Download Threats Drive Cultural Norms

Threats Drive Cultural Norms
A study of people from 33 nations led researchers to conclude that a given people's
history of threats leads to cultural norms. Cynthia Graber reports
May 27, 2011
0
Advertisement
Do you come from a country that has, let’s say, a history of environmental disasters or
conquests? Then your culture is probably “tight”—it has strong social norms and doesn’t
tolerate much deviance from those norms. And your society is probably autocratic with
few political and civil liberties. Or, a happier history probably led to your culture being
“loose,” with more rights and openness. So says a study in the journal Science. [Michele
Gelfand et al., "Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study[1]"]
Researchers surveyed almost 7,000 people in 33 countries. They asked respondents to
scale the truth of statements such, “In this country, if someone acts in an inappropriate
way, others will strongly disapprove.” Participants also rated the acceptability of
activities such as kissing in public.
Then the researchers correlated those answers with current and historical data about
ecological and societal threats, population density, even the prevalence of diseases. They
found that the more stresses a society has faced—whether ecological or human-made—
the more likely that culture is to be a tight one.
The scientists say that its threat history could explain why a given culture finds others to
be alien or immoral. And that appreciating the roots of cultural differences could improve
international communication.
—Cynthia Graber
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
Comments
Cosmic May 27, 2011, 11:01 PM
This reminds me of an article in Discover several years ago called "Are the Desert People
Winning?" Once you understand that fear drives autocracy it is easy to see why autocrats
create situations that make us afraid.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
frankblank May 28, 2011, 2:11 AM
So this would suggest that American social conservatives, and conservatives in general,
have lived in a threat laden culture, while liberals have lived in a less threatening, happier
culture.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
MatchTLevel May 30, 2011, 5:37 PM
How are you doing? Let's be respectful to the guys you don't agree with, O.K.?
The first thing I thought of when I listened to this podcast was how the study data applies
to specific religious and/or militant groups in Afghanistan (one of the 33 countries in the
study).
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
hoamingin May 30, 2011, 10:46 PM
This study shows correlation, but not cause. Do conflict and other difficulties create tight
cultures, or do tight cultures lead to conflict and economic underdevelopment that makes
the society vulnerable to environmental or other external threats?
Geert Hofstede's study in the 1970s broke cultural attitudes into 4 categories. Tight
cultures have low IDV - Individualism and high PDI - Power Distance Index, the degree to
which those lacking power accept that power in family, politics or society in general is
distributed unequally, so to get on you have to work the system. They may also have high
UAI - Uncertainty Avoidance, so your position in the hierarchy limits your opportunities,
but as long as you toe the line, protects your position.
Tight cultures are also low Trust cultures (measured by World Surveys) and poor
economic performers (measured by per capita GDP). To me Trust is a proxy for the nature
of relationships within society. Low Trust is a sign of vertical relationships of
dependency, constrained by allegiances within family, clan or tribal groups. High Trust is
a sign of a culture in which social connections extend horizontally beyond the family or
clan. Trust is not specific or conditional, but generalised, in the belief that most people
can be trusted to do the right thing (or at least not do harm) most of the time.
For most of the last 6,000 years during which humans have developed their unnatural
complex societies, cultures have been tight, centered on strong monarchs in a mutually
supportive relationship with religions that created social cohesion by spreading common
beliefs.
Plot Trust and GDP together and you find that cultures with low Trust and GDP have
political, religious and clan structures that tell individuals what they should do, and
people accept that.
Cultures highest in Trust and GDP are predominantly Protestant. Weber called it the
Protestant Ethic, but I think it was the nature of social relationships that led people in
those cultures to tell religion to butt out of politics and to tell both to butt out of private
lives and coincidentally made them protestants.
A few predominantly Catholic countries in Europe have comparable GDP but lower Trust.
Non-European Catholic countries, Orthodox and Islamic countries have low GDP and
cultures in which individuals are subject to and/or accept guidance from external
authorities, be it political, religious or other leaders.
Humans still have a way to go to understand what they have created over the last 6,000
years.
www.ideasintuitionandthinking.com
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
AspenBH May 31, 2011, 6:36 AM
So I must live in a counter example: Brazil is blessed with mild climate, few natural
disasters and in 500 years we got involved in just a couple of wars with minor
consequences to the country. Yet it is one of the most puritan, intolerant, racist,
misogynist, homophobic societies in the world. We don't tolerate abortion, topless
beaches and any nudity or sexual sexual variation is punished with rigor. Women and
blacks are second-rate citizens and every 48 hours a homosexual is lynched do death just
because of his sexual orientation. Every year there is a big hedonist party called Carnaval
intended to release this social pressure of this puritan hell, but even then hate crimes are
high.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
abrasileirosilva May 31, 2011, 11:58 AM
@ AspenBH.
We Brazilians are Misogynists? Are you lunatic? Brazilians men love women very much.
And Brazilians women love us Brazilians men. For god’s sake does not think you that we
hate women; we love those beautiful little creatures.
