CULTURE

Culture is the centre of society and without culture no society can even exist. It is the main
difference between human being and animal. It is a heritage transmitted from one generation
to another generation. It includes all the way and behaviour of culture. Culture is the entire way
of life for a group of people.

Culture is a term that refers to a large and diverse set of mostly intangible aspects of social life.
According to sociologists, culture consists of the values, beliefs, systems of language,
communication, and practices that people share in common and that can be used to define them
as a collective. Culture also includes the material objects that are common to that group or
society. Culture is distinct from social structure and economic aspects of society, but it is
connected to them—both continuously informing them and being informed by them.

How Sociologists Define Culture

Culture is one of the most important concepts within sociology because sociologists recognize
that it plays a crucial role in our social lives. It is important for shaping social relationships,
maintaining and challenging social order, determining how we make sense of the world and
our place in it, and in shaping our everyday actions and experiences in society. It is composed
of both non-material and material things.

In brief, sociologists define the non-material aspects of culture as the values and beliefs,
language, communication, and practices that are shared in common by a group of people.
Expanding on these categories, culture is made up of our knowledge, common sense,
assumptions, and expectations. It is also the rules, norms, laws, and morals that govern society;
the words we use as well as how we speak and write them (what sociologists call "discourse");
and the symbols we use to express meaning, ideas, and concepts (like traffic signs and emojis,
for example). Culture is also what we do and how we behave and perform (for example, theater
and dance). It informs and is encapsulated in how we walk, sit, carry our bodies, and interact
with others; how we behave depending on the place, time, and "audience;" and how we express
identities of race, class, gender, and sexuality, among others. Culture also includes the
collective practices we participate in, such as religious ceremonies, the celebration of secular
holidays, and attending sporting events.
Material culture is composed of the things that humans make and use. This aspect of culture
includes a wide variety of things, from buildings, technological gadgets, and clothing, to film,
music, literature, and art, among others. Aspects of material culture are more commonly
referred to as cultural products.

Sociologists see the two sides of culture—the material and non-material—as intimately
connected. Material culture emerges from and is shaped by the non-material aspects of culture.
In other words, what we value, believe, and know (and what we do together in everyday life)
influences the things that we make. But it is not a one-way relationship between material and
non-material culture. Material culture can also influence the non-material aspects of culture.
For example, a powerful documentary film (an aspect of material culture) might change
people’s attitudes and beliefs (i.e. non-material culture). This is why cultural products tend to
follow patterns. What has come before in terms of music, film, television, and art, for example,
influences the values, beliefs, and expectations of those who interact with them, which then, in
turn, influence the creation of additional cultural products.

Why Culture Matters to Sociologists

Culture is important to sociologists because it plays a significant and important role in the
production of social order. The social order refers to the stability of society based on the
collective agreement to rules and norms that allow us to cooperate, function as a society, and
live together (ideally) in peace and harmony. For sociologists, there are both good and bad
aspects of social order.

Rooted in the theory of classical French sociologist Émile Durkheim, both material and non-
material aspects of culture are valuable in that they hold society together. The values, beliefs,
morals, communication, and practices that we share in common provide us with a shared sense
of purpose and a valuable collective identity. Durkheim revealed through his research that
when people come together to participate in rituals, they reaffirm the culture they hold in
common, and in doing so, strengthen the social ties that bind them together. Today, sociologists
see this important social phenomenon happening not only in religious rituals and celebrations
like (some) weddings and the Indian festival of Holi but also in secular ones—such as high
school dances and widely-attended, televised sporting events (for example, the Super Bowl and
March Madness).

Famous Prussian social theorist and activist Karl Marx established the critical approach to
culture in the social sciences. According to Marx, it is in the realm of non-material culture that
a minority is able to maintain unjust power over the majority. He reasoned that subscribing to
mainstream values, norms, and beliefs keep people invested in unequal social systems that do
not work in their best interests, but rather, benefit the powerful minority. Sociologists today
see Marx's theory in action in the way that most people in capitalist societies buy into the belief
that success comes from hard work and dedication, and that anyone can live a good life if they
do these things—despite the reality that a job which pays a living wage is increasingly hard to
come by.1

Both theorists were right about the role that culture plays in society, but neither
was exclusively right. Culture can be a force for oppression and domination, but it can also be
a force for creativity, resistance, and liberation. It is also a deeply important aspect of human
social life and social organization. Without it, we would not have relationships or society

Some important definition of culture

1. Robert Bierstedt: culture is the complex whole that consist of everything we think and do
and have as a member of society.

2. Edward B Tylor: culture as that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art,
morals, law, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of
society.

