Take Off Your Glasses

We all develop since early childhood a “culture bias”: what we perceive as similar to our own culture values, we consider to be “good” or “right”. Whatever we perceive to be different from our own culture values, we consider to be “bad” or “wrong”.
We look at the world through colored spectacles or sunglasses, which distort our perception. We see everything through these tinted sunglasses, and each culture has its own biased vision, shared by members of that culture. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in research, it’s not just some “pipe dream” or somebody’s opinion.
In order to understand the world outside of your own culture, you first need to be aware of your own culture bias. You first need to be aware of your glasses and take them off, in order to see other cultures as they really are.
Media content generators in the English language are largely wearing “Contest” culture glasses. This means that the main providers of news on a global scale (CNN, BBC, Fox, Sky, NYT, FT, Economist and others) are wearing tinted glasses and we should all be aware of that. Let’s take a look at the glasses they are wearing and what the world would look like if these glasses were removed.
“Contest” Culture Glasses
Hofstede’s 5D model revealed in research that the Anglo-Saxon culture (“Contest”) is egalitarian, individualistic, performance-oriented, relatively comfortable with ambiguity, and it is normative. Knowing this allows us to see the type of glasses usually worn by people from this culture. The glasses they wear affect their perception, thus affecting the content they generate and disseminate in the media. Here are some typical issues which get distorted and/or overblown by “Contest” culture glass-wearers.
Privacy
We see in the media (TV, internet, newspapers, magazines) that “privacy” is a big issue. People are worried about surveillance cameras, phone hacking, identity cards, because these things represent a threat to privacy. They constitute potential invasions of privacy, and that’s a big thing.
Well, actually, it’s not… Or, rather, it is an issue indeed in the “Contest” culture and also in all “individualistic” cultures. However, these cultures account for less than 15% of the world’s population. This means that 85% of the people on the planet are not really that much into the whole “privacy” thing. I’m not saying that invasion of privacy is not an issue; I’m just saying it is not such a BIG issue as you would be led to believe from what you see in the media.
When the BBC reports on “invasion of privacy” being a major concern in the Middle East or in Asia, they are actually talking about the BBC’s (English) bias when looking at what is happening there. The reporter’s outrage may be genuine, but it is not necessarily the outrage of the people who are affected by happenings in that location. It’s in the eyes of the beholders, and if the beholders are all wearing tinted glasses (also people watching in London and New York), the picture being painted will seem real to all of them, but not to the subjects being portrayed.
People in “collectivistic” cultures are not that worried about privacy; they will easily share details of their lives with complete strangers, something unthinkable to members of an individualistic culture. The reaction of “individualists” to such sharing is often “Whoa! Too much information! I don’t need to hear that!” To collectivists, they are just trying to be friendly, and the negative reaction is perceived as “rude” and “cold”.
So, if you are part of a “Contest” culture or any other individualistic culture, please remove your glasses before getting riled up on privacy issues outside your own culture. For most people on the planet, it’s not THAT important. They are more concerned with gaining intimacy rather than protecting their privacy.
Polarization
This gives the expression “polarized glasses” a different meaning… In a “Contest” culture there is a tendency towards seeing two opposing forces confronting each other. Issues are easily seen as “bi-polar”, that is: there is always a thesis and always an antithesis opposing it. In such cultures there is less value ascribed to multilateral thinking: the coexistence of many different forces or opinions regarding a certain issue. The “Contest” culture generates typical expressions such as: “you are either with us, or against us”, “it is ‘us’ versus ‘them’”, and “there are two kinds of people in the world”.
This leads to a certain oversimplification of complex issues. The situation in Europe is a good example of such a complex issue, which is usually oversimplified by American and English media reporting on it. To the UK and US, European leaders are incompetent because they are unable to decide between two options when confronting issues. Leaders in Europe look at situations and see many different options, equally important, rather than a confrontation between “A” and “B”. By definition, a multilateral perspective is more complex than a bi-lateral one, so it is no surprise that discussions take longer and a conclusion is difficult to reach. Alliances are necessary, and these require time, plus they may add to the complexity.
The “polarized distortion” applies to other issues in other parts of the world, as well. The “Contest” culture sees two opposites everywhere: it’s “the haves versus the have-nots”, the “capitalists versus the communists”, “New School versus Old School”, “macho versus feminists”, etc. In other cultures, such as the Dutch and Scandinavians, or the Latin Americans, or the Africans, the same situations are viewed as “multilateral”.
