The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of the individual and their role in personal and societal functioning.

Abstract

Two sides have emerged in the debate over the merits of American individualism. This article enters that debate first by differentiating between two indigenous psychologies of individualism, varying by the nature of the self-nonself boundary, the understanding of control as personal or field, and the conceptualization of persons as defined by their exclusiveness or their inclusiveness. Selfcontained individualism (firm boundaries, personal control, and an exclusionary concept of the person) is the familiar cultural type, addressed both by proponents and opponents of individualism. An alternate indigenous psychology, which I term ensembled individualism, is supported by cross-culturaL historical and intracultural evidence and defines a contrasting framework for understanding individualism. Three core cultural values-freedom, responsibility, and achievement--are examined under the auspices of each type. Contrary to the proponents of self-contained individualism, who state that only this type of individualism can realize these three values, I suggest not only that ensembled individualism can achieve these cultural ideals in a more lasting manner, but also that the self-contained form may actually thwart their realization.

Error-related brain activity reveals self-centric motivation: Culture matters.

“…Indeed, many currents of modern Western thought, including theories in both neoclassic economics (Hobbes, 1651;Smith, 1759) and social and behavioral sciences (Campbell, 1975;Greenwald, 1980), are built on this premise. In this tradition of thought, the self is deemed to be autonomous and self-contained (Morris, 1972;Sampson, 1988), and, in part because of this, the self is assumed to justifiably pursue the interest of the self in lieu of the interest of others (Miller, 1999). So far, however, much of this debate is limited to cultural and historical analyses, with little known about its grounding in neurobiological mechanisms.…”

Cultural accommodation: Hybridity and the framing of social obligation.

“…Individualism carries with it representations of a successful person as one who develops personal goals, works to attain them, and knows how to have fun and how to enjoy him or herself. Within this framework, relationships are individually based; that is, they are not obligatory and continue only as long as they are mutually pleasing or worthwhile (e.g., Fiske, 1990;Sampson, 1988). Individualism primes a focus on individual freedom and personal goals (Triandis, 1995).…”

“…Although the United States has often been used as the prototype of individualism, increased attention to the multiethnic, multicultural U.S. population has led to consensus that many Americans, particularly minorities, are likely to be socialized into both world individualistic and collectivist views (e.g., Phinney, 1996;Sampson, 1988). One of the promises of multiculturalism is that by affording individuals a chance to express their particularized identities, society as a whole will be strengthened (e.g., Fowers & Richardson, 1996).…”

Literature Review As Creative Inquiry

“…Even under the larger umbrella of psychology, it was unusual to see much contact between these different approaches to creativity. Nevertheless, with some exceptions (Barron, 1999), for psychologists the individual was the fundamental unit of analysis (Sampson, 1977(Sampson, , 1988(Sampson, , 1989(Sampson, , 2000. Any approaches that did not focus on the individual would be seen by the discipline as essentially nonpsychological or even antipsychological.…”