Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, October 13, 2007 | Science : Anthropology | print version Print | Comments

Document Anthropologist finds cultural emphasis on group over individual might hinder democracy

by PhysOrg

Reposted from:
http://www.physorg.com/news111413734.html

When it comes to establishing democracy, a me-first attitude isn't such a bad thing. In fact, it might be a necessity, according to Northern Illinois University anthropologist Giovanni Bennardo.

Bennardo spent the tail end of the summer in Tonga, the only remaining Polynesian monarchy. Budding democratic movements there have failed to take firm root, and Bennardo says the problem can be traced to a culturally ingrained way of thinking that always puts groups before individuals.

"Democracy puts the rights of the individual first, but Tongans are trained from birth to do the opposite," Bennardo says. "In their society, the extreme importance is attributed to the group over the individual. The ego is highly constrained. That doesn't mean they can't understand freedom and democracy, but putting individuals ahead of the group is a tough task for them." Bennardo won a $35,000 grant from the National Science Foundation earlier this year to continue his research on democratic movements in the Kingdom of Tonga. He spent a month there interviewing some of the country's nobles, government representatives and church officials about their notions of democracy.

The interviews complement data Bennardo collected previously from the nation's commoners as he examines how culturally informed ways of thinking might slow down democratic movements in Tonga. He is a specialist in linguistic and cognitive anthropology.

"Ultimately, the research will inform policymakers and development specialists about difficulties they may encounter when encouraging democracy in countries with historically different ways of thinking about social and political hierarchy, including nations such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Cambodia," Bennardo says.

The Kingdom of Tonga consists of about 170 tropical islands. The nation boasts one of the highest literacy rates in the Pacific, with its 98,000 inhabitants receiving free education. The current monarch, King George Tupou V, is heir to a dynasty that goes back at least a millennium.

In November 2006, political riots broke out in Tonga's capital city, leaving widespread damage from fire and looting and eight dead. While the debate between loyalists to the monarchy and the recently established democratic movement has been exacerbated, the legitimacy of the monarch system has largely gone unchallenged.

"My research has shown that among both commoners and the nation's elite, Tongans feel that their cultural history is congruent with their monarchy," Bennardo says.

Bennardo's latest research is an extension of work that began by examining the way Tongans conceptualize spatial relationships. He found they use a frame of reference that differs from Westerners. Unlike Westerners, Tongans typically don't use themselves as a reference point but instead seek out an object of importance in their environment.

For example, a Westerner might describe a building location as "in front of me," whereas a Tongan would describe it as being "toward the church." In experiments, Bennardo asked test subjects to draw pictures of their island. They typically placed the major town in the center of the island, even when in reality it was at or near the coast.

Working with researchers in Germany and at UCLA, Bennardo demonstrated that this way of thinking also applies to concepts of time, kinship and social relationships, the latter of which is closely tied to the political realm.

"One person, one vote is difficult to implement," he says. "Tongans aren't accustomed to viewing themselves in terms of equality of individuals."

Bennardo found no major differences between the views of the country's commoners and the elite. "Members of the elite also talk about the group as paramount in the social fabric," he says. "They say political change is inevitable but must occur slowly because the real Tongan way cannot be uprooted, which is a contradiction. Tradition is at odds with the concept of democracy."

Charles Cappell, a professor of sociology at NIU, is working with Bennardo on an analysis of social networks in Tonga. Lisita Taufa, a graduate student in anthropology who is from Tonga, and six NIU undergraduates also have participated in the project.

Source: Northern Illinois University

Comments 1 - 8 of 8 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #78486 by jeepyjay on October 13, 2007 at 7:50 am

 avatarDoesn't really seem much different from the situation in the United Kingdom!

The Monarchy has been around as long, and everything centres on the capital, London.

Everyone votes for the party that supports the group (class) to which they belong and no-one thinks for themselves. (As Gilbert and Sullivan pointed out long ago in Iolanthe.)

Other Comments by jeepyjay

2. Comment #78491 by keith on October 13, 2007 at 8:33 am

 avatarYes, Jeepyjay,
The UK is a monarchy and many things are located in the capital, something that is true of most countries.
What class would you say you belong to and who do you vote for? My guess, from the little you have said, is that you vote Labour, though you might well not be working class. I suspect most university students vote Labour though we're often told that very few students come from working class families. I generally vote for the Greens. What class would you call them and which class do I belong to? (This is, of course, one and the same question in your eyes).
By the way, do you think for yourself? Your in an awkward position here after claiming that British people don't. You can either take the arrogant route and claim that you are one of the thinking few, (incidentally, in the same way that most people think they have a good sense of humour, most people are also pretty sure they think for themselves. So if you're analysis of the British is correct and they generally don't think for themselves, then the statistical chances of you being one of the undeluded few who actually do, is small). My guess is that you'll say that you, like most others, don't think for yourself. You'll say this not because you believe it, but because such an admission is easier than confessing to arrogance.

