Category Archives: transnational cultures

The Diversity of Western and Eastern Cultures

Posted on by

For a long time, the cultural distinction between Western and Eastern cultures has been the subject of public debate and academic study.

Western cultures have usually been thought of as those of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United States of America, and other partner countries. The origins of Western culture are regarded as being in ancient Greek and Roman cultures.

Eastern cultures have been deemed those of Japan, China, and India, which have long been thought of as Eastern cultures. Eastern cultures are believed to have their origins in ancient Confucian and Buddhist traditions.

Such a West versus East comparison of the world’s major cultures had historical foundations. And this distinction seems reasonable. Therefore, most previous cultural studies sought to understand how the “East” is different from the “West.”

Many researchers wanted to learn about the mysterious and unknown “East” and compare the unknown East with the known West. These cross-cultural comparisons have revealed several cultural differences between Western and Eastern societies, demonstrating that such global, geographically regional cultures exist.

There are 5 differences between Western and Eastern cultures that I presented in another article.

How Diverse Are Western and Eastern Cultures?

Many studies, however, reveal that such a simple division of the world’s societies into the West and the East is too simplistic and does not capture the real diversity of Western as well as Eastern cultures. After initial fascination, researchers realized that Western and Eastern cultures are somewhat diverse in terms of, for example, emotional experience and expression (Karandashev, 2021).

In the 20th century, cross-cultural researchers of emotions conducted their studies by usually comparing one Western country with one Eastern country. The USA was taken as a representative of Western cultures and compared with China or Japan as a representative of Eastern cultures.

The United States and Western Europe have long been seen as typical “Western individualist” cultures. Can the USA be viewed as representative of all so-called Western cultures? Can Japan or China be considered representatives of other so-called Eastern countries? Scholars realized that such a Western-Eastern contrast was too global and overgeneralizing. It looks like this broad generalization may not be enough to show how different the cultures are in each of these global regions.

How Diverse Are Western Cultures?

There are many differences between North American and West European cultures. For example, many West European countries, such as France, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, substantially differ from the United States and Canada. The USA and Canada are also different, although all are commonly considered Western societies.

There are diverse cultural distinctions between different West European countries. What about southern, presumably western-European countries? Spain and Portugal, for example, are among those that can be categorized in different ways. The cultures of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece are even more different from those of the USA and traditional western European countries. For example, many findings indicated differences in cultural values in the “West” (Schwartz, 2014). 

How Diverse Are Eastern Cultures?

Eastern societies are even more diverse in terms of global cultural regions. For instance, there are many differences between East-Asian and South-Asian cultures. The East Asian countries are very distinct from the South Asian and Central Asian ones. The cultures of Japan and China are quite different from those of India, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey. Thus, the East is a very diverse set of various cultural traditions.

The Diversity of Individualism and Collectivism in the West and East

Empirical cross-cultural studies of the West and East revealed that individualism and collectivism explain many of the cultural differences between these global cultures. The United States, the Netherlands, and, on rare occasions, other European countries (as Western cultural representatives) were frequently compared to China and Japan (as Eastern cultural representatives). Researchers found that the cultural differences between these two world cultures are often about individualism and collectivism.

Many other studies, however, have demonstrated that both individualism and collectivism are multifaceted and complex cultural characteristics that can be quite different in various societies. For instance, Schwartz (2014) suggested that multiple findings showed that the general characteristic of Western cultures as individualistic does not adequately reflect the diversity of individualism.

What about the individualism and collectivism of southern European countries? For instance, are Spain and Portugal individualistic or collectivistic cultures? Studies have shown that they can be categorized in both ways (Karandashev, 2021).

A Variety of Western Cultural Orientations

Several cultural orientations considerably vary within the West. For example, Schwartz and Ros (1995) found significant differences between the samples in the US and those in Western Europe in six cultural value orientations. Mastery, embeddedness, and hierarchy were valued more highly in the United States, while intellectual autonomy, egalitarianism, and harmony were valued more highly in Western European countries.

What about southern European countries such as Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal? To which cultural group do the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Lithuania belong?

Researchers began to delve into a variety of cultural characteristics that describe and explain, for example, people’s emotional experiences and expressions in various societies (Karandashev, 2021).

They started to realize that the cultural configurations of European societies should be based on several cultural dimensions, not just individualism. Exploration of cultural diversity in both Western and Eastern societies is on the way (Karandashev, 2021).

5 Differences Between Western and Eastern Cultures

Posted on by

The cultural opposition of Western and Eastern societies has been widely recognized in public discourse and scholarship. This division of the major world cultures had historical roots, valid justification, and adequacy.

Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United States of America, and other allied countries were traditionally viewed as having Western cultures. It is thought that ancient Greek and Roman cultures are the origins of Western cultures.

China, Japan, and India have traditionally been considered Eastern cultures. The ancient Confucian and Buddhist cultures are thought to be at the origins of Eastern cultures.

See more in Western versus Eastern cultures.

The scholarly significance of cultural comparisons between the West and the East

Most cultural studies of the past have focused on learning how the “East” is different from the “West”. Since many believed that they knew their own “Western” culture pretty well, they were interested in learning about the mysterious and less-known “East”. Therefore, such cultural opposition has become popular among scholars. Being ethnocentric, Western researchers were interested in knowing how similar or different the unknown East was from the well-known West. The first interest was to search for cross-cultural universality, while the others were more interested in learning about how much the East deviates from our traditional western knowledge. This is why those other societies were often called “nonwestern cultures.”

