Indian Collectivism vs. Western Individualism

Today, urban India is more westernised than it ever was before. Globalisation has brought western technology, fashion and ideas to the platter of the Indian consumerist elite. In the light of this consumption and adoption of western ideas and values, some people feel the need to limit this transformation of our culture. Such people value traditional Indian ideals and feel that they should be preserved and protected from the overwhelming force of western influence. This has led to the practice of glorifying Indian values while viewing western ideals as alien elements that seek to pollute Indian culture. One of the most hotly debated topics within the broader debate of Indian versus western values is western individualistic living versus Indian collectivistic family orientation. The purpose of this article is not to undermine one way of living while declaring another as superior, but simply to express my thoughts and opinion on the topic. My understanding of the topic comes from observation of the happenings around me and also from my study of sociology in my senior secondary years of school.

It is impossible to label most Indian families as purely collectivistic or individualistic as every family has its own internal dynamics. When I use the term “collectivistic families”, I intend to refer to the families in which collectivistic values and ideas shape or influence most major decisions, and the same goes for “individualistic families”. Collectivistic living emphasises on the need for certain duties and obligations that family members ought to feel towards each other. On the face of it, this might or might not seem undesirable to you, depending on your ideological bend. As someone who believes, to a large extent, in individualism, I wish to analyse the deeper meaning of living the collectivistic way from my personal perspective.

Collectivism requires every family member to live their life in the manner that best suits the long-term interests of the family as a whole. This overtly limits the personal freedom of the individual. Collectivistic living is powered by ageism, and, in most instances, patriarchy. While the former, unlike the latter, is not a necessary prerequisite for a collectivistic family orientation, almost all Indian families that believe in traditional values tend to be patriarchal. This means that not only is every family member’s life opportunity decided keeping in mind the well-being of the familial unit, but this decision also tends to be based on unequal principles. In most patriarchal households, family resources are selectively spent on the higher education of boys while girls are expected to not have any serious academic or career-related ambitions. Even if the girl is provided with higher education, in most cases she is expected to get married and become a householder afterwards. Therefore, when we begin to study collectivistic living in some depth, we get to see the line of distinction between collectivism and sexism fading.

This is just one of the ways in which personal freedom is curbed through collectivistic ideals. Another factor is that when the young person’s education is being funded by the family, it is expected that they pursue the career that the family feels has the best prospects, regardless of what the person actually wants to study or practice. The family usually has very firm expectations from the youth of the household. The teens or young adults have a roadmap laid in front of them. Even if they find that the path prescribed isn’t the right fit for them, they usually have no say in the matter and are obliged to follow it. Following a career of the family’s choice is seen as a duty the child must fulfill.

The collectivistic family is, in the most basic terms, like a contract. The family provides the child with all necessities, and the child, in return, is expected to live the life that the family feels is best suited for them. This contract is sugar-coated with feelings of righteousness, respect, and dutifulness, and is glorified as being morally correct. Individualism is projected as a rather cold way of organising family, lacking emotion and values. However, it is not true that every family that doesn’t treasure collectivistic virtues needs to be devoid of love and warmth. The idea is to live and let everyone in the family live life to the fullest, without expectations, judgment, or control. ‘Good’ or morally competent sons and daughters are not burdened with the baggage of fulfilling the dreams of the family. Rather, they are encouraged to have their own dreams and realise them, while neither worrying too much about their parent’s desires nor expecting too much from them. This does not have to mean that there is an emotional void in the family. Our conditioned thinking tends to connect warmth and love with duty and obligation, while all it needs to be connected with is unconditional and non-judgemental support.