This is really interesting. But why not add a potential explanation that U.S. citizens aren't really all that individualistic and that the ideology of "American individualism" represents a collectivist impulse... Or am I just a socialist now.

"Americans are individualistic, but they are also religious and sometimes religion outweighs individualism. If that’s so, Fischer argues, then maybe it is true that we’re not that individualistic."

We can see this in our daily lives; whether in interviews, personal interactions, etc. There are many religious people in America, and mixing religion with populism and its side effects (e.g. disdain for education) suppresses individualism. The disdain for education has been identified at least since the days of Tocqueville, and today there are many examples of the conservatives’ resentment:

“Maggie Gallagher

Can Politics Win A Culture War?

[…]

You go to culture war with the army you have. The reason people with traditional religious and sexual moralities gravitated into politics is that structures of the political elites are among the most open and easy to penetrate. To put it another way, politics is one field of culture-making that secular elites do not control. Political power thus operates in a partial and limited fashion as a break on elites' cultural power, since it raises the potential costs of attempting to de-legitimize of those who disagree with them in the public square. The risk of backlash tempers Harvard's dreams for America.”

I have provided in the past other examples of conservatives resenting the NE. In my opinion, the current, unfortunate mix of religion and populism contributes to less individualism.

Even some religious people wish more restraint:

"The coming evangelical collapse

[...]

Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence."

I'd like to see it broken up by region in the US.

The point about liberty is exactly right. Everyone can say the US has a two party system, but some people (libertarians, etc) point out that the two parties are pretty similar. I heard it well stated recently that the US isn't a two party sytem, it's a one party sytem with two factons.

Basically the Democrats and GOP have the same prinicple, the government gets to control everything and you have to follow the law no matter what. Depending on which party is in control, you may have freedoms you enjoy available.

Another way of seeing how un-indivudualistic the US is, is to look at the behavior of cops. Cops are allowed by law to use force to get you to comply with any order they give you.

Even if they are wrong, you are supposed to not question their order (you can be beaten if you do) and you are just supposed to comply with their order and take your chances with the legal sytem (which of course is stacked against you, considering it too is run by the government).

I could keep going on with examples, like how schools are completely about conformity. The US certainly isn't about individualism, it's about forcing people to be what people thing "is right".

All the charts are labeled 'strongly agree to strongly disagree'. Wouldn't that be everyone who answered the question?

The original blog post has this: 'strongly agree to strongly disagree. The percentage who agreed is displayed here:', which makes a lot more sense.

This is certainly both interesting and illuminating, but I'd argue this is a misinterpretation, or at least a completely different definition, of what is usually meant by "individualism". If you look at the work of Hofstede, for example, societies are measured on scale ranging from collectivist to individualistic. From his website:

"On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty."

In that sense, the US is unquestionably an individualistic society.

The US is (perhaps) not more individualistic than a few countries in Europe. That hardly represents the world.

"Question: “People should support their country even if the country is in the wrong,” strongly agree to strongly disagree."
so America is actually the most "individualistic" on this chart, but at a glance it appears to be the least, since it's at the bottom of the graph. Hmm

I agree with TGoSC and Mike; the last two charts seem to depict the exact opposite of the questions posed. Is this mislabeling on the charts, or am I simply in need of more caffeine?

I don't remember where, but I once read a quote that I think sums it up fairly well (I'm probably paraphrasing): America values individualism but hates individuals.

And I've heard the old "My country, right or wrong" rewritten to reflect how inane that sentiment is as "My father, drunk or sober."

I'd also bet that attitudes would been seen to shift in accordance with the prevailing propaganda of the moment. Of course, that implies that the public will flock like sheep to individualism if they're told to, which I find hilarious. It's kind of like conforming to arbitrary standards of non-conformity, which is very popular among subcultures that lack a sense of irony (probably because they tend to lack a sense of humor, too).

The surveys his graphs are based on date back to 1991, for the earliest. No professor I ever had would have allowed me to base an argument in a paper on such an outdated source. I wonder what the numbers would be if the questions were asked today.

I would like to point out that most of the other countries (except Sweden and Finland) experienced World War II ON THEIR OWN SOIL. Some were occupied. There are still many living people with direct memories of occupation or fear of occupation (and the moral choices forced by occupation) and widespread knowledge of the concentration camps during and after the war. Moral choice is not "theoretical" for the elders and their descendants. The history of the Holocaust is taught in most European countries' comprehensive (U.S middle and high) schools.

Most Americans have not had to make a moral choice to oppose the U.S. Government, and the risks of doing so are usually negligible in comparison to opposing the Nazis.

We Americans reject collectivism and love individualism; we think people should think for themselves. At the same time, we are deeply suspicious of anyone whose independent, individual thinking leads to a different answer. De Tocqueville noted that the spectrum of acceptable opinion was much narrower in the US than in Europe, and as Fischer’s graphs show, that may still be true.

How can we be love individualism but be intolerant of individual choices which do not coincide with those of the group? When I blogged about these graphs, I cited an old article by psychologist David McClelland: for the American, the solution to the contradiction was this, “I want to freely choose to do what others expect me to do.”

what Americans as a culture have is not individualism as individual self-expression, but as extreme competitiveness within a very narrow cultural framework: when Americans talk about "individuals" and "individualism", half the time it means "I don't want to pay taxes to help others; they're the competition and they should have to struggle for everything at least as hard as I did, and if they're poor, that's their fault and their problem."

Can American individualism be understood outside the ideology of free exchange between individuals in a market? Individualism is a doctrine of bourgeois ideology that conceals a deeper contradiction: on the one hand, we are all free agents who meet each other in the marketplace as individuals, making contracts, buying and selling, etc.; on the other, individuals come together collectively through the state to preserve their rights as a class. So what does the rhetoric of individualism accomplish for those who espouse it?

Many of you are conflating "individualism" (a word defined in such a broad and generalized way as to be essentially meaningless in this context) with American Exceptionalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

I'm not sure what rhetorical tightrope this author wants to walk, but the number of generalized terms and applications makes me think this is some kind of spammy "thinktank" effluent.

I think I'm an individualist who is against "laissez-faire, pro-business economics"... because I think that a functioning social safety net gives me MORE freedom. Like if the state pays for my college (it happened so, but I'm from Europe), then I don't have to be the debt-slave of a bank for the rest of my life for my student loans... and the same goes for healthcare.

and don't tell me that the taxes I pay are greater than the payback for the loan. Banks make profits from loans, while a state ideally spends all it's income, so it does come out cheaper in the end...

Mankind as a species is free only to breathe air, it yet has not been governed by majority. all else indicates a tithing to pay to survive. Fail to participate in Global tyranny of collectivism, International Money Market Fund' Whom ever they are" results in disillusionment street person lift style or simply death. There is no Freedom, no minority can successfully negotiate with ruling cast. When there are too many to feed no entrepreneurial effort will offer solution to the questions, left or right, Collectivism or individualism, liberal or conservative, my God or your god, My oil or yours. By true definition of Slavery we all belong the only solution is the redeeming value that our intelligence still debates these questions. I offer my question, "Is our lives more or less valuable than the seasonality of plant life, animals, molecular excitement, is cognitive thinking a individual right or a passage to survival. If you are not governed, own the sand you stand on, and can support your existence from that you own, without outside opportunity of trade or gifting; then I say you are a truly free individual.

Why Great Britain and not the United Kingdom? Great Britain is just the mainland (England, Wales and Scotland). What about Northern Ireland? You may as well measure the US excluding Alaska and Hawaii.

awesome article

hey guys!

We ɑbsolutely love үⲟur blog and fіnd the majority οf your post's to ƅe precisely wһat Ӏ'm looking
for. Dо yoᥙ offer guest wwriters t᧐ write content avаilable fоr уou?
Iwouldn't mind publishing а post or elaborating οn some
off the subjects you write іn relation tߋ here.
Again, awesome blog!

good article