For comparative cultural studies, the in-group (West) versus out-group (East) dichotomy worked well. This division was basic and straightforward. As I noted above, the approach was largely ethnocentric because the West was viewed as “we” (in-group) and the East was viewed as “they” (out-group).

These cross-cultural comparisons have been valid in many regards, indicating several cultural differences between Western and Eastern societies (Karandashev, 2021). Here are the five main distinctions:

1. Philosophical and Folk Worldviews

Western folk and scholarly worldviews are linear, logical, analytical, and dichotomous, and have a dualistic view of the world and mental life.

Western logical beliefs acknowledge the existence of binary oppositions, such as positive and negative human emotions. According to dualistic Western cultural philosophies, the mind and body are in dualistic relations, and the mind ­(rational) and the heart (emotional) are in a dichotomy with each other.

Eastern folk and scholarly worldviews are nonlinear, wholistic, dialectical, and have a monistic view of the world and mental life.

Eastern dialectical beliefs accept natural contradictions and complementarity of opposition, such as positive and negative emotions. According to monistic Eastern cultural philosophies, the mind and body are in monistic united relations, and the mind (rational) and heart (emotional) are not in dichotomy with each other but rather in wholistic relations.

See more about this in Western versus Eastern cultures and in Perception of a person in relationship contexts.

2. Perception of Social Relationships as Independent Versus Interdependent

Eastern and Western models of social relationships define how the self and others are related.

The individualistic view of Western cultures perceives social and relationship contexts as a free association of independent individuals. Western cultural norms suggest individualistic personhood and individualistic construals of the self and others. These cultural norms impose an independent model of self and culture. These cultural factors determine the person’s self-focused perception and emotional experience.

Eastern collectivistic cultures perceive social and relationship contexts as a strongly and intricately connected network of interdependent members. Eastern cultural norms suggest collectivistic personhood and relational construals of the self and others. These cultural norms impose an interdependent model of self and culture. Cultural factors determine a person’s other-focused perception and emotional experience.

See more about this in Perception of a person in relationship contexts.

3. Individualism Versus Collectivism in Society

The most well-known cultural difference between the West and the East is the distinction between individualistic Western societies and collectivistic Eastern ones. Individualism and collectivism describe how an individual and a group relate to each other in a society.

Western societies are considered to be independent, individualistic cultures. Individualism in a society is defined by cultural values such as personal liberty, initiative, autonomy, and self-reliance.

Eastern societies are considered to be interdependent, collectivistic cultures. The cultural values that go along with collectivism are kinship priority, family unity, in-group integrity, and loyalty to relationships.

See more in Western individualistic cultures and Eastern collectivistic cultures.

4. High-Context Versus Low-Context Cultural Styles of Communication

The concepts of high-context and low-context cultures differentiate the types of cultures that accentuate the importance of implicit versus explicit messages in people’s relationships and daily interactions.

In high-context Eastern cultures, people prefer to use messages that largely convey meanings and connotations via implicit nonverbal codes, the contexts, culturally implied forms of speech, expected patterns of behavior, and the contextual settings of a situation and social relations.

In low-context Western cultures, people prefer to use messages in which the meanings and connotations are primarily expressed via explicit verbal codes, direct words spoken or written, and overt facial and body expressions with evident meaning, like an open smile.

See more in Western low-context versus Eastern high-context interaction style.

5. High-Contact and Low-Contact Cultures

Western and Eastern cultures have certain differences in the cultural dimension of contact versus non-contact cultures. People in non-contact cultures keep their distance in communication and avoid tactile and olfactory sensory modes of interaction, while people in high-contact cultures communicate with a shorter interpersonal distance and higher engagement of tactile and olfactory sensory modes.

Societies from North America, Northern Europe, and Asia tend to be low-contact, whereas societies from Southern Europe, the Middle East, and South America tend to be high-contact cultures. So, we see that this division has a more complex configuration than just West versus East.

See more in Cultural proxemics and immediacy of interpersonal communication.

Western Communication Style vs Eastern Communication Style

Posted on by

The key point of this article are that Western communication style vs Eastern communication style differ in their cultural norms. Western cultures value low-context communication, whereas Eastern cultures value high-context communication.

As I have previously stated on this website, Western and Eastern cultures differ in their ways of life and social organization in a variety of ways. They differ in their worldviews and perceptions. They differ in the norms of relationships between people, in the personal construal of self, and in the tendencies toward more individualistic or collectivistic structures in their social lives.

Let us consider the differences in the ways people in Western and Eastern societies prefer to communicate their verbal and nonverbal messages. It should be noted that the divisions in communication patterns frequently lie along lines that are different from the traditional divisions of Western and Eastern cultures.

Cultural Differences in Low-content Versus High-context Communication

The Western communication style vs eastern communication style differ in their values of low-content versus high-context communication.

While individuals differ in their relative personal preferences and orientations regarding the content or context of messages in communication, societies, their values, and cultural norms also differ in this regard. These cultural differences are evident in both verbal and nonverbal communication.

A question of interest once again is whether the content or context of messages is more important for people in their verbal and nonverbal communication. Some cultural traditions can encourage their members to rely more on the content or context of their interpersonal communication.

People mainly convey the content of a message verbally, while they express the context of the message mostly nonverbally. Therefore, low-context cultures favor verbal ways of interaction, while high-context cultures prefer nonverbal ways of communication.

Low-context Versus High-context Cultures of Communication

American anthropologist Edward Hall introduced the concepts of low-context and high-context cultures. Distinguishing these cultures, he emphasized the importance of explicit versus implicit messages in people’s daily communication. In low-context cultures, people convey the main message’s meaning in their explicit verbal codes. In contrast, people in high-context cultures tend to choose messages in which they embed the meaning mainly in the context of the interaction, such as the settings and participants (Hall, 1989; McKay‐Semmler, 2017).

Consequently, people in low-context cultures tend to speak openly, directly, explicitly, and in words with precise meaning. In contrast, people in high-context cultures prefer to talk indirectly, implicitly, and with words that have hidden meanings.

What Is the Origin of Low-Context Cultures?

Due to several cultural features, Western societies tend to be low-context cultures. People in individualistic cultures prefer lower-context messages (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996; Karandashev, 2021).

Many scholars believe that the ancient Greek and Roman cultures (with the philosophies of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates) are the origins of modern Western culture. Therefore, it is logical to assume that they subscribe to the principle of universal meanings and the importance of reasoning. These philosophical beliefs encourage analytical and rational thinking and suggest expressing ideas and thoughts logically, clearly, and persuasively.

What Are the Low-Context Cultures?

In these philosophical cultural traditions, the content of the message is more important than its context. Then, when they talk with someone about something, they need to elaborate on the details of their message and expect that their partner will do the same. This pattern of communication is prevalent in so-called low-context cultures (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Hall & Hall, 1990).

People in western North American countries, such as the USA and Canada, and northern European countries, such as Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway, pay less attention to the intricate details of the context in which people communicate.

Men and women choose to be open and transparent in their messages. People say everything explicitly in their words without making implicit assumptions, attempting to avoid unspoken or hidden nonverbal or contextual messages. They tend to compartmentalize their interpersonal relationships. They believe that people should express any messages openly, elaborately, and directly.

When people from high-context Eastern cultures provide insufficient details in their messages, and people from low-context Western cultures feel confused or even lost in their misunderstanding. Perceiving too little information, they can feel left out. People of Western cultural origins consider the long-lasting absence of sound and a pause in a conversation awkward. They feel that such conversation is uneasy (Hasegawa & Gudykunst, 1998; Morsbach, 1976; Oliver, 1971).

What Are High-Context Cultures?

Due to several cultural characteristics, Eastern societies are more likely to be high-context cultures. People in collectivistic cultures prefer the higher-context messages (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996; Karandashev, 2021).

For people in high-context-dependent cultures, in addition to the content of a message, its context is highly informative in terms of its implicit, unspoken, and hidden cultural connotations. Therefore, they put special emphasis on the circumstances of a situation, status relations, invited people, rituals, elaborate greetings, and many other contextual details. They convey their messages mostly through contextual expressions. They convey more meaning than they say. The recipient just needs to be able to decode unspoken messages. They are very polite to everyone. How well they can say “no” without saying “no” can be superb (Karandashev, 2021).

The typical societies of the high-context cultures are China, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, the so-called Oriental cultures (Hall, 1984).

The Iberian cultures of Spanish and Portuguese societies, as well as Latin American cultures, are also high-context cultures. Societies of the southern and eastern Mediterranean and Indian cultural regions, such as the Turks, Greeks, and Arabs, also belong to high-context cultures.

In the United States, high-context cultures characterize certain cultural groups, such as Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and African Americans (Andersen, Hecht, Hoobler, & Smallwood, 2003; Hall, 1976, 1984; Lustig & Koester, 1999; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

Variations in Low-context and High-context Cultures

Generally, Western individualistic societies tend to be low-context cultures, while Eastern collectivistic societies are high-context cultures, even though this division is not strictly along West-East lines. As we’ll see below, there is variation within those so-called Western and Eastern societies.

For example, European cultures, however, vary in their cultural norms in this regard. For example, the Germans and other northern Europeans are much lower in context-dependency than the Mediterranean, Spanish, Italian, and French people. This aspect of their communication and interaction affects many situations and relationships in their lives.

The Mixture of Low- and High-context Communication Styles

Many cultures have mixed styles of communication, which can depend on the types of relationships and areas of interaction. For instance, the cultures of England, France, and Italy have characteristics of both low-context and high-context cultures mixed with each other. People in those countries are less explicit in their communication than in other Western European and North American countries. Nevertheless, they are more explicit than people in Eastern countries like Japan and China, for example.

Low-context and High-context Communication Styles

Posted on by

Our interpersonal communication involves both

  • content—an informative message that we want to say to another person, and
  • context—why and how we say the message to another person.

The context in which we say something can be more important than the content that we want to deliver. People can be receptive to our message in one context but not in another. Sometimes, context can tell people more than the content of messages.

Here I’ll talk about low-context and high-context styles of communication.

What Is Low-context Versus High-context Communication?

One of the major differences that many cross-cultural studies have highlighted is the importance, sensitivity, and dependency of people in different societies on the context of verbal and nonverbal communication. A question of interest is whether the content or context of a message is more important for people in their communication.

What is More Important, the Content or the Context of the Message?

On the one hand, in the low-context-dependent style of communication, people believe that the content of a message is more important than its context. Therefore, they prefer to be clear, open, and explicit in their messages. They leave little room for implicit assumptions. They say everything that they want to say, leaving little in the way of hidden or unspoken contextual messages.

