they would vote as a bloc.) To romantics like me community meant living in a natural setting in fellowship with complete freedom except for the obligatory actions to keep the community operating.

I had read Skinner’s “Walden II” and was repelled by it. It was a revelation that many people who I was like in many ways could find such a community attractive.

I had some trouble with the logic of this concept, relda, perhaps you could expand a little?

>>Paradoxically, the more individualistic a people, the less varied its culture.<<

It seems just a little too glib, to sit there on the page without being questioned.

And david f, if you thought Walden II was scary, try T C Boyle's "Drop City"

david f,
I guess I have similar romantic leanings to you but realise (as you undoubtedly do) many do not share my or your orientation. One's culture becomes one's paradigm. A culture is learned, shared and transmitted from one generation to the next - it organises life and helps interpret existence. Culture is the stuff that human paradigms are made of. People think through their paradigms and not about them – so we’re perhaps not as objective as we might think, especially when viewing another’s culture or background. Our inherent lack of objectivity will generally mean we perhaps elude the ‘ideal’ community or retreat from it.

I’ve belonged to various groups over the years – ranging from football/ sporting clubs, community organisations and Church groups etc. I’ve never been so brave as to attempt to organise my own group or something outside of anything already on offer. Apart from a small circle of friends and family, I feel happier to be ‘outside’ most of the groups I see – but know I’m ‘connected’ nevertheless.

Pericles,
As an example I’ll use the Hofstede and Triandis framework, Australians are described as horizontal (low power distance) individualists, i.e. they are highly autonomous and remain independent from their group with their own ambition taking precedence over any group ambition – behaviour is guided by ‘rights’ and ‘contracts’. As a counterpoint, Asians are classified as collectivistic, with high power distance – they have an emphasis on interdependence, group goals, obligations and duties. I’ll leave it to you to decide which culture exhibits the most variation.

relda,

Hofstede's studies though dated are informative. There are a few things to be aware of. Daat were collected within IBM only between 1968-1972 (if I recall). Placinging societl axioms into cultural dimensions in itself is a Western approach.

Of the related Michael Bond (nice) study involving the China Value Survey we have a Chinese perspective. The differences between Uncertainty Avoidance West vis-a-vis East Asia, reflect the Asian Taoist-like approach. The Asians are okay with "fuzzy", whereas Westerns like black and white, without any grey. Probably going back to Platonic atomism.

Triadis (also a nice guy) works more in the area of acculturation. The Hispanics in the US, for example. Harry is very aware of etic and emic approaches.

Relating etics and emics to Hofstede is problematic, owing to the Western paradigm-based culural scales being held to be univeral and etic. Yet, the alternative East Asian world-view being measued is not based on Western atomism. Emic phenomenology can wronly be labelled etic. When researching "cultures consequences" (Hofestede) one needs to avoid ascribing our methodology to measure others.

Simply put, we in the West is emphasize black and white in our research design and fail to see the shades of grey in the East Asian mindset. Journal models of inappropriately use Western tools. Its a leagacy of Western hegemony over scholarship.

I have just started Zizioulas' "Being as Communion". He traces the origin of the idea of personality through Plato and Aristotle and thence to the Cappadocian fathers and their work on the persons of the Trinity. He makes the point that this is the origin of our understanding of what a person is. At the centre of the ontology of the person is the community, indeed we cannot speak of personhood unless in the context of community. The individual, ontologically, can be said not to exist. So as the persons of the Trinity are defined in their opposition to each other, their relatedness to each other, so too is man.

relda,

Do we get to have a definition of cultural 'variation'? Do we get to have any data either? Even a hint as to how it could be measured or judged?

Or do we just pull things out of our almanacs?