Collectivist vs. Individualist actually Hierarchical vs. Egalitarian

[Zavaleta]

I, like most eager Stellaris players, have been confused by the ethos and government traits PDS is assigning to the collectivist - individualist ethos spectrum. Under collectivism slavery of ones fellow species members is tolerated despite the ideal that collectivism means all work in common. Additionally, under collectivism, democratic forms of government are banned increasingly, only leaving autocratic forms of government available under fanatical collectivism. Under individualism, minority forms of government (autocracies and oligarchies) are increasingly prohibited, leaving only democratic forms of government available under fanatical individualism. (I am getting much of this info from the wiki, citing the recent steams: http://www.stellariswiki.com/Ethos, http://www.stellariswiki.com/Government)

Rather than the ethos labels "collectivism" and "individualism" I believe the actual meaning of what the developers are attempting to simulate in game terms are the ethos of hierarchical versus egalitarian societies. It makes sense that under a hierarchical ethos society would permit forms of slavery and prohibit rule by the masses. Additionally, under an egalitarian ethos that society would prohibit forms of slavery and rule by the few.

Now, don't the labels of "hierarchical" versus "egalitarian" make a lot more sense for the ethos of the societal characteristics being simulated in the game?

Edit: to clarify, I am not saying that collectivist versus individualist is not an interesting ethos spectrum that could be simulated in Stellaris, but that the current labels are wrong, i.e. they are not simulating the intended ethos spectrum. Rather are simulating what should properly (according to sociological categories) be the spectrum of hierarchical versus egalitarian societies. This is not a question of your personal political opinion (whether collectivism or individualism is oppressive or better), but sociological definitions.

Some references for your consideration:
Egalitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
Hierarchy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy
Collectivism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
Individualism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

 

[dyrhet]

I mean probably, yeah. There's a lot of baggage with "collectivism" and "individualism" that make people touchy about how they relate to their own personal politics. I don't think they're the best terms. That said, I doubt they'll be changed, so.

 

[BrokenSky]

Tbh it seems to be really weird. It's like they took two different groups of political ideologies which weren't even actually opposites and said "these are fundamental opposites now". It's like using x + y, y and 2x + z as basis vectors. Yeah you can do it but why would you?

It seems to be kinda like capitalism + some liberal values vs feudalism.

Religious vs Materialist has the same problem: For example if I have a species who's hatred for decay in all it's forms (They value order and energy efficiency and hate entropy - believing it to be the physical manifestation of Death) drives it to research more and more physics in the hope of minimizing the effects of entropy, and launch missions and occasionally even crusades against aliens they deem to be too excessive. Is this species materialist, because it cares about the physical world, or spiritualist because it does so for religious reasons? In game the answer would be extreme both, and this is a strong indication that they aren't opposite.

Both of these seem to me like they took stuff which is very local (it only makes sense when considering stuff specific to recent history).

Edit: recent human history. There's no way this would be general to alien societies. Even rubber forehead aliens - it isn't even general to earth ones.

 

[DerGrindelwutz]

There's been a few threads about this, and my opinion is that collectivist and individualist could be defined as:

Collectivists: The highest duty of individuals making up a state is to help strengthen the state (collective) itself. (This means that slavery, thought police, etc. are valid because they are for "the greater good).

Individualists: The state (collective) is a medium to help all individuals which make up its population. (This leads to things like human rights, democracy, banning slavery etc.)

So the names work, but I think that some of the descriptions and flavour texts from the menu are not accurate and confusing..

 

[BrokenSky]

There's been a few threads about this, and my opinion is that collectivist and individualist could be defined as:

Collectivists: The highest duty of individuals making up a state is to help strengthen the state (collective) itself. (This means that slavery, thought police, etc. are valid because they are for "the greater good).

Individualists: The state (collective) is a medium to help all individuals which make up its population. (This leads to things like human rights, democracy, banning slavery etc.)

So the names work, but I think that some of the descriptions and flavour texts from the menu are not accurate and confusing..

Yeah no that makes some sense, except that individualism leads to slavery too and that it doesn't lead to increase money...

It would work if the bonuses were a bit tweaked I think? Maybe make collectivist get less ethic divergence and make individual get more ethic tolerance.

 

[Comrade_Meow]

The problem is that neutral term "collectivism" has given negative connotation with slavery. This is really not like many people.

 

[flazeo255]

Collectivism is better thought of like a ant or bee colony with each member given specilized task to be carried out, so its rather one big organism where each individail is just a cog in machine.

 

[Tiaexz]

I think the OP suggested titles work accurately for what is being depicted. Communal and Individuality do mean different things in a society context and this is the main issue people are having.

