Category Archives: cultural values

These Experiments Show Why Equality Is Bad or Looks Bad

Posted on by

Many modern societies have made great strides toward implementing social policies and practices that promote social equality. However, cultural values of equality spread more rapidly in some nations than in others.

Significant progress toward social equality, for example, has occurred relatively quickly in Western and Northern European countries. However, the social movement toward equality in the United States of America remains slow. The legislative initiatives face resistance from many voters and policymakers. They are often reluctant to support such equality policies. The intriguing question remains why so many people, both conservatives and often liberals, oppose such apparently fair proposals that can benefit all. Nevertheless, they mistakenly perceive the contexts of possible outcomes and resist social equality.

What the Preceding Studies Showed

In my previous post, I described some of the experiments conducted by N. Derek Brown and his colleagues (Brown et al., 2022), which discovered the hidden role that people’s “zero-sum” mindsets play in affecting their oppositional opinions, attitudes, and actions. Because of this, they believe that equality can lead them to lose their advantageous status. They agree with the idea of equality and perceive this as a positive change when equality increases within their own privileged social group. However, they oppose this idea of equality and perceive this as an undesirable shift when equality may increase between their own and other social groups.

Here Are the Other Experiments with Equality, Even More Convincing

The results of the following experiments were especially striking. Researchers made up a special “privileged” social group. They administered a personality test (a bogus test). Then, the researchers told participants that, based on their “test results”, they placed them in either the Eagles or the Rattlers group. In fact, the researchers assigned all of them to the Rattlers’ group. This group held a position of advantage over the Eagles, a fictitious social group. Then, the researchers proposed the Rattlers to reduce the disparity between them and the Eagles. They could take one of two actions:

  1. Either making both groups better off while helping the Eagles more (the win-win, equality-enhancing option)
  2. Or making everyone worse off while harming the Eagles more (the lose-lose, inequality-enhancing option).

Surprisingly and counterintuitively, the Rattlers perceived the win-win scenario to be marginally more detrimental to their interests than the lose-lose proposal. Therefore, they favored “the win-win” option less than “the lose-lose” option as a desired policy.

What Is Especially Striking About These Findings?

One can see that these findings are very convincing. Derek Brown and his colleagues (Brown et al., 2022) characterize these as “grim.” They commented that

“The misperception that equality is harmful is stubbornly persistent, resisting both reason and incentivization”

As Paul Piff, Professor of Psychological Science at the University of California, remarked,

People in general, and particularly elites, “tend to perceive inequality as something abstract and fairly distant. Inequality-mitigating policies are often framed in terms of policies to help the poor, which isn’t necessarily all that motivating for (some) folks. In a sense, then, combatting inequality rarely appeals to self-interest, which is a massive motivation for those advantaged in society to preserve the status quo insofar as it benefits them.”

The Important Conclusion of These Experiments

People tend to resist such equality policies, even when researchers address scarcity concerns and assure people that a more equitable policy will not affect their opportunities. Thus, this study demonstrates why equality is bad or looks bad to many privileged people. Inequality and disparities continue to occur because people fundamentally misunderstand their social consequences.

These Experiments Show Hidden Reasons Why Privileged Social Classes Can Be Against Equality

Posted on by

The social policies and practices of social equality have progressed significantly in many contemporary societies. People in some countries, such as Scandinavia and other North European countries, adopted equality cultural values more quickly and easily than in others. However, in the United States of America, progress on equality is still sluggish and encounters opposition from voters and policymakers. People may explicitly express their support for social equality. Yet, implicitly, they may be reluctant to adopt the policies and practices of equality.

Why does such a discrepancy take place? Why do people tacitly resist equality?

Why Did Researchers Explore “Zero-sum” Beliefs?

A group of researchers led by N. Derek Brown (Brown et al., 2022) looked into the effects of conservative ideology, belief in the status quo, a preference for social hierarchies, and the “zero-sum” worldview of people who prefer to maintain their social advantage.

The study took a special interest in how the zero-sum mentality of men and women affects their opinions, attitudes, and actions. They think that equality can make it harder for them to get and preserve what they need. People in advantaged groups think it’s good when equality grows within their own group but not when it grows between groups. Researchers conducted a series of experiments with several samples of American participants. They discovered interesting results, illuminating why and how individuals in privileged social groups persistently believe that policies that advance equality are detrimental to their own interests. Accordingly, they mistakenly think that inequality is good.

What Did the First Set of Experiments Show?

For the first set of experiments, researchers recruited people from advantaged groups, such as white Americans, able-bodied people, men, and people who have never been convicted of a crime. Then the researchers showed them the proposals that would improve the resources available to members of a less-advantaged group, such as Latino Americans, people with disabilities, women, and people who have been convicted of a crime. In this experimental condition, researchers did not take anything away from the advantaged group. In some cases, researchers openly told the participants from this advantaged group that there were no limits on the resources. Therefore, these proposals to improve equality would not harm their own prospects. Still, on average, these people thought the proposals were bad. Nevertheless, these participants mostly perceived the proposals as harmful.

Here Is Another Experiment on Equality Beliefs 

Prior to the November 2020 election, researchers conducted another experiment among white, East Asian, and South Asian California voters. The researchers asked about a ballot initiative that would repeal an existing ban on affirmative action in public employment, contracts, and university admissions. Researchers considered these people to be the privileged group because many of them, compared to other social groups, studied at public universities or worked in the public sector.

Two-thirds of these respondents said they were liberal. Nevertheless, they thought that allowing affirmative action programs would have hurt their chances of getting public sector jobs, contracts, and college spots for their families. The results of this experiment showed that when they thought affirmative action would hurt their own interests, they more likely answered that they would vote against this proposition. The general vote that year did not support this affirmative action proposal.

Conclusion

Thus, the results of the first set of experiments supported the researchers’ prediction that “zero-sum” attitudes strongly affect people’s actions against social equality.

This Study Revealed the Impediment that Makes People Resist Social Equality

Posted on by

Modern societies in Europe and North America have made substantial progress in the social policies and practices of social equality. Nevertheless, further advancements in equality are still slow and meet with resistance from policymakers and voters. Some countries are more rapidly adopting the idea of equality than others.

For example, equality in the United States of America is still a long way, in many respects, from being good enough. Many privileged Americans, especially those with conservative values, are still reluctant to adopt the idea of equality.

Even though many people may say they want social equality, their thoughts and feelings about equality can be different. Why so? A new study conducted by N. Derek Brown and his colleagues (Brown et al., 2022) investigated how conservatism, belief in the status quo, preference for social hierarchies, and a “zero-sum” worldview influence the behavior of people aimed at gaining a social advantage.

What Are “Zero-sum” Beliefs?

The study has focused on the psychological function of the zero-sum mentality. This way of thinking makes people in privileged social groups think that policies that promote equality are bad for their own interests.

What is the psychology of the “zero-sum” worldview? People with a “zero-sum mentality” view many situations in social relations as zero-sum games. They believe that when one person gains, the other person loses. In other words, a person considers the other person’s gain as his or her own loss. Sometimes this happens in our lives. However, it is not necessarily true in other circumstances. People with this belief think that even simple things like buying food or a car have a winner and a loser. Because of these ideas, policymakers and voters may think that new policies will hurt them more than help others, even though the opposite is true.

What Did Studies Reveal?

Several studies with a total sample size of 4,197 participants showed that members of privileged groups mistakenly believe inequality to be beneficial. They think that equality can be detrimental to their access to resources. People of advantaged groups perceive equality as good only when it is increased within their social ingroup but not between social groups.

When resources and resource access are unlimited, misconceptions also endure. Even when policies that promote equality have positive effects on society as a whole, people still have wrong beliefs.

For example, a long-term study of American voters in 2020 found that this way of thinking about policy was a better predictor of how they would vote than their political beliefs or egalitarian beliefs.

Furthermore, the two final experiments revealed that advantaged people are more likely to vote for policies that increase inequality and harm their finances rather than policies that increase equality and help their finances. Despite any efforts to assist people in making better decisions, people continue to have these incorrect beliefs. So, it’s surprising that the mistaken belief that equality must be a “zero-sum game” may be why inequality still exists even though it has costs for society as a whole.

Why Is Inequality in American Society So Persistent?

Posted on by

In the United States of America, equality is frequently declared to be a high cultural value. And there is undeniable evidence of the progress that American society has made in the social practice of equality during the 20th century.

In many respects, however, equality in the United States is still not consistent and is far from ideal. Despite their declared aspiration for social equality, Americans are diverse in their opinions and attitudes toward equality.

Psychological Discrepancies in Declared Values and Actions

The division between liberals and conservatives is quite apparent in this regard. While many progressive men and women see social equality as a highly desirable cultural value in American society, many conservative men and women may disagree with this view of social life.

Even though many people say they believe in the value of equality, both liberals and conservatives from socially advantaged groups may act in ways that protect their advantage.

Members of socially privileged groups often support the idea of equality, but they use their privilege to make policies that keep inequality in place. This trend keeps going even though inequality threatens the prosperity of both poor and rich groups. Many believe that this “cognitive mistake” is more common for conservatives than for liberals. However, it is not always correct. Both conservatives and liberals are prone to such “cognitive mistakes” and advantage-protecting behavior. Whether conservative or liberal, we tend to cling to our advantages at all costs.

Why Are Privileged Americans So Resistant to the Idea of Equality?

A recent study (Brown et al., 2022) looked at how conservatism, believing in the status quo, liking social hierarchies, and having a “zero-sum” view of the world affect behavior that tries to gain an advantage.

People with a zero-sum way of thinking perceive many situations as zero-sum games. This is the zero-sum attitude, which considers one person’s gain as another person’s loss. The study has especially looked at the psychological role of the zero-sum attitude. This attitude makes people from privileged social groups misperceive policies that promote equality as being detrimental to their own interests.

This zero-sum attitude makes negotiators think that their interests will always be at odds with those of their counterparts. They hold this belief even in situations when there are ways to make one or both parties better off without hurting either.

According to this view, people think that even everyday things like buying food or a car result in a position of winner and loser. Because of these beliefs, policymakers and voters may think that new policies will hurt them more than help others, even though the opposite is true.

The Studies Revealed What Causes American Inequality to Be So Persistent

A series of studies with a total sample size of 4,197 participants demonstrated that members of privileged groups incorrectly perceive equality to be detrimental to their access to resources and inequality to be advantageous. Only when equality is increased within their ingroup, as opposed to between groups, do members of advantaged groups perceive it as harmless. Misperceptions persist even when equality-enhancing policies offer broad benefits to society. Misperceptions also persist when resources and resource access are unlimited.

In particular, a longitudinal survey of U.S. voters in 2020 revealed that voters’ perceptions of harm are a stronger predictor of voting against actual equality-enhancing policies than voters’ political and egalitarian beliefs.

And the two final experiments showed that advantaged people are more likely to vote for policies that increase inequality that hurt their finances than for policies that increase equality that help their finances. Even after a change was made to help people make better decisions, people still have the wrong ideas. Surprisingly, this mistaken belief that equality has to be a zero-sum game could be why inequality still exists, even though it has costs for society that hurt everyone.

The Cultural Value and Practice of American Equality

Posted on by

Equality is commonly declared as a high cultural value in American society. And it is true in many regards. Many legislative norms and practices demonstrate widespread equality in American daily life. However, American equality is still inconsistent and far from ideal in some respects.

What Is Social Equality?

Social equality means that all members of a society are treated equally. This may include having access to civil rights, freedom of speech, autonomy, and certain public goods and social services. Social equality implies that there are no legally recognized social class distinctions and that there is no discrimination based on a fundamental aspect of an individual’s identity.

The best form of equality is equity. Therefore, social equality means that individuals have equal opportunity, not necessarily equal availability. Ultimate social equality means that all individuals are equal in their opportunities,

  • regardless of their age, gender, sexual orientation,
  • regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, social class, income,
  • regardless of their origin, language, opinions,
  • regardless of their health, and disability.

The Progress in American Equality

The history of American society has been quite controversial in terms of democracy and social equality. Even though American leaders always declared these social values, real legislative norms and practices were far from ideal.

The 20th century has made substantial progress in this regard. It has been especially true since the 1960s. Thanks to the efforts and persistence of countless American people and leaders. America has now come much closer to the ideal of equality upon which the country was founded. The 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom became a crucial momentum in this regard. One can see clear evidence of the progress in equality. For instance,

  • Race is no longer a barrier to entry at a lunch counter.
  • Restrictive covenants cannot legally state that only certain types of people can purchase certain types of homes.
  • Literacy tests are no longer a barrier to voting.

However, let’s take a closer look at the realities of today in various areas of American life. Studies have obviously demonstrated that real equality is still an ongoing process. Equality is still just a dream, rather than a reality, for many people in the United States.

Is Further Progress Good for American Culture?

On the one hand, many liberal and progressive men and women believe that social equality is good and is a desirable value for the future American culture. On the other hand, many conservative men and women may not think so.

For instance, white Americans, and white men in particular, have a tendency to view efforts to reduce prejudice toward black men and women as being prejudicial to them. This is especially true when the target population is black men and women. We have seen a lot of this conservative backlash against diversity and racial justice.

“The misperception that equality is harmful is stubbornly persistent, resisting both reason and incentivization.”

And the psychology of advantage can explain this social psychological tendency in beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Whether we identify as conservatives or liberals, we tend to hold on to our advantages at all costs (Brown et al., 2022).

“Self-interest…is a massive motivation for those advantaged in society to preserve the status quo insofar as it benefits them.”

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 Do Religious Cultures Teach Us About Emotions?

Posted on by

Religious and cultural traditions have a big impact on how people experience and express emotions in their lives. Religions teach them what feelings are moral, good, and desirable and what actions are right, ethical, and appropriate in specific situations and contexts. Religions also teach them what feelings and actions are bad, undesirable, immoral, sinful, and should be avoided (Karandashev, 2021).

Religions not only tell us which emotions are appropriate, but also which are preferable. Religions advise people how intense feelings should be and teach how a person can cultivate intense positive emotions while regulating negative emotions.

Researchers elucidated the diversity in religious teachings about emotions. They show how cultural aspects of different religions impact people’s emotional lives (e.g., Koopmann-Holm, 2013; Silberman, 2003).

Love, in a variety of its meanings and types, is a central tenet of many religious beliefs. Therefore, religions teach people how to experience and express love, admiration, and gratitude (Karandashev, 2021a).

Conservative Religious Values of Positive and Negative Emotions

In general, people prefer to experience positive emotions. On the other hand, they wish to avoid negative emotions. Between these two opposite desires, they tend to prefer to avoid negative feelings more than to experience positive feelings. Religions and cultures have different ideas about what is normative and good about pursuing or avoiding certain desires and feelings. Religions usually follow their cultural traditions of emotional life over the centuries. Many are conservative and advocate moderation in the pursuit of pleasure, novelty, and excitement. For instance, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Greek Orthodox, and Muslims discourage their religious followers from experiencing the emotions and motivations associated with pursuing change, novelty, and excessive pleasure in life. The religious teachings of Dutch Roman Catholics, Dutch Protestants, and Israeli Jews advise more traditional, reserved motivation and discourage hedonistic motivation.

Cultural Variations in Religious Teachings about Emotions  

There is still some difference between religious cultures. For example, lexical content analyses of Christian and Buddhist classical texts showed that Christian teachings are more likely than Buddhist teachings to encourage positive states of high arousal.

Some cultural variability is still evident. In North America, where most people are Christian, and East Asia, where most people are Buddhist, the importance of happy feelings with high and low levels of arousal is different.

According to lexical content analyses, Christian texts more frequently than Buddhist classical texts praise high arousal positive states. The ancient basic texts of the two religions show that in the Gospels in Christianity and the Lotus Sutra in Buddhism, “high-arousal positive emotions, such as excitement, are valued more, whereas low-arousal positive emotions, such as calm, are valued less in Christianity than in Buddhism.” (Tsai et al., 2006).

These differences are consistent with the findings of empirical studies about ideal affective states in both Christianity and Buddhism. When researchers compared the ideal affect of Christian and Buddhist practitioners, they discovered that Christian and Buddhist texts and practices have a significant influence on their ideal affect. The findings of the studies showed that Christian practitioners place a higher value on high-arousal positive affective states and a lower value on low-arousal positive affective states in comparison with Buddhist practitioners (Tsai, Miao, & Seppala, 2007).

