Papers and posters

How to achieve the environmental objectives in different cultures Joanna Boboryko, Marta Dawidziuk and Barbara Mazur

University of Finance and Management in Bialystok

ul. Ciepla 40, 15-472 Bialystok, Poland

tel. +48 85 6750672

e-mail: foreign@wsfiz.edu.pl

1. INTRODUCTION

The concept of culture although notoriously difficult to define turns to be very useful in explaining many phenomena such as economic growth or consumer behaviour. Cultures, in defining what attitudes and behaviours are appropriate, develop the logic through which societies interpret and adopt to environment. Because of it culture is an influential variable not only in economics and politics but also in ecological arena. Our spiritual, aesthetic, and ethical views resulting from culture often motivate and constrain our behaviors. Using cultural typology originally suggested by Cultural theory (individualism, hierarchy and egalitarianism) and transformed it into G. Hofstede cultural dimensions (individualism and power distance), this paper explores diverse worldviews that might influence individual and collective attitudes relevant to environmental issues. It seems to be possible when ling the dimension of these variables for particular societal cultures, to seek for the factors which could activate members of the society for the sake of the environment.

The purpose of the article is to present the cultural conditioned notions, beliefs and convictions that indicate which arguments for which societies might be put forward for gaining sustainable behaviors in respect to different cultures. The research conducted between students representing national cultures with various levels of Hofstede’s variables (eg. Polish, Turkish and Indian) shows which arguments used in public discourse are promising to push them to behave in a sustainable way.
2. CULTURAL DIMENSIONS

Cultures evaluate risk and policy proposals based on their perceived implications for the culture’s preferred way of living. Exploring cultural belief systems begins with developing or selecting a taxonomy of worldviews. Seeking a typology less temporally and spatially bound Curtis A. Pendergraft choose that suggested by Cultural Theory. An axiom of CT is that all societies and their underlying worldviews, irrespective of time or place, must be more or less hierarchic, more or less individualistic, more or less egalitarian. Instead of this theory which has no ethnocentric approach G. Hofstede’s conception of cultural dimensions might be used to map individuals or groups into the cultural matrix by analyzing their responses to statements which carry implications about how life ought to be lived. The major hypothesis of this research was that respondents would indeed fall into clusters along the lines suggested by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions which influence people’s beliefs and behaviors. Short description of two of them is shown below. For the purpose of presented research Hierarchy and Egalitarism have been replaced by one bilateral cultural dimension called by Hofstede Power distance. On the one edge of this dimension there are societies with egalitarian attitude towards social structure, on the other one there are those accepting and protecting sharp and unbreakable distances between stratified society.

Hofstede’s description of Power Distance is as follows (Hofstede 2005): The degree of inequality among people which the population of a country considers as normal: from relatively equal (that is, small power distance) to extremely unequal (large power distance). The extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society's level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders.

When considering Individualism Hofstede explains that it is (Hofstede, 2005) The degree to which people in a country prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word 'collectivism' in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state.

Table 1.

Power distance and Individualism scores for Turkey, Poland and India

Twelve statements drawn from the public discourse about environmental issues were selected by C. A. Pendergraft based on the idea that their implications for how we ought to live would differentiate adherents of the various cultures (Pendergraft 1998: 661-664). Responses were collected from 76 persons (33 Polish, 27 Turkish, 16 Indian) studying at University of Finance and Management in Bialystok (Poland) between January and March 2009. Prior to analysis of the responses a cultural index based on the literature of Cultural Theory and Hofstede cultural dimensions was constructed. Responses for the three cultural types (egalitarian, hierarchic and individualistic) were assigned to each response for each country. The logic behind them is presented below and the predictions for the answers are displayed in the table 2.

The expectation is that the stronger the sense of community the more persuasive will be an argument that private property rights cannot be allowed to threaten the common good. It might be supposed that hierarchs, given their greater concern for community, would tend to be a little less enthusiastic about private property than would individualists.

Responses to this statement should reflect perceptions of equality (are experts really more competent than the rest of us, especially in ethical or moral matters?) and views of nature (to what degree can we tamper with or manage it?). Egalitarians should disagree with this statement on the ground that it is elitist, anti-democratic, and tends toward hubris. Hierarchs should find it more appealing, since our relations with nature require competent management. Individualists could agree because some people are indeed more competent and knowledgeable than others, but on the other hand may see expertise, especially if it advises limitations on freedom, as ascribed rather than proven, and suspicious on that basis.

The word ‘dominate’ should spark reactions here. It should be a negative symbol for egalitarians. Terms such as ‘innate’ and ‘god-given’ are also loaded with connotations about relationships among humans, between humans and nature, and about religion. It is expected that egalitarians will tend to agree with this statement, while hierarchs and individualists find it less appealing. Political and social conservatives and fundamentalist Christians should tend to disagree with this statement.

This double-barreled statement is intended to stress the respondent, leading many to choose ‘neutral’. Those who feel most strongly about environmentalism (mostly egalitarians) should disagree with it, overcoming their skepticism about politicians. Those who fear constraints on freedom should agree with it. Hierarchs and those whose worldviews are more moderate should tend toward neutrality. This statement turned out to be one of the strongest indicators of difference between egalitarianism and the other cultures.

Both egalitarians and hierarchs should be more concerned than individualists about population growth, if for slightly different reasons. However, some individualists, fearing that overpopulation will limit freedom and opportunity, may agree. Again religion may play a role, and so, in this instance, might race. Roman Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants may disagree, as may Blacks (who are often fundamentalist Protestants) and Hispanics (who are often Roman Catholics, and among who fundamentalism has made inroads lately). Egalitarians and fervent environmentalists should agree with the statement, concerned about balance.

This statement should appeal much more to egalitarians than to hierarchs, and more to hierarchs than to individualists. The environmentalist and egalitarian aspect is obvious, but the final clause puts some stress on the hierarchic respondent, who may feel a sense of noblesse oblige not felt by individualists.

This statement is intended to measure the anxiety felt by respondents about the sustainability of our current way of life. Egalitarians, perceiving nature as delicately balanced, see widespread asymmetries in wealth and power as a social and environmental negative, and should tend to agree with Planet. Hierarchs should tend to disagree with the statement because they are adverse to radical change, and disinclined to accept the notion that under their direction we are headed the wrong way. They may agree that the course is in need of some correction, but should reject the implication that we are totally misled. Individualists may agree with the statement because of a perception that the private sphere is threatened by an expanding public sphere, but their tendency to see nature as resilient should influence most to disagree with the statement.

It seems that hierarchs should approve this statement much stronger than individualists and egalitarians. The reason behind such assumption is not very sophisticated – hierarchs value order. Individualists and egalitarians together also should endorse it but for other reasons: individualists – because law stands for freedom, egalitarians – because everybody should follow the rules.

It appears that egalitarians and hierarchs should completely exclude this statement: hierarchs because it generally threatens the concept of hierarchy, egalitarians – because all people ought to have the same duties and similar privileges. Individualists which value liberty might think that sometimes quality of law is low and individual morality can have higher level than common law.

This statement should appeal most to the egalitarian, less to the individualist, and least to the hierarch. It is aimed at probing notions of sameness versus difference, which, it is thought, is a latent influence on notions of justice.

This statement should appeal more to individualists than to egalitarians, with hierarchs somewhere between. Believing this allows those with cornucopian notions, i.e. individualists, more latitude in utilizing natural resources, while rejecting it harmonizes with concern for ecological balance.

Supposing that Polish culture is the most individualistic, Indian – the most hierarchical and Turkish – the most egalitarian of all cultures researched here it was forecasted the respondents probable answers. The forecasting on the answers given by Polish, Turkish and Indian respondents are displayed in the table 2.

