

Dividing societies into individualist and collective mentalities - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/opinion/12brooks.html?hp

======
wwalker3
Brooks is confusing collectivism with dictatorship, and they're not related.
You can have a collectivist democracy, like Japan, or an individualist
dictatorship, like Saddam's Iraq or Nazi Germany.

China's recent economic improvements have nothing to do with its collectivism.
They're due to more freedom, both economic and personal, for its citizens.
Taiwan, whose people are arguably very similar to the Chinese in cultural
outlook, started prospering as they emerged from martial law under the
Kuomintang to democracy. Hopefully China will follow the same path as Taiwan
and South Korea in this respect.

I get the sense that Brooks wants to prove that dictatorships are just as
morally legitimate as democracies, and that the people of Asia (or the Middle
East, or wherever) are somehow culturally programmed to thrive under a
dictatorship. He's got it backwards -- the people thrive not because of the
dictatorship, but in spite of it. Once they're freed, they'll thrive all the
more.

------
astine
Bleh

Sweeping generalization after sweeping generalization, this article not only
provides no substance, but then starts bringing up some of the stupidest "what
if" scenarios I've ever read.

"What if Asia all of a sudden started doing well economically?" -- Has this
person been under a rock for the past 50 years? East Asia has consistently
grown economically since the mid 20th century and and some nations currently
rank with the nations of the Western World: Japan, Singapore, South Korea,
etc.

Granted, some Asian economies have their problems, but so do many so called
individualist Western economies. Mexico, for example, is easily no better off
than China.

~~~
gojomo
It's an 800-word op-ed column. The essence of the form is generalizations,
vague trend-spotting, and suggestive questions.

You've also deceptively misquoted the article to make it easier to mock.
Brooks' actual question is "What happens if collectivist societies, especially
those in Asia, rise economically and come to rival the West?"

There's a lot more nuance to that question than your rephrasing, and Brooks is
just as aware of Japan, Singapore, and South Korea as you are.

~~~
astine
I didn't quote him, I paraphrased him, If the quotation marks put you off,
then I'm sorry.

However, the answer is the same. 'Collectivist,' Asian societies have risen
economically and do rival the West. Even the many of the Communist ones which
are collectivist, not due to their Asianess, but due to a certain Western
import.

~~~
gaius
One of the interesting things about the world is that it has provided a
laboratory in which we can actually see. Compare East and West Germany pre-
unification. Compare North and South Korea. Compare Cuba and Florida.

------
kennon
I would argue that the China example is somewhat invalid. Seems to me that
China's economy has been expanding because they've begun to mimic "western"
capitalistic principles more closely than in the past. That is, Chinese
citizens are more able and willing to start up businesses for personal gain,
something that wasn't really possible a couple decades ago.

Also, I picked the cow and the hay, even though I lean more towards
individualism-- maybe not compared to the average American, though (I'm
Chinese, born in the US).

~~~
stcredzero
If you're going to make a prediction of China on which you will bet, bet that
China will continue to be China.

This is more that a tautology -- I suspect there is a tremendous stability to
the underlying forms of culture and society in China that seems to transcend
ideology. Mao just turned out to be the latest Emperor, after all. I predict
that China will more or less continue to have its current borders. It will
continue to have a highly centralized government. China will ultimately defeat
invasions (including cultural ones) through assimilation. If democracy ever
comes to China, it will be a uniquely Chinese version that will somehow manage
to resemble an imperial government.

~~~
william42
I remember learning about China in a class and one of the things that was said
was that they perceived Communism slightly differently from the old USSR, they
perceived it in a more Confucian light.

------
kansando
Yet another blah article generalizing about entire countries based on
experiments done on 30 people at a time under lab conditions.Go NY Times.

~~~
william42
I knew it would be stupid from the moment I saw that David Brooks* wrote it.

*<http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=David_Brooks>

------
stcredzero
Corporation as Feudal Estate:

<http://www.ecobooks.com/books/divineright.htm>

[http://praxisblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/the-
corporation-a...](http://praxisblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/the-corporation-
as-feudal-estate/)

<http://www.davidcogswell.com/Reviews/DivineRightReview.html>

------
brm
seems like a thinly veiled comparison of communism and capitalism to me

~~~
time_management
Corporate capitalism, though, is a rather miraculous invention. It manages to
preserve the stifling collectivism and anti-creative properties of socialism,
while maintaining the greed, rampant inequality, and social devolution
inherent to runaway capitalism. Worst of both worlds, yay.

~~~
stcredzero
The stifling collectivism and anti-creative properties you refer to are more
akin to Feudalism, IMO.

~~~
brm
wow the down-modding here is definitely a case of down-modding out of
disagreement. someone should fix that