Cross-National Variation in Religious Emotional Experiences

Emotional cultural norms vary across national cultures, even within the same religion. For instance, Muslim people in the countries of Egypt and Bali have different dispositions toward experience and the expression of emotions. Egyptians regard emotional expressions as a cultural norm that is essential for good health. The Balinese believe that showing emotions is a threat to others and to themselves because it makes it hard to make rational decisions. Emotional reactions to death also differ between these two national cultures. People in Bali react calmly to the death of a child, whereas people in Egypt react with intense emotional reactions (Wikan, 1988).

Religions in Cultural Perspectives

Posted on by

How Are Religious Cultures Different from National Cultures?

Religious cultures are similar to national cultures yet differ in several ways. Religion, like national and ethnic cultures, can be thought of as a type of culture and a cultural system (Cohen, 2009; Saroglou & Cohen, 2013).

Religious parameters of culture can strongly correlate with other cultural dimensions of the country. Such a correlation between the religious elements of culture and other cultural characteristics makes it difficult to disentangle the unique function of religion from that of other aspects of cultural life. Nevertheless, I argued in another article that the main reasons why religions should be considered as cultures with their own sets of cultural meanings, values, norms, and practices.

Cultural experts believe that religion has a considerable impact on the cultural characteristics of societies, but cross-cultural researchers overlook this factor (e.g., Cohen, 2009; McCutcheon, 1995, see review Karandashev, 2021a).

Four major cultural dimensions of religions

Researchers identified four major dimensions of religious cultures, which are present in many religions and denominations with some cultural variation (see Saroglou & Cohen, 2013 for a detailed review). These are

  1. Fundamentalist (orthodox) expression vs. questing expressions of religious beliefs and practices.
  2. Intrinsic vs. extrinsic reli­gious orientations.
  3. Traditional reli­giousness vs. modern spirituality.
  4. Mystical dimension of religion, focusing on the spirituality of the mystics

For example, the distinctions between fundamentalist and questing expressions of religious beliefs and practices are identified among Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. The differences between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations are found among Orthodox, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. Variations in the dimension of organized traditional reli­giousness vs. modern individual spirituality are discovered in many religious cultural contexts. The mystical dimension of religion, centered on the spirituality of the mystics, appeared to be common to many religions. In particular, it was found that mystic experiences are similar among Iranian Muslims and American Christians. They are also similar in religiousness among Indian Hindus, Tibetan Buddhists, and Israeli Jews (see for a detailed review, Saroglou & Cohen, 2013).

How Do Religious Cultures Influence National Cultures?

National cultures are the sets of cultural meanings, values, norms, and practices that have evolved due to the impact of various cultural factors, such as ecological, ethnic, social, political, and religious ones. All those variables, in a historical perspective, merged to form specific national cultures. On a daily basis, religions interact with other cultural factors, affecting people’s emotional and cultural lives.

Religious cultures have profound ties with national and ethnic cultures. Religions and religious cultural variables are among the strong factors that determine the national cultures of countries. So, countries with similar Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist religious cultures can have a lot in common with each other culturally.

Religions have historically shaped the cultural patterns of nations. However, the opposite effects have also occurred when a country’s culture influenced religious development in some ways (Norris & Inglehart, 2004). Religious culture comes into the national culture being modified and transformed.

For example, according to anthropological studies, Islam in different countries advocates different cultural values. The Muslim populations of Egypt and Bali maintain different cultural traditions, despite sharing the same faith and adhering to the same Islamic principles (Wikan, 1988).

The Ways How Religious Cultures Shaped Eastern and Western Civilizations Let’s look at how cultural differences between the West and the East have evolved and persisted for hundreds of years, in part because of their shared religious history.

The difference between individualistic Western societies and collectivist Eastern societies is the most well-known cultural difference between the West and the East.

Eastern societies tend to be largely collectivistic cultures, while Western societies are mostly individualistic.

The Buddhist religion is quite collectivistic in many respects. This can explain why Japanese culture tends to be a collectivistic culture. And generally, collectivistic cultural values and beliefs are commonly associated with Eastern religions. The cultural worldviews, social perspectives, and schools of thought of Eastern societies are substantially determined by their religions. Confucianist societies tend to be collectivistic, while Islamic societies are frequently hierarchical. On the other hand, Christianity, and Protestantism in particular, is strongly related to individualistic values and beliefs. This can explain why many Western European and European American societies are individualistic cultures. For instance, Protestant societies are often individualistic and egalitarian. Many aspects of Western national cultures and their worldview biases are substantially shaped by Christianity. Their scholarly, social, cultural, and political approaches to the modern world are Western and Christian-centric (Basabe & Ros, 2005).

The Religious Cultural Values of Interdependence and Independence There are several ways in which religious values can predispose people to think and feel in certain ways. For instance, in general, religious people are more interdependent than those who are not religious (Cohen & Rozin, 2001; Cukur, de Guzman & Carlo, 2004, Triandis, 1995). Religions differ in their values of interdependence. Those who are monotheistic are more self-sufficient, while non-theistic are more interdependent (Basabe & Ros, 2005).

Here Are the Main Reasons Why Religions Are Cultures

Posted on by

What is religion and why can religion be considered as a culture? Actually, religion is a set of cultures, each of which follows its own cultural values, principles, norms, and practices. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism are among the largest world religions. Let us consider the main reasons why religions should be considered as cultures (Karandashev, 2021a).

What Is Culture?

Many authors have defined the concept of culture over the last several decades from different disciplinary perspectives and from different methodological positions. Despite the variety of definitions, they all revolve around the same general concepts.

Culture is a system of historically derived and socially constructed information, ideas, and meanings shared by a group of people. This cultural system is passed down from one generation to the next through values, beliefs, practices, languages, rituals, artifacts, and so on (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952; Markus & Conner, 2013; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2012).

Culture teaches people what is good and bad, what is right and wrong, and what is moral and immoral. Culture teaches them what is and is not acceptable in daily life (Markus & Conner, 2013; Shweder, 2003). Culture includes several aspects of cultural reality. Material culture describes the ways in which people share services, goods, and technology. Subjective culture is the ideas, knowledge, and beliefs that a group of people share with each other. Social culture constitutes the institutions and social rules that they share (Chiu & Hong, 2006). Let us see below how religions fit to these criteria of culture in all aspects of material, subjective, and social culture. Religious cultures are shared by large groups of people across several countries or by a group of people within one country.

What Is Religion? And Why is It a Culture?

Generally speaking, religion is a cultural realm that is devoted to the search for meaning and significance in relation to some sacred things, such as values, beliefs, perceptions, and emotions, which believers recognize as “holy,” which are set apart from everything else, from the ordinary, and worthy of veneration and respect (Pargament, Magyar-Kussell, & Murray- Swank, 2005, p. 668). Religious beliefs are about the mighty nature of the Deity and the merciful power of God. Prayers bring a person a strong emotional experience of closeness to the sacred. Prayers to God impact the emotional well-being of devotees (Silberman, 2003).

“Loving God, I pray that you will comfort me in my suffering, lend skill to the hands of my healers, and bless the means used for my cure. Give me such confidence in the power of your grace, that even when I am afraid, I may put my whole trust in you; through our Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.”

— Enriching Our Worship 2

Beliefs in God and prayers transfer to subsequent emotional attitudes towards other people in close and broader social circles. For example, the positive emotional dispositions of love, gratitude, humility, forgiveness, hope, and self-control are highly valued in Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian, traditions. They have been extensively explored in many studies (see for review, Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003).

Thus, one can see that all world religions fit very well into the definitions of culture as I described it above.

The Key Cultural Elements of All Religions  

All religions across history, even nontheistic religions, include (1) believing, (2) behaving, (3) bonding, and (4) belonging, along with corresponding perceptions and emotions. All religions have these parts, though they look different in different cultures and religions. Furthermore, all these world religions entail:

(1) Spiritual beliefs, cognitions, and emotions involved in the person’s perception of transcendence,

(2) Moral values, norms, rules, and practices associated with religion

(3) Collective and individual cultural rituals associated with those beliefs, dispositions, and norms

(4) Religious ceremonies, combined with emotions, foster close bonds between people as well as transcendence.

