Family Is the Basic Unit of Survival in Collectivistic

National Center on Secondary Pedagogy and Transition

ESSENTIAL TOOLS —
Cultural and Linguistic Variety:
Implications for Transition Personnel

PART III — Continuum of "Individualistic" and "Collectivistic" Values

Introduction

Transition policies and practices typically presume that youth with disabilities and their families give priority to individual-oriented outcomes such equally cocky-determination, self-reliance, and independent living. Nevertheless, not all youth and families share these values (Bui & Turnbull, 2003). This section of the Essential Tool explores the part of culture in the transition procedure. Culture refers to the patterns of values and learned behaviors that are shared and transmitted from generation to generation by the members of a social group. "Values" as used here includes beliefs, assumptions, and attitudes. "Worldview" is another term that could be used in this way. Values in this broad sense are assumed to guide how people live their lives, including their moral judgments, goals, and behaviors. Exploring and understanding the values of youth and their families is therefore an important primal for planning and providing transition services and supports, and in achieving ameliorate outcomes.

Nonetheless, information technology is beyond the scope of this Essential Tool to explore the many different values shared within all indigenous/racial subgroups. It is possible, however, to identify an expanse of contrast betwixt the values of American mainstream civilization and the values feature of many other cultures (Niles, 1998). This dissimilarity—between "individualistic" and "collectivistic" values—will be discussed in this role, focusing on related implications for the transition process. An instance using self-conclusion will illustrate the importance of understanding and addressing the dissimilarity between individualistic and collectivistic values.

It is of import to realize that values, similar whatever man characteristic, autumn along a continuum. At that place are elements of both individualism and collectivism in any culture (Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001). For example, a civilization oriented to individualism might highly value being able to work independently, while a culture oriented to collectivism might highly value beingness able to work as office of a grouping. All the same, the first civilization almost certainly also values being able to piece of work as part of a group, and the 2nd culture also values being able to work independently. The deviation is in the relative importance that each civilisation places on these contrasting values. The concept of a continuum also applies to individuals inside a culture. Near members of a collectivistic civilization will hold values at the collectivistic end of the continuum, although each will be at a unlike spot on the continuum, and some volition even be at the individualistic terminate. Where they are on the continuum of values depends on such factors as how closely they identify with traditional culture, their level of education, and the ethnic mix of their customs. This variability amidst people again illustrates the need for individualization in transition services and supports (Atkins, 1992).

Equally Trumbull et al. (2001) notation, information technology is important for personnel to understand the basic differences between individualism and collectivism considering these two orientations

guide rather unlike developmental scripts for children and for schooling; and conflicts betwixt them are reflected daily in U.S. classrooms. Keener sensation of how they shape goals and behaviors can enable teachers and parents to interpret each other'southward expectations better and work together more harmoniously on behalf of students (p. six).

Culling Views of People as Contained or Interdependent

Individualism and collectivism are subsets of broad worldviews, which have been called, respectively, atomism and holism (Shore, 1996). Atomism is prominent in the western hemisphere and refers to the tendency to view things in terms of their component parts. This orientation has supported advances such every bit scientific discoveries near how the physical globe works and the development of assembly line manufacturing. Holism is characteristic of most CLD cultures and refers to the tendency to view all aspects of life every bit interconnected.

Atomism and holism lead to differences in how the boundaries between people are conceived, which, in turn, pb to differences betwixt individualistic and collectivistic values (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The primary individualistic view is that there are sharp boundaries betwixt people, with each person beingness a complete unit of measurement. In other words, people are considered to be independent. They are generally also idea to take rights and responsibilities that are more than or less the same. A person's identity (i.due east., the sense of cocky) in an individualistic society tends to be based mainly on ane'south personal experiences—accomplishments, challenges, career, relationships with other people, etc.

Past contrast, the primary collectivistic view is that people are not separate units, merely rather are part and parcel of a larger group (i.due east., extended family, village, or tribe). In other words, people are interdependent. A person's identity in a collectivistic society tends to be based on one's roles and experiences within the group context. For example, people in traditional Pacific Island cultures have been described as developing "shared identities" as the result of "sharing food, water, land, spirits, knowledge, work, and social activities" (Linnekin & Poyer, 1990, p. 8). Similarly, according to Lieber (1990), "The person is not an individual in our Western sense of the term. The person is instead a locus of shared biographies: personal histories of people's relationships with other people and with other things. The relationship defines the person, non vice-versa" (p. 72).

