Updating Hofstede’s Cultural Model and Tracking Changes in Cultural Indices

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 85-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong-Yan Zhao ◽  
◽  
Jong-Wook Kwon ◽  
Oh-Suk Yang ◽  
◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 284-295
Author(s):  
Lawrence H. Yang ◽  
Jonathan Lam ◽  
Eduardo Vega ◽  
Monica Martinez ◽  
Luba Botcheva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Rattanasithy ◽  
W. Q. Elaine Perunovic ◽  
Michael Ross ◽  
Glen Gorman
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-101
Author(s):  
William Jankowiak

If the freedom to choose is important for personal well-being, what happens when there are drastic restrictions on personal choice? China represents an opportune case to explore this question. Its fifty-plus years of experimenting with a redistributive command economy, combined with periodic bursts of political fever, made extreme egalitarianism more important than other Chinese values recognising individual merit, vision, and achievement. Throughout much of Chinese history, these values were widely shared; but in the current era, an alternative cultural model was stressed: social responsibility for the community and nation. Individuals were ideally expected to de-emphasise their individuality in favour of "the common good". In China, the juxtaposition of the two competing value systems—extreme egalitarianism versus individual choice, responsibility, and personal achievement—engendered confusion, anger, angst, and unhappiness. In China, from 1949 to 1976, this accounts, in part, for much of the suffering people experienced in living their lives. In this article I examine the Chinese cultural model for life satisfaction or wellbeing in two different eras: work unit (danwei), socialism (1981–1983), and market reform (1987–2000). My sample was found in Hohhot, the provincial capital of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region in northern China, where I lived from 1981 to 1983; six months in 1987; five months in 2000 (a total of 35 months). I will also examine the ways Chinese sought well-being in four different domains: friendship, family, occupation, and fun activities. By analysing how Chinese conceptualised their lives over time, I will identify the conceptual frameworks individuals used to assess their relative well-being.


2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piet Strydom

This article offers a critical assessment of the prospects of the emergence of a global cosmopolitan society. For this purpose, it presents an analysis of the different interrelated types of structure formation in the process of cosmopolitisation and the mechanisms sustaining each. It deals with both the generation of a variety of actor-based models of world openness at the micro and meso level and with the reflexive meta-principle of cosmopolitanism forming part of the cognitive order of society at the macro level. But the focus is on the formation of an intermediate, substantive, situational, cultural model of cosmopolitanism which is on the one hand guided by the abstract principle of cosmopolitanism and on the other selectively brings together the actor models. Central to this analysis of cultural model formation is the threefold or triple contingency structure of the communication involved. The diagnosis, which takes a variety of conditions into account, is that the vital central moment of the formation of a substantive cultural model that would frame the organisation of a normative social order is deficient, which implies that the societal learning process supposed to engender it is being diverted, impeded or blocked. An explanation along the lines of critical social theory is proposed with reference to socio-structural and sociocultural causal factors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document