 

[sebastianfisher]

I actually really like the terms.

Collectivism simply is putting the good of the whole over the good of the individual.
Individualism is putting the good of the individual over the good of the whole.

In practical terms, a collectivist would sanction slavery if it were for the benefit of the whole. What are a the loss of a few individual rights if the entire group benefits?

An individualist would sacrifice the whole in order to protect the individual. Nobody should be enslaved, even if it is to the detriment of the entire group.

 

[BrokenSky]

I actually really like the terms.

Collectivism simply is putting the good of the whole over the good of the individual.
Individualism is putting the good of the individual over the good of the whole.

In practical terms, a collectivist would sanction slavery if it were for the benefit of the whole. What are a the loss of a few individual rights if the entire group benefits?

An individualist would sacrifice the whole in order to protect the individual. Nobody should be enslaved, even if it is to the detriment of the entire group.

Ok but how does that lead to +10% energy credits? Surely that would constitute a tax (i.e. giving up individual wealth for the good of society)

 

[flazeo255]

Ok but how does that lead to +10% energy credits? Surely that would constitute a tax (i.e. giving up individual wealth for the good of society)

It could be individual making full use of their potential and coming up with ideas that arnt hampered due to society.

 

[vyshan]

The problem is that neutral term "collectivism" has given negative connotation with slavery. This is really not like many people.

Agreed.

TBH my issue with the collectivism is that it is requiring me to change my government plan I had for my empire that I been putting so much detail in, principally so i have a good background to draw upon for my AAR. While I think that ethics diversion makes more sense, I am fine with having the food benefits(no slavery will exist in my empire so only the food thing is the modifier I care about )

I had planned on doing a constitutional Monarchy with a parliamentarian style of model, but now that doesn't seem to be possible. Not sure which of the governments to go for though. The ethics I have/am going with are collectivism 1, Pacifism 1, and Xenophile 1.

 

[BrokenSky]

It could be individual making full use of their potential and coming up with ideas that arnt hampered due to society.

But in a collectivist society, wouldn't they be doing that already? Only perhaps more-so since the state would require them to make the full use of their potential, while an individual society would allow a smart, but lazy person to do less?

 

[flazeo255]

But in a collectivist society, wouldn't they be doing that already? Only perhaps more-so since the state would require them to make the full use of their potential, while an individual society would allow a smart, but lazy person to do less?

Not really since state would have people conform to their roles and not allow too much indidival pursuit which would damage the collective.

 

[BrokenSky]

Not really since state would have people conform to their roles and not allow too much indidival pursuit which would damage the collective.

I don't understand. Please could you explain how individual pursuit which damages the collective results in the government, who taxes everyone, getting more?

 

[cybrxkhan]

I mean probably, yeah. There's a lot of baggage with "collectivism" and "individualism" that make people touchy about how they relate to their own personal politics. I don't think they're the best terms. That said, I doubt they'll be changed, so.

This is a good point. As an Asian born and raised in the US, as eell as someone with a history/anthropology background, the terms collectivism and individualism make me think of the (generalized,) differences between Asian and American/Western culture. As such, in this context, collectivist cultures are not incompatible with democracy, and individualist cultures are not incapable of oppression of others, especially minority groups.

But I understand it may have different connotations for others, and likewise agree that they aren't the best terms nor will it be changed.

 

[flazeo255]

I don't understand. Please could you explain how individual pursuit which damages the collective results in the government, who taxes everyone, getting more?

In Collective state you do your role and what it entails and not go outside of that role, or it could damage social cohesion of collective. while Individal state would encourage pursuits that would benefit individvals.

 

[BrokenSky]

In Collective state you do your role and what it entails and not go outside of that role, or it could damage social cohesion of collective. while Individal state would encourage pursuits that would benefit individvals.

But in an ideal collectivist state your role is what you're best at, that society needs.
(And in a non-ideal individualist state - if we're looking at non-ideal cases -, the rich pay basically no tax)

[Well either way this is an interesting conversation. Thanks for your opinion ]

 

[Aramel]

Ok but how does that lead to +10% energy credits? Surely that would constitute a tax (i.e. giving up individual wealth for the good of society)

The indecipherable magic of the free market.

 

[Veracin]

But in an ideal collectivist state your role is what you're best at, that society needs.
(And in a non-ideal individualist state - if we're looking at non-ideal cases -, the rich pay basically no tax)

[Well either way this is an interesting conversation. Thanks for your opinion ]

Idk how an empire could find out what every single individual is best at, imo the individual knows what they're best at(in general) so I think that's where the energy credits come from.

But this topic has been discussed a thousand times over not just in these forums but throughout human history, probably not going to find an answer to these questions so easily.