It’s sometimes annoying, but new examples of cultural issues are constantly conveyed by reading the daily newspapers, watching television news, or scrutinizing messages on social media. However, the reactions of others clearly show that the warning of the Dutch genius Johan Cruijff is obviously valid: “You only see it when you know it.”
The slogan “You only see it when you know it” is certainly true of Geert Hofstede’s model of value dimensions.
Because of Hofstede’s profound research findings, we know about many of the consequences of culture. This is not to be underestimated.
In a recent article, a Bulgarian scholar compared it to the finding that atoms are not indivisible but contain elementary particles, that light is not monochromous but consists of several colors, or that any information can be coded and transmitted through a series of pluses and minuses, or 0 and 1.
The Bulgarian scholar concluded: “Hofstede was the first one to “unpackage culture”
Before Hofstede, culture was approached as a single compact object that could not be analyzed meaningfully. Hofstede proposed breaking it down, or “unpackaging it,” into components.
We call them “value-dimensions of culture”.
Reality is complex. A model does not make reality less complex. A model enables us, however, to see reality from different angles and to break it down into manageable components. This enables us to think about reality in a more focused way and to exchange ideas about reality with others in a more precise way. And above all, it enables us to take targeted action when we want to act with the purpose of solving problems.
Geert Hofstede’s framework seems to also cover Einstein’s idea that “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” It highlights that true understanding allows one to distill complex concepts into their essential elements and communicate them clearly.
We are aware of a trap, though. It is called the Law of the hammer.
The “law of the hammer,” or the “Law of the Instrument, “ is often summarized as: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” This concept points out cognitive bias, which is when people tend to rely too heavily on a familiar tool or approach.
Avoiding the Law of the Hammer
In order to avoid the law of the hammer, which in this context would mean applying the same cultural framework rigidly to every situation, we learned the hard way to consider the following strategies:
Cultural Complexity: We need to be aware of the nuances and context-specific factors that may influence cultural behaviors.
Guidelines, Not Rules: We use the dimensions as a starting point for understanding cultural tendencies, but we recognize that individual and situational variations always exist.
Local Expertise: We constantly try to match our ideas with local experts who frequently provide a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the cultural landscape.
Our cultural biases We are aware that our culture programmed us. We need to continuously reflect on our cultural biases.
Still, even though we are aware of the trap, we cannot help but believe that culture has a “gravitational “influence on human behavior.
In our work, the combination of the Hofstede dimensions shapes a Gestalt. We distinguish seven of these Gestalts, which we call Worldviews.
Without falling into the trap of the law of the hammer, we strongly believe that a culture’s worldview has an effect called downward causation. This means that the Worldview affects other layers of human behavior.
Is it happening in 100 percent of situations?
Of course not! But we are grateful for our Welsh colleague Berwyn’s 80/20 rule: not everything can be explained by Worldviews.
Lee Hockstader , a columnist of The Washington Post, recently ( July 1, 2024) wrote: “Denmark’s model: Send in the bulldozers.”
He explains: “One of the world’s richest, most placable nations, Denmark is halfway through a 12-year plan aimed at promoting social cohesion.
The Danish program aims to change so-called parallel societies, social housing projects where more than half of tenants are “non-Western” and fare worse than average by at least two of four measures: income, employment, education and criminal convictions.
The goal is to overhaul those areas — by demolition, densification or gentrification — by 2030. In some places, that has meant privatizing and renovating apartment blocks that were subsidized for decades. But in others, working-class immigrants from Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere have been forcibly evicted, their buildings razed or gutted for development. Communities have been shattered, and many tenants dispersed.”
The article is interesting on different levels. Here is an attempt to analyze it.
Social Cohesion
Social cohesion refers to the bonds that bring society together, promoting cooperation and harmony among its members. It encompasses aspects like trust, a sense of belonging, and mutual respect among individuals and groups within a society.
Why is social cohesion important?
Social cohesion is a cornerstone of a thriving society. It enhances social stability, economic prosperity, health, political participation, educational outcomes, and cultural enrichment. Social cohesion ensures that societies can collectively navigate challenges and seize opportunities by promoting mutual respect, trust, and a sense of belonging. Investing in social cohesion is thus essential for sustainable development and the well-being of all members of society
Social cohesion and democracy.
Social cohesion and democracy are interconnected. They support and sustain each other. Social cohesion enhances the functioning of democratic institutions and processes, while democracy provides a framework for promoting and maintaining social cohesion through inclusive, participatory, and equitable governance.
How different countries deal with Social cohesion is highly related to the cultural Worldviews.
A comparative Analysis. What are the main issues in dealing with social cohesion?
Role of Government: In large power-distance cultures, like the Pyramid, the Solar System, and the Family system, the Government is generally a central figure in promoting social cohesion, whereas in the Contest, especially in the USA, community and civil society play larger roles. The Network and the WOM often rely on strong social policies to promote cohesion.
Cultural Context: The belief in the importance of social cohesion varies significantly among countries. As an example, here is an overview of how social cohesion is perceived in some specific countries representing the Worldviews: the USA, France, Germany, Netherlands, China, Brazil, and Japan:
USA (Contest)
Individualism vs. Collectivism: The USA has a strong cultural orientation towards individualism, emphasizing personal freedom, self-reliance, and individual rights.
Emphasis is on community and civic engagement: While social cohesion is valued, it is often seen through the lens of community and civic engagement rather than as a collective societal goal.
Diversity and Pluralism: Emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism, focusing on integrating various cultural identities into the broader society.
France (Solar System)
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité: The French national motto underscores the importance of equality and fraternity, which relate closely to social cohesion.
Secularism: Laïcité (secularism) is a core principle that aims to unify society by keeping religious practices out of public institutions.
Social Welfare: Strong social welfare systems promote social cohesion by addressing inequalities and supporting all citizens.
Germany (Well Oiled Machine)
Social Market Economy: Germany’s model combines free market capitalism with social policies that support social cohesion.
Community and Order: Emphasis on social order, community participation, and collective well-being.
Integration Policies: Focus on integrating immigrants and promoting social unity. This is under pressure because of the recent refugee influx.
Netherlands (Network)
Polder Model: A consensus-based approach in politics and economics, emphasizing negotiation and cooperation.
Social Tolerance: High levels of tolerance and social liberalism, with policies supporting inclusivity and social cohesion.
Social Welfare: Comprehensive welfare state ensuring social security and reducing inequalities.
China (Family)
Collectivism: Strong emphasis on collective harmony and social stability, deeply rooted in Confucian values.
Government Role: The government plays a central role in promoting social cohesion through policies and propaganda.
Economic Growth and Stability: Social cohesion is seen as essential for sustained economic growth and political stability.
Brazil (Pyramid)
Diversity and Inequality: A highly diverse society with significant social and economic inequalities.
Community and Solidarity: Strong community ties, especially in rural and lower-income areas, where social cohesion is often community-driven.
Social Movements: Active social movements aiming to address inequalities and promote social justice and cohesion.
Japan
Homogeneity: A relatively homogeneous society with strong cultural norms promoting group harmony and social cohesion.
Social Order and Discipline: Emphasis on social order, discipline, and mutual respect.
Immigration and Social cohesion
In many countries, immigration is seen as a threat to social cohesion.
It is interesting to look at Denmark
In Denmark, the policy to disperse immigrants, as described above, is uncontroversial. Only two of the 12 political parties, have criticized it. It is widely accepted that migrants should embrace “Danish standards of conduct “.
“Holes have been made in the map of Denmark,” a goernment report asserted in 2018, citing migrants who did not work, learn the language or “embrace Danish norms and values.” A reference is often made to parallel societies
Parallel societies
The `Danish traditionally value a high degree of social cohesion and integration. They assess, however, that parallel societies are developing. Groups living separately from the mainstream society with their own distinct cultural, religious, or social norms. This can threaten cohesion. When groups do not integrate, it can lead to misunderstandings, mistrust, and divisions within the broader society.
The Danish government emphasizes the importance of integrating immigrants and minority groups into Danish society. Parallel societies can hinder this process by promoting segregation and reducing interactions between different cultural groups. They can also increase inequality by limiting access to education, employment, and social services for those within these communities, leading to a cycle of poverty and marginalization.
There is a concern that parallel societies may become isolated and potentially susceptible to radicalization or criminal activities. Lack of integration and interaction with broader society can create environments where extremist ideologies can flourish unchecked.
Parallel societies can impact the economy by creating enclaves with limited economic activity and higher dependency on social welfare systems. This can strain public resources and hinder overall economic progress.
The rise of right-wing and nationalist movements has amplified concerns about maintaining national identity and security, leading to stricter measures against forming parallel societies.
The Danish effortcan be seen as an example of social engineering, defined broadly as using strategies to influence or change societal behaviors and attitudes.
How different countries look at social engineering again depends on their preferred value system. In short, their culture. Here is a look at some of these differences:
Views on Social Engineering
Contest (example, the USA)
Individualism: The U.S. is highly individualistic, which can lead to skepticism about social engineering efforts, particularly those perceived as government overreach.
Libertarian Values: Libertarians strongly emphasize personal freedom and limited government intervention, which influences public attitudes toward social engineering policies.
Network (Scandinavia and The Netherlands)
Focus on equity: Many European countries, particularly in Scandinavia, embrace social democratic values, supporting welfare states and policies aimed at reducing inequality.
Shared Responsibility: Social engineering efforts aimed at promoting social welfare and environmental sustainability are generally more accepted.
Consensus: Social engineering is only acceptable if there is consensus about the need for society.
Family (China)
Collectivism: The collective good is often prioritized over individual rights, which aligns with the government’s extensive social engineering efforts.
State Control: The Chinese government actively engages in social engineering through policies aimed at population control (e.g., one-child policy) and social harmony.
Confucian Influence: The emphasis on order, hierarchy, and societal harmony in Confucianism supports accepting social engineering as a means to maintain stability.
Japan
Social Harmony: Japanese culture values social harmony and conformity, which can facilitate the acceptance of social engineering to maintain societal norms.
Government Programs: A historical precedent exists for government-led social engineering, such as post-WWII reconstruction and modernization efforts.
Aging Population: Current social engineering efforts focus on addressing demographic challenges, such as an aging population and declining birth rates.
Pyramid (Brazil)
Social Inequality: Social engineering efforts often target reducing inequality and improving social services.
Political Polarization: Attitudes toward social engineering are influenced by political polarization, with left-leaning groups typically more supportive of state intervention.
Solar System (France)
Centralization: France has a long tradition of centralized government dating back to the absolutist monarchy and later reinforced by the Napoleonic era. This centralization has led to a top-down approach in policy-making, including social engineering.
Secularism (Laïcité): The French principle of secularism strongly influences its social policies, emphasizing the separation of religion from public life and education.
Welfare State: France has a comprehensive welfare state with extensive social security systems, including healthcare, pensions, and unemployment benefits, reflecting a commitment to social equality.
Education and Integration: The French education system emphasizes assimilation, promoting a unified national identity. Policies often aim at integrating diverse populations into the French culture and language.
Well Oiled Machine (Germany)
Federalism: Germany’s federal structure, with significant powers vested in the Länder (states), results in a more decentralized approach to social policy.
Reunification: Post-WWII reconstruction and the reunification of East and West Germany have significantly influenced German social policies, promoting unity and economic stability.
Social Market Economy: Germany’s social market economy combines free-market capitalism with policies that ensure fair wealth distribution and social security.
Vocational Training: Germany’s dual vocational training system is a key element of its approach to social engineering, emphasizing the link between education and employment.
Labor Market Flexibility: Reforms such as the Hartz reforms have aimed to make the labor market more flexible and reduce unemployment, though these have been controversial.
immigration and Integration: Germany’s approach to immigration has evolved, particularly with the 2015 refugee crisis. Policies have increasingly focused on integration, though challenges remain, especially regarding cultural integration and social cohesion.
Comparative Insights
Centralization vs. Decentralization: The Solar system, Pyramid, Family system, and Japan’s centralized approach contrast strongly with the Content, WOM, and Network approach impacting how social policies are formulated and implemented.
Economic Models: The Contest liberal market system, the Network welfare state, the WOM social market economy, and the Chinese Centralized economy represent different methods of achieving social security and economic stability.
Integration Policies: Many countries face challenges with immigration and integration, but their approaches differ. For example, France emphasizes assimilation into a unified national identity, while Germany focuses on integrating immigrants into its social market economy.
Eric Berne gave the world Transactional Analysis, an attempt to bring Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis to the masses. It remains the most successful effort to make the concepts of psychodynamics more accessible to millions of people around the world.
In the book “What Do You Say After You Say Hello,” Berne addressed the issue of time structuring, looking at how people unconsciously organize themselves around certain types of activities in their interactions with others and distribute their time accordingly. He classified people’s interactive time-spending activities into six different levels of increasing profoundness and psychological enrichment. These six levels are: withdrawal, rituals, pastimes, activities, psychological games, and intimacy. As we move from the more superficial and safe mode of withdrawal, step by step towards the deeper level of intimacy, each step brings with it a greater level of emotional risk and a bigger potential reward.
Withdrawal – At this level there is no interaction with others; we are basically withdrawn and by ourselves, isolated, engaged in reflection, daydreaming or talking to ourselves, immersed in our own thoughts and feelings.
Rituals – Interacting with other people begins at this level and it is highly structured, following pre-determined detailed rules and choreographies. These include greetings, ceremonies, polite exchanges, certain routines and various structured actions.
Berne did not approach cultural differences in his body of work. He did not mention that rituals and other ways of structuring time are different from one culture to another. It was Hofstede who demonstrated how each culture influences the way rituals and other time-structuring actions are organized, and how the underlying values of each culture shape the different formats of time structuring that are peculiar to each culture.
We now know that rituals reflect a culture’s values; and different worldviews, as they are shaped by cultural values, are reflected on rituals and other time-structuring activities.
