Hi everyone, what do you think how functional and complete individualistic and collectivistic categorization of cultures around the world is while studying intercultural communication among different countries respondents?
Probably it is only one aspect among many others. Since the classic work of Markus and Kitayama (http://www.umich.edu/~psychol/381/markus.pdf) it has been known that the self tends to be interpreted somewhat differently in various cultures. Some others dispute the validity of this categorization (especially when individuals living in multicultural environment are concerned). Not being an expert, only an interested outsider I do not want to decide this dispute. Based on my personal experience with Western and Japanese people I myself found this distinction useful and with explanatory power. For me the next interesting question is whether the self-structure is influenced by the culture or vice versa?
Dear Muhammad Yousaf,
Individualistic and collectivistic cultures are different social outlooks viewing communities and individuals based on their perception of moral, political, and ideological standards. The dichotomy enjoys a very long history and is accredited to John Lock's meta-ethical theory of values. I personally believe that the demarcation is mostly true and is functionally justified since it supports the maxim, " A man's meat is another man's poison". In a study based on Rosch's theory of prototypicality, we found that Persians and Americans perceive certain tokens representing good examples of certain categories differently. Incidentally, the paper is available on researchgate. I also refer you to the neo-Whorfianistic claims of John Lucy (2004) in this regard.
Best regards,
R. Biria
In everyday life and travel, the individualistic or collectivist nature of a culture can be valuable. But for research, I think it is only a starting point and is too broad to be considered to be a research variable.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology