You may have noticed that the European Championship football is happening right now. It is difficult to escape the news in the media. For many people. this is the most important sideshow in their lives.
Because of the media exposure, it is interesting to see society reflected and blown up tenfold in the reports. If a Manager in a top fortune company is making a real mistake, it will seldom lead to weeklong discussions in the media. But a football coach making a mistake. …Well, look at your daily newspaper right now!
A few years ago the FIFA asked me to help them provide research-based frameworks for understanding how Culture influences the interaction between coaches, players, and club owners in a rapidly internationalizing sport. They needed such a framework for worldwide Capacity building for coaches. So, a draft plan was developed….and then Covid happened.
The good news is that interest has been renewed recently. International coaches are starting to realize that issues like leadership, coaching, conflict solutions, and team building take different shapes in different parts of the world.
In this context, it is worthwhile to read the story of a European coach who was asked to be the coach of the Indian National team.
It happened again! In a discussion in New York among members of an informal think tank, I was again confronted with the idea that while we were using the same word, Individualism, we did not at all share the same meaning.
I say again, because it happened so much in my life as an international consultant that I start my presentations usually with an anecdote. In North America, people frequently try to break the ice by discussing sports. They use the words football and hockey. They assume then that we share the same meaning. But I know now that what they are talking about is American Football, which, in my humble opinion, is not football at all. And they are talking about ice hockey, which, for me, is irrelevant. For me, hockey is field hockey.
Individualism is again such a concept. Below is an analysis of some frequent misunderstandings.
Individualism: A Comparative Analysis of Hayek, Rand, and Hofstede
Individualism has been pivotal in various philosophical, economic, and cultural discussions. Despite their diverse backgrounds and disciplines, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Geert Hofstede each provide unique perspectives on individualism. This essay seeks to compare and contrast their views, exploring how each thinker understands and promotes the idea of the individual within society.
1. Friedrich Hayek: The Economic and Political Dimensions
Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian-British economist and philosopher, is renowned for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism. Hayek’s individualism is deeply rooted in his economic theories, particularly his critique of central planning and socialism. He argues that individual freedom is essential for a functioning and prosperous society. In his seminal work, “The Road to Serfdom,” Hayek posits that any form of central planning inevitably leads to a loss of individual freedom and a slide towards totalitarianism. For Hayek, the spontaneous order arising from individuals acting in their own self-interest within a free market is the most efficient and moral way to organize society..
Hayek’s individualism is thus both a political and economic stance. He believes that individuals, given the freedom to make their own choices, contribute to the collective well-being through the market’s invisible hand. This process, according to Hayek, is far superior to any centrally planned economy, which he argues lacks the information necessary to make efficient decisions and ultimately undermines individual liberties
2. Ayn Rand: an Ethical and Philosophical ideology
Ayn Rand, a Russian-American writer and philosopher, offers a more philosophical and ethical perspective on individualism. Her philosophy, Objectivism, places the individual at the center of its moral universe. In her novels, such as Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, Rand champions the idea of the individual as a heroic being whose happiness and creative potential are paramount. She argues that self-interest, rather than altruism, is the highest moral pursuit.
Rand’s individualism is uncompromising and radical. She contends that collectivism, in any form, is inherently oppressive and stifles human potential. Her ideal society is one where individuals are free to pursue their own goals and ambitions without interference from the state or collective demands. In Rand’s view, individual rights are sacrosanct, and the government’s role is merely to protect these rights and ensure that individuals can operate in a free and uncoerced environment.
The core of Rand’s philosophy — which also constitutes the overarching theme of her novels — is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive. She believed this is the ultimate expression of human nature, the guiding principle by which one ought to live one’s life. In “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,” Rand put it this way:
Collectivism is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases.
you” .
To many of Rand’s readers, a philosophy of supreme self-reliance devoted to the pursuit of supreme self-interest appears to be an idealized version of core American ideals: freedom from tyranny, hard work and individualism. It promises a better world if people are simply allowed to pursue their own self-interest without regard to the impact of their actions on others. After all, others are simply pursuing their own self-interest as well.
Comparing Hayek and Rand
Anglo-Saxon economic theory is mainly based on these principles. In the system of “worldviews” I will analyze later in this article, this is labeled as the “Contest “ view. A rational agent in this system is defined as an individual who is self-interested. A market is a collection of such rational agents, each of whom is also self-interested. Equity/Fairness does not enter into it. David Blanchflower, a Dartmouth professor of economics and former member of the Central Bank of England, laughed out loud when somebody asked, “Is that fair?”
“Economics is not about fairness,” he said. “I’m not going there.”
Comparing the Hayek and Rand perspectives, we see distinct yet overlapping interpretations of individualism. Both advocate for individualism in the context of “Contest” cultures, which are defined by the combination of high Masculinity (see below for context), small Power Distance, and low Uncertainty Avoidance.
Hayek focuses on economic and political freedom as essential for a prosperous society, whereas Rand emphasizes the ethical and philosophical justification for individual rights and self-interest. Both view collectivism as a threat to personal liberty and human flourishing.
A good example of the consequences of this thinking is Margaret Thatcher, who was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990. During those years, she presided over a social revolution in which nationally owned industries were privatized and the welfare state was drastically reduced in size. Here, she speaks of her understanding of the individual’s responsibility.
She is known to have said: “I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless; the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society, and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women, and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people, and people look to themselves first.
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States from 1981 to 1989, was even more radical: ”The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
3. Geert Hofstede: The Cultural Perspective
Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist, approaches individualism from a cultural dimension. Hofstede’s research in cultural dimensions theory identifies individualism versus collectivism as one of the key dimensions of national cultures. Unlike Hayek and Rand, Hofstede does not advocate for individualism as an ideology but rather analyzes its presence and impact across different societies.
Hofstede’s work reveals significant cultural variations in the degree of individualism. In highly individualist cultures, such as the United States and Western Europe, people are more likely to prioritize personal goals over group objectives and value independence and self-reliance. Conversely, in collectivist cultures, like in Asia, Africa and Latin America, individuals see themselves as part of a larger group and prioritize group harmony and collective well-being.
Hofstede’s findings suggest that individualism is not universally applicable but rather context-dependent. The level of individualism in a society affects various aspects of life, including workplace dynamics, family structures, and educational systems. His work underscores that individualism and collectivism each have their own strengths and weaknesses, influencing how societies function and individuals perceive their roles within them.
The Hofstede dimensions of culture represent a well-validated operationalization of differences between the cultures of present-day nation-states as manifested in dominant value systems.
Four confirmed elements are of utmost importance for understanding that culture has a gravitational influence on behavior:
The definition of culture is about the collective “programming” of the mind that distinguishes one group or category of people from another.” This definition stresses that culture is (1) a collective, not an individual attribute; (2) is not directly visible but manifested in behaviors; and (3) common to some, but not all people. We are talking about the preferences of most people most of the time; (4) – it is about subconscious preferences. Most people are unaware of their programming.-
The cultural dimensions are the outcome of factor analysis. They represent the fundamental issues all human beings everywhere must cope with. Country culture is about how nations differ in their coping approach.
So, the dimensions are not a random collection of factors that emerged from haphazard situations;instead, they reflect the basic value dimensions.
The dimensions are evidence-based by repeated research, validated over 50 years, with regular repeats trying to falsify the outcomes.
Cultural differences are determined by how the dominant majority in different countries address those issues. So, we are talking about the central tendency in a bell curve.
Each country has a ‘score’ on each of the fundamental dimensions, reflecting the central tendency. The scores go, in principle, from 0 to 100. These scores, in turn, provide a ‘picture of a country’s majority culture. Hofstede’s approach is clear, simple, and statistically valid.
This set of 4 value dimensions allows us to describe how culture decisively defines diversity. But please remember, we are talking about central tendencies, not individuals.
Hofstede and Individualism
Individualism versus Collectivism is one of thefour confirmed value dimensions Hofstede found.
In Individualistic cultures, Individual rights and obligations are the center of value preferences. People believe in Universalistic values. Rights and obligations are (or should be) valid everywhere. The rule of law guarantees human rights.
In collectivistic cultures, people belong to in-groups who look after them in exchange for loyalty. The value orientation is particularistic and applicable to people of the in-group. Identity in Collectivist cultures is based on the social network to which one belongs. Collectivism is a value system that emphasizes the importance of group identity and the collective good over the rights and interests of individual members. In collectivist societies, the needs and goals of the group are prioritized over the needs and goals of the individual, and the group is expected to work together for the common good as formulated by the top people. In Individualistic cultures, people identify more as members of voluntary social groups than members of clans.” For collectivistic societies, it is difficult to accept that individuals have the right to decide about moral issues. Religious institutions and their officials represent the traditional values, and they are the only ones in the position to “weigh” new developments like freedom of sexual preference and equal rights for women.
The other 3 value dimensions found by Hofstede are:
Masculinity versus Femininity. This dimension is about motivation.
In masculine cultures, the dominant emphasis is on competition, career, status, “making it”, achievement, and success. The dominant motivation in feminine cultures is cooperation, consensus-seeking, and a focus on equity, solidarity, and quality of life.
Power distance is the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept that power is distributed unequally. People in countries scoring low, like the US, Canada, the UK, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands, are likely to accept ideas like autonomy, empowerment, decentralization, participative decision making and flat organizations. Business schools worldwide tend to base their teachings on low power-distance values. Yet, most countries in the world have a large power distance. In Large power-distance cultures, people accept existential hierarchy and centralized decision-making.
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) the way people deal with unfamiliar risks. This concerns the need for predictability. The continuum goes from a strong need for predictability to a weak need for predictability.
Because of his repeated research with matched samples, most countries’ scores are now charted.
The awareness is, however, rising that the scores on the four dimensions influence each other.Together, they lead to a “Gestalt “; the whole is more than the sum of the parts. In other words, the whole has ” properties” that cannot be reduced to properties of the parts; in the case of culture, the Gestalt takes the shape of a mental picture of what the world looks like, a worldview. Seven of these worldviews can be identified. For an overview of these worldviews, see: Wursten H. https://culture-impact.net/cultural-dimensions-and-worldviews/
Downward causation
The single dimensions get their real significance from the worldview. In systems theory, Donald T. Campbell (1974) formulated the principle of downward causation: processes at the lower level of a hierarchy are restrained by and act in conformity to the laws of the higher level.
Applying this to the Hofstede dimensions: The way the single dimensions work out is determined by the worldview of “Gestalt”.
Four of the seven 7 worldviews are Individualistic but have totally different interpretations of Individualism.
“Contest”: the combination of (cultural) Masculinity, Low Uncertainty Avoidance and Small Power distance.
Emphasis on Personal Freedom: individualism is often associated with personal liberty and the right to pursue one’s own goals without undue interference.
Entrepreneurial Spirit: There is a strong belief in the self-made individual and the opportunity for upward social mobility through hard work and innovation.
Decentralization: There is a preference for decentralized decision-making and limited government intervention in personal affairs.
Focus on Achievement: Success is often defined in terms of individual achievement and accomplishment, with less emphasis on collective goals.
“Network” : The combination of Femininity, small power distance and low to middle Uncertainty Avoidance.
1. Consensus-Based Politics: Dutch society emphasizes consensus and cooperation, balancing individual rights with collective decision-making.
2. Social Welfare: Strong social safety nets ensure that individualism does not undermine social cohesion and support for all citizens.
3. Equity and social fairness is strongly emphasized
4. Secularism and Pragmatism: Dutch individualism is often pragmatic and secular, focusing on practical solutions and social harmony.
Well-Oiled Machine: the influence of small Power distance and High Uncertainty Avoidance
Balance Between Individual and Collective: The emphasis is on balancing individual rights and responsibilities towards the community or society.
Emphasis on Order and Structure: There is a preference for structured systems and adherence to rules and regulations, which can sometimes constrain individual actions.
Value of Expertise and Qualification: the WOM values specialized knowledge, education, and professional competence, contributing to the collective good.
The Solar System: The influence of Large Power Distance. High Uncertainty Avoidance and Femininity
Intellectual and Cultural Individualism: The system often emphasizes intellectual and cultural pursuits, valuing creativity, originality, quality of life and personal expression.
Emphasis on Equality: individualism is often tempered by a strong emphasis on egalitarian principles, striving for equality and social justice.
State Intervention: There is a historical tradition of state intervention to ensure social welfare and equality, which can sometimes limit individual freedoms in the interest of the common good.
Artistic and Philosophical Influence: French individualism has been historically influenced by the Enlightenment ideals of liberty and reason, as well as existentialist philosophy emphasizing individual freedom and responsibility.
These differences reflect how each culture interprets and prioritizes individualism within its broader societal norms
On the collapse of the international order formed after the end of World War II and the risks of a major global conflict 29.04.2024 /
Grigory Yavlinsky
DISINTEGRATION PROCESSES
International political developments today show that the previous world order is irreversibly paying its final bow in history. Against the backdrop of an increase in shocks and risks, the world is becoming more and more unpredictable. It should come as no surprise that this process has been accompanied by the acute and widespread escalation of confrontation, which would lead to a major war1.
Over the past 30 years we have witnessed a whole range of events and processes in international politics attesting to the systemic inadequacy of political decision-making. There have been a number of causes: the wrong conclusions were drawn from the end of the cold war; there were delusional ideas about some new world and the winners and losers; the failure to deploy the savings from disarmament to support and improve the living standards of the poorest population groups in third world countries; degradation of the political elites in developed countries as a consequence of the surge of populism and the intensification of ochlocracy, attributable in turn to the widespread influence of information technologies. At the same time, to all intents and purposes a number of the main established political institutes were no longer fit for purpose when confronted by contemporary realities by the start of the 21st century. These discrepancies have spiralled over the past 15 years and, after becoming clear and intensifying significantly owing to the pandemic, have been expressed in an upsurge in economic protectionism, a gradual, but persistent rejection of globalisation, the anticipation of serious climate issues and the escalation of military conflicts in Ukraine and in the Middle East. Going forward, we will encounter even more active changes due to the consequences of the increasingly large-scale implementation of artificial intelligence in politics, society and state governance, which are not entirely comprehensible at present, but appear to be inevitable.
It is hardly surprising that in these circumstances international cooperation is diminishing, such institutes as the UN are forfeiting their role and mutual understanding is disappearing globally. We are witnessing the fragmentation of international markets: trade and investment barriers are on the rise, competing economic blocs are splintering, the global economic integration achieved over the past 30 years is collapsing.
This is manifest in the breakup of supply chains (in particular, during the period of international lockdowns in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic), in technology transfer restrictions, in geopolitical tension and security issues. Globalisation and integration are cited more and more frequently as the causes of job cuts in certain economic sectors, growing inequality, and as a consequence the exacerbation of social tension.
Against this backdrop protectionism is flourishing. The fact that it is specifically global economic cooperation over the past three decades — after the end of the cold war — which actually enabled billions of people to enjoy improved living standards: raise their prosperity and increase their life expectancy, become more productive in the economy — all these factors are categorically disregarded.
Over the past 80 years the number of countries has increased 99 in 1944 to almost 200 today. During the same period the earth’s population has more than tripled — from approximately 2.3 billion to 8 billion today, while global GDP has risen more than tenfold. Whereas over 40% of the world’s population lived in abject poverty in 1981, forty years later this figure had contracted to 8% of the total, while over half the citizens of our planet are classified as middle class based on a number of parameters2.
However, the opportunities to achieve systemic positive global development changes were not leveraged. For example, the resources formed in connection with the end of the cold war and global confrontation at the start of the 1990s could have been used to assist third world countries and level up living standards internationally. However, a significant proportion of the savings from international disarmament were allocated to the banking and finance sectors instead. Accordingly, a material share of these funds was lost in the global financial crisis of 2008. This was followed by period of slower growth and lopsided economic development, while countries started proactively introducing trade barriers.
Now the world is fragmenting and splintering, although it is abundantly obvious that this process is making it impossible to resolve the real problems that it faces. For example, climate change is becoming more and more ominous with every passing year, resulting in increasingly frequent forest fires, flooding and catastrophic weather anomalies. Even though a great deal has been said about climate concerns and specific decisions have even been adopted, climate issues have not become and are unlikely to become a real priority for global leaders — unless something earth-shattering actually happens. However, here too perhaps nothing will change, as international politics is on the one hand becoming more and more dangerous and increasing the risks of real armed confrontation, but on the other hand focuses on extremely paltry and transitory issues in practice.
In addition, the problem of growing global inequality and the backwardness of entire countries and regions is not being addressed. Frightful events are taking place in full view of the watching world in Haiti where the state has effectively disappeared and ceased to exist — the country is being run by armed gangs, chaos and anarchy reign supreme and there appears to be no way out of the exacerbating situation. The sense of utter despair in this country in Central America is heightened by the overriding focus of global news on completely different topics. In actual fact, however, the developments in Haiti should be treated as a note of warning and are indicative of trends which will surface in a future fragmented world.
There has been a material slowdown in global economic growth: the lowest annual global GDP growth for the past three decades is projected for the next five years. What does this mean? There will be no reduction in poverty and no new jobs will be created for an increasing number of young people in many countries. The destabilisation of energy and product markets and numerous disruptions of supply chains are anticipated, while food security “risks” will rapidly worsen. Millions of people will be transformed into migrants-refugees.
The world is breaking up into competing economic blocs. However, the key issue here is that none of the political decision-makers on the international stage appear to understand what is likely to happen next and accordingly are not ready to do anything.
For example, it is telling that a number of geopolitical and political issues have been discussed over the past two years at an international level except for one — the issue of the continuing senseless loss of lives of tens of thousands of people3.
The most recent events globally have shown that key UN members are finding it virtually impossible to find common ground, in particular, given that trust between various groups of countries has virtually disappeared, while they do not believe in promoting the common good.
Against this backdrop, there is a growing sensation that the world has become disillusioned with the United Nations. An organisation which was at one time the main platform for resolving geopolitical disputes, is marginalised more and more often in the new global politics. At the same time, other key international institutes such as the WTO, the IMF and the WHO, similarly are no longer fit for purpose for impending problems.
The global economy is moving towards the technological decoupling of countries regarding goods, services and knowledge, setbacks on products markets, food and energy insecurity; investors and countries are only reallocating investments and financial transactions to countries which are their allies. According to the IMF, in 2019 countries introduced at least 1,000 trade restrictions, while in 2022 this figure increased to almost 3,000. The global financial safety net (the IMF and the World Bank) was not set up to deal with such a sequence of developments and could, to put it simply, come to a halt. Such a development would represent a significant blow to the quality of life and living standards in many countries.
So in the modern world, which is far more dangerous and where growth prospects are declining, the risk of division and disintegration is rising exponentially, creating a vicious downward spiral.
The mounting tension in relations between the USA and China, the bloody military confrontation of Russia and Ukraine, Israel’s war with Hamas in the Gaza sector and the threat of a war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s pursuit of hegemony over the entire Middle East — all these factors are triggering acute geopolitical contradictions, which are toppling once and for all globalisation and are leading the world to an age of upheaval4.
Mankind developed and used for almost 80 years a system of general rules, principles and institutes for economic development. Today the world is entering an era of mounting disintegration. The period of peace, globalisation and integration has come to an end, while the forces of confrontation are on the rise. Going forward, serious shocks are extremely likely.
A DIFFERENT RUSSIA IN A DIFFERENT WORLD
Today hardly anyone remembers how a key event in the history of modern Russia happened on 1 July 2020. On this day, leveraging a referendum on amendments to the Constitution, the Russian authorities officially repudiated the country’s formal commitment to democratic legitimacy and the onward movement from the Soviet past to a modern civilisation of the 21st century 5.
The change in the 2020 Constitution signalled the defeat of the democratic reforms started in Russia at the end of the 1980s — start of the 1990s. This failure was attributable primarily to the following factors: the refusal to conduct a state and legal assessment of Stalinism and the crimes of the Soviet period, as well as gross miscalculations in the logic and substance of the reforms of the 1990s (hyperinflation of 2,600% and the criminal privatisation, the loans-for-shares auctions, the merger of the state, property and business, and the emergence of an oligarchy6).
In addition, on 1 July 2020 the new Russian Constitution enshrined the immutability of the reign of Vladimir Putin who had already been in charge of the country for two decades by then. To all intents and purposes, Russia’s fundamental law proclaims that this is a corporate, extreme authoritarian state with an anti-democratic ideology.
The events in Russia since the adoption of the amendments to the Constitution represent a logical continuation of the selected political direction. As a result of the failure of post-Soviet modernisation in Russia and the abortive parity partnership with the West in the second half of the 2000s, the regime’s foreign policy transitioned to the systemic exacerbation of multifaceted geopolitical tension.
The bipolar system ceased to exist in 1991. Starting from 2014 the world has become year on year more and more tripolar: the USA, China and Russia7. And even though Russia economically is materially inferior to the USA and China, the country remains the third power thanks to the massive potential of its nuclear weapons, the country’s vast territory, significant natural resources and, as it transpired, a practical readiness to change borders and resolve conflicts through force. The actions of Russia’s regime are not driven by a desire to create a democracy or a modern effective economy in Russia, but instead to promote European and global geopolitical fragmentation. They started calling this approach “multipolarity”, “polycentrism”, Russian “Eurasianism”, etc.
The day 24 February 2022 was the start of a tragedy which has already been continuing for more than two years and is claiming human lives daily. Against this backdrop, in March 2023 Putin approved a new concept of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation8, where Russia was determined as a “state-civilisation”. Meanwhile in autumn of the same year, Russia’s President declared straight out at a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club that Russia “has the objective” “to build a new world.”9. Putin explained that the war with Ukraine was not a territorial conflict and not even an attempt to establish a regional geopolitical balance. It was all about the issue of the underlying principles of the new world order. In this context the “Russian Presidential elections” held in March 2024 were in actual fact a plebiscite with a foregone conclusion and unconditional result. However, in light of developments in geopolitics and against the backdrop of continuing military actions, mounting repressions within the country and harsh confrontation with the Western world, it is becoming clear that the latest confirmation of Putin as head of state drew a line on the entire period after the end of the cold war and signalled a transition to a principally different stage. The act of terrorism committed at Crocus City Hall in Moscow Region, with a vast number of victims, which happened immediately after the so-called elections, served as the grounds for a new escalation of tension both in relations between Russia and the West and also on the battlefield in Ukrainе. And it is irrelevant to the regime that responsibility for the attack was assumed by Islamic State (a terrorist organisation prohibited in the Russian Federation). The key issue was how to exploit the act of terrorism to escalate confrontation. This is not a new topic. One merely needs to recall the bombings of buildings in autumn 1999 and the subsequent start of the Second Chechen War. Ukraine’s abortive counteroffensive last year, the military conflict which broke out in the Middle East after the horrific act of terrorism committed by Hamas against Israel, the difficulties in the United States, which have arisen with the provision of key assistance to Ukraine, the thinly disguised discomfiture of EU countries and the increase in the diverse political, military and economic complications within Ukraine — owing to all these factors in the changing circumstances there have been extensive debates in the West on the place and role of NATO in the military confrontation between Russia and Ukraine.
However, the actual debates on how to deal with Russia are characterised by disagreements on the goals, anticipated realistic perspectives on what is happening and in the final analysis on the specific threat that Russia actually poses for European countries.
At the same time, the financial and economic collapse in Russia predicted by virtually all Western politicians and economists in spring 2022 did not happen. Contrary to the forecasts, the Russian economy did not slip into recession.
Inflation was maintained within controlled limits, reaching 7.5% last November and now on a downward trend. This is the result of the doubling of interest rates by the Russian Central Bank since July 2023. Last year, nominal wages in Russia rose by 18%. At the same time, the high interest rates incentivised Russians to put their money on savings accounts and not spend them. Naturally, owing to the tightening of monetary policy, in December 2023 retail lending rose by only 0.6% month on month, compared to 2% throughout most of 2023. Now, it is already universally recognised that Russia’s economic indicators at present comply with trends existing prior to the special military operation. In real terms Russia’s GDP grew by over 3% last year. Unemployment remains at a record low level, the number of businesses that were closed in the country fell to an eight-year minimum. Russian production capacities previously owned by Western companies were relaunched under new management. The companies configured reliable supply flows in circumvention of the sanctions, while over half the country’s imports come from China. At the same time, it is notable that Russian exporters have started raising their prices in order to maintain their incomes and profit. The discount on oil offered by Russia to Chinese customers, for example, has contracted from over 10% at the start of 2022 to approximately 5% today. And this concerns not only oil.
As Russia is a resource component of the global economy, the anti-Russia sanctions are the consequence of yet another instance of incompetence and have not worked, despite Western expectations. Russian resources continue to be supplied in different ways, inter alia, to the very countries which imposed bans on their supply. The scale is significant: for the time being, Russian budget revenues are comparable with pre-war volumes. A number of major economies — from India to the Republic of South Africa — continue to maintain while some are even expanding their commercial ties with Russia. Here one should note the role of special parallel imports and various supplies through China and other intermediaries. The directions of trade flows to Russia have also changed, moreover, new ways to transfer modern technologies to the Russian market have emerged. Here I am talking not only about Iranian drones, but also about the most modern microchips which are smuggled into the country.
It goes without saying that the current structure of the Russian economy, the level of inflation today, low labour productivity, as well as the entire production and distribution system, combined with an excessively authoritarian state and respective social interaction, are not signs of a healthy and efficient, and most importantly, promising economy.
One constant threat concerns the likelihood of the rouble’s devaluation — in the event of a fall in oil prices or the introduction of any special new sanctions, or a deterioration in political relations with China. It is clear that as a consequence of the sanctions and other restrictions and impediments the systemic backwardness and deceleration of development will be perceptible in the Russian economy. However, this will happen at the very least in the mid-term outlook, as will any serious political changes.
The events of the past two years have clearly shown that the West should not underestimate Russia and build its policy on hopes and dreams about the collapse of the Russian autocratic state apparatus. They need to understand and acknowledge that the war with Ukraine has not isolated Russia from the rest of the world. A new situation has developed in the global positioning of Russia. At the same time, the positions of the United States internationally have weakened perceptibly over the past few years. In the view of a number of countries, the USA complies less and less with the standards and principles of democracy and freedom proclaimed by the US authorities. Today America is associated first and foremost with military fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan10. The anti-Western moods in general and anti-American sentiment in particular have been intensifying year on year in countries in South America, Africa and the Middle East. The so-called “global South” is drifting perceptibly towards China, and recently towards Russia as well. It should come as no surprise that the “global South” is also advocating anti-Western positions regarding developments in Ukraine.
Over the past two years, threats have been issued regularly from Russia that the authorities will use nuclear weapons against the West. And this is taking place at a time where all international treaties on bans on the use and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons are unravelling and are virtually ineffective, while the biggest nuclear powers Russia, the USA and China are building new facilities, tunnels and test sites. For example, analysts noted back in February 2022 the expansion of the Russian nuclear testing site at Novaya Zemlya. Nuclear scientists assume that today is the most dangerous time since 1947 for the start of a nuclear war. In the opinion of the scientists, the events in Ukraine and threats of the Russian regime to resort to nuclear weapons are real risk factors.
It is clear that the model of global politics sought by Vladimir Putin complies with the middle of the 20th century — this is a division of the world into spheres of influence as had been the case after World War II, and as a result an increase in the world’s dependence on Russia’s political views. To put it another way, this means a “New Yalta” model — a world order similar to the one achieved after the results of the Yalta Conference which had been attended by the heads of government of the USSR, the USA and Great Britain in February 1945. This is the global strategy being pursued by the Russian regime.
Incidentally, it should be borne in mind that Russia wields not only nuclear resources, but also other means of leverage and geostrategic options to deploy its foreign policy strategy. One such lever today concerns grain supplies to the global market. Last year Russia cut off grain supplies from Ukraine, which triggered growth in global food prices, and in so doing Russia became the key player on the grain market. The structure of the influence is simple: Russian control over food supplies leads to shortages, which leads in turn to higher grain prices and the prices of other food products and engenders inflation on global markets. Rising inflation in turn undermines support for the existing powers-that-be and boosts the popularity of opposition parties and ultra-right movements11.
The Russian regime expects to force countries confronted by a food crisis to revise their voting at international institutions on issues of material importance for Russia. This is how Russia intends to dictate global economic conditions in accordance with its foreign policy plans. Moreover, as food shortages in a number of the poorest countries in Africa and Asia could lead to hunger and as a result serious political turmoil, it is highly likely that the West will face new inflows of migrants. In turn such phenomena could bring to power in Europe and the USA political leaders who oppose migration. It is extremely likely that this will only bolster the positions of right-wing politicians and anyone opposed to assistance for Ukraine in particular.
However, that is not all.
The regime is also using energy supplies as a geopolitical weapon. In September 2023 Russia introduced a ban on exports of diesel fuel and benzene to the oil market in connection with an increase in oil prices to USD 100 per barrel. Subsequently diesel fuel prices in Europe shot up by almost 5%, crude oil and Brent crude also rose in price.
Russia is one of the world’s biggest suppliers of diesel fuel and a leading crude oil producer. Russian crude oil exports contracted in 2023 in connection with an agreement with Saudi Arabia and the bigger OPEC+ group which contributed to a leap in oil prices. Market participants are concerned that Russia is taking a tougher stance on oil supplies at a time when central banks are trying to curb inflation, but this is not being helped by rising oil prices. This is yet another illustration of how Putin is using economic levers to achieve his political objectives, in particular, tools to influence energy markets.
Almost immediately after 24 February 2022 Russia began reducing natural gas supplies to Europe, which resulted in a global energy crisis that triggered inflation and caused damage to industry and consumers all over the world. Diesel fuel is the power house of the global economy, playing a vital role in cargo carriage, shipping and aviation. Diesel fuel derivatives such as heating fuel are particularly sensitive to winter price hikes.
For example, America’s north-west is in significant need of this fuel to heat homes, and the Republican party has repeatedly lambasted President Biden’s administration in connection with rising fuel prices, while Donald Trump has accused the US government of neglecting the domestic oil industry. Moreover Trump has repeatedly declared that if he were re-elected President, he would force Ukraine to hold negotiations with Russia. Regardless of whether Putin is interested in such a development or not, it is clear that Trump’s return to power would fragmentise the West’s support for Ukraine, which is why it is an entirely rational tactic for the regime to wait for the results of the US presidential elections (naturally, we cannot rule out attempts by the Kremlin to interfere in the election). In this light, the decrease in oil exports only confirms the regime’s readiness to leverage its natural resources as a weapon.
Let me repeat here that it is important to understand that Russia is objectively an organic component of the global economy (primarily commodities). The global economy could not exist without Russian commodities. That is why the sanctions introduced by the G7 and the European Union haven’t worked as they had expected.
It is clear that in future Russia will use the global assets and tools at its disposal to promote its foreign policy concept. Russia is focused on protracted and possibly global confrontation, not only and not so much over territories and power in Russia, as over global influence. All available levers will be deployed for this purpose, and the consequences could turn out to be very serious and far from trivial. Furthermore, it is highly likely that a significant proportion of the world would support Russia.
Everybody has been aware for a long time of the support that the country enjoys from the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea and Iran. Iran has become the main supplier of drones for the Russian army in Ukraine. The extravagant visit of Kim Jong Un to Russia in September 2023 was intended to demonstrate to the world that North Korean weapons are also used in the special military operation. It is assumed that the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea will receive in exchange access to Russian missile technologies which could increase the range, reliability and flexibility of the North Korean system for the creation of a nuclear weapon, which would without a doubt have an impact on the nuclear balance in Asia. Any military escalation in the Asia-Pacific Region would distract the USA from Ukraine. All the more so, as the attention of the USA already switched in part to the Middle East after the attack by Hamas on Israel on 7 October 2023 and subsequent events in the Red Sea where Yemen Houthis have been using rocket attacks to block the passage of Western merchant vessels a (it is worth noting that at the same time the Houthis have announced their “cooperation” with Russia and China, whose ships they do not intend to block in any way when they cross the Gulf of Aden)12.
Consequently, the redistribution of spheres of influence at present is already proceeding de facto not only through the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but also through the explicit attempt to create a union of Russia, Iran, the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea jointly with the “global South”, represented by a number of countries in Africa and Latin America. These are all serious aspects in the formation of a principally different world order.
EVERYONE AGAINST EVERYONE
It goes without saying that the problem of engineering a new world order and reformatting international relations which have functioned for almost 80 years is endlessly multifaceted and includes a countless number of risks and threats. All the more so as there is no model of the future order which would be recognised by the main participants of the reformatting process. There is no common platform for discussions or even an approximate idea as to what needs to be discussed and how.
However, there is one objective which should become the unconditional common denominator for everyone: to prevent the start of a third world war which is already becoming more and more likely. Naturally, I am referring here first and foremost to the threats arising from the large-scale bloody conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has all the potential grounds for escalating into a major war. Today everyone should be dedicating their efforts to finding a solution to this issue.
In the period from November 2022 to April 2023 the best moment to secure a ceasefire agreement was missed. In this situation a ceasefire was the only right solution for Ukraine (after the successful military operations in the north and south of Ukraine), and it is highly likely that this proposal might have been discussed seriously by the regime in Russia. Owing to the short-sightedness of Western politicians and diplomats, this moment was not identified. The approach to European security was articulated by the West as follows: Europe with Ukraine, but without Russia. As demonstrated by the events of the past year, this was mistaken and flawed logic; the military actions continue, people are dying every day, European security threats haven’t gone anywhere, while any normal future of Ukraine is becoming more and more illusory. According to the official data of the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, over the past three years average life expectancy in the country has contracted by nine years for men — from 66.4 to 57.3 years and by five years for women — from 76.2 to 70.9 years.
Throughout the first half of last year, Ukraine and the West talked about the anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive. Today it is already clear to everyone that there was no counteroffensive. However, neither the evident failure of the spring-summer offensive, nor the catastrophic shortage of weapons and manpower, nor the mounting difficulties with the receipt of western aid, have prompted politicians to take any steps towards the conclusion of a ceasefire agreement or at the very least towards a discussion of this issue. On the contrary, some strange forecasts have been circulating about a new Ukrainian offensive in 2025. In actual fact, recently people in the West have been talking more and more frequently about a protracted confrontation with Russia not only in Ukraine, but also along the entire contact line with NATO.
For the time being, the inevitability of war between Russia and NATO is probably still not a common feature of political thinking on both sides of the frontline. However, such a thought is pushing through (for example, the statement of the President of France Emmanuel Macron that French soldiers might be sent to Ukraine13 is promoting thinking along these lines. And this is an extremely dangerous prospect.
In Europe politicians talk more and more about the threat of direct military confrontation with Russia (Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk has announced the onset of a pre-war era in Europe14 (checked on 31 March 2024)., while the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Josep Borrell talks about impending war15), assuming that developments in Ukraine represent the prologue and the more exhausting it is for Russia, the better for Europeans.
However, such calculations contain one very serious error: the direct confrontation of Russia and NATO would rapidly and inevitably escalate into a nuclear apocalypse. That is why the logic of European politicians that “if we don’t defeat Putin in Ukraine, then we will have to fight him directly” is utterly flawed, as nobody would win in such a war. This is clear to all the real specialists in military matters. Such military experts as General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff of the United States Army, have been declaring ever since November 2022 that it was impossible for either side in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to win on the battlefield16. However, politicians prefer to ignore experts, effectively transferring the situation in Europe to a pre-war stage.
It is a mistake to proceed from the premise that there is no alternative to “victory on the battlefield”. A ceasefire is the only possible prospect in such confrontation.
In the third year of the military confrontation in Ukraine, when a simple suspension of the conflict through a ceasefire is not even discernible on the horizon, the mounting threat of a major war is becoming a reality which is still imperceptible to journalists and the overcited manic online community. Events developed in similar fashion on the eve of World War One: the emergence of trading barriers between countries, the rise in militarism, the fight for colonial rule, local conflicts (Russo-Japanese, Italo-Turkish and Balkan wars), the reciprocal territorial claims of neighbouring European against the backdrop of ineffective diplomacy… And it is against this backdrop that the heir to the Austrian throne Franz Ferdinand is killed in Sarajevo. There is hardly any need to state that today, given the superfluous range of potential causes, any spark could serve as the reason for a new world war — from the sending of French soldiers to Ukraine or a Russian missile striking a Western leader on Ukrainian territory, as might have happened recently in Odessa on the date of the visit of the Prime Minister of Greece17. Let alone the recent act of terrorism in Crocus City Hall, an event from the black swan theory which might, as was the case 110 years ago, become the trigger — a new Sarajevo18.
Moreover, recently there has been a perceptible increase in demand for the external exacerbation of the situation as a way to deflect attention in connection with the inability of politicians to cope with mounting domestic political and economic problems. And this phenomenon is not only typical of Russia. All these factors raise the risks significantly.
However, internal political processes in Russia are of paramount importance when analysing international security risks. The modernisation of the Russian state, which continued for 30 years after the collapse of the USSR, has failed19. Instead of building a modern European Russia, the regime turned to the past, to Soviet Bolshevik traditions: to authoritarian rule, and accordingly, political repressions, intimidation, the liquidation of democracy with the assistance of so-called constitutional reform, and finally as a result the start of the special military operation. That is why achieving the objectives of re-founding the state and establishing the fundamental principles of democratic popular legitimacy is a task for the future. However, in the context of our discussion, one is bound to talk about the serious crisis, chaos and even possible collapse at any moment. The actual situation in Russia is such that similar phenomena within the country can have even more reactionary consequences to what has happened until now. So this could also trigger a big war in some way or other.
We all learned on 24 February 2022 that international politicians were unable to predict and understand that a large-scale armed conflict was imminent: back in mid-July 2021 President Putin had set out frankly and in detail his claims against Ukraine and his plans in connection with this fact in an article published on the President’s official website20. However, none (!) of the current international leaders took the article seriously21. The first signs of a belated understanding of the impending danger only started to appear in November-December 202122.
Moreover, even subsequent events: the death of people in horrific proportions for modern Europe, colossal destruction and real risks that nuclear weapons might be deployed — virtually none of the leading Western politicians have expressed any desire to protect the lives of people.
Instead of dropping everything else in a bid to prevent even more catastrophic developments, international leaders are doing all they can to intensify confrontation — without making any attempt to find diplomatic solutions.
However, at a time of changes and transformation of the 21st century, this is an extremely mistaken and even criminal strategy. Such a policy, consisting of gossip, daydreaming and the chaotic supplies of weapons, is collapsing before our eyes, as it confronts a situation which is developing according to its own logic. And this concerns not only what happened in Ukraine two years ago. The events of 7 October 2023 in Israel not only showed how one of the strongest armies of the world with virtually the best secret services overlooked the terrorist threat and was not prepared for a large-scale attack by terrorists from the Gaza sector, but also reminded everyone how Iran, in international isolation for decades, is capable of sowing chaos throughout the Middle East. And then you also have China: China has never concealed its territorial claims regarding Taiwan. The build-up of military power by China over the past few years has been called unprecedented in terms of scale in East Asia for the era after the end of World War Two.
So it is clear that global politics today should focus primarily on preventing the break-out of a major war which could sweep across Europe, the Middle East and Asia. For this purpose, it will be necessary first and foremost to secure a ceasefire in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and prevent its escalation. A rapid reset of the entire European policy is needed and the immediate signing of a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine is required (possibly with the participation of the US and Chinese authorities).
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE
The very first steps to be taken to prevent a big war should include: a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine and the signing of a respective agreement; the creation of a demilitarised zone on both sides of the fault line; the resolution of humanitarian issues — an exchange of prisoners; the creation of acceptable living standards for people on the territories in the zone of the military actions.
It should be acknowledged here that diplomatic dialogue will have to start against the backdrop of total distrust. The goal of such dialogue at this stage should be the attainment by the parties of a minimum common understanding on security issues. This concerns an end to the loss of lives and destruction of the infrastructure guaranteeing the basic necessities of life.
Is this possible?
Yes. And there are historical examples. Let us take the Caribbean crisis in October 1962. Despite the lack of any trust between the parties, the leaders of the USSR and the USA Nikita Khrushchev and John Kennedy established a dialogue, as there was an understanding as to the common goal — to avoid at all costs wars between nuclear powers. It was in the same paradigm and based on the logic of this understanding that the entire system of arms control in the world was also aligned subsequently, which continued to work until recently.
In conversations about the settlement of the conflict, people often speculate on the topic of the need “to restore justice”, However, one should proceed here from the fact that justice in the current specific conditions — when people continue dying in large numbers and a whole state is being destroyed in full view of everybody — is unrelated at present to territorial issues, reparations or international courts. Today justice means bringing an end to the loss of lives and preserving the future for children and grandchildren. The dilemma of “peace or justice” in this case is fallacious. In the current conditions, the most primitive form of peace — ceasefire — is justice. There is no other real alternative.
The necessary communications channels must be created immediately. We talked about this in 2022 and wrote on this topic at the start of 202323. Now leading specialists in international relations are writing about this, citing the need to change the rhetoric of the parties, appoint special representatives for negotiations, impose restrictions on strikes within the territory of the opponent, and arrange for an exchange of war prisoners: “If neither side begins this process, the warring parties will likely remain stuck where they are today—fiercely battling over inches of territory, at a terrible cost to human life and regional stability, for years to come”24. These experts also hold that no amount of aid can ensure Ukraine’s security and prosperity without an end to the war25.
Consequently, in spring 2024 it looks as if the threat previously considered in international politics to be a limited conflict by virtue of a lack of understanding of the crux of developments, is being transformed into the real danger of a large-scale war. If it happens, this will either be the variant of a war of “everybody against everybody else”, or local — here, there, somewhere else … Everything might start in Europe and then spread to the rest of the world. Or perhaps everything will spread from the Middle East. The name given to this war — World War III, a new global war or something else –is unimportant.
Serious strategic research specialists back in 2022 assessed the likelihood of a major war as real26. Now, two years later, the risks of the escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict into a world war is already understandable not only to experts. One can say with hardly any exaggeration that we are approaching a precipice beyond which there is a civilised abyss, in other words, an all-encompassing war. We are witnessing how all the participants in the conflict are plunging more and more deeply into crisis. There has been a perceptible transition from talks to practical preparation.
Today Europe’s political class is in a complex and contradictory state. The evident inability of leading European politicians to understand or at the very least imagine the extent to which everything may start with catastrophic speed and then snowball is striking.
Surely it is obvious that the United States are drifting away from European problems more and more? The US authorities are preoccupied by the Middle East and the Pacific Region, and also by the extremely complex impending Presidential elections. At the same time, in Europe (and not only there) the demand for war is emerging as a way to extricate these countries from serious non-military crises, political gridlock and socio-economic problems. At the same time, we now have a line of military confrontation — the vast contact border of Russia and NATO lengthwise, from Finland to Moldova. As was in the case on the eve of World War One, errors and miscalculations could result in a vast destructive conflict, the real scales of which nobody can even imagine. “Unless there is some basis for some cooperative action, the world will slide into a catastrophe comparable to World War I,” — warned former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 202027.
Today an immediate ceasefire is essential. This is the biggest step to preventing a big war. We cannot allow mankind to fall asleep at the wheel and permit another catastrophe to happen.
The key is that the international order today is in such a state that it could collapse at a high rate of speed. It does not make sense to discuss the consequences of this collapse, in other words, what will remain after a major war. This will no longer be a matter for our children and grandchildren. It only takes sense to say how this can be prevented — which is the goal of this article.
Every world leader and every beauty pageant contestant will say that they want “World Peace;” so, why is it that humans engaged in wars throughout history and continue to do so in the 21st Century, an era that has been heralded as “the dawning of the Age of Aquarius”, a time of harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding? From a cultural values perspective, the explanation lies in analyzing which cultures foster confrontation, the acceptance of conflict, and the promotion of performance to the detriment of caring and quality of life. It is plain to see that some cultural values are drivers of peace, while other values push in the opposite direction. The different World Views that Sigmund Freud called Weltanschauung and Huib Wursten identified as the Seven Worldviews of national cultures can help us understand the influence of cultural values in getting some countries involved in wars more frequently than others.
Key words: Culture; War; Peace; Worldviews.
Introduction
Yuval Noah Harari tells us that people go to war because of the stories they believe in (1). Stories are an expression of culture and of its core values. So, which kinds of cultures are most likely to engage in war? What are the core stories, or narratives, that underlie the Seven Worldviews of national identified by Huib Wursten (2) and how do they relate to war and peace?
The Contest Culture Conundrum
The Contest culture’s primary worldview is that life is a never-ending series of competitions, from which winners and losers will emerge. The competitions are framed as a constant clash between two opposing forces. From this clash something positive results.
Therefore, confrontation is encouraged as a way to face and manage conflict. The consequence is that Contest cultures can easily escalate disagreements to the point of seeking solutions by force and/or military interventions. This is often expressed in films that show diplomats as weak, while the heroes are portrayed as people who fight and beat the enemies. Diplomats are shown as naïve individuals who get in the way of the real solution, which is for the heroes to step in and fight their way to victory.
The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the European Union in 2012, for six decades of work in advancing peace in Europe.
The New York Times was not impressed. They called the award “a gift” rather than a deserved prize, and criticized the EU for “inept management of the Euro zone crisis.” In American TV, the Nobel Peace prize has been humorously referred to as “not a real Nobel Prize,” when compared to achievements in science.
The American press had also not been impressed when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama earlier, in 2009. Apparently pundits felt that he had not really done anything significant to deserve it. Contest cultures (US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) have a bias for action; they value seeing people doing something concrete and specific, providing a tangible result, in order to deserve praise.
In this sense, we can already see Contest culture values at odds with the concept of peace. To Contest culture populations, going to war is a clear action; fighting is an action, whether between individuals or between nations. But what is peace? Is it defined by a non-action, such as not going to war, or not fighting? The act of not doing something does not sit well in cultures that seek to promote and reward action.
Contest culture values such as standing up for your values and confronting those with opposing views can be quite easily endorsed almost universally; but there can always be too much of a good thing. Confrontation can escalate; and if that continues, it can lead to war.
Looking at the world as a constant clash between two opposing forces can also lead to oversimplification of geopolitics. The American president George W. Bush gave other countries an ultimatum when the US decided to invade Iraq in early 2003: “you are either with us, or against us!” By doing so, he immediately sabotaged any attempt to de-escalate the situation and shut the door on diplomacy. He also failed to acknowledge the complexity of international relations in the 21st Century, when economies are much more interdependent than ever before. As Bush made that statement, other Contest cultures immediately sided with that stance: the UK, Canada and Australia formed what was called “a coalition of the willing” to declare war against Iraq, defying the United Nations and many European nations who were hesitating about engaging in military action. The French were labeled as traitors and there were calls in America to boycott France, its culture and products, culminating with stopping all reference to “French fries” and starting to call them “freedom fries.” These manifestations of American popular culture are the visible part of the culture iceberg. The invisible portion of that iceberg consists of values advocating the use of force to make a point.
When your worldview contains a filter that sees potential confrontations anywhere and everywhere, mass paranoia is not that far away. As Reznal Odnanrev (4) has mentioned in a presentation made at the Global Forum on Action Learning (Shanghai, 2007), “America needs an enemy; and it they cannot find one, they might invent one!”
It’s plain to see that Contest culture values can easily lead to war. When confrontation and competition are the core concepts driving behavior, diplomacy and de-escalation are not a priority. The challenge for Contest cultures is actually to stay out of trouble; avoiding conflict is something that goes against their core values.
Of course, culture is not the only factor driving war and peace; there are economic considerations as well. But when a specific type of worldview fosters confrontation and conflict, it determines in which ways different nations pursue their economic interests.
It’s the economy, stupid!
A popular view is that wars happen due to the pursuit of economic interests. According to this perspective, wars will always be about territory and the resources available there. To this point, Mahatma Gandhi has remarked out that “there are enough resources for everyone’s need; but not enough for everyone’s greed.” So, the problem with greater weight is values, rather than the resources themselves.
Another view is that nations fight each other not only for resources, but also for markets. This notion is embedded in the concept of “nation-building,” which also supported the US invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to gaining access to natural resources in these countries, building them up as nations would mean opening markets that could become heavy buyers of products and services provided by other lands.
Yet there is still another market: when the market is war itself. Fighters need arms. In any war, arms manufacturers become the first winners, regardless of the outcome. Plus, the outbreak of war immediately spreads fear across the world and increases the demand for arms in countries who fear that they might be attacked.
Arms manufacturers are market makers. They foster conflict anywhere, in order to generate demand.
When Donald Trump threatens to lead the United States to leave NATO and “let Europe defend itself on its own,” he is basically creating demand for arms in Europe. When he insists that European countries should spend at least 2% of GDP on defense, he is also creating demand for arms. And he is being supported in his actions by Contest culture values.
These war-endorsing values are not only the confrontation-friendly attitude. They include, in addition, the glorification of war through cultural expressions such as films and TV, where tales abound showcasing war heroes and their heroic feats.
High scores in Performance Orientation (or Masculinity) also tend to stoke the fires of war rather than the calm of peace. All Contest cultures have high scores in this dimension.
The Fifth Dimension
The Seven Worldviews created by Wursten consider the first four value dimensions identified by Hofstede: Power Distance (PDI), Individualism (IDV), Performance Orientation (PER, or MAS in Hofstede’s original label), and Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI). We can also consider the fifth dimension, Relativism (REL, or LTO in Hofstede’s original nomenclature), identified by Michael Harris Bond (5), as an additional influencing factor.
All Contest cultures score low on the Fifth Dimension; this means they value discipline, rather than flexibility; they favor a short-term perspective instead of a long-term perspective; and that they are normative, rather than relativistic.
The link to war is that normative cultures take social standards and values very seriously, to the point of developing social movements such as Political Correctness and Cancel Culture. This leads to a cultural attitude of less tolerance towards social norms that are different from yours. In Contest Cultures, since they are egalitarian and individualistic, there tends to be less tolerance towards countries that have hierarchical (perceived as authoritarian), and collectivist cultures. This translates into “we should make that country democratic, whether they like it or not!” Sadly, this is used as a righteous way of justifying war, in order to “defend freedom and our (American) way of life.” This has been used to support every American and British military engagement in the past 200 years.
We need to talk about China
Looking at other cultural worldviews, we can see different approaches to war and peace.
It is interesting to see that China (a Traditional Family type of culture), labeled by American Governments as “the enemy” (taking turns with Russia, North Korea, and even Europe during the Trump Administration), adopts an approach consistent with the Traditional Family type of worldview. It is an approach summarized in Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” (3), which in summary includes intimidating opponents while avoiding an open conflict.
The Chinese worldview also includes the highest-scoring Long-Term Orientation on the planet. While Contest cultures tend to value thinking in quarters, Family cultures tend to think in decades. A popular view in the Chinese culture is that China will eventually dominate the world; not by waging war on other countries, but simply by its sheer size and the perceived superiority of its culture values. And when the Chinese say “eventually,” they mean decades. The culture encourages them to be patient and to expect that dominance might come in a century, rather than in the next three years.
This is not to say that the Chinese do not invest in arms; of course they do. But the values behind it are of intimidating potential enemies, without having to actually engage in an open conflict.
It is important to note that the US, UK and Australia have adopted a major shift in foreign policy when addressing their political and economic relationship with the Chinese during the Biden Administration.
While the period from 2010 to 2020 was characterized by an attempt to compete with China in commercial and non-confrontational terms, it seems that in this decade these countries reassessed their position and shifted to a more confrontational stance, more coherent with Contest values.
Perhaps they realized that they would lose the competition with China in the long run, unless they moved to a more confronting discourse. It is quite visible that the statements made by pundits in the media and the ones made by political leaders have shifted to criticizing the Chinese at every opportunity and describing their efforts as ineffective and misguided.
The Chinese, in turn, have maintained their policies focused on the long-term perspective they have always had, trusting that they can emerge victorious without needing to engage in an actual war. They are likely to maintain that stance in the coming years, since they are the highest-scoring culture in the Fifth Dimension.
In Brazil, a Social Pyramid Culture (hierarchical and collectivistic), there is a saying that goes: “quando um não quer, dois não brigam.” A rough translation is that “when one of them doesn’t want it, two people won’t fight.” President Lula used this expression recently in reference to the war in Ukraine, trying to say that the war continues because both sides want it to continue, instead of seeking some kind of truce or peace agreement.
The challenge for Contest Cultures is typically to step away from the natural confrontation stance, or a “win-lose” attitude, in order to negotiate a compromise for peace.
More Europe, or less Europe?
Angela Merkel reiterated that question several times at the end of her mandate, and the debate continues. The challenge for Europe, from a cultural perspective, will be to manage its own diversity while seeking greater unity in terms of dealing with war and peace. It has managed well to avoid a major open conflict within the European Union, but it will need to do better regarding coping with conflicts beyond its borders, notably concerning Russia.
The realpolitik with Russia seemed to be working well, until American activism upset the delicate balance in the Europe-Russia pas de deux and the conflict in Ukraine broke out. This was a major setback for European interests while it played well into American economic interests.
Will the same happen with regards to China? Wil Europe’s realpolitik with China slip into conflict as well?
It will depend on how the different cultures within Europe deal with the choices between war and peace.
Network cultures (the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries) are characterized by very low scores in Performance Orientation, low Power Distance and high Individualism. Their worldview can be summarized by the notion of several forces (rather than two) pulling simultaneously in different directions. In order to compensate for this dispersive tendency, individuals much seek some form of consensus in order to cooperate with each other and live together in communities.
These cultures tend to avoid addressing conflict by force and avoid military action. Their natural tendency is to seek conflict resolution through consensus, with some degree of compromise, rather than by one side trying to overcome the other. Herein lies the big difference between Network cultures and Contest cultures: while both accept conflict, rather than avoiding it, the first tackle conflicts by seeking consensus, while the latter seek winning against an opponent. It’s no coincidence that Network cultures have tried to remain neutral in regional conflicts. They also enhance mediation and diplomacy as a way to resolve international confrontation without resorting to military escalation.
Solar System cultures (such as France, Poland, Spain and Italy) have yet a different way of handling conflicts, engaging in wars and trying to maintain peace. These cultures have the characteristic of a continuing tension between hierarchy (high PDI) and Individualism (high IDV). On one hand, high PDI leads people to seek a higher position in the perceived social hierarchy, dominating others while respecting those that are perceived to hold such a high position that it is difficult to be challenged.
This stance has historically led such cultures to occasionally engage in conflicts and war. Conflicts are not avoided; rather, they are faced and tackled. The way to tackle them is different from what we see in Contest and in Network cultures; it is not as directly confrontational, nor as directly consensus-seeking. Instead, Solar System cultures tend to seek resolution through a complex series of power plays and diplomacy, which can also get out of control and escalate, though not as quickly and directly as in Contest cultures.
The results are that these cultures can breed skilled diplomats that seek to avoid armed conflict while “saving face” for political leaders and the public opinion of the nations involved. However, escalation and open armed conflicts may happen more easily than it does when Network cultures are involved.
Well-oiled Machine cultures (basically Germanic cultures) show yet a fifth different way of handling conflicts, war and peace. Their basic worldview is that life needs to be planned, organized and structured, with an emphasis on individual responsibility and discipline.
High scores in Performance Orientation (MAS) can lead to open conflict, but higher scores in Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), compared to Contest cultures, which all score lower in this dimension, act towards avoiding open conflict and the uncertainty it involves, unless the risks can be mitigated. Order, stability and the avoidance of uncertainty still prevail, pushing for peace, while high Individualism (IDV) and Performance Orientation (MAS) push towards open conflict and war.
The way Europe will be able to manage all of these different Worldviews will define whether we will see other wars in the continent in the 21st Century, or whether we will experience a lasting peace.
Europe is not likely to break up the European Union and split back into totally independent nation states. The challenge lies in maintaining cultural diversity, and managing it, while being able to increase cooperation and interdependence to ensure peace not only within the European Economic Community, but also in relation to other global players like the United States, Russia and China.
What if they gave a war and nobody came?
This was the title of a comedy film, with dramatic layers and a pacifist message, directed (6) in 1970 by Hy Averback. It highlighted a shift away from glorifying war in Hollywood productions, towards promoting peace and denouncing the absurdity of war.
What was the Nobel Prize Committee trying to tell the world when they awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to an American President and to the European Union? That diplomacy is important and should be praised. That peace in the world involves acting for peace in the US (the President of the most powerful military force in the world) and in Europe (then the largest economic bloc in the world). That such initiatives should be cherished rather than taken for granted.
So why were many American pundits so irritated by these awards?
Because they hate compromise. They dislike the notion of conceding, rather than overpowering another. And both prizes were in praise of diplomacy and the art of reaching compromise and conceding something, rather than overpowering your opponents by force.
As the song goes: “war is stupid, and people are stupid, and love has no value in some strange quarters” (7).
So, why do we still have so many wars and conflicts going on in the world? Why can’t we all get along and maintain world peace?
The forces pushing for war have to do with economic interests and with culture values. The economic interests include the arms industry all over the world, perhaps the most powerful of the interests involved. To overcome these forces and ensure peace, we will need to increase the awareness of cultural values and foster those culture values that push towards peace and away from war.
The idea of peace needs to be promoted with more flair. “Give peace a chance”, said John Lennon. Do you have to be a rock star to get some attention? We should all be wiser than that. Yes, war is stupid. We should not need Boy George to remind us of that. We should understand this idea and defend it against proponents of war. Especially when the proponents of war look handsome and confident. That is when the idea of war becomes most dangerous and we need to stand against it.
Bibliography
Harari, Yuval Noah – Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind – Harper, New York, 2015
Wursten, Huib – The 7Mental Images of National Culture. Leading and Managing in a globalized World. AMAZON Books ISBN: 9781687633347, 2019
Odnanrev, Reznal – Concepts of Culture – White paper presented at the 14th Global Forum on Executive Development, Shanghai, 2007
Tzu, Sun – The Art of War – Filiquarian; First Thus edition, 2007.
Bond, Michael Harris – The Social Psychology of the Chinese People – Oxford University Press, 1986
Averback, Hy – Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came? – MGM, 1970.
Human Interdependence Literacy: The path to nurture
peaceful ecosystemsto challenge fragmentation and
divisiveness
Vedabhyas Kundu & Ishita Thapliyal
Aaron Cramer’s (2022) insightful article on what could be the strategies to resolve interconnected global challenges in a fragmented world delves on the role of different forces of ‘great fragmentation’ which are fueling ‘deep societal divisions and inequalities’ leading to conflicts and violence. While we see across societies around the world the ever-growing deep divisions and inequalities, Cramer underlines some of the critical shared challenges which almost every society is facing: a) a just and inclusive energy transition to limit global warming to under 2°C; b) preservation of nature and ecosystems, including food systems, so people thrive; c) action to address income inequality; d) replacing systems thwarting racial and gender equity; e) protection of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.
Cramer argues that each force of fragmentation is powerful. The rise of hyper-technological ecosystems is amplifying disinformation and spreading narratives of hatred. Cramer (2022) further points out, “There is then environmental collapse that exacerbates social tensions and political polarization, democratic decline, and geopolitical splits that drive a wedge between and within countries. In addition, social changes that reflect both important progress and powerful backlash and rising economic precarity and inequity further fragment societies”. Further, when there is interconnection between these forces of fragmentation, it becomes all the more challenging to overcome such forces.
In the backdrop of the above arguments on how deep forces of fragmentation are exacerbating conflicts and narratives of divisions and intolerance, it is pertinent to explore different innovative approaches to promote the spirit of interdependence, promotion of solidarity footprints, coalition-building, and collaborative efforts.
One of the approaches that we are encouraging at different levels is developing our critical capacities to become human interdependent literate. This Conversation will delve at length into how skills of human interdependent literacy can be a mantra to challenge the forces of fragmentation and divisiveness from the deepest levels.
Vedabhyas Kundu: Ishita, as we start this conversation, it would be worthwhile to share about our work on human interdependence literacy. Also as we start our exploration on how it helps to challenge the forces of fragmentation and divisiveness while countering the forces of hatred and intolerance, we would like to underline that the spirit of being human interdependent literate has to start at the individual level and then expand to family level, institutional level and finally to the societal level. Here we would like to describe our understanding of human interdependence literacy as: Developing critical capacities to not only understand and assimilate the deep meaning of human interdependence, but also be able to act on its principles in our daily lives. It also means how we enhance our cognitive capabilities to comprehend the complexities involved in the micro and macro dimensions of the phenomenon of human interdependence and contribute to its realization at all levels of our life and society. It also entails developing our traditional, indigenous and cultural knowledge which underlined the essence of human interdependence.
Ishita Thapliyal: Vedabhyas, in view of the expansion of the forces of fragmentation across the world, I think we should expand our understanding of human interdependence literacy. As both of us are trying to promote the essence of human interdependence literacy as a pillar to negotiate the challenges of fragmentation, divisiveness, and erosion of values that bind us together, this dimension is critical to share.
Human interdependence manifests across significant domains of psychology, notably evolutionary psychology, which delves into the impact of natural selection on human behavior and cognition.
Notably, evolutionary psychology provides profound insights into the central role of fundamental human dynamics like cooperation, social bonding, and group dynamics, shedding light on their indispensable contribution to the intricate tapestry of human interdependence.
Evolutionary psychologists posit that humans have developed a propensity to establish social bonds and engage in cooperation due to the advantageous outcomes these behaviors offer for survival and reproduction. This is evident by gazing at examples across history; collaborative efforts within groups have facilitated the acquisition of resources, safeguarded against predators, and ensured the care and upbringing of offspring.
Moreover, evolutionary psychology underscores the significance of kin selection, a concept where individuals are inclined to assist relatives due to the shared genetic material. This notion elucidates why humans frequently prioritize the welfare of family members and close kin, as it aligns with evolutionary imperatives to propagate shared genetic traits through familial support and protection.
Human interdependence transcends individual relationships and encompasses group dynamics as well. According to evolutionary psychology, humans have evolved to establish cohesive groups marked by shared norms, values, and cooperation, thereby bolstering survival and reproductive success through collective effort and mutual support.
The field of evolutionary psychology provides intriguing insights into the evolution of morality and trust, which are believed to have evolved because they promote cooperation and reduce conflict. This gives hints of human interdependence.
In essence, evolutionary psychology serves as a foundational tool for exploring the profound origins of human interdependence and elucidating the intricate processes that have sculpted our social fabric across epochs.
Environmental psychology stands as another field within psychology that underscores the presence of human interdependence. Within the framework of human interdependence, environmental psychology emphasizes the bidirectional connection between individuals and their surroundings, accentuating how environmental factors shape social interactions and interdependencies among individuals.
The field acknowledges the crucial role played by shared spaces and resources in nurturing human interdependence and examines the influence of physical environments on individuals’ sense of community and belonging. For instance: Urban design, architecture, and green spaces are among the factors that can either promote or impede social interactions and the formation of supportive networks, thus affecting human interdependence.
This field of psychology integrates cultural diversity into its exploration of how individuals interact with their surroundings, investigating the ways in which diverse cultural norms and values contribute to the shaping of interdependence patterns leading to interesting observations on human interdependence.
As we start exploring the convergence of environmental psychology and human interdependence, we begin to acquire a deeper understanding of the intricate interactions among individuals, communities, and their surroundings. Such comprehension is pivotal for advancing sustainable approaches, nurturing resilient communities, and enriching human well-being in the face of rapid global transformations.
Environmental psychologists emphasize the crucial importance of cooperation, mutual aid, and community resilience in facing challenges. This interdependence among individuals becomes especially evident during crises, as people unite to offer support and rejuvenate impacted communities, serving as a notable illustration of human reliance on one another.
Positive Psychology serves as yet another psychological discipline intricately connected to human interdependence. In the realm of human interdependence, positive psychology as a discipline investigates the elements that foster human flourishing and well-being. It acknowledges the significance of social connections, relationships, and community support in enhancing both individual and collective happiness and thriving.
Positive psychology underscores the importance of meaningful social connections and relationships in nurturing happiness and well-being. Studies indicate that robust social bonds enhance life satisfaction and resilience, showcasing the interconnectedness of human happiness.
It additionally recognizes the essential function of social support networks in difficult circumstances and periods of stress. The existence of a supportive community boosts individuals’ capacity to manage challenges and cultivates mental resilience, underscoring the crucial significance of human interdependence in nurturing general well-being.
It explores the advantages of altruism and prosocial behavior, benefiting both the recipient and the giver. Acts of kindness, generosity, and cooperation bolster social connections and cultivate a feeling of interconnectedness among individuals, resulting in enhanced overall well-being.
The insights gleaned from various branches of psychology underscore the fundamental importance of human interdependence in our world. They underscore the necessity for unity among individuals to ensure not only their own well-being but also the survival of the entire human species. Vedabhyas, this is why I firmly believe that both of us are apt to promote the idea of human interdependence literacy, especially in today’s world.
Vedabhyas Kundu: Ishita, you have rightly pointed out the realization of the significance of essential unity of human beings in our pursuit to be human interdependence literate. The core is the realization that I cannot gain while I make others suffer- whether other human beings, nature or other living beings. Here, Mahatma Gandhi articulates the importance of the essential unity of human beings as he notes, “I do not believe…that an individual may gain spiritually and those who surround him suffer. I believe in Advaita; I believe in the essential unity of man and, for that matter, of all that lives. Therefore, I believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and, if one man falls, the whole world falls to that extent. (Young India, 4-12-1924)
Mahatma Gandhi believed in the cosmocentric nature of human beings where they are only one part of the whole universe and it is a fundamental pillar of his idea of nonviolence. This deep understanding of the cosmocentric nature should be the guiding force behind our relationships with other human beings, nature and other living beings. It is only then we can genuinely challenge the great forces of fragmentation.
Further, Nobel laureate, Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore (1913) encapsulates the relation of the individual with the Universe by underlining how the Indian traditions emphasized the harmony between the two. He made an important point regarding the phenomenon when individuals were truly in harmony with nature. He notes, “The great fact is that we are in harmony with nature; that man can think because his thoughts are in harmony with things; that he can use the forces of nature for his own purpose only because his power is in harmony with the power which is universal.”
Ishita, in our tryst to construct the understanding of human interdependence literacy to counter the forces of fragmentation, we have to further understand from Tagore the essence of inter-relationship between all in the universe. In the context of Indian tradition and culture, Tagore points out (1913), “The fundamental unity of creation was not simply & philosophical speculation for India; it was her life-object to realize this great harmony in feeling and in action. With meditation and service, with a regulation of her life, she cultivated her consciousness in such a way that everything had a spiritual meaning to her. The earth, water and light, fruits and flowers, to her were not merely physical phenomena to be turned to use and then left aside. They were necessary to her in the attainment of her ideal of perfection, as every note is necessary to the completeness of the symphony. India intuitively felt that the essential fact of this world has a vital meaning for us; we have to be fully alive to it and establish a conscious relation with it, not merely impelled by scientific curiosity or greed of material advantage, but realizing it in the spirit of sympathy, with a large feeling of joy and peace.” Elsewhere, Tagore was talking about the essential unity of the ‘inner inter-relationship’.
So Ishita, I think when we are thinking of human interdependence literacy, it has to start from our own inner self, realizing and acting on the essential unity of our ‘inner inter-relationship’. Also, as we learn from Tagore, the idea of human interdependence literacy hinges on the fact that the harmony between human-nature-all other beings is not just a feeling but dynamic action. This action and feeling have to be part of our consciousness; only then can we challenge the forces of divisiveness. Also, Ishita, I think many of the problems of divisiveness and narratives of fragmentation that we see today are a result of a complete lack of understanding of the essential unity of our inner inter-relationship and that with others. The result is creation of negative and toxic ecosystems- both at the inner level and outer level which then starts to glorify the divisiveness and deep fragmentation. This to my mind is the starting point of the evolution of violent conflicts.
Ishita Thapliyal: Vedabhyas, you have rightly pointed out the essence of the unity of inner inter-relationship for the evolution of positive ecosystems. This type of inner environment is urgently needed and offers a solution to cleanse the negative and toxic ecosystems in which we, unfortunately, find ourselves residing. In response to such circumstances, it becomes imperative to promote positive shifts in human behavior, aiming to mitigate excessive greed through a diverse range of strategies.
Encouraging empathy, loving kindness and compassion among individuals can play a pivotal role in fostering positive changes in human behavior to deter excessive greed. By nurturing these qualities, individuals become more attuned to the effects of their actions on others, cultivating a greater sense of responsibility for the overall welfare of society.
Moreover, instilling ethical values and moral principles across educational institutions, workplaces, and communities can cultivate integrity and accountability among individuals. This guidance encourages individuals to prioritize principles of fairness, honesty, and altruism over self-centered pursuits, fostering positive changes in behavior and discouraging excessive greed.
Emphasizing the benefits of cooperation, kindness and collaboration, rather than competition, can in addition reorient individuals’ focus from pursuing individual gain to advancing the prosperity of the collective. This shift in perspective reduces the propensity for behaviors driven by greed.
Additionally, fostering habits of gratitude and contentment can enable individuals to acknowledge and value the abundance present in their lives, thereby diminishing the urge for excessive accumulation and nurturing a sense of fulfillment and appreciation for what they already possess.
By advocating for the values of empathy, love, kindness, gratitude and compassion, societies can endeavor to alleviate the detrimental impacts of greed and cultivate a culture characterized by generosity, empathy, and mutual assistance. This, in turn, can precipitate favorable shifts in human behavior and create a society of interdependent, literate people with recognition of mutual reliance among individuals and communities.
Vedabhyas, to my mind, in a world characterized by high human interdependence literacy, individuals wouldn’t simply grasp these concepts—they’d actively integrate them into their daily routines, decision-making, and interactions to foster cooperation, empathy, and sustainable behaviors leading to a more compassionate, empathetic and progressive world.
Vedabhyas Kundu: Definitely, Ishita the nurturing of empathy, love, kindness, gratitude and compassion are essential pillars of our endeavours to be human interdependent literate. Also, to my mind another important feature of human interdependence literacy should be our critical abilities to be able to resolve conflicts constructively and as Mahatma Gandhi underlined finish the antagonism not the antagonists. If we have to celebrate the essential unity of all human beings in the real sense, I think all conflicts should aim at transformation of relationships and not erosion of relationships. The transformation of the heart in the real sense should be an important pillar of human interdependence literacy.
Also, our idea of human interdependence literacy should enable us to practice the ancient Indian aphorism taken from Chapter 6 of the Maha Upanishad, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, in its real sense and spirit. It means the world is one family. In the backdrop of the fragmentation and divisiveness that we discussed, nurturing the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam has become a global necessity. It reflects the idea of global citizenship and cross-cultural understanding, develops deep respect for each other’s culture and traditions, and paves the way for deep engagement between global citizens on issues confronting our planet collaboratively.
Here, Ishita, while we are trying to put together the essential elements and pillars of human interdependence literacy, what is needed is to promote it right from the school level. The spirit of human interdependence literacy should be able to percolate in institutions like families, the places where we study or work, in businesses and in the society at large. Then only we would be able to realize the actual benefits of being a human, interdependent, literate person. How do you think we should work to realize this goal of a human-interdependent literate world? What framework would you suggest to be able to percolate this idea at different levels of our society?
Ishita Thapliyal: You raised some very valid questions, Vedabhyas. Realizing the goal of a human-interdependent literate world may require a multifaceted approach that includes various aspects of awareness, education, technology, culture, and societal values.
You’ve posed some pertinent queries, Vedabhyas. Realizing the goal of a human interdependent literate world may necessitate a multifaceted approach encompassing aspects such as awareness, education, technology, culture, and societal values. Initiatives like launching educational campaigns tailored for schools, universities, and communities could play a pivotal role in instilling the principles of human interdependence. These efforts might involve curriculum enhancements, hosting workshops, seminars, and engaging in interactive learning activities. This approach will help foster an understanding of the concept of human interdependent literacy starting from the grassroots level.
Additionally, launching collaborative projects that engage a range of stakeholders, including governments, voluntary organizations, businesses, and civil society organizations, can extend the reach of the concept by addressing global challenges through the lens of interdependence.
Teaming up with media outlets and harnessing the power of the digital media to raise awareness through various channels such as articles, documentaries, interviews, and social media campaigns can be instrumental.
Furthermore, leveraging digital platforms and online communities to disseminate information, resources, and success stories pertaining to human interdependence literacy can be impactful. Developing compelling content such as videos, podcasts, and info graphics can help broaden the reach and engage a wider audience.
Moreover, involving young people in discussions and activities that underscore the significance of comprehending interconnectedness and nurturing global citizenship can be crucial. Empowering youth to advocate for positive change within their communities and on a broader scale can catalyze impactful transformations and can serve as a catalyst for integrating the concept of human interdependence literacy into society.
Another significant avenue involves facilitating cultural exchange programs and intercultural dialogue to foster mutual understanding and appreciation of diverse perspectives. By highlighting the shared humanity that transcends geographical, cultural, and ideological boundaries, we can further promote the concept of human interdependence literacy in society.
Moreover, proponents of policies at the local, national, and international levels can prioritize cooperation, solidarity, and sustainable development while also underscoring the advantages of policies that foster inclusive growth and tackle systemic inequalities.
Lastly, maintaining continuous communication and engagement with stakeholders to sustain discussions about human interdependence is undeniably a critical aspect that cannot be overlooked and needs to be taken right from the local level to the global level.
By implementing these strategies and nurturing a collective comprehension of human interdependence, we can cultivate a more interconnected and resilient global community and tackle shared challenges while striving towards our common objectives of furthering a culture of peace and nonviolence.
Tagore, Rabindranath (1913). The Relation of the Individual to the Universe. Sadhana: The Realization of Life. Macmillan and Co. Limited.
Dr Vedabhyas Kundu is Programme Officer, Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti, New Delhi. He writes on nonviolent communication, nonviolent conflict resolution, human interdependence and media and information literacy.
Ms Ishita Thapliyal is a psychologist who specializes as a counseling psychologist, positive and peace psychologist.
On 04 March 2024, Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, at the 55th session of the Human Rights Council, gave a global update to the Human Rights Council.
He said: “ The right to peace is the mother of all human rights. Without peace, all other rights are quashed. It is urgent that we devise ways to counter warmongering, fear and the illogic of escalating hatred and hostility – which bring short-term profit to a few while ruining the lives and rights of millions. We need to regain a mindset of peace. This means the art of de-escalation, keeping communication channels open, rebuilding trust, and the long-term work of healing and reconciliation – re-establishing a sense of the interconnectedness and shared destiny of all humanity.
Three of the articles in this special emphasize this mindset of peace.
They do that from different points of view: Gandhi’s ideas, a strong appeal of the Hiroshima survivors group, and the Ubuntu philosophy.
Two articles focus on the big political issues of this moment: the war in Ukraine and the fight between Israel and Hamas. Russian politician Yavlinsky writes about the escalation of hatred and hostility –ruining the lives and rights of millions. In line with the aforementioned Türk, he proposes to de-escalate and stop the killing immediately.
Knip’s article describes a project that aimed to create trust on the ground level by bringing Palestinian and Israeli city leaders together.
This Municipal Alliance for Peace in the Middle East (MAP) was a framework for Israeli-Palestinian municipal dialogue, with contributions from foreign municipalities and their associations and other international actors. After a hopeful start, this project unfortunately failed.
All articles emphasize that idealism is certainly important. However, to solve real-life problems, it is necessary to understand the nature of conflicts. It is a matter of sound reasoning that “In order to build bridges, it is necessary to know where the shorelines are.” Many of these shorelines are cultural. Culture in this context means: strong collective value preferences.
Looking at the articles in this special from a cultural point of view key examples can be found
For instance:
Decision-making is taking different shapes in different cultures.
In some cultures, there is a strong preference for involving stakeholders on the ground level, bottom up decision-making. This is not only tolerated by the powerholders but even promoted. In other cultures (actually in the majority of cultures in the world), top-down decision-making is preferred. not only by the powerholders but also by the others involved. It is seen as an existential fact of life. It is a “must “ to understand that as long as the leaders of these countries do not give consent first, ground-level initiatives are not taken seriously.
Not understanding this, is one of the causes of failures in international cooperation.
Basic motivations for achievement can strongly differ.
In some cultures, like the Anglo-Saxon countries (I refer to this cluster as “The Contest countries”), competition is seen as the basic driver of success. One consequence is the tendency to polarize. In some other cultures, the basic motivation is cooperation and consensus-seeking.
This difference comes back to a basic issue in conflict situations: “What to do with bullies?”
If one of the parties is not willing to follow the rules of law reason and is not willing to negotiate about the content of the differences in interests. What to do if they are using power to overrun the interest of the other partner(s)?
The advice of experienced negotiators is relevant here: don’t start with power games. But if you are confronted with them, know how to play them and defend yourself. This is not natural for consensus-orientated countries.
One recent special element to be solved is what to do with asymmetrical warfare. A situation where a regular army is fighting an adversary hiding among the civilian population.
The direction of loyalty is the next important issue to clarify.
In most cultures, people are supposed to be loyal to their in-group (tribe, ethnic group, religious group, etc.). In return for their loyalty, the in-group takes care of the people. In-group members are not supposed to ventilate individual opinions or openly criticize the in-group ideas. If they do that, they risk being removed from the in-group.
In a limited number of countries, loyalty is to the position and rights of the Individual as an autonomous empowered member of the community.
A well-known issue in the first type of countries is that in case of a conflict the attitude is caught by the phrase: “For my friends everything. For all others the rule of law”.
Time is an important cultural issue
Some cultures are short-term orientated. They aim to hold people accountable for what they are doing by measuring success and failure in an agreed-upon controllable timeframe.
Some cultures are long-term orientated. An example here is the statement by Mao the former leader of the People’s Republic of China. He was asked what he thought about the results of the French Revolution. His answer: “It’s too early to decide”
Taking the cultural context of time and loyalty together.
In an interview in the New York Times, an expert on the Middle East said: “The four most dangerous words in the Middle East are we need to solve the conflict “once and for all”
This is virtually impossible in countries with in-group loyalty as a central cultural driver. The harm done to the in-group by others stays quite long in the collective memory.
As an illustration, a story that is told about the Balkan war. A Bosnian says to a Serb: “Why are you killing our men and children and raping our women?” Says the Serb: “but you did the same to us. You killed our men and children and raped our women.” “But”, the Bosnian said, ”This is 200 years ago” Answer by the Serb: “Can be, but I only heard about it yesterday!”
In the articles of this special you’ll find more examples of cultural misunderstandings. Reading the articles is highly recommended.
