ulture. After a lengthy period of field experiences, statistical studies, and conceptual reasoning, one of the prominent studies in this field- by Geert Hofstede- have led us to believe that all societies seem to share a set of common problems. These conflicts correspond to ones relation with authority, ones conception of his own self, his conception of femininity and masculinity, and finally, the ways people deal with conflicts existing within themselves or shared with their environment. Relatively, Hofstede concluded that culture is to be divided into four dimensions, power distance, collectivism vs. individualism, femininity vs. masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance. In this research, we wish to concentrate on a dimension of most interest to us, individualism. It is a doctrine promulgated by such theorists as the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes and the Scottish economist Adam Smith, that explains how society is an artificial device, existing only for the sake of its members as individuals, and properly judged only according to criteria established by them as individuals. 0 An individualist does not necessarily subscribe to the doctrine of egoism, which regards self-interest as the only logical human motivation. He may instead be guided, in political and economic thinking, by unselfish motives, rendering a high value to both social and organizational interests as a whole. What characterizes such an individualist thinker, however, is his conception of the community as composed of independent units, which are usually in opposition to the interference of the state with the happiness or freedom of these units. Furthermore, practical distinctions between individualism and its antitheses, collectivism, are often difficult to make. Individualism differs from collectivist theories not so much in setting a high value upon the well-being and free initiative of the individual as much as in subordinating the demands of the community as a whole...
