Cultural dimensions, changing life courses and the meaning of well-being

1. Cultural dimensions, changing life courses and the meaning of well-being Lecture May 12, 2004 Faculty Study Meeting School of Sociology Kwansei Gakuin University Nishinomiya, Japan Henk Vinken Tilburg University Tilburg, the Netherlands

2. Outline Separate worlds Postmodernists, particularists, dimensionalists Four dimensionalists Hofstede, Triandis, Schwartz, Inglehart Cultural change Dimensionalists’ weak point (except Ingelhart ?) Changing life courses The two-fold individualization process Impact on the meaning well-being Towards a dynamic model ?

3. Separate worldsPostmodernists, particularists, dimensionalists • Postmodernists : • cultures do not exist: no unifying pattern • no strong internal homogeneity • no direct power to shape people’s identities • individual: produces hybrid, ambivalent cultures • Particularists : • uphold belief in value patterns • stress on domains (work, religion, politics, etc.) • no overarching ‘cultural canopy’ • individual: no important constructing role • Dimensionalists : • culture as a unifying pattern • system crosses life domains and people • search most frugal, meaningful sex axes • individual: absent – “culture is superorganic” • Do dimensionalists allow framing of cultural change or for (groups of) individuals to be productive ?

4. Four dimensionalistHofstede, Triandis, Schwartz, Inglehart • Hofstede : • cultures directs individual/group action • values at the core of culture • well-defined, stable patterns at nation-level • 5 dimensions on which 50+ countries vary • power distance (inequality) • uncertainty avoidance (fear unknown) • individualism (tight – weak ties) • masculinity (unequal gender roles) • long-term orientation (future vs now)

5. Four dimensionalistHofstede, Triandis, Schwartz, Inglehart • Triandis : • focus on I/C i.e. in-/interdependent selves • I/C cultures depend on tightness vs complexity • well-defined, stable patterns at nation-level • tight: norm consensus high • complex: high functional differentiation • (many ingroups, many options) • C: tight and simple • I: loose and complex • I/C multidimensional: horizontal/vertical • horizontal I: independence and sameness • vertical I: interdependent and distinction • horizontal C: interdependent and oneness • vertical I: interdependence and distinction

6. Four dimensionalistHofstede, Triandis, Schwartz, Inglehart • Schwartz : • culture structured at individual and national levels • values adjacent and opposite (form a circle) • individual level 10 constructs / 2 axes • -openness change vs conservatism • -self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence • culture level 7 types / 4 societal issues • -in vs interdependent individual • -equality vs. Inequality • -change vs. preservation • -self vs. generalized other directedness

7. Four dimensionalistHofstede, Triandis, Schwartz, Inglehart • Inglehart : • values on 1 bipolar materialism-postmaterialism • scarcity vs. socialization hypotheses • scarcity: value scarce goods • socialization: values reflect pre-adult yrs • scarcity yields materialist cohorts (security) • prosperity yields postmaterialists (QoL) • later work: 2 dimensions in modernization • survival to well-being • (includes materialism-postmaterialism) • traditional to secular-rational authority • (hierarchy, male dominance, authoritarian • attitudes) • (equality, opposition to centralization, • bigness)

8. Cultural changeDimensionalists’ weak point (except Inglehart?) • Hofstede : national cultures transform in similar directions; diversity remains; relative cultural stability • Triandis : recognizes value heterogeneity, but people ‘sample’ I/C themes in line with national culture: cultural stability • Schwartz : universal structure by definition stable; overlap individual and culture-level pursuit: cultural stability • Inglehart : incorporates change explicitely, but no role (groups) of individuals (falls back on abstract processes): cultural change without any social vehicle of change • Bring man back in! (Homans, 1964!)

9. Changing life coursesThe two-fold individualization process • Individualization yields de-standardization life courses • Two ways: self-direction and self-fulfillment • Reflexive biographization of the life course • Generation or age cohorts aware of shared history and destiny • Awareness of generational distinction, particularly as regards practised and called-for reflexivity • The rise of a reflexive generation ?

10. Impact on the meaning of well-beingTowards a dynamic model ? • Self-fullfilment newly framed: no material or personal growth (linear), but attaining competences to change, be dynamic, flexible (non-linear) • Classic divisions (categories/institutions) still powerful • But dynamics new norm, also institutions respond and put new demands (the flexicurity discussion) • Reframing well-being in Inglehart’s dimensions ? (a 1968-concept, now old concept of personal growth) • Reframing theory accurate for the west, but also elsewhere, in Asia, in Japan ?

11. Extra (discussion slide?)Research questions (fitting CoE focus?) • General: What meaning does well-being have for Asian (Japanese) people and is this a similar meaning as is found among Westerners ? • In more detail: • Is it possible to discern a more linear and a more dynamic, non-linear dimension in the conception of well-being in Asia (Japan) and in the West ? • Do younger generations in Asia (Japan) and in the West support a more dynamic dimension of well-being than do older generations ? • Is there a relationship between the generational diversity of the conceptions of well-being and the life course characteristics of distinct generations in Asia (Japan) and in the West ?