In the West economic development spawned individualism and the spirit of ‘68. Modernisation theorists predicted that growth would deliver liberalism worldwide. Inglehart and Welzel argued that post-industrial societies would champion self-expression. But in fact, this has not transpired. Many prosperous places - like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and South Korea - remain quite conservative. India’s economic growth has not delivered secularism, but Hindu nationalism.
Much of this sounds like it is simply a matter of timelags. This reminds me of the old debate about 'why is the USA so religious for its level of development? did free market in religion foster selection for uber-religions or something compared to Europe?' It's an old debate now, rather than a current debate, because it turns out US religion has been plummeting for a while and it no longer looks like such an anomaly. It just took time.
Even at the same level of per capita GDP, it takes *time* for any cultural effects to happen and cause convergence, as older generations are replaced slowly no matter how high or low the GDP. For example, South Korea: most of the elderly people in South Korea grew up when South Korean development looked more like subsaharan Africa level than anything like a First World country. Whereas for the USA, that was literally centuries ago. (If you are 80 in SK right now, then you were growing up in 1943-1963 - so literally during the WWII colonization by Japan and then the Korean War. You would have to go back, I think, to, like, the 1700s to find a USA with development equivalent to SK in 1943.) So it is no surprise if SK culture is far more conservative than it 'should' be at its current GDP! That's what happens when you go, within 3 generations, from one of the poorest to richest countries in the world. If you follow SK issues, you can see this massive generational shift at play in their current feminism culture war, where it's gotten very ugly because of the profound rift between 1940s thinking and 2020s thinking. Meanwhile, in Japan, the situation is not ideal but it's substantially more feminist (with a much higher birth rate too); one notes that it's been developed higher for much longer and it had parallel clashes in more like... the Taishō era, over a century ago.
What about Scandinavian countries? They are collectivists as well but have much better gender relations as compared to America which is similarly rich.
Also, why trust in government institutions is so high in Scandinavian countries? While it’s low in other countries of both high and low trust societies.
Is it because of their government system? (Proportional representation instead of first past the post thus leading to more civil political discourse)?
I think Barrington Moore covered very similar ground with similarly odd presumptions many years ago. There are probably a few other determinants at work here beyond the nature of agricultural production in which social structures evolved.
What about immigrants from collectivist countries moving to more individualist countries?
I read up statistics that casteism is rife among NRI Indians in the west and they mostly marry within their own caste and continue to prefer arrange marriages even in countries with strong social safety nets
According to Joseph Heinrich doesn't individualism also promote more pro social behaviour? Like more likely to help out a stranger and more likely to be corrupt. Doesn't individualism also promote more investments in education?
Was thinking applying this lens on my home country (india) but I can't think of any individualistic examples except for Carvaka philosophy which briefly emerged. It's sort of chicken and egg problem.
The WHOLE DAMN WORLD knows that Donald Trump is in Putin's back pocket. Sweden and Finland just joined NATO believing in American's fire-power and support should Putin's wrath turn on his neighbors. Even Australia's press is talking about the 'worldwide fallout' should Trump again gain power in the United States. The entire nation of Ukraine is suffering due to the lack of support in our Congress - a nightmare for those living in bomb shelters due to the gaining lack of support for their democracy. Unfortunately, the very U.S. citizens who should be voting against Trump and what he stands for -ARE NOT. Why is this happening?
Trump is like Putin - you do not believe what he says, but what he does. What Trump does is repeat lies over and over until they are perceived as the truth. This is the precise definition of "brainwashing" and the American public has believed this nonsense - just like the entire western world believed the Cold War era was over. For Vladimir Putin, the Cold War never ended and since he assumed the Presidency of Russia - his focus has been on the destruction of the United States who he calls his "arch enemy". His number one tool used in this destruction is Donald Trump.
Has Christianisation of South Korea made it increasingly individualistic? Also did the governments in East Asia dismantle kinship by banning cousin in the early 20th century?
Yes, I hadn’t finished reading. So I’ll suggest two more: Colin Woodard, American Nations, and, most important because they support your agricultural hypothesis, Engermann & Sokoloff... about plantation and today’s institutions
Furure-wise, it seems like the key question is whether/where these cultural factors are going to "only" dampen the relation between economic growth and social liberalization, vs not having social liberalization at all.
Also, it's interesting to see that the kinship map reverses the Peru vs Brazil relationship from the homophobia map. Very different historical peopling trends though, perhaps that explains it.
