When I was still teaching about sustainability, I sometimes used the simulation program Sim City. The first time I used this program was back in the early 1990s. (SimCity is a city-building and urban planning simulation game.) What becomes clear from doing this kind of simulation is that there are multiple ways to succeed, yet also, many ways to fail. It takes an open mind willing to think outside the box to succeed. This is one of the reasons I do not do a ‘bulleted list’ of things to do. I would argue that there are certain principles that are common to any scenario, which is why, as I always say, explains the reason for my sustainable Living textbook title. What the game didn’t do back then, and I suspect still doesn’t do (haven’t played the modern online versions) is cater to cultural differences, just variables that score using economic factors. Building a new future is so much more than economics – understanding socio-cultural variables are as important, if not more important, in moving forward.
What I find interesting is that we create such divisive separations among different cultures – all based on created fear of course by the Cabal – that we have a hard time realizing that we are more similar than we are different. What Geert Hofstedt’s dimensions show us is how we have been conditioned by our various cultures. Let me be clear is that here is no better or lesser culture – these dimensions of culture are merely values on how we culturally have been conditioned to ‘react’ to events and circumstances in our daily lives.
Hofstede defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from others”. The cultural dimensions represent independent preferences for one state of affairs over another that distinguish countries (rather than individuals) from each other. It is the generalized collective mental programming of the human mind that “influences patterns of thinking which are reflected in the meaning people attach to various aspects of life and which become crystallized in the institutions of a society.” In essence, while we are all different individuals within a culture, there is still a strong influence for all individuals in that culture to conform to social norms. The data he sued came from over 70 countries. As you ponder these dimensions, think about how countries behave in a range of 6 accepted norms. For instance, think of how people in the USA compare to people in Korea react to authoritarian figures. For instance, Malcom Galdwell talks about how Korean airlines (back in the 1990s) once had pilot error crashes because neither the co-pilot or the cockpit engineer would firmly tell the Captain something was wrong, merely suggesting that a problem was occurring. Korean protocol holds that the leader not be disrespected by a subordinate (this is similar in several Asian countries). The point I am making here is that as we move forward in creating a new society, how we approach the necessary changes indicates how we need to be aware of how we as individuals hold our own power and how we deal with those authorities who may seem unwilling to accept that change is needed as they cling to old paradigms that no longer work.
The six Hofstede dimensions that lie on continuums are Individualism, Power distance, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long-term Orientation, and Indulgence. Again, neither end of these spectrums or even the mid-points are right or wrong, merely something to recognize as things that help or perhaps hinder progress in any given cultural system. Do you live in a country that allows rocking the boat or one that deeply emphasizes conformity to established norms?
Individualism is the extent to which people feel independent (free to make any choice) or as part of a societal whole (expected social norms to be followed, which translates as “knowing one’s place” in society). Highly Individualistic people can be defined as a preferring loose-knit social frameworks in which individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families. The opposite is collectivism that represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in which individuals can expect their local community to look after them. It really comes down to the polar opposites of ‘I’ versus ‘We.’ Consider your country and how you work as groups – individuals looking out for number one or as a tight sharing community (all for one or one for all?) – or maybe something in between? Those already with a sharing community paradigm will have an easier time letting go of negative consumerism where everything is commodified as an economic service rather than a collaborative service to each other.
Power Distance is the degree to which power is shared or where power resides unequally in a pyramidal hierarchy. In many tribalistic systems, power resides with the individuals while modern civilized living is completely hierarchical. In localized communities people can know their group members and leaders personally. The primary 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 equalize the distribution of power and demand justification for any inequalities. This would indicate that any society that plans to live sustainably would probably have local ‘low power distance’ communities but live in collaborative large urban environments – at least for the near future.
Masculinity addresses how the use offorce in socially endorsed. For instance, in a fully masculine society, men are supposed to be the unemotionally tough warriors, where quantity and size are important as characteristics of manhood and male leaders can exhibit iron rule. In a feminine society, the genders are less defined with less competition emphasized and cooperation being primary. This is NOT about individuals, but about expected emotional gender roles. “The Masculinity side of this dimension represents a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material rewards for success. Society at large is more competitive. Its opposite, Femininity, stands for a preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life. Society at large is more consensus-oriented. In the business context Masculinity versus Femininity is sometimes also related to as “tough versus tender” cultures.” A caring and sharing society would by definition be more feminine yet not emasculate the male attributes – both genders would share equally and be appropriately emotional.
Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) emphasizes how a society tolerates uncertainty and ambiguity about the unknown future. Some countries rely on fixed habits and rituals to deal with change – that is they do not accept anything new unless a change is proven to be workable and beneficial. Do you try to control the future or just let it happen? Full UA control emphasizes rigid codes of beliefs, behaviors, and intolerance of non-conformity. At the other end of this continuum, weak UA groups emphasize more relaxed attitudes in which workable practices count more than dogmatic principles.
Long-term orientation describes how societies engage with change. “In a long-time-oriented culture, the basic notion about the world is that it is in flux, and preparing for the future is always needed. In a short-time-oriented culture, the world is essentially as it was created, so that the past provides a moral compass, and adhering to it is morally good.” This dimension is much related to uncertainty avoidance (above), although some long-term oriented societies can be more open to change as inevitable and therefore exhibit more pragmatic attitudes that they see as beneficial in their day-to-day planning.
Indulgence is identifying what the groups ideas are about what constitutes ‘the good things in life.’ In a completely open culture the individual is welcome to do as they please with less social constraints, while a restrained culture promotes duty and loyalty to the group and discourages non-conformity.
What is important to note is how you feel your current society expresses itself within these dimensions and how the move to live sustainably will be accepted or frowned upon. There is no one right way to frame a society, but as we all will be required to make these kinds of changes in the coming years, it is useful to note where points of contention will arise and where freedom to explore new paradigms will be encouraged.
“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others, past and present, and by each crime, and every kindness, we birth our future”…“My life amounts to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean. Yet what is any ocean, but a multitude of drops?”…” All boundaries are conventions, waiting to be transcended.” David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas
0 Comments