I had occasion in February of 2000 to visit a small portion of East Africa for about a month. The experience was profound. I learned many things, but one thing remained with me above all others – a great respect for the vast differences between cultures in different parts of the world. I have been calling this difference our “worldview,” because it affects almost everything that we do. It is like the air we breathe, or the way we think – we are not conscious of it normally, but it has a profound effect on how we think, what we do, what we value.
I have found one book that shed some light on this, a sociological study of thousands of IBM employees: Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind, by Geert Hofstede, 1991. This is a remarkable little book, and it helps explain what I encountered in Africa, and what I encounter every day when I deal with people with a different worldview.
Hofstede’s book is actually a popularization of a scientific study he did for IBM, plus some additional work. The book introduces 5 dimensions of culture, and then ranks 37 different nations or areas of the world as to where they stand on that dimension. It is extremely non judgmental about the abstract value of the dimensions. It is also very well written, providing illustrative anecdotes or illustrations of each cultural trait. The book is absolutely worth reading in its entirety, but here are a few salient points that I found instructive. Later editions have changed things, so some of my examples may be missing.
· People view some fundamental things very differently, such as the equality in society, individuals versus collectives, risk avoidance, virtue and truth.
To this group I would add another, the long and short-term view of things.
· These differences are cultural, but they are learned with the language. By the time a person is 8 or 10 years old, they have these firmly in place to structure how they think.
· These differences can be quite large, even in neighboring geographic areas. For example, Costa Rica stands out from its American neighbors, and Norway is very different than France.
· These differences last for centuries, if not longer. The author theorizes that cultures are different depending on whether a nation was inside or outside of the Roman Empire, and whether they were influenced by the Aztecs or the Incas.
· The US culture is at the extreme end of only one of these dimensions – individuality vs. collectivism.
· It is very, very difficult for a person to step outside of their world view, and to fully understand that of another.
These differences have profound effect on our behavior and our dealings with other people. For example, I have an extremely hard time grasping how the Asian mind sees abstract truth – because, in fact, they do not see it at all. Everything there is cast in terms of “virtue” – good behavior, not “truth” – abstract conformity to ideals. I have had enough dealings with Asians that I began to question their truthfulness. Now I understand that my concern for abstract truth has no relevant parallel in their value system.
This worldview difference is extremely important, because it underlies a wide range of human activity, such as our economics, system of justice, and principles of government. If one operates in another culture without understanding the profound differences, one is at serious risk of failure. Similarly, if someone from another culture is imported into ours without a recognition of the differences, it is also a recipe for disaster. We also believe that we have a plurality of worldviews within any one society, and that is one reason we frequently have major misunderstandings.
Today, we all realize that other cultures have value sets that are unique, but I don’t believe we quite realize just how profoundly deep the differences are. There is always the temptation to think that the way our own culture operates, the way our mind works, is shared by everyone. If we have been disabused of that notion, then we tend to think that ours is the best one. The reverse sometimes occurs when cultures with economic and technological superiority dominate in an area, and try to persuade other peoples that their cultural systems are inferior. It’s called colonialism. When people look down on their own worldview as though it were of less value, it gives rise to another major problem, dealing with respect for one’s traditions and self-concept.
It appears that it is very difficult to change your world view, and fully adopt another one. It’s something like learning a second language as an adult. You can get very good at it, even learn to think in it – but your emotional life, the feeling and meaning of words lives on in your native tongue. I think we can come to understand and value a worldview different from ours – but we can never really adopt it. To ask East Africans to adopt the Western one, or us theirs is bound to cause serious problems.
The Hofstede study clearly indicates that this ‘world view’ is primarily cultural. He is also quick to point out that we have no basis for judging whether one view is as successful or better than the other. But they are clearly different. As several of the missionaries in Tanzania stated it to me: “When I first came here, I assumed that people here were just like me. Their skin is different, their language different, their customs different. But, otherwise, they were just like me. I’ve come to discover that we are very different in very many ways..
It is likely that a worldview prevails because it is successful in a given time and place. As things change, as new influences appear, the old view will not be as successful in enabling people to adapt. The peoples of East Africa have thrived for hundreds of thousands of years with their cultural view. But it is highly unlikely that a European or American artifact that is based on our worldview will succeed in East Africa. I am tempted to think that democracy and capitalism fall into this category.
I don’t have any formal study that proves this thesis – just the experience of a few weeks in this culture, and discussions with missionaries that have been immersed in it for 20 to 40 years. I have stories and anecdotes. All of the Europeans and Americans that I dealt with described these differences to me, but none of them gave it the unifying thread of a “worldview.” I can only tell you that they provided their basic experiences – they had not formulated the explanatory theory that I am trying to describe.
I know that many Europeans and Americans find a great deal of East African behavior to be strange, inexplicable, even reprehensible. I expect, although I never heard it expressed, that many in East Africa cannot figure out what drives Europeans and Americans to do the bizarre things that they do. I would hope that if both sides can gain a bit more empathy for the differences between them, that the working relationship can be greatly improved. My analogy is that it is something like trying to deal with someone who has ADD, without realizing that they work in a very different fashion than oneself. I can speak from personal experience, that this is a very, very frustrating situation. This other person simply doesn’t seem to be rational, they don’t do normal things, their behavior is inexplicable. With a bit of insight into how the ADD person is working internally, and that it is profoundly different, at least both parties can develop coping mechanisms and processes that enable communication and cooperation. Without those, the relationship quickly degenerates with considerable anger and resentment on both sides.
Let me state the thesis boldly up front and then I’ll provide a bit of background to help you understand what it really means.
Simply stated, I believe that the dominant worldview in portions of East Africa is one where the human person is seen as part of the world, immersed in the world, not in charge of it. In the dominant western view the human person is in more in charge of the world, rather than a part of it. Hofstede did not come upon this difference in his research, but then he did not have a very large African sample.
I’ve tried to find descriptive names for these two world views, because it is much simpler to refer to them by name, rather than repeating a long descriptive phrase each time. Here are some of the names that come to mind:
Let me describe some of these a bit.
For an example, consider the Maasai concept of God. They believe in a transcendent being, one that is not constrained by human ideas and expressions. Their dominant metaphor is one of a female mother that gives birth to life, to all reality, and to humans. She holds us all in her womb, and gives us life. We are nurtured and caressed.
By contrast, the dominant western view is of a male figure, that creates reality. This stems from the Genesis story, or the Genesis story simply reflects it, with a view of the divine as all controlling, all powerful.
The “born / created” names are from the same model.
The Eastern African considers the human person as another participant of the world, not in charge of it. We live in the world, with the animals and plants. We are part of it.
The western view has the human person as one in charge of the world. Our creation story put humans in control of creation, to mold it, shape it, bend it to our will.
The former is much more respectful of what we have, what we are given. It does not tear up and tear down – it subsists, survives, takes part. The latter view feels compelled to improve upon, to build, to change, often without great care for the possible negative consequences.
The hunter / gatherer takes advantage of what appears from the hand of nature, or the divinity. The farmer / husbandry sows a crop, tames a beast, making an investment now to reap the benefits later. One of the persons I met in Africa pointed out to me that formal, organized agriculture is a relatively recent invention on the planet. Scientists tell us that Homo Sapiens has been walking about on the surface of this earth for about 500,000 years. In all that time, our species has been pretty much like us – same brain capacity, physical qualities, etc. The first 450,000 years of our history was characterized by the “hunter / gatherer” or subsistence model. Formal agricultural appears to have been invented in only one place – the Mesopotamian peninsula. It spread to the rest of the world from there. Some peoples in the Americas came upon it much later.
One of the possible theories here is that this change, from hunter / gatherer to agriculture and animal husbandry, required a revolution in the world view before humans could conceive of making so profound a change. In many ways the Copernican revolution, and the Enlightenment and Age of Reason moved humans from the role of being dependent on the divine and authority, to a sense of self-discovery and independence. We had conceived of democracy prior to this, but it could not be realized until the popular worldview had shifted enough to support it. Formal science had been attempted by the Greeks and Egyptians, but not to the pervasive scale that we have achieved. Similarly, the earlier world could simply not conceive of agriculture, without a profound shift in viewpoint.
This is quite similar to the agricultural model above, but a bit different. In this view the predator takes what is in front of him or her as immediate food or resource. The reaper puts some aside for the future, plants it to reap more later. One focuses on the immediate. The other plans for tomorrow. The predator model is very successful in much of nature. Food is scarce, there is great competition for it, and it will not keep – we must eat it when it is there. This is the ultimate competitive model. The reaper model assumes a level of foresight to plan ahead and the freedom to keep others from destroying the crops until they can be reaped. It requires a certain level of planning and cooperation.
In most of humankind’s history, the predator model was dominant because it was very successful. Any other approach did not survive. The successful society honed the predator model, and passed it on in its traditions and values.
There are clearly genetically driven differences, but these cultural values do not appear to be among them. Ways of thinking, deciding, emotional content, environmental sensitivity, sense of direction, etc. – these appear to be genetically based. The book, Emotional Intelligence, does a wonderful job explaining some of these.
Cultural values such as the type described above appear to be passed on with mother’s milk, and childhood stories. For example, the stories that the young Maasai share are very much of the predator variety. They are not Aesop’s fables about cooperation and patience, and the other values that the Western world thinks of as virtuous. The virtues extolled here are quick thinking, deceit, trickery, survival at the expense of others. If all of one’s traditions and stories extol this behavioral model, and it serves one well in a competitive, predator world, it should be no wonder that this is one’s dominant worldview.
I realize that these tales are not formal proof, but I hope they help someone begin to study the idea more scientifically. These are only anecdotes that gave rise to the thesis. A pretty meager foundation, but every one I met in Africa had a bunch of similar stories to relate.
One of the Canadian volunteers in a small village out on the Serengeti plain recounted this tale. He put up a rope swing for the children in his school. The kids really enjoyed it, and played on it every day. One day, one of them gave it a really hard push, and the swing ended up in the branches – about 20 feet up. Every day the kids would come by, see that the swing was stuck and say, “Ah, no swing”. They were resigned to the fact that it was not there. It did not occur to them to find the ladder and bring it back down. It was the first thing that occurred to the Canadian, but he wanted to see whether they would come to it. It was 4 months before anyone thought to get the ladder and bring it back down.
We were staying in a small village out near the Serengeti. The water supply was a single pipe that came from a source near a hospital about a mile away. I don’t know this, but I suspect that the water supply was installed originally by the American missionary that worked there for many years. Water is scarce during the dry season in this part of Africa, but the only water works that I ever saw had been constructed by the British or Americans many years prior. A Belgian engineer was installing water projects in the town where we stayed originally, but I never heard of any other initiatives. The local populace does not have the expertise or the funds for this kind of undertaking. That being said, one day our water stopped. It stopped! No more water. Now what?, ask the Americans. No water, say the people. We ask the village mayor what they do when the water stops. He said, we get water from the river. We asked if the water had stopped in the past – he indicates it has. What caused it to stop then? Oh, someone broke the pipe so they could get water, or an animal stepped on it, or sometimes people stuff things in it. But, as far as we could tell, no one was going to go see what caused it to stop this time and go to fix it. And clearly, no one was going to take steps to make sure it would not be broken again. That was simply not part of the discussion.
The Belgian water engineer told me that when he first came to East Africa, he thought that all Africans were lazy – they seemed to have no initiative, from his perspective. But as he learned more about them, he realized that they are not lazy at all. They work very hard – sometimes just to survive. And some of the work that they do is very difficult, requiring a great deal of effort. They do not lack the energy – they simply don’t view the problem the way he does. It does not occur to them to take action to solve the swing or the water problem. The swing, the water are gifts, things that are found and used – they are not created, not produced.
Most formal businesses in the towns of east Africa seem to be owned by people of foreign extraction. Many are immigrants and some are the first and second-generation descendents of immigrants. Very few formal businesses are owned and operated by Africans. The Africans run the street shops, sell wares on the street and in the market, and work in the other businesses, but very few of them own a formal business.
My theory for this, totally unfounded, I grant you, is that they have a difficult time building the relationship and the finances required to conduct a formal business. Their predator mentality tells them to take what they have and run. They have a great deal of difficulty gathering capital and using it to create the long term value of a business.
Even the farming we saw was all subsistence. Enough to feed the family, the Boma. The large farms are run by the Europeans and Americans. Even African owned enterprises seem to fare better when a “western” person runs them.
The population where we were in East Africa was about 40% HIV positive. It is a devastating disease. For some reason, the Africans have a difficult time grasping the idea of infections caused by contagious microorganisms. They know the words, they have been exposed to the ideas, and they are very intelligent people. But they seem almost incapable of acting on that knowledge in their day-to-day lives. Their attitude is almost fatalistic, but it seems to be founded on their sense that they are just part of this reality, that they are not called to alter it. If they get AIDS, that is how things are. They do not see it as a good, but neither do they feel a great urgency to do anything to prevent it, to cure it, to avoid it. Unless something radically changes, or some cure is developed, I fully expect that most of East Africa will die of this disease, until some few develop a resistance to it.
We saw numerous instances where normal sanitary practices in the face of contagious diseases were simply ignored, even by trained medical workers. It does not seem to be part of their worldview to take steps to avoid disease. It is as though the cause and effect are too far removed to be of consequence.
Speaking of medicine, we heard numerous stories of doctors and nurses who seemed to be operating on a very short view of things. They seem to see themselves and their professions as simply a “job.” They seem to have little interest in curing disease or helping others. They more focused on getting paid and completing the day’s work. It is the long and short-term view at work again.
One story that several people told us involved a patient who had suffered a severe head injury. He was admitted to the hospital, and scheduled for surgery to relieve the pressure on his brain. He was prepped for surgery, and the surgeon and anesthetist and nurses took him away to the operating room, and brought him back some time later. But his condition did not improve. His attending physician finally decided to examine the wound himself, and he discovered that they had not actually done the surgery. They had opened the skin, but not cut into the skull to relieve the pressure. Both physicians had signed the medical records indicating they had done the surgery, but they did not actually do it.
