In the midst of entrenching ourselves in our daily lives,
how often do we hold back our massive footsteps to care about global issues?
Asians have been thought to be classified under the collectivist, high context culture which thrives on notions of thrift, mutual sympathy, equality in reward distribution and fulfillment of other's needs. In a high context culture, relationships are valued over anything else. Could that be the very key China and India's slight success in fighting hunger?
According to the report, the above hypothesis does not hold for countries like India, (in the article) have apparently been criticized for not doing enough to fight hunger. Can we then say that the properties surrounding a collectivism and individualism loses its credibility and accuracy? I think those properties need not be false, and that hunger is a huge issue to handle especially if the country is so large. Also, it depends on the government's willingness to really " fulfill the needs" of its people, however huge the population it requires to feed. In China's case, the country as a whole is receiving massive exports from powerhouses like the US and many other countries, greatly solving the problems of unemployment and promoting economic development, despite the humongous population. Therefore, it is in a better position to alleviate problems of hunger than India.
On the other hand, a seemingly low context, individualist culture like Brazil was ranked first in fighting hunger. Again, an individualist culture should embrace notions of freedom, hedonism and reward distribution based on individual performance. Does this mean, then, that the properties guarding individualism cannot hold?
My answer to that would still surround notions of relativism. These properties of the two different cultures are generalized and do not apply for all countries in the world. Just like in DCs e.g. the US, UK, Japan and Singapore where affluence is a common trait, there are still people living in poverty.
To highlight the point on relativism, I shall use Singapore to accentuate my stand. Residing in a collectivist environment, we most of the time practice modesty, and in the midst of our own groups, when someone is able to speak confidently of his/her achievements or capabilities, we consider that person, arrogant. We also practice filial piety and it seems like the reversed role of caring and providing for our parents is already like an integral part of life, but in the midst of the mass of us, there are still, a handful of ungrateful souls who have failed that very responsibility. The government tries to practice equality in reward distribution as can be seen from bonuses given to citizens whenever there is economic growth. In the midst of it, there are other aspects of development the government has to consider and so at times, increased national income are channelled to these areas instead of distribution. The people can benefit from these development in the long run. Lastly, having an asian mindset has enabled us to be thrifty. That is however not to say that our young especially, do not indulge in materialism. Nonetheless if we were to compare ourselves to the western culture of spending, we, can be relatively thrifty.
Therefore, Triandis's properties of the two cultures are pretty much accurate in my point of view.
You, may beg to differ.
i think other factor comes into play as well.
ReplyDeletethe most important is of course the government focus. most government will put more focus on their economic activities and to a certain extent education, cause it'll give them a better chance to get out of this hunger/poverty eventually.
this collectivist and individualist culture is more what the better off in the respective country is doing for the less well off.
Afterall in a supposedly developing country, there's still bound to be those economically well off.
i'm not sure whether we can look at hunger levels from the culture's point of view.
ReplyDeletei would have to agree with ismadi that the government plays the lead role in ensuring that hunger doesnt strike the country, and not whether it is a collectivist or individualist country.
the nature of the culture within a country is what shapes the country. however, i doubt issues such as hunger is within the control of its people. it is more likely dependent on the willingness of the country's leaders to do something about it, and also if there are other pressing issues at hand.
I doubt we can look at hunger levels from a culture's poit of view. There're other factors (government) affecting hunger levels.
ReplyDeleteI agree with L. It's up to the government to do something about this issue.
lynn`