Culture Clash: Individualism

Earlier this week I wrote about Geert Hofstede’s Power Distance Index (PDI) and how that culture clash can interfere with happiness. But PDI is only one of the five dimensions of culture that Geert Hofstede identifies. Another dimension is individualism, and the culture clash along this dimension seems to have a larger effect on happiness than the culture clash along the PDI dimension.

Cultures with low individualism are collective. They emphasize the role of groups. Such cultures tend to have strong bonds with their extended families and community. The primary values of these cultures include loyalty to the group, responsibility to the group, and support of the group.

Cultures with high individualism are, as the word implies, individualistic. Group bonds are weak. Every person looks out for him or herself and expects others do the same. Self-reliance, independence, and uniqueness are the values promoted by these cultures.

The United States ranks at the top of the individualism scale with a score of 91. Taiwan ranks below average with a score of 17. And the country with the lowest individualism score is Guatemala at 6. Broadly speaking, the United States, Australia, and European countries are highly individualistic. In contrast, Asian and South American countries tend to be more collective, though Japan and Argentina stand out as being much more individualistic than their neighbors.

I wonder how individualism relates to happiness. As was the case with PDI, arguments can be made for both sides of the coin. That is, whether more individualism increases happiness or whether less individualism increases happiness.

Much of the advice about pursuing happiness in America centers on the individual. Be yourself. Pursue your own goals and dreams. Find your authentic self. Don’t care about what others think about you. Live for yourself.

Yet, research consistently shows a strong correlation between having strong social bonds and being happy.^* In a recent article published in The Atlantic, the author writes,

In an interview in the March 2008 newsletter to the Grant Study subjects, Vaillant was asked, “What have you learned from the Grant Study men?” Vaillant’s response: “That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people.”

If people of collective cultures have stronger social bonds, then wouldn’t they be happier?

Americans have very weak family ties. We want the freedom to pursue our own dreams, and we let others pursue their dreams too. Dependence is frowned upon and independence is celebrated. We cherish our autonomy and encourage self-reliance.

As an American I have fully embraced these values of individualism. I treasure them and believe in them. And although I can’t imagine giving up these values, I wonder if they lead to happiness or if they hinder it. Would I be happier with stronger family ties?

After visiting my extended family in Taiwan, it’s easy to imagine my life being happier there. On that small island, I have an enormous extended family– my grandmother, aunts, uncles, cousins, and children of cousins. For this past Mother’s Day, my father reported to me that the extended family of his side had a gathering of 27 mothers spanning three generations. Three generations of mothers mean there were a total of four generations at the celebration. That’s impressive! Being constantly surrounded by people who look out for you, support your back, and laugh with you sounds amazing to me. But perhaps I romanticize it. Ultimately, I don’t know whether more or less individualism contributes to happiness, I do know that the culture clash causes much unhappiness.

The culture clash is especially hard on couples who are from opposite ends of the individualism spectrum. The one from a collective culture understands obligations to family, living close to family, and financially supporting family, while the one from an individualistic culture doesn’t understand why those collectively-oriented family members aren’t more independent.

A relative of mine who immigrated to the States from Taiwan at an early age ended up marrying an American. The culture clash was a major source of their arguments. When she helped financially support her family, he didn’t understand why. She gave her parents money and also subsidized her younger sibling’s rent. He saw this as enabling a dependent young adult. She saw it as taking care of her family. This was what families did. They helped one another and supported one another no matter the circumstance. In the end, their solution to this problem was highly individualistic – separate bank accounts. She was free to do what she wanted with her money, and he was afforded the same luxury. Very American indeed.

Another culture clash story involves a friend of mine, who went to Disney World with her husband, her mother, and her mother’s friends. Like my other immigrants anecdotes, my friend’s mother had immigrated to the States from Taiwan. Her husband, on the other hand, was from a family well-rooted in America probably since its Revolutionary days. Her mother insisted the entire group explore Disney World together. And so, what rides they went on were collectively decided. This meant that everyone had to sacrifice a little bit of their own happiness for the sake of being in the group.

Unfortunately, this collective concept was completely foreign to my friend’s American husband. When his own family vacationed together, everyone went in separate directions. Those who preferred more thrilling rides paired up together, separating themselves from those who preferred quieter rides. When the day was over, everyone simply met up again. Needless to say, this culture clash was a huge source of unhappiness for him, as he was dragged from one uninteresting ride to the next.

From a collectivist perspective, the point of vacationing together was the chance to spend time with one another. If the group didn’t explore Disney World together, then what was the point of vacationing together? The purpose wasn’t so much the rides as it was simply being with one another. In other words, the point was the group, not the individual.

Is there a right perspective? Are more individualistic countries happier or are more collectivist countries happier? I don’t know. I tend to prefer individualism myself, but perhaps I am too enmeshed in the American culture to see clearly. When the trade off is between the self and the group, I tend to prefer the self. Life is short. Why should I waste my life appeasing others? But does the pursuit of our own American dreams sacrifice too much? Isn’t it lonely at the top?

---

* Diener and Seligman. “Very Happy People.” Psychological Science. 2002.