Abstract
Grouping of populations and cultures can be extremely helpful in studying how people behave, react, and basically in everything related to sociology and psychology. The sociocultural classification pioneered by Geert Hofstede has been a very useful tool for researchers, students, and basically everyone who want to learn more about the sociocultural aspect of a certain country. However, there is this one issue about the way how the countries are grouped, particularly the Arab countries Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. These are individual countries grouped as the Arab Word. The paper delves into the validity of this decision by reviewing the differences and similarities between the 6 Arab countries, if any. After a thorough review, the author has concluded that it is just wrong to group these 6 countries into 1 because of the fact that they can be significantly different from one another, although at some point, they do possess some similarities because of their being an Arab country.
Introduction
Geert Hofstede is an expert in social, cultural, and political structures. At the time, he used to be a professional mechanical engineer. His first tertiary education degree was related to machines and engineering. In his early adult and professional life, he worked as a mechanical engineer. This is one of the most significant points of his life because if it was not for his former profession, he would not have been able to understand that within institutions or organizations, there are social and cultural factors that come into play and that although they are not that visible, they play critical roles on the way how every member of the organization behaves and reacts. It was after his work as a technically-savvy individual that he learned that he wanted to devote a portion of his life to the discovery of sociological, cultural, and organizational forces that come into play within organizations, initially within the organizations that he worked for when he was still an engineer.
Apparently, the gist of most of his sociology-related works suggests that individuality and uniqueness is a real and tangible when we talk of people living in different countries. One of his most significant works is his theory about cultural dimensions which is basically “a theory of cultural dimensions that describes the effects of a society’s culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis” . Basically, this theory suggests that people’s behavior and reactions within an organization can be significantly affected by the country they live in, the type of environment they grew, and most importantly, their perceptions of the hierarchical structure in society. The objective of this paper is to discuss the different reasons that could justify or invalidate Geert Hofstede’s decision of grouping all Arab countries into one category regardless of their geographical and other differences.
Literature Review
Hofstede’s claim about organizational structure, which according to our observations, has been modeled after his knowledge of machines and other mechanical devices, is somewhat controversial. One, because even though they are highly specific, some of them are not that easy to believe or agree with. His suggestion of grouping all Arab countries into one group called the Arab World, as seen in his public domain, is somewhat invalid. But then again, he defends this argument by citing the principles he used in his cultural dimensions theory, suggesting that it is the national culture that dictates the systematic differences in an organization or any population and not really other factors such as geographical location, and the like.
So what about the Arab world? According to her social structure classification by countries, he collectively named Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia as one county named the Arab World. He then assessed it using his 5-D model. Now, initially, he only used 4 parameters namely the Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity & Femininity, and Uncertainty Avoidance in analyzing a country’s cultural dimension. However, further years of research led him into adding another one dimension which is the Long Term Orientation, hence the 5-D model.
So, in relation to the Power Distance dimension, the combined 6 Arab countries got a score of 80 which means that the people living in these countries can fairly accept the idea that there will really be others who will be superior to them, one way or the other. The power distance is a nationally-independent dimension and so regardless whether he focused on individual countries or collectively as the Arab world, chances are it will yield the same results.
Religion plays an important role in computing the figures for this dimension. The idea that all Arab countries are Muslim countries has been a common perception among non-Muslims. This idea is just wrong, because at some point, a significant part of any of these 6 countries’ population could belong to another religion. In Kuwait for example, only 85% are Muslims while the remaining 15% belong to another religion. Now, Muslims, according to literatures, exhibit low power distance scores because they usually give high regards to authority and power. The religious composition in every country is different. Some country may be dominated by Muslims in terms of religious groups present and so grouping these 6 countries into one may be a very bad decision because they could lead to errors.
Gender Bias is the counterpart of masculinity and femininity in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory. It “is related to a fundamental issue that motivates people, making them want to be the best”. A high score (towards masculinity) characterizes a highly competitive society whose winners are usually determined by levels of success and achievement. A low score (towards femininity) on the other hand characterizes a society dominated by values like caring for others and promoting better quality of life. The Arab World got a low score of 52 in this category. This score cannot really be considered as accurate because there are Arab countries that are patriarchal and there are also some that are not. Nevertheless, Hofstede emphasized on the collectivist nature of Arab families rather than on the predominant family structures existing in individual Arab countries. He said that a society that is loyal to collectivism would most likely lead to the proliferation of extended families, emphasizing caring for family members and improving quality of life, a sign of a feminist society, rather than competition and capitalism which is a sign of a masculine society. But then again, the type or level of gender bias of one country may be different from another country, even if they are both Arabic countries to begin with. And so, this can be considered as one of the cons of grouping all Arab countries under one category. In general Arab culture, masculinity is the predominant value.
In Lebanon for example, personal status depends on an individual’s gender. Gender Discrimination is one of the longest standing social issues in this country. Laws about an individual’s social status depend on the social and religious affiliation. A Muslim woman, for example, would normally be bound to more constricting laws compared to a non-Muslim woman. Again, the religious composition of these countries will never be the same. At some point, there can be more Muslims in one country and fewer ones in another. This invalidates Hofstede’s classification of Arab countries.
Societal Independence is the counterpart of Individualism in Hofstede’s theory. It is basically the “degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members and has something to do with whether people’s self-image is identified in terms of I or We”. In an individualist society for example, members are often required to fend for themselves compared to a collectivist society wherein groups and teamwork values are common. The Arab World got a score of 38 in this dimension which shows that Arab countries are typically collectivist countries. But then again, the same principle used in the previous dimension may also be applied to this one. Every two country cannot be identically similar even though they are both Arab countries and so it would still be preferable to perform a per-country analysis rather than simply group them based on their core values and cultural characteristics. There are other factors that could influence a country’s score in this particular category. One of the most significant factors that could influence a country’s score in this dimension is the economic and financial situation in a country. A more economically stable country with more jobs to offer to its citizens would normally have higher scores in this category. Economic conditions of these 6 countries vary greatly. There are richer countries and there are also poorer ones. Among the five countries, Kuwait seems to be the best-off, in terms of economic and financial standings. This is why among the five countries; Kuwait would get the highest scores in this cultural dimension. This comes as another one of the reasons why these 6 Arab countries should be analyzed individually rather than as a group.
Fear of the Future is the counterpart of uncertainty avoidance in Hofstede’s framework. From the word itself, it has something to do with feelings of anxiety brought about by the ideas of the things that may happen in the future. It is “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have crated beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these”. The 6 Arab countries got a score of 68 in this dimension which means that they are somewhat resistive to change or are bound by rigid codes or rules that are grounded on their culture. Their value for time and other resources may also have had an impact on their score. This is a culturally-influenced variable. Despite having similar qualities because they are Arab countries, environmental factors and even economic constraints could play a significant role in shaping a population’s uncertainty avoidance. More developed countries often demonstrate lower scores while less developed ones often get lower ones in this dimension. Economic situations greatly vary among these 6 countries and so grading them in this category as one may lead to erroneous analytical results.
Evidence and Analysis
Evidences from Hofstede himself suggest that using his cultural dimensions theory, whether it be the 4-D or the 6-D can yield invalid results on the analysis of cultural frameworks of the Arab World or the 6 countries Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Out of the 4 dimensions we have created, which were also modeled or derived from his 4-d cultural dimensions theory, only one, which was Power Distance, appeared to be uniform or generalizable—meaning, it can yield reliable results regardless whether the five Arab countries are assessed collectively or individually. The rest appeared to be unreliable. The Fear of the future dimension for example, cannot be considered reliable because each of the 6 Arab countries has different economic and financial standings as a country. This could greatly affect their scores in this dimension which again, would lead to unreliable findings.
Individual cultural dimensions analysis of these 6 Arab countries appears to show varied results. This means that although they are all Arab countries, they differ culturally, making the idea of grouping them under one classification—the Arab World, illogical.
Discussion
All evidences used in the review literatures are published articles from credible academic journal publishers in the field of sociology. The findings were product of researches which means that they are valid and accurate. The difference in the cultural dimensions scores between the 6 countries can be seen when they are analyzed individually. Analyzing these 6 countries as a group may yield real results but may be subject to errors and irregularities because of the wide range of external factors that could affect the scoring process. Differences in religious compositions, national economic and financial factors, and even differences in culture, despite all of them being Arab countries, are some of the factors that should be taken into consideration when performing analyses, which unfortunately cannot be well reviewed when these 6 countries are analyzed as a group.
Conclusion
Based on the findings and on the review we conducted, it can finally be safe to say that Hofstede’s decision of collectively addressing Arab countries in his works about cultural dimensions is invalid. The main reason behind such decision was the possible reproduction of unreliable results which would lead to false findings whenever a reevaluation of the cultural integrity using Hofstede’s theory is to be made. Out of the 4 dimensions reviewed, only one, which was Power Distance or the ability or extent by which members of the society could accept that there is always someone who is superior to them, appeared uniform and to have the capability of producing reliable results regardless whether the 6 countries be addressed and assessed collectively or individually. Analyzing the countries one by one would always yield the most valid and reliable results because of the fact that by doing so, the analysts would be able to take into consideration other key factors that are unique to the subject country.
Political Correctness: Part 2
“Political correctness is a sort of double edged sword, a necessary evil, in one sense guards against the negativity of prejudice, in another sense it can get in the way an honest and an intelligent engagement of the business and social environment.”
The world we live in is indeed a world run by politics. Political correctness has something to do with the right or proper management of ideas, policies, language, and behavior, in an effort to minimize social and political issues that are usually brought about by institutional offense in potentially all members of society. In a society plagued by a lot of people and huge populations, institutional and social offense in racial, cultural, sexual, gender, and basically all forms of offense cannot be uncommon. At some point there will be conflicts of ideas and principles and this would more often than not lead to social and institutional offenses which again, are against the principle of political correctness. Some people associate the term political correctness with self-criticism, as in the case of leftists and other political minorities. There are even some who use the term ironically to safeguard their beliefs in order to more effectively resist change. However, in a nutshell, political correctness was intended to make offenses manageable and problems in the society solvable. It is a way of arriving at a judgment. Unfortunately, political correctness can be very relative. Even though the concept was brought up to minimize conflicts in society, there are times where it can be destructive. It is indeed a double-edged sword because advocates of political correctness can also be targeted by those who are resistant to change or to anything new the government tries to impose to its jurisdiction.
Works Cited
Alvarez, C., & Urbano, D. (2012). Cultural Cognitive Dimension - A Cross Country Study. Revista de Estudios Sociales.
Douglas, N. (2000). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
Geert, H. (1984). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related values. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks Sage Publications California.
Hofstede, G. (2012). What About the Arab World. The Arab World.
Macko, A., & Tyszk, T. (2009). Cultural Dimensions on an International Level. Applied Psychology an International Review.
Minkov, M. (2007). What Makes Us Different and Similar: A New Interpretation of the World Values Survey and Other Cross-Cultural Data. Klasika y Stil Publishing House.