This difference is very evident in politics: while “Contest” cultures are typically “bi-partisan”, other cultures have many equally relevant parties and need coalitions to govern. It is less evident but equally true in other aspects of life. For instance, gender issues are not “just” about men and women, but they are also about gays, and lesbians, and people who are gay-lesbian sympathizers, and people who think gender equality actually depends on age, or on the nature of the role, or who consider sexual preference as different from gender, and so on. Religion is not viewed as “Christians versus Muslims”, but rather as the many Christian and Islamic sects, plus the Buddhists, Hindu and others still.
Meritocracy
Management textbooks seem to take meritocracy as a given, but we tend to forget that the majority of them are produced in “Contest” cultures, which are clearly performance-oriented. Cultures which are more “caring-oriented” and “quality-of-life” oriented will pay lip-service to meritocracy (to comply with the textbooks) but will act very differently in practice.
Actually, in these cultures, meritocracy is “de facto” trumped by caring. People get promoted because they have been longer with the firm, or because they belong to an influential family, or because they went to a renowned business school. People from the “Contest” cultures will look at these situations and express outrage. They will think that their outrage is shared by “the locals”. In reality, “the locals” will also express outrage when they are on the losing end of a decision, but will typically decide according to the same criteria they criticize, when put in a deciding position in a similar situation. Don’t be so quick in promoting meritocracy and deriding other approaches—look at the context first, take off your glasses and then try to see what would be best in a certain situation.
Urgency
In “Contest” cultures speed is valued: acting fast, deciding quickly. There is usually a great sense of urgency, time is of the essence. When decisions take a bit longer, people get anxious. When looking at decision making processes in other cultures, often “Contest” people are irritated when things do not happen as quickly as they would like to see them happen. The concept of “time is money” is deeply ingrained in a culture which is performance-oriented, and performance can be easily appraised by measuring time spent and the amount of money made.
Yet, in “Network” cultures such as the Dutch and the Scandinavian, urgency is trumped by other factors: making sure that all stakeholders are included and heard is more important than making decisions quickly. Deadlines are often not met, but this is not important, if missing the deadlines was necessary to ensure quality of output or satisfaction of stakeholders.
“Contest” culture media will typically report that missing a deadline or delaying a decision are signs of failure (refer to discussions on the Euro zone). Yet the people involved, if they are members of a “Network” culture, will not consider this necessarily as a problem. They may simply think that stakeholder satisfaction is more important than deadlines. What is portrayed as failure in one culture may be portrayed as success in another.
Women’s Rights
The “Contest” media is filled with items about women’s rights. It seems, sometimes, that the only reason for NATO to be in Afghanistan is because of women’s rights. Yet the issues of gender equality most often are seen from a different perspective by women from other cultures. I’ve always found it amusing that some cultures look at the US and see it as a matriarchy, a culture in which women dominate men… To an American feminist this seems to be utter nonsense, but we all need to take off our glasses and look at cultures more objectively.
Since “Contest” cultures are performance oriented, caring for the family is seen as less important, it is less valued. Family reunions such as Thanksgiving are often portrayed as unpleasant affairs. Feminists fight for equality in the workplace, because work is more valued than quality of life.
In some other cultures, quality of life is more valued than performance. Women are less interested in work, and men are also less interested in work. Gender equality discussions focus on asking men to be more active in taking care of the family and doing home chores; they are asked to be more “caring-oriented”, rather than to support equal pay at work.
I was pleased to read that a woman in Libya rejoiced at the downfall of Colonel Khaddafi, because he had forbidden the wearing of bhurkas. Now this woman was celebrating the fact that she could wear a bhurka, like she wanted…
“Contest” culture feminists tend to think that women all over the world share the same struggle for equality. Actually, gender equality has different meanings and connotations in different cultures, and these need to be considered carefully. Depending on the culture, the objective of gender equality will be reached through shifts in the roles of both men and women, in ways which are consistent with that culture. Women’s ambitions also may be different from one culture to another.
Democratization
Churchill once said that “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried.” This, of course, is a very Anglo-Saxon point of view, and as such it has been often repeated and amplified in the Anglo-Saxon media. People from other cultures may also take a similar view, especially if they are coming from an egalitarian society. However, the same is not true in hierarchical societies, in which many people take the view that a form of “enlightened despotism” is preferable to democracy.
This is considered totally undesirable in a “Contest” culture. People from “Contest” cultures tend to misinterpret protests against government in hierarchical societies. They tend to see them as movements demanding democracy, when actually most of the times these protests demand simply the replacement of government by someone who will do a better job of running the country.
There are more than enough examples of this, the most blatant ones to be seen in Russia and China, both hierarchical societies. In both countries there was a long history of despotism, for centuries. In both countries, the despots were overthrown and replaced by communist regimes, in the 20th century. The communist leaders proceeded to lead with as much authoritarianism as their predecessors, with support from the majority of the population.
In both countries, again, there was a point in time in which the communist regimes were challenged. In Russia it was replaced by a capitalist republic, yet the same ruler has led the country for almost 20 years with an authoritarian style (and the support of the majority). In China the economy is becoming capitalist, while the political regime is authoritarian communism. In both cases, a form of democratization may be happening, but in a way not at all similar to what is seen in the US or the UK. Democratization, if it happens at all, will take a very different shape in each country, according to the respective culture.
Research has shown that it is people who “make” dictators. A hierarchical culture will generate strong rulers with absolute power, regardless of the political regime. An egalitarian culture will generate rulers who are less authoritarian, because authoritarianism is not accepted.
“Contest” culture people look at hierarchical societies and see people who are oppressed by force and who are yearning for democracy. The reality is, the ruler can only keep himself/herself in power with support from the people. As soon as that support is lost, dictators are overthrown, and replaced by another strong ruler. Every dictator has support from a large part of the population, most often by the majority. “Contest” culture people may find dictators despicable, but in hierarchical societies most people feel that strong rulers are needed to maintain order. They just want a strong ruler that is also inspiring and effective.
Equality
Underlying the concept of democracy is the concept of equality, the idea that all people are equal and should have the same amount of power in society. “Contest” cultures hinge on the notion that life is a competition, but all people should have an equal opportunity to “win” this competition through their performance and fair play on a level playing field. Any idea straying from this notion is extremely annoying to “Contest” culture individuals.
However, Hofstede’s research revealed that only 9% of the world’s population live in “egalitarian” cultures (basically the Anglo-Saxons, Germanics (includes Swiss, Austrians) and Dutch-Scandinavians). Everybody else lives in hierarchical societies. In these societies, people consider that there is an unequal distribution of power in any community, no matter how large or how small, and that this is just a fact of life. It is a reality to be accepted.
This doesn’t mean that people like it; it just means that they consider it unavoidable. Therefore, many focus on making their way to the top of the pecking order. They may oppose the current rulers or bosses, but once they are able to replace the incumbents, they will exercise power in a very similar way and maintain its unequal distribution.
It’s a mistake to think that people from hierarchical cultures have a desire for equality; more often then not, they are simply striving to improve their own position in the hierarchy.
Supremacy Of Reason
In “Contest” cultures there is a notion that people should be rational, and that emotions are a “lesser” aspect of human beings. Emotions interfere with the efficiency and effectiveness of making rational decisions., therefore they should be suppressed. Values are seen as a “fluffy” subject, in conflict with the pragmatic aspects of life. Discussing values simply delays concrete action, so such discussions should be avoided or kept out of the way.
In other cultures, such as in Latin America and the Middle East, emotions are equally important as reason, if not more. Decisions are often taken due to emotional motives. People are often admired for doing that, rather than for “keeping their cool”. Being “hot blooded” is regarded as a positive quality, rather than a weakness. When the “Contest” culture media criticizes someone for “being emotional”, they should realize that in many parts of the world such behavior is encouraged and praised, rather than punished.
As for the values discussions, pragmatism often is used as a justification for unethical behaviour. The need for acting swiftly should not be such that it means choosing for rapid action which is unethical, rather than carefullt considering ethical implications before deciding on action.
The financial mess that happened in 2008 was brought about precisely for looking at “rational” business issues and not looking at ethics, nor at the emotional basis and consequences of economic behavior. Cultures which put reason in perspective and which regard it as just as important as, but not more important than, emotions and values, may be in a better position to cope with the complex issues we all need to face in the 21st Century. Being comfortable with emotions and values is just as important as being comfortable with rational analysis.
Wear Sunscreen, But Take Off Your Glasses
Years ago an article by Mary Schmich went viral. It dispensed many life lessons and pearls of wisdom, but the main one was wearing sunscreen, repeated several times. Here we emphasize not sunscreen, but tinted glasses; and we don’t recommend wearing them, but rather taking them off… Wearing “Contact” culture glasses all the time leads to serious misinterpretations about what is really going on in the world outside the Anglo-Saxon culture. Wearing tinted culture glasses does not improve your vision, it distorts it.
This, of course, is a problem not only in Anglo-Saxon cultures, but in any culture. In order to improve cross-cultural understanding, the first thing we must all do is take off our glasses. In other articles, we will look at the glasses worn by people from other cultures.