Individualism, a strong focus on the self-versus the group, is an integral part of the Western world, arguably one of the central ideas that is bears. The importance of this central idea leaks into every faucet of American dialogue and appears consistently in all sorts of major issues within the United States. LGBT rights, gun control, taxation and racial discrimination all bear strong ties to the right of the individual and the assumed undeniability that these rights infer. The basis of the idea of the ‘individual’, not as a discreet unit, but as a place of priority and particular significance, is an unusual one, one not shared by the majority of the world. Despite the issues that individualism can play on incompatible establishments, hubs of individuality are some of the most stable and wealthy governments on the planet.
I’ll argue in this blog post that individualism, especially the Western sort, was a combination of resource abundance and a unique philosophical tradition dating back to the Renaissance. I’ll explore the implications these investigations have on Western foreign policy with collectivist nations, and how these two systems can work together harmoniously for the benefits of both. As strong culture figures can often be used as ‘markers’ of significant ideas during a certain place and time, I’ll point to the ideas of philosophers during the Enlightenment to act as purveyors of the important ideas during this period of increased individualism and chart these out until we reach to the strong individualistic ethic we have now. Finally the ‘why’ of individualism will be developed, why did it occur and what benefits will it have versus a collectivist culture, while showing that the two country type distinction is simply a direct result of maximization of societal stability.
I’ll divide these posts into three
parts each, with Parts I and II lending to support part III, both explaining
how the contemporary individual emerged and why it’s important.
Part I: Origins of Collectivism and the Cost of
Individuality
Before we flesh out these topics
too much, I want to explore why we started from a place of collectivistic culture
rather than an individualistic one, what sort of relationship do these two
systems have? As I pointed out in my most recent blog post about the idea of a
moralistic god, acting in a way that is against the priorities of the group in
pre-modern societies could often be of great danger to the group. Stability was
of paramount importance in early human societies, as survival would lie in
cooperation of the group against an unpredictable environment. Stealing a
neighbor’s cow could spell starvation for your neighbor and his family, as well
as sever any insurance against famine you might have from your neighbor’s
goodwill. This brings to mind the famous Bible verse popularly used by John
Smith: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat”. This idea being is central
to the workings of a highly collectivist society, contribute and you shall be
cared for.
This focus on stability and
obedience pushed the importance of idea systems that could increase group
coherence and foster group identity, allowing the accomplishment of common goals.
Individualism and individual identity had no place where survival was all but
guaranteed. The idea of ‘individualistic goals’ was a dangerous and costly one,
where early societies were often very close to famine even in years of surplus
(Minc, 1986), they could not afford to invest resources in individual
cultivation. A worker taking unnecessary
time off or cheating the system would be of great danger to all those that
depend on his/her efforts. Acting in self-interest had a high potential cost
and often low benefit and, as a rule, these behaviors were seen as dangerous
ones and punished (Allchin, 2009). We should not feel that the individual was
strongly oppressed in these early systems though, as the very basic goal of
survival was one shared by the group as a whole and all the individuals in it
(Allchin, 2009). The main point being that organized behavior is the most
efficient way to try out new methods for foraging and agriculture (Minc, 1986,
p. 43), and ensure optimum survival for all involved via assumed reciprocity and
synchronized behavior in an environment of scarcity.
It’s
not surprising then that the individual in early societies would define the
self in their relationships to others and the role they fit into (Lieber, 1990),
rather than anything self-determined. How well one did the job that was set out
for them (either through ancestry or though societal need) would evoke larger
personal, positive reinforcement than a job that was fun or made one feel
impassioned. This leads to a collective or role defined sense of self, as is
seen in the Medieval and Greek art below:
In “Monks Singing in the Office”
(Olivetan Gradual, 1439-1447) above, we can see the singers blend
together as a functional unit and the conductor, likely a monk of higher
status, serves his role separately. The
picture simply serves to depict the idea of sing in a choir and gives no
significance to the individuals in the picture. This was found in a gradual
(The Olivetan Gradual), a book of religious hymns, which further
serves to emphasize the functional rather than individualistic value of the
artwork. This functional emphasis is also seen to the right painting’s
(Last Judgement by Fra Angelico) blending together individuals to favor an
overall theme, that being, hell and the suffering it entails. This pulls us
away from considering how each victim is suffering, in favor of promoting the
more general theme that ‘’people are suffering and this place is horrible’’.
This is unsurprising considering this painting was found painted on a wall of a
monastery (Santa Maria degli Angeli Monastary in Florence, Italy) part of a
larger painting showing Heaven and Hell. The demon is emphasized in this
painting much like the conducting monk in “Monks Singing in the Office” also
existing as a reference to the overall theme, rather than existing for his own
sake (we don’t care how he feels or thinks, we care about what he represents)
(Angelico, 1431-1435).
The Greek vase painting compilation above also appears to place no significance on the individuals
themselves, in favor of promoting the battle as a whole (Gigantomachia, War of
the Giants, 400-390 BC).
Though the Greeks and Romans did
show individuals in art, individual emphasis in art was often reserved for
depictions of Gods and great individuals, whom symbolized the group as a whole
(for example, Ceaser and the Roman State). This overall view of the lowered
significance of the individual in Pre-Enlightenment art is echoed by the
Metropolitan Museum of Art’s entry on Portraiture
in Renaissance and Baroque Europe (in their Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History):
“A portrait is typically defined as a representation of a specific individual,
such as the artist might meet in life. A portrait does not merely record
someone's features, however, but says something about who he or she is,
offering a vivid sense of a real person's presence.
The traditions of portraiture in the West extend back to
antiquity and particularly to ancient Greece and Rome, where lifelike
depictions of distinguished men and women appeared in sculpture and on coins.
After many centuries in which generic representation had been the norm,
distinctive portrait likenesses began to reappear in Europe in the fifteenth
century. This change reflected a new growth of interest in everyday life and
individual identity as well as a revival of Greco-Roman custom. The resurgence
of portraiture was thus a significant manifestation of the Renaissance in
Europe.” (Sorabella, "Portraiture in Renaissance and
Baroque Europe")
In art,
an emphasis on the individual began to emerge during the Renaissance, though
the individualistic ethic that eventually led to our contemporary conceptions
of self did not take off until the British Enlightenment, which occurred at the
tail end of the Renaissance and almost 200 years after it began (“What’s the
Difference Between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment?”, 2015). To
re-reference the group dynamic model
from Part I used above, it seems this model of collectivism assumes that
environments of scarcity and higher risk of threat push a society towards
stronger interdependent relationships, and by the same token, when a society
exists in a state of large surplus, individualism becomes much less costly. As
such, the development of individualistic ideas should have been much more
likely and favorable as agricultural efficiency increased and basic needs
became more accessible.
Although it is difficult to assess
agricultural surplus and the percentage of people housed before these sorts of
statistics were taken, we do currently tend to find a very strong tie between
national wealth, quality of life and individualism. With wealth suggested as the
causal agent for individualism in culture, the inverse also holds, poorer
nations tend to be more collectivistic (Hofstede, 2001), (Triandis et al.,
1986), with collectivistic culture allowing for more efficient allocation of
scarce resources. Though the causal association cannot be confirmed to be the
same in the past, for the sake of this argument we will assume the proposed
mechanism holds for Medieval and Imperialistic powers of the past.
Part II: Philosophical Origins of Individuality and
Self-Differentiation
It should be no surprise then that such a big gap existed
between the first appearances of individualism and its surge into a major
theme. This period of time was also shared with the rise of imperial nations,
most notably the French and British Empires. As imperial powers, especially
their capitals, had greater access to goods via consolidation of agriculture
and taxation, we should expect additional bumps for individualism to occur
during this time. Both the British and French Empire led to the development of
individuality in their own ways, via additions to important philosophies and/or
historical events that were centered on individual rights.
The French promoted the individual most
notably via the French Revolution, which is often cited as the beginning of the
rise of individual rights in France. In Britain, their contributions were more
indirect and subtle, mostly through Britain’s Empiricist tradition, with Empiricist
thinkers eventually spreading ideas of liberty and the right of the individual
to not be crushed under the heel of. In fact, the Empiricist movement is
responsible for many of the ideas introduced into the United States
Constitution, via the tremendous impact John Locke on Thomas Jefferson’s drafting
of the constitution (Foundation of American Government, 2015).
