De-Homogenizing American Individualism: Socializing Hard and Soft Individualism inManhattan and QueensAuthor(s): Adrie Suzanne KusserowSource: Ethos, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Jun., 1999), pp. 210-234Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/640657Accessed: 26/12/2009 22:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Ethos.

http://www.jstor.org

De-Homogenizing American Individualism: Socializing Hard and Son Individualism in Manhattan and Queens

ADRIE SUZANNE KUSSEROW

Theories of the Western self are often based on a generic indi- vidualism based on the American upper-middle-class, and at-

tempts to find sociocentric elements within our midst often constitute the stereotyping of the working class as conformist and women as relational. In speaking about their childrens' self, parents from different social classes in Manhattan and Queens use different images and metaphors. These descriptions are ex-

plored here, and it is suggested that three different styles of indi- vidualism exist alongside sociocentric socialization practices: hard offensive, hard defensive, and soft offensive. However, the

way parents in each community move from one (individualis- tic) socialization practice to the other (sociocentric) differs greatly.

n recent years, anthropologists have questioned the depiction of the Eastern self as solely sociocentric in its orientation, suggesting that

conceptions of self1 are not as bipolar as we think, and that a sociocen- tric orientation does not exclude an individualistic one.2 Although a few anthropologists have begun to question very thoroughly the over-

simplification of the Western concept of the self (Ewing 1990; Holland and

Kipnis 1994; Kleinman 1986; Spiro 1993; Stairs 1992; Stephenson 1991), a reverse Orientalism (an Occidentalism, so to speak) exists in which the Western self is often flattened into a supposedly uniform and rather generic individualism. The problems of using the imprecise category of the West is sometimes acknowledged, but usually limited to a footnote, as when Becker writes:

Ethos 27(2):210-234. Copyright ? 1999, American Anthropological Association.

De-Homogenizing American Individualism * 211

Clearly the Western self is partially misrepresented in this monolithic depiction. The very concept implies a homogeneity that simply cannot account for variations in gen- der, generation, geographical location, and ethnicity. [1995:3]

Often anthropologists who claim to describe the self of the West are really describing middle-class America, drawing heavily from literature which focuses on the United States, as if it were representative of the rest of the West (Abu-Lughod 1986; Becker 1995; Danforth 1989; Erchak 1992; Lutz 1988; White and Kirkpatrick 1985). For example, Becker writes:

Although I could often substitute American society (i.e., U.S.A.), for convenience sake, I use West as a general category to refer to developed nations with shared democratic, capitalistic values in Europe and North America. [1995:64]

Similarly, Lutz says: Where I do not specify a more precise locus for emotion beliefs (e.g., everyday thought, American academic ideas, etc.), I am hypothesizing a widely shared American ethno- theory of basically Protestant European, middle-class background. [1988:55]

Later on in her work, she writes of Ifaluk versus "the Western perspective on emotion," "Western cultural discourse," "Western theories of human nature and emotion both academic and lay," "the ideological and objective conditions of life in the contemporary West," "Western thinking," and the "Western approach to language" (Lutz 1988:209-225; see also White and Kirkpatrick 1985). These ethnographic references about the Western self are based on studies of middle-class Americans, such as Quinn's (1982) study of American understandings about marriage, and Schachter and Singer's (1962) study of determinants of emotional states among Americans.

THE HOMOGENIZATION OF INDIVIDUALISM

A related problem with the notion of a Western conception of self is the way in which individualism is treated as if it had the same meanings and uses for all groups. For example, Markus and Kitayama (1994) speak of the independent self of North America and much of Europe. The differ- ent aspects of individualism that are given at various times throughout the article include self-reliance, a preference for being alone, boasting, self-ad- vertisement, an inner sense of owning opinions, assertiveness, and, finally, the idea that the self should be consistent across cultures. The notion that some groups might espouse different constellations of these aspects and that these might constitute different types of individualism is not explored. As we know, individualism has many different strands, meanings, defini- tions, and forms, which are taken up differently by various individuals, local worlds, and subcultures. Individualism is a large enough public sym- bol to include a multitude of meanings. Its power lies precisely in its am- biguity and plasticity, in the ways different groups can espouse and use its

212 * ETHOS

different elements and meanings to fit their local context. David Potter (1973), writing of American individualism in the 20th century, noted that many theorists falsely assume that all of the different concepts we place under individualism-such as self-reliance and nonconformity-necessar- ily go together. Taking up the same theme, Bellah et al. state, "[I]ndividu- alism has come to mean so many things and to contain such contradictions and paradoxes that even to defend it requires that we ana-

lyze it critically" (1985:142). It is a word "used in numerous, sometimes contradictory, senses" (1985:334). There are, Bellah says, "different modes [of individualism] even within the vocabularies of each individual"

(1985:27). Clearly what is needed is an unpacking of the homogenous, mono-

lithic term individualism itself. This can be accomplished by exploring the different meanings and uses of individualism in different groups. Do different subcultures and social classes practice and experience one strain of individualism more than another? How and why has one subculture

strategically selected certain components of individualism and not others, and what does this reflect about the socioeconomic terrain and the local worlds in which its members live?3

RE-CREATING THE DICHOTOMY WITHIN

One of the challenges in defining individualism within an individual- istic society is to avoid the temptation to start stereotyping again, re-

creating the East/West bipolar homogeneity-only on a smaller scale within the West. In comparing a generic West to the more relational East- ern conception of self, often efforts to de-homogenize American individu- alism consist of very briefly pointing out sociocentric groups in our midst (as opposed to actions, concepts, or discourses that all Americans share and practice at various times). There is usually a perfunctory sentence or two, or perhaps a footnote referring to women (most often Gilligan [1982] is cited), or to the working class as representing more sociocentric, rela- tional, or conformist components of American culture (Becker 1995; Derne 1992; Lutz 1988; McHugh 1988). These attempts usually constitute little more than a few stereotypical references to a conforming working class or to other-oriented, relational women.

While the attempt to find a certain sociocentrism in the West is much

needed, moving beyond stereotypical, essentialist depictions of the work-

ing class and women is vital. The continued glossing of certain groups as "conformist" or "connected" only seems to bring us back to the bipolar reality we were trying to avoid in the first place. When initially making brief references to sociocentric strains in our midst, perhaps we should further explore whether it is women as a category who are necessarily

De-Homogenizing American Individualism ? 213

across the board "other-oriented," and whether it is the conformist work- ing class that provide the sociocentric element in our culture. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that in all groups, both individualistic and socio- centric orientations exist, but in differing styles and ratios, depending on the local worlds they inhabit.

The question of individualism has been a central theme in writings on American culture and character. Recent scholars who have written on the topic of self and identity in America note sociocentric and conformist strains in our midst,4 as well as in our past.5 As Wilkinson (1988) and Hewitt (1989) have noted, for the last 50 years, studies on American char- acter have focused on the American attraction to both individualism (see Bellah et al. 1985; Lasch 1978; Sennett 1976; Slater 1976) and a sense of connection to others (Hollan and Wellenkamp 1996; Lindholm 1988, 1990; Riesman 1950, 1964; Varenne 1977).

