Hofstede Writes, Culture Is More

Hofstede writes, "Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster." (www.geert.hofstede.com) Interesting words emanating from a Professor of Culture, but ones that may resound in truth, especially for China and New Zealand.

These words by Hofstede echo in ambiguity. The dearth of precision, and the lack of a universally applicable framework for classifying cultural patterns, has been a topic of research and explorations for a plethora of academicians.

Hofstede presents the most famous and most often cited work in this area. Styled an organizational anthropologist, Hofstede structured his world-renowned "culture dimensions" analysis from examining work-related values in employees of IBM during the 1970s. In his original work he divides culture into four dimensions at culture-level: power distance, individualism / collectivism, masculinity/femininity and uncertainty avoidance. (www.geert.hofstede.com)

Hofstede defines power distance is defined as "the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally." (Hofstede, 1994, p. 28) This means that the power distance concept is clearly more far-reaching than the work place alone.

Indeed, power distance is often reflected in the hierarchical organization of companies, the respect that is demanded to be demonstrated by the student towards his or her teacher, the political forms of decentralization and centralization, by the belief in society that inequalities among people should be minimized, or that they are expected and desired.

The second dimension, equally critical, suggested by Hofstede is Individualism/Collectivism. The concept is one of the most frequently discussed and researched concepts stemming from the organizational anthropologist's considerable body of work.

Hofstede defines this second dimension as: "individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people's lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty." (Hofstede, 1994, p. 51)

This Individualism/Collectivism concept is, indeed, the most popular among Hofstede's dimensions. Individualism/Collectivism is frequently cited in a variety of intercultural research, and as Hofstede points out, is often conflated with other dimensions (1999). It may not be extremely surprising that this dimension is popular: It is of course the dimension that is most easily grasped and frequently encountered when looking at other cultural behavioral patterns.

Hofstede's concept of masculinity/femininity is an equally powerful, yet often understated, dimension in the research. Hofstede defines this dimension as "masculinity pertains to societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct (i.e., men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned witht the quality of life); femininity pertains to societies in which social gender roles overlap (i.e., both men and women are supposed be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life)." (Hofstede, 1994, p. 82-3)

Hofstede demonstrates that this gender dimension is far too frequently outright neglected. He feels that perhaps the controversial label given to this dimension has somewhat influenced the popularity of it. Also, it seems often to be confused with Individualism/Collectivism (Hofstede, 1999; Mooij 1994, 1998).

Uncertainty avoidance is the fourth and last dimension extant in Hofstede's original conceptualization. Hofstede calls uncertainty avoidance "the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations." (Hofstede, 1994, p. 113)

This dimension is fairly easily grasped, and can often be seen reflected in business negotiations.

In his more recent studies, Hofstede (1991) introduces a fifth dimension. The long-term orientation dimension, one of the foci of this paper, is the culmination of his co-operation with Michael Bond, who juxtaposes this dimension to the work of Confucius.

Hofstede paints long-term orientation as characterized by persistence, organizing relationships by status and observing this order, thrift, and having a sense of shame, whereas - in stark contrast -- short-term orientation is manifested by personal steadiness and stability, protecting one's "face," respect for tradition and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts.

The limits of Hofstede's thinking is quite simply that in drawing a distinction and a dichotomy in his dimensions, he limits the reaches of his analysis in certain cultures. In China, for instance, the first impression is, of course, that the collectivism ideal applies - China, being one our Earth's few communist holdouts, has fought capitalism to every extent that it can and instead has collected the people's thinking into the communist party and agenda.

However, individual desires still play such a large role in even this communist bastion. Chinese people, though they are "controlled" by the federal government, still make, for the most part, their day-to-day decisions: Profits are not solely left for their consumption, but other than that, individualism still plays a heavy role.

On the other hand, even a stubbornly capitalist nation such as New Zealand has collectivist leanings: Socially, what is considered appropriate dress, music, behavior and political belief is a product of groupthink rather than individualism.

By limiting political thought to this dichotomy, Hofstede narros the range of possibilities in cultural understanding, as is evidenced in the example of China and New Zealand.

However, the fifth dimension in Hofstede is very applicable to the situation of China and New Zealand. Both nations have a long-term view of their future, but act in short-term ways that conflict with that long-term objective.

China, for instance, wants desperately to remain Communist and work and strive such that its belief in the Communist way of thinking is relevant far into the 21st century. However, it finds on a daily basis that it must adopt capitalistic trade policies in order to deal with the rest of the world and feed its people and its military. Here, its long-term goals are not satisfied by its short-term doings.

The work of Hofstede is probably the most popular work in the arena of culture research. Although the work provides a relatively general framework for analysis, the framework can be applied easily to many everyday intercultural encounters. It is particularly useful, as it reduces the complexities of culture and its interactions into five relatively easily understood cultural dimensions. In the case of New Zealand and China, however, several of his dimensions fall short - but the fifth and newest dimension successfully sheds light on the differences between the two societies, political arenas and cultures.

Question II

New Zealand is a melting pot indeed of different cultures. It is considered a two-culture society even by the school systems in New Zealand, but this is an inaccurate way of handling the cultural tensions in New Zealand.

For instance, here is the directive in the New Zealand school system:

The school curriculum will recognise and value the unique position of Maori in New Zealand society... The school curriculum will acknowledge the importance to all New Zealanders of both Maori and Pakeha traditions, histories, and values. --The New Zealand Curriculum Framework, page 7

Students of social studies will:

understand the nature of biculturalism and the partnership between Maori and Pakeha;

explore the bicultural heritage of New Zealand society, a heritage that contributes to their identity as New Zealanders.

When incorporating Maori perspectives in social studies programmes, teachers should:

endeavour to ensure that the perspectives are in accordance with the views of iwi kainga and tangata whenua;

recognise that te reo Maori and nga tikanga Maori are taonga and have an important place within the social studies curriculum." (www.tki.org.nz)

Even with this statement, the government of New Zealand sets a negative yardstick. True, the Maori and Pakeha traditions are important to New Zealand culture, but it is a multicultural framework, and not a bicultural framework, that will truly do cultural studies in New Zealand justice.