Much of this sounds like it is simply a matter of timelags. This reminds me of the old debate about 'why is the USA so religious for its level of development? did free market in religion foster selection for uber-religions or something compared to Europe?' It's an old debate now, rather than a current debate, because it turns out US religion has been plummeting for a while and it no longer looks like such an anomaly. It just took time.
Even at the same level of per capita GDP, it takes *time* for any cultural effects to happen and cause convergence, as older generations are replaced slowly no matter how high or low the GDP. For example, South Korea: most of the elderly people in South Korea grew up when South Korean development looked more like subsaharan Africa level than anything like a First World country. Whereas for the USA, that was literally centuries ago. (If you are 80 in SK right now, then you were growing up in 1943-1963 - so literally during the WWII colonization by Japan and then the Korean War. You would have to go back, I think, to, like, the 1700s to find a USA with development equivalent to SK in 1943.) So it is no surprise if SK culture is far more conservative than it 'should' be at its current GDP! That's what happens when you go, within 3 generations, from one of the poorest to richest countries in the world. If you follow SK issues, you can see this massive generational shift at play in their current feminism culture war, where it's gotten very ugly because of the profound rift between 1940s thinking and 2020s thinking. Meanwhile, in Japan, the situation is not ideal but it's substantially more feminist (with a much higher birth rate too); one notes that it's been developed higher for much longer and it had parallel clashes in more like... the Taishō era, over a century ago.
What about Scandinavian countries? They are collectivists as well but have much better gender relations as compared to America which is similarly rich.
Also, why trust in government institutions is so high in Scandinavian countries? While it’s low in other countries of both high and low trust societies.
Is it because of their government system? (Proportional representation instead of first past the post thus leading to more civil political discourse)?
How come you split the US into heterogenous parts but not China or India, which have distinct rice and grain growing regions?
Talhelm already has, in China
I think Barrington Moore covered very similar ground with similarly odd presumptions many years ago. There are probably a few other determinants at work here beyond the nature of agricultural production in which social structures evolved.
What about immigrants from collectivist countries moving to more individualist countries?
I read up statistics that casteism is rife among NRI Indians in the west and they mostly marry within their own caste and continue to prefer arrange marriages even in countries with strong social safety nets
According to Joseph Heinrich doesn't individualism also promote more pro social behaviour? Like more likely to help out a stranger and more likely to be corrupt. Doesn't individualism also promote more investments in education?
What are some other factors that promote cultural tightness? Eg. Disease pressure, cold or warm weather etc.
Great analysis..
Was thinking applying this lens on my home country (india) but I can't think of any individualistic examples except for Carvaka philosophy which briefly emerged. It's sort of chicken and egg problem.
The WHOLE DAMN WORLD knows that Donald Trump is in Putin's back pocket. Sweden and Finland just joined NATO believing in American's fire-power and support should Putin's wrath turn on his neighbors. Even Australia's press is talking about the 'worldwide fallout' should Trump again gain power in the United States. The entire nation of Ukraine is suffering due to the lack of support in our Congress - a nightmare for those living in bomb shelters due to the gaining lack of support for their democracy. Unfortunately, the very U.S. citizens who should be voting against Trump and what he stands for -ARE NOT. Why is this happening?
Trump is like Putin - you do not believe what he says, but what he does. What Trump does is repeat lies over and over until they are perceived as the truth. This is the precise definition of "brainwashing" and the American public has believed this nonsense - just like the entire western world believed the Cold War era was over. For Vladimir Putin, the Cold War never ended and since he assumed the Presidency of Russia - his focus has been on the destruction of the United States who he calls his "arch enemy". His number one tool used in this destruction is Donald Trump.
Elizabeth
www.democrazy2020.org
If you haven’t, read Joe Henrich, The WEIRDest people in the World
I have read it and interviewed him. He can’t explain east Asia’s economic growth
Has Christianisation of South Korea made it increasingly individualistic? Also did the governments in East Asia dismantle kinship by banning cousin in the early 20th century?
Yes, I hadn’t finished reading. So I’ll suggest two more: Colin Woodard, American Nations, and, most important because they support your agricultural hypothesis, Engermann & Sokoloff... about plantation and today’s institutions
But, thanks, your work is quite interesting and useful... I hadn’t say that!
Furure-wise, it seems like the key question is whether/where these cultural factors are going to "only" dampen the relation between economic growth and social liberalization, vs not having social liberalization at all.
Also, it's interesting to see that the kinship map reverses the Peru vs Brazil relationship from the homophobia map. Very different historical peopling trends though, perhaps that explains it.