Can Protests Illuminate Collectivism in Individualistic Societies?
In a 2011 article on his cultural dimensions, Hofstede briefly describes individualism as being about the degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups. In more individualistic cultures, individuals are expected to be responsible for themselves and their immediate family members. In less individualistic or more collectivistic cultures, individuals are also expected to be responsible for extended family members or their clan. He states that in 1980 the United States (US) happened to be the highest scoring country on individualism, and that of all his cultural dimensions US psychologists reacted most positively to individualism (the US’ score was 91/100, with higher scores indicating more individualism).
US psychologists’ positive reaction to individualism continues to be observed today. For example, when discussing social perceptions, individualism is invoked to explain why Westerners tend to overestimate the role of personal factors and underestimate the role of situational factors in explaining behaviour, called the fundamental attribution error. Further, when research results do not seem to support valuing individualism, they are interpreted as instances of deviating from a moral standard or normalcy. For example, an experiment by Solomon Asch (1951) examined changing one’s behaviour to be consistent with others’ behaviour (i.e., conformity) by testing if individuals would go along with others’ obviously incorrect answer to a question. A minority of 37% did, yet this created an impact likely because conformity is incompatible with individualism. Similarly, another experiment, by Stanley Milgram (1961), examined changing one’s behaviour due to a direct command from an authoritative figure (i.e., obedience) by testing if individuals would go along with an other’s order to physically harm someone. A majority did (65%). Among the reasons this was impactful is likewise because obedience is incompatible with individualism. Incidentally, also, in 1961, Adolf Eichmann, a German-Austrian Nazi Party official, was on trial in Jerusalem for his role in organising the Holocaust - the genocide of 6 000 000 Jewish Europeans and millions of others such as Eastern Europeans. Eichmann attributed his participation to “just following orders”, also called the Nuremberg defence.
The psychological studies’ results can be explained by the role of the situational (influence) versus personal factors (values). Or perhaps the reason for conformity and obedience could be that although individualism is valued in the US, levels might have been lower in the 1950s and 1960s in contrast to the 1980s. For example, levels are lower now than in 1980. According to the Hofstede Insights website, the US’ score in 2024 is 60/100. The conformity and obedience observed might also be instances of a weak link between attitudes and behaviours. Notably, in the case of Eichmann, although he explained his behaviour with the influence of the situation, he also seems to have personally believed in, and further celebrated, Nazism. For example, he is quoted as having said in 1945, the final year of the Second World War: “I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction”, which might be indicative of a strong link between his behaviour and attitudes at the time.
All this background is given to contextualise a question – can the Gaza-war protests and boycotts in Western, individualistic countries illuminate collectivism in those countries: in regard to the fundamental attribution error, levels of valuing individualism across countries, and the link between attitudes and behaviours?
Defiance is the opposite of obedience and should thus be characteristic of individualism. However, from my perspective, the acts of public and private defiance to the war, in the forms of non-aggressive protests and boycotts, respectively, seem to show signs of collectivism or we-ness. The protesters and boycotters belong to diverse ethnic groups. So, for many of them the humans of Gaza are an outgroup on dimensions of identity like language and religion. Yet it seems that from these Westerners’ perspective, the Gazan people are integrated into their wider human ingroup.
Western psychologists are concerned about conformity and obedience. Now seems like an appropriate time to study one of their opposites: the psychology of defiance. If we learn about the factors contributing to this behaviour - for example, if valuing collectivism might paradoxically be a factor - interventions can then be designed to overcome destructive obedience.