As I am much more familiar with the
major philosophers of this period (rather than the ideas of the French
Revolution), I will use three thinkers: Rene Descartes, John Locke and Immanuel
Kant as the ‘markers of their time’, as I listed in my first paragraph, this
should allow outline the view of the individual held by Enlightenment Era
thinkers.
The
earliest of these philosophers, Rene Descartes, was a French citizen and a part
of the Rationalist tradition in France (a related, often adversarial tradition
to the Empiricist Tradition, helping shape it by association). He’s often
heavily cited for his phrase cogito ergo
sum or ‘I think therefore I am’, this phrase being what I would like to
examine to point to the views of individualism expressed during the time
(Middle 15th Century). Rene Descartes wrote a series of short
writings, his Meditations, where he
challenged his most basic and innate conceptions to see if they were
susceptible to any degree of doubt. Famously, at the end of his thought
experiment, he found that he could not prove anything without at least some
degree of doubt, except that he existed (this being called Cartesian Doubt). The reasoning being that in order to doubt,
something had to be doubting, that thing being him. Interestingly, what is
often excluded when students are introduced to this text are Descartes’s
responses to his finding, the quote below is from Descartes’s Third Meditation, and is very telling of the views of God and his
relationship to the individual held at the time:
“I must inquire whether there is a God, as soon as an
opportunity of doing so shall present itself; and if I find that there is a
God, I must examine likewise whether he can be a deceiver; for, without the
knowledge of these two truths, I do not see that I can ever be certain of
anything. And that I may be enabled to examine this without interrupting the
order of meditation I have proposed to myself [which is, to pass by degrees
from the notions that I shall find first in my mind to those I shall afterward
discover in it], it is necessary at this stage to divide all my thoughts into
certain classes, and to consider in which of these classes truth and error are,
strictly speaking, to be found.
…if God did not in reality exist--this same God, I say,
whose idea is in my mind--that is, a being who possesses all those lofty
perfections, of which the mind may have some slight conception, without,
however, being able fully to comprehend them, and who is wholly superior to all
defect [ and has nothing that marks imperfection]: whence it is sufficiently
manifest that he cannot be a deceiver, since it is a dictate of the natural
light that all fraud and deception spring from some defect.” (Descartes)
This
response is important because of the bridge this forms between the perceived
experience one has, and the way the world is. In Descartes’s view, the world is
perceived as it is, and if this were not so, there would be no God, or God
would be imperfect. The truth value of this argument is unimportant, but the
assumptions it creates is that others perceives the world in the same manner as
he does, the connections between the outside world and the self only differ in
their scope from person to person. The individual is isolated from reality in
the same respect as everyone else, and individual differences are of no
importance, because the world is as we see it. Though I do not claim that
Descartes was unaware of differences in height, angle of view, intelligence
differences, etc. and their effects on perceptions of the world, he was not
aware of aspects of the world that are hidden from human experience (except
maybe that which God has chosen to hide). The Neoclassicist art movement took
off during the Age of Enlightenment, and celebrated reality as it was perceived,
painting many naturalistic scenes and emphasizing extreme realism (Perry et al.)
. These views, and the importance of our central ties to the ‘world as it was
seen’.
John Locke, an important British
Empiricist that wrote shortly after Descartes death, expressed views very
similar to those of Descartes in its implication. The following quote is from
Locke’s A Treatise of Human
Understanding, Book I:
“For though the comprehension of our understandings comes exceeding short of
the vast extent of things, yet we shall have cause enough to magnify the
bountiful Author of our being, for that proportion and degree of knowledge he
has bestowed on us, so far above all the rest of the inhabitants of this our
mansion. Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit
for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says) pana pros zoen
kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and
information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the
comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How
short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension
of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments, that they have light
enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own
duties.” (Locke, 1689, p. 2)
For the sake of relevance I will only
delve into Locke’s views and the purpose of the text this quote was derived
from only superficially. This quote is found in the beginning of Locke’s first
of three books titled A Treatise of Human
Understanding, in its introduction, and was to act as a very obvious and
assumed claim before Locke proceeded with his extensive analysis. Serving to
explain that although we may not have access to the realm of God and perfect
understanding, we are all granted access to the same pot of knowledge,
knowledge that allows us to serve God and keep us happy during our time on
Earth. Further (in Locke’s A Treatise of
Human Understanding), individual
differences in perception are not accounted for and objects of perception are
assumed to be particular forms of a universal,
that being, a ‘perfect’ conception of an object of observation. If we
perceive a red kitchen table, we are viewing a specific form of a ‘universal
table’ or an idealized conception of the table (similar to Plato’s ideal forms for those familiar). These
universals are shared by everyone and do not appear to be subject to
interpretation in Locke’s views, further tying us to the ‘world as it is’ (to
the extent that is relevant to us) in the same manner, courtesy of the
Christian God.
Immanuel Kant’s philosophy was one
of the first major philosophers to argue for a viewpoint that allowed for
individualistic interpretation as a result something called the noumenal/ phenomenal distinction, a view
central to his philosophy. The noumenal
realm is the world as it is, without the constraints of interpretation and
our senses, the objective world. The phenomenal
realm is the world as we see it. When knowledge building, to Kant, we are
simply understanding the phenomenal realm in greater detail but learning nothing
of the noumenal, the varied formation of phenomenal systems can lead to
different system of understanding depending on the subject. This further led to
the inevitable implication that the system build in our own head, as a result
of assimilating information in different environments, are different than those
built up by others. Kant’s views were widely accepted at the time, and as a
result he remains a central figure in the development of Industrial Era Western
philosophy American and European (Kant’s death was only a few decade before the
beginning of the American Industrial Revolution).
Kant’s views of the phenomenal led
to a school of investigation deemed phenomenology,
which studied consciousness and its relationship to the world around it,
and had a precursory relationship to psychology. More importantly, after Kant’s
philosophy took off, individualistic ethic and the school of Existentialism
formed soon after. This period of time also marked the beginning of
industrialization, where quality of life began to climb and food production and
dissemination was making its largest increases since the advent of agriculture.
It’s difficult to predict causality here, did the increase quality of life
reduce the need of others in a survival sense, leading to more individualistic
schools of philosophy, or did they develop independently? I’m not too sure, I’ll leave it to the reader
to further explore.
Part III: The Importance of Individualism and its Importance
for Economic and Foreign Policy
As a result of industrialization,
basic needs became much more disseminated as the ‘cost of individuality’ was no
longer fatal to the group and even garnered certain advantages. Individuality
actually provided a benefit once a cost had been paid via so called division of labor. One could now
specialize on a specific task or field and do it to a degree of mastery than
anyone else before them. These specialized individuals could achieve tasks,
when working as a unit, much more comprehensive and complex than ever before, but
required a costly training period before this benefit could be accessed.
Sukkoo Kim in his paper, DIVISION OF LABOR AND THE RISE OF CITIES:
EVIDENCE FROM U.S. INDUSTRIALIZATION, 1850-1880, suggest that the
importance of division of labor also led to the development of cities, as labor
matching is easy with a more localized workforce. Factors like higher wages served
to attract rural workers into cities, and workers were also allowed to choose
what they wanted to invest their time into fostering. Whether it be welding,
writing, cooking, etc., it still fit some sort of role desired by society (Kim,
2006). Non-essential tasks could be given higher priority when survival was no
longer a serious concern, and self-cultivation and leisure became more and more
accessible for greater parts of the population, and leading to a higher and
more secure quality of life.
Though individualism seems to tie
well to higher prosperity, we should dig a little deeper to see if it leads to
a happier population (money can’t buy happiness, right?). Collectivism seems
to, by necessity of the strong ties fostered between mutual dependence, build
stronger communities. While loneliness and narcissism seem to be obstacles which
make an individualistic existence something undesirable. The idea of the
predatory businessman selling out his community to make a quick buck comes to
mind, putting himself above the group for his sole benefit.
According to a 2014 study published
by Helliwell et al. in the Journal of Happiness Studies, areas with stronger
communities and a higher emphasis on ‘social capital’ have happier citizens on
average. He also found following the 2008 Financial Crisis, individualistic
nations experienced some of the largest drops in happiness, signaling a worse
response to crisis in nations with less social support networks in place. This
makes sense and supports the idea that collectivistic ideals lead to better
social security and stability, while being forced to face crisis alone leads to
more difficulty with recovery. This also seems to fit well into the description
of group resilience given in Part I, where the group can act as a safety net,
and less affected members can aid those most affected (Helliwell, 2014).
So why would prosperity lead to
individualism if it leads to a less happy population in general? Although a
collectivist model can handle crisis to a greater degree than an individualist
system, an individualist system can reduce the likelihood and severity of these
crisis, reducing or nullifying the advantages a collectivist system allows. Division
of labor allows for the building of more elaborate infrastructure and greater
cumulative efforts in research and development, which allows industrialized
nations to protect against both internal and external threats much more
effectively. Collectivist cultures could not foster such specialized efforts in
so many different arenas. As such individualized countries may foster a greater
degree of unhappiness during crisis, or even in a general sense, but there
seems to be a strong stability advantage as a compromise. This stability is
both a requirement for individualism to exist in the first place, and once such
a system takes root, an aspect that is continually reinforced by individualism (Hofstede,
2001).
Before I continue I should point
out that individualism, as I am defining it in this blog post, is described in
terms of a person acting authentically,
or in a manner that aligns with individually determined values. An individual’s
values can come from the group (in fact most of the time they do to some
extent) but in situations where individual and societal values conflict,
individual values should take precedence. That isn’t to say that we should
assume that everyone would act in a manner akin to the businessman above, as
empathy (and other altruistic tendencies) occur naturally in humans. Rather, the values and terms one comes to
describe as important are up to the individual, and determined by chosen
alignment to external values. It has been further suggested that well-being in
individualistic societies is tied to working with or for the sake of others (Helliwell,
2014), while others find that individualism predicts happiness while wealth does
not (as such, the goals people work for often aren’t monetary) (Fischer, R.,
& Boer, D., 2011). This further supports the notion that individualistic
societies do not necessarily devolve into a free for all (though some
regulation may need to exist to protect from the authentically purely self-interested).
When authenticity and division of
labor are both considered from the social model in Part I, we begin to see that
authenticity actually works for the group. The collectivist agenda is to
optimize the survival of the group, and this agenda does not change during a
switch to an individualistic ethic, they do not have to be at odds. As the same
principles dictate higher level purpose in people in both cultures, most
importantly: order, social well-being, maximization of happiness and safety,
etc. we should not view the two cultures as having dissimilar ends. By allowing
more individuals to work as nodes of exploration and innovation, we maximize
our control and understanding of our environment as a unit in indivualistic
cultures. Comfort is also increased, as basic needs can be meet for a large
base of individuals with less workers and increased automation. Time can now be
spent finding a niche and exploring and understanding our environment and
ourselves. Identity becomes self-managed and the individual can become who they
want due to their individual efforts, thus social mobility is increased.
Complete social mobility in any
industrialized nation at the moment is only an ideal, but we are seeing
increased debate over one’s ability to meet self-defined goals with a fairer
chance, this stands at the heart of much of the LGBT, racial and gender based
debate on equality prevalent in many industrialized nations. The meeting of
individual goals (“being yourself”) takes strong precedence when authenticity
promotes a stronger social infrastructure than one based in tradition and
authority. This building up of social infrastructure helps everyone involved,
with equal mobility allowing individuals to become skilled in something they
enjoy while giving society increased resilience through a diverse workforce. If
done well, individualism does not have to lead to lower happiness and
well-being, and several individualistic nations report to be the happiest in
the world (Standish, M., & Witters, D., 2014).
These ideas have important
implications on foreign policy and should be considered when collectivistic and
individualistic nations interact. The difference on emphasis between the
traditional and the personal can cause stark differences in priority between
these two sorts of nations. The United States’s strong emphasis on
individualistic rights, accessibility of information and ‘the pursuit of
happiness’ can only make sense from both the tradition in part II and the ‘reduced
burden of individuality’ explained in part I. We should resist the temptation
to think nations will, once given enough surplus and security, eventually
become highly individualistic. Western Individualism seems to be a unique
combination of an emerged tradition and a lowered cost of individual
cultivation. Western Individualism is only one of many possible systems that
can emerge from economic abundance and stability.
I will claim that cultivating stability in a nation will serve to
make said nation more open to new ideas, lowering the social and economic risk
adoption of new ideas poses. Experimentation is possible in abundant and stable
government systems and undesirable when basic needs are a group’s top priority.
Introduced deviations from social norms can be perceived as dangerous and
intrusive in countries experiencing issues of safety and stability, and
rightfully so, as they funnel resources away from basic needs. Foreign policy should keep these differences
in priority in mind when dealing with nations of differing degrees of
self-perceived stability, by helping to foster stability in locations lacking
it, and facilitating cultural and economic exchange in those that perceive
stability.
Attempts to introduce elections and
democratic systems to fragile states can often fail for this very reason. Despite
the views of the citizen base, individuals may prefer to put those views aside
for a perceived group dynamic, one that will promote stability and cooperation
in a nation badly needing it. It seems instead that aiding in infrastructure
development and economic stability serves as more effective methods of allowing
cultural exchange, a goal that can aid both the donor nation and the donated. It
may seem counterproductive to not focus on social issues in developing
countries, and though I am not advocating a complete abandonment of social
rights watching in other nations, the only way enduring change can occur is
when stability is already in place. This model is obviously simplistic, and
corrupt regimes, diplomatic refusal and differences in infrastructure priority
are among the host of issues that can make stability a difficult point to
reach, nonetheless reaching this point provides massive benefits for all
involved. This makes institutions like the United States Peace Corp, Médecins
Sans Frontières and the United Nations invaluable allies in this mission.
Diplomatic relationships with collectivistic
nations allows refinement of ideas through new social mediums and enrichment of
culture on both ends as a result. Further, common missions can occur when two
nations reach stability, and joint projects like our current CERN and
International Space Station become more viable. Labor can also be divided
between larger populations, facilitating more extensive and complex economic
and social projects. The principle of ‘helping others to help yourself’ is
important here, as structural investment in nations badly needing it can
provide valuable allies and partners in the future, and can allow faster
developments of projects that are important to all of mankind. Much in the vein
of collectivistic culture, we should help those who need help, as they can help
us when we do.
Works Cited
Allchin, D. (2009). The evolution of morality. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(4), 590-601.
Angelico, F.
(1431-1435) Last Judgment (detail of Hell) [online image], tempera on
wood. Museo di San Marco, Florence. Retrieved March 11, 2015 from http://www.artcolorstore.com/images/painting/Last-Judgement-detail-Hell-Early- Renaissance- Oil- Painting-ACS02546.jpg
Descartes, R.
Discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason, and seeking truth in
the sciences. [The Project
Gutenberg EBook].
Geert Hofstede, Culture’s
Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Second Edition, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
Publications, 2001.
Fischer, R., &
Boer, D. (2011, June 14). Money Can't Buy Happiness. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/06/buy-happiness.aspx.
Foundation of American Government. (2015, January 1).
Retrieved March 11, 2015, from http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2.asp
The Gigantomachia,
War of the Giants [Online Image]. (400 - 390 BC). Retrieved March 11, 2015 from http://www.theoi.com/Gallery/L20.1.html
Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H., & Wang, S. (2014).
Social capital and well-being in times of crisis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1),
145-162.
Kim, S. (2006).
Division of labor and the rise of cities: evidence from US industrialization,
1850– 1880. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 469-491.
Locke, J. (1689, January 1). An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding. Retrieved March 12, 2015.
Minc, L. D. (1986). Scarcity and survival: the role of
oral tradition in mediating subsistence crises. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5(1), 39-113.
Olivetan Gradual
(1439-1447). "Monks Singing the Office" [Online image].
Retrieved March 11, 2015 from http://www.gg-art.com/news/photoshow/43225l1.html
Perry, M., Hollinger,
P., & Baker, J. (n.d.). Humanities in the Western Tradition - Chapter
Summary 18. Retrieved March 10, 2015,
from http://college.cengage.com/humanities/perry/humanities/1e/students/summaries/ch18.html
Rider-Bezerra, S.
(2014, September 14). Introducing Beinecke MS 1184: The Olivetan Gradual. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
Sorabella, Jean.
"Portraiture in Renaissance and Baroque Europe". In Heilbrunn
Timeline of Art History. New York:
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/port/hd_port.htm
(August 2007)
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond,
M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., ... & Montmollin, G. D. (1986). The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and
collectivism across cultures. Australian journal of Psychology, 38(3), 257-267.
What’s the Difference
Between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment? (2015, January 9). Retrieved March 11, 2015 from http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/01/09/what_s_the_difference_between_the_renaissa nce_and_the_enlightenment.html