3. Malinowski: culture is the handwork of man and medium through which he achieves his
ends.

4. C.C North: culture consist in the instruments constituted by men assist him in satisfying his
wants.

• Culture is learned behaviour: Culture is not inherited biologically but it is learnt socially
by a man in a society.
• It is not an inborn tendency but acquired by man from the association of other, e.g.
drinking, eating, dressing, walking, behaving, reading are all learnt by man.
• Culture is transmitted: Culture is capable of transmitted from one generation to next.
Parents pass on culture traits to their children and they in turn to their children and so
 on. Culture is transmitted not through genes but by means of language. Language is
the main vehicle of culture
• Culture gratifying: Culture provides proper opportunities and prescribes means for the
satisfaction of our needs and desires. These needs may be biological or social in nature
but it is responsible for satisfy it. Our need for food, shelter and clothing and desires
are status, fame, money etc. are all for the examples which fulfilled according to the
cultural ways
• Culture varies from society to society: Every society has its own culture and way of
behaving. It is not uniform. Every culture is unique in itself is a specific society. For
example values, customs, tradition, religion, belief are not uniform everywhere.
• Culture is continuous and cumulative: Culture exists as a continuous process. Culture
is the memory of human race. Culture is not a matter of month or year. It is continuous
process and adding new cultural traits
• Culture is dynamic: It remains changing but not static. Cultural process undergoes
changes but with different speed from society to society and generation to generation.

A number of sociologists have classified the culture in two types. There are two types of
culture.

1. Material culture

2. Non material culture

• Material culture – It consist of manmade object such as tools, furniture, automobile,

building, road, and in fact the physical substance which has been changed and used by
man. It includes our bank, parliaments, currency systems etc. it is referred to as
civilisation
• Non material culture –The term culture when used in the ordinary sense means non
material culture. It is something internal. Non material culture consist of the words the
people use or the language they speak the belief they hold habit they follows rituals
and practices that they do and the ceremonies they observe. It also includes our way of
acting, feeling and thinking.

According to H. M Johnson, The main elements of culture are:

a. Cognitive Elements
b. Beliefs
 c. Values
d. Symbols
e. Language

1. Cognitive Elements - culture of all societies whether pre-literate or literate include a vast
amount of knowledge about the physical and social world. The possession of this knowledge
is referred to as the cognitive elements.

2. Beliefs - Every sect within a culture having some beliefs for cultural refuge. These beliefs
are responsible for the spiritual fulfilment of needs and wants. Beliefs in empirical terms are
neither true nor false for example- Sikh wear bangle in one hand, keeping a dagger. The water
of Ganga is sacred for Hindus.

3.Values and norms – Values may be defined as measures of goodness or desirability.

Anything getting importance in our daily life becomes our values. The origin of values is not
biological but it is social production while living in society and values develop.

4. Symbols- Culture is system of symbols. Symbols are anything used to represent express
and stand for and event situation. Sign direct to guide our behaviour. It is used to show an event
of past, present or future. A number of invented or artificial symbols are used in social life
which assumes importance. Bowing head, whistling, winkling of eyes situation all are the
symbols, which express a specific object idea about other. Example flag, anthem, picture,
statues are symbols

5. Language- A group of words or ideas having common meaning and is shared to a social
situation Is called language. Language is the entrance to a culture. Language is a source of
communication and to transmit message from one person to another. Language differs from
culture to culture. Language is like vehicle through which we can carry out our complex social
activities

CULTURAL LAG

The concept of cultural lag was first introduced by William F. Ogburn in the study of social
change. Ogburn has divided culture into two parts namely- material and non-material culture.
By material culture means, civilisation which includes tools, utensil, machines, science, means
of transport and technology. By non-material culture means just ‘Culture’ in its ordinary sense
which includes beliefs,

practices, customs, tradition, moral, values and institution like family, religion, education etc.

Cultural lag according to Ogburn refers to the imbalance in the rate and speed of change
between

these two parts of culture. Changes are quick to take place in the material culture. These in turn
stimulate changes in the non-material culture. But the nonmaterial culture may be slow to
respond giving rise to a gap or a lag between the material and non-material

culture. This lag is called cultural lag. For example a good number of Indians have adopted
western technology but they have not changes their traditional beliefs, customs etc.

CULTURE OF PAKISTAN

The culture of Pakistan is a diverse and rich blend of various regional and ethnic sub-cultures
that have evolved over centuries. Pakistan's culture is influenced by the country's geography,
history, religion, and social customs.

1. Language: Urdu is the national language of Pakistan, but there are many other regional
languages, such as Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, Pashto, and Saraiki, spoken throughout the
country.

2. Religion: The majority of the population in Pakistan is Muslim, and Islam has a
significant influence on the country's culture and traditions.

3. Food: Pakistani cuisine is a blend of South Asian and Middle Eastern influences. Some
popular dishes include biryani, kebabs, curries, and tandoori bread.

4. Music: Pakistani music is diverse, and different regions of the country have their unique
musical traditions. Qawwali, ghazals, and folk music are popular genres.

5. Clothing: Traditional Pakistani clothing varies depending on the region and ethnic
group. Men often wear shalwar kameez, while women wear a variety of traditional
clothing, including sarees, lehengas, and shalwar kameez.

6. Arts and Crafts: Pakistani culture is rich in arts and crafts, such as embroidery, pottery,
and rug-making.
 7. Festivals: Pakistan celebrates a variety of festivals, such as Eid-ul-Fitr, Eid-ul-Adha,
and Basant, which mark important religious and cultural events.

In conclusion, Pakistani culture is a diverse and colorful mix of various regional and ethnic
traditions, reflecting the country's rich history and unique geography.

The sociological culture of Pakistan refers to the social norms, values, beliefs, and practices
that exist in Pakistani society. These cultural aspects shape the way people interact with each
other and contribute to the social structure of the country.

1. Family: The family is an essential part of Pakistani society, and it is often regarded as
the primary unit of social organization. Extended families are common, and family
members are expected to support and care for each other.

2. Gender roles: Gender roles are strongly defined in Pakistani society, and there is a clear
division of labor between men and women. Men are expected to be the primary
breadwinners, while women are responsible for domestic duties and childcare.

3. Religion: Islam plays a central role in Pakistani society, and it influences many aspects
of social life, including education, politics, and personal relationships.

4. Hierarchy: Pakistani society is hierarchical, with social status determined by factors

such as family background, education, and occupation. Respect for elders and those in
authority is highly valued.

5. Hospitality: Hospitality is an important cultural norm in Pakistan. Guests are often

treated with great warmth and generosity, and it is considered impolite to refuse an offer
of food or drink.

6. Education: Education is highly valued in Pakistani culture, and it is seen as a means of

social mobility and improving one's social status.

7. Honor: The concept of honor is deeply ingrained in Pakistani culture, and it is closely
tied to family reputation. Honor killings, in which family members kill a relative who
is seen to have brought shame upon the family, continue to be a problem in some parts
of the country.

Culture plays a vital role in shaping the identity of a society and Pakistan is no exception. The
Pakistani culture is a blend of various sub-cultures that have evolved over centuries. The
importance of culture for Pakistani society can be understood in the following ways:
 1. Sense of Identity: Culture provides a sense of identity and belonging to the people of
Pakistan. It helps them to connect with their roots and understand their history.

2. Social Cohesion: Culture is a binding force that brings people together. It helps to foster
social cohesion and harmony among different communities and ethnic groups in
Pakistan.

3. Artistic Expression: Pakistani culture is rich in art, music, literature, and other forms of
creative expression. These cultural expressions not only provide entertainment but also
serve as a means of communication and self-expression.

4. Preservation of Heritage: Culture helps to preserve the heritage of Pakistan. It ensures

that the traditions, customs, and beliefs of the past are passed down to future
generations.

5. Economic Development: Culture also plays a significant role in the economic

development of Pakistan. The country's rich cultural heritage attracts tourists and
contributes to the growth of the tourism industry.

In conclusion, culture is of immense importance to Pakistani society. It serves as a source of

identity, social cohesion, artistic expression, heritage preservation, and economic development.
Therefore, it is essential to preserve and promote Pakistani culture to ensure a prosperous and
culturally-rich future for the country.
1
THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE

T his treatise on the study of cross-cultural differences between mod-

ern societies starts with an examination of the various ways in
which culture has been conceptualized. Approaches to the concept and
study of culture have varied between academic disciplines, and some-
times even within them. The goal of this analysis is not to provide one
right perspective. Culture can be whatever a scholar decides it should be.
What we need is not a single best theoretical definition of culture but
clear empirical operationalizations of each approach: Researchers need
to explain exactly how they propose to measure culture in accordance
with their conceptualizations, diverse as they may be.

◆ 9
10 ◆ Understanding “Culture”

and analyze subjectively. Therefore, the

◆ 1.1. The “Unpackaging” best that we can do in a discussion of the
of Culture nature of culture is to explore the subjec-
tive conceptualizations of various schol-
ars. Then, we can discuss the contents of
Psychologists who compare individu-
the package labeled “culture” as they have
als from different nationalities or ethnic
been seen by cross-cultural experts.
groups often observe differences between
them on the dependent variables that they
study. In such cases, they may show that
various psychological variables, as well as ◆ 1.2. Meaning of the Word
age, gender, educational level, and more, Culture and Definitions of
produce a statistical effect that seems to the Concept
account for the differences. But what if
some of the variance remains unexplained?
In that case, it was common practice until The origin of the Latin word cultura is
recently to refer to an obscure residual clear. It is a derivative of the verb colo
called “culture.” Originally, the concept (infinitive colere), meaning “to tend,”
of culture seemed even more opaque to “to cultivate,” and “to till,” among other
researchers who compared organizations things (Tucker, 1931). It can take objects
in different countries. In the words of Child such as ager, hence agricultura, whose
(1981), “In effect, national differences literal meaning is “field tilling.” Another
found in characteristics of organizations possible object of the verb colo is animus
or their members have been ascribed to . . . (“character”). In that case, the expres-
national differences, period” (p. 304). sion would refer to the cultivation of the
To a cultural anthropologist, culture is human character. Consequently, the Latin
neither obscure, nor a residual. It is a social noun cultura can be associated with edu-
phenomenon that manifests itself quite cation and refinement.
clearly, even if the manifestations are not The etymological analysis of “culture”
always easy to explain. Anthropologists is quite uncontroversial. But in the field of
consider culture an important phenom- anthropology, the situation is much more
enon that warrants its own field of study. complex. Definitions of culture abound and
They do not view it as a single variable; range from very complex to very simple. For
being an extremely complex system, it is example, a complex definition was proposed
to be analyzed in terms of its components by Kroeber and Parsons (1958): “transmit-
and their relationships. Although cross- ted and created content and patterns of
cultural psychologists and organizational values, ideas, and other symbolic-meaningful
behavior experts accepted this logic rela- systems as factors in the shaping of human
tively late, by now they too have grasped behavior” (p. 583). An even less easily
the need to unpackage culture rather than comprehensible definition was provided by
approach it as a monolithic block.1 This White (1959/2007): “By culture we mean
chapter and the next prepare the reader an extrasomatic, temporal continuum of
for the third one, which represents an things and events dependent upon symbol-
unpackaging exercise. We must start with ing” (p. 3). Often cited is also a definition by
a philosophical warning at the very outset Kluckhohn (1951):
of our journey. We will not try to find
out what is in the package because that Culture consists in patterned ways of
would be futile. Culture is not a specific thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired
material object that has its own objec- and transmitted mainly by symbols,
tive existence. It is underpinned by real constituting the distinctive achievements
phenomena that, however, we perceive of human groups, including their
 The Concept of Culture ◆ 11

embodiments in artifacts; the essential the search for whatever ecological, socio-
core of culture consists of traditional logical and cultural variables might link
(i.e. historically derived and selected) with established variations in human
ideas and especially their attached val- behavior” (p. 154).
ues. (p. 86, no. 5) Segall’s call for pragmatism in cross-
cultural analysis is laudable. Theoretical
But that is not all. Geertz (1973) noted debates about the meaning that “should”
sarcastically that “in some twenty-seven be attributed to the concept of culture
pages of his chapter on the concept, are pointless. There is no absolute reason
Kluckhohn managed to define culture in why one abstract theoretical concept of it
turn as . . . [what follows is 11 differ- should be better than another. However,
ent definitions]; and turning, perhaps in disagreements have been voiced not only
desperation, to similes, as a map, as a with respect to abstract definitions of
sieve, and as a matrix” (p. 5). This lack culture but also concerning specific mat-
of clarity and consensus about anthro- ters, such as whether artifacts should or
pologists’ main object of study may be should not be considered part of culture
one of the reasons that, in the words of (see the debate between Jahoda, 1984,
Cochran and Harpending (2009), the social and Rohner, 1984). The answer to a ques-
sciences—and especially anthropology— tion of this kind can have practical conse-
“haven’t exactly covered themselves in quences: It may determine what should or
glory” (p. ix).2 It also explains why to many should not be studied for the purpose of a
researchers and practitioners, culture is dissertation on culture or be published in
“the c-word, mysterious, frightening and a journal devoted to culture.
to be avoided” (Berry, 1997, p. 144). Culture can be pragmatically defined by
Some have even denied the utility of the the contents and boundaries of the inter-
concept (Barber, 2008b). ests of the scholars who study it. Even bet-
At the other extreme is a well-known ter, we should look at what is in the focus
simple and narrow definition: Culture is of their interests. A culturologist may
shared mental software, “the collective study climatic differences (for instance,
programming of the mind that distinguishes van de Vliert, 2009), although climate is
the members of one group or category of unlikely to be viewed by anybody as part
people from another” (Hofstede, 2001). of culture. Yet, that researcher would not
The group or category can be a national be interested in climate per se, but in how
society but Hofstede believes that his defi- it affects variation in values, beliefs, and
nition applies also to other collectives, such behaviors, which could be considered ele-
as regions, ethnicities, occupations, orga- ments or expressions of culture.
nizations, or even age groups and genders. Defining the contents and boundaries
According to Jahoda (1984), “culture” of culture may also be necessary for the
is the most elusive term in the vocabulary purposes of clarity and avoidance of con-
of the social sciences and the number fusing statements. According to Jahoda
of books devoted to the topic would fill (1984), if culture is seen as including
many library shelves. A practical solu- behaviors, it is incorrect to say that culture
tion was proposed by Segall (1984), who causes behavior because that would be
believed that it was not worth the effort to a circular explanation. Likewise, Fischer
enhance the concept’s clarity or attempt to and Schwartz (2011) discuss the question
articulate a universally acceptable defini- of whether culture determines values. This
tion. In his view, cultural analysts should makes sense only if values are not viewed
abandon the struggle to conceptualize cul- as part of culture; otherwise the debate
ture. Instead, they should “turn to the real would be like the question of whether light
business at hand,” which is to “intensify produces photons.
12 ◆ Understanding “Culture”

Therefore, it might be useful that those per se, but only in specific context vari-
who present cultural analyses explain ables that can explain observed differences
how they conceptualize culture, specifying on some dependent variable” (p. 272), and
its contents and boundaries. This could “In the ideal study the set of context vari-
help avoid a situation described by Child ables will be chosen in such a way that the
(1981), who pointed out that there is a remaining effect for culture will be zero”
danger of inferring culture as a national (p. 272). This begs the question of what
phenomenon from virtually any contrasts variables can explain differences between
that emerge from a comparison of orga- groups of people but are not part of their
nizations in different countries: “Even if cultures.3
such contrasts are unambiguously national Some of the clearly external variables
in scope, they could possibly be due to with respect to culture—also known as
other non-cultural phenomena such as “exogenous” or “extraneous”—are cli-
national wealth, level of industrialization, mate, geographic location, and patho-
or even climate” (p. 328). gen prevalence. But what about national
A comment by Fischer (2009) illustrates wealth, main type of economy, or degree
another practical reason to define culture. of democracy? Are these cultural variables
In his view, if researchers do not focus or not? According to van de Vijver and
on the shared aspect of culture (see 2.1.), Leung (1997a), gross national product,
there is no need to investigate agreement educational systems, and even health care
among the members of a national culture institutions are culture-related variables
who provide information to a researcher. (p. 4). Is this position acceptable?
But if one adopts a definition of culture in Javidan and Houser (2004) describe
which sharedness is emphasized, such an two possible views: that a society’s wealth
investigation becomes necessary. should not be confused with its culture
Leung and van de Vijver (2008) dis- and that wealth is an integral part of
cuss two approaches to culture: holistic its culture. The position that we adopt
and causal. The first approach is taken may determine our research methodol-
by those who view culture as consisting ogy. If wealth is an extraneous variable, a
of inseparable phenomena that cannot researcher may decide to partial it out of
cause each other. Those who prefer the cultural measures using statistical tools. If
second approach may say that one cultural wealth is viewed as an integral part of cul-
characteristic shapes another. If this is so, ture, there is no need to control for it when
cultural researchers may need to explain cultural variables and the relationships
how they conceive of culture: holistically between them are measured. Thus, the
or causally. solution is a matter of subjective choice.
There are also other reasons for defin-
ing culture. Some methodologists working
in the domain of cross-cultural psychology ◆ 1.3. Culture As Is Versus
have treated culture as a variable resem- Culture As It Would Be
bling some kind of noise that needs to be
reduced or eliminated. Poortinga and van
de Vijver (1987) suggested a procedure for Further to the previous point, Schmitt,
explaining measured differences between Allik, McCrae, and Benet-Martinez (2007)
societies by introducing various relevant indicate that studies of Big Five personal-
variables, each of which explains part of the ity traits usually correct for age and gender
observed variance, until the effect of cul- differences. Hofstede (2001) reports raw
ture disappears: “The consequence of our dimension indices as well as indices after
argument is that a cross-cultural psycholo- correcting for age. Are such operations
gist is not interested in the variable culture logical?
 The Concept of Culture ◆ 13

In cross-cultural analysis, data that are terms of good versus bad or true versus
adjusted in this way are not more correct false. They simply reflect diverse perspec-
than raw data. They simply provide a dif- tives, all of which may have some merits.
ferent image of a particular culture: how it Cultural analysts should decide which
would look if certain conditions changed. perspective best suits the purpose of their
Imagine that we are comparing nation A research and explain it to their audiences.
and nation B on “thrift” as a value. We Singelis, Bond, Sharkey, and Lai (1999)
find that people in A value thrift more. described two types of culture: residing
However, we also find that people in A inside individuals and outside them. The
are older and that older people are thriftier first type is what Triandis (1972) called
in principle. If age is controlled for, the subjective culture or what Hofstede (2001)
thrift-related differences between the two referred to as software of the human mind:
nations disappear. What should our con- beliefs, values, and internalized interac-
clusion be? Should we categorize nation A tion patterns. The second type consists
as having a thriftier national culture? Or of the man-made environment and can
should we say that it exhibits the charac- include everything that people have cre-
teristics of age culture, not national cul- ated, including institutions and art.
ture, because if its members were younger Rohner (1984) discusses two other dis-
they would be more profligate? tinctions in the conceptualization of cul-
The answer depends on how we prefer ture. First, there is a contrast between
to view and compare cultures. We can culture as a system of behaviors versus
look at actual snapshots of them, reflect- culture as a set of meanings. Second, there
ing their real characteristics at a specific are scholars, called realists, who attribute
point in time. Alternatively, we can choose an independent existence to culture, versus
to work with hypothetical constructs: cul- others, called nominalists, who view it as a
tures as they would be under certain subjective human construct.
hypothetical conditions that may become Because these categories are not easy to
real some day. For instance, if two societ- grasp, they require special attention.
ies have different demographic structures
today, these differences might disappear
in the future. 1.4.1. SUBJECTIVE CULTURE:
The first approach is the easier solution. MENTAL SOFTWARE
The second may be attractive in some situ-
ations but it is less practical. Controlling Subjective culture is viewed as something
for various variables by means of statisti- invisible that resides in people’s minds.
cal tools does not guarantee that the statis- In his 1980 book, Geert Hofstede intro-
tically obtained situation depicts what we duced his metaphor of culture as mental
would observe in reality if culture A did programming or software of the mind.
not differ from culture B on the variable However, Hofstede (2001) noted that not
we have controlled for. all elements of collective mental program-
ming should be viewed as culture. For
instance, collective and individual identi-
ties may not be classifiable as cultural
◆ 1.4. Classifications of elements. They provide an answer to the
the Concepts of Culture question “Where do I belong” (p. 10) or
“Who/what are we?” and “Who/what
am I?” According to Hofstede (2001),
Concepts of culture can fall into a num- populations that share similar cultural
ber of different categories. These clas- values may sometimes fight each other if
sifications cannot be easily contrasted in they have adopted different identities. It
14 ◆ Understanding “Culture”

may also be useful to distinguish religious of the world that lie behind that behav-
denominations (and thus religious identi- ior on the other. To put it another way,
ties) from cultures. This point will be dis- culture is not observable behavior, but
cussed in 2.6.3. rather the values and beliefs that people
use to interpret experience and generate
behavior, and that is reflected in their
1.4.2. OBJECTIVE CULTURE: behavior. (p. 30)
INSTITUTIONS AND ARTIFACTS
Whether behaviors should or should
Objective culture can be conceptualized not be considered part of culture is of
as created by individuals and residing course a matter of abstract conceptual-
outside them. Art objects, clothing, work ization. On a more practical note, the
instruments, and residential constructions question is whether cross-cultural analysts
are examples of visible cultural artifacts who attempt to explain cultural differ-
that have an objective existence; these ences should compare behaviors, in addi-
are studied mainly by ethnographers. tion to whatever else they study, or not.
Institutions, such as marriage systems, The answer to this question can only be
and laws (including inheritance systems, positive.
taboos, etc.), and political or religious
bodies, are instances of invisible elements
of objective culture. Traditionally, these 1.4.4. CULTURE AS A SET OF
were studied mostly by anthropologists MEANINGS
and historians; today, political scientists
and sociologists are interested in the insti- American anthropologist Clifford Geertz
tutions of modern nations. is the best-known proponent of the
view that meanings are central to the
concept of culture (Geertz, 1973). This
1.4.3. CULTURE AS A SYSTEM OF reflects one of the main preoccupations
BEHAVIORS of Western field anthropologists in the
past: They had to make sense of the
According to Brown (1991), “culture incomprehensible symbols, rituals, and
consists of the conventional patterns of other practices in the preliterate and pre-
thought, activity, and artifact that are industrial societies that they studied. But
passed on from generation to generation” the meanings-based definition has been
(p. 40). Thus, if a society demonstrates a accepted by cross-cultural psychologists
recognizable pattern of activity, such as as well. Pepitone and Triandis (1987)
rice cultivation, that is part of its culture. define culture as “shared meanings that
Not all anthropologists agree with this are encoded into the norms that consti-
view, though. Murdock (1940) dissociated tute it” (p. 485).
behavior from the scope of culture, stating Taken to an extreme, this position may
that the former does not automatically severely reduce the perceived content and
follow the latter, “which is only one of scope of culture while also clashing with
its determinants” (p. 366). The following the idea of cross-cultural analysis: “Culture
statement by Haviland (1990) summarizes is treated as a symbolic universe of gestures
the views of many anthropologists: and their micro-interpretation within spe-
cific contexts, whereas the broader brush-
Recent definitions [of culture] tend to strokes of cross-cultural comparisons are
distinguish more clearly between actual suspect” (Liu et al., 2010, p. 452). Culture,
behavior on the one hand, and the as treated in the vast literature on it, is cer-
abstract values, beliefs, and perceptions tainly not just a system of meanings. Yet,
 The Concept of Culture ◆ 15

there are multiple reasons to be interested more right to employment than women
in the meanings that a particular culture (in Western countries, these percentages
attaches to a given concept or behavior. ranged from 14 to 20). Another nationally
One is purely academic. Without a good representative study by the Pew Research
understanding of meanings, a researcher Center (2010b) revealed that 82% of
may not know how to design a study. Let Egyptians and Pakistanis and 70% of
us assume that we are interested in com- Jordanians were in favor of stoning peo-
paring national suicide rates. What exactly ple who commit adultery, while 86% of
constitutes suicide? Jumping off the top Jordanians, 84% of Egyptians, and 76% of
of a skyscraper in an act of despair would Pakistanis supported the death penalty for
probably be viewed as suicide all over apostates who leave the Muslim religion.
the world. Yet, so-called suicide attacks Obviously, these populations have a very
are considered combat casualties by their different concept of democracy when com-
perpetrators. pared to Europeans and Americans.
There are also practical reasons to seek On the other hand, the explicit mean-
cultural meanings. According to Cheung ing that the members of a particular cul-
and Leung (1998), most Chinese score ture attach to a cultural phenomenon may
high on American depression scales. Yet, be too simplistic or superficial to be of
this does not necessarily mean that they much use for its understanding. Jews and
need clinical assistance. Endorsement of Muslims do not have a convincing story
items that suggest depression in a Western about the meaning of the pork taboo;
context does not always reveal the same they will either simply refer to their Holy
condition in China. Following this logic, Scriptures, which ban the consumption of
an American clinician who does not pork, or say that the pig is a dirty animal,
understand depression in a Chinese con- although chickens and cattle are not cleaner
text would not be very useful to Chinese (Harris, 1992). Cases of this kind raise an
patients, whereas cross-cultural analysts interesting dilemma. How do we make
would have trouble comparing the depres- sense of the observed phenomenon: Should
siveness of Americans and Chinese. we seek its original meaning or attempt to
Maseland and van Hoorn (2011) noted attach a new meaning to it in the modern
that according to various surveys, people context? If we adopt the first option, we
in predominantly Muslim countries value might accept Harris’s (1992) explanation:
democracy more than other people, yet Unlike grass-grazing animals, pigs were
their societies are less democratic. They costly to raise in the Middle East and were
attempted to explain this apparent para- therefore banned. But today, the meaning
dox in terms of the so-called principle of of the ban may be quite different: It can be
diminishing marginal utility: People value viewed as a means of instilling self-control
highly that of which they have little. But and discipline, similar to the practice of
an analysis of Muslim attitudes toward fasting, or as a group identity reinforcer.
democracy can be very misleading unless
it starts from what people in the Muslim
nations mean by democracy. According 1.4.5. CULTURE AS AN
to a nationally representative study by the INDEPENDENTLY EXISTING
Pew Research Center (2010a), the percent- PHENOMENON
ages of people who completely agree that
women should be allowed to work outside When cultural anthropologists say that
the home are 22 in Jordan, 22 in Egypt, culture has an independent existence,
and 47 in Pakistan. Also, 82% in Pakistan, what they mean is that it can be studied
75% in Egypt, and 68% in Jordan said independently of its carriers: the human
that when jobs are scarce, men should have beings. White (1959/2007) provides an
16 ◆ Understanding “Culture”