Kohn (1969) was among the first to write of differences between work- ing- and middle-class parental values. He pointed out:

[T]he higher their class position, the more highly they value self-direction and the less highly they value conformity to externally imposed standards. [1969:71]

And yet, despite Kohn's conclusion, each social class has too often been saddled with stereotypes about conformity versus self-direction which hardly illuminate the varying individualistic and conformist styles present in all groups.6

Holland and Kipnis (1994), in their analysis of American conceptions of embarrassment, provide a rich nondichotomous analysis by pointing to the ways in which, in some contexts, such as embarrassment, the two orientations coexist. They write:

It is only when we acknowledge both the sociocentric and the egocentric that we can understand the dialectic within the American cultural model of embarrassment. [1994:333]

Waters (1990) also writes of the ways in which ethnicity is a symbol used by Americans to simultaneously fulfill two equally important needs of community and individual uniqueness, pointing to the presence of both individualistic and sociocentric strains in one symbol. She writes that eth- nicity can accommodate Americans' need to feel unique, as well as their need to belong to something larger than themselves. It is within this more complex approach to American identity that my own research is centered.

CONCEPTIONS OF THE CHILD'S SELF IN MANHATTAN AND QUEENS

I began fieldwork in Manhattan and Queens hoping to contribute to the de-homogenization of the Western concept of self by exploring the complexities and subtleties of conceptions of the child's self, particularly

214 ? ETHOS

among white American parents and teachers of preschool-age children from different social classes and communities. Working in three commu- nities, I discovered that parental conceptions of the child's self did not reflect bipolar class constructs (a solely conforming working-class and a self-directed upper-middle class), nor was one generic brand of individu- alism sufficient to characterize them all. Even among what Kohn would describe as the most self-directed, there was a fair amount of sociocentric socialization of children, just as there was a great deal of individualistic talk among the working-class parents.7 In all three communities, parents and teachers were concerned with socializing their children in values of individualism and sociocentrism (although the way they coexisted differed in each community), just as in all three communities, different types of individualism existed. Individualism(s) arise in local worlds. This paper is a description of the three New York communities' different styles of indi- vidualism, as well as a discussion of how both sociocentric and individu- alistic strains coexisted in two of them. In no way am I suggesting that these individualisms as I have broken them down exist as Platonic Forms in other geographical areas of the same class background. They are unique to the particular worlds from which they grew. Nor does complexifying individualism mean we have to descend into some solipsistic hole, in which there is no such thing as individualism.

The three communities I studied were: Carter Hill, a predominantly white, upper- to upper-middle-class community on the upper east side of Manhattan; South Rockaway, a racially mixed, lower-working-class com-

munity in Queens; and Beach Channel, a predominantly white, Irish, and German upper-working-class community in another part of Queens.8 Un- like Beach Channel and Carter Hill (communities that were, with few ex-

ceptions, all white), South Rockaway was racially mixed. (In the interest of controlling the race variable for all three communities, I interviewed

only white parents in South Rockaway). Half of my research involved

studying the verbal and nonverbal socialization9 of the self-concepts among white four-year-olds in four preschools in the Manhattan and Queens area of New York.10 This involved a microanalysis of the ways cultural and class construction of the self were embedded in everyday dis- courses and social interactions between teacher and child, daily preschool activities, ideology, spatial set up, and discipline. The other half of my field work involved extensive semistructured interviews with the parents of these children. In talking to parents, great efforts were made not to ques- tion them directly about the concepts of individualism and sociocentrism, but to see what images, stories, phrases, and metaphors arose when they spoke about the children in response to more indirect questions about

child-rearing beliefs and methods. I was interested in learning to what extent the same type of individualism was actually valued and socialized

De-Homogenizing American Individualism * 215

among parents from different socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as ex- ploring the local meanings and ultimate concerns that shaped this rather large and generic public symbol. I was also interested in how well socio- centric and individualistic discourses coexisted-that is to say, in the process of socializing their children, did parents act as if the two orienta- tions were antagonistic, threatening, or mutually reinforcing each other?

I lived in the New York area from 1993 to 1995, spending approxi- mately three months in four preschools, observing one preschool at a time. In the mornings I observed preschool interactions between teacher and child, and teachers between other teachers (as they spoke about the chil- dren). In the afternoons I interviewed the parents of the children at these preschools. I interviewed 30 parents in the Queens area and 31 parents in Manhattan. Although both mothers and fathers were interviewed, the vast majority of my talks were with mothers. In the Queens communities, fa- thers were said to be either busy working, sometimes holding down two different jobs, or not to be interested or "good at" being interviewed about their children. Carter Hill fathers were much more open to being inter- viewed, but even here approximately 70 percent of my interviews were still with mothers. Thus, in this paper I focus on how mothers talk about their children. All of the teachers I interviewed and observed in all three communities were female. A tape recorder was used (with permission) to record the interviews, which were then transcribed and visually coded (for common images and metaphors through extensive, repetitious readings). Since many of the mothers were home with their children during the in- terviews, I was also able to observe behaviors used by the parent when interacting with the child (such as tone of voice, methods of discipline). Interviews were semistructured, with the same set of questions used for all (teacher interview questions differed somewhat). Most lasted from one to three hours. Some of the interview questions were used as springboards, intended to generate an initial discussion and further questions. Questions asked included: Why did you send your child to preschool? What are the most important things for children to learn in preschool? What are the most important qualities of a good preschool teacher? What are some of your favorite things about your child? What are some of the qualities you most/least want your child to develop? Tell me a story about a time you were proud of your child. What is one of your favorite things to do with your child? Why? What qualities make a child get into trouble today? What qualities will it take for your child to get a good job or be successful in today's world? How do you discipline your child and why? What is pri- vacy to you? Does a child need it? Why or why not? What is creativity to you? Does a child need to learn it? What are some of your fears for your child? Questions were also asked about the importance of praise and choice for the child.

216 ? ETHOS

As I shall elaborate below, my interviews and observations of interac- tions between adults and children suggested three distinct styles of indi- vidualism in the three different communities I studied. I will refer to these as hard defensive, hard offensive, and soft offensive individualism. I refer to the individualism of South Rockaway and Beach Channel mothers gen- erally as hard individualism, compared to the soft individualism of the Carter Hill upper-middle-class mothers in Manhattan. One of the main differences I found among these three different styles of individualism was reflected in the mothers' conceptions of the child's self as a singular unit against the world (South Rockaway defensive individualism), or as a sin-

gular unit opening out into the world (Carter Hill and Beach Channel of- fensive individualism).

South Rockaway Metaphors of Hard Individualism

Metaphors, images, and phrases used by mothers and teachers arose from the specific local worlds in which they lived. Different terrains neces- sitated weaving various strands of the public symbol of individualism into

personal and community narratives. Hence, individualistic styles were

highly adaptive to these varying environments, each one preparing the child for dealing with various levels of violence. Nowhere was this more evident than in South Rockaway. It was not uncommon to hear gunshots coming from the projects just one block away from the observed pre- school. In the early morning light, as I walked down the street from the

subway stop to this preschool, I stepped on garbage and broken crack vials.