On the other hand, in the high-context-dependent style of communication, the content of a message is less important than its context. Therefore, they tend to be more implicit and less explicit in their messages and contextual expressions. They tell more than they say. The recipient just needs to be able to decode unspoken messages (Karandashev, 2021).

Individual Differences in Orientation toward the Content and Context of Communication

People have different orientations toward the content or context of messages in their communication, depending on their individual and cultural differences. All people pay attention to both content and context, yet to a different degree.

Some individuals are more content-oriented and less context-dependent. For them, analytical, rational thinking and logical, systematic reasoning based on arguments and evidence are the priorities in communication. They prefer to avoid or abandon any preconceptions and beliefs when they are speaking and listening. They believe in universal meaning, rational understanding, objective knowledge, and real truth.

Other individuals are less content-oriented and more context-dependent. For them, the context of the situation and the presence of others play an important role, sometimes overshadowing the content of the message itself. They strongly rely on the beliefs and opinions of others, especially those from their in-group. They are sensitive to the emotional tone and manner in which a communicator speaks. They believe in relative meaning, intuitive understanding, subjective knowledge, and the nonexistence of real truth.

Styles of Communication toward In-group and Out-group Members

People and cultures vary in the way they interact with members of their in-group compared to those from their out-group. The context of in-group relations versus out-group relations can influence their communication styles.

People in collectivistic Eastern cultures with a high value of in-group embeddedness tend to show different attitudes and behaviors toward others from their own in-group than towards others from their out-group (Smith & Bond, 1999). People in collectivistic cultures are less interested in establishing personal and specific friendships with others due to their natural embeddedness in pre-existing kin relations and reluctance to establish such relations with out-group individuals (Karandashev, 2021).

On the other hand, people in individualistic Western cultures have high values of autonomy and equality. So, they tend to demonstrate the same attitudes and behaviors directed toward others from their in-groups and out-groups. They are universalistic in their social views. And, therefore, tend to apply the same standards of communication to all (Smith & Bond, 1999). They are more interested in establishing personal and specific friendships.

Sensory Processes Involved in Low- and High-Context Communication Styles

Communication styles also differ in the ways people rely on visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, thermal, and olfactory perceptions in their interpersonal interactions (Karandashev et al., 2019). For instance, Germans and Americans, as low-context dependent communicators, rely on auditory screening, while high-context dependent communicators, such as Italians and Spanish, tend to reject auditory screening and thrive on being open to interruptions and in tune with what is going on around them.

Proxemics and Immediacy in Interpersonal Communication

Posted on by

In this article, I define what proxemics and immediacy in interpersonal communication are. I also explain what the proxemic zones and immediacy of communication tell us about relationships. Cultural variations in the use of proxemics and immediacy still exist.

What Is Proxemic Communication?

Proxemics (distance), kinesics (body language), and haptics (touch) are important nonverbal messages that we use in our communication.

Proxemics is a form of nonverbal communication in which personal and social spaces of interaction convey specific meanings about interpersonal relationships. Such spatial signs and behavioral indicators express, tacitly or explicitly, certain cultural connotations.

Proxemic communication relies on the spatial distance that we keep with others around us during interaction, conversation, or just passing by. The space we leave between the other person and ourselves can signal many things about our relationships.

The American cultural anthropologist Edward Hall proposed the proxemic theory (Hall, 1966). He characterized proxemics as the hidden dimension that focused on how people in different cultures used physical space in their communication with others.

Edward Hall outlined spatial zones that characterize typical interpersonal distances that people in Western cultures tend to maintain in different kinds of social relations.

Proxemic Zones

Proxemics describe the relative distances between people in communication. These are the four proxemic zones of social interaction. E. Hall classified and defined them as public space, social space, personal space, and intimate space.

  • “Public distance” is the distance typical for public speeches and interactions. This distance is approximately greater than 210 cm. At this distance, there is little eye contact between the people who are talking, and their voices sound at a high volume. 
  • “Social distance” is the distance that is maintained during formal interactions. This distance is approximately 122-210 cm. At this distance, communicators use only visual and auditory messages.
  • “Personal distance” is the distance that is maintained during informal interactions with friends. This distance is about 46–122 cm. At this distance, communicators rely on visual and auditory contact. Facial expressiveness and vocalizations increase.
  • “Intimate distance” is the distance that is maintained in close relationships. This distance is approximately 0 to 46 cm. At this distance, communicators’ visual perceptions are blurred. A voice is low-pitched, soft, and quiet. Perception of temperature, olfactory, and touch senses play a greater role.

What Is Immediacy?

I call these territorial and spatial facets of communication “immediacy.” This cultural concept characterizes the preferred proximity of interpersonal relationships, psychological closeness, and behavioral closeness between people that is prevalent in a society (Karandashev, 2021).

The psychological concept of immediacy is closely associated with communicative concepts of proxemics.

Immediacy is an invisible psychological bubble we feel beyond our bodies. We can call it “personal space.” Individuals tend to prefer a certain personal space with other people depending on what kind of relationship they are in and how culturally appropriate it is.

The immediacy is evident in interpersonal interactions ranging from proximity to spatial distance.

What Does Immediacy Tell Us About Relationships?

Western scholars and laypeople often interpret physical closeness as a sign of accessibility, approach inclination, and warmth, while a physical distant space is interpreted as a sign of inaccessibility, avoidance inclination, and psychological detachment. Initiating and maintaining a certain distance in interpersonal communication can be evident in several expressions of nonverbal behavior (Andersen, 1985; Andersen & Andersen, 1984).

Psychological immediacy of interaction is characterized by close proximity in interaction, open body positions, eye contact, smiling, more vocal animation, touching, and expressiveness. When people have a relaxed or positive relationship with each other, they are more likely to reciprocate such behaviors.

Psychological distant interaction is characterized by greater distance in interaction, close body positions, a lack of eye contact, a lack of smiling, less vocal animation, a lack of touching, and less expressiveness. When people have a tense or negative relationship, they tend to reciprocate such immediate behaviors.

Cultural Variations in the Understanding of Proxemics and Immediacy

Due to cultural evolution, social ideas of territoriality and appropriate territorial space evolved. The territorial spaces that are identified as “ours” and “mine” vary across human societies and depend on several cultural factors (Hall & Hall, 1990; Karandashev, 2021).

Therefore, the Western psychological interpretation of proxemics and immediacy may be inadequate from a cross-cultural perspective. Explanations of spatial distance can vary across cultures (Karandashev, 2021).

Cultural connotations of proxemics and immediacy are closely associated with corresponding understandings of intimacy in close relationships in different cultures (see another article).

Individualism and Collectivism in Societies

Posted on by

Individualism and collectivism have been among the central concepts of cross-cultural research. The division between individualistic Western societies and collectivistic Eastern societies is probably the best-known cultural parameter distinguishing the West and East. At least, that is the most common framework that many researchers use when they study different cultures.

Let us take a closer look at what these parameters of individualism and collectivism are.

What Are Individualism and Collectivism in Societies?

Individualism and collectivism is among the earliest cultural constructs that social psychologists identified to characterize differences between Western and Eastern societies (e.g., Hofstede, 1980/1984; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Marsella et al., 1985; Triandis, 1995; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

These constructs define the relations between an individual and a group in the structure of societal relations. The societal characteristics of individualism and collectivism describe the extent to which individuals in a society are integrated into groups. If most people in a society have individualistic or collectivistic value orientations, researchers call the society “individualistic” or “collectivistic.”

On the one hand, personal freedom, personal initiative, personal autonomy, and self-reliance are the cultural values linked with individualism in a society. On the other hand, family unity, family integrity, and family loyalty are the cultural values linked to collectivism. 

Individualistic cultures have norms and values that stress how important individual goals and personal freedom are for people’s functioning.

“People are supposed to look after themselves and their immediate family only”.

The values and norms of collectivistic cultures emphasize that the importance of group goals and relations with other shall be higher than individual goals.

“People belong to in-groups or collectivities which are supposed to look after them in exchange for loyalty”

(Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p. 419).

Individual Variation of Individualism and Collectivism in Societies

It is worthwhile to note that within a society (either individualistic or collectivistic), individuals can vary in these cultural value orientations. People can also be collectivistic and individualistic to varying degrees within different areas of their relationships. They can differ in the degree of individualism (or collectivism) in their relations with their kin, family members, neighbors, co-workers, or friends.

Therefore, I would suggest that cultural researchers be careful. They should not be too straight-forward and simplistic in attributing their observations of any individual to their individualism or collectivism, especially in any area of their relationships with others.

Individualism in Western Societies

The cultural values and norms in individualistic societies elevate personal independence, actions, autonomy, the primacy of personality uniqueness, self-realization, and individual initiative. The values and norms also emphasize the individual’s rights rather than duties, the high value of one’s independence rather than interdependence, and the priority of one’s self-interest with less concern for other people’s interests.

People in individualistic societies feel quite independent and autonomous in both in-group and out-group relationships. So, their attitudes and behaviors toward people from both their in-group and out-group are quite similar. 

The personal identity of an individual is recognized through the individual’s attributes. The ties between individuals are loose. In motivation, people subordinate the goals of collectivities to their personal goals. The United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark represent the typical examples of individualistic societies. One can easily notice that these are largely Western countries (Hofstede, 1984; 2011; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Gelfand, et al., 2000; Kashima, et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

Collectivism in Eastern Societies

In collectivistic societies, cultural norms highly praise relational values that foster cooperation within an in-group and the harmony of interpersonal relationships. The norms encourage subordinating a person’s self-assertion. Cultural values and norms of collectivistic societies emphasize that people are the natural parts of strong, cohesive in-groups, such as extended families. An individual’s loyalty to a group and the need to protect the interests and well-being of others in their in-group as opposed to other groups are of high importance. So, group norms encourage people to take part in social activities that help and share with each other.

People in collectivistic societies are highly embedded in their in-group relationships. Such relations with family as unity, loyalty, and integrity are collectivistic beliefs. These are values and rules that emphasize people’s interpersonal bonds, a sense of interconnectedness, solidarity, duty to the group, obligations, in-group harmony, and awareness of the needs of others. These values and rules are called “collectivistic.”

People in collectivistic societies have different standards of behavior for the members of their in-groups and out-groups. They are collectivistic in their interactions with their in-group members (family, friends, etc.). Yet ,in their interactions with out-group members (strangers, people from other cultural groups), they are in-group biased. They strongly distinguish their attitudes and behavior towards those from their in-group versus their out-group.

A personal identity centers on one’s place and role in one’s group. Personal privacy is abridged. In motivation, people subordinate personal goals to the goals of their in-group. Collectivistic values highlight in-group beliefs rather than individual beliefs. The value of in-group views is higher than individual views. Collective responsibility to the in-group precedes individual pleasure in importance.

Independent Individualistic and Interdependent Collectivistic Cultures

Despite being a classical cultural concept distinguishing individualistic and collectivistic societies, individualism and collectivism turned out to be more complex and multifaceted than they appeared at first sight (see Karandashev, 2021).

Researchers use the concepts of interdependent and independent cultures to explain Western and Eastern social structures and relationships between people. The concepts are especially important in the contexts of the mind, emotions, and self of a person. Western societies are characterized by an independent model of culture and self. And Eastern societies are characterized by an interdependent model of culture and self (See more in another article).

Personal Identity in Independent and Interdependent Cultures

Posted on by

The concept of interdependent and independent cultures tells us something about the internal structure of society and relationships between people, as well as how they are deemed in the mind and self of a person. These are personhood conceptions and construals of the self and others and how the self and others are related. People perceive themselves and others as interdependent or independent from each other based on their cultural values, norms, and people.

An interdependent model of culture and self characterizes Eastern societies, while an independent model of culture and self characterizes Western societies.

Western Analytical and Eastern Holistic Perception

Social perceptions of people in Eastern and Western cultures are more or less dependent on a specific context of perception. Different cultural factors can affect their perceptual and communicative processes through different cognitive mechanisms.

The perceptual processes of people in Western societies are analytical and independent of the context and details in which an object is located. People tend to see an object or a person by focusing on their salient features independently of their context.

The perceptual processes of people in Asian societies are holistic. Perceptiondepends on the full context and details in which an object is located. People tend to see an object or a person in the specific context of a situation, depending on the specifics of the situation and relations.

The social Perceptions that Are either Independent or Dependent on Context

Another study was conducted in accordance with the same idea of cultural differences in perception being interdependent or interdependent on the context (Masuda, Ellsworth, Mesquita, Leu, & Veerdonk, 2008). Researchers investigated the observers’ perceptions of emotional situations when they looked at a situation depicting a person surrounded by four other people. The European-American and Japanese participants rated the emotions of the central person, who appeared either happy, sad, or angry. The other four people, who surrounded the central person, displayed various emotions.

In such experimental situations, European-American participants estimated the emotion of the central person only by his or her facial expression. They did not take into account the emotions of other people around them. Such a characteristic of their assessment of the emotional experience of the central person is in accord with their perception of the central person independently of the context of the situation. They paid attention solely to a salient object—the central person.

In contrast to this, Japanese participants assessed the emotional experience of the central person, taking into account not only his or her facial expression but also the emotions of other people portrayed in the situation. Such a quality in their evaluation of the emotional experience of a central person corresponds with their perception, which is associated not only with the central person but also dependent on the context of the situation. They paid attention to the whole situation and the context in which the central person was.

In other experimental studies, participants assessed the emotions of a person in the context of a situation while researchers recorded the location where they looked using eye tracking. The results were similar. Americans focus mostly on the central person. In contrast to this, the Japanese and Taiwanese distributed their attention, looking not only at the central person but also at the other people in the situation.

The Western perception is independent of a situational context, and the Eastern perception is interdependent on a situational context

So, several studies demonstrated that people in Western cultures, with their perception independent of a situational context, consider the emotions of a person only from their own perspective, independent of the context. They perceive emotional experiences from an individual perspective.

People in Eastern cultures, with their perception interdependent on a situational context, perceive the emotions of a person depending on the contextual perspective and all those involved in the situation. They perceive emotional experiences from a relational perspective. In their judgment of emotions, all people who are present in a situation and their relations with each other are considered, whether they belong to the same group or are related to the person. (Masuda et al., 2008; Tsang & Wu, 2005).

Self-focused Versus Other-focused Perception and Emotions

Social perception, whether independent or interdependent on relationship contexts, is directly related to self-focused and other-focused perceptions and emotional experiences.

Studies found that individuals in Western cultures (i.e., European Americans, British people, and Germans) are characterized by prevalent self-focused perception along with corresponding emotional experiences. They are more likely than people from other cultures to experience socially disengaging emotions such as superiority, pride, anger, and frustration. They generally feel such emotional experiences as being friendly, guilty, ashamed, and connected with others less frequently and less intensely than people in Eastern cultures.

On the other hand, people in Eastern cultures (e.g., Japan, China, as well as Asian Americans) are characterized by the prevalent other-focused perception and associated emotional experiences. They tend to experience and express their emotions more frequently and intensely when they think of family members and other relationships compared to situations when they think of themselves.

They more frequently and intensely experience such socially engaging emotions as being friendly and connected with others, as well as feeling guilty and ashamed. On the other hand, they less frequently and less intensely experience such socially disengaging emotions as the feelings of being proud, superior, angry, or frustrated.

For example, Japanese tend to face situations associated with feelings of shame more frequently than Americans. On the other hand, Americans tend to encounter situations linked to anger more frequently than Japanese.

(For a review of all these studies, see Karandashev, 2021).

Western versus Eastern cultures

Posted on by

The division between societies of Western and Eastern cultures is widespread in world scholarship and is most typical in cultural and cross-cultural studies. Why is it that this division, though quite simplistic, has become so popular among researchers?

The Tendency Towards Dichotomous Cognition

One reason is just a gnoseological one, and it comes from the philosophy of cognition. This is a reflection of the scholars’ tendency toward simplicity. The use of dichotomous and binary thinking is very convenient and easy to understand. A dichotomous view of the world seems natural: black and white; good and bad; right and left; pleasant and unpleasant, etc.

It is especially convenient for scholars. Such a division is often a valid assumption. The dichotomous division of the world into the West and East, into Western and Eastern cultures, is reasonable and applicable for research.

Western Cultures versus Eastern Cultures

The first questions are: (1) what is Western culture and (2) what is Eastern culture.

Over the years, Western scholars have attributed Western culture to the United States of America, Canada, and some western European countries. On the other hand, they attributed Eastern culture to China and Japan. Why so?

Modern scholarship in history has traditionally been of western origin—the place where most well-known scholars have resided. According to this scientific tradition, Western cultures have their origins in the ancient Greek and Roman cultures.

All other societies would be called “non-western cultures.” Later in history, scholars discovered China and Japan and found that their cultures were substantially different in many regards. They were located to the east of the west, where explorers lived. So, they called them the Eastern cultures. Eastern cultures presumably have their origins in the ancient Confucian and Buddhist cultures.

Such a division was simple and easy. The West is “we” and “us”—relatively understandable for us, Westerners, while the East is “they” and “them”—unknown and not well understandable for us Westerners. The dichotomy of in-group (West) versus out-group (East) worked very well for comparison.

Moreover, this comparison has been valid in many respects. Scholars, in their research, have identified many cultural differences between Western and Eastern societies.

The Differences in Philosophical Views between Western and Eastern Cultures

Epistemology (the Philosophy of Cognition)

In Western societies, linear folk epistemology is prevalent and culturally dominant. Western culture is characterized by dichotomous thinking. Logical beliefs admit the opposition of binary things, such as human emotions, being either positive or negative.

In Eastern societies, dialectical folk epistemology is prevalent and culturally dominant. Eastern cultures tend to have a holistic worldview and naturally accept changes. Dialectical beliefs admit the complementarity of opposite emotions and contradictions as they are.

Dualistic Versus Monistic Views of the World and Mental Life

Western and Eastern societies differ in their views on the relationship between mind and body as well as on the relationship between the heart (emotional part) and the mind (the rational part) of mental life. Their cultural beliefs follow either dualistic (in Western cultures) or monistic (in Eastern cultures) models of mental life. Those models reflect the human experience of emotions.

Dualistic views are characteristic of Western culture. According to this view, the mind and body are in dualistic relationships, and the mind (rational) and the heart (emotional) are in a dichotomous relationship with each other. People can rely more on their reasoning (mind) or on their emotions (heart). People guided by their hearts are those guided by their emotions rather than their reasoning.

Eastern cultures are characterized by a monistic view. According to this view, the mind and body are in monistic and wholistic relations, and the mind (rational) and heart (emotional) are not dichotomous with each other. Eastern cultural beliefs integrate the rational and emotional parts of mental life.

(See Karandashev, 2021a for a more in-depth discussion of these distinctions.)

What Is the Sexual Revolution?

Posted on by

The word “sexual revolution” is commonly associated with rapid and substantial changes in cultural attitudes toward sex in the United States of America and many West- and North-European countries in the 1960s and 1970s. Later in the 1980s and 1990s, the culture of sexual freedom spread to other modernized Western countries. It was largely a youth movement for freedom of sex and love in those societies.

How has the “sexual revolution” changed the culture of eroticism?

How the Sexual Revolution Changed the Culture

The sexual revolution legitimized sex for its pleasurable and expressive qualities alone. Sex was considered more than just a sexual need of the body. Sexual intercourse for the purpose of pleasure rather than reproduction, without the commitment of a marital relationship, was acceptable. It was culturally acceptable to engage in recreational sex. Thus, sex became a sphere of sensual pleasure.

Sexual Fulfillment in Love

Men and women expected sex to be expressively and sensually pleasurable. The erotic aspect of sex increased its value for a person’s life and relationships. Sexual fulfillment became a condition of true love. The sexualization and erotization of love were the major tendencies of that cultural change. Love and sex finally joined together in the minds of men and women (after centuries of their separation in the cultural norms of old societies). Sex became a means of personal fulfillment and self-affirmation as well.

The pleasurable and expressive qualities of sex received their independent values. The division between sex and love started to grow. Sex became unbound, and romantic love and romantic intimacy turned out to be less important than sex to show love. Sexual expression no longer relied exclusively on romantic feelings. The gap between sex and love seems to be widening. 

The Sexual Revolution in Sexual Equality

The “sexual revolution” of the 1960s–1980s transformed sexual attitudes for both men and women. The double sexual standards for men and women were abandoned as a cultural hypocrisy of the past when male sexuality was viewed as carnal and female sexuality as maternal. It was accepted that female sexual longing is natural in the same way as male sexual yearning. Women received equal rights with men to give and receive sensual pleasures (see more in another post, “The sexual revolution in sexual equality”).

The studies of those years showed that differences between male and female sexual behaviors and attitudes steadily declined (see Karandashev, 2017 for a review).

Sex, Love, and Marriage

In the 1960s, marriage became widely popular in North America and Western Europe, with 95 percent of all people marrying. Men and women married younger, and divorce rates held steady at low levels.

In many modernized countries, love and sexual satisfaction became normative preconditions of marriage. Good sex demonstrated love. The pleasurable and expressive facets of sex were to show love in premarital relationships and marriages. Sexual fulfillment and companionship became the key concepts of an ideal marriage. Sexual dissatisfaction became a legitimate reason for divorce.

Cultural Acceptance of Homosexuality

Shifts in attitudes toward homosexual identity and subculture were another cultural change during the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s. Modernized Western societies decriminalized and devictimized homosexuality and other sexual varieties. Psychiatrists abandoned considering homosexuality as an abnormality and began to view it as a form of sexual diversity.

“The homosexuals” walked forward as individuals with their own distinct psychological nature. Gays and lesbians wanted social inclusion and legitimation. The LGBT movement created a subculture that gave these people positive identities and ways of living.

Modernized Western societies indicated a cultural trend towards a more sexually pluralistic society. Discrimination based on sexual identity was also on the decline in society.

Advancements of the “Sexual Revolution”

All these transformations were landmarks of cultural advancements in sexual attitudes. These were the emerging culture of eroticism, the larger acceptance of human rights for sexual pleasure, the proliferation of pornography, the acceptance of sexual equality for men and women, the greater tolerance toward premarital and nonmarital sex, the substantial increase in cohabitation and rates of divorce, public receptivity to the “playboy” lifestyle, and expanded tolerance toward homosexuality.

All of these cultural trends occurred in the United States and in many Western-European and North-European countries, even though older people didn’t like them. These changes reflected long-term trends.

The Slow Cultural Evolution of the “Sexual Revolution”

The sexual revolt in favor of sexual rights, equality, and diversity happened. Yet, many people still lacked a sense of self and the autonomy required to maintain a sexually fulfilling relationship. Therefore, many men and women were still confused about their sexual rights, sexual roles, and gender identities.

The societies were still in the transitional stage towards a culture of relationships that engaged all these new cultural norms. The “sexual revolution” was mostly a young and rebellious movement protesting against the old-fashioned and rigid sexual attitudes of the past. It was a declaration of human rights for the free expression of sex and love in modernized and individualistic Western societies.

The sexual revolt happened. Yet people of other age groups remained relatively conservative in those societies for a while. They were not easily receptive to such a drastic transformation of cultural attitudes toward sex.

The “sexual revolution” of this kind continued as “sexual evolution” in the following decades, spreading to the minds of older generations as well.

The cultural evolution of sexual attitudes was slower in more traditional countries (Karandashev, 2017).

What Is Bedouin Culture?

Posted on by

“Bedouin culture” encompasses the traditional cultural practices of the nomadic Arabic-speaking peoples that have been living for centuries in the deserts of Jordan, Israel, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula, and in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Algeria, and Egypt in North Africa.

These people are commonly named in English as Bedouins (sometimes spelled Beduin), while they are originally known in Arabic as “Badawi”, or in plural, “Badw.”

Bedouins speak their own Arabic language (Bedawi), which has several dialects. In the Arabic language, “Bedu” means the people living out in the open, in the desert. Literally, the word “badawiyin” refers to desert dwellers. 

Some anthropologists consider Bedouin culture to be the purest form of Arab culture. Because of their rich oral poetic legacy, lifestyle, and code of honor, other Arabs still regard them as “ideal” Arabs.

And according to some recent estimates, the number of Bedouin inhabitants is only around 4 million. Anthropologists identify the Bedouins by their way of life, social structure, language, and culture.

The Appearance of Bedouins

Bedouins are recognizable by their specific appearance, such as their facial features and clothes.

“The men wear long “gallabeya” with a thin cotton pantalon down and a red/white (smaegh) or white (amemma) headscarf, sometimes held in place by a black cord (aghell).”

(retrieved from Bedouin Culture)

“The women wear colored long dresses and, when they go out, they dress in a thin, long, black coat (abaya), sometimes decorated with embroidery. They always cover their hair with a black, thin scarf (tarha). They cover their faces with decorated face veils (burqa’ah).”

(retrieved from Bedouin Culture)

Today, one can see this only in the oldest generation of women. The women of a younger generation simply cover their faces with their “tarha”, and some “dare” to wear more colorful ones (retrieved from Bedouin Culture).

The Way of Bedouin Life

Since the beginning of Islam, Egyptians have referred the Bedouin as ‘Arab,’ which is equivalent with the term “Nomad.” They belong to the nomadic culture that determine many things in their life. In ancient times, many people preferred to settle mostly near rivers. However, Bedouin people chose to live in the open desert.

Most Bedouins are herders who migrate into the desert during the wet winter months and return to cultivated land during the dry summer months. Bedouins herd camels, goats, cattle, and sheep. In the past, some Bedouin tribes raided trade caravans and communities of villagers at the boundaries of settled areas.

They consider themselves to be proud people and appreciate their lifestyle. They are quite suspicious and prefer to avoid talking about their personal lives.

The Family Life of Bedouins

Bedouin societies have tribal and patriarchal organizations. They consist of patrilineal, endogamous, and polygynous extended families. The heads of the families and larger social units that make up the tribal structure are “sheikhs” (or “sheikhs”). An informal tribal council of male elders assists the sheikh. Bedouin culture emphasizes the strong belief in tribal superiority and security that supports people’s ability to survive in a hostile environment. Their extensive kinship networks provide them with the basic needs they need to survive and community support. These traditional networks ensure the safety of families and protect their property. In modern times, however, only about 5% of the Bedouin people still live their pastoral (semi) nomadic life.

The Modern Life of Bedouins

Modern Arab countries tend to modernize their nomadic lifestyles and encourage their citizens to settle in urban areas. These adjustments allow society to provide children with education and health care. Contemporary Bedouin societies gradually change. Men have more leeway in adapting to modern Arab culture. However, many women are still bound by the tradition of an honor culture, urging them to stay within the family (retrieved from Bedouin Culture).