The Background Story
My maternal grandmother’s family came to America on the first Mayflower voyage. I first heard the term “American rugged individualism” from her husband, my grandfather. He would have such an “atta boy” look of pride on his face when he heard about young men who, like he and his Scottish brothers, had moved away from home and independently settled a piece of land, started a family and made their way in the world. At family reunions the Yeaton boys would recount fishing and farming stories and compare their big and shiny American-made vehicles. Even my own father’s humble story is a classic -”pulled himself up by the bootstraps despite all odds”- kind of tale. His story is one of a boy from a Portuguese immigrant family in poverty and desperation who ultimately became a successful member of the middle class. He claims the catalyst for change was competitive sports and education.
Some would say my family’s legacy is the example of the “American Dream”. “America” is a nation which values independence, self-reliance and competition. “Rugged individualism” seems to describe more than the personalities of the early settlers in the United States. Instead it seems to describe our national sense of who we are, what we value and what we believe. Values and beliefs affect what we do and ultimately what we teach the next generation. When it comes to global education, will our core values of independence, self-reliance and competition restrain American leaders and its citizens from joining in a system like the Bologna Process? Global education, like intercultural communication, hopes to find better ways to promote cultural understanding and global awareness.
Besides having “studies” classes, the U.S., on the whole, does little to really prepare students to communicate or participate cross-culturally. It has not yet placed a huge emphasis on being culturally and globally aware. Is this a problem?
According to some intercultural communication research, our skills and abilities, at this point, may land us a global education report card that would read: Doesn’t Play Well with Others.
A summary of a study by Seo, Miller, Schmidt, and Sowa in 2008
Nearly 150 students participated in the eight-week online chemistry course (83 from the U.S.; 59 from Hong Kong). A large component of the course was an online discussion. Students were divided into groups, required to read course materials, and asked to participate in a threaded discussions (in English) on WebCT. The results indicate significant cultural differences between the United States and Hong Kong. These differences were most clearly expressed by students in their communication, participation, and satisfaction.
The Results of the Study:
Participation: All Hong Kong students participated regularly in the discussion. On the whole, they joined the discussion and commented nearly twice as much as U.S. students. Some U.S students posted several times while others failed to or forgot to post. U.S. students complained about the requirements and deadlines. H.K. students did not write any complaints. The students from Hong Kong summarized their groups’ ideas. They tried to “integrate opinions and create a uniform group perspective on a given topic” (pg.3-4.) U.S. students simply posted their individual thoughts and ideas.
Communication: U.S. students disagreed more and disagreed more harshly than H.K students. For example, H.K. students said: “I can see your point, but I think global warming is the most important thing that we have to pay attention to.” “Someone expressed that the factories need to control their pollutants, but I want to point out that without many of the factories and their way of production we would lack many resources.” This is compared to U.S. students who commented: “I have to disagree with some of the assumptions that you have made about global warming, which you clearly based off of this one article alone.” “She said that the air quality is improving. I was wondering where she learned this. It is completely wrong.” Also H.K. students sought interaction and invited discussion, whereas U.S. students used language that closed further discussion. For example students from Hong Kong said: “Do you think so?” Or, “Could you suggest other methods…? U.S. students’ statements were written as complete fact: “Anyway those are my feelings on this discussion. I strongly doubt…” (pg.3-4)
Satisfaction with Discussion Groups: When asked what they liked about the discussion U.S. students liked that it allowed them to express their own views. H.K. students liked reading other students’ views and having the opportunity to share ideas with others. They also mentioned making new friends and getting to know others and their thoughts.
When it comes to education, I believe the individualism/collectivism dimension is the most important for explaining cross-cultural differences. Do you agree?
Helpful definitions and concepts:
- American Culture – “
In American culture…the normative imperative of the self is to become independent from others, and to discover and express one’s internal wishes or unique attributes.
“ “… American culture is referred to as a more-or-less integrated whole composed of abilities, preferences, feeling states, and attributes.” “Individuals with this view of the self are found to ‘continually identify these attributes and then insure that they are persistently expressed and affirmed.’
” (Zhong, pg. 112) - Culture – “
Culture is the ‘collective mental programming’ shared by individuals with other members of their nation or group, but not with the members of other nations or groups.
“ - Cultural Dimensions/Perspectives – psychological dimensions, or value constructs, which can be used to describe a specific culture. These are often used in intercultural communication/cross-cultural-based research (definition summary, Wikipedia). Hofstede names five key dimensions, one of which is individual vs. collective.
- Individual Perspective – values personal achievement, goals and gains. It promotes self-reliance, competition, self-interest and pleasure. It is independent, yet demanding of others.
- Collective Perspective – values harmony, cooperation and a sense of belonging. It promotes reciprocation, concern and protection of others and their interests, and a respect for tradition. Within collectivism goals and achievements are shared by the group. It maintains rigid social frameworks.
- Education – “
Services, such as education, that involve high degrees of human interaction can be greatly influenced by cultural elements.
” (Frankel, et.al.,pg.34) “… culture is transmitted from one generation to the next; the values and expectations of education are transmitted and reconstructed via student and teacher participation in school settings.
” (Frankel, et al., pg. 40)
Is the Collective Perspective Better for Global Education than the Individual Perspective? What do you think?
A Helpful Comparison
Frankel, Swanson and Sagan provide a helpful chart which summarizes the differences between individualism and collectivism perspectives as it relates to education issues.
| Issue | Collective Perspective | Individual Perspective |
|---|---|---|
| Goals | Prefer group-oriented; public praise for individual achievement may create discomfort; career choices may be what is best for the family | Prefer individual; career choices are based on individual interests and skills |
| Resource Distribution | Equality principle of distribution regardless of contribution | Equity distribution based on contribution |
| Academic Activities | Small group problem-solving | Individual work assignments |
| Discourse Patterns | Prefer not to speak up in large or whole group settings; co-narrative (choral); conversations to build group consensus, harmony and understanding | Sole, with emphasis on one’s own opinions and differences |
| Communication | Less direct verbal, and more emphasis on indirect and non-verbal | Direct verbal is emphasized and expected |
| Conflict | Humility; unwillingness to display academic competence in order to maintain equality; withholding expression of negative emotions (anger, disappointment, frustration) | Verbal (especially in intense emotional situations) |
| Resolution and Counseling | Emphasis on self-disclosure may create discomfort or be uncomfortable; also includes societal and system factors | Self-disclosure is paramount |
More Questions
The Bologna Process aims to have students and professors from different cultures sharing ideas, appreciating the unique skills and perspectives of others, and hopefully, learning from the best each has to offer. If global education consortiums like the Bologna Process rely on the fact that students will share a more collective perspective, how will the U.S. students succeed? Do terms like global, intercultural and multinational always imply a need for collective approaches? Are there ways to add multicultural value to the education we provide in the U.S. without losing our core values? Or is it simply the case that Reagan is correct and other nations are making a crucial mistake by giving up academic freedom to groups like the Bologna Process? In doing so are they crowning a new multinational royal family of educators whose scepter we may one day resent?
The hard evidence of totalitarian rule has caused in mankind an uprising of the intellect and will. Whether it is the growth of the new schools of economics in America or England or the appearance of the so-called new philosophers in France, there is one unifying thread running through the intellectual work of these groups — rejection of the arbitrary power of the state, the refusal to subordinate the rights of the individual to the superstate, the realization that collectivism stifles all the best human impulses. –Ronald Reagan
Suggested Reading List:
- BU, Z. (2008). Thinking along the Cultural Line: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry of Ethical Decision Making among U.S. and Chinese Journalism Students. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 63(2), 110-126. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
- Frankel, R., Swanson, S., & Sagan, M. (2005). The Role of Individualism/Collectivism in Critical Classroom Encounters: A Four Country Study. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 17(1/2), 33-59. doi:10.1300/J066v17n01_03.
- GOH, J. (2009). Globalization’s culture consequences of MBA education across Australia and Singapore: sophistry or truth?. Higher Education, 58(2), 131-155. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9186-5.
- Hofstede, G. (1983). NATIONAL CULTURES IN FOUR DIMENSIONS. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1/2), 46-74. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
- Hofstede, Geert H. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991
- Hofstede, Geert H. Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif. :Sage Publications, 2001.
- Seo, K., Miller, P., Schmidt, C., & Sowa, P. (2008). Creating Synergy between Collectivism and Individualism in Cyberspace: A Comparison of Online Communication Patterns between Hong Kong and U.S. Students. Journal of Intercultural Communication, (18), 4. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
