Culture and Immigration: When Tribes Need to Share Territory 

By Fernando Lanzer

 

Synopsis

Immigration is a contentious issue because it is linked to archetypical values and emotions at the roots of our tribal ancestry. This is something people enjoy discussing at a superficial level (are they in favor of or against immigration), but it is rather unpleasant to look at when you dive deeper into the underlying values of culture and discover that modern cultures are still driven by tribalism, prejudice, discrimination and racism. This happens across the whole political spectrum from extreme right to extreme left, from conservatives to progressives, and it is linked to Hofstede’s so-called “Fifth Dimension” as it was originally identified and described by Professor Michael Harris Bond. This paper will explore and attempt to explain what lies beneath the roots of cross-cultural misunderstandings, unconscious bias and racist hatred.

Key Words: Immigration, Discrimination, Racism, Culture Differences, Tribalism, Integration.

Introduction to Tribalism

Human beings are “beings in the world” (1) and they need to be analyzed and understood within the context that surrounds them. Part of that context is the fact that human beings are social: they interact with other human beings and form small groups that grow into tribes (2). When we look at different land animal species, we know that some tend to live more isolated, while others form packs and tribes. Humans certainly belong to the second category: we are a tribal species (3).

Human beings are also very mobile. From an evolutionary perspective, the first human tribes were nomads (some still are, to this very day) (4) that settled for a relatively short period in an area that offered food and shelter; then moved to another location when their needed resources had been depleted and exhausted (5).

Humans are also very territorial. Since pre-historic times, once they established themselves somewhere, the group or tribe claimed the territory around them as their own. They tended to treat other humans aggressively, especially when resources were scarce. If a nomad tribe encroached on another tribe’s territory, violent conflict ensued; and the result was typically that one of the tribes moved on, in search for unclaimed lands.

With the development of agriculture, humans became less nomadic and settled more permanently in a space that could provide them with food and shelter for longer periods of time: several generations, rather than a few seasons.

One of the consequences of this development was that tribes became even more protective of their territory and even more hostile toward newcomers (6).

Initially, the defining norm of collective identity was race: the members of a tribe shared some clearly evident physical characteristics such as their skin, height, eyes, and hair. We might say that early humans were racist in the sense that they valued their own tribe’s physical characteristics as being the defining aspects of group identity. They may or may not have considered their own race as being superior to other races, in the sense that we have modernly come to define as white supremacy or as Arian supremacy in the Nazi culture, but certainly, there was a tendency to reject those who looked “different from us” and to share resources only with members of our own tribe. If the newcomers came alone, they were probably not perceived as a threat; but if they came in numbers, it was very likely that they were rejected and driven away, using force whenever necessary.

Racism evolved into ethnicity, incorporating rituals, heroes and symbols as defining characteristics of tribal identity. Cultures began taking shape as a set of shared values that describe what is considered right and wrong for a group of people, defining what is acceptable behavior and what is rejected (7).

Tribalism (8) became the established social norm and a more stable form of culture developed, with greater emphasis on behavior, symbols and rituals.

From a personality development perspective, babies begin to form a rudimentary concept of self even before they complete their first year as human beings. Along with that concept comes the notion of what is right and wrong, an introjection of culture, if you will. Personal values (Freud’s Superego) (9), learned from a child’s cultural values environment, develop throughout infancy and onto adolescence and adulthood.

An adult person’s values are not only the product of culture, but rather are shaped through the interaction of an individual’s personality with the people around them. However, the influence of culture is undeniably very strong.

In the 21^st Century, we like to think of ourselves as civilized (10). And yet, tribalism persists as a strong influence on the behaviors of individuals, although that influence is often overlooked or minimized.

The irony is that modern human tribes have become more capable of moving practically anywhere on the planet in a matter of hours; but the rejection of newcomers by established tribes on a certain territory is just as strong (if not stronger) as it was 10,000 years ago.

In the past 100 years, after the horrors of two World Wars became widely known, genocide was acknowledged and officially rejected by our so-called civilized cultures. And yet in the 21^st Century, we still see genocide happening. Not only in so-called underdeveloped cultures in Africa, but also in Europe. It happens in the Russian-Ukrainian war, between ethnicities that have been in conflict for decades, and also in modern-day Brazil, where millions of so-called civilized people believe that indigenous peoples should be “eliminated” because they are standing in the way of progress.

Sadly, we see that we are not really as civilized as we would like to think. Tribalism and racism are behind all the discussions about immigration. The point is that this is nothing new; this is the lingering phenomenon of tribalism, still very intense among us, despite thousands of years of civilization.

Still crazy after 8,000 years

Diversity, the idea that we should not only tolerate but actually promote interactions with those who are different from us, in order to broaden our individual and collective repertoires of responses to an increasingly diverse and interconnected world, has expanded beyond race and ethnicity to include religion, gender, sexual preferences and age. This has happened basically because we have learned that the outright violent rejection of people who are different from us creates disruptive tensions that threaten the very concept of civilization. This rejection of what is different begs the question of just how civilized are we, after all. And whether we should allow societies to develop without planning or constraints, or we should take some kind of action to ensure that we avoid destroying our species due to our incompetence in managing the diversity and complexity of a world that we ourselves have created through the evolution of human history.

They say that the Dutch are very tolerant, except with their next-door neighbors. The thinking behind this statement applies not only to the Netherlands, but to all cultures.

The idea of tolerance to diverse behavior seems noble and appropriate when we are discussing it as a theoretical principle; yet when many people see a new next-door neighbor behaving in a way that they find offensive or threatening to their values, this triggers an aggressive response dating to many previous millennia.

These responses are also influenced by culture. People’s attitudes towards immigration have a link to prehistoric tribal times, but they are also shaped by the different kinds of cultural values that they have introjected as a component of their personalities. It may be useful to refer to Huib Wursten’s Mental Images (11) as a framework to describe the way discussions about immigration tend to happen in different parts of the world.

Immigration Reactions in Different Kinds of Cultures

Contest Cultures

Immigration issues in these cultures are, of course, characterized by confrontation. The United States of America was founded in 1776 inspired by Enlightenment values, born in France and disseminated throughout half the world. We need to realize that “the world” in the minds of the American “founding fathers” was not really as global as we see it 250 years later.

Therefore, the Enlightenment ideals of equality and liberty for all and fostering immigration were likely adopted in the new nation with an eye on welcoming the immigrants at the time coming to North America: basically the Scots and Irish who were persecuted by the English because of religious differences; the Dutch who had arrived even before most British nationals, accompanying the Puritans in the Mayflower, and who established the colony of New Amsterdam in Manhattan;  and many other Northern European nationals.

The policy of fostering immigration in order to occupy the vast territory of the North American continent continued into the 19^th Century, but by the early 20^th Century Jewish immigrants and those coming from Italy were already being discriminated against by those that had come generations earlier and considered that the United States was their country.  Suddenly, they were not so keen on sharing the land and its resources with newcomers who did not look so much like them, were clearly of different races and religions. The famous Emma Lazarus poem with the words “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” was only added to the Statue of Liberty in 1903, almost 20 years after the statue had been dedicated. The monument itself had not been designed as a welcoming symbol to immigrants arriving in New York; rather, it had been created to celebrate the end of slavery. The link to immigration came only through the later added poem, and immigration was already a contentious issue.

“According to Alan Kraut, a professor of history at American University, language restricting immigration for those likely to become a public charge appeared in U.S. legislation as early as 1891, and throughout its history, the United States has courted immigrants but simultaneously ‘repelled them and was very not welcoming to [them] when they arrived.’” (12).

Racist discrimination as a radical form of tribalism was already evident in the genocide of indigenous American peoples and in the treatment of enslaved people from Africa. Flash forward to the 21^st Century and we see a divided Contest Culture in the United States. Half the country supports Trump. They want their country back and they want to make America great again. This basically means going back to a time when they felt that the country belonged to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP’s) who shared similar cultural values and rejected those who did not espouse the same ideals.

The US became a “mosaic” rather than a melting pot. Immigrants (mostly European, but also Mexican) were accepted to some extent as long as they behaved like WASP’s. Those who didn’t, formed ghettos where they continued to cultivate their home customs and language. The Contest Culture mentality of confrontation, expressed as “you are either with us, or against us,” supported the formation of the mosaic society.

After World War II and the Korean War, immigrants from Asia and Latin America (not just Mexico) began flowing to the United States in increasing numbers. Many were attracted by the universities, that had been fostered by a public policy to re-occupy the millions of soldiers and factory workers previously dedicated to the WW II effort. The investment in universities ended up benefiting not only Americans, but millions of immigrants who came to study. Most of them returned to their home countries, but many stayed and settled as qualified immigrants.

This “assimilation or rejection” of immigrants followed a similar process also in Canada, the UK and Australia, although it is more clearly seen in the US, while the other Contest Cultures have shown a better track record of integrating immigrants. The US still sports “Little Italy’s” and “Chinatowns” of several other cultures as enclaves of foreign societies in many American cities, plus the notion of “hyphenated Americans” to identify those who are not totally American, but rather Asian-American, African-American, etc.

This has supported the notion of “a multi-cultural society”, as a mosaic society in which many different cultures co-exist, each with a separate identity, in contrast to, for instance,  the Brazilian society (a Social Pyramid) where one finds a “blended culture” where immigrants have mixed and shaped an integrated new culture, rather than maintained segregated ghettos.

This striking difference might be linked to a significant difference in the scores of Hofstede’s so-called “Fifth Dimension.” This dimension was first identified by Michael Harris Bond (13) through a research study designed by students of Psychology in China and named Confucian Dynamism. It referred to three complementary aspects, mentioned as polarities from the lowest to the highest scores: short-term versus long-term orientation; strict discipline versus flexibility; and normativism versus relativism in the application of norms (both formal and informal ones).

The initial label was soon abandoned in pursuit of one that would be more intuitive to Western audiences. Long-Term Pragmatism (LTP) was used, later changed to Long-Term Orientation (LTO). However, the name has been challenged because the dimension does not refer only to time, but perhaps more intensely to how social norms are applied in different situations. A low score describes cultures in which social norms are regarded more strictly and a greater emphasis is applied towards observing such norms. Those who fail to do so are strongly criticized. On the opposite end we see cultures in which many truths co-exist, and the application of social norms is highly dependent on the situation. Everything is relative as it depends very much on the people involved, their perceived degree of authority, their relationships with each other and with the beholders, and the consequences that may occur from the application of said social norms.

In my professional work as a consultant, I have referred to this dimension as Flexibility, which I considered a more appropriate label compared to LTO. Some recent discussions with colleagues have led me to believe that perhaps using the label “Relativism” might be more adequate. The discussion is still open regarding the label.

In the United States, the so-called Normativism of social norms has reinforced the confrontation between those who observe them and those who do not. This has led to the “politically correct” movement of the 1980s and later to the “cancel culture” that ostracizes those who violate social norms as defined by progressives. The non-observation of social norms, whether they are conservative or progressive, is not tolerated; there is little room left for flexibility. This has helped to maintain immigrants segregated unless they completely convert to observing local social norms.

By contrast, Brazil scores high in the Fifth dimension. There is definitely greater flexibility and relativism in comparison to the United States and other Contest Cultures. Brazilian culture is flexible and relativist to a fault. This has also been a factor in integrating immigrants into the blend that Brazil has become over time.

As global mobility increased and birth rates decreased in Contest Cultures, immigration became an economic necessity to keep GDP growth going. However, this increase in migrant flow sparked a backlash from the established culture against the newcomers. True to its confrontational nature, Contest Cultures have emphasized “the clash of civilizations” and the so-named “culture wars” in political campaigns since the late 1960’s. This has sometimes been framed as a conflict between urban and rural, or as conservative versus progressive, but it is also about being more open towards immigration and cross-cultural integration, versus being less receptive to it.

This has been more dramatically demonstrated in the United States, where, as David Brooks has said “America, long a white-dominated nation, is becoming a much more diverse country, a change that has millions of white Americans in a panic” (14). Similar patterns, arguably less intense, may be observed in other Contest Cultures. The outcome of these clashes remains to be seen, since in such societies the expectation tends to be that there must be winners and losers, rather than consensus or compromise. In the long run, by the end of the 21^st Century, we may see that the demographics have changed so much, that the very fabric of Contest Cultures might no longer be described as such; perhaps a new category of culture will emerge.

Well-oiled Machine Cultures

These cultures are dominated by the need for order, obtained through the disciplined execution of carefully designed planning. Immigration is tolerated as a means to an end: organized economic growth and the pursuit of excellence.

As long as immigrants follow procedures and achieve the expected performance according to the rules, they are accepted. Yes, there is segregation and ghettos abound. However, perhaps because of the lingering shame and guilt caused by Nazism and the Holocaust, discrimination is minimized and subdued when compared to America. It is not expressed as openly as one can observe in the United States, and there is also a clear rational argument in favor of immigration to fulfill the need for labor, notably in Germany.

Therefore, the dominantly rational mindset of Well-oiled Machine Cultures tends to sweep the culture clashes under the rug and try to ignore the Asian and African elephants in the room. (Did you know that there are Turkish elephants? Well, in Germany there are!).

At the same time, resistance to immigration has grown in recent years with the rise of social media outlets that enable the semi-anonymous expression of discriminatory opinions. Yet this trend is mitigated by the evident economic need to provide labor for jobs that would remain unfulfilled without significant numbers of immigrants.

Normativism and discipline as measured by the Fifth Dimension are prevalent in WOM cultures. They are well-known for not accepting exceptions to social norms.

True to their underlying values, Well-oiled Machine Cultures seek a form of structuring that would allow for maintaining order in a multicultural society. They show less open confrontation and conflict when compared to Contest Cultures, all with the purpose of not disturbing the peace. The long-term changes in demographics may cause an impact on culture, but it is likely that this will continue to be overridden by a need to maintain order and subdue the open expression of conflict, since the incoming immigrants tend to be mostly from Social Pyramid Cultures that emphasize the avoidance of open confrontation.

Network Cultures 

In these cultures, there tends to be greater tolerance of diversity and an attitude of seeking ways of negotiating a peaceful co-existence and more integration rather than assimilation. Yes, there are some sections of society that openly express an “assimilate our values or leave” opinion, but they have so far been represented by a clear minority of voters.

The underlying values of recognizing differences and allowing universal expression, while simultaneously seeking consensus in quite pragmatic forms, have allowed greater integration. Discrimination and segregation do exist in these societies, but they are much more subtle than what one can see in Contest Cultures. Confrontation occurs as the initial portion of a process towards achieving consensus, rather than determining winners and losers. This makes a difference in terms of the ability to co-exist in peace.

The role of Hofstede’s Fifth Dimension (Relativism) is also apparent especially in the Netherlands, in that it scores slightly higher, therefore more flexible, than its neighbors. Exceptions depending on situations do exist in Network Cultures, certainly more than in WOM cultures, though they are still found much less often than in Brazil or in China, by comparison.

Therefore, one can also see that Network Cultures, notably the Netherlands, allow themselves to be influenced, even though it might happen without people being clearly aware of it. It is peculiar, for instance, to see how foreign visitors to the Netherlands are often taken to “enjoy a typical Dutch meal at a restaurant,” only to find themselves at an Indonesian establishment. It seems that the combination of high Individualism, low Power Distance and low Masculinity has enabled a less conflicted (by comparison) integration process than in Contest Culture. Concrete efforts have been made by policymakers to integrate immigrants into Network Cultures. The likely outcome, in the long run, is that this will result in a culture that maintains the underlying values of respecting and tolerating differences while seeking practical ways of living together. On the surface we may see differences in terms of rituals, heroes and symbols, which are likely to become more diverse than in the recent past and present; yet the persisting underlying values will probably allow scholars to continue to describe Network Cultures as such, well into the 22^nd Century.

Solar System Cultures

Immigration into Solar System Cultures is subject to the typical tensions of those societies between high Power Distance and simultaneously high Individualism. Immigrants coming from hierarchical cultures can immediately recognize and easily adapt to the authority-respecting attitudes found in France, Spain and Italy, for instance. However, that feeling of familiarity is quickly thrown off when Collectivists encounter Individualism. The direct communication and free expression of dissident opinions regardless of group harmony can be confusing.

A feeling of cognitive dissonance may ensue, especially considering that Solar System Cultures score low in the Fifth Dimension. Therefore, they support quite normative attitudes often enforced by incumbents of positions of authority. Yet there is freedom to express dissenting opinions that could potentially challenge those authority figures. This tension that is a defining characteristic of Solar System Cultures can be quite confusing for immigrants and newcomers arriving from abroad.

In terms of immigration issues, Poland has a different status from its peers, since it has been a net exporter of labor for several decades. France, on the other hand, has for decades received many immigrants from its former colonies in Africa and Asia, as has Belgium, and Spain regarding its colonies in Latin America. The rejection of “foreign tribes” coming into France has been somewhat mitigated by the strict separation of Religion and State, a cornerstone of French governance that contrasts with Spain and Italy, for instance, dating from the French Revolution and the very birth of Enlightenment ideals before that.

Traditional Family Cultures

These are mostly Asian cultures that have been historically net exporters of population. They basically do not have “an immigration problem” in the sense of the previously listed types of culture, but rather the opposite: they have “brain drain” issues because often it is the better qualified and most entrepreneurial among their population who decide to migrate in search of better conditions to thrive as professionals. They are not threatened by “the invasion of foreign tribes”, but rather they try to reduce the exportation of qualified people that might result in harming their own economic development.

And their migrant populations face adaptation issues, rejection and discrimination when they arrive abroad, no matter how well-performing and qualified they might be. Their challenge is to balance how much of their identity will they be required to forsake in order to convert to the values of the host country, and how much will they be allowed to keep.

The home culture values of immigrants play an important role in the assimilation-rejection-integration dynamic. Those coming from low-scoring cultures in the Fifth Dimension tend to show more difficulty in adapting, since they were brought up to be less flexible and less relativistic. If their home cultures are more flexible and relativistic, they will usually find it easier to adapt.

Immigrants arriving from collectivistic societies (most African, Asian, Latin American and Eastern European cultures) into individualistic cultures in Australia, North America and Northern Europe may find the locals colder and more aloof than what they were used to; yet they usually are more capable of adapting since they were brought up to be more aware of the psychological atmosphere of groups and communities that they join, and to adapt accordingly. They might not like what they find, initially; but they are culturally well-equipped to “read between the lines” and deal with different social norms. Their adaptation will depend more on their flexibility (how to react) than on their awareness of the social environment in the host culture.

Social Pyramid Cultures

These form the majority of the existing cultures on the planet, though not the majority of the planet’s population since the latter figures are tilted towards Traditional Family Cultures by China and India. They include most countries from Eastern Europe, Africa and Latin America, and also some Asian nations such as Iran, Pakistan, Thailand and South Korea.

Most Social Pyramid Cultures have always been net exporters of their population. Even Brazil, known as “a nation of immigrants”, somewhat like the United States, has recently become a net exporter, thanks to a deteriorating economy and the greater ease in traveling to the US and Europe, whether settling down abroad legally or as undocumented aliens. Official figures mention 4.2 million Brazilians living abroad, but the estimated figures of undocumented migrants are 50% more, so that the total hovers around just above 6 million, or 3% of the population residing in the country.

Historically, Brazil was a net receiver of immigrants, mostly coming from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. In the past twenty years, this has changed: immigration from other South American nations has increased, while immigrants from Europe are now very few. The drivers of immigration everywhere have always been about people seeking a better life. When poverty was significant in countries like Ireland, Spain and Italy, people from these countries moved to North and South America seeking better opportunities. Similarly, people from Syria and Lebanon, India and Pakistan, and many other nations with economic difficulties turned to the New World to restart their lives. In the 21^st Century, immigration flows have changed according to the economic changes in the world. Nowadays there are fewer immigrants from Ireland, Spain and Italy; and the latter two have been on the receiving end of flows coming from Africa and the Middle East.

In cultural terms, it is easier to adapt when you move from a Social Pyramid Culture to another of the same type. Even though there are always significant differences between countries of the same category, people can manage them more easily than when they need to move to a host culture belonging to a different category.

On the receiving end there is always “the threat of foreign tribes invading us” and bringing different customs that might be perceived as a threat to the host country’s identity. Challenges to national identity tend to elicit very emotional responses, often exaggerated and sometimes even violent. In 2023 most Brazilians are proud of having millions of Japanese descendants living in an integrated way all over the country. Few of these proud Brazilians are aware of the fact that their very own grandparents may have been among the crowds who threw stones at the first Japanese immigrants who disembarked in Santos in 1908. There were protests on the streets against the immigrants, who were perceived as privileged because they were entitled to a small plot of land to farm, while many natives were homeless and unemployed. Still, as time went by, Brazilian Collectivism and Relativism enabled the integration of the Japanese and of all immigrants, in spite of initial displays of discrimination, prejudice and racism.

All Social Pyramid Cultures have racism, prejudice and discrimination. After all, Collectivism is also described as “Groupism”, in the sense of linking your identity to certain groups that you belong to, and conflicts among groups tend to be frequent in such societies. However, Power Distance seems to be often a bigger issue than actually race or religion. The social elite discriminates against the lower classes based on economic status more than anything. Yes, there is racism and religion-based prejudice. But in egalitarian cultures race and religion tend to play a more prominent role in regard to prejudice, since Power Distance is less of an issue (or not an issue at all). In Social Pyramid Cultures, Power Distance tends to take the forefront of social conflicts, and this applies also to immigration.

Therefore, immigrants who are rich and/or qualified enjoy a higher social status and are more easily accepted. Those who have less wealth and qualifications are more often discriminated against, regardless of race and religion.

Japan

The Japanese culture does not fit into any of Huib Wursten’s culture clusters but rather has a unique combination of values that sets it apart, notably very high scores in Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance.

Japan has always been a net exporter of population, basically because it has a scarcity of territory compared to its number of inhabitants. The problem in Japan has not been immigration, but rather the need to send people away in order to provide them with better conditions to live. There is also the matter of evasion of talent: if you have an overpopulation problem, it would be preferable to keep your most qualified workers and send off those with fewer qualifications. However, most often than not, this is an individual’s decision and not one that can necessarily be easily influenced by government policies.

Japan does not get a lot of immigrants because it basically does not need any. There are small expat communities of qualified professionals linked to multinational companies, but that’s it. There is an outgoing flow of people seeking opportunities abroad, especially in sectors where there is segmented unemployment. Coming from a culture that highly values performance, dedication and the avoidance of uncertainty, usually helps the Japanese to find jobs and professional occupations where they can be accepted.

Immigrants as more effective contributors to society

Historically speaking, immigrants have always contributed quite positively to their host countries’ economies. Research conducted by Management Systems International (15) has also demonstrated that people who leave their hometown have twice as much probability of success as entrepreneurs than people who open a business without ever leaving the place where they were born and raised. It is logical to assume that having the courage and resilience to move abroad can only increase this success probability even more.

The issue, of course, will always be the degree of acceptance by the host culture, and the degree of adaptation capability (and willingness) of the immigrants. Knowing more about cultural characteristics will help policymakers and all parties involved to better navigate the issues of tribalism that tend to erupt when different tribes need to share the same territories.

Immigrant integration cannot be forced, and policymakers should not try. However, they should also not ignore the issues and wash their hands as modern versions of Pontius Pilate. Immigration must be managed through education and promoted (not forced) socialization. In the long term, immigration works. But it can happen with less attrition when it is managed intelligently.

BIO: Fernando Lanzer Pereira de Souza, BA                                           

Dutch, born in Brazil, Fernando graduated as a Psychologist and has enjoyed a career alternating between positions as a Chief HR Officer and as an independent management consultant.

He is the author of the books “Take Off Your Glasses” (2012), “The Meaning Tree” (2015), “Bedtime Stories for Corporate Executives” (2015),  “Trust Me” (with Reynold Chandansingh, 2016),  “Leading Across Cultures in Practice (2017), and “Organizational Culture and Climate” (2018), in addition to many published articles. 

Bibliography

1. Heidegger, Martin – Being and Time – Harper & Row, New York, 1962.
2. Harari, Yuvel Noah – Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind – Harper, New York, 2015.
3. Finuras, Paulo – Human Affairs: Evolution and Behavior – Sílabo, Lisbon, 2021.
4. Nelson, Jimmy – Before They Pass Away – teNeues, 2013.
5. Blainey, Geoffrey – A Short History of the World – Ivan R. Dee, London, 2003.
6. Blainey, Geoffrey – op. cit.
7. Odnanrev, Reznal – Concepts of Culture – White paper presented at the 14^th Global Forum on Executive Development, Shanghai,
8. Cambridge Dictionary: A tribe is agroup of people, often of related families, who live together, sharing the same language, culture, and history, especially those who do not live in towns or cities.
9. Freud, Sigmund – The Interpretation of Dreams, New York: Avon Books, 1965.
10. Harari, Yuval Noah – Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow – Vintage Digital, 2016.
11. Wursten Huib (2019) The 7Mental Images of National Culture. Leading and Managing in a globalized World. AMAZON Books ISBN: 9781687633347

In this book Culture clusters are proposed with different “rules of the game”. See below:

12. Zaru, Dena – The story behind “The New Colossus’ poem on the Statue of Liberty and how it became a symbol of immigration. go.com.
13. Bond, Michael Harris – The Social Psychology of the Chinese People – Oxford University Press, 1986
14. Brooks, David – How America Got Mean – The Atlantic Magazine, September Issue, 2023.
15. UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development- Empretec Trainer’s Manual – UN, Geneva, 2015.