Rituals are rife with symbols of a culture’s values, and they display these in a way that showcases and reinforces core aspects of a culture. We also know that rituals are very effective ways of avoiding the uncertainty imbedded in spontaneous interactions. Japan is a good example of a culture that relies heavily on rituals and scores high in UAI.
In terms of the Seven Worldviews: Japan, Well-oiled Machine cultures, Social Pyramid and Solar System cultures are all characterized by high-UAI scores; while Contest and Family cultures typically have low scores in UAI. For Network cultures, UAI scores are not a defining factor, so they could be high or low, it is irrelevant.
Superstition and religiousness are linked to high UAI scores. Religions are all laden with rituals and repetition, to the point where mindless repetition aids people’s egos to deal with anxiety and undesired emotions (perceived as a threat). Superstitions, in turn, often involve small rituals: specific snippets of behavior that were imagined to ward off bad luck or evil spirits, protecting one from the uncertainty involved.
UAI scores are also connected to the need for planning, organizing, and structuring. We can see the connection with rituals in terms of following a detailed procedure in a methodic and disciplined way of behaving.
Specific research would be very welcome to identify how much time is spent on rituals in different cultures. Our starting hypotheses would be that there is a correlation with UAI scores, but we do not yet have the hard data to support this.
Pastimes – Interacting with others still in a superficial way, but beyond the very strictly structured rituals. Examples of this are chatting, talking about the weather, talking about predictable subjects, without engaging in any action. There is little, if any, real emotional involvement, though in some cultures this might include artificial (fake) expressions of emotion such as: “you look amazing!” (without really meaning it) or “it’s so nice to see you!”.
In emotional terms the difference is small between this level and the rituals level; it is just less structured. In terms of the Seven Worldviews the main distinction is that this level is equally often observed in cultures with low UAI scores, such as the Contest and Family cultures. Showing emotions is not seen as positive here. It is seen as losing control. In Network cultures this “Pastimes” type of interactions tend to be shorter; this behavior is less encouraged and tends to be criticized when observed in other cultures, because it is perceived as insincere. Network cultures referto that as “plastic smiles” and “wooden handshakes” when mentioning Contest culture interactions. Conversely, when the Network cultures fail to engage extensively in “Pastimes” behavior, they tend to be perceived by other cultures as “cold”, “standoffish” or “unpolite”.
Activities is a level of interactions in which people do engage in action as part of their interaction. This includes sports activities, playing cards or any sort of parlor game, doing chores, engaging in superficial commercial transactions in shops or restaurants, planning or performing at work without any (or little) emotional involvement.
The advent of the personal computer and smartphones has brought forth an increased stimulus to spend time in this Activities level: billions of people worldwide now dedicate a considerable amount of their time not interacting superficially with each other but interacting superficially with a computer screen.
Sometimes the screen (a PC or a smartphone) is the interface through which you can interact with another person who is very far away and not physically present sharing the same environment with you, such as when you have a video conference or when you exchange text messages via an application. Quite often, however, people are interacting with a computer game (or videogame) in which there is not a person on the opposite end, but an Artificial Intelligence – powered program. People interact with machines, rather than with other people. This is all part of this Activities level of spending time: a level in which the interactions are emotionally safe and can be easily controlled.
This has increased with each new generation and is connected with alarm bells going off regarding the so-called “Generation Z”, which has reportedly found considerable difficulty in achieving intimacy in relationships, due to excessive exposure to extensive superficial interactions at the Activities level. People are not learning how to interact at deeper levels because they are spending way too much time engaged in “Activities” instead of interacting emotionally with each other.
In practically all cultures, this is the level of interaction that most people spend the most time in their daily lives, at work and in social situations with family or friends (or machines).
Contest cultures have a reputation for engaging in competitive actions at leisure. In such cultures, social gatherings often involve some sort of game or competition. It is a way (again) of reinforcing cultural values and avoiding deeper (perceived as riskier) emotional involvement. Controlling the expression of emotions is an important part of Contest cultures, since Performance Orientation (high MAS) is valued, and expressing emotions is perceived as interfering with performance. In gaming activities, the emotions expressed are relatively predictable, having mostly to do with celebrating points won (showing off) or lamenting point losses. They tend to follow a predictable pattern, with which the parties involved feel comfortable.
Activities level interactions are observed in all cultures, but there are less frequent observations of competition games in cultures less oriented towards performance (notably in Network cultures). In Pyramid cultures and Solar System cultures, since there are greater expressions of emotions, these tend to be more intense, and more authentic, during Activities interactions.
In Pyramid and Family cultures this is also affected by the fact that there is less concern with privacy issues; often people may jump directly to the Intimacy level during what initially was an “Activities” level interaction. People suddenly reveal intimate aspects of their lives to complete strangers that they have just met; this is typical of such cultures that score low on Individualism.
Psychological Games is a level of interactions to which Transactional Analysis dedicated most of its efforts (Berne’s landmark book was called “Games People Play”). These are a sequence of interactions between people that usually end with all parties feeling bad and with a bitter sense of having done this and felt this way previously.
This is a deeper level of interaction as there are more profound levels of emotional exchange. However, TA psychological games are mostly expressions of neurosis and other forms of mental illness. There are a few kinds of psychological games that Berne called “good” games (which can be enriching and psychologically rewarding), but by definition TA games are engaged in with the unconscious purpose of trying (and failing) to resolve mental issues that cause anxiety, fear and even physical (psychosomatic) illness.
There is extensive literature describing psychological game theory in Transactional Analysis, and it should be noted that this literature has been mostly produced in Contest cultures and therefore reflects Contest culture values abundantly.
Perhaps the most well-known of these games is the Victim-Persecutor-Rescuer triangle, in which three people unconsciously trade places playing these psychological roles and eventually feel frustrated and resentful about each other. Since in Contest cultures there is a lot of value placed in playing the role of hero (or rescuer), this Transactional Analysis drama is quite popular (though most people do not realize they are engaging in a TA game unless they are familiar with the concept). In other cultures the potential player of the rescuer role simply does not take the bait unconsciously placed by the victim, because there is not as much reward offered by the culture to play that role. But the potential reward is certainly there in Contest cultures, much more than compared to other worldviews.
Each of the world views, because of its shared characteristics, tends to stimulate or reinforce different psychological games, favoring those that are more directly linked to its culture values.
In Contest cultures the psychological games observed more often are those related to competing, winning and losing. In Well-oiled Machine cultures the favorite games are related to planning, structuring, and maintaining discipline. In Network cultures one can see “victim” games played more often, and also games related to feeling excluded (and using this as a way to make others feel guilty).
In Pyramid and Family cultures, both quite collectivistic (low IDV scores) a very popular game id the so-called “He Said – She Said” game, which basically involves gossip, indirect communication, avoiding confrontation and feeling offended. These cultures notably encourage these behaviors. Also the “Wooden Leg” game is a popular one, as it provides excuses for underperformance (“I would have performed better if I did not have this wooden leg”).
In Solar System cultures the preferred games are linked to elegant and subtle power plays, laced with conceptual debates and coming out pretending to feel superior (maintaining appearances is key, even if you don’t really feel as superior as you seem). The “Why Don’t You – Yes, But” is a popular game in such cultures.
Intimacy is the deepest level of human interaction. At this level emotional exchanges are genuine, and feelings are expressed effectively. They include being vulnerable and comforting others. Intimacy brings forth psychological growth and resolution of issues, allowing the minimization (or elimination altogether) of fear, anxiety and depression.
Cultural values create significant restraints to intimacy, and the restraints are different from one culture to another.
In terms of the Seven Worldviews these differences can be observed as follows:
In individualistic cultures (Contest, Well-oiled Machine, Network, and Solar System) the high IDV scores mean that intimacy is more difficult to be attained and happens less often, though it can certainly be deep when it eventually happens.
In collectivistic cultures (Pyramid, Family and Japan) the low IDV scores mean that intimacy can be attained comparatively (even surprisingly) easier.
In Contest cultures the concern with privacy coupled with the competitive aspects of those cultures create a natural defensive attitude against what is often perceived as an attempt to invade; even when the “invasion attempt” is merely a gesture towards intimacy. Allowing yourself to be (or feel) vulnerable is a big issue in cultures where people are taught that life is an endless sequence of competitions where you must win or perish. This can lead to frequent tensions, and burn-outs are observed at alarming rates.
In Network cultures competition is not as frequent; the lower scores in MAS translate into caring, and there is a greater awareness of the perils of excessive individualism, as it can take the form of loneliness, especially among the elderly. Governments have taken notice of this as a public health issue and campaigns have been launched to care for the lonely.
In Well-oiled Machines intimacy also needs to be planned, organized and structured, like everything else in life. This means that intimacy tends to not occur spontaneously, but rather at pre-planned situations and events. There should be always a time and place for intimacy, previously agreed upon. As long as it follows the plan, intimacy may happen.
In Solar System cultures intimacy can be a fairly complex affair, due to the tension between high PDI and high IDV scores, combined with high Uncertainty Avoidance. The choreography of social posturing is complicated in these cultures, and finding the way to intimacy follows a long and winding road fraught with potential pitfalls and near-fatal emotional accidents. Codified elegance plays an important role in navigating such treacherous waters and dire straits.
