BASED ONGeert Hofstede (1980)

Culture is the “Collective Programming of the Mind”

THE CULTURAL FOUNDATIONS OF Notes

TOGETHERNESS AND DISTINCTIVENESS

What do we know about culture and the ways it varies

across the globe? To Dutch anthropologist Geert Hofstede

(1980) culture is the "collective programming of the mind"

that differentiates the motivation and behavior of members

of one social group from those of other groups. It is through

culture that societies give meaning to their environments,

organizing their life around particular symbols and myths.

Culture shapes perceptions and behavior by directing that

selective attention be paid to some details of reality, permitting

some actions and forbidding others.

Central to this programming of the mind is the transmission

of values, broad preferences for one state of affairs

over others. People face moral dilemmas, ambiguous

circumstances where several choices of proper behavior

are possible. Values are priorities for sorting out and implementing

one code of behavior rather than others. The act of

prioritizing involves emotional commitment. The commitment

arises because values are learned during the process of

childhood socialization, when individuals come to accept

that a particular form of life is meaningful.

What people are socialized to is a particular paradigm,

a dominant set of beliefs that organizes the way they

and other members of their group perceive and interpret the

world around them: A social paradigm contains the survival

information needed for the maintenance of a culture. It

results from generations of learning whereby dysfunctional

beliefs and values are discarded in favor of those most

suited to collective survival. An individual element of a

social paradigm is difficult to dislodge once it becomes

firmly entrenched because shared definitions of reality are

anchored in it. The values, norms, beliefs, and institutions

of paradigms are not only beliefs about what the world is

like. They are guides to action, and they serve the function

of legitimating and justifying courses of action, that is, they

function as ideologies, and ideologies drive politics.

Is each culture idiosyncratic or are there systematic

variations? This was the question asked by Geert Hofstede

as he worked for a large multinational corporation that was

seeking to understand why the same facts and instructions

sent from headquarters to corporate officers based in different

cultures produced different results. After completing

attitudinal surveys in 40 different countries and analyzing

the results, Hofstede concluded that differences among cultures

were far greater than differences within them, lending

strong support to the idea that most nation-states were characterized

by a dominant cultural mainstream (social paradigm),

although they might also have subgroups with

cultures valuing alternative or opposing ideals. He also concluded

that cultures divide along four separate dimensions.

He called the first three individualism-collectivism, power-(

distance, and uncertainty avoidance, and the fourth, masculinity.

A better term for the last would be sex-role

differentiation. Let us look at each of these and then see

how they combine to differentiate the world's cultures.

Individualism versus Collectivism

The first important dimension of variation was between

cultures in which the individual is the locus of responsibility

and action, and cultures in which it is the collectivity

that matters. In individualist cultures Hofstede7s respondents

said that individuals should look after their own interests

and the interests of their immediate family (husband,

wife, and children). On the other hand, in collectivist cultures

it was said that any person through birth and later

events belongs to one or more cohesive collectives ("ingroups"),

from which he or she cannot detach himself or

herself. The in-group (e.g., the extended family with grandparents

and either paternal or maternal uncles, aunts, and

cousins-or on a larger scale, the nation and its governmental

institutions) should protect the interests of its members

but in exchange can expect their permanent loyalty.

Study Table 2.1.

Individualist cultures tend to share the following

traits:

  • Worship of the independent actor
  • Protestant (modernist) ethic
  • Market economies
  • Balanced-power political systems
  • Policies and practices that allow for initiative and
  • apply to all (universalism)
  • Promotion from both inside and outside organizations,based on market value (cosmopolitanism)

Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, are most

typically characterized by the following:

  • Stress on identity and roots
  • Traditionalist ethic
  • Nonmarket economies
  • Unbalanced-power political systems
  • Policies and practices that are based on loyaltyand individual sense of duty and vary accordingto specific social relations (particularism)
  • Promotion from inside, based on family andfriendship networks (localism)

, Hofstede showed that the degree of individualism correlates highly with contemporary levels of economicdevelopment across the globe, as measured by per capita gross national product (R = 0.82; see Figure 2.1). His “individualism" scores are charted in Figure 2.2.

Power-Distance

Power-distance is the characteristic of a culture that defines

the extent to which the less-powerful persons in society

accept inequality in power and consider large social

distances to be normal. Inequality exists within all cultures,

but its extent and the degree of it that is accepted

vary from one culture to another. The belief patterns of

"high P-D" and "low P-D" cultures are contrasted in

Table 2.2. High-inequality cultures have the following

typical traits:

  • -Autocratic or oligarchic governments
  • -Sudden changes in form of government (revolutionand/or instability)
  • -Polarization between left and right with a weakcenter if political parties exist
  • -Tax system protects the wealthy
  • -Success of religions stressing stratification
  • -Ideologies of power polarization
  • -Elitist theories about society
  • -Greater centralization and tall organizationpyramids with a large proportion of supervisorypersonnel
  • -Large wage differentials

An analogous list of traits for low-inequality cultures

is as follows:

  • -Pluralist governments based on outcome ofmajority votes
  • -No sudden changes in form of government(evolution and stability)
  • -Political parties that exist tend to be in the center,with relatively weak left and right wings
  • -Tax system aimed at redistributing wealth
  • -Success of religions stressing equality
  • -Ideologies of power equalization
  • -Pluralist theories about society
  • -Less centralization and flatter organizationpyramids with small proportion of supervisorypersonnel
  • -Smaller wage differentials

A useful indicator of power-distance is the degree of

income inequality within countries. For a map showing the

global variations, see Figure 2.3. Hofstede's P-D scores are

charted in Figure 2.4. If countries are cross-classified using

their individualism and P-D scores, insights are provided

about the principal types of political economies to be found

in the world today. Refer to Box.2.1.

Uncertainty Avoidance

The third of Hofstede's axes of cultural variation is that of

"uncertainty avoidancev-the characteristic of a culture that

defines the extent to which people within the culture are

made nervous by situations they consider to be unstructured,

unclear, or unpredictable, and the extent to which

they try to avoid such situations by adopting strict codes of

behavior and a belief in absolute truths. Table 2.3 contrasts

the belief patterns of "high U-A" and "low U-A" cultures.

The traits of high uncertainty-avoidance cultures

are:

  • -Greater dependence of citizens on authorities andless tolerance for citizen protest
  • -More elaborate legal system
  • -More intolerant activist state religions
  • -Popularity of ideological thinking
  • -More structuring of activities
  • -More written rules
  • -More ritual behavior

On the other hand, the traits of more tolerant cultures

are:

  • -"Looser" societies
  • -Stronger feelings of citizen competence and moretolerance for citizen protest
  • -More casuistic approach to legal issues
  • -De facto religious tolerance
  • -Popularity of pragmatic thinking
  • -Less structuring of activities
  • -Fewer written rules
  • -Less ritual behavior

Hofstede's U-A scores are charted in Figure 2.5. One

indicator of the extent to which economic uncertainty

prevails is the inflation rate mapped in Figure 2.6. If

countries are cross-classified on the basis of their P-D and

U-A scores, fascinating contrasts in social organization

are revealed. Refer to Box 2.2.

Sex-Role Differentiation

The final dimension identified by Hofstede arises because

cultures use the biological difference between men and

women to define vastly different social roles for the sexes.

Highly "masculine" cultures expect men to be assertive,

ambitious, and competitive, to strive for material success,

and to respect whatever is big, strong, and fast. They expect

women to nurture, to care for the quality of life, for

children, and for the weak. Less-masculine cultures define

overlapping social roles for the sexes, in which men need

not be ambitious or competitive but may put the quality of

life over material success and may respect whatever is

small, weak, and slow. In both masculine and nonmasculine

cultures, the dominant values within political and

work organizations are those of men. In masculine cultures,

these organizational values stress material success

and assertiveness; in nonmasculine cultures, they stress

quality of life and welfare for the weak.

The belief patterns of more- and less-masculine cultures

are contrasted in Table 2.4.

Highly masculine culturesshare the following traits:

  • -The emphasis is on aggressive pursuit ofsuccess.
  • -Men and women follow different types of higher-leveleducation.
  • -Men are breadwinners, and women are cakewinners.
  • -Some occupations are considered male type others, female.
  • -There are fewer women in more-qua1ity better-paid jobs.
  • -Fertility is based on male income.

In cultures with less sex-role differentiation, the dominant

traits are as follows:

  • -Emphasis is on caring and sharing.
  • -Men and women follow the same types of highereducation.
  • -Men and women can both be breadwinners.
  • -There is less occupational segregation.
  • -There are more women in more-qualified andbetter-paid jobs
  • -Fertility is controlled by female labor forceopportunity

BASED ON Emmanuel Todd (1985)“The Explanation of Ideology Family Structures and Social Systems”, (Oxford, 1985)

From Family to Culture Region: An Explanation of

Cultural Traditions

Among the indicators of sex-role differentiation andtherefore of degree of masculinity are the total fertilityrate, the extent of female labor force participation, and the

extent to which women participate in the political process.

These are mapped in Figures 2.7'2.8, and 2.9. Hofstede's"

"masculinity' scores are charted in Figure 2.10. For the

results of cross-classifying countries on their U-A and

masculinity scores see Box2.3.

Another anthropologist, Emmanuel Todd, has offered a

bold hypothesis to explain why distinct cultural traditions

persist and reproduce contrasting political ideologies. Family relations,

he says, serve as the model for political by defining the

relationship between the individualand authority.The

family shapes the worldview of its children, reproducing

people who share the same beliefs and Each generation

absorbs parental values and bases its own child rearing

on those values; the system is self-perpetuating. In turn,

the values shape the individual's expectationsabout larger

social, economic, and political relationships beyond the

family at the level of region, nation-state, and civilization.

The resulting political ideologies are no more than family relations writ large.

There are across the globe, he argues, only eight basic

family types. These are mapped in Figure 2.11. The first

four types are derived by cross-classifying the opposing

forces of liberty-authority and equality-inequality

(Hofstede's individualism/collectivism versus power-distance)

to define the essential features of the four fundamental

family types found in Europe:

The first of the family types, the absolute nuclear

family of the Anglo-Saxon world, socializes children to

individualized values: They must strive to succeed to be

able to support their own independent nuclear family units.

One result has been a preference for utilitarian concepts of

individual rights and liberties: Individuals must be the ones

to act to maximize their own welfare; the best society is one

in which each individual has maximized his or her own

happiness. The kind of philosophy that comes to characterize

such a society is laissez-faire liberalism.

Opposed to the individualist nuclear family is the

exogamous community family, characterized by equality

between brothers and cohabitation of married sons and

their parents. The principal regions in which this family

form has dominated historically are Russia, Albania, central

Italy, China, and Vietnam. In these regions, in Todd's

view, modern revolutionary movements have transferred

the egalitarian values of the family to the level of the state.

Individual rights are crushed by the political system in the

same way they were destroyed in the past by the extended

family.

The authoritarian family involves inequality of

brothers laid down by inheritance rules, with transfer of an

unbroken patrimony to one of the sons. The traditional

regions dominated by this family form were Germany,

Austria, Bohemia, peripheral regions of France, northern

Spain and Portugal, Japan, and Korea. Primogeniture

implies inequality, and with inequality there is a presumption

of the dominance of the powerful and the deference of

the weak. The result at the societal level is the use of

authority to guarantee stability, frequently manifested in the

development of elaborate bureaucratic hierarchies and

of large-scale organization. Thus, feudal aristocratic systems,

fascism, bureaucratic socialism, and Catholicism can

and often have coexisted. There is also strong tendency

to demand conformity and to persecute that which is

alien or different: The notion of cultural "purity" is strong.

What results are the mainstream values of authoritarian

conservatism.

Dialectically opposed to the authoritarian family type

is the egalitarian nuclear family of northern France and

Italy, central and southern Spain, central Portugal, Greece,

Romania, Poland, and Latin America. The defining features

are equality of brothers laid down by inheritance rules. The

outcome of socialization by his family type is a continual

tension between the individualism demanded by the nuclear

family and the equality built into the rules of inheritance.

The first demands individual effort that can only result in

inequality; the second requires rules and regulations to

ensure that the goal of equality is met. As a result of this

fundamental contradiction, Todd says, one sees a continuing

tension at the societal level between liberal democracy

on the one hand and bureaucratized central controls on the

other, and at its worst, between anarchy and militarism.

To complete his world map, Todd identified four

additional family types. One socializes children in the Arab

world, Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan,

Uzbekistan, and Tadzhikistan.

The endogamous community

family is characterized by equality between brothers established

by inheritance rules, cohabitation of married sons

with their parents, and frequent marriages among cousins.

This is the anthropological reality, says Todd, that lies

beneath the theological appearance of Islam, built of

close-knit groups and clans. The extended household

remains all-important, but the authoritarian role of the

father is replaced as a regulatory mechanism by custom.

Relationships tend to be horizontal rather than hierarchical

and vertical, and the power of the fraternal bond surpasses

the others, a bond that is strengthened by the presumption

of equality. Islamic tradition recognizes two fundamental

institutions, religion and the family. Accordingly. central

administration and the state remain relatively weak, and this

weakness of the state results in political fragmentation.

Islam rejects both the Western notion of the freely acting

individual who escapes both the family and the state and

the communist notion of the individual escaping from his

family into the body of the state; instead, it recognizes only

two levels of social integration, the family and the community

of believers (the Ummah).

A sixth family type is the asymmetrical community

family of central and southern India and Sri Lanka, dominated

by systems of caste. The essential family features are

equality between brothers defined by inheritance rules and

cohabitation of married sons with their parents. Such families

socialize children to a society in which groups within

society are separated from each other, obsessed by fear that

physical contact is polluting. Endogamous marriage is

enforced within the subcaste, the small localized groups

corresponding to particular occupations and regions. An

overarching ideology is that of racism, of the superiority of

certain castes and the inferiority of others, with people born

into positions in which they must remain throughout their

lives. The only way out is through reincarnation, provided

that people behave in ways exemplary of their given status

in the present life. The orientation, then, is antithetical to

change, demanding obedience, guaranteeing the stability of

the caste hierarchies, and promoting structured inequality.

Read Appendix 2.1 for a discussion of the difficulties faced

by India in its attempt to develop, as a consequence of culture

as expressed in caste and religion.

An anomic family form is characteristic of Burma,

Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the

Philippines, Madagascar, and the South American Indian

cultures, Todd says. It is defined by uncertainty about

equality between brothers, inheritance rules that are egalitarian

in theory but flexible in practice, cohabitation of married

children with their parents rejected in theory but

accepted in practice, and consanguineous marriage possible,

often frequent. A particular type of social and political

system characterizes states with this family form, not

centralized and hierarchical (which is associated with vertical