This traditional Pacific Island view of the person falls at the extreme collectivistic terminate of the continuum, while the American mainstream view of the person is widely considered to fall closer to the extreme individualistic end than any other culture (Lasch, 1978; Shore, 1996). Nevertheless fifty-fifty these cultures each reflect elements from the other end of the continuum to varying degrees. Americans, for example, develop a kind of "shared identity" when they cheer together for the same sports team. When they identify a part of themselves with the team, they tend to feel a bail with each other and experience similar emotions of joy, pride, sadness, etc. at the aforementioned fourth dimension, depending how the game unfolds and whether the team wins or loses.

Where a person's preference falls on the collectivistic-individualistic continuum depends on his or her civilisation, socioeconomic status, and historical era. Interdependent values announced to be stronger among people living in conditions of scarcity and threat, because they depend more on each other for survival. For example, settlers of the American Due west during the 1800s probably had a more interdependent orientation than most Americans today, every bit reflected in how they helped each other build barns and harvest crops.

The relatively extreme individualism of American mainstream culture today is fabricated possible by a high and dependable standard of living that allows self-sufficiency (i.e., independence) to be the expected norm. Youth of American mainstream culture nigh e'er accept set access to a substantial store of economical and social uppercase accumulated by their families. This capital allows them to brainstorm practicing independence and self-sufficiency at an early historic period and to exist supported to achieve independence and self-sufficiency equally they transition to machismo.

By contrast, Americans living in poverty by and large accept much lower levels of economic and social capital that can back up contained lifestyles. Unfortunately, the social fabric of many low-income communities has go so frayed that effective interdependence may not be possible for many residents. If ane'southward friends and relatives are unemployed, there's little chance they tin help the person get a task. Regime and private programs take been developed to fill the gaps, but an unintended upshot has apparently been to foster dependence in many program participants, who may rely heavily on agency personnel rather than interdependent natural back up networks (Zuckerman, 2000).

Contrasts Betwixt Individualistic and Collectivistic Values

The basic individualistic and collectivistic views of people as either independent or interdependent pb to contrasting sets of values. Near 3-fourths of the globe's cultures can be described equally collectivistic (Triandis, 1989). CLD groups generally fall at the collectivistic cease, although American Blackness culture has captivated some of the prominent values of American mainstream individualism (Ellison, Boykin, Towns, & Stokes, 2000). This section summarizes some common contrasts in values of particular relevance to the transition procedure (Black, Mrasek, & Ballinger, 2003; Lynch & Hanson, 1998; Triandis, 1995; Trumbull et al., 2001; Yamauchi, 1998).

Orientation to Cocky or Grouping

The individualistic view of people as independent units leads to emphasis on a range of self-oriented values and skills that support independent living. These values include self-sufficiency, self-determination, self-advocacy, self-competence, self-direction, cocky-efficacy, self-regulation, self-reliance, and self-responsibility. On the other mitt, the collectivistic view of people as interdependent leads to emphasis on group-oriented values and skills that contribute to effectively filling roles within the family or other group. Instead of living independently or going abroad to higher, the young adult may be expected to remain at abode and fulfill roles within the family unit.

Decision-making

Civilization influences how decisions are made inside a family. In traditional collectivistic cultures, there is likely to exist a social hierarchy based on gender, nascence club, and/or historic period. Family elders may exist highly respected, and they oft accept roles of authority with responsibility to make sure family members practice what is best for the family unit rather than what is best for themselves as individuals. Elders may take final say about how far their children go in school, who they ally, or where they work. Decisions by authority figures in collectivist cultures are likely to be obeyed with less questioning than is typical in individualistic cultures. At that place are, however, many collectivistic cultures with a stiff egalitarian orientation that promotes shared controlling, although most people of CLD backgrounds in America come up from more hierarchical cultures. In American individualism, the ideal is for all people to be able to freely brand their own decisions. The opinions of family unit elders may exist respected, but as youth enter machismo, they wait and are expected to make decisions near their own lives.

Dennis and Giangreco (1996) provide the post-obit examples of how decision-making in some CLD families might differ from the American mainstream:

Hawaiian children are not given much personal choice/command in the family. They are "seen but not heard." They are expected to be responsible for personal self, take intendance of younger siblings, respect their elders, contribute to family chores, and not "embarrass" the family past cartoon attention to themselves (p. 108).

In many Hispanic families, control of of import decisions remains with the parents (or grandparents) until the child reaches adulthood or marries and moves abroad from the family….To presume that the educatee with disabilities' selection supersedes that of the parents may violate the cultural patterns of the detail family and inject disharmonize into the family arrangement (p. 108).

Knowledge Transmission

Social hierarchy too strongly influences how knowledge is obtained and transmitted. In many collectivistic cultures, people of high social status may exist seen every bit holding important cultural and technological knowledge. This knowledge may have traditionally been memorized (i.e., rather than recorded in writing) and transmitted orally. Much of this cognition may be reserved just for people who have passed ceremonial milestones or belong to a restricted group, so that they can effectively make full their social roles. It may be considered disrespectful for children to express their opinions to or ask many questions of their elders. Instead they may be expected to blot and and so reflect back the knowledge provided to them by their elders, who determine when youngsters are ready to larn. In individualistic cultures, it is more likely that children are encouraged to form and express opinions and to seek cognition at a step they self-decide. An important individualistic value is that cognition should be freely available to anyone who wants it.

Individual Option and Personal Responsibleness

All cultures seem to acknowledge that how people behave affects what volition happen to them, whether in this life or a presumed afterlife. Withal, there are different views of the responsibility for those outcomes. American individualism highly values the freedom to choose for oneself. People are assumed to have free volition, and from an early historic period they may be reminded that each choice has consequences for which they will be held personally responsible. In collectivistic cultures, the ideals of individual choice and free will are less likely to exist highly valued, and less emphasis may be placed on personal responsibility for outcomes. Collectivistic cultures are more than likely than individualistic ones to allow for external explanations for the crusade of a good or bad consequence (due east.g., fate, spiritual intervention, or the demands of social superiors). People in individualistic cultures may be allowed or even encouraged to make choices based on what is best individually, while people in collectivistic cultures are more than likely to be expected to requite priority to what is best for the grouping.

Concepts of Progress

A widely shared value in American mainstream individualism is that people should continually be improving themselves and advancing in their educations, careers, and other endeavors. Everyone'due south individual efforts combined are expected to generate progress at the national level equally well, especially in terms of a higher standard of living. Traditional collectivistic cultures, however, may not place a strong value on this kind of progress. For 1 affair, time may be viewed less similar an arrow into the hereafter and more like a circular procedure, as seasons change in their regular social club and humans repeat their traditional activities, such every bit planting or harvesting crops. The concern of the family and community may be mainly on faithfully conveying on the activities that have sustained their lives over generations, rather than trying to improve on the system into which they were born. In addition, in that location may exist a focus on spiritual rather than fabric advocacy.

Competitiveness

In American individualism, people can show that they have valued characteristics–such as mastery of certain skills or beingness able to perform under force per unit area–by competing with and doing better than others. From the perspective of many collectivist cultures, all the same, Americans are frequently considered too competitive and focused on fabric rewards (Kohn, 1992). Collectivistic cultures are more probable to emphasize cooperation among group members as the basis for success in contest with other groups, whether at the level of the family, business, or nation. Members of successful groups have pride in what the group has accomplished.

Shame and Guilt

People are likely to feel shame or guilt if they do poorly in competition or behave in ways that others criticize. Fright of declining or losing may keep people from tackling a challenge or entering a competition. As social emotions, shame and guilt naturally vary across cultures. Because people with an individualistic orientation tend to view themselves every bit being more in control of their ain lives, they may exist more probable to blame themselves and feel shame or guilt if they do not run into expectations. Because people with a collectivistic orientation are more probable to identify strongly with their family unit or some other grouping, they tend to be more probable to feel shame or guilt if their behavior is judged to bring disgrace on the grouping.

Help Seeking

In some collectivistic cultures, corking importance is placed on maintaining the family unit reputation by non shaming it. This perspective tin can filibuster or prevent getting help if weather such equally mental illness or disabilities are viewed as sources of shame. Furthermore family members in a collectivistic civilisation may want or feel obligated to care for relatives in need, so accepting help from others may exist viewed as evading family unit responsibilities (Boone, 1992). In American mainstream culture families also take intendance of their own, however, frequently people feel they should have care of their ain needs and only turn to their families as a "last resort." This is reflected in statements by parents who say they do not want to be a "burden" on their children in their old age, while in collectivistic cultures it is oft expected that children will care for their elderly parents (Mason, 1992). For example, CLD youth may be expected to remain at dwelling after exiting high school to care for a ill relative.

Expression of Identity

American mainstream civilization promotes cocky-expression. Cars, clothes, cosmetics, and most other consumer items are often marketed in terms of how they help people to limited their inner selves (Shore, 1996). In collectivistic cultures, past dissimilarity, people are more likely to adopt an appearance appropriate for their social status, with less concern for expressing what makes them unique every bit individuals.

Property Ownership

Individualistic notions of property generally emphasize that objects, state, ideas, etc., are endemic by individuals who give consent for others to employ their property or who are due compensation when their property is used. However, the collectivistic perspective on social relationships is often associated with a more communal view of buying. Personal items such as clothes or toys, for example, might be considered to exist family rather than individual property, and therefore more freely shared.

Interaction Style

Each culture has its own norms for how people should behave with each other. Misunderstandings are therefore probable when people from different cultures interact. Common tendencies in American individualism include directly raising topics or bug, freely expressing personal opinions, and asking personal questions, even of strangers. All of these tendencies are generally less prominent in collectivistic cultures. Norms vary a great deal beyond cultures for the distance at which people experience comfortable talking to each other or for appropriate touching (e.yard., it may be customary for people to greet each other past hugging, shaking hands, or bowing). In all cultures, interaction norms depend on people's social status. In many collectivistic cultures information technology is especially likely that younger or socially lower people are expected to behave in a respectful and obedient way when interacting with older or people of higher social rank. This is an extremely common source of misunderstanding betwixt American mainstream educators and CLD students. For example, many Pacific Island, American Indian, and Asian children are raised to look away when talking to social superiors, because looking someone in the eye is equated with being disrespectful or challenging say-so. However, American mainstream educators may interpret looking away as beingness inattentive or disrespectful.

Expectations for Adulthood

All cultures have expectations nigh how children typically behave and how their behaviors should modify as they mature and demonstrate readiness for adulthood. In individualistic cultures, expectations tend to fall at the contained end of the continuum: Adults should exist self-sufficient, set and pursue personal goals, be truthful to their personal values, and meet their borough responsibilities in a context of social equality. In collectivistic cultures, expectations tend to fall at the interdependent end of the continuum: Adults should contribute to the group, work with others to achieve mutual goals, adhere to the traditional values of the group, and understand their identify within the social hierarchy and perform their expected roles.

Table iv. Contrasts in Emphasis between Common Collectivistic and Individualistic Values
Continuum of Values
Collectivistic	Individualistic
Interdependence	Independence
Obligations to others	Individual rights
Rely on group	Self-sufficiency
Attach to traditional values	True to own values and behavior
Maintain traditional practices	Continuously meliorate practices (progress)
Fulfill roles inside group	Pursue individual goals/interests
Group achievement	Individual achievement
Competition between groups	Competition between individuals
Group or hierarchical controlling	Self-conclusion and individual choice
Shame/guilt due to failing group	Shame/guilt due to individual failure
Living with kin	Independent living
Take care of ain	Seek assist if needed
Belongings shared inside group	Strong private property rights
Elders transmit knowledge (often oral)	Individuals seek knowledge (often textual)
Objects valued for social uses	Objects valued for technological uses

Implications for Transition Personnel: The Example of Self-Determination

What are the implications of the individualistic-collectivistic continuum of values for transition? This section briefly explores these implications through the example of self-determination. Cocky-decision is widely considered to exist essential for transition success, only is typically defined from an individualistic perspective that gives high priority to personal autonomy and independence (MacGugen, 1991). For case, Field and Hoffman (1994) ascertain self-determination as "the ability to identify and accomplish goals based on a foundation of knowing and valuing oneself" (p. 164)–a definition that omits of import collectivistic values such as knowing and attending to one's roles and responsibilities inside the group.

Given that CLD groups normally stress group participation and interdependence, transition practices and procedures may demand to be modified if they are to exist effective with youth and families from collectivistic backgrounds (Black, Mrasek, & Ballinger, 2003; Greene, 1996; Leake, Blackness, & Roberts, 2004; Luft, 2001). For instance, transition teams may make up one's mind to focus on enhancing different skills depending on the cultural context of the youth and family unit. If the context is individualistic with an emphasis on personal autonomy and liberty of choice, so skills such as self-observation, self-evaluation, self-reinforcement, cocky-awareness, self-knowledge, and self-advocacy are likely to be important (Black, Mrasek, & Ballinger, 2003). In contrast, from the interdependent collectivistic standpoint, many highly valued skills for adulthood are probable to be other-oriented rather than cocky-oriented. Such skills might include understanding one's roles in the grouping, perceiving and responding appropriately to the emotional status of others, and being able to work equally office of a team (Yamauchi, 1998). Self-decision and maturity from a collectivistic perspective are likely to include giving priority to the grouping's well-beingness. In order to assistance make self-determination a reality, skills such every bit goal-setting may need to be gained by the family every bit a unit of measurement.

For well-nigh social-service personnel educated in the western hemisphere, the family unit or lodge in general might be viewed as an obstacle to individual choice and cocky-determination (Ewalt & Mokuau, 1995). As a result, "rarely is contributing to the grouping's well-existence considered integral to self-decision, and rarely is placing the group's well-being commencement seen as signifying maturity" (p. 169). Nonetheless people who abound up in a collectivistic culture are likely to requite very loftier priority to their social relationships and to have potent feelings of amalgamation with, concern for, and obligation to members of their group. These feelings tend to lead people to develop goals that are more group-oriented than cocky-oriented. "As paradoxical every bit it may seem from an individualistic perspective, cocky-directedness may require a strengthening rather than a dissolution of the person's connection with and commitment to the group" (p. 170).

Transition personnel should recognize that self-determination for youth with disabilities means they should be able to ascertain what self-determination really represents for them and their families. Is it a matter of independent people, on their own, making choices and setting goals to promote their self-sufficiency, autonomy, and private advocacy? Or is it a affair of interdependent people, in collaboration with significant others, making choices and setting goals to maximize power to function equally a valued grouping fellow member and promote the well-being of the grouping?

A similar contrast may exist seen with regard to the concept of self-efficacy, which is closely related to that of self-conclusion. Self-efficacy refers to having essential attitudes and skills for meeting ane's values and achieving one's goals, such as managing and regulating 1's own behavior and emotions according to the demands of the social surround. Psychologist Albert Bandura is well-known for his promotion of self-efficacy as a key to personal success and skillful mental health. Some critics have contended that self-efficacy is an individualistic concept that is non relevant for collectivistic cultures. Bandura's (1997) response is that all people want to exist efficacious (i.e., effective) in their roles, whether working individually or collectively.

It has besides been argued that self-determination research and interventions have been limited by an atomistic orientation that leads to too much focus on the component skills of self-determination. The focus on self-determination skills is understandable, considering they tin be taught through direct teaching in much the same way that academic skills such as math, reading, and writing are taught (Field & Hoffman, 2002). However, co-ordinate to Mithaug (1996), a

…difficult obstacle has to do with what must be taught in social club for students to become self-determined. The difficulty here is that the perceptions, noesis, and abilities comprising the process of self-determination are not easily deconstructed or chore-analyzed, taught separately, and then reconstructed into the functional procedure of cocky-determination–problem solving to meet personal goals. In fact, the very processes of deconstruction, of building skills i at a time, so of reconstructing the learned components to solve real-life problems can take so long that the learner loses sight of the purpose and value of what she or he is learning (p. 150).

