HOW CULTURE SHAPES SOCIETY

1. Understanding the significance of Cultures

The essential nature of any society - its social cohesion and political stability, how successful it is economically, and the quality of the lives of all its members - is affected by many factors. Obviously geography, climate, history and neighbours will have a vitally important effect. For example, Poland lacks natural borders, is bounded by powerful neighbours like Russia and Germany, and has been invaded by many other nations through its history. Its boundaries have been forcibly changed many times, and for short periods of history it has been obliterated as a political entity. Yet Poland has always bounced back as a viable nation. The reason for this seems to lie in the culture and shared history (often suffering) of its people. It seems that shared experiences, norms and values have kept Poland alive over a long and turbulent history and have made it the vibrant and successful country it is today.

So it appears that Culture, an apparently ephemeral entity, is absolutely at the centre of any Society. This section will examine the issues behind Culture, and its interplay with politics, economics and the quality of life for citizens in a society

Culture and Society

Culture is a slippery concept to grasp, but in simple terms, it is the commonly held values and expectations that enable a Society to function. People with similar values tend to trust each other, which means that decisions can be taken and enacted without the use of coercion. Societies can cope successfully with a variety of different cultural elements, but in the end, there must be agreement over some basic values, such as national identity and the rule of law.

Culture is deep and often invisible

The layers of culture

The outer layer: explicit “products”

This level consists of explicit culture.

Explicit culture is the observable reality of the language, food, buildings, houses, monuments, agriculture, shrines, markets, fashions and art.
They are the symbols of a deeper level of culture. Prejudices mostly start on this symbolic and observable level.

The middle layer: norms and values

Explicit culture reflects deeper layers of culture, the norms and values of a group. Norms are the mutual sense a group has of what is “right” and “wrong”. Norms can develop on a formal level as written laws, and on an informal level as social control. Values, on the other hand, determine the definition of “good and bad”, and are therefore closely related to the ideals commonly held by a group.
A culture is relatively stable when the norms reflect the values of the group. When this is not the case, there will most likely be destabilising tensions. In Eastern Europe we saw for years how the norms of Communism failed to match the values of society. Disintegration was a logical result.
While the norms, consciously or subconsciously, give us a feeling of “this is how I should behave”, values give us a feeling of “this is how I aspire or desire to behave”. A value serves as a criterion to determine a choice from existing alternatives. It is what the individual or group regards as desirable.
It takes shared meanings of norms and values that are stable for a group's cultural tradition to be developed and elaborated.

The core: assumptions about existence

To answer questions about basic differences in values between cultures it is necessary to go back to the core of human existence. The most basic value people strive for is survival. Historically, (and presently), we have witnessed civilisations fighting daily with nature: the Dutch with rising water; the Swiss with mountains and avalanches; the Central Americans and Africans with droughts; and the Siberians with bitter cold.
Each has organised themselves to find the ways to deal most effectively with their environments, given their available resources. Such continuous problems are eventually solved automatically. “Culture” comes from the same root as the verb “to cultivate”, meaning to till the soil: the way people act upon nature. The problems of daily life are so commonly solved that the solutions disappear from our consciousness.
Groups of people organise themselves in such a way that they increase the effectiveness of their problem-solving processes. Because different groups have developed in different geographic regions, they have also formed different sets of logical assumptions.
A specific culture is nothing more than the way in which groups have organised themselves over the years to solve the problems and challenges presented to them.
Changes in a culture happen because people realise that certain old ways of doing things do not work any more. It is not difficult to change culture when people are aware that the survival of the community is at stake, where survival is considered desirable.
From this fundamental relationship with the (natural) environment the community, takes the core meaning of life. This deepest meaning has escaped from conscious questioning and has become self-evident, because it is a result of routine responses to the environment.

Culture directs our actions

Culture is beneath awareness in the sense that no one bothers to verbalise it, yet it forms the roots of action. This made one anthropologist liken it to an iceberg, with its largest implicit part beneath the water.

Culture is man-made, confirmed by others, conventionalised and passed on for younger people or newcomers to learn. It provides people with a meaningful context in which to meet, to think about themselves and face the outer world.

Over time, the habitual interactions within communities take on familiar forms and structures, which we will call the organisation of meaning.

Culture is not a “thing”, a substance with a physical reality of its own. Rather, it is made by people interacting.

Cultural differences between societies will have a profound effect on political and social systems, the way the economy is organised, who benefits and how; as well as the weight given to the interests of different stakeholders.

2. Dimensions of Culture.

Cultures are not amorphous blobs. They are comprised of a number of different facets. Understanding these and the differences between societies is essential to developing an understanding of how politics is organised, why nations can enter into conflictual relationships - or the opposite, how they may easily collaborate. Understanding cultural differences is very important in international relations, and in business. The attempts of US Neo-Liberals to impose their version of “democracy” on other nations, and the disastrous failure of those attempts is simply the result of a belief in the universal superiority of their values and a gross failure to understand other cultures. The failure of the alliance to convert Iraq to a neo-liberal view of the world - and their complete underestimation of the chaos that would follow President Bush's declaration of “Mission Accomplished” after Iraqi armed forces had been overcome - is an example of another such failure.

An even greater cause of economic and political fracture was the Washington Consensus, which was more accurately described by a British economist as the “American Business Model”.

The term Washington Consensus was coined in 1989 by English economist John Williamson to refer to a set of 10 relatively specific economic policy prescriptions that he considered constituted the "standard" reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Treasury Department. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, opening economies for both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.

The imposition of these values can be blamed for the collapse of the Russian economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union - and, more interesting, the reappearance of an autocratic centralised political system, which seems more attuned to the Russian culture. Equally destructive was the collapse of South East Asian and South American economies as a result of the imposition of market fundamentalist values. The fact that many of the victims have learned better ways of tackling their own problems is to be celebrated.

Understanding Cultures is crucial to fostering international collaboration and sustainable national societies.

Gerd Hofstede and Fons Trompenaars have both researched and written on issues related to culture, using large multi - national groups as a basis for their evidence.

Hofstede's book 1980 book “Culture's Consequences” combined his personal experiences with the statistical analysis of two unique data bases. The first and largest comprised answers of matched employee samples from 40 different countries to the same attitude survey questions. The second consisted of answers to some of these same questions by his executive students who came from 15 countries and from a variety of companies and industries. Systematic differences between nations in these two data bases occurred in particular for questions dealing with values. Values, in this case, are "broad preferences for one state of affairs over others", and they are mostly unconscious.

Hofstede's first four dimensions of culture

The values that distinguished countries (rather than individuals) from each other grouped themselves statistically into four clusters. They dealt with four anthropological problem areas that different national societies handle differently: ways of coping with inequality, ways of coping with uncertainty, the relationship of the individual with her or his primary group, and the relative positions in society of women and men. This dimension has broadened into values that have profound effects on the relationships between individuals and society.

These became the Hofstede dimensions of national culture: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism versus Collectivism, and Masculinity versus Femininity.

Power distance

This dimension expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. The fundamental issue here is how a society handles inequalities among people. People in societies exhibiting a large degree of power distance accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. In societies with low power distance, people strive to equalise the distribution of power and demand justification for inequalities of power.

High power distance suggests that a society's level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders.

Masculinity/Femininity

This measure does not necessarily distinguish men from women, but more the general beliefs that lie behind prevailing values in a society. There is a considerable crossover in reality between men and women. For example, Margaret Thatcher is a good example of a woman who espoused many “masculine” values, and Nelson Mandela practiced forgiveness and reconciliation, without either of them changing their sex!

“Masculine” behaviour is taken to be characterised by competitive spirit, striving to be best and a tendency to characterise some people as “losers”, as though it was their own fault.

“Feminine” behaviour is characterised by concern for the welfare of others, conflict resolution by conciliation and a propensity to collaborate rather than compete.

A high score (masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner/ best in field - a value system that starts in school and continues throughout life.

A low score (feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. A feminine society is one where quality of life is the sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable. A fundamental issue is what motivates people, wanting to be the best (masculine) or liking what you do (feminine).

Sweden scores 5 on this dimension and is therefore a “feminine” society. In feminine countries it is important to keep the life/work balance and make sure that all are included. An effective manager is supportive to his/her people, and decision making is achieved through involvement. Managers strive for consensus and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their working lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Swedes are known for their long discussions until consensus has been reached.

Individualism

The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people's self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “We”. In Individualist societies people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In more Collectivist societies people belong to groups and communities that will support them.

Another dimension of individualism is the degree to which individuals are expected to work hard, take responsibility and do their best.

This dimension can interact with some others. For example, in Scandinavian societies, individuals are expected to be responsible and hard-working (individualism); but these Societies also demonstrate a strong bias towards Feminine values in the fact that the quality of life, collaboration and support for others is highly valued.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. It indicates to what extent a culture programmes its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth: "there can only be one Truth and we have it".

People in uncertainty avoiding countries are also more emotional, and motivated by inner nervous energy. The opposite type, uncertainty accepting cultures, are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are used to; they try to have as few rules as possible, and on the philosophical and religious level they are relativist and allow many currents to flow side by side. People within these cultures are more phlegmatic and contemplative, and not expected by their environment to express emotions.

Dimension scores are relative

Country scores on these dimensions are relative - societies are compared to other societies. These relative scores have been proven to be quite stable over decades. The forces that cause cultures to shift tend to be global or continent-wide - they affect many countries at the same time, so that if their cultures shift, they shift together, and their relative positions remain the same.
Scores in different dimensions may complement each other - or cancel each other out. For example, Sweden has an individualistic culture, but it's very high score on the feminine measure means that it is a relatively egalitarian and collaborative society. On the other hand, The United States scores highly on both Individualism and Masculinity, and is a highly competitive and unequal society.

Scores around the world

Power distance scores are high for Latin, Asian and African countries and smaller for Anglo and Germanic countries. Uncertainty avoidance scores are higher in Latin countries, in Japan, and in German speaking countries, lower in Anglo, Nordic, and Chinese culture countries. Individualism prevails in developed and Western countries, while collectivism prevails in less developed and Eastern countries; Japan takes a middle position on this dimension. Masculinity is high in Japan, in some European countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and the “Anglo” countries. It is low in Nordic countries and in the Netherlands and moderately low in some Latin and Asian countries like France, Spain and Thailand. Long-term orientation scores are highest in East Asia, moderate in Eastern and Western Europe, and low in the Anglo world, the Muslim world, Latin America and Africa.

International Comparisons - Some Key dimensions

(*Uncertainty Avoidance)

Fons Trompenaars added some other useful dimensions, in particular what he termed Universalism as opposed to Particularism. Universalism he described as a strong tendency to believe that there were rules, values and norms which had universal validity. Laws were meant to be obeyed, no matter what the individuals' circumstances. Universalist cultures tended to foster the strong view that there was a right way to do things and be critical when they encountered differences in other cultures.

Particularist cultures tended to regard individual needs to be more important than universal laws and to be flexible in response to changing circumstances.

Typical Universalist cultures include the U.S., Canada, the U.K, the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, New Zealand, Australia, and Switzerland. The United States is noted for believing that its systems and practices are models that other nations should copy - and that other cultures are inferior. But it should be pointed out that the relative success of European societies - and the revelation that other societies are far less unequal - is beginning to dent confidence in the notion that the American way is best.

Typical particularistic cultures include Russia, Latin-America, and China.

Social Capital

This important concept will be explored later, but in summary, it is based on the nature and strength of relationships within groups and across societies. In societies with high social capital, trust is high within groups, but also is a binding force for whole society.

Implications of these scores. Some Examples.

Sweden

Sweden scores relatively low on power distance, so Swedes do not to accept that people in power have a right to be different in terms of social separation, special rights or displays of wealth by comparison with people in general. Low power distance cultures are characterized by relatively equal power sharing and discourage attention to status difference and ranking. Low power distance cultures challenge authority, encourage a reduction of power differences between management and employees, and encourage the use of power legitimately.

It also has a moderately individualistic culture, so people are expected to work hard, and take care of themselves and their families. Individualistic cultures are classified as having low power distance, or horizontal, cultures. Individualism is the moral stance, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance.

But the outstanding feature of Swedish culture is its attachment to “feminine” values. Sweden is distinguished by a strong concern for a healthy society, defined as one where all should have equal life chances, where the weaker members are taken care of, and key stakeholders should collaborate to make key decisions affecting society. Conflicts should ideally be solved through negotiation and conciliation.
Men and women should have equal opportunities in education and employment. This is backed by superior childcare facilities and equal rights for time off work after the birth of a child. The quality of life and achieving a satisfactory work/leisure balance are strongly valued.

The Swedish political system is strongly based on collaboration between central government and the major stakeholders in society. Trades Unions, Industry employers' associations and local government collaborate with central government and each other to help formulate and enact national economic and social and economic policy.

The Swedish social security system provides high levels of education, health care and social support for all citizens. Those who experience difficulty in the workplace or become unemployed are given strong support to reskill and find other work.

Russia

Russia scores very high on the dimensions of power distance and uncertainty avoidance.

Power distance is defined as the extent to which most members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.

Russia, with an exceptionally high score of 93, is a nation where power is very distant from the average citizens in society. This is underlined by the fact that the largest country in the world is extremely centralized: 2/3 of all foreign investments go into Moscow where also 80% of all financial potential is concentrated. The huge discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols. Russia is also a very authoritarian society, with political power concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of people. It is clear that even wealthy oligarchs can be stripped of power if they offend the political elite.

Disliking ambiguity and uncertainty, Russians are generally comfortable with the security generated by powerful elites and complex bureaucracies with heavy rules and regulations.

