Another example of individualism vs. collectivism might lie in the concept of the hero and the worship of it. The title, hero, and the fact that it classifies someone in possession of a virtuous personality, probably came from a need to provide soldiers with some kind of boon for their more selfless wartime actions. The title was bestowed on all who served the grand ruler of a particular society, such as emperors, kings, queens and presidents. Indeed it is a title still in use today and it has also become a means of coaxing the individualist into actions that she or he might never otherwise consider.
The notion of heroism became a tainted concept amongst nations such as Germany, for which the ideologies of Nazism are to blame, and Australia, who fought many a war for Queen and Country, but whose country served as Britain's surplus stock. The hero, therefore, is an individualist concept that does not resonate with everyone. Certain cultures simply do not approach heroism with the same fervour as others and might therefore be classified as collectivist.
However, the argument I would like to raise in this post revolves around a higher degree of collectivism. Within western cultures, some might prove less idiosyncratic than others, but for the most part, we approach our quotidian activities in fundamentally similar ways. On international turf, there is a much more profound difference between western thinking and an African or Asian mindset.
Essentially, a western mind subscribes to Descartes's famous philosophy, "I think therefore I am". It is the only proof we have that we exist at all. What separates us from the animals? We think. Why do we contemplate the human condition at all? We think. And that is why we are. One might even go as far as to say that "I think therefore I am" sets an anxious mind at a certain ease.
A few years ago in an interview with South African entrepreneur, Steuart Pennington, co-founder of South Africa: The Good News, he explained something very valuable to me, at least concerning this trail of thought. There is a life's philosophy, predominantly amongst black South Africans, called Ubuntu. In his terms, it means "I am because we are". This philosophy is said to represent the mindsets of most Africans. The term is used in an official capacity in political debate, serves as a means of classifying what separates black South Africans from the white and/or other South African races, and has even become the name of a Linux operating system. Ubuntu raises a debate, not without controversy, entirely separate from the one at hand, which we will not delve into here, but it does provide a foundation with which to describe collectivist thought.
The individualist perspective, I think therefore I am, is a self-centred one, whether or not one believes that self interest is a good thing. The collectivist mindset, I am because we are, involves the individual in relation to his or her society. Collectivism would therefore seem selfless, but like all good and noble ideas, it is only as strong as its weakest link and perhaps not so ironically, the weakest link often occupies the throne. In Africa, the tribal system ensures that the leaders benefit most, unfortunately echoing too loudly Orwell's single commandment from Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
Asia would appear to face a similar challenge, but the Asian brand of collectivism, essentially informed by Confucius, is more apparent within its cultural nuances. Considering the Koreas, for instance, North Korea exercises absolute control over its society. Every megabyte of information about that country is shrouded in propaganda and mystery. South Korea, on the other hand, has become a strange and conflicting Asian culture. Its unending history of fending off invasions, both physical and cultural, from both China and Japan has resulted in a seldom more persistent culture. If the answer is no, keep asking, is the Korean way. In that way, they resisted integration into China in the middle ages and somehow retained their Korean identity through a 60-year-long Japanese rule from 1905 - 1965.Nowadays, South Korea is embracing the lifestyle of their hero culture, the America that liberated them from the Japanese. Yet despite the influx of American commerce (Starbucks, Costco, Subway, Nike, Hollister, et al.) and how it has come to define modern Korean pop culture, Korean persistence remains their ultimate trait. In their own way, they have, as a collective, begun to take the popular world brands and put their own spin on it. The result is a string of not-quite-Italian restaurants, not-quite-burger joints and not-quite-right-fitting clothes. In the same way, Koreans have given rise to their own brand of English, too, known colloquially as Konglish, which is the result, as in most languages that have ever borrowed, of simply not having the naturally occuring vocabulary for things that did not exist in the language before the concept was introduced to the culture. But the point is that it works for the local populace, catering to its taste, tongue and bodily proportions.
The trouble with selective integration is not in food or clothing, but in spiritual matters. I would go so far as to say that the Christian faith has nowhere else in Asia overtaken indigenous religions at quite the same rate as in South Korea. When I visited Korea seven years ago, Christianity comprised approximately 25% of their collective religion. Now, Christianity is by far the most dominant religion. Furthermore, as with so much else, their particular brand of Christianity was sourced from America, mostly from Evangelism, an offshoot of the Christian faith notorious for inducing mass hysteria in its practices. It would make sense that a largely collectivist culture would embrace one of the most crowd-centred of Christian churches. The Evangelists have no doubt had a great hand in their Korean dissemination.
Although much has changed in the west, the power of mass influence through religion is rife in Africa and Asia. Much of Asia might not practice classical religion, but religious thinking is what allows North Korea to be a dictatorship. The great leader simply assumes the role of God and for the rest, rules with fear as his ally. And despite China's apparent freedom, their conservative Confucianist mindset is what makes their unbalance of governmental power work. In the run-up to the most recent South African national elections a few years ago, the Mail & Guardian reported that Jacob Zuma, in a speech to a crowd of Zulu supporters, uttered that Jesus wanted him to be president and that is why they should vote for him. The danger, in all cases considered, lies not necessarily in leadership, which is a worry, but in the fact that these leaders enjoy so much support from their people. They craft great myths to surround them in a air of wonderment and the troublesome thing is that people want to fall for it. People, even collectivists, have an insatiable need for a hero.
The truth is that change is a slow process, even despite today's rapidly changing socio-economic climate. By the time revolution hangs in the air, the cogs had been turning for awhile. Many of us still cling to a good story when we should perhaps place our political trust in the hands of gifted administrators. On the other hand, given the benefit of hindsight on the Mbeki presidency in South Africa, charm is a valuable component of the process. It is perhaps just a little more than prudent that we beware the charmers who coax us into accepting archaic styles of governance, such as divine rule and papacy, although that has always been true. I suspect that most politicians, like most performers, realise that they are only as good as their last show, but as with so much else, the craft has become so impeccably well developed.
Hanfred Rauch
No comments:
Post a Comment