In his books Culture’s Consequences (1980) and Cultures and Organizations.
Software of the Mind (1991), Hofstede claims that cultures can be positioned in
four independent dimensions, power distance, masculinity—femininity, uncertainty avoidance and individualism—collectivism. Each of these dimensions of culture can be measured relative to other cultures.
Power distance, the aspect of culture which involves “dependence relationships,” is the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions (e.g., family, school, or the community) or organizations (the places where individuals work) within a country expect and accept an unequal distribution of power (Hofstede, 1991; 2001; Merkin, 2006a). Along the power distance dimension, we can distinguish between small power distance cultures and large power distance cultures. In the former, people think that inequalities among people should be minimized; less powerful individuals are dependent on more powerful individuals to a limited extent. In the latter, people think that inequalities among people are desirable; there is considerable dependence of less powerful individuals on more powerful individuals. According to Hofstede
(2001), in large power distance cultures, people value respect and formal deference to any type of authority. In other words, members of small power distance cultures believe that power should be distributed relatively equally, while members of large power distance cultures believe that it should be distributed unequally.
Another dimension mentioned by Hofstede (1991, 1998) along which cultures vary is the dimension of masculinity—femininity. Masculine societies are those in which “men are supposed to be assertive, tough and focused on material success,” and women are to be “more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life” (Hofstede, 1998: 6). In feminine societies, both men and women are to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.
Uncertainty avoidance, the next dimension of cultural variability discussed by
Hofstede (1980, 1991, 2001), refers to “the extent to which people feel threatened by ambiguous situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these” (Hofstede and Bond, 1984: 419). This dimension pertains to how people deal with conflict and aggression and how tolerant they are of ambiguity. Different degrees of uncertainty avoidance can be found in every culture, but one model (high uncertainty avoidance or low uncertainty avoidance) always predominates. Hofstede distinguishes high uncertainty avoidance cultures (e.g., Japan, France) and low uncertainty avoidance cultures (e.g., England, Ireland, Denmark, the USA). For people in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, “what is different is dangerous,” so they try to avoid uncertainty, accept aggressive behaviour and freely express emotions. To reduce uncertainty, they resort to ritualistic behaviours and customs to avoid ambiguity (Hofstede, 2001; Merkin, 2006b). For people in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, “what is different is curious” (Hofstede, 1991: 119).
The most important dimension of cultural variability is individualism—
collectivism, which is said to have the greatest impact of them all on communica-
tive behaviour. Individualism characterizes societies in which ties between peo- ple are loose and individuals are expected to look only after themselves and their family (Hofstede, 1991). Collectivism characterizes societies in which individuals throughout their lifetime are integrated into their ingroups, which protect them in return for loyalty (Hofstede, 1991). Individualism—collectivism is not a static dimension. Cocroft and Ting-Toomey (1994) claim that indivi- dualism and collectivism should be treated on a continuum basis.
The two types of culture, collectivistic and individualistic, differ in the way their members understand morality. Among collectivists morality is “more contextual” and the supreme value is the welfare of the collective (e.g., family). Morality in collectivistic cultures (such as those of Japan and China) is connected with adherence to many specific rules; to be moral means to comply with these rules in particular situations (Triandis, 1995). People in collectivistic cultures are particularistic in this respect; they tend to apply different value 154 Face as a folk concept
standards to members of their ingroups and outgroups. In individualistic cultures (such as those of Australia and the United States), morality is perceived in more universalistic terms; the same value standards apply to all people (Gudykunst, 2004).
Individualistic and collectivistic cultures can be divided with respect to relations among people into horizontal and vertical (Triandis, 1995). Horizontal cultures are those in which people see themselves as the same as and equal to others, while vertical cultures are those in which people feel different from others and do not value equality much. Both types of culture can be found among individualistic and collectivistic societies. Thus, there are vertical individualistic cultures (e.g., the United States, Germany and Great Britain), in which people try to stand out from others, and value freedom but do not value equality (although equality is said to be one of the most important American values!); and horizontal individualistic cultures (e.g., Sweden and Norway), in which people act as individuals, but at the same time do not try to stand out from others, and value both equality and freedom. In horizontal collectivistic cultures (e.g., Japan) people highly value equality, but do not attach much importance to freedom, while in vertical collectivistic cultures (e.g., India) people value neither equality nor freedom (Triandis, 1995).
Another difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultures lies in interpersonal communication. Hall (1976) distinguishes between low- and
high-context communication. In individualistic cultures, in which people are
more affect-oriented and more inclined to talk than members of collectivistic cultures, low-context communication predominates, in which “the mass of information is vested in the explicit code” (Hall, 1976: 70; Gudykunst et al., 1996). Explicit messages are used to convey personal thoughts, opinions and feelings (Ting-Toomey, 2005). In collectivistic cultures, in which people are more concerned with avoiding hurting others than members of individualistic cultures, high-context communication predominates, in which “most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message” (Hall, 1976: 79; Gudykunst et al., 1996). What matters is the “multilayered” context (e.g., historical context, social norms, roles, situational and relational contexts) framing the interaction encounter (Hall, 1976; Ting-Toomey, 2005).
According to Gudykunst (2004; Gudykunst et al., 1996), the individualism— collectivism dimension shapes communication on two distinct levels: cultural and personal. At the cultural level, patterns of behaviour depend on cultural norms and values. Individualism “refers to the broad value tendencies of a system in emphasizing the importance of individual identity over group identity, individual rights over group rights, and individual needs over group needs” (Ting-Toomey, 1994: 314). Individualistic cultures draw up the “I” identity as the prime focus; they are concerned with the authenticity of
self-presentation style, and they value autonomy, choices, and negative-face need (Ting-Toomey, 1988; cf. Shweder and Bourne, 1984). Members of such cultures see themselves as independent of any collectives, and they are primarily motivated by their own preferences and needs. They put the emphasis on individual initiatives and achievement (Triandis, 1995, Gudykunst, 2004). Collectivism “refers to the broad value tendencies of a system in emphasizing the importance of the ‘we’ identity over the ‘I’ identity” (Ting-Toomey, 1994: 314). Collectivistic cultures are concerned with the adaptability of self-presentation style, and they value group goals over individual goals, interdependence, reciprocal obligations, and positive-face need (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Members of such cultures see themselves as parts of one or more collectives — e.g., family, business company, or nation — and are primarily motivated by the norms of these collectives. They put the emphasis on belonging to certain groups rather than on their own achievement (Triandis, 1995; Gudykunst, 2004).
At the personal level, the patterns of behaviour used by members of a particular culture depend on individual socialization. There are three main characteristics that mediate the impact of individualism—collectivism on communication: personality orientations, individual values, and self-construals (Gudykunst, 2004; Gudyunst et al., 1996). Triandis et al. (1988) distinguish two types of personality, which can appear in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures: idiocentric and allocentric. Idiocentric individuals in individualistic cultures “do their own thing” and do not pay attention to the needs of other members of their ingroup, while allocentric individuals in individualistic cultures are concerned about them. Allocentric individuals in collectivistic cultures “feel positive about accepting ingroup norms,” while idiocentric individualists in collectivistic cultures “feel ambivalent and even bitter about acceptance of ingroup norms” (Triandis et al., 1988: 325).