(5) Spiritual feelings of personal identification with profoundly valuable and timeless groups, as well as with deity

(Saroglou, 2011).

Free Scandinavian Love

Posted on by

For many Scandinavians, love is a free relationship between independent individuals. Their national cultural ideas and policies of freedom, independence, and equality in interpersonal relations encourage their culture of love. The free Scandinavian love in the countries of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland is in accord with the egalitarian cultural values of their societies.

The High Value of Love in Scandinavian Cultures Having a wonderful, long-term relationship or becoming a parent is important. Many Scandinavians believe that love and relationships nowadays are stronger than ever in their countries. For example, Danish sociologist Birthe Linddal Hansen, a researcher at the Copenhagen Institute of Future Studies, said that

“True love is still very popular as an ideal, and people are getting married more now than they did years ago.”

Scandinavians do not shy away from the words “I love you.” The Danish “jeg elsker dig,” the Norwegian “jeg elsker deg,” and the Swedish “jag älskar dig,” pronounced something like “yah-g el-scar d-eh” are still widely used by people in those countries. In Finnish, it sounds like “minä rakastan sinua,” or in the shortened “mä rakastan sua,” in the spoken language. Yet, men and women used these love words sparingly due to their reserved Scandinavian character. When it comes to expressing their feelings, they do so in a reserved manner. In their interpersonal relationships, they are typically less emotionally expressive than people in some other, more expressive cultures, like those in Mediterranean and Latin American societies. The Nordic people of Scandinavia tend to be less lively in their facial and body expressions. They smile and laugh in moderation.

The Swedish Example of Free Love

The Swedish book “Är svensken människa” and its English publication, The Swedish Theory of Love (Berggren & Trägårdh, 2022), present some basic cultural ideas and prototypes of Scandinavian free love. Swedish cultural policies and legislation, on the one hand, emphasize individual autonomy and, on the other hand, trust in the state. Swedish philosophy, cultural studies, and sociology focus on some basic logic and rational principles that the welfare state follows. This is the social idea that people in interpersonal relationships should be independent. Cohesive dependency and subordination cause individual inauthenticity and predicaments for true love. Swedish modern cultural values promote equality and autonomy as preconditions for sincere and authentic affection and love.

To Love or to Marry?

It appears that contemporary Scandinavians are delaying their marriage. Men and women tend to marry later in their 30s, when their education, careers, and relationships are established. Many couples choose to live together without getting married. People in the Scandinavian countries feel free to certify or not certify their marriages. “Open unions” have long been an acceptable practice in Scandinavian societies. De facto unions between spouses are common and even mainstream in today’s society. When it comes to property and inheritance, both couples have rights and duties. Government policies in Scandinavian nations actively encourage equality between the sexes in all areas of relationships.

In Scandinavian countries, legal marriage is seen as a major life milestone. However, these formal events are secondary in importance to having a loving partner, a long-term relationship or becoming a happy parent.

For many men and women, official marriage is rather a symbolic expression of love and commitment to remain together forever or for a long time. These old ideals of stability, love, and commitment, however, haven’t gone out of style, even in progressive and liberal Scandinavian societies.

Scandinavian Weddings

Couples may officially certify their marriage later and even have a wedding. Eventually, some of these couples decide to wed, primarily to celebrate their union with a wedding ceremony and a great party. For instance, in Norwegian folklore and tradition we find wedding formulae that seem to be ancient, i.e.,

“He weds you to honor and to be the lady of the house, to half the bed and to locks and keys … under one blanket and one sheet.“

Perhaps these words go far back in time.

Wedding traditions in Scandinavia are always evolving, with the changes being influenced by customs from other regions of the world. Nowadays, Norwegian weddings, for instance, have many things in common with those of other European countries. A typical bride will wear a long white dress, and her groom will wear a black tuxedo. The same fashion is in Sweden today. Bridal couples wear what we would consider traditional wedding attire: a white dress and tuxedos. Some may return to past Swedish customs, such as wearing the bridal crown. Nevertheless, traditional wedding practices are gradually waning in the modern cultural evolution of Scandinavian societies.