| Abstract: | Two sides have emerged in the debate over the merits of American individualism. This article enters that debate first by differentiating between 2 indigenous psychologies of individualism, varying by the nature of the self–nonself boundary, the understanding of control as personal or field, and the conceptualization of persons as defined by their exclusiveness or their inclusiveness. Self-contained individualism (firm boundaries, personal control, and an exclusionary concept of the person) is the familiar cultural type, addressed both by proponents and opponents of individualism. An alternate indigenous psychology, which I term ensembled individualism, is supported by cross-cultural, historical, and intracultural evidence and defines a contrasting framework for understanding individualism. Three core cultural values—freedom, responsibility, and achievement—are examined under each type. Contrary to the proponents of self-contained individualism, who state that only this type of individualism can realize these 3 values, I suggest not only that ensembled individualism can achieve these cultural ideals in a more lasting manner, but also that the self-contained form may actually thwart their realization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
