It’s not so clear as East vs. West…

Article

It’s not so clear as East vs. West…

ID # 3777

According to an online database of cultural dimensions, Singapore (where I spent the most time this summer) tends more towards collectivism, whereas the United States is a very individualistic society. In a highly collectivist state, the focus is on group achievement rather than individual success, and people see themselves as deeply embedded in their respective “in-groups” and fundamentally separate from their “out-groups.” Collectivist models are said to be characteristic of many Asian nations, where Confucian values of cooperation and communal connectedness underpin people’s cultural senses. Highly collectivist societies like Singapore also tend to emphasize hierarchical models of relations between people.

My experience studying abroad mostly matches up with this characterization of Singapore as a highly collectivist society. Singaporeans interact in terms of the groups the identify with: various ethnic groups have a strong sense of identity, different generations share unique social values, and Singaporeans in general tend to view themselves as one big “in-group” as opposed to other Southeast Asian nations nearby. In my history class on Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia, I learned about the some of the historical roots for these tendencies: Singapore, after its independence in 1960, ostracized itself to a degree from nearby countries in an attempt to build itself as a globally competitive nation. Singaporeans of all classes and backgrounds were brought together under the government in a collectivist umbrella of economic expansion. Even as Singaporeans strove to better the nation by working hard and rising to the top, however, social and cultural groups became increasingly distinguished from each other: government policies deepened social stratification by establishing racial quotas in housing developments, by demanding ethnic and religious identification, and by instituting education policies aimed to preserve certain “Asian values” in preference of other (Western) values. Singaporeans thus desperately try to compete as one nation within a context of an increasingly globalized and competitive world market, while in Singapore itself different social groups compete with each other for recognition, acceptance, and hierarchical positions. At the individual level, however, I met many Singaporeans who would poke fun at the collectivist mental model of their peers – joking about how fundamentally “kiasu” Singaporeans are – and would, in contrast, express individualistic desires akin to those embraced by Americans.  This just goes to show that ‘culture’ isn’t a blanket set of expectations – falling into either “Eastern” or “Western” categories of thought – that apply to all individuals in that society, but rather that culture points to general values which can help to explain people’s behaviors.

While traveling, I learned that places and cultures around the world cannot be lassoed into neat, uniform packages defined by across-the-board cultural labels. The complexities and “many stories” of the places I went to are hard to juggle, though, and it seems tempting to revert to using the common ‘rhetoric’  of East vs. West dialogues when trying to share my experiences. Yes, Singapore appeared in many ways to be constantly striving – economically, culturally, socially – to better itself, and indeed a lot of the people there showed ‘kiasu’ tendencies. Yes, India was colorful and there were lots of animals in the streets and great music and dancing. But there’s so much more to it than that! This class has helped remind me of the importance of sharing and focusing on subtler dimensions of culture which I came into contact with while abroad. Hopefully, through Carolina Navigators I can challenge some students’ single-stories of Singapore and India by sharing my own story – a multi-layered, unique vantage to seeing these cultures in new ways.