Social Pyramid cultures are the prime example of collectivism leading quickly to intimacy, though in these cultures there can be found different levels of intimacy altogether. There is less regard for privacy and indeed complete strangers might share the stories of their lives with you, but that is not tantamount to the deepest level of intimacy. This sharing of information can stop at the brink of vulnerability and deeper emotional exchange. It might seem intimate to someone coming from an individualist environment, but in fact there are deeper and more sincere levels of emotions to be shared.
Many interculturalists speak of coconuts and peaches: some people have a hard exterior and a soft emotional center; while others seem softer on the outside but hold a harder emotional center. The fact is that Pyramid cultures foster relationships and the expression of emotions, so that it is only natural to reach intimate interactions more easily and more often; but there are deeper levels of intimacy to be reached, beyond what is so easily and quickly shared.
Still, one can say that on average there is more time spent on fairly intimate interactions in Pyramid cultures, and in Family cultures, compared to other kinds of cultures.
An intervening factor is the degree of Performance Orientation (high MAS) in Pyramid and Family cultures, and in Japan. And the difference in UAI levels also plays a role.
Pyramid cultures foster expressions of affection and emotion, and this stimulates more frequent and more intense intimate exchanges. In Japan the extremely high UAI and MAS scores both restrain the frequency and intensity of intimate interactions. In Family cultures with a high MAS score, such as China, this can also restrain the frequency and intensity of intimacy, though less than in Japan, since Uncertainty Avoidance is much lower.
The bottom line is that the paths to intimacy can vary considerably even within cultures that share the commonality of being collectivistic.
The ultimate conclusion is that intimacy is reached in different ways depending on the different constraints imposed by culture values. It would be a mistake to consider that the path to intimacy is universal, when it is not. Understanding how the Seven Worldviews affect the way people structure time spent in human interactions can be a helpful form of improving communication effectiveness.
The conclusion of a previous blog was that despite the different values and ways of thinking all over the world, there is a need for all of Humanity to cope jointly with certain enormous global challenges that have become part of our reality. The new narrative should be that we are in it together. (1)
Change dynamics needs to be framed according to what Lanzer has called The Change Triangle: identifying and describing where we are, agreeing on a description of a desired state or where we want to go, and then forming consensus on concrete actions or how to get there in order to bridge the gaps. (2) This frame can be applied to changes large and small: it can be used for personal change, and equally for changing large social systems as teams, organizations, communities, nations and the world as a whole.
The larger the systems that you want to change, the more difficult it will be to change them. Huge and instant transformational change does not happen outside of Harry Potter books. As Herbert Shepard said in his classic set of Rules of Thumb for Change Agents: “Start where the system is”! And go forward lighting many fires and taking small incremental steps. (3) If we want our actions to be acceptable and effective, they should take the shape of incrementalism.
To develop sustainable solutions (the how), we need to build bridges between diverse ideas (when we describe the now and where we want to go). To build bridges, there should be more awareness of where the shorelines are. Cultural and personality characteristics gravitationally influence what is considered right and wrong. To go ahead, the consequences of these differences should be acknowledged and accepted, since they affect all three angles of change dynamics.
This is not easy at all
Several philosophers have engaged with the question of what constitutes morally correct action.
Three dead German philosophers can help us here. A living one has provided solutions in the context of sustainability.
Kant
A famous answer to the issue of taking action was given by Immanuel Kant with his categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time want it to become a general law.“
The criticism is that this maxim assumes that we all think the same way. It assumes that everyone would come to the same conclusions about what should become a general law and what should be done.
However, people involved in empirical studies of culture, like Geert Hofstede, showed that there is no common idea of what is good or bad across cultures.
What is necessary for effective actions is the correction of abstract ideals by real-life consequential analysis. (4)
Max Weber
Ther second dead German is Max Weber.
In his book Politik als Beruf, Max Weber introduced his famous distinction between two types of ethics:
The Ethics of conviction: people act according to principles and tend to disregard potential consequences.
The Ethics of Responsibility:people leave aside principles and act according to what they believe will be the likely consequences of those actions.
In the ethics of conviction, one is bound solely to do the morally correct action.
If one guides one’s action by an ethics of responsibility, one “… must answer for the foreseeable consequences of [one’s] actions”.
Both poles are important. Values can reduce the complexity of today’s world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides a framework here.
The Weber” pole “conviction” is to be used in that way. The “responsibility” focus is, however, a necessary second step. So, as an example, Angela Merkel’s statement “Wir schaffen das” is a morally just value statement. However, to avoid some of the possibly negative practical consequences, a necessary second step, according to Weber’s framework, is an analysis of the influence on social cohesion and hate crimes.
Hegel
Applying Hegel’s conceptual framework to describe the choices to be made in a world full of value diversity goes a step further.
Frequently, Hegel is confused with another philosopher of his time, Fichte, who described change dynamics in the formula thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
Hegel’s terms, however, were Abstract-Negative-Concrete.
The formula abstract-negative-concrete implies that any initial principle has flaws or incompleteness. It is too abstract and lacks experience of how it works.
For Hegel, the concrete must always pass through a reality check.
According to Hegel, “truth emerges from error” during historical development. In previous blogs, the policy advice of this three-step sequence has been labeled as “the need for incrementalism.”
Applying this to global developments provides a narrative that prevents polarization.
And a living one
Christina Röttgers, a German philosopher, addressed some of these issues in a recent paper in the Culture Impact Journal: “How to take responsibility in today’s world: What does it mean for the individual, group, and global society? Looking for a multidisciplinary answer.”
The article aims to present practical avenues for addressing the perceived dilemma of feeling responsible yet powerless and to provide tentative answers to the pressing question that resonates with all responsible individuals: What can we do?
Rǒttgers writes that, with the rising importance of intercultural theories, thinkers need to switch from the pursuit of a last undeniable truth about the right acting to embracing the relativity of all values andpromoting understanding of different ways of thinking.
Hence, the follow-up question to the earlier mentioned Hofstede statement is “How”.
How to act together despite thinking differently.
Rǒttgers highlights the increased complexity and disparity between the world individuals can influence or impact, the so-called Wirkwelt (world of impact) and the world individuals perceive, the Merkwelt (world of perception) (Husserl, 1936). These two worlds used to be almost congruent for the longest time in history. The news our ancestors received were usually ones they could act on or deal with directly. Nowadays though, all information is available almost instantly and the challenge is to choose the information we want to receive as it has become impossible to deal with all available information. At the same time, our zone of influence is usually much smaller than the zone where we can take effect (figure 1). We are, for example, informed about developments in the world far out of our personal reach. This means that we perceive much more than we are capable of having impact on; and that is what creates in some individuals a feeling of being overwhelmed, powerless or helpless.
In answering this dilemma, Röttgers points at philosopher Hans Jonas in his 1979 book Das Prinzip Verantwortung (The Principle of Responsibility); it represented a switch from older ideas of ethics, solely focusing on the individual and being anthropocentric, to focusing on the impact of ideas on Humanity and its technological developments.
His imperative reads:
“Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of real human life on earth.”
This includes the idea of sustainability of our actions within our personal responsibility. Is this workable within the complexity of modern global dynamics? Rǒttgers’ answer to that question was:“Our personal responsibility might not be to solve all the problems, but addressing one issue by every individual would already be a huge step forward. A conclusion for individuals could be to strive to make a difference within their sphere of influence, their Wirkwelt, where they can exert tangible impact. It’s advisable to concentrate on one problem or issue that resonates most with us, rather than attempting to address too many at once.If every individual embraces this approach, collectively, we can make a significant impact.”
The conclusion as formulated by Röttgers:
“Leadership is taking responsibility for your own world,” Karen and Henry Kimsey-House say. “Let‘s all be leaders.”
NOTES
One of the three essential stances of true leadership, according to Erik van Praag: “We are in it together; here is my vision; and I will be honest with you.”
Shepard’s rules are still a reference for change agents, even 50 years after they were written.
Reznal Odnanref has further synthesized this approach as Now, Go and How.
Na prática, a teoria é outra. In practice, theory is different (Brazilian popular saying).
Seven different Worldviews. Are we sleepwalking into war?
I recently discussed the seven worldviews (https://culture-impact.net/cultural-dimensions-and-worldviews/ ) and their impact on human thinking and behavior with an Eastern European politician. His shocked reaction was that he recognized the analysis. But, he exclaimed, this means permanent war!
My answer was:
The warning from the “godfather” of cultural research, Geert Hofstede should be taken more seriously.
Hofstede wrote: “The survival of humanity will depend largely on the
the ability of people who think differently to act together.”
In the discussion that followed, I pointed out that the danger lies in not fully recognizing the consequences of the definition of Culture given by the same Hofstede:
Culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others.”(Hofstede Geert 2001; Hofstede et al. 2010)
Equally important is that in this definition, the deepest layer of this preprogramming is “values,” defined as “the preference for one state of affairs over others.”
These value preferences are deeply anchored. They result from subconscious and pre-programmed learning during the first 8-10 years of human life. After that period, the preferences are very difficult to change. For clarification, see two earlier articles describing the profound influence of this programming (Varkey, Kato, Wursten, 2022) and (Wursten, Jacobs, 2013)
This is an emotionally difficult message for most highly educated people.
Especially the so-called “leaders”
Their self-image is that they are rational, conscious decision-makers who can objectively and detachedly analyze situations and weigh alternatives before deciding what to do.
The reality is that most decisions are “steered” by subconscious pre-programmed cultural preferences.“
It is a difficult message indeed. Some find this even insulting!
This creates a serious problem!
The positive message is that it is not impossible to change the self-image.
It is possible to make people aware of their subconscious preferences
The bottom line of being human is that, in principle, we share two competencies:
Empathy. the ability to understand how it is to be in somebody else’s shoes, and
Reciprocity. The ability not to do to others what you don’t want to be done to you. Frans de Waal’s research shows that we share this even with higher primates.
A new narrative is developing, though. There is a sense of urgency, “the burning platform”.
There is an urgent call to realize that global problems are accelerating and deepening. We must act now, and we are “into this together” in spite of the value differences.
The way out is to create a real understanding of the “rules of the game” of the 7 worldviews and accept that solutions can only be found by purposefully “bridging” the differences. Solutions are only sustainable if they cover the real values and motivations of the people involved.
Democracy and the rule of law
This also means an understanding and acceptance that”
-a. Democracy is not “the will of the people” but a careful procedure to identify the different societal interests and procedures to balance these interests peacefully.
-b. A broader definition of human rights is required. It must protect the rights of individuals and minority groups but not exclude issues like the diversity in belief systems, the differences created by personality types (progressive versus conservative), and the differences between developing and developed countries. See: To-build-bridges-you-must-knw-where-the-shorelines-are/
This week, my old friend Hans Achterhuis was interviewed by the Volkskrant, a Dutch “quality” newspaper. Hans was asked to reflect on his career as a prominent Dutch philosopher and how his ideas evolved over time. He admitted that in the past, he had been too optimistic about utopian political ideas and argued that utopian ideas often turn into dystopias because of the inherent risks and contradictions involved in pursuing an ideal society.
It is worthwhile considering his analysis when observing the actual global tendencies in political thinking and the polarization between conservatives and progressives on a cultural and personal level.
His analysis of why utopian visions often turn into disastrous dystopia includes several key points:
The requirement of a perfect social order: Utopian visions often require a perfect social order, which necessitates absolute control and regulation. This can lead to authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, where dissent is not tolerated, and individual freedoms are suppressed to maintain the “perfect” society.
The assumption that human nature can be perfected: Utopian ideas typically assume that human nature can be perfected. Utopists frequently underestimate how much people are inherently flawed and diverse in their needs and desires. Efforts to mold everyone to fit a single ideal often result in coercion and oppression.
Unforeseen consequences of social engineering projects: Implementing utopian ideas can lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Even with the best intentions, social engineering projects can disrupt existing social fabrics and create new forms of inequality or injustice.
Utopianism often advocates radical changes to society. While aiming for harmony and improvement, these drastic transformations can be destabilizing and may provoke resistance, leading to significant conflict and the potential for widespread suffering.
Utopian ideologies tend to be rigid and uncompromising. This inflexibility makes adapting to new circumstances or integrating differing viewpoints difficult, often resulting in conflict and a lack of progress.
This analysis is highly relevant to the basic message in the forthcoming book by Fernando Lanzer and myself about the seven basic worldviews and downward causation.
Interpreting Achterhuis’s message in the context of the seven Worldviews: The urgent need to bridge the differences between Worldviews to solve global problems should not lead to the tendency to promote one dominant Worldview and force others into policies that are not in accordance with their values. An emphasis on perfection, radical change, and ideological purity carries the seeds of dystopia, as it often disregards the pragmatic and pluralistic aspects of human life.
“The urgent need to bridge the differences between Worldviews to solve global problems should not lead to the tendency to promote one dominant Worldview and force others into policies that are not in accordance with their values. An emphasis on perfection, radical change, and ideological purity carries the seeds of dystopia, as it often disregards the pragmatic and pluralistic aspects of human life.”
In our (Fernando and Huib) opinion, discussing utopias is good, and we need more debates about where we want to go as a society. The issue lies in “how to get there”. The warning that in the past, the utopia of Communism turned into bloody revolutions and autocratic governments; and the recent realization that the utopia of a “perfect” Democracy was used to justify the invasion of other countries in order to force them into changing their regime.
It’s always about that change triangle: where we are, where we want to go, and how to get there. We should all have discussions about these three things, but without feeling that disagreements can (or should) be solved by shooting each other.
To avoid unexpected, negative consequences, we promote incrementalism when introducing change. Incrementalism is an approach to change management according to which policies result from a process of step-by-step interaction and mutual adaptation among a multiplicity of actors advocating different values, representing different interests, and possessing different information.
An example of this approach is found in the European Union. In the EU, 5 of the 7 Worldviews are represented. The decision-making is very complicated. Still by incrementalism, what some people call “muddling through”, they succeed in developing common policies.
Interested readers can find more in Huib Wursten and Fernando Lanzer’s publication The EU: The Third Great European Cultural Contribution to the World.
