BY AYESHA BİLAL (PSYC/III)
ayesha@ug.bilkent.edu.tr
We all grow up in a collectivist social state of life; regardless of what part of the world we belong to, we as humans are inherently collective beings. A widely held notion regards the Eastern part of the world as possessing a more socially cohesive culture than does Western society. This, according to my point of view, is an erroneous idea that goes against the human being’s natural need for interaction and acceptance. The only difference that comes to my mind is whether this need for belonging to someone or to a group of people, or for simply being accepted, is implicitly or explicitly embedded in the process of socialization and growing up. In the Western way of life, which is assumed to be more individualistic in nature, people are not alien beings who are content with a lonely, selfish life. And in Eastern countries, where society and family play an integral role throughout one’s life, it is not true that people are devoid of any self-interest or awareness of the self as an individual. But the overt form of cultural values favoring a unified society simply brings into the open more easily the same innately human requirement that exists in all human beings. And why wouldn’t it? After all, we are one species; we all have the same basic needs and emotional requirements, which do not change anywhere in the world. So why should we assume something as basic as the collectivism of human beings is nonexistent in some groups of people, even if it is manifested differently? Even animals have an instinctive tendency to protect, care for and belong to one another, lending support to the idea that it is certainly going to be no different among a species that one could argue is most susceptible to the power of affection and the need for belongingness.
It would not be fair to say that people in North America or Western Europe are individualistic simply because they enjoy independence and freedom from social constraints. To further elaborate, it is not the label itself, for the label simply describes an innocent style of life if used literally; rather it is the meaning people assign subliminally to the word “individualistic,” making it come off as meaning heartless, cold and completely deprived of emotions. Often it is used in contrast to the characterization of the Eastern world as a place where family life and societal values come first and foremost, before the individual’s own needs. But to contrast it and demonize it is what is not reasonable, for every human everywhere in the world is capable of compassion and care for others, regardless of how self-sufficient or individualistic their lifestyle may be.
I do not intend to simply rant on about a thoroughly debated and researched topic; I merely want to give those who are unaware a basic understanding of how the world in general stands when it comes to this issue, and then address it from a less biased and holistic angle. That in itself is the problem, in my opinion: the generalizations and the presumptuous nature of the imaginary separation of what we call the West and the East. We, as humans, do research and find information, and using that information, make generalizations about people from different places, which is fine to a certain extent. But I do not understand, and perhaps never will, why we need to create this divide when humans are really so much more similar to each other than they are different, regardless of what culture, nation, religion, etc. they are part of. And this particular example of societies being individualistic or collective in nature—and more specifically, attributing this to the inherent nature of individuals within those societies, rather than restricting it to simply the level of a societal lifestyle—is where we should draw the line.
Love, compassion and an urge to unite are universal and innate tendencies. They don’t require cultural input, and they don’t require any formal socialization; they are one of the few things, I believe we can say, that are truly innate and come unadulterated from within. People’s lifestyles and their inherent nature should never be confused or interchanged. There are countless other examples of how our knowledge of the different lifestyles of people around the world allows us to forget or overlook the fact that we are still one and the same species, not very different from each other at the core. When we shed all the outer layers and are stripped down to our raw selves as humans, we are all comprised of the same emotions and tendencies. There is no such thing as individualism or collectivism when it comes to the individuals themselves, for every one of them is at heart naturally inclined to satisfy their own interests and at the same time to have consideration for those surrounding them whom they care about. If we call Western society individualistic, and Eastern collective, it is the nature of the society’s lifestyle we are labeling, not the nature of its people. It is necessary to remember that in all walks of life, before we are anything else, we are human, one and the same.