Category Archives: What is it?

scholarly ground explanations for the concepts related to love

What Is Altruism? A Cross-Cultural Perspective

Posted on by

To put it briefly, altruism is feeling empathy and caring about others’ well-being despite our own interests, without expecting anything in return. In true love, lovers are altruistic: they passionately strive to do anything good for their beloved, even sacrificing themselves.

Altruism: What Is It?

Altruism is the ethical belief and practice of caring about the well-being of other people or another individual regardless of our personal interests. In other words, it is the ability to care about another’s well-being without wanting anything in return. It’s important that altruistic actions are ones that people intentionally choose to do because they want to help and benefit another person.

Altruistic lovers behave by being motivated by a desire to benefit the beloved for the sake of that person. In some cases, altruism requires doing something to help someone else, even scarifying yourself in one or another way, to one or another extent.

People commonly use the term altruism as an antonym for “self-interested,” “selfish,” or “egoistic” thinking, feelings, and behaving.

What Do Altruistic People Have in Return?

We shall, however, admit that acts of altruism and kindness are probably not completely selfless. Altruistic people still receive psychological rewards for these actions through hedonistic motivation of internal and intrinsic emotions. For example, American psychologists Robert Cialdini and Douglas Kenrick (1976) did a study that proved the hedonistic view of altruism to be true. Some people find it emotionally rewarding and self-gratifying to do good things for others. Their socialization experiences likely had an impact on their altruistic psychological traits, emotions, motivation, and behavior.

Recent studies have shown the power of love and benevolence and demonstrated how altruistic love brings good not only to others but also to those who do good things.

The Multifaceted Concept of Altruism

Throughout centuries, scholars studying altruism and altruistic love have been prolific in their research (Karandashev, 2022a).  Thanks, now we know much more about this topic than ever before.

Altruism is a complex cultural idea that includes values, traits, attitudes, moods, and emotions. In this regard, altruism is multilayered. The psychology of altruistic love consists of (1) the desire to help others, (2) the action tendency to do things for their own good, and (3) the act of helping others. Altruistic psychology also involves altruistic thinking and feelings.

The Nearly Cross-Cultural Universality of Altruism and Altruistic Love

The moral virtue of altruism has been around for a long time in many cultures across religious and nonreligious contexts. Many religious worldviews preach the high value of altruism as their central tenet. I presented the Western Christian and Eastern Confucian religious teaching of altruism elsewhere.

Scholars and educated people in both the West and the East know a lot about altruism and altruistic love. What about other cultural contexts? Many other cultures around the world have had a long history of contemplating and writing about selfless, altruistic love (Karandashev, 2022a). Scholars can trace these selfless tenets of love back to the earliest periods of the cultural ethics of the world’s major religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Taoism. The scholars of many countries have widely discussed the concept of altruism and altruistic love in nonreligious contexts (Karandashev, 2022a).

The Christian Culture of Altruistic Love

Posted on by

Being originated from the ancient Greek philosophy, the word “agape” defining this kind of selfless and all-giving love, elevated in Christian teachings as the universal love of mankind, the love for all and for everyone. The core feature of agape love is altruism, along with its unconditional kindness, compassion, and empathetic feelings for others.

Ancient Greek Origins of Agape Love

The word “agape” and the term “agape love” originated from the philosophy of the Ancient Greeks. Since those times, it has conveyed the meaning of universal love for all and for everyone. It is love of mankind. However, it also carries the meaning of unconditional and empathetic love, connotated with kindness, compassion, and concern for others. In this regard, agape love is selfless love. It serves the interests and wellbeing of others without expecting anything in return. Because of this, the concept of agape love is often associated with the concept of altruistic love.

Agape love was one of many kinds of love in ancient Greece, along with philia, storge, eros, and pragma.

Agape love was elevated in the Christian Scriptures as the transcendent love, the highest form of love. It was contrasted with the erotic love of eros and the brotherly love of philia.

What Is Agape and Altruistic Love in Christianity?

Agapē in the New Testament was defined as the fatherly love of God for humans and the human reciprocal love for God. The culture of Christianity further elevated the ideals of selflessness and unconditional love, known to the ancient Greeks as agape (Post, 1990, 2002).

In Christian culture, the altruism of agape love means universal love. Agape is the highest type of Christian love; it is the “gift of love” (Lewis, 1960; Post, 2003; Templeton, 1999).

The unconditional, compassionate, and caring love that God has for all people is referred to as agape love. It is regarded as the most important theological virtue. The agape, as noted above, represents both the love that God has for humanity and the love that humanity has for God in return. These kinds of love also serve as models for the love that people should have for one another—through their relationship with God.

The teachings of Jesus Christ revolve around selfless and unconditional love as the core religious value. The love that Jesus has for his followers transcends all boundaries. And the Gospel of Luke emphasizes this (Meisinger, 2000). In the parable of the Good Samaritan, we see a perfect illustration of altruistic love that puts others before oneself (Luke 10:25–37). The moral of this teaching is that benevolence and kindness should be extended to all people.

The Christian Perspective on Agape Love

Here is a summary of Jesus’s commandments:

“Love [agapao] the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love [agapao] your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-39, NRSV).

According to Christian teaching, love entails taking responsibility for the wellbeing of other people. In other words, this idea emphasizes the significance of loving the people around oneself, including members of one’s immediate family as well as strangers. The Christian principle of universal love implies the meaning of altruistic love for everyone. Such agape love does not require anything in return. It is the highest form of love.

The golden rule of love entails the following:

“In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt 7:12 NRSV).

Throughout the centuries, Christian religion and theology have had a significant impact on many different cultures, not only in Europe and North America but also in other parts of the world (Karandashev, 2022a).

What Is Agape Love?

Posted on by

Agape love, in its broadest sense, refers to a love that encompasses all people and is directed toward all. Love that is selfless, selfless, and kind is love that is directed toward other people. In other words, it is love that gives without expecting anything in return and is completely selfless.

What Is Agape?

The term agape conveys a very broad meaning of love for all and for everyone. Specific forms of agape embody such feelings and actions as benevolence, compassion, kindness, and concern for others. These could be romantic partners, family members, relatives, friends, acquaintances, or even strangers.

This kind of love is an unconditional and universal feeling and action of kindness. Agape love is love for the sake of another person or other people, regardless of personal interests or benefits. This is why agape love frequently refers to the meaning of altruistic love.

What Does “Agape Love” Mean?

Even though the word “agape” derives from Ancient Greek philosophy, the other major ancient civilizations also had comparable terms. For example, the Latin term “caritas” and the Chinese word “ren” are similar in meaning to the Greek term “agape.”

“The core meaning of agape is other-centered love, selfless love, and selfless giving of anything that may convey love feelings, emotions, attitudes, and values.”

(Karandashev, 2022a, p. 290).

An individual’s capacity for agape love can be estimated by the measures of how much and how significant things they are willing to give up and even sacrifice for the benefit of another person. The feeling that an individual is willing to die – to sacrifice even their own life as the most precious thing for another person – is the highest and most complete expression of agape love.

Agape Is Self-less Love

One of the most notable features of agape love is that no return is expected. Genuine examples of such agape love are uncommon among people. True agape love is rare.

It is different from the exchange model of relationships, in which couples expect that their beloved will do something good for them. Many lovers expect pleasure and other rewards from their loved ones and relationships. When doing something good for their beloved, they implicitly expect to be rewarded in an emotional, personal, or material sense. They also expect some kind of recognition or appreciation.

The Cultural Origins of Agape

The term agape originates from Ancient Greek philosophy. As I noted above, the Latin word “caritas” is synonymous in several meanings with the Greek word “agape.” The meaning of the Chinese word “ren” is also comparable to that of the Greek term “agape.”

The ideals of agape love have been elevated in Christian culture. The concepts of agape love in Chinese culture are expressed in other words such as “ren.” Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism are the three Chinese religious philosophies that all convey the concept of agape love.

The concept of agape is present in numerous other religious traditions as well. Religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Native American spirituality promote altruistic and unconditional agape love as the most important human virtue (see Templeton, 1999 for a review).

For example, Theravāda Buddhism has praised the value of “mettā”, or “universal loving kindness.” This love of the agape type inspires the spiritual individual to “love without regard to return.” This love is communicated to others through acts of kindness, compassion, and generosity. The following a path of compassion and concern for others is the primary cultural value in the lives of Buddhists (Templeton, 1999). So, the idea and word of “agape love” have been around for a long time and have meant different things to different people in different cultures.

The Measurement Pitfalls of Research Designs in Cultural Studies of Religions

Posted on by

Cross-cultural comparability and generalizability are the problems that come up in religious studies and need to be solved for scientific progress (Karandashev, 2021a; Karandashev et al., 2022; Fischer, 2022). When studying behavioral and social phenomena in various populations and religious contexts, culture matters. In this regard, the lead article by Ronald Fischer (2022) in the recent issue of the journal Religion, Brain & Behavior is particularly useful. The author of that article shares personal reflections on the study that their team reported on during their exploratory journey. Here is a summary of one of the two points covered in his commentary “Cultural lessons missed and learned about religion and culture.” It is about “how important cultural context is for thinking about, and researching, religion, morality, and evolution.”

The Typical Mistakes and Their Effective Solutions to Studying Religions from a Cross-Cultural Perspective

The study’s goal was to investigate the universality and evolutionary perspective of religious concepts. Researchers considered cultural dynamics throughout the process, including the specification of key variables, variable operationalization, measurement context, and result interpretation. Researchers summarized the new efficient translation methods (Harkness et al., 2003). They proposed the updated checklists for use by cultural researchers (Hambleton & Zenisky, 2010; Harkness et al., 2003, 2010; Hernández et al., 2020).

In this lead article, Ronald Fischer (2022) addressed two groups of methodological issues:

The first one is the problems of cross-cultural universality of the concepts under study, their conceptual equivalency, the selection of major variables, and their conceptual descriptions and operationalization. These questions are summarized in another article.

The second one is the problems such as cultural contexts of measurement, technical procedures of measurement, cultural biases in measurements, measurement invariance across cultural samples, and culturally sensitive interpretation of results. These questions are summarized in this article.

Confounding Cultural Variables in the Studies of Religions

In complex cross-cultural research, the design itself may create confounding factors. Who is a local co-religionist as opposed to a remote one in a religious context? Religions frequently make fine distinctions in group membership. In the cultural context of Candomblé religion, this includes questions about

  • who went through the initial initiation (“bori”) with you,
  • who is a member of the same “terreiro,” house of worship, typically organized around extended family ties),
  • who has the same sitting “orixá.”

Without knowledge of these regionally relevant group distinctions, the research design of a cultural study lacks these essential local details.

In addition, classic cross-cultural research has demonstrated that both familiarity and theoretically irrelevant features can influence

  • behavioral and cognitive responses (Serpell, 1979),
  • social expectation or experimenter effects that can be difficult to identify or avoid (Smith et al., 2013).

The Cultural Biases in Religious Studies

Typically referred to as technique biases, these difficulties involve

  • how tests are conducted,
  • by whom, and in what (implicit or explicit) context.

Humans are sociable experts. They try to predict what others want from them. These attempts may lead to an array of behavioral adaptations with the intentions

  • to make favorable impressions,
  • form alliances, or
  • gain tiny advantages over local competitors or
  • trade favors with outside visitors.

Depending on how the participants interpret the testing circumstances, these motivations can reverse the expected behavioral responses.

This is another challenge for cultural research. Individuals in small-scale societies converse and make assumptions as to why someone may or may not have received the money. The questions arise

“Does the payout matrix align with the implicit group lineages that participants construct while participating in the experiment?

Does the knowledge of pay-outs affect the next participant’s strategy of playing? ” (Fischer, 2022, p. 214)

In environments with greater interdependence, individuals are likely to respond depending on who has already been tested or how many individuals remain to be evaluated (Yamagishi et al., 2008). These different techniques’ biases provide considerable obstacles for evaluating the outcomes of money distribution and frequently necessitate ingenious and observant researchers conversant with local cultures and standards.

The Pitfalls of Priming Research Designs in Cultural and Religious Studies The research with priming tasks poses other questions. The procedure of priming requires locally salient categories regardless of the question of replicability concerns with priming. This brings scientists back to the principles of functional and structural equivalence, which we talked about above.

“What is a moralistic god vs. a local god?”

(Fischer, 2022, p. 214).

The Christian “God,” which is not part of the Candomblé religion, and Ogum, a particular orixá linked with ironwork and war, are very different planes of existence. Therefore, a contrast between those two may not convey what the researchers intended.

For Candomblé believers, the Christian “God” is familiar. It is simple to identify and acknowledge this deity’s significance in the larger community. However, it is not necessarily an entity with personal meaning for a Candomblé devotee. In the same vein, depending on the context, Ogum may be appropriate for particular goals or for particular individuals.

What is an adequate and comparable indication of the idea of interest within the local cultural context? Questions like this are very important in the context of structural equivalence, specifically the issue of conceptual domain representation.

The Importance of Local Context in Cultural Research In conclusion, Ronald Fischer (2022) encourages cultural researchers to pay more attention to the local cultural context of their studies. He suggests learning the lessons from researchers of previous generations who made progress through these challenging paths.

What Is Erotic Love?

Posted on by

What is love? What is sex? What is sexual love? And what is erotic love?

For love studies to be truly scientific, there are a lot of scholarly questions that need to be answered. As I noted in another article, love and sex are inextricably linked to one another. Yet, there are several concepts related to these two that researchers should distinguish in this field of research. One of those is the concept of “erotic love.”

What is “sex” and what is “sexual love”?

The concepts of “sex” and “sexual love” have different phenomenology. Even though they may have behaviorally similar forms and expressions, they play their distinct psychological roles and associated with difference experiences (Karandashev, 2022a). How different are they?

“Sexual desire” is easily aroused, fleeting, and short-lived. Any sexually attractive individual is capable of satisfying sexual desire.”

“Sexual love” is a collection of more intimate and complicated feelings related to a certain other person. Only a specific individual can fulfill a person’s sexual urge.”

What is “love,” what is “eros,” and what is “erotic love”?

Love is directly yet intricately connected with sexual and erotic feelings. According to numerous stories, novels, and movies, both men and women have a preference for the beautiful and handsome. Such expectations are in their romantic dreams. Love and eroticism in life are tied to each other in many different ways (Featherstone, 1998).

The word “erotic” originates from the Greek word eros (érōs). The ancient Greek “eros” first emerged in the sense of aesthetic appreciation and yearning for beauty (Lomas, 2018). In modern scholarship and public opinion, however, this word often takes a different twist of meaning, associated with sexual and passionate connotations (see for review, Karandashev, 2019).

In ancient Greek origins, the concept of érōs is intimately linked with epithymia (as sexual love). However, both describe different emotional experiences. The word érōs conveys meaning beyond physical sexual desire. The word érōs implies a broader meaning—an appreciation of beauty.

Because the attractive appearance of a man or a woman easily triggers these feelings, the word certainly conveys connotations with emotions of passionate love (Tillich, 1954). Other subtle differences which scholars convince us to make are (1) the difference between elation of romantic sex-esthetic attraction and sexual arousal of sexual desire, and (2) the difference between non-sexual affectionate sexual love (Grant, 1976).

The Love of Beauty Is Erotic

“Erotic love” means that a lover perceives his or her beloved as a beautiful object worthy of aesthetic admiration. “Erotic love is about aesthetic pleasure, while sexual love is about sensual (sexual) pleasure.” (Karandashev, 2022a).

Both are certainly closely intertwined. In sexually stimulating situations, erotic can easily transition to sensual and sexual experiences. People frequently perceive erotic love as inextricably linked to sexual and passionate love. Such a mixing of these experiences is natural for complex human emotions. However, some people consider a partner’s attractive body, face, expressions, and other appearances to be “sexy,” while others consider them to be “beautiful.” It is an individual yet culturally determined experience associated with personal dominant motivations that the lover has in mind at the time. It can be a strong or moderate sexual drive. It can be the cultural values of a society that stress being “sexy” or being “beautiful.”

Multisensory Erotic Attraction

When a man or a woman experiences erotic love, the lover admires the beloved for his or her attractive physical appearance as perceived through various sensory impressions: visual, auditory, tactile-kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory. Interpersonal perception of lovers involves multisensory processes and several sensory impressions that are inextricably linked with each other (Karandashev et al., 2016, 2020). The dynamics of interaction are also involved. Men and women not only passively admire their partners, but also approach them, speak, sing, dance, touch each other, smile, hug, cuddle, kiss, and so on. Such dynamic expressive behavior often tells them more about erotic attractiveness than static body and facial appearance.

All of these perceptions and aesthetic qualities merge to produce what we call “erotic attraction” and “erotic love.” A lover admires his or her beloved for having attractive erotic impressions (Karandashev, 2022a).

Can you recognize erotic love from the facial expression of another person?

According to studies, people generally distinguish the faces of people experiencing love from those experiencing other emotions such as joy, sadness, anger, and fear. They can also recognize specific types of love, such as erotic love and tender love experienced by another person. Both erotic love and tender love have different facial expressions from joy and each other. A person expresses erotic love in semi-closed eyes, while tender love is expressed through a slight head tilt and a slight smile (Bloch, Orthous, & Santibanez, 1987; Hatfield & Rapson, 1993).

What Are the Main World Cultures?

Posted on by

What are the main cultures of the world? How global are they? And how diverse are they? These are among the key questions that cross-cultural researchers may ask.

The West-East dichotomy has been a classification of the world cultures well-known by scholars during recent centuries. Western and Eastern cultures should be construed as global cultures, presumably. However, Western culture has been exemplified by the United States, Canada, and a few western European nations, such as England, the Netherlands, Germany, and France. In contrast, Eastern cultures have been typified by China and Japan. These two global cultural regions differed in a number of general cultural dimensions.

Probably the most well-known cultural distinction between the West and the East is the contrast between individualistic Western societies and collectivistic Eastern ones. At the very least, this is the framework that researchers most often use to study different cultures.

How Do Global World Cultures Form?

Regional and global cultures like Western and Eastern ones are usually formed by historical cultural influences of neighboring societies, cultural regional domination of some societies or by expansive migration. The countries of China and Japan, for example, are culturally similar in some respects. In the same way, the cultures of the Netherlands and Germany are more culturally similar to each other than to France, while France is more similar to Spain.

Thus, due to geographical and historical traditions and religious and political influences, national cultures share similarities with those of other adjacent countries. Certain geographical locations may differ greatly in a variety of cultural elements. One source of these cultural distinctions is the transmission of ancient philosophical concepts to new generations. In recent years, many researchers have studied and thought about the differences between Western and Eastern cultures, whose mental and cultural perspectives are very different in many ways.

West-East Scholarly Comparison

Cultural and cross-cultural studies have actively investigated these worldwide distinctions empirically. By comparing the United States, the Netherlands, and occasionally other European nations as representatives of Western culture to Japan and China as representatives of Eastern culture, researchers have discovered a number of fascinating cultural differences between these two global cultures.

As a cultural framework for explanation, they typically referred to individuality and collectivism, or related social concepts.

The questions in this regard, however, have remained unresolved. Is the USA or England sufficiently exemplary of all so-called Western countries? Is Japan or China sufficiently prototypical of other so-called Eastern countries?

What does the West mean? What does the East mean? There are many differences between the cultures of East Asia and South Asia, as well as between the cultures of the United States and Western Europe. For example, many West European countries have very different ways of life in many ways.

A Cultural Variety of the World Regions

In the last few decades, scholars have started to look into the different cultures of the world in more depth. For example, Shalom Schwartz (2014) found eight transnational cultural regions based on the values the countries share. They are English-speaking, West European, East Central and Baltic European, Orthodox East European, Latin American, South Asian, Confucian-influenced, and African and Middle Eastern.

Each of these transnational zones is distinguished by a distinct cultural value pattern. However, eight cultural regions do not fit within the expected locations.

Is Western Culture Really Individualistic?

Studies of the last decades have revealed that the West-East division of culture is not quite accurate in several regards (Karandashev, 2021a). There is a great cultural difference between different “Western cultures” and between different “Eastern cultures.”

As Schwartz (2014) noted, it is not entirely valid to describe Western civilization as individualistic. The complex analysis of cultural orientations has shown that people in the West have a lot of differences.

For example, the cultural samples from the USA and Western Europe showed significant variations in six of the cultural value orientations. Mastery, embeddedness, and hierarchy are more prevalent in the US. Intellectual autonomy, equality, and harmony, on the other hand, are more prevalent in Western European countries (Schwartz & Ros, 1995).

The Transnational Cultural Regions Based on their Geographical Proximity

According to the recent comprehensive analysis of cultural orientations, the transnational cultural regions are based on geographical proximity (Schwartz, 2014). Their cultural similarities can be explained by the transmission of values, norms, and practices across international borders. Additionally, language, history, religion, and other cultural variables also had an impact.

How Does Cultural Power Distance Affect Societies?

Posted on by

People’s social relationships are hierarchically structured in many regards. Individuals’ power and status, for example, are distributed unequally in many societies. And the degree of this social inequality varies in different cultures. Power distance is a measure of how important a society considers social ranks and the hierarchies of power in relationships and interactions between people (Karandashev, 2021a).

A Dutch social psychologist, Geert Hofstede, proposed the cultural parameter of “power distance” to explain how societal cultural norms expect and accept that social status, power, and “vertical” interactions are dispensed unequally (Hofstede, 2001; 2011).

As a cultural variable, power distance assesses how much people recognize and accept that social distance and power are distributed unequally between people of low and high status. In other words, it is the rate of inequality versus equality that people of status and power have in a society.

What Are the Cultures with High Power Distances?

High power distance cultures are present in societies in which the differences in power of “superiors” and “subordinates” seem to be natural and reflect an “existential inequality” (Hofstede, 1980/1984).

In societies with high power-distance cultures, less powerful people accept inequality and expect that power within a society is dispersed between individuals disproportionately. The people of authority, such as rulers, elders, parents, and heads of families, are higher in a relational hierarchy. Subordinate people, such as commoners, youngsters, and children, are lower in a relational hierarchy. These authorities and subordinates are relationally and emotionally distant from each other.

Submissive attitudes and respect of lower-status people towards higher-status people are expected and suggested.

The instances of such high power-distance societies are the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, India, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil (Hofstede, 1980/1984).

What Are the Cultures with Low Power Distances?

Low power distance cultures are present in societies in which people are considered equal in their social status and power in social relations. Cultural norms in societies with a low power distance culture expect equality in relationships and power, and an egalitarian style of communication.

The instances of low power-distance countries are Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Israel, Ireland, and New Zealand (Hofstede, 2001; 2011; Würtz, 2005).

The culture of the United States of America is evaluated as lower than the median in power distance. Despite the official declarations of and inspirations for democracy and equality in the US, the social reality of relationships in American society is still far from these egalitarian ideals. Social inequality is widespread. The racial and cultural diversities of American society make it dependent on social context (Andersen, Hecht, Hoobler, & Smallwood, 2003).

The 7 Major Cultural Values That People Across Societies Live By

Posted on by

Cultural values are the general and overarching aspirations and ideals that societies promote for their people. These are broad ideas of what is suitable and desirable. These are the abstract ideas of what is good and bad, what is right and wrong.

Cultural values are the cultural parameters of a society. They characterize a society, not individuals. The majority of people from a certain culture presumably share the same cultural values in social life.

Researchers have studied cultural values over many years in a variety of social sciences, including cultural anthropology and social psychology. The Schwartz theory of cultural values is among the outstanding conceptions in this field (see for review, e.g., Karandashev, 2021a).

Schwartz’s Theory of Cultural Values

The Schwartz theory of cultural values includes seven cultural values: (1) Embeddedness, (2) Intellectual autonomy, (3) Affective autonomy, (4) Hierarchy, (5) Egalitarianism, (6) Mastery, and (7) Harmony.

Shalom Schwartz, a cross-cultural researcher in social psychology, conducted extensive studies of the value orientations of thousands of respondents across many different countries in the world. The results allowed him to establish seven country-level value orientations (Schwartz, 1992, 1994, 1999).

  1. Embeddedness emphasizes the need to maintain the status quo, propriety, and restraint of actions or inclinations that might disrupt the solidary group or the traditional order in which people are embedded.
  2. Intellectual autonomy emphasizes the desirability of individuals to pursuing their own ideas and intellectual directions independently.
  3. Affective autonomy emphasizes the desirability of individuals’ pursuing affectively positive experiences.
  4. Hierarchy emphasizes the legitimacy of an unequal distribution of power, roles, and resources.
  5. Egalitarianism emphasizes the transcendence of selfish interests in favor of a voluntary commitment to promote the welfare of others.
  6. Mastery emphasizes getting ahead through active self-assertion.
  7. Harmony emphasizes fitting harmoniously into the environment (quoted in Smith, Peterson, & Schwartz, 2002, p.193).

The detailed analysis of the results showed that these seven country-level types of values are organized into a quasi-circumplex structure consisting of three dimensions (Schwartz, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2016):

  1. embeddedness versus autonomy,
  2. hierarchy versus egalitarianism,
  3. mastery versus harmony.

The Values of Embeddedness and Autonomy

The dimension of embeddedness versus autonomy explains how societies maintain the boundaries between an individual person and a larger group of people.

In cultures high in autonomy, a society considers people as individuals autonomous from their group. Autonomous individuals are expected to appreciate their own uniqueness, follow their own ideas, preferences, and abilities, and express their own internal preferences, motives, and feelings. There are two realms of autonomy: intellectual and affective. People are encouraged to pursue their personal interests and ideas in a society that places a high cultural value on intellectual autonomy. This value encourages people to follow their independent intellectual aspirations and growth. Affective autonomy implies the high value of pleasure and excitement in life and inspires people to appreciate their own positive affective experiences.

In cultures high in embeddedness, individuals are strongly embedded in their in-group.

The major value and meaning of individual life for them are linked to identification of a person with a group, social relationships, a shared way of life, and pursuing shared goals of the group. This collective orientation of embeddedness in society entails respect for social order and tradition, the maintenance of proper relationships with people in the immediate social environment surrounding a person. This value advises individuals to restrain their dispositions and actions that may disrupt the solidary of a group.

The Values of Hierarchy and Egalitarianism

The cultural dimension of hierarchy versus egalitarianism explains how societies regulate social order and how people coordinate with others, consider their welfare, and manage their interdependencies.

In cultures high in hierarchy, society is considered as a hierarchical system of social relationships with ascribed roles. The system of social power works to ensure the responsible behavior of people. This cultural value expects that people understand this hierarchical distribution of roles and conform to the obligations linked to their roles. Individuals should accept that status differentials in power and unequal resource distribution are socially legitimate. The values of authority, social power, wealth, and humility are very important in hierarchical societies.

In cultures high in egalitarianism, society suggests that people recognize each other as equal individuals and take responsibility for each other. They should respect equality in interpersonal relationships. The value of egalitarianism entails a voluntary commitment to cooperate with others. This value also means a desire to promote the wellbeing of other members of society. The virtues of social justice, honesty, and responsibility are given high priority.

The values of harmony and mastery

The dimension of harmony versus mastery explains the societal values of how individuals consider relations with other people and the environment.

Cultures high in harmony expect that people should fit into the environment around them and into social relationships. In ecological meaning, the value of harmony underscores the importance of unity with the physical environment, adjustment to nature, and self-transcendence. In social and interpersonal relationships, this value highlights the need for social and interpersonal adjustment. People in a society with such cultural values tend to understand and appreciate things as they are, rather than to direct and change them.

In cultures high in mastery, society accentuates the need to control situations and contexts rather than adjust to the social environment. It encourages individuals to master and change the environment. The value of mastery emphasizes the importance of getting ahead. Society encourages individuals to actively pursue their personal goals, despite the expense of others. In such a society, self-assertion, along with ambition, daring, competence, and success, are the personal characteristics of high priority.

What Makes the Nordic Cultures so Unique?

Posted on by

The Nordic countries represent a cultural region in Northern Europe, which includes the countries of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and some other territories. The terms “Nordic” and “Scandinavian” have been used interchangeably. Technically, these two notions overlap. Scandinavian cultures, considered in a narrower sense, are formed by people living in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. These are linguistically and culturally similar groups. “Scandinavian” also refers to the Scandinavian Peninsula, which is made up of mainland Norway, mainland Sweden, and the northwesternmost part of Finland.

Internationally, beyond the Nordic region, the term “Scandinavian” is more commonly used when people refer to the Nordic countries. However, the term “Nordic” is more authentic, and it is a more general term. More precisely, the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are parts of the Nordic region.

Nordic Countries’ Territories and Languages

These Nordic countries are the closest territorial neighbors and have a lot in common in their history, ethnicity, and cultures. There are three different language groups in this area. However, they are not related to each other. Still, the fact that these societies share a common history of language helped form the Nordic cultural identity.

Ethnicity and Religions of Nordic Cultures

The largest ethnic groups in this geographic region are North Germanic peoples. Other large cultural groups are ethnic Finns and the Sami people, who make up most of the population in Finland. The historically common religious beliefs of Norse paganism, then Christianity, Catholicism, and Lutheran Christianity have also shaped the cultures of many Nordic societies of the region. Recent immigrants and their descendants from other countries have contributed to the cultural diversity of Nordic countries (Munch Haagensen, 2013).

What Do Nordic Societies Have in Common in their Social Life?

The Nordic countries have a lot in common in the modern way of life, social organization, universalist welfare, and cultural relations. They share characteristics of the Nordic economic and social paradigms to varying degrees. They have many similarities in modern people’s lives, including quality of life, civil liberties, social equality, education, and human development. Their social culture stresses individual autonomy as well as trust in the state. Their moral logic is the basis for their welfare state (Berggren & Trägårdh, 2022; Munch Haagensen, 2013).

How Different Nordic Societies Are

The Nordic societies are still different in several regards. They are linguistically heterogeneous. The majority of the languages spoken in this region belong to the North Germanic, Finno-Ugric, or Eskimo-Aleut subgroups. The first two are the most spoken in the five Nordic countries. The people speaking Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, the North Germanic languages of three countries, can to some extent understand each other. The Nordic countries each have their own economic and social models for social and human development. In some ways, these models are very different from each other.

The Valuable Cultural Features of Nordic Societies

There are several important cultural characteristics of social life in Nordic countries which make them especially interesting to learn for people in other countries of the world.

Nordic societies are widely recognized as egalitarian cultures with strong values in human rights, social justice, cultural freedom, and gender equality. The Nordic cultures enhance the social values of relational independence, human equality, and social responsibility. These cultures respect individual autonomy, personal privacy, and emotional confidentiality in interpersonal relationships. Societies are characterized by high social and relational mobility.

For the cultures of Nordic societies, egalitarianism, tolerance, nonviolence, and moderation are essential values. They keep strict bounds between the private and the public. People in other cultures would label this trait as being shy. However, Nordic people consider it differently. They have a desire for personal autonomy and a penchant for solitude (Daun, 1995; Erickson, 2005).

A “Good Girl” in Mid-20th-Century Western Africa

Posted on by

Midway through the 20th century in Nigeria, the West African print media played a major role in shaping a new image of what constituted normative modern womanhood and girlhood. What was a “good girl” to Western Africans?

The “Milady’s Bower” column in the West African Pilot newspaper helped establish the cultural ideal of a modern woman of that time. Its columnist, “Miss Silva,” advised women on their new urban gender identity. She suggested the new type of femininity be different from traditional patriarchal society (Aderinto, 2015).

In mid-20th-century West Africa, love was still gendered, but in a new way. The key piece of advice regarding gendered love was that women did not experience and did not express love in the same manner as men did. The common belief was that women in romantic love are more passionate and dedicated than men. Their biological differences and social gender expectations formed their female type of love.

An African girl must be a “good girl”, not a “bad girl”

The West African public media attempted to portray a dichotomy between “good” and “bad” modern girls.

A good girl would follow the path of social respectability. She’d be educated, employed, independent, and financially self-sufficient. She’d love a responsible man. Miss Silva was right when she said that girls were more likely to date respectable men if they went to school and worked for money.

For instance, one young woman, who worked as a receptionist for a “well-known department” in Lagos, wrote to Miss Silva that several men approached her for a relationship because of her social standing and education.

A modern woman should marry a decent, respectable man. Then, she should extol the virtues of modern African womanhood. She should participate in church and community activities.

A West African woman must be self-assured and reserved. She must avoid bad habits such as smoking, drinking, and wearing “charred hair.” She has to follow the modern cultural norms of socialization. At the parties, she must behave in accordance with ballroom etiquette and never engage in “nefarious,” “scandalous,” or “demoralizing [dance]… the sight of which can make a spectator shudder.”

The Girl’s Pride in African Womanhood

In her lifestyle and behavior, the modern girl must be neither too British nor too African. How Miss Silva wrote in reference to Europeans:

“We must try to emulate them. [T]hat is not a bad thing in itself, but we must do so only in things that are good and beneficial to us.”

Keeping a careful balance between combining European and African cultural traditions is required for a good contemporary girl. This path helped educate young women to be excellent African women.

“Miss Silva” and her writers attempted to achieve two distinct goals that sometimes clashed. First, they wanted the modern girl to challenge the established gender hierarchy, especially the idea that women should be at the bottom of the social, economic, and political ladders. Second, they told her to keep those “charms” and traits that made her more “feminine.”

The West African Girl’s Pride of Femininity

“Milady’s Bower” said that a modern girl shouldn’t give up her femininity for attitudes and actions that make her look like a man. Miss Silva didn’t think there was anything wrong with women working in politics, which is usually seen as a field for men. However, she didn’t want women to lose their femininity as they tried to change gender norms. This advice was clearer in one specific article that she wrote. She suggested to West African girls that they should try

“to be modest and not play the rough masculine part which spoils a great deal of feminine charm … She will realize how charming it is to be feminine instead of trying to be masculine, because a girl trying to play the latter part will not merely hurt her pride but humble her very existence into the bargain.”

(quoted by Aderinto, 2015, p.494).

In another article, ‘Masculine Girls’, she discouraged West African girls from being masculine, which, in her view, looks rather like a “bad” girl. For instance, Miss Silva argued that “only masculine girls will smoke.” She commented that smoking was a bad habit that only men and people in the West had and that modern girls shouldn’t pick it up. She disliked smoking so much that she said girls who smoked should be “eliminated from the circles of good society by all means.” (quoted by Aderinto, 2015, p.494).