David Brooks has always been one of my favorite syndicated columnists. A political and intellectual conservative, Brooks routinely helps me examine my assumptions while at the same time clearly articulating his own. A recent Brooks column provides a wonderful example of commentary that makes the reader think about ideas. Not one single person is named in this column. There is no discussion of personal character or campaign strategies, something that can very rarely be said about a newspaper column. Brooks writes about dividing the cultures and nations of the world (for purposes of classification at least) between those dominated by an individualist ethos and those with a more collectivist mentality. This ideological/cultural dichotomy has often been employed to contrast West from East. Brooks was moved to opine about these countervailing ideas and their corresponding worldviews while watching the Olympics in very collectivist China.
The deeply ingrained narrative in America holds that individualism (liberalism), capitalism, and democracy are the only routes to a prosperous, peaceful, and powerful nation. Brooks thoughtfully wonders if China's growing economic prowess will provide evidence that collectivism and economic prosperity can coexist. Interestingly, he signals his unwillingness to consider the compatibility of collectivism and democracy by dismissing the former as "a useful ideology for autocrats." It's okay for a conservative pundit to ponder abstract ideas like individualism and collectivism, but to even hint at the possibility that an illiberal democracy is possible would be heretical.
For me the most provocative and interesting element of Brooks' piece was his acknowledgement that some emerging scientific research calls the western notion of individualism "an illusion" and indicates that "the Chinese are right to put first emphasis on social context." It is the importance of context to those in collectivist cultures that most intrigues me here. Is there a link between academic performance and cultural predisposition to individualism or collectivism? Why have immigrants in America who hail from eastern countries where collectivism dominates done more well academically and economically in the United States than other immigrants?
As an educator who spends a great deal of time trying to persuade American college students to understand and appreciate the centrality of "context" to effective analysis and critical thinking, I have been frustrated by the sense that many of these young Americans are intellectually handicapped by their fiercely individualistic outlooks on life. Modern American culture so thoroughly celebrates and encourages individualism and nonconformity that it often seems to produce young adults whose teamwork skills and understanding of context are severely retarded.
This lack of appreciation for context, bolstered perhaps subtly by our liberal culture, leaves many Americans at the mercy of demagogues and charlatans. They vote for politicians who don't share their interests and get credit cards and mortgages from corporations that rely on their lack of intellectual sophistication and culturally induced overconfidence about their own prospects. Egocentric societies produce egocentric thinkers, which by definition makes it very hard to understand and appreciate multiple perspectives or to effectively plan for multiple contingencies in a complex world.
Labor union membership is way down in America because fewer and fewer American workers appreciate or understand the rationality of collective action. American voters are ubiquitously encouraged to avoid the influence of others when it comes to religion and politics. These topics, we are told incessantly, are intensely personal and should be the product of one's own mind and heart. Those who follow their church, their union, or their party are derided as "sheep" or "lemmings." This personalization of religion and politics (two explicitly "social" phenomena) has crippled the majority and empowered elite actors. Televangelists and high powered special interests exert disproportionate influence, leaving the flock and the voters in an increasing state of frustration, alienation, and disappointment.
Some hard introspection about the downsides of America's individualistic ethos would be a very good thing. The education of our children and the prosperity of our 21st century economy may depend on it.