The “common view”, the “cultural binary”, and how to move forward

Abstract

Osaka's (1997, 1999) careful review of empirical research on individualism and collectivism in the US and Japan revealed a striking lack of support for the "common view" that Japanese individuals are typical collectivists whereas Americans are typical individualists. Two decades on, Takano and Osaka (2018) conclude that empirical studies have continued to fail to support the common view-and yet this view is stubbornly persistent in the literature. More is at stake here than the characterization of two national cultures. The common view epitomizes a widely adopted binary view of culture, which reduces the richness and complexity of global cultural diversity to an oversimplified contrast between individualist/ independent/ Western/ North American and collectivist/ interdependent/ Eastern/ East Asian categories. Unless cultural psychologists can move beyond binary thinking and research practices, correcting an inaccurate portrayal of American and Japanese cultures will be of limited benefit. Future progress might be fostered by (a) defining concepts more precisely, (b) more use of exploratory approaches, (c) wider sampling of cultural groups and contexts, (d) using available methodological guidance for cross-cultural research, and (e) expanding research into cultural identities and stereotypes.

“Attention, please” to situation: Replies to commentaries by Uleman, Matsumoto, Hamamura and Takemura, and Vignoles

“…We agree with Vignoles (this issue) on most of his arguments, especially the argument that the cultural binary is rooted in ubiquitous binary oppositions in language and thought. In this reply, we attempt to further clarify our arguments for future discussion on the following issues: distinction between society‐level and individual‐level cultural difference, and dimensionality and utility of the I/C concept.…”

“…Vignoles (this issue) states, “It remains possible that U.S. and Japanese societies may differ on I‐C, but that these differences are at the level of societal organization rather than the personality tendencies of societal members” (p. 338). This distinction between societal organization and societal members requires clarification on what is exactly meant by I/C at the society level.…”

“…This question is critical. Without a convincing answer to this question, the distinction between the society level and the individual level will be a mere fallacy due to “a problematic—but deeply held—cultural assumption that sociality is fundamentally opposed to individuality,” as noted by Vignoles (p. 340).…”

“…Vignoles’ (this issue) interesting argument may be a good start point: “One might autonomously choose to behave similarly to others or might be influenced to behave differently from others (i.e., autonomy is not necessarily the opposite of conformity)” (p. 338). We do not ask how it is judged that the person has autonomously chosen to conform to others.…”

“…Vignoles (this issue) states, “but they [Takano & Osaka, this issue] have not questioned the utility of I/C as a dimension for comparing cultural groups or their individual members. Takano and Osaka (this issue) strongly defended the concept of I/C, describing it as a ‘ready‐made concept’ comparable to the concept of ‘length’ in measurement” (p. 338)…”