We didn't really discuss the chapter on Japanese law this week, so I thought a question would be worth mentioning on the blogs. The collectivistic society has less individually exclusive intellectual property laws, and more restrictive economic law (price fixation, nationalizing industries, ect.) all in the name of the 'betterment of society.'
A gain by the society is preferred to, and acutally better than, individual gain. Just as western thought champions the idea that every player on the team plays his best, and therefore, makes the team better, eastern thought (Japan in this case) tells the story of the team members that sacrifice personal gain for incremental benefits of the team.
Could we in the United States use more of a collectivist attitude towards the law, and our economy? Could Japan use more individualistic notions in theirs? Is this a matter of exclusive theories, or degrees?
I think it's a matter of degrees and really who's to say that one is outrightly better than the other. I like some aspects of the collectivist view because of the respect and understanding for family it brings, but the importance of being an individual is so engrained in our society it's hard to forget about. The best solution in any situation, I think, is a compromise, but it's hard to find the best one with such differing opinions on each end of the spectrum. So I think the US could use some collectivist attitudes and Japan could use some individualist attitudes and then we could see what kind of society they make and go from there.
ReplyDeleteAs with most things in life, the most ideal way of choosing between two options is to take the best aspects of both, and not to restrict oneself to a mutually exclusive choice. The best option is to somehow combine the best aspects of a collectivist culture with the best attributes of an individualist culture, and somehow make it work. The problem is that sometimes there are actual mutually exclusive aspects of any two systems that make up what those systems are. It's a tricky question, but one worth asking.
ReplyDeleteI agree in this sort of middle ground idea. Interdependence plays a vial role in promotion of life, which can be best seen through examples in nature flourishing. Biodiversity is a key factor in creating new niches that help sustain the life of all. If we apply this to an economy, the people who will probably suffer most in America are the people at the top. This is because they do not look at the interest of others, but of themselves. For instance, food companies wouldn't be interested in shelf-life of their products if they were more concerned with the health of society. They just wish to sell a product for their own self-interest and this is why i feel this collectivistic attitude is probably better in terms of our country's development into the future. If food was sold for the price it should be sold and was regulated by the government in a smart way (instead of the way food companies want it to be, by subsidizing corn and soy mostly at the expense of the environment and health of society, which they get through lobbying), it would then more likely raise the nutritional qualities of food sold. This would then cause individuals to sacrifice in terms of money, but it could benefit their health and greatly improve their lives in a way that wasn't motivated by money.
ReplyDeleteI feel like as a society a collectivist attitude would benefit us economically. I am not saying that our individualistic notions should be set aside, I feel like there should be balance between the two. I would agree in this case with the middle ground idea. At the same time I would also say with go with what makes for a better society. How it is to be ran should depend on what it collectively needs, individual gain should come after the majority has been satisfied.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tom in that there is a good mix in a style of a free market economy and nationalized industries. A healthy mix of both would produce not only a profitable and efficient economy but also one that would protect the interests of the consumers as well.
ReplyDelete