If you hate Brazil I am sorry, but this is another thing. I on my part not hate my country.
Brazil has defects and qualities of course. Our qualities are very exalted and I not go
occupy space enumerating them.
I go directly to one of our very noticeable defects: IMPUNITY. This characteristic is
consequence of the slowness and complacency (indulgence) of our Justice, hampered by
weak laws. The same characteristic in my judgment can be attributed to liberalism in
excess, what I give the name of * ill liberalism* (in Portuguese:* liberaloidismo*, that is a
thing from one that is a *liberaloide*).
But in any case I think not that liberalism is inferior or superior to conservatism. The
things have to be interpreted in accordance to real situations, case by case.
I can say without any prejudice with a very light soul and with very pride that I love
Brazil! And that I love my wife!
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
AspenBH May 31, 2011, 9:43 PM
@abrasileirosilva
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
AspenBH May 31, 2011, 9:44 PM
@abrasileirosilva
I do believe you love your wife, just like any Iranian man loves his. But that doesn't fix the
fact that both Iran and Brazil are patriarchal societies where the civil rights of the
minorities need to be graciously validated by the conservative, oppressive, bigot majority.
You are mistaking the very different concepts of "homosexual" and "misogynist": a
homosexual is a person who prefers to engage is sexual activities with his own gender; a
misogynist is a person who regards women as inferior to men.
The facts speak for themselves: while in cold Europe you can easily spot topless women at
the beach, in hot Brazil a woman who tries to do that would be either arrested or lynched
by the puritan mob. Abortion is illegal and women are paid less money to do the same
job. There are very few women in positions of power and less than a dozen of them at the
Parliament. This was the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery and to grant
voting rights to females. Until 1988 a husband could legally return a woman to her father
if she was not a virgin and wives would need legal permission from their husbands to
work. That is a misogynist, archaic society. Very different from what you would expect if
this silly “threats vs. cultural norms” hypothesis was right. OK, Brazilian women have the
right to undress (as long as their nipples are not shown) but, according to men, that's all
they will ever have.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
AspenBH May 31, 2011, 9:48 PM
I do believe you love your wife, just like any Iranian man loves his. But that doesn't fix the
fact that both Iran and Brazil are patriarchal societies where the civil rights of the
minorities need to be graciously validated by the conservative, oppressive, bigot majority.
You are mistaking the very different concepts of "homosexual" and "misogynist": a
homosexual is a person who prefers to engage is sexual activities with his own gender; a
misogynist is a person who regards women as inferior to men.
The facts speak for themselves: while in cold Europe you can easily spot topless women at
the beach, in hot Brazil a woman who tries to do that would be either arrested or lynched
by the puritan mob. Abortion is illegal and women are paid less money to do the same
job. There are very few women in positions of power and less than a dozen of them at the
Parliament. This was the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery and to grant
voting rights to females. Until 1988 a husband could legally return a woman to her father
if she was not a virgin and wives would need legal permission from their husbands to
work. That is a misogynist, archaic society. Very different from what you would expect if
this silly “threats vs. cultural norms” hypothesis was right. OK, Brazilian women have the
right to undress (as long as their nipples are not shown) but, according to men, that's all
they will ever have.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
abrasileirosilva June 1, 2011, 10:49 AM
@ AspenBH.
You do not believe that I love Brazil? But I love, with its defects and its qualities!
And like I said *I think not that liberalism is inferior or superior to conservatism. The
things have to be interpreted in accordance to real situations, case by case*.
And we have to pay attention of the type of liberalism or conservatism to which we are
referring.
About misogynist: In the link
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogynist[2]
We have:
*mi·sog·y·nist - n. One who hates women.
adj. Of or characterized by a hatred of women.
Thesaurus - Noun 1. misogynist - a misanthrope who dislikes women in particular
woman hater
misanthrope, misanthropist - someone who dislikes people in general*
And this link:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogyny[3]
*Thesaurus - Noun 1. misogyny - hatred of women
misogynism
hate, hatred - the emotion of intense dislike; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands
action
philogyny - admiration for women*
And try this other link:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philogyny[4]
*philogyny - n - Rare fondness for women Compare misogyny
(also) Philogyny - a love of or liking for women. — philogynist, n. — philogynous, adj.
Thesaurus - Noun 1. philogyny - admiration for women
admiration, esteem - a feeling of delighted approval and liking
misogynism, misogyny - hatred of women*
Oh, yes, I think that we Brazilians are, in general at least, PHILOGYNISTS.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
New Comment
Post a Comment
Edit Comment
Reply to Comment
You are currently signed in as lynnoc[5]. If this is incorrect, please sign out[6].
Comment (Required)
Leave this field empty
Comments or accounts in violation of our community guidelines[7] may be removed.
Links
1. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6033/1100.abstract
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogynist
3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogyny
4. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philogyny
5. http://www.scientificamerican.com/my-account
6. http://www.scientificamerican.com/?slatAction=public:account.logout
7. http://www.scientificamerican.com/page/sa-community-guidelines/