Other Comments by keith

3. Comment #78533 by Alkal on October 13, 2007 at 1:46 pm

... and does this not show wrong it is t allow "freedom of religion" when in reality that freedom suborns the individuals rights....

Other Comments by Alkal

4. Comment #78618 by Dace on October 13, 2007 at 10:23 pm

 avatarFascinating stuff. It is an interesting question as to whether a nation like Tonga should be expected to move with the times, or whether aspects of it's identity such as a strong emphasis on one's group should be safeguarded for the future. I find myself thinking that change is inevitable, but I know that this is merely avoiding the question.

Other Comments by Dace

5. Comment #79033 by NakedCelt on October 16, 2007 at 12:14 am

Tradition is at odds with the concept of democracy.

Curious, then, that practically every other Pacific nation has embraced democracy. But perhaps not so curious when you find that most Pacific Island traditions include public debate and consensus decision-making (says anthro graduate from a Pacific university).

Other Comments by NakedCelt

6. Comment #79045 by gcdavis on October 16, 2007 at 1:22 am

 avatarGood point nakedcelt, is Tonga different to the other islands? Having said that one point in the article is well made, is it likely that democracy will take root in the Middle East where the prevailing culture is very different from Europe and the West?. Democracy evolved in Europe and spread to those countries that received immigrants from Europe and has become an integral part of our legal and political system. Has our cultural tradition always been one that emphasizes the individual, probably not? More likely it is chicken and egg situation, as democracy became established we became more aware of our individual rights and demanded ever more from our democratic/political institutions. They in turn have responded in order to keep themselves in power.

In the UK this process has been well documented, the demise of deference during the sixties and seventies, the "cult" of the individual that was given impetus during the Thatcher years and coincided with the "rolling back of the state" that gave individuals greater control (and responsibility) for pensions, health care, education etc.

We are now part of the "Me" generation, where rights are demanded but responsibilities often overlooked. Go back a thousand years and I'll bet our society was not that different to Tonga, apart from the climate of course.

Other Comments by gcdavis

7. Comment #79639 by jeepyjay on October 18, 2007 at 2:20 am

 avatarkeith; your speculations about me are wide of the mark, and you seem to have missed the fact that my comments were tongue-in-cheek.

I don't find the study at all impressive, it is just an anthropologist trying to justify his pay check.

Quote: "Members of the elite also talk about the group as paramount in the social fabric," he says. "They say political change is inevitable but must occur slowly because the real Tongan way cannot be uprooted, which is a contradiction. Tradition is at odds with the concept of democracy."

But democracy is not just individualism, it is rule of the people by the people, and implicit in this is that the people concerned already see themselves as a coherent group.

It's just the same in Britain, where there may be more regional and class factionalism, because of the larger land area and population, but where the people tend to come together when under threat from outside.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

8. Comment #109911 by the_ultimate_samurai on January 10, 2008 at 3:35 am

this makes you wonder then, is individuality more important than the group. now the people are under a monarchy which may or may not be bad (depends on who it is, its a common misconception that all monarchies are oppressive and cruel.) but is a monarchy the natural conclusion of group mentality over individual mentality.
the fact that favouring the group over the individual is detrimental to democracy is perhaps something to worry about, at least something to think about. and it seems almost an unusual conflict.
consider the issue of minority rights, democracy, as defined by my teacher who was quoting someone, is majority rule, limited by minority right. this means the majority may not oppress the minority by out voting them. now often its the opposite, blacks were a minority and held back for years because the whites outnumbered them, even today the gays are often outvoted by the religious zealots, as are the atheists, pro-choice, and pretty much anyone looking to provide some form of rights. now if democracy was only voting for what affects you and giving no mind to the group, there would realy be no equality, the majority would dominate the minority. because if it means giving up something you have so someone else can have something, most people will refuse. thats the self centered view, opposed to the group view.
its also very much the view of the religious right, they are definately voting selfishly and getting everyone else to agree. they have the religious majority and can mobilize to stop bills that might allow for rights for people they dont like (like the homosexuals) or allow practices they dont agree with. (and to make things worse, they are the ones who have the highest voter turnout.)

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: