Week 6: Cultural Systems

To the extent that we can make generalizations about people from a particular culture based on certain dimensions of cultural variability, it is interesting to observe how national cultures do not stay stagnant and may evolve over time.

Individualism versus collectivism - some note that with economic progress and development, Singapore has shifted to some extent towards having a more individualistic culture. This is facilitated somewhat by not just changing economic, but also social structures. My parents and grandparents would lament about the loss of the 'kampong' spirit, which was prevalent in the olden days where entire communities lived in close proximity to one another in little villages situated largely in rural areas. There was a considerable amount of interaction between people, people knew each other and their families on a personal basis, and often planned and made shared decisions for the well-being of the community as a whole. While arguably, many people in Singapore live rather closely together still in HDB public housing, the nature and degree of social interaction between families today compared to the past is probably a lot less. At the level of the nation, perhaps the sense of collectivism is not as strong as before.

However, in comparison to other countries like America, we definitely seem more collectivist in several areas. I was studying in the US while on SEP last semester, and one thing that really struck me was the seemingly individualistic behaviour of the students at school. For example, at NUS, it is common for us to arrange to attend classes with groups of friends, and all subsequent activities in that class are often performed together with that same group of friends if possible. However, in the States, I was surprised to see that it was more common for people to enter and leave classrooms/lecture theatres on their own. There was less pressure to make sure you were in the company of people you knew. Meeting people you know in class is a bonus, but not deemed highly important at all. I believe group membership is not shunned entirely of course, as seen from their enthusiasm for joining fraternities/sororities, etc. It is probably just less important to treat group membership as an important aspect of personal identity.

In Singapore, when we introduce ourselves to others, our "school" (including former ones), "club", "CCA", "clan" or numerous other affiliations to groups and organizations all seem to be recognized by others as somewhat useful for knowing what kind of person you are. The importance tagged to group affiliation as a means of marking one's identity may be viewed as a big clue that highlights our being a collectivist society for me.