analogy with language: Linguists study to be completely bounded by the

languages, not the people that speak them. methods by which they are measured.
This conceptualization of culture is appro- This measurement philosophy, called
priate for the purpose of what many operationalism, was extremely influ-
anthropologists were interested in. They ential during the 1940s and the 1950s.
studied various social institutions, inheri- Operationalism was first proposed by
tance systems, kinship terminologies, color Bridgman . . . , a Nobel prize-winning
terms, taboos, and religions. The individ- physicist, but made famous in the social
ual did not matter in those studies. They sciences by B. F. Skinner and others.
were keyed at the supra-individual level. According to Bridgman, a construct
Today, the collection of individual val- is “nothing more than a set of opera-
ues, beliefs, attitudes, and even aspects of tions.” In other words, concepts such
personality, followed by aggregation to as intelligence, motivation, and even
the societal level, is a legitimate approach culture are synonymous with the way
in culturology, if not the main one. But that they are measured. For example,
the issue of the independence of culture Boring’s . . . definition of intelligence
is still relevant, albeit in a completely dif- (i.e. “intelligence is what tests test”) is
ferent sense. For many scholars, cultural a classic illustration of the belief that
or psychological constructs such as indi- constructs are bounded by the way they
vidualism, uncertainty avoidance, or neu- are measured. (p. 100)
roticism have an independent existence of
their own and can therefore be objectively The operationalist approach is
delineated and described in one single explained in greater detail in 5.4.1.
best way. Starting from this perspective,
the goal of the researcher is to discover
these objectively existing phenomena, just
like a seafarer who stumbles upon a new ◆ 1.5. Conclusions About
island. For example, Welzel (2010) refers the Conceptualization
to a debate on the “true character of indi- of Culture
vidualism” (p. 153). This implies that indi-
vidualism is an entity independent of the
minds of the researchers who study it and It is possible to integrate and reconcile
the goal of the researchers is to find its true some, though not all, of the above-men-
nature. One study of individualism is sup- tioned positions on the nature of culture
posed to reveal truer results than another.4 and its definitions. The scientific study of
culture should have a practical orientation
but this cannot be achieved without defin-
1.4.6. CULTURE AS A SUBJECTIVE ing culture; therefore discussions on the
HUMAN CONSTRUCT concept of culture are not quite useless.
The goal of such discussions should not
Two of the authors of the main prod- be to arrive at one right and commonly
uct of Project GLOBE (a comparison of accepted definition that will once and
the societal and organizational cultures for all lay the issue to rest. Rather, we
of 61 societies presented in 9.17. and should stay open to diverse conceptualiza-
9.18.) make the following point (House & tions of culture, provided they are clearly
Hanges, 2004): explained by their proponents and make
sense to others.
There are researchers and methodolo- Consequently, the question of whether
gists that hold a measurement philoso- culture is a system of behaviors, meanings,
phy in which constructs are believed mental characteristics, or artifacts, or of all
 The Concept of Culture ◆ 17

of these, cannot and need not be answered preferences, as well as a currently pre-
categorically. It can be conceptualized one dominant fashion or other social factors.
way or another. All approaches can lead One popular approach to the concep-
to useful results in cross-cultural analysis. tualization of culture is the onion meta-
“Culture” is a construct. In the words of phor (Hofstede, 2001). This is a simplified
Levitin (1973), a construct is “not directly didactic tool for beginners in the field. Like
accessible to observation but inferable from an onion, culture can be seen as having dif-
verbal statements and other behaviors and ferent layers: visible and invisible. At the
useful in predicting still other observable surface are various practices that can be
and measurable verbal and non-verbal observed and compared. At the core of the
behavior” (p. 492). A construct can also be onion is the mental software that people
thought of as a complex mental idea that are not fully aware of. It normally takes
reflects objectively existing phenomena. a significant scientific effort to extract the
There are many subjective ways of think- contents of that core and understand how
ing of and describing an objective reality. they relate to those of the outer layers.
Constructs are not the reality itself but At a more advanced level, culture could
imaginary models that we build in order to be viewed as an amalgamation of poten-
organize it in a way that makes sense to us tially related and relatively durable societal
and, we hope, to other people. characteristics that describe an identifiable
How culture is conceptualized and human population, such as a nation or
studied may depend on the constraining ethnic group. More restrictive definitions
effect of a researcher’s cultural back- are possible, yet impractical. For instance,
ground. This form of ethnocentrism has conceiving of culture as something shared
been recognized by authors of general by the members of a particular population
treatises on scientific inquiry (Kuhn, 1962; that distinguishes them from another popu-
Merton, 1949/1968), and cultural experts lation creates serious practical problems for
(Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991; Hofstede, researchers (see 2.1. and 2.6.1.). On the
1980, 2001; Hofstede, Hofstede, & other hand, analyses of national indicators
Minkov, 2010).5 Extreme forms of that are required by the reality of the world that
phenomenon are undesirable, but we have we live in, never mind that nations are not
to learn to live with moderate manifesta- homogeneous and discrete entities in terms
tions of it and accept the idea that there is of values, beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors (see
no culture-free social science just as there 2.6.1.). Ultimately, the concept of culture
is no absolutely unbiased journalism. Even may be replaced by the concept of “societal
the choice of a particular topic and the dis- indicators,” whereas the search for a precise
regard for another theme by a scholar or definition of what exactly culture is or is not
a journalist may suggest individual prefer- can be replaced by a search for useful indi-
ences that are associated with values. The cators for analysis in order to understand
fact that these investigators will present and explain practically important issues.
their own selection of stories, told in their
own manner, should be viewed as normal
as long as other voices are also allowed ■ Notes
to be heard. Which of these is the true or
real one is a meaningless question. It is like
asking whether a description of grief by a 1. In the early 1980s, Adler (1983) advised
Russian is more real than a description of against the treatment of culture as a residual
sorrow by an Arab. Thus, culture can be but stated that it could be viewed “as an inde-
construed in different ways, depending pendent or as a dependent variable” (p. 37). At
on a researcher’s cultural background, the turn of the 20th century, van de Vijver and
professional affiliation, or idiosyncratic Leung (1997a) had to inform their readers that
18 ◆ Understanding “Culture”

“culture is too global a concept to be meaning- (1996): “But those findings do not mean that
ful as an explanatory variable, however, and other factors, equally real and equally impor-
should be replaced by its constituents” (p. 3). tant, do not exist, be it in North American,
Singelis et al. (1999) noted that cross-cultural European, or other cultures. The problem is
studies in psychology had often been criticized that people have yet to provide a convincing
precisely because culture was treated as a search for those other factors. For a variety
single package, although it can be unraveled of reasons having to do not only with vari-
into numerous variables, any of which might able selection but also with the methodology
account for the observed differences between of factor analysis . . . , it is our belief that
the populations that a researcher has studied; the number five is probably a lower bound to
consequently, it is necessary to unpackage cul- the true number of factors at this level of the
ture. Almost a decade later, Leung (2008) still personality hierarchy” (p. 351, italics added).
deemed it necessary to give the same advice: The words real, exist, search, and true number
“In other words, researchers need to unpack- suggest that these authors see personality fac-
age culture into a set of elements.” (p. 60). tors as having an existence of their own and an
Treating culture as a single categorical unknown fixed number. These real factors are
variable (for instance, “American” versus lurking in the dark and waiting for researchers
“Japanese”) and using it as an explanation for to find them with appropriate search engines.
any phenomenon is as pointless and confusing 5. The following example can serve as an
as doing the same with other categorical vari- illustration. Schwartz and Sagiv (1995) demon-
ables, for instance, “man” versus “woman.” In strated that Schwartz’s value structure theory
fact, these are identification labels, not factors was essentially supported at the individual
that can cause anything. If one finds any differ- level throughout the countries from which
ence between a male population and a female Schwartz’s samples were drawn. However,
population on a variable of interest, such as Schwartz and Sagiv also published national
aggressiveness, ascribing the difference to being estimates of deviations from the hypothesized
“male” versus “female” does not elucidate structure. One such estimate—“deviations of
anything about the nature of that difference. value locations” (Table 2, p. 99) correlates
Differences in aggression are not produced with Hofstede’s individualism index as follows:
by different labels but by differences in genes,
teachers’ samples –.68** (n = 24)
hormones, patterns of upbringing, and so on.
students’ samples –.60** (n = 26)
Only studies of such characteristics, expressed
as numerical variables, can shed light on dif- (Note: Here and throughout the book, **
ferences in aggression or other phenomena stands for correlation significant at the .01
between individuals or groups. level; * stands for correlation significant at the
2. The low status of the social sciences .05 level.)
was noted also by Magala (2005). GLOBE’s in-group collectivism index (see
3. In his treatise on cross-cultural analy- 9.17.) yields positive correlations of a similar
sis, Parker (1997) advocated controlling for magnitude with the deviation measures. This
factors that are “(1) exogenous to the depen- demonstrates that although Schwartz’s theory
dent variable yet (2) independent to the theory finds some universal empirical support, it is
under study” (p. 13). It is needless to say that closest to the value structures in the minds of
selecting such factors would involve a lot of the respondents in the individualist nations.
subjectivity since any theory that is still in the As Schwartz’s project evolved from the work
process of being studied empirically is inevi- of Milton Rokeach (Schwartz, 2011), it is not
tably subjective. Being aware of this problem, surprising that a Western perspective can be
Parker (1997) noted that each discipline within discerned in it.
the social sciences often treats the others’ vari- Of note, Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov
ables as exogenous to their variables of interest. (2010) acknowledged that their perspective
4. Consider also the following statement was partly shaped by their Dutch and Bulgarian
about personality factors by Paunonen et al. backgrounds.