Provisional responses of Polish, Indian and Turkish students

Statements	Poland	India	Turkey
1. Private property will serve not only as a basis of feeding people but for long term freedom and democracy.	agree	agree	agree
2. Environmental problems are technical problems: we need to let experts handle them.	agree	agree	disagree
3. Humans have no innate or god-given mandate to dominate the planet.	disagree
4. Environmentalism is mostly just a popular bandwagon and politicians will always jump aboard one of those.	agree	neutral	disagree
5. The explosive increase in population is the number one environmental hazard.	disagree	agree	agree
6. If I had to choose between freedom and equality I’d take equality.	disagree	disagree	agree
7. Rich and poor, we are all on this planet together, and rich countries must take financial responsibility for cleaning up global pollution; we are obligated to help the Third World.	almost agree	agree	strongly agree
8. If we don’t change the way we live, we will make the whole planet uninhabitable.	disagree	disagree	agree
9. Environmental issues should be strictly regulated by law.	agree	strongly agree	agree
10. People should behave according to their own conviction rather than law regulations.	agree	disagree	partly agree
11. Beneath the skin, people are pretty much all the same.	disagree	strongly disagree	agree
12. Nature is not nearly as delicate as some people claim.	agree	disagree	disagree

The research partly confirmed adequacy of previsions made for egalitarians, hierarchs and individualists on the basis of Cultural Theory and Hofstede cultural dimensions. It positively verified five statements: (1) Private property will serve not only as a basis of feeding people but for long term freedom and democracy, (5) The explosive increase in population is the number one environmental hazard, (7) Rich and poor, we are all on this planet together, and rich countries must take financial responsibility for cleaning up global pollution; we are obligated to help the Third World, (9) Environmental issues should be strictly regulated by law, and (10) People should behave according to their own conviction rather than law regulations. They are displayed on the graphs below in the chronological order.

In respect to the remaining statements the research proved the differences between previsions and final results. In the case of two statements it was observed the single discrepancy where previsions for only one country failed: (4) Environmentalism is mostly just a popular bandwagon and politicians will always jump aboard one of those and (6) If I had to choose between freedom and equality I’d take equality. In respect to other five it was double controversy where previsions for two countries were unsuccessful: (2) Environmental problems are technical problems: we need to let experts handle them, (3) Humans have no innate or god-given mandate to dominate the planet, (8) If we don’t change the way we live, we will make the whole planet uninhabitable, (11) Beneath the skin, people are pretty much all the same, and (12) Nature is not nearly as delicate as some people claim.

Single disparity between expectations and research results is displayed on the graphs below.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This paper discusses culturally conditioned worldviews relevant to environmental issues. In general the sample population does seem to hold worldviews that are explicable by cultural approach, but in some individual cases these worldviews seem to be synergetic. People want a healthy environment: conflict over how to achieve the goal is partly culture-based and it might be solved, at least to some extent, by using different arguments to different cultural groups: individualistic, egalitarian and hierarchic.

A virtue of cultural approach is its suggestion that we can illuminate causes and courses of environmental conflicts by identifying and analyzing elements of conflicting or mixed worldviews. It offers an analogical method of extrapolating from individual to collective levels of analysis. The sample population consists of very diverse groups, and is characterized by a broad range of cultural positions, but in almost every demographic grouping there are those who deviate from the general tendency in that group. Effective collective action will no doubt have to include in its organizing principles notions that are incongruent. The aim will have to be to emphasize areas of overlap and minimize areas of disagreement among cultural worldviews. Cultural Theory’s contribution could be to identify these interstices, pointing toward both areas of potential overlap and divergence.


References:

1. 
   Pendergraft C. A., Human Dimensions of Climate Change: Cultural Theory and Collective Action, “Climatic Change” 1998, nr 39, s. 661-664.
   
2. 
   Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J., Cultures and Organizations. Software for the Mind, McGraw-Hill, United States 2005.
   
3. 
   http://www.geert-hofstede.com/
   

Nurse K., Culture as a Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development, prepared for Commonwealth

Directory: content -> download
download -> Appendix appendix 0 the florida emergency telephone act
download -> Fia wtcc race of Portugal boosts Championship Battle
download -> Définitions
download -> Press release 6 July 2012 Financial year 2011/12: facc achieves record turnover
download -> Curriculum vitae eleanor jane sterling
download -> Practical Application of the casve cycle of Career Problem Solving and Decision-Making
download -> What are Competencies?
download -> Bruce almighty

Download 6.3 Mb.

Share with your friends: