The scope of public administration is as broad as the outer space is vast. In public administration we find many concepts that are utilized to make decisions that benefit the well-being of the nation and its citizens. These concepts are normally schools of thought that follow a belief or practice usually backed by some form of scientific or empirical data. The two beliefs I will be discussing, although not explicitly structured as what the forefathers implemented can be seen in many facets of public administration today. Individualism and collectivism are as much opposites as the north and south poles, but they are commonly mentioned together when I watch CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC. Let us delve into these concepts a little deeper and attempt to uncover a relationship.
Individualism can be defined as a moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses “the moral worth of the individual” (no author, 2011). It could also be interpreted as social theory that advocates the liberty, rights, and/or independent action of the individual (no author, 2009). Followers in this school of thought commonly are uninterested in external interference or opposition, choosing to value independence and self-reliance. In a political fashion, individualism can be dissected into two views (among many!). These two views are liberalism and anarchism, the more popular being the former.
Collectivism can be described as any philosophic, political, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes “the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals (no author, 2011). One could also define collectivism as a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution (no author, 2010). Followers of this school of thought place the needs of the whole above the sum of its parts. Examples of collectivism, to some degree of course, can be viewed today in socialism and communism.
To compare and contrast, I will quote from an article written by David McKalip. Activists of collectivism, in its most extreme form of course, seek to control every aspect of the lives of everyone. Individualists only wish to win control over the degree of power possessed by government. Collectivism holds that all power and money will be put into the hands of a few elite people. Individualism holds that the individual is in charge of his/her life (McKalip, 2010). There are also differences in morality. According to objectivsm101.com, collectivism destroys proper moral judgment by attributing value choices to the group as opposed to the person making the choice. On the contrary, individualism can be viewed as the proper approach to this morality lapse since the individual, and not the group, gets the credit or blame (no author, 2005).
Clearly, there is a bit of a yin and yang relationship between collectivism and individualism. Collectivism and individualism are truly each other’s opposite. They could even be categorized as arch enemies.
References:
no author. (2011). Individualism. Retrieved
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism
no author. (2009). Individualism. Retrieved
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individualism
no author. (2011). Collectivism. Retrieved
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
no author. (2010). Collectivism. Retrieved
from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collectivism
McKalip, D. (2010, April 22). The 100
years war: collectivism vs. individualism. Retrieved from http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=795
no author. (2005). Individualism vs. collectivism. Retrieved from
Good. I am with you up to the yin and yang part. :-) "Opposition" does not necessarily imply being "enemies." I understand that in Eastern culture the meaning of yin and yang is more nearly a complementary relationship. It is the recognition of the other in the self, and the self in the other.
ReplyDelete