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

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 ?

Separate worlds Postmodernists, 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 ?

Four dimensionalist Hofstede, 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)

Four dimensionalist Hofstede, 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

Four dimensionalist Hofstede, 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

Four dimensionalist Hofstede, 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)

Cultural change Dimensionalists’ 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!)

Changing life courses The 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 ?

Impact on the meaning of well-being Towards 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 concept, now old concept of personal growth) Reframing theory accurate for the west, but also elsewhere, in Asia, in Japan ?

Extra (discussion slide?) Research questions (fitting CoE focus?) 1. 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: 1. 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 ? 2. Do younger generations in Asia (Japan) and in the West support a more dynamic dimension of well-being than do older generations ? 3. 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 ?