Cultural dimensions, changing life courses and the meaning of well-being

Lecture May 12, 2004Faculty Study MeetingSchool of SociologyKwansei Gakuin UniversityNishinomiya, Japan

Henk VinkenTilburg UniversityTilburg, the Netherlands

Outline

Separate worldsPostmodernists, particularists, dimensionalists Four dimensionalistsHofstede, Triandis, Schwartz, Inglehart Cultural changeDimensionalists’ weak point (except Ingelhart ?) Changing life coursesThe two-fold individualization process Impact on the meaning well-beingTowards a dynamic model ?

Separate worldsPostmodernists, particularists, dimensionalists

Postmodernists : cultures do not exist: no unifying pattern

no strong internal homogeneityno direct power to shape people’s

identities individual: produces hybrid, ambivalent

cultures

Particularists : uphold belief in value patterns

stress on domains (work, religion, politics, etc.)

no overarching ‘cultural canopy’ individual: no important constructing role

Dimensionalists : culture as a unifying pattern

system crosses life domains and peoplesearch most frugal, meaningful sex axes

individual: absent – “culture is superorganic”

Do dimensionalists allow framing of cultural change or for (groups of) individuals to be productive ?

Four dimensionalistHofstede, Triandis, Schwartz, Inglehart

Hofstede : cultures directs individual/group action

values at the core of culturewell-defined, stable patterns at nation-

level 5 dimensions on which 50+ countries vary

power distance (inequality) uncertainty avoidance (fear

unknown) individualism (tight – weak

ties) masculinity (unequal gender

roles) long-term orientation (future

vs now)

Four dimensionalistHofstede, Triandis, Schwartz, Inglehart

Triandis : focus on I/C i.e. in-/interdependent selves

I/C cultures depend on tightness vs complexity

well-defined, stable patterns at nation-level

tight: norm consensus high complex: high functional

differentiation(many ingroups, many

options) C: tight and simple I: loose and complex

I/C multidimensional: horizontal/vertical horizontal I: independence

and sameness vertical I: interdependent

and distinction horizontal C: interdependent

and oneness vertical I: interdependence

and distinction

Four dimensionalistHofstede, Triandis, Schwartz, Inglehart

Schwartz : culture structured at individual and

national levels values adjacent and opposite (form a

circle) individual level 10

constructs / 2 axes-openness change vs

conservatism-self-enhancement vs. self-

transcendence culture level 7 types / 4

societal issues-in vs interdependent

individual-equality vs. Inequality-change vs. preservation-self vs. generalized other

directedness

Four dimensionalistHofstede, Triandis, Schwartz, Inglehart

Inglehart : values on 1 bipolar materialism-

postmaterialism scarcity vs. socialization hypotheses

scarcity: value scarce goods socialization: values reflect

pre-adult yrs scarcity yields materialist cohorts

(security) prosperity yields postmaterialists (QoL) later work: 2 dimensions in modernization

survival to well-being(includes materialism-

postmaterialism)traditional to secular-

rational authority(hierarchy, male dominance,

authoritarianattitudes)(equality, opposition to

centralization, bigness)

Cultural changeDimensionalists’ weak point (except Inglehart?)

Hofstede : national cultures transform in similar directions; diversity remains; relative cultural stability

Triandis : recognizes value heterogeneity, but people ‘sample’ I/C themes in line with national culture: cultural stability

Schwartz : universal structure by definition stable; overlap individual and culture-level pursuit: cultural stability

Inglehart : incorporates change explicitely, but no role (groups) of individuals (falls back on abstract processes): cultural change without any social vehicle of change

Bring man back in! (Homans, 1964!)

Changing life coursesThe two-fold individualization process

Individualization yields de-standardization life courses

Two ways: self-direction and self-fulfillment

Reflexive biographization of the life course

Generation or age cohorts aware of shared history and destiny

Awareness of generational distinction, particularly as regards practised and called-for reflexivity

The rise of a reflexive generation ?

Impact on the meaning of well-beingTowards a dynamic model ?

Self-fullfilment newly framed: no material or personal growth (linear), but attaining competences to change, be dynamic, flexible (non-linear)

Classic divisions (categories/institutions) still powerful

But dynamics new norm, also institutions respond and put new demands (the flexicurity discussion)

Reframing well-being in Inglehart’s dimensions ? (a 1968-concept, now old concept of personal growth)

Reframing theory accurate for the west, but also elsewhere, in Asia, in Japan ?

Extra (discussion slide?)Research questions (fitting CoE focus?)

1. General: What meaning does well-being have for Asian (Japanese) people and is this a similar meaning as is found among Westerners ?

In more detail:

1. Is it possible to discern a more linear and a more dynamic, non-linear dimension in the conception of well-being in Asia (Japan) and in the West ?

2. Do younger generations in Asia (Japan) and in the West support a more dynamic dimension of well-being than do older generations ?

3. Is there a relationship between the generational diversity of the conceptions of well-being and the life course characteristics of distinct generations in Asia (Japan) and in the West ?