Every now and then a bruised prostitute appeared guarding her street cor- ner. Doors were shut, shades drawn. Many mothers spoke of "the street" as corrupt and dangerous, full of bad and bored kids with not enough pa- rental guidance and "nothing better to do than smoke, steal, and drink."'1 This was the terrain in which South Rockaway individualism developed. For South Rockaway mothers and teachers, individualistic values could not be extricated from this tough environment (gangs, drugs, an unsafe

neighborhood, racism, and violence); a difficult past (child abuse, alcohol- ism, drug addiction, and divorce); and a belief that the future held struggle and hardship. Many of the mothers were divorced, on welfare, exhausted, overcoming drug or alcohol addiction, and "just barely getting by."

Hence, individualism in the form of "not relying on anyone else," "not

trusting anyone but yourself," self-determination, and keeping to oneself, was often seen as a way of surviving the rigors of a bad system, a system that could not be trusted. Standing up for oneself arose out of experiences of being pushed around "too much." Some mothers said they'd had

enough, they were standing tough against the world. These were strong women, without husbands, raising and supporting kids on welfare, exhib-

iting a strength and resistance that was palpable in their voice and body.

De-Homogenizing American Individualism 0 217

For these women, individualistic values were woven into discourses about how they had made it through various difficult events. Theirs was a phi- losophy of the lone individual standing tough against a world that threat- ened to undo her, knock her down. Individualism's raison d'etre was usually an attempt to deal with something "tough," perhaps the most com- mon word used by these mothers. Many spoke as if rough times (hard work, low wages, little vacation, separation, loss, loneliness, being jilted) or "things not going your way" were inevitable. Children need to learn the "hard truth"-they weren't always going to get what they wanted. They needed to "buck up."

For these mothers the world was not described as a soft, easy, accom- modating place. This meant raising a certain type of child, one well- practiced in a "mind your own business" protective style of individualism. Mothers implied that these tougher boundaries were better able to keep out the negative influences of "the street" (prostitution, violence, drugs, alcohol) or "the group" (peer pressure, gangs). These boundaries should not be porous enough to be broken or trespassed. As one quite protective mother said of her four-year-old son:

If you don't have your own self-awareness, then anyone can get inside of you and change you. People can, if you don't believe in something strong enough, then you can be converted.

Another mother, who was planning on moving out of South Rockaway because of the violence, spoke of the importance of values:

[T]he most important one, perseverance, is also something, to be strong and to be tough, make sure that you go through all the things. [She sighs] Ach! There are so many things, I don't know what to say, prejudice, racism, murders, selfish and greedy people.

Independence, self-reliance, minding one's own business, and a dogged self-determination were the traits that would help their children buck up, toughen, harden, and keep going through some challenging situation that would arise, when "things don't go right for them." One mother, a nurse, spoke of "weakness and a following nature" as the behaviors that would get her son to eventually try drugs. She also linked independence with an increased ability to say no to drugs. "Being independent enough to say no, with being the odd man out" would help him say no to the drugs to which he would eventually be exposed.

Parent-child interactions during my South Rockaway interviews (as well as at pick-up and drop-off times at school) suggested that much of the thickening and toughening of the boundaries of the self occurred through techniques such as humor, teasing, instilling a "get over it" attitude through the use of a loud, strict voice in discipline. 12 Mothers and teachers did not always respond immediately and gently to distress signals or pleas for attention from the child. At home, there was also a fair amount of open encouragement and praise of independent acts done without help from

218 0 ETHOS

anyone. Independence was also linked with self-defense. During one inter- view, one mother said:

I hate when they bicker. I hate it when they don't stand up for themselves. That bothers me. I have one child who whines. She'll keep coming to me as opposed to defending herself. I don't want her to come running. I'm like, defend yourself and fight it out, get over it. It happens, this is going to happen and you don't need to turn to me every single time something bad happens.

In marked contrast to the other populations I studied, during my in- terviews with these mothers I also noticed there was little effort to "save face" in the presence of the child. Mothers simply acted annoyed, bored, or disinterested in the child without any apparent fear that this too might be detrimental or damaging to the child's self-esteem. Aside from images of toughness, hardness, and density spoken in reference to the child, dur-

ing interviews, South Rockaway mothers also used metaphors and images of war and fighting, e.g., "defend yourself," "fight it out," "okay, big guy, just try and knock me down," or of protection, e.g., "love many, trust few, always paddle your own canoe" and "mind your own business." The word

"tough" was often part of a constellation of other words and phrases such as "isn't a pushover," "speaks her own mind," and "stands her ground," which portrayed a solidity to the self of which the parent was quite proud. Words and phrases with connotations of softness, fluidity, hyper sensitiv-

ity and bending (e.g., spoiled, fresh, whiny, prissy, soft, complaining, weak-minded) were used in interviews in reference to qualities the moth- ers would not tolerate in their children. One mother, in speaking about her "mushiest" child, said, "You shouldn't pay too much attention to any emo- tion and you shouldn't baby them too much, give them too much praise. You don't want them to be too soft." Mothers also stated that there should be limits on praise lest the child become too "full of himself," or "puffed up." Such overconfidence might lead the child to stray into areas where she could get hurt.

For some of the South Rockaway mothers, the process of assisting in the child's ultimate survival also seemed to involve placing sturdy moral blocks and pillars within the selfs domain. These were thought to give the child a backbone, a foundation, a solid skeleton that would not be swayed by dangerous social forces. The child should be given what I refer to as the architecture of the self, which is built by instilling principles, family, struc-

ture, consistency, discipline, strong values, and the lesson of hard work.13

Many of the mothers spoke about values and morals as the sturdy founda- tion they could fall back on in hard times. During one interview, one South

Rockaway mother said:

You have to give them a very strong background, principles, give them meaning, values, values, strong values about everything, you give them principles that you have to rely on, and you draw the line for them, if they have that, they know where they're going, where they're coming from.

De-Homogenizing American Individualism * 219

Certain practices I observed, such as teasing the child, were wide- spread in South Rockaway preschools, but were rarely practiced in Carter Hill or Beach Channel preschools.14 Teasing for the South Rockaway teachers seemed to be a way of both blunting and toughening the edges of the child's self, as well as fostering a certain healthy retaliation on the part of the child. In their teasing, teachers tried to spark the defensive part of the child's self, to ignite the child just enough to "talk back." When talking back was invited, the child learned that it was important not to get com- pletely trampled on, not to act "wimpy." Teachers jokingly goaded the child with comments of greater and greater annoyance, shock, or criti- cism, trying to get a response that aroused the self into a stance of defense and pride. For example, one teacher said, "So Peter, [she laughed] you gonna start wearing that shirt to bed, or what?" Peter squirmed a little and blushed. She then asked, "What, you allergic to other shirts, heh, is that it? [she laughs]. What's the matter, the cat got your tongue? Peter?" Peter squirmed some more, his smile getting wider. "Oh I see, you don't like to talk anymore." Peter bumbled out, "It's my baseball shirt," in a slightly defiant tone. The teacher gives him a look, as if to say, "Okay, I can deal with that reply, you're off the hook." In similar dialogues, children were taught a contained pride and self-defense, sticking up for themselves while also knowing the teacher always ultimately had the upper hand.

Beach Channel Mothers: Metaphors of Getting to the Top

Most of the socialization practices that toughen the self among the South Rockaway mothers were also practiced by the Beach Channel moth- ers.15 However, the strands of individualism Beach Channel mothers tended to focus on were more the self-assertive, self-determined aspects than the protective, defensive, independence, and self-reliance strands South Rockaway mothers emphasized. Unlike the South Rockaway phrases of "staying put," "standing your ground," "keeping up your pride," and "not letting others get under your skin," Beach Channel mothers de- veloped a more offensive individualism which I refer to as hard offensive individualism.

Unlike South Rockaway, Beach Channel is a fairly safe and neat town on an island in Jamaica Bay, a community of which its residents are very proud. Individualism (and the images and metaphors that reflected and inculcated this individualism) does not bind itself to violence and poverty, because violence and poverty are not prevalent here. Mothers in Beach Channel (all of them white) exist in a slightly higher income bracket than in South Rockaway. They viewed themselves as the hard-working commu- nity that made something of itself, surrounded by very dangerous and low- class areas. In contrast to South Rockaway, where gunshots could be heard and prostitutes could be seen, in Beach Channel children played on the

220 ? ETHOS

streets, mothers spoke to each other from their windows, and the Ameri- can flag was displayed outside a number of houses. Beach Channel moth- ers all seemed to know each other, looked out for each other's children, and were somehow all related through a third or fourth cousin. Many of them spoke of three generations that had lived in Beach Channel. These mothers were not ashamed but quite proud of how far they had come. They spoke at great length about their houses, boats, and pension plans, and about how successfully they were taking care of their families through hard work. Many of them had civil service jobs and spoke negatively about their lower-class neighbors on welfare.

In general, these mothers spoke much more openly and positively about their children's achievements in sports and in academic work. Their values of individualism were oriented towards "going for it," toward suc- cess and achievement rather than protection and survival. Hence, images and metaphors commonly used among the Beach Channel mothers con- sisted of football metaphors and images of movement and momentum, such as Superman and rockets blasting off. Other commonly used phrases were "stepping out," "putting your best foot forward," and "testing the waters." Success was often linked to hard work, self-confidence, tenacity, good grades, and sports. One mother talked of the importance of self-con-

fidence, and how her children should believe the sky's the limit:

I think children today are being taught that you can achieve anything if you put your mind to it, being from a lower-class or middle-class blue-collar family you could turn yourself into an upper-class white-collar family with no problem. Kids now are being taught to really strive for the ultimate, whereas we were taught, don't get too confident in yourself because you don't want to fall on your face ... they shouldn't be taught enough is enough. I want my kids to definitely strive for everything they can possibly get.

A more offensive individualism was seen as that which helped one to gain success and achievement in life, to build momentum in order to arrive and

stay "on top" of a recently reached status or level of success. Yet there was a hardness and toughness to their talk about the child's entrance to the world, as if the child had to have a tough skin to break into new socioeco- nomic domains. One mother said:

We have a saying in our house: "When your mind says stop, your heart says go." I get it mixed up a lot, but you know. You want to give up, maybe in your heart, you can give that little bit of extra.

When I asked her how this helped a child later on in life, she replied:

Well, you'll go out and go after your goals. If you know that you're not afraid to try and that you can achieve just about anything you try, then I guess there's no limit to what you can do. You can have any dream at all and go for it. You have to break away and make yourself independent to be able to accomplish things. If somebody's always doing it for you, you're not going to be able to do it on your own.

De-Homogenizing American Individualism * 221

The boundaries of the self were still described as hard, but with offensive rather than defensive trajectories. "Breaking away" independently with a lot of self-determination would help them reach success. Individualism thus had more of a pioneering sense about it, that their children could forge into domains usually inhabited by the middle and upper-middle class. There was a certain feistiness to these mothers in regard to their children-the feistiness of mothers who, having climbed a certain distance

up the economic ladder, had gained momentum and wanted to keep going. They saw themselves as wealthier than their parents and hoped their chil- dren might be wealthier than themselves. Claudia Strauss (1992) points to the success values associated with upward mobility articulated by blue- collar men in Rhode Island. These men spoke of the importance of goals and hard work, of "whatever your mind can conceive, you can achieve."16 Aggressive, outbound individualism led by the gravitational pull of goals and the sweat of work and determination also reflects what Beach Channel mothers felt their children needed. One Beach Channel woman spoke of her aggressive and outgoing child, and praised her for speaking her mind. She felt they needed that in today's world, "that way other people don't step all over them. They'll get their ideas across."

Certain Beach Channel mothers seemed especially conscious of their rise in social standing. For these mothers, individualism was situated in an attitude of having "gotten out" or "made it." They were determined to stay at the level they had reached. Individualistic values such as leadership, stepping out, self-confidence, perseverance, and self-determination got them there and were going to help the next generation stay afloat-or better yet-attain the next level. One mother spoke proudly of the fact that she had been to college. "I want my children to go to college, to be some- body, to be leaders not followers, to have minds of their own." To ensure this, she put them in a private Catholic school with parents who were "on top of' school and work, people she described as "just good families."

Beach Channel children were described more like Superman or Nike ads. Mothers wove phrases such as "try things out," "get a lot more out of this world," "break away," "go for your dreams," and "the road less trav- eled" into their general discourse on the importance of being self-deter- mined, persevering, self-confident, and courageous-really "going for it" because "the sky's the limit." For them, progress would not be a delicate process, nor would the parents constantly be there to help the child emerge. A good optimistic attitude and forward momentum were key. They spoke less about assisting the child through this process with emo- tional encouragement and empathy, and more about getting their child into good schools, with good teachers, good coaches, and good teams.

222 ? ETHOS

Carter Hill: Metaphors of Soft Individualism

Although Carter Hill mothers lived in New York City, crime, drugs, gangs, and violence were not a major part of their daily lives-because

they had the material means to protect and insulate their children from the violence of the city, these worries were not of primary concern. All of the mothers I interviewed lived in an area that was quite safe. Most often the buildings had doormen and security systems. Furthermore, most of the Carter Hill mothers' experiences of "the city" consisted of other equally affluent parts of Manhattan. Places like the Bronx or Harlem were not areas

thought of as part of "the city," nor did they ever think to frequent them, except perhaps to go to a baseball game in the Bronx. Children could be taken to and from places by the baby-sitter, thus guarded by an adult at all times, and cabs were often taken instead of the subway. Most of them had either a live-in baby-sitter or one that came every day until the moth- ers came home from work. This allowed the mother to work full- or part- time if she wanted, or enabled her to get out of the apartment to do errands and meet friends. Live-in baby-sitters were usually older immigrant black

women, or young women trying to get through college. They received room and board and a small stipend in return for their services. Most moth- ers (again, all white) I interviewed were investment bankers, accountants, lawyers, educators, journalists, or arts administrators. All of the mothers had a college degree and some of them had advanced degrees (M.B.A., M.A., J.D., and Ph.D.). Although Beach Channel and South Rockaway dif- fered in the types of hard offensive or defensive individualism they social-

