DOES NEPAL STILL VALUE COMMUNITY LIVING IN THE AGE OF INDIVIDUALISM?

 

Nepal has long been known for its rich traditions of community living—manifested in close-knit family structures, communal rituals, and strong neighborhood ties. However, in recent decades, globalization, urbanization, digital influence, and neoliberal economic values have contributed to a growing trend of individualism. This analysis critically examines whether the essence of community living still holds relevance in Nepal today.

Community living in Nepal historically served not only as a cultural ideal but also as a functional necessity. Extended families cohabited under one roof, shared economic responsibilities, and engaged in collective decision-making. Social capital was high, and community events, such as guthi (traditional socio-religious institutions), supported mutual cooperation (Parajuli, 2001). However, these traditional practices are increasingly being challenged by modern aspirations and lifestyles.

Urban migration and rising middle-class aspirations have significantly altered social structures. As young Nepalis move to cities or abroad for better education and employment opportunities, they often leave behind joint families in favor of nuclear living arrangements. This mobility, while economically beneficial, has contributed to a weakening of community bonds. In Kathmandu Valley, for instance, the traditional courtyard-based bahal communities are increasingly replaced by concrete apartment blocks, which limit intergenerational and communal interaction (Shrestha, 2017).

Furthermore, digital technologies, particularly social media, have fostered a culture of individual expression over collective responsibility. While platforms like Facebook or TikTok offer visibility and voice to individuals, they can also promote isolation, performativity, and consumer-driven selfhood (Ghimire, 2022). This transformation is most visible among Nepal’s urban youth, who increasingly value autonomy and personal achievement over familial obligation.

Despite these shifts, community living has not entirely disappeared. In rural areas and among ethnic communities, especially the Tharu, Gurung, and Rai, communal rituals, land sharing, and labor exchange (e.g., parma) still remain integral to daily life (Adhikari, 2014). Moreover, during national crises—such as the 2015 earthquake and the COVID-19 pandemic—Nepali society demonstrated strong community resilience, volunteerism, and mutual aid, reflecting deeply embedded collective values (Maharjan & Sigdel, 2021).

In conclusion, while the tide of individualism is rising—particularly in urban and diasporic settings—community living continues to shape Nepal’s socio-cultural fabric. The challenge lies in finding a balance where personal freedom does not undermine collective responsibility. A hybrid model that embraces modernity without discarding traditional cohesion may offer a sustainable path forward for Nepalese society.

REFERENCES

Adhikari, J. (2014). Changing Livelihoods: Essays on Nepal’s Development. Martin Chautari.

Ghimire, B. (2022). Social media and youth identity in Nepal: Between self-expression and isolation. Journal of Nepalese Studies, 6(1), 45–61.

Maharjan, K., & Sigdel, E. R. (2021). Community resilience during COVID-19: Lessons from Nepal. Nepal Journal of Social Sciences and Public Policy, 2(2), 100–113.

Parajuli, P. (2001). Learning from community: The practice of guthi in Nepal. Community Development Journal, 36(3), 233–244.

Shrestha, P. M. (2017). Urbanization and the decline of communal spaces in Kathmandu Valley. Himalayan Journal of Urban Studies, 1(1), 25–39.