PSYCH 424 blog

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, a six-factor framework for cross-cultural understanding and communication, that includes individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long/short-term orientation, and restraint/indulgence, are defined as fundamental values in cultural structure (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, 2001). The described cultural orientations are not biological, but rather a programming of the mind that distinguishes one group from another (Hofstede, 2001), whether it’s attributed to religion, geographical region, or ethnicity. His contributions were recognized as pioneering and crucial in the era of globalization (Zainuddin et al., 2018), and the research transformed into the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western societies, which could be guilty of misrepresentation, giving Western cultures the title ‘modern.’ While the difference in dimensions pinpoint and define specific cultural behaviors or mindsets accurately, there is misrepresentation as to idealizations on his scale of measurement, and the underlying factors of each difference. His work pointed to inequalities among cultural dimensions associated with Eastern cultures, highlighted higher levels of inequalities, and insinuated blind traditions when doing so.  

According to the Human Development Report (Conceição et al., 2022), one aspect of countries’ ‘modernity’ (development levels) relies on an index, in which the scale doesn’t represent GDP nor productivity, but rather ranks countries on levels of “very high human development,” that includes factors such as life expectancies, education levels, and GNI per capita. While these factors may define prosperity, it ignores the realities of inequalities, poverty, human security, and empowerment in their measurement. Ironically, the same five countries that present as highly indulgent, individualistic, and feminist, rank high on the HDI index, being interpreted as ‘modern.’ There’s also an aspect of a Western-Eastern divide that is formed by an ideological division between capitalist and socialist (communist) regions or cultural mindsets (Kumar, 2019). This fundamental difference highlights the cultural dimensions put forward by Hofstede, in which capitalist countries (Western), prioritize their own prosperity over that of the globe, which society defines as ‘modern’ and ‘developed’. All this to say, the interpretations of these dimensions, along with economic “explanations,” enable the idealization of particular cultural orientations with supposed empirical proofs for quality of life, despite these measurements lacking the full picture. While there are several examples of how other cultural dimensions play a role in these definitions and idealizations, the focus here will be on individualism and collectivism.  

Individualism found predominantly in Western countries, relies on an idiocentric attitude, where one’s own goals and needs prioritize those of a group, while collectivism is an allocentric orientation, in which the success and welfare of the group are prioritized. In individualistic countries, personal freedoms, achievements, enjoyment, and self-discovery are established norms. Although such societies are considered ‘modern,’ there are significant disadvantages (Gorodnichenko & Roland, 2012; Oyserman et al., 2002), including inequalities, low resilience, often resulting in deteriorating mental health, excessive indulgence, and selfishness (Scott et al., 2004). For example, divorce rates in individualistic cultures are significantly higher, as personal desires are prioritized, while divorce is accompanied by stigma in collectivist cultures. Collectivist cultures demonstrate the importance of familial partnership and conflict resolution when it comes to marriage, and divorce is not seen as an option. In fact, Cirhinlioğlu et al. (2019) found that in Turkey (a collectivist culture), positive attitudes towards divorce were found to negatively predict marital quality, possibly giving insight to divorce rates in individualist cultures. Fakher (2018) confirmed that marital satisfaction in Palestine, another collectivist culture, is high and divorce is almost non-existent.  

Another issue with idealizing more ‘modern’ cultures lies in self-centered behaviors (indulgence/restraint and collectivism/individualism), a reality that even extends to the government. Economics describes the phenomenon, tragedy of the commons, as a behavior to maximize self-interest, where individuals exploit their unrestricted access to resources, resulting in the depletion of it all. If Individualism and indulgence were the desired targets for cultural orientations, all resources would arguably have been depleted long ago. Collectivist norms dictate that resources be distributed equally, despite ranks or efforts, while individualistic norms focus on the value of one’s work and how much they deserve (Gruman et al., 2016). The focus on the group as an entire entity allows for community and bonding, a characteristic that individualistic cultures do not possess. Holt-Lunstad and Golant (2023) highlighted this reality with findings that show how loneliness and a lack of social connection can be as deadly as 25 cigarettes per day, along with many other increased risks it can cause.  

Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions, which later contributed to defining Western/eastern norms, assisted in defining fundamental cultural differences in orientations across the globe. It’s important to mention his Western European descent and his prior minimal research on Eastern or alternative cultures when defining such dimensions. The notion that these defined cultural orientations, along with other economic explanations contribute to modernity is deceptive and is not empirically based. Furthermore, modernity as a target society ignores the vast advantages of cultural alternatives and obliterates any legitimacies of Eastern/traditional cultures of community, empowerment, and resilience. There is no one ideal culture, as researchers have provided conclusive evidence that each and every group has both advantages and disadvantages, and instead of idealizing one, with the goals of a homogenous world, a culturally incorporated and diverse society would be the most beneficial. Because idealizing modernization and identifying disadvantages is interdisciplinary, spanning across economic, psychological, and political means, it’s incredibly challenging to truly identify accurate cultural dimensions and quantify/qualify their differences. Therefore, there is a crucial need on an interdisciplinary level, for more conclusive evidence regarding cultural differences, their pros and cons, and moving towards a more all-embracing favorable future. 

This entry was posted on Friday, May 26th, 2023 at 9:25 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.