ized, neither of them could be described as practicing a soft psychologized individualism, in which self-confidence and assertion of the child's unique feelings were paramount. In Carter Hill, of all the strands of individualism, appreciating and developing the child's psychological uniqueness (person- ality) and individuality was perhaps most strongly emphasized and linked to success and happiness. Self-confidence, believing in yourself and having a true pride in what makes you unique, would help the child "do any- thing!" or "take on the world!" Carter Hill mothers brought to child raising what Tipton (1982) refers to as "psychologized individualism," stressing the importance of the child's cultivation of emotions and the development of a good "sense," or knowledge, of the feeling self as crucial foundations for being happy and successful. Talk of autonomy, uniqueness, individu-

ality, and self-confidence were intertwined with talk of the importance and

rights of the psychological self (emotions, feelings, desires, tastes, person- ality) to emerge and be the best it can be. Children must fully acknowledge and honor their emotions and desires so that they can find the right socie- tal outlet for them. The energy of true desire, authentic preference, and

unique feelings and tastes will naturally motivate them to be good at what

they love. If they do not know and have confidence in their unique feelings

De-Homogenizing American Individualism * 223

and preferences, they will have little momentum to carry them forward in a quite competitive society. Hence, an individualistic and independent child was felt to be a happy child, insofar as independence was proof that feelings were not being stifled or blocked. Happiness came about when psychologized uniqueness was able to flow freely.

For Carter Hill mothers and teachers, the goal was to puff the delicate layers of the child's self out, so that the child could open out into the world and realize his or her full potential. Raising an individualistic child was akin to gently assisting the child in emerging, unfolding, flowering, and self-actualizing his or her own unique qualities, thoughts, and feelings. Thus, the self of the child was not to be tight, dense, vigilant, and ready for obstacles, but loose and willing to pour itself into the world. It was thought to be a delicate process insofar as any large, clumsy, or harsh interference might stunt the unfolding of the unique self. Parents and teachers must take care to gently unfold the child's character without getting in its way. One of the most common metaphors used to speak of this unfolding proc- ess, was that of the child as a "flower" (used both as verb and noun), in which images of growing, blooming, and blossoming were invoked.

Many of the mothers in Carter Hill felt that children who were asser- tive, unique, creative, willful, and who didn't "back down," had "traits that would work well for them," although they were a pain to deal with some- times. Time after time, indirect references to how their children would be successful in the world were made with respect to the child's particular stubborn assertion of will, impulse, feeling, or personality. One mother described the very same traits that were described by South Rockaway mothers as "fresh" and "out of line" in an exhausted yet ultimately pleased manner.

My daughter is Attila the Hun, very charming, impulsive, creative, [she laughs]-it'll work well for her . . . she is not an amenable child, she's wonderful, empathetic, yet stubborn as can be, strong willed, then again that's what we sort of wanted.

Some of the practices of soft individualism involved the encouragement of what was seen as the child's need for psychological (not just physical) privacy, a high stress on the importance of words in expressing feelings and articulating desires, attempts at saving face (and voice) in front of the child, and the reduction of the power differential between parent and child. One mother said:

I treat her like an adult too much I think [she laughs], like telling her the truth no matter what. It gives her a certain status in the family, makes her feel like she's on an equal footing, her feelings are important as anyone else's.

Unlike many South Rockaway and Beach Channel mothers who did not seem to feel that a power hierarchy in which mothers were positioned above children was damaging to the child in any way, Carter Hill mothers often expressed discomfort with this power differential. Many of the mothers

224 * ETHOS

spoke about the importance of treating the child like you would an adult, with the same respect and "on equal footing." One teacher asked me, "How would you feel if you never had any power?" Another teacher noted how it seemed demeaning to treat the child as simply part of the group, as simply a girl, a daughter, a three-year-old, or any other wider social role the child had, which was akin to treating them "like a herd."

As with the parental practice of soft individualism, in Carter Hill pre- schools, efforts were made to help the child's self unfold, to allow for feel- ings and thoughts to emerge and flower in their own unique way. Certain practices were engaged that contributed to this loosening process, prac- tices such as saving face in front of the child, leaning down to speak at the same level as the child, letting the child wear the clothes he or she wanted, disciplining through suggestion and explanation rather than command, and qualifying discipline with apology.

In contrast to South Rockaway and Beach Channel, among Carter Hill teachers, discipline was rarely in the form of a direct command ("Stop that!"). Usually, a somewhat hesitantly phrased, polite question was used in its place, giving the appearance of allowing the child to decide what he or she wanted to do (e.g., "Do you really think you should be doing that?"). Use of a question also created a situation in which the adult was seemingly considering the thoughts and opinions the child had given in answer to such a question. Nonetheless these questions were taken by the children as commands. They knew it was not a real question, but rather a command in the form of a well-phrased, polite question. For instance, "Sit down!" becomes, "Would you like to sit down now, Jenny?" The teacher would then wait for the child's answer. She could never rush this time, and in this

way the child was given a more active role in the discipline process, a

period of time when she controlled the situation in silence. Until the child had formulated an answer, the teacher respected this space. Often much time was spent with the child in this question and answer mode in which the teacher was trying to gently orient the child towards the "right" answer without issuing a stern command. This was again an attempt to enable the child to discover the answer on her own, which fostered a feeling of em-

powerment and control while at the same time maintaining discipline. Like the South Rockaway and Beach Channel mothers who spoke of the

importance of sturdy values and morals, Carter Hill mothers spoke of

these, but always with the fear that too much structure might inhibit, block, or stifle the natural expression of the child's own unique feelings. The difference lay in the way they wanted these values to sit in the child-not like bone, but rather, like cartilage. Cartilage does not act as the main architecture of the self. (This ultimately should come from the child's personal take on the world.) Furthermore, unlike bone, cartilage is somewhat malleable.

De-Homogenizing American Individualism ? 225

BLENDING THE SOCIOCENTRIC WITH HARD AND SOFT INDIVIDUALISM

My research revealed not only that individualistic styles differed, but that sociocentric practices coexisted alongside these various styles, and that depending on what community I was in, the manner in which they coexisted was quite different.

Carter Hill Parent Guidance Workshop: Societal Constraints as Threat to Developing Individualism

Perhaps I began to best understand the way individualism coexisted with sociocentric practices among Carter Hill mothers when I sat in on a weekly Parent Guidance Workshop consisting of about ten mothers who gathered in the living room of one of the participants along with a social worker specializing in parenting. Role playing was often done involving a certain scenario between parent and child reenacted in the group. Usually this was done to promote a child-centered philosophy, so that the parent could feel what it was like to be in the child's shoes. The goal was to raise a child who was in touch with his or her feelings and acted on these feel- ings, and yet still accommodated certain societal constraints. Mothers were very aware that socialization of soft individualism must coincide with socialization of sociocentric values. Their challenge was to work within the constraints of group life (good manners, basic politeness, kindness to oth- ers, and the importance of a certain amount of group activity in the life of the child) while still helping the child "flower" to the fullest. The child's potential must be reached while remaining a polite, kind, considerate, and socially acceptable member of society. This was seen as a difficult balanc- ing act for many of the mothers to achieve, and most of the sessions were devoted to talk about how to attain one (soft individualism) within the constraints of the other (sociocentric values). This theme of achieving full expression within limits was the core concept with which mothers wres- tled.

