Is collectivism good for health promotion? Experiences of day labourers in Japan.

Collectivist values such as social trust and reciprocity are usually associated with positive health outcomes. Few studies have explored how collectivism influences individual and community capacity to engage health promotion practices. This paper explores how collectivism excludes people who do not conform to societal expectations and negatively affects individuals and communities as they practise health promotion. Data were collected through interviews with day labourers in Japan. Using critical ethnography, participants' accounts were examined focusing on the normative claims, which were principally about what behaviours are proper, appropriate and conventional among day labourers in order to understand the cultural norms and values that influence their behaviours. Findings show that day labourers are often denied public support and their social disadvantages are ignored when they seek support. Day labourers often accept their exclusions as inevitable because they accept the dominant social norms. These findings indicate that collectivist norms prevent individuals and communities from developing their capacities for health promotion practices. Individual needs tend to be obscured when prioritizing collective interests, which are also used as a tool for justifying inadequate social programmes. In a collectivist society, burdens that should be shared equally by all may not be equitably distributed, falling disproportionately on the disadvantaged. An uncritical adoption of a collectivist ethos in examining health promotion is not warranted and more investigation is needed to determine when collectivism is helpful and when harmful.