1 THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE his treatise on the study of cross-cultural differences between mod- Tern societies starts with an examination of the various ways in which culture has been conceptualized. Approaches to the concept and study of culture have varied between academic disciplines, and some- times even within them. The goal of this analysis is not to provide one right perspective. Culture can be whatever a scholar decides it should be. What we need is not a single best theoretical definition of culture but clear empirical operationalizations of each approach: Researchers need to explain exactly how they propose to measure culture in accordance with their conceptualizations, diverse as they may be. ◆ 9 10 ◆ Understanding “Culture” and analyze subjectively. Therefore, the ◆ 1.1. The “Unpackaging” best that we can do in a discussion of the of Culture nature of culture is to explore the subjec- tive conceptualizations of various schol- ars. Then, we can discuss the contents of Psychologists who compare individu- the package labeled “culture” as they have als from different nationalities or ethnic been seen by cross-cultural experts. groups often observe differences between them on the dependent variables that they study. In such cases, they may show that various psychological variables, as well as ◆ 1.2. Meaning of the Word age, gender, educational level, and more, Culture and Definitions of produce a statistical effect that seems to the Concept account for the differences. But what if some of the variance remains unexplained? In that case, it was common practice until The origin of the Latin word cultura is recently to refer to an obscure residual clear. It is a derivative of the verb colo called “culture.” Originally, the concept (infinitive colere), meaning “to tend,” of culture seemed even more opaque to “to cultivate,” and “to till,” among other researchers who compared organizations things (Tucker, 1931). It can take objects in different countries. In the words of Child such as ager, hence agricultura, whose (1981), “In effect, national differences literal meaning is “field tilling.” Another found in characteristics of organizations possible object of the verb colo is animus or their members have been ascribed to . (“character”). In that case, the expres- national differences, period” (p. 304). sion would refer to the cultivation of the To a cultural anthropologist, culture is human character. Consequently, the Latin neither obscure, nor a residual. It is a social noun cultura can be associated with edu- phenomenon that manifests itself quite cation and refinement. clearly, even if the manifestations are not The etymological analysis of “culture” always easy to explain. Anthropologists is quite uncontroversial. But in the field of consider culture an important phenom- anthropology, the situation is much more enon that warrants its own field of study. complex. Definitions of culture abound and They do not view it as a single variable; range from very complex to very simple. For being an extremely complex system, it is example, a complex definition was proposed to be analyzed in terms of its components by Kroeber and Parsons (1958): “transmit- and their relationships. Although cross- ted and created content and patterns of cultural psychologists and organizational values, ideas, and other symbolic- meaningful behavior experts accepted this logic rela- systems as factors in the shaping of human tively late, by now they too have grasped behavior” (p. 583). An even less easily the need to unpackage culture rather than comprehensible definition was provided by approach it as a monolithic block. 1 This White (1959/2007): “By culture we mean chapter and the next prepare the reader an extrasomatic, temporal continuum of for the third one, which represents an things and events dependent upon symbol- unpackaging exercise. We must start with ing” (p. 3). Often cited is also a definition by a philosophical warning at the very outset Kluckhohn (1951): of our journey. We will not try to find out what is in the package because that Culture consists in patterned ways of would be futile. Culture is not a specific thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired material object that has its own objec- and transmitted mainly by symbols, tive existence. It is underpinned by real constituting the distinctive achievements phenomena that, however, we perceive of human groups, including their The Concept of Culture ◆ 11 embodiments in artifacts; the essential the search for whatever ecological, socio- core of culture consists of traditional logical and cultural variables might link (i.e. historically derived and selected) with established variations in human ideas and especially their attached val- behavior” (p. 154). ues. (p. 86, no. 5) Segall’s call for pragmatism in cross- cultural analysis is laudable. Theoretical But that is not all. Geertz (1973) noted debates about the meaning that “should” sarcastically that “in some twenty-seven be attributed to the concept of culture pages of his chapter on the concept, are pointless. There is no absolute reason Kluckhohn managed to define culture in why one abstract theoretical concept of it turn as . [what follows is 11 differ- should be better than another. However, ent definitions]; and turning, perhaps in disagreements have been voiced not only desperation, to similes, as a map, as a with respect to abstract definitions of sieve, and as a matrix” (p. 5). This lack culture but also concerning specific mat- of clarity and consensus about anthro- ters, such as whether artifacts should or pologists’ main object of study may be should not be considered part of culture one of the reasons that, in the words of (see the debate between Jahoda, 1984, Cochran and Harpending (2009), the social and Rohner, 1984). The answer to a ques- sciences—and especially anthropology— tion of this kind can have practical conse- “haven’t exactly covered themselves in quences: It may determine what should or glory” (p. ix). 2 It also explains why to many should not be studied for the purpose of a researchers and practitioners, culture is dissertation on culture or be published in “the c-word, mysterious, frightening and a journal devoted to culture. to be avoided” (Berry, 1997, p. 144). Culture can be pragmatically defined by Some have even denied the utility of the the contents and boundaries of the inter- concept (Barber, 2008b). ests of the scholars who study it. Even bet- At the other extreme is a well-known ter, we should look at what is in the focus simple and narrow definition: Culture is of their interests. A culturologist may shared mental software, “the collective study climatic differences (for instance, programming of the mind that distinguishes van de Vliert, 2009), although climate is the members of one group or category of unlikely to be viewed by anybody as part people from another” (Hofstede, 2001). of culture. Yet, that researcher would not The group or category can be a national be interested in climate per se, but in how society but Hofstede believes that his defi- it affects variation in values, beliefs, and nition applies also to other collectives, such behaviors, which could be considered ele- as regions, ethnicities, occupations, orga- ments or expressions of culture. nizations, or even age groups and genders. Defining the contents and boundaries According to Jahoda (1984), “culture” of culture may also be necessary for the is the most elusive term in the vocabulary purposes of clarity and avoidance of con- of the social sciences and the number fusing statements. According to Jahoda of books devoted to the topic would fill (1984), if culture is seen as including many library shelves. A practical solu- behaviors, it is incorrect to say that culture tion was proposed by Segall (1984), who causes behavior because that would be believed that it was not worth the effort to a circular explanation. Likewise, Fischer enhance the concept’s clarity or attempt to and Schwartz (2011) discuss the question articulate a universally acceptable defini- of whether culture determines values. This tion. In his view, cultural analysts should makes sense only if values are not viewed abandon the struggle to conceptualize cul- as part of culture; otherwise the debate ture. Instead, they should “turn to the real would be like the question of whether light business at hand,” which is to “intensify produces photons. 12 ◆ Understanding “Culture” Therefore, it might be useful that those per se, but only in specific context vari- who present cultural analyses explain ables that can explain observed differences how they conceptualize culture, specifying on some dependent variable” (p. 272), and its contents and boundaries. This could “In the ideal study the set of context vari- help avoid a situation described by Child ables will be chosen in such a way that the (1981), who pointed out that there is a remaining effect for culture will be zero” danger of inferring culture as a national (p. 272). This begs the question of what phenomenon from virtually any contrasts variables can explain differences between that emerge from a comparison of orga- groups of people but are not part of their nizations in different countries: “Even if cultures. 3 such contrasts are unambiguously national Some of the clearly external variables in scope, they could possibly be due to with respect to culture—also known as other non-cultural phenomena such as “exogenous” or “extraneous”—are cli- national wealth, level of industrialization, mate, geographic location, and patho- or even climate” (p. 328). gen prevalence. But what about national A comment by Fischer (2009) illustrates wealth, main type of economy, or degree another practical reason to define culture. of democracy? Are these cultural variables In his view, if researchers do not focus or not? According to van de Vijver and on the shared aspect of culture (see 2.1.), Leung (1997a), gross national product, there is no need to investigate agreement educational systems, and even health care among the members of a national culture institutions are culture-related variables who provide information to a researcher.