Carter Hill talk of individualism often existed alongside talk of the importance of the group. The ultimate goal of these mothers was to fit such individualism into the sociocentric elements that were required by soci- ety. The truly successful child would get nowhere without an ability to get along with the group and a well-developed sense of what was socially ap- propriate. To say these mothers all wanted completely uninhibited chil- dren would not be accurate. When I asked them what was most important for the child to learn in preschool, most of them replied that it was learning how to get along with the group.17 Traits such as shyness and gentleness were appreciated and encouraged, as long as children retained an innate confidence and belief in themselves.

226 * ETHOS

As mothers taught their children not to be rude, or how to be polite, they must also give them privacy (space to unfold), respect, empathy, and ample choices. They must "mirror" the feelings of the child. As the social worker said at one point, "What we want to do is help children feel com- fortable with who they are, but then set limits on the way they express it, which is a difficult process." Mothers were faced with how to impose a morality and discipline on feelings and impulses that were legitimate sim- ply because they were seen (tautologically) as the unique property of the child, "because they were hers."

One woman, Janet, told a brief story about her daughter Danielle, three and a half, not wanting to have a play date with a friend's child. The counselor recommended taking Danielle aside and saying:

"I know this is a pain for you, you didn't invite her over, but she's a guest in our house, and for an hour I need you to help." Then you're validating their feelings while you're simultaneously showing her there are certain respects that must be given to others. That's just what it means to live in our society!

Beach Channel and South Rockaway: Nonchalant Shifting Between Sociocentric and Individualistic Discourses

In both Beach Channel and South Rockaway, the socialization of hard individualism could occur side-by-side a strong emphasis on hierarchy, respect, authority, and cooperation with others without the subsequent checking to see if they had stifled the child's creativity or unique feelings. Hence, whereas the switching from one mode of socialization to another was often done for Carter Hill mothers with a sense of reluctance, hesita-

tion, or guilt, for the Beach Channel and South Rockaway mothers, such

switching was done nonchalantly, without guilt or worry. Unencumbered

by the fear of jeopardizing the healthy self-reliance and self-determination

they sought to instill in the children, sociocentric socialization was spon- taneously woven in and out of the socialization of hard offensive and de- fensive individualism. This could be seen in the ways the mothers in

Queens switched easily from discourses on the importance of respect for elders and the established hierarchy ("Don't be fresh to me, young man; I'm the one who's in charge here, not you") with hard individualistic forms of socialization. This could also be seen in the ways mothers had no diffi-

culty calling their children by their social role or group status, ("You boys get over here," "Hey kids, get off that bicycle") whereas Carter Hill teach- ers tended to avoid lumping the individual into some generic group status. Beach Channel and South Rockaway mothers also had no trouble intro-

ducing discourses of hierarchy and respect for adults side-by-side with a sense of pride in their child's individual accomplishments. During one of

my visits to a Beach Channel home, the father cursed his son for continu-

ing to watch TV and not standing up when I walked into the room. "Who

227 * ETHOS

do you think you are? Stand up and say hello to the lady-don't sit there like a bum," he said incredulously to his son, and then continued to speak about what a hard worker he was and how great he was at baseball. After this sociocentric discipline, not once did any shade of doubt, worry, or guilt cross his face as to whether his son had been embarassed or wounded. Nor was there any subsequent checking to see if he was "okay" after such discipline occurred, or any attempt to build the child's self-esteem back up with words of comfort (practices which were common among Carter Hill mothers and teachers). During my interviews I was able to witness many parent/child interactions (especially the conflicts that arose when the child wanted attention during the interview and the parent wanted to focus on my questions). What was especially revealing about these inter- actions were the varying ways in which mothers handled the child's re- peated interruptions. Carter Hill mothers seemed to be worried about hurting the child's feelings if they were told they could not join us, so sometimes the child would be invited to crawl onto their lap and "join us," even after the parent had repeatedly asked the child to not bother us while "we're busy." Or the child would be periodically given attention to sustain her sense of belonging by the parent asking his or her opinion on some of the questions I asked. South Rockaway mothers often yelled at the child, asking, "Where are your manners, can't you see I'm talkin' with this woman here? Go watch TV." Children were not invited into the adult ac- tivity, and no visible signs of guilt were detected in the mother's voice, body, or speech.

Through witnessing these interactions, it became clear to me that, not only did the South Rockaway and Beach Channel mothers differ in how much tougher they wanted the child to become, they also had a different notion of the level of resilience they were starting with when compared to the Carter Hill mothers. South Rockaway and Beach Channel mothers seemed to view certain forms of tough discipline as not bothering the child at all, since the basic core of the self was viewed as tougher to begin with than the self conceptualized by Carter Hill mothers. In this way, the start- ing points in their conceptions of the basic substance of the self were quite different.

Thus, for both Beach Channel and South Rockaway mothers, a tough- ening, hardening, and thickening of the boundaries of the self was part of the socialization process, although for different reasons. In contrast, for Carter Hill mothers, the socialization of soft individualism involved a more fluid, delicate conception of the boundaries of the self, in which the child was encouraged to loosen the self, express feelings, unfold, and open out into the world. Among Carter Hill mothers, soft offensive individualism was practiced. Mothers often used images of the importance of encourag- ing the child to open up, share feelings with the world, emerge, and bloom.

228 ? ETHOS

As already noted, the most popular image for the child was that of a deli- cate flower in the process of blossoming. Here we see the importance of developing the child's soft nature-unique feelings, emotions, desires, and opinions. Images of fluidity and opening up were accompanied by fear of

hurting the child's delicate skin, and by notions of the importance of gentle assistance to help the child's unique self emerge. It is through uniqueness, emotional self-confidence, creativity, and knowledge of the domain of the

psychologized self that the Carter Hill child will become happy and suc- cessful. While boundaries of the child's self among the Queens mothers should be hard and dense (again, although each gave different reasons), for Carter Hill mothers, those boundaries should be relatively fluid and soft.

CONCLUSION

My research pointed to the ways mothers and teachers in South Rock-

away, Beach Channel, and Carter Hill took up individualism and used its various strands in ways that correlated with the specific needs, values, beliefs, and ultimate concerns of their local worlds. In this way, the child was socialized into the various orientations of soft or hard individualism

practiced in each community. Individualism was differentially woven into

metaphors of opening or tightening up, of Superman or the charismatic

artist, of density or fluidity. These metaphors seem to reflect the mothers'

concept of the nature of the child's self, be it delicate or hardy, as well as the offensive or defensive trajectory children should take as they devel-

oped. Sociocentric elements coexisted alongside practices which fostered hard offensive, soft offensive, or hard defensive individualism. However, among Carter Hill mothers, practices that fostered sociocentrism were seen as a threat to the child's individuality and therefore were often prac- ticed with hesitation or subsequent checking rituals. Among Beach Chan- nel and South Rockaway mothers, sociocentric and individualistic forms of socialization were nonchalantly used simultaneously without the fear that either one would be harmful to the development of the other.

Insofar as my research pointed to two different kinds of hard individu- alism in South Rockaway and Beach Channel, I was able to complexify and

de-homogenize the stereotype of a conformist working class, thereby avoiding a re-creation of another rigid bipolar dichotomy within America. I was also able to de-homogenize and complexify individualism as it ex- isted in the two working-class communities I studied, insofar as each com-

munity espoused different individualistic styles: what I refer to as defensive and offensive individualism. Whereas images of thickening, in-

creasing density, protecting, and remaining safe were common for both South Rockaway and Beach Channel mothers, Beach Channel mothers

De-Homogenizing American Individualism * 229

spoke of hardening the self, enabling children to burst through to a higher socioeconomic level. South Rockaway mothers, on the other hand, spoke more of surviving, defending oneself or family, and staying put. In South Rockaway, a hard self could deflect the dangers that came its way. In Beach Channel, offensive images of stepping out, putting one's best foot forward, Superman, and building momentum were common. A thick skin was needed- not for protection from danger, but for surviving the rough weather on the way up the socioeconomic ladder. Hard work, good grades, strong values, sports, and discipline would help the child break through to success and escape lower-working-class status. Here are the beginnings of pride and an offensive emphasis, while the notion of toughening and thick- ening the boundaries of the self through specific individualistic practices is retained.

ADRIE SUZANNE KUSSEROW is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at St. Michael's College, Colchester, Vermont.

NOTES

Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Professors Robert LeVine, Charles Lindholm, and Katherine Newman for their helpful suggestions, encouragement, and advice, both dur- ing and after the fieldwork process. Arthur Kleinman and Byron Good also helped me in my critique of the homogenous Western self by giving me a solid grounding in the fields of medi- cal and psychiatric anthropology while I was at Harvard, for which I thank them both as well. I also acknowledge insightful comments by Robert Lair, Suzanne Kusserow, and Wil- liam J. Lewis. Research was supported by the Leopold Schepp Foundation and by a Mellon Grant from Harvard University.

1. Lest the reader become confused by what I mean by self, I am always referring to a parent's conception of the child's self. This includes what Spiro (1993:114) describes as "the self-representation or the mental representation of the attributes of one's own person as they are known, both consciously and unconsciously, to the person herself or himself."

During my interviews, mothers spoke about their own conception of the child's self as they saw it, as well as how they hoped it would develop. None of these descriptions is a "true" reflection of the phenomenological experience of the children's selves. As such, these conceptions include aspects of one's culturally constituted milieu and habitus, which may or may not reflect the phenomenonological realities of the child's self.

2. For examples of this, see Conklin and Morgan 1996; Derne 1992; Elvin 1985; Ewing 1990; Holland and Kipnis 1994; Khare 1984; Kleinman and Kleinman 1991; Lamb 1997; Lin 1988; Lindholm 1997; Markus and Kitayama 1994; McHugh 1988; Mines 1988; Murray 1993; Oxfeld 1992; Rosenberger 1992, 1989; Spiro 1993; Stairs 1992; Stephenson 1991; Waters 1990.

3. This sort of unpacking can be accomplished through an approach to self, which Csor- das (1994) refers to as "cultural phenomenology," whereby theories of the self always re- main tethered to the phenomenological and embodied experiences of the specific cultural phenomenon under study. If, too often, the self is described without reference to any concrete phenomenological base, Csordas, in his detailed account of symbolic healing among Catholic Charismatics in North America, points to the need for more of a balance between the methodological twins of phenomenology and semiotics (1994:ix). For other

230 ? ETHOS

phenomenological approaches in anthropology, see also Desjarlais 1992; Good 1993; Jack- son 1996; Kapferrer 1997; and Kleinman and Kleinman 1991.

4. See Gilligan 1982; Hewitt 1989; Hochschild 1979; Lykes 1985; Riesman 1950; Samp- son 1988; Varenne 1977; and Wilkinson 1988.

5. See Berger et al. 1973; MacIntyre 1984; Sennett 1976; Trilling 1972; and Turner 1976. 6. Social psychologists, such as Triandis (1995) and Kagitchibasi (1987) also focus on the

coexistence of individual and group loyalties and the problems with placing them in bipolar positions.

7. By sociocentric models, I mean teaching the child to identify with the group, one's social role as brother, sister, or daughter, student, or one's place in a hierarchy. The focus of

my particular observations was on the practice of individualism and sociocentrism. I take the practices of individualism to be any verbal or nonverbal encouragement of the child's

independence, individuality, uniqueness, privacy, personal expressiveness, personal rights, self-assertiveness, self-reliance, and self-confidence. I was also interested in sociocentric

practices. These I take to be any verbal or nonverbal encouragement and identification of the child's self with his or her social role, the group, group activity, cooperation, empathy, conformity, and knowing one's place in a hierarchy. I was interested in these practices as

they are manifested in three main areas: emotions and feelings; creativity, art, and play; and

morality, discipline, and rules. 8. For the purposes of my study, social class position was broadly based on the occupa-

tion, education, and income of the mothers of the children at the preschools where I ob- served. In no way do I see these three factors as dictating one's class position, but as

generally corresponding to class status. 9. I use Wentworth's (1980) definition of socialization to refer to the process by which

members of a culture display rules to, or in the presence of, a novice. This can be done

consciously or unconsciously, through everyday talk and discipline and through narrative, linguistic, cognitive, educational, and emotional mediums.

10. I chose to observe four-year-olds because more advanced and complex dialogue could take place, enabling the researcher to study the cultural and class values embedded in teacher's explanations and responses when children made a comment, responded to a ques- tion, talked back, talked to themselves, and so forth. This could not be done with infants. Mothers of four-year-olds still feel they have tremendous influence over the development of their childrens' selves. In addition, the mothers' wishes and desires for appropriate behavior tend to be more obvious than with infants.

11. Analysis is based on comments made in interviews, except where stated otherwise. Words and phrases in double quotes represent words spoken by the mothers and teachers themselves.

12. Analysis of these practices is based on general observation of interactions between mother or teacher and child, rather than explicit statements made in interviews.

13. Observations and analysis I have made about the architecture of the self are based on interviews with these mothers. Words used by the mothers themselves, however, are placed in quotes.

14. For a similar analysis of working-class teasing practices as a way of teaching children how to stick up for themselves, see Miller 1986.

15. I observed some of these practices at preschools, whereas others were spoken of dur-

ing interviews with mothers. 16. It should be noted, however, that one of Strauss's main points is that cultural models

differ not only in extent, but also in the kind of directive force they give. She states, "Ameri- can success values, though endorsed by four of the working men I talked to, motivated the actions of only one of the men who stated them" (1992:217).

17. For more on what American mothers want their children to learn in preschool, see

Tobin, Wu, and Davidson 1989.

De-Homogenizing American Individualism ? 231

REFERENCES CITED Abu-Lughod, Lila

1986 Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Becker, Anne E. 1995 Body, Self, Society: The View from Fiji. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press. Bellah, Robert, Richard Madsen, William Sullivan, Ann Swider, and Steven Tipton

1985 Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. New York: Harper and Row.

Berger, Peter, et al. 1973 Human Shape of Work: Studies in the Sociology of Occupations. Chicago: Henry

Regnery. Conklin, Beth, and Lynn M. Morgan

1996 Babies, Bodies, and the Production of the Personhood in North America and a Native Amazonian Society. Ethos 24(4):657-694.

Csordas, Thomas 1994 The Sacred Self: A Cultural Phenomenology of Charismatic Healing. Berkeley:

University of California Press. Danforth, Loring

1989 Firewalking and Religious Healing: The Anastenaria of Greece and the American Firewalking Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Derne, Steve 1992 Beyond Institutional and Impulsive Conceptions of Self: Family Structure and the

Socially Anchored Real Self. Ethos 20:259-288. Desjarlais, Robert

1992 Body and Emotion: The Aesthetics of Illness and Healing in the Nepal Himalayas. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

1997 Shelter Blues: Sanity and Selfhood among the Homeless Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Elvin, Mark 1985 Between Earth and Heaven: Conceptions of the Self in China. In The Category of

the Person. Michael Carrithers, Steven Collins, and Steven Lukes, eds. Pp. 156-189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Erchak, Gerald 1992 The Anthropology of Self and Behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University

Press.

Ewing, Katherine P. 1990 The Illusion of Wholeness: Culture, Self and the Experience of Inconsistency. Ethos

18:251-278.

Gilligan, Carol 1982 In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press. Hewitt, John P.

1989 Dilemmas of the American Self. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hochschild, Arlie

1979 Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure. American Journal of Sociology 85(3):551-575.

Hollan, Douglas W., and Jane C. Wellenkamp 1996 The Thread of Life: Toraja Reflections on the Life Cycle. Honolulu: University of

Hawaii Press.

232 ? ETHOS

Holland, Dorothy, and Andrew Kipnis 1994 Metaphors for Embarrassment and Stories of Exposure: The Not-So-Egocentric Self

in American Culture. Ethos 22:316-342.

Jackson, Andrew 1996 Things As They Are: New Directions in Phenomenological Anthropology. Bloom-

ington: Indiana University Press.

Kagitchibasi, Ciqdem, ed. 1987 Growth and Progress in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger B.

V.

Kapferer, Bruce 1997 The Feast of the Sorcerer: Practices of Consciousness and Power. Chicago: Univer-

sity of Chicago Press.

Khare, Ravindra S. 1984 The Untouchable as Himself: Ideology, Identity, and Pragmatism among the

Lucknow Chamars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kleinman, Arthur 1986 Social Origins of Distress and Disease: Neurasthenia and Pain in Modern China. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kleinman, Arthur, and Joan Kleinman 1991 Suffering and Its Professional Transformation: Toward an Ethnography of Interper-

sonal Experience. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 15(3):275-301. Kohn, Melvin L.

1969 Class Conformity: A Study in Values. Homewood: Dorsey Press.

Lamb, S"rah 1997 The Making and Unmaking of Persons: Notes on Aging and Gender in North India.

Ethos 25(3):279-302. Lasch, Christopher

1978 Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New

York: W. W. Norton.

Lin, Nan 1988 Chinese Family Structure and Chinese Society. Bulletin of Institute of Ethnology,

Academia Sinica 65(Spring):59-129. Lindholm, Charles

1988 Lovers and Leaders: A Comparison of Social and Psychological Models of Romance

and Charisma. Social Science Information 27(1):3-45. 1990 Charisma. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1997 Does the Sociocentric Self Exist?: Reflections on Markus and Kitayama's "Culture

and Self". Journal of Anthropological Research. 53:405-422.

Lutz, Catherine 1988 Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian Atoll and Their Chal-

lenge to Western Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lykes, M. Brinton 1985 Gender and Individualist vs. Collectivist Bases for Notions about the Self. Journal of

Personality 53:356-383.

MacIntyre, Alasdair 1984 After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame

Press.

Markus, Hazel, and Shinobu Kitayama, eds. 1994 Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influence. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

De-Homogenizing American Individualism * 233

McHugh, Ernestine 1988 Concepts of the Person among the Gurungs of Nepal. American Ethnologist

15:75-87. Miller, Patricia J.

1986 Teasing as Language Socialization and Verbal Play in a White Working-Class Community. In Language Socialization Across Cultures. B. B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs, eds. Pp. 199-212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mines, Mattison 1988 Conceptualizing the Person: Hierarchical Society and Individual Autonomy in India.

American Anthropologist 90(3):568-579. Murray, D. W.

1993 What is the Western Concept of the Self?: On Forgetting David Hume. Ethos 21(1): 3-23.

Oxfeld, Ellen 1992 Individualism, Holism, and the Market Mutality: Notes on the Recollections of a

Chinese Entrepreneur. Cultural Anthropology. 7(3):267-300. Potter, David Morris

1973 History and American Society: Essays of David M. Potter. New York: Oxford University Press.

Quinn, Naomi 1982 "Commitment" in American Marriage: A Cultural Analysis. American Ethnologist

9:775-798. Riesman, David, with Revel Denney and Nathan Glazer

1950 The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

1964 Individualism Reconsidered. New York: Free Press. Rosenberger, Nancy

1989 Dialectic Balance in the Polar Model of Self: The Japan Case. Ethos 17:88-113. 1992 Japanese Sense of Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sampson, Edward E. 1988 The Debate on Individualism: Indigenous Psychologies of the Individual and Their

Role in Personal and Societal Functioning. American Psychologist 43(1):15-22. Schachter, Stanley, and Jerome E. Singer

1962 Cognitive, Social and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State. Psychological Review 69(2):379-399.

Sennett, Richard 1976 The Fall of Public Man. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Slater, Philip Elliot 1976 The Pursuit of Loneliness: American Culture at the Breaking Point. Boston, MA:

Beacon Press. Spiro, Melford

1993 Is the Western Conception of the Self "Peculiar" within the Context of the World Cultures? Ethos 21:107-153.

Stairs, Arlene 1992 Self Image, World Image: Speculations on Identity from Experiences with Inuit.

Ethos 20:116-126. Stephenson, Peter H.

1991 Going to McDonald's in Leiden: Reflections on the Concept of Self in Society in the Netherlands. Ethos 17:226-247.

234 ? ETHOS

Strauss, Claudia 1992 What Makes Tony Run? Schemas as Motives Reconsidered. In Human Motives and

Cultural Models. Roy G. D'Andrade and Claudia Strauss, eds. Pp. 23-42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tipton, Steven 1982 Getting Saved from the Sixties: Moral Meaning in Conversion and Cultural Change.

Berkeley: University of California Press. Tobin, Joseph, David Wu, and Dana Davidson

1989 Preschool in Three Cultures: Japan, China and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Triandis, Harry C. 1995 Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Trilling, Lionel 1972 Sincerity and Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Turner, Ralph 1976 The Real Self: From Institution to Impulse. American Journal of Sociology

81:989-1016. Varenne, Herve

1977 Americans Together: Structured Diversity in a Midwestern Town. New York: Teach- ers College Press.

Waters, Mary 1990 Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley: University of California

Press. Wentworth, William M.

1980 Context and Understanding: An Inquiry into Socialization Theory. New York: Elsevier Publishers.

White, Geoffrey, and John Kirkpatrick, eds. 1985 Person, Self and Experience: Exploring Pacific Ethno-Psychologies. Berkeley: Uni-

versity of California Press.

Wilkinson, Rupert 1988 The Pursuit of American Character. New York: Harper and Row.