David Brooks looks an interesting phenomenon, one which has been intriguing this reader for a long time. He muses on what he sees as the collectivism of the Chinese and worries about its effect, thanks to Asia's growing economic and political strength, on American individualism. Once again he tends to look at these differences from an "either/or" point of view. The individualism vs. collectivism debate has gone on for years as though there were no mix of the two in most societies with, at most, a tendency towards one or the other. Chinese tend to be collectivists and Americans tend to be individualists. Or maybe not?
Brooks' argument includes a description of the opening ceremony at the Olympics.
"The ceremony drew from China’s long history, but surely the most striking features were the images of thousands of Chinese moving as one — drumming as one, dancing as one, sprinting on precise formations without ever stumbling or colliding. We’ve seen displays of mass conformity before, but this was collectivism of the present — a high-tech vision of the harmonious society performed in the context of China’s miraculous growth."
For some reason, Christopher Guest's movie, "Waiting for Guffman," springs to mind, In it a shambling, amateur community theater company in Missouri puts together a July 4 play about American history. There's certainly a good deal of "stumbling and colliding." It's a mess, but its subject matter is a very toe-the-line, traditional, lock-step view of our history.
Face it, Americans are often as conformist as the Chinese. Our style is different. But here's one thing many Americans haven't particularly noticed We have, over the past several decades, moved step by step to the right. Over the past 5o years, we've moved dramatically from being left-dominated with libertarian leanings, past the center, to an authoritarian, corporatist society as far to the right of center as we once were to the left of center. What we like to think of as our individualist, free-wheeling society has now become more lockstep, tending to be governed by corporations. I'm not sure Brooks has noticed the steady drift towards conformity and authoritarianism. Capitalism isn't particularly friendly to individualism.
"If Asia’s success reopens the debate between individualism and collectivism (which seemed closed after the cold war), then it’s unlikely that the forces of individualism will sweep the field or even gain an edge.
""For one thing, there are relatively few individualistic societies on earth. For another, the essence of a lot of the latest scientific research is that the Western idea of individual choice is an illusion and the Chinese are right to put first emphasis on social contexts.
"Scientists have delighted to show that so-called rational choice is shaped by a whole range of subconscious influences, like emotional contagions and priming effects (people who think of a professor before taking a test do better than people who think of a criminal). Meanwhile, human brains turn out to be extremely permeable (they naturally mimic the neural firings of people around them). Relationships are the key to happiness. People who live in the densest social networks tend to flourish, while people who live with few social bonds are much more prone to depression and suicide.
"The rise of China isn’t only an economic event. It’s a cultural one. The ideal of a harmonious collective may turn out to be as attractive as the ideal of the American Dream."
We're not that different. And in the end, as Brooks says, "human brains ... naturally mimic the neural firings of people around them."
BTW: Has anyone compared the Szechuan earthquake with Katrina? That could be a learning experience ...