According to Turnbull et al. (1996), the focus on teaching self-decision skills is in line with the widespread "fix-it" approach in special education, which is oriented to identifying and remediating deficits within the individual. They propose a holistic alternative to this "unidimensional emphasis on private skills" (p. 237), suggesting that self-determination has two other key components in addition to private skills, namely motivation and a responsive context that provides appropriate opportunities for self-determination. Their assay is highly relevant for CLD youth, considering the self-decision skills that are typically taught are rooted in individualistic values that give priority to personal autonomy over group participation. They recommend that in working with youth and families from collectivistic backgrounds, transition personnel should:

Consider acculturation*, family composition, and community supports to make up one's mind if cocky-determination skills are congruent with cultural values, and whether these skills will exist appreciated if expressed in a culturally relevant manner;
Detect and build on the family's problem-solving process; and
Consider if self-determination skills determined in a culturally relevant manner will accept utility within American mainstream culture.

Youth and Family unit Involvement in the Transition Planning Process

The involvement of youth and their families is disquisitional to the success of education and transition planning. Withal, CLD parents are oftentimes not equally involved as they could be, because of barriers related to socioeconomic circumstances, linguistic communication, or cultural/ideological values (Boone, 1992; Harry, 1992). According to Dennis and Giangreco (1996), educators demand to be enlightened of factors that shape the priorities and perspectives of youth and families and influence the level of involvement they are willing or able to accomplish. These factors include:

The emotional climate of racial, religious, or ethnic discrimination;
The implications of poverty;
Differences in family unit composition;
Family unit work practices and roles;
Neighborhoods and living environments;
The nature, degree, and duration of acculturation into the ascendant cultural group; and
The experience of living in a family who has a member with disabilities or special needs.

Part 4 describes approaches and tools that transition personnel can use for enhanced family involvement and the culturally sensitive individualization of transition planning and supports. As personnel become to know a youth and family unit on a more personal level, they may exist more likely to uncover and accept to address a difficult challenge: There may exist conflict within the family unit almost the advisable roles of members in the transition planning process, what appropriate transition goals for the youth should be, or other bug. Disharmonize within a family is oftentimes related to generational differences that result when youth strive for acculturation to American mainstream culture while their elders focus on maintaining collectivistic cultural traditions, although in some families the youth may exist more committed to traditional ways. Transition personnel tin can play a positive role in helping to resolve family conflicts and support CLD youth with disabilities when they adopt "cultural reciprocity," an approach described in Part IV. This approach tin can assist both personnel and youth and families to improve empathize their own and each other'due south cultural assumptions, and so they are better able to engage in constructive dialogue.

Conclusion

Because transition systems are typically rooted in individualistic cultural assumptions, they often fall short in accommodating collectivistic values and behaviors. In social club to effectively support the transition of CLD youth with disabilities, transition personnel demand to be aware of the contrasts betwixt individualism and collectivism and of the cultural footing of their own values and practice. This role outlined many of the contrasts between relevant individualistic and collectivistic values, simply at a very full general level. Obviously, transition personnel should be familiar with the common values and traditions of specific CLD groups with whom they work. An excellent resource in this regard is the most widely used book on cultural competence, Developing Cantankerous-Cultural Competence: A Guide for Working with Children and Their Families (3rd Edition), edited by Eleanor W. Lynch and Marci J. Hanson (1998). The book provides an overview on cultural competence and includes nine chapters on dissimilar CLD groups written past experts from the respective cultures. The chapters summarize the demographics, traditions, values, behavior, attitudes toward child rearing and disability, and groups' history in America besides as advice on how to effectively collaborate with families.

* Acculturation, as used in this document, refers to the cultural modification of an individual or group through the adoption and integration of traits from a different civilization.

592 KB, threescore pages
Acrobat Reader required

Commendation: Leake, D., & Black, R. (2005). Essential tools: Cultural and linguistic diversity: Implications for transition personnel . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Found on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.

Permission is granted to duplicate this publication in its entirety or portions thereof. Upon request, this publication volition be made bachelor in alternating formats. To request an alternate format, please contact: Plant on Community Integration Publications Office, 2025 Eastward River Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55414, (612) 624-4512, icipub@umn.edu.

This document was published by the National Middle on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET). NCSET is supported through a cooperative agreement #H326J000005 with the U.S. Department of Teaching, Part of Special Education Programs. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reverberate the policy or position of the U.S. Department of Pedagogy Programs, and no official endorsement should exist inferred. The University of Minnesota, the U.South. Department of Teaching, and the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition are equal opportunity employers and educators.

eganboyed1975.blogspot.com

Source: http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/diversity/partiii.asp