The levels of inequality and corruption* are very high in Russia.

*Corruption is a value-laden description. In some western societies, the ability of a small minority to do deals in secret and amass vastly unequal wealth is regarded as corrupt. In societies with cultures of high power distance, this seems quite tolerable, even to be expected.

United States

The United States culture is marked by very high scores in the dimensions of Individualism and Masculinity, and a moderate international ranking in Power Distance. It also has a strongly Universalist culture, especially in the prevalence of beliefs about the superiority of the American way of doing things. This has caused difficulties in learning from the examples provided by other societies.

Effects of Culture on US Society

The US has been an economic powerhouse for at least two centuries, with a remarkable record of innovation and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs are admired, for their talents, achievements and wealth. Immigrants from Europe and Asia have found opportunities in a free economy and many have been very successful.

US Society

Several features stand out:

• The US has a written Constitution that acts as a template for formal political arrangements to this day. Its provisions include a definition of the rights of citizens and the state, and in particular, a tripartite distribution of powers between lower and upper houses of parliament and an executive president. The nature of US society has, in reality changed far more than the Constitution, which still acts as a revered point of reference for many - for example, the rights of citizens to bear arms are taken as gospel, despite that America is no longer a frontier country. A belief in the original constitution and its modern relevance is an example of universalism - a belief in rules and the rightness of original forms.
• But Government is often distrusted
  A distrust of central government is quite old, for example, in the relationships between the states and Washington; and has underpinned the recent development of Neo-liberalism and a belief in the efficacy of the Market, as opposed to the state, as economic mediator or provider of social security. This has meant a dismantling of public services, support for a private health service, and attacks on taxation that could support the less privileged; who are asserted by many to have the same opportunities as everybody else, but are “losers”. Neo-Liberalism and unfettered Markets with light regulation has become elided with “freedom”, especially by right wing market fundamentalists. A combination of individualism and masculinity have made the US a fertile ground for market fundamentalism.
• Inequality is burgeoning
  The US is the most unequal country in the developed world, and growing more so. There is a strong streak of attachment tor competition, “winner takes all”, and conviction that “losers” have only themselves to blame. The equally strong attachment to the American Dream of equal rights and opportunities for all is beginning to crumble in the light of strong evidence that the rich and powerful have captured power, wealth and the ability to perpetuate their privileges.
  These trends have been becoming more marked for decades, and show signs of worsening in future, as there is little possibility of agreement between politicians on what might be done.
• US Wealth Distribution
  In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%.

Effects of inequality on Society

One direct effect has been the segregation of the population, socially and geographically, to the extent that significant pockets of wealth and deprivation have grown apart from each other. In the poorer areas, the quality and standards of education and health have decreased, and significant pools of ill-educated and often unemployed people have developed. Over time, many of these poor areas have become permanently segregated from other parts of society. Unemployment and social exclusion have become intergenerational. Suspicion and hostility between social classes has engendered crime and mutual suspicion.

US Politics has become extremely adversarial

Many decades ago, the main political parties shared some common ground, fuelled by a common belief in equality of rights and opportunity for all citizens to become successful, no matter what their backgrounds. These beliefs were underpinned by attachment to the values behind the Constitution (never a perfect vehicle, consider slavery and black rights) and the experiences of many waves of European and Asian immigrants. But masculine values and individualism, together with low levels of Trust across society, have elided to make contemporary US politics markedly divisive.

As it has begun to sink in to the national psyche that American Dream is becoming dim, so have US national politics become more competitive and adversarial, to the extent that it is very difficult for the two main political parties to find common ground about anything. Liberals propose reforms that would reduce inequality, conservatives strongly believe that a return to original values of competition, individualism and free markets will solve the problems. Currently, a black American Democratic president is opposed on almost every measure in the House of Representatives, which has a Republican majority.

The economy and free market theory

US (and British) political classes became enthused with free market ideas some thirty years ago. The results of massive deregulation of the financial markets and retreat of government from social welfare and many public services have been dramatic. The economy enjoyed periods of boom, interspersed with collapses. These oscillations have become more and more marked, to the point that the economy has become very unstable over the long run.

Maybe the most noticeable changes are a growth in the power of finance and capital, resulting in the growth of giant virtually unregulated global banks. Their wildly speculative behaviour virtually brought the US and the global economy to its knees in 2008. Despite this the banking and finance industries continue to wield great economic and political power and continue to lobby hard for freedom to operate with little regulation. The growth of finance and the dominance of capital have affected the earning power of the majority of the working population. Trade Unions have declined in influence, and are vigorously denounced by many elements in the media, politics and finance and industry.