Neither doctor was suspended, reprimanded, or anything as a result of their actions. While not condoned, what they did seems to be treated as a fairly normal occurrence. The populace sees the hospitals in this country as very dangerous places.
Chai, or tea is the Swahili word used to describe a “bribe,” or a “grease” payment. It is a normal part of almost every business activity in this part of Africa. The police set up roadblocks right in front of the police station, and use every opportunity to extract payment from those that they stop. Doctors and nurses expect remuneration for their services from the patients, in order to give them their medication, or tend to their ills. Teachers in the school refuse to teach unless they are rewarded by the students. Priests take goods donated for the poor to sell in their shops to supplement their income.
I think all of these are evidence of a pervasive predator mentality. The East African has a propensity to take the money and run, as opposed to building up a fund, establishing a trust relationship that might reap bigger rewards in the end. We heard numerous stories of Europeans taken to the cleaners by Africans, to the extent that they would not trust any African ever again. It is not that these actions are condoned. It is more that they are expected, that they are the norm, that you are considered a fool if you don’t take steps to protect what is yours.
It is my opinion, again, unfounded in any fact, that the Western political and economic system, this interrelated democracy and capitalism, requires a certain level of long term view, enough to build up a trust relationship, to establish a level of interdependence and communal purpose. I suspect that any attempt to import this wholecloth into a culture that does not have the required basic values will be a dismal failure. I think we need only look at the political landscape of Africa for some examples of that. From the Western perspective, governments appear to be corrupt, inept, ineffective. What kind of government and economic system would be more successful in this context? But see below for my thoughts on what really drives economic development. Culture or “world view” has a role, but I do not think it is the dominant element at all.
Given this theory of how East Africans operate, as contrasted with the dominant western perspective, what does one do? As I noted above, it is very unlikely that a major effort to shift worldviews would be successful. Clearly, if one wanted to change it, the first step is to recognize the problem, that there is a profoundly deep worldview at work. Steps to alter it might include education, religion, stories that inculcate the values that have been found successful in the Western world. The problem is that a modest change in one person or small group, in the face of a larger culture, will probably not be successful.
Rather than try to alter the worldview of so many people, is it possible to alter the institutions and practices to adapt to the way people work in this society? Democracy may not be a feasible first step in this context. Socialism seems to require an even higher level of inter-dependency and long term perspective. What form of economic and political organization can best work with the values held so strongly by this society? How can we help these peoples come to this understanding?
It also occurs to me that the Western worldview is not the be all and end all for worldviews. It is clear that our economic and social condition is rapidly changing – faster than it ever has in the past. It would be amazing if this did not also require an altered worldview if it is to be successful. How does the Western world search for a better way to deal with all of this, unless we first recognize that we are part of the problem?
It is also pretty clear to me that this plurality of worldviews is a very, very healthy thing. We would be the poorer as a species if we ever managed to get an amalgamated perspective so that everyone saw everything the same way. Fortunately, the durability of cultural differences indicates that we are at little risk of this eventuality.
Other Books
I’ve been thinking about this “world view” thing for years now. I’ve found some confirmation in other parts of the world, and some very interesting books. One that is a fairly scientific exploration of the idea is by Richard Nisbett, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... And Why. It’s a very insightful study of how Asians and Westerners think differently, full of excellent examples. But it is purely East and West – there is no African or Latin American perspective in the research. But it is a very helpful insight into Asian and Western “world views.”
Economics and Culture
The conclusion in the prior work above is pretty much that it is the “world view” that drives development. Now I am not so sure. Amartya Sen is a nobel prize winning economist from Cambridge and Harvard. He argues persuasively in Development as Freedom that people create wealth, and if they are given the basic freedoms or “capabilities,” they will thrive. He lists 5 basic freedoms as fundamental to development: Political Freedom, Economic Facilities, Social Opportunities, Transparency Guarantees, Protective Security. I wrote a somewhat longer review of this which can be found here: Economic Books. The World Bank has basically adopted this approach, setting forth standards for “governance” and “transparency” as prerequisites for investment and development.
An article in The Economist for March 13, 2008, talks at length about “The Rule of Law” as the basic underpinning of a developing economy. I took the liberty of providing a reference and copy of the text here: Economist Article on The Rule of Law. Of course, just what that is and how it is measured or evaluated in another complex issue. But I think there is a great deal of truth to the idea. If the basic protections are lacking, people are not persuaded that hard work and creativity are worth the effort. At some point, all hope of development is killed by graft, corruption, lack of contractual support, no legal system for ownership, no health and education. Democracy and its supportive structures are the pre-requisite for development – not the result.
A simple example is the US “border problem.” We have all of these people from Mexico and Latin American who cannot make it where they live – so they emigrate here and work unbelievably hard, and are thriving. If the conditions existed in their homeland that would support and reward that energy – my bet is that they would not travel to this cold and distant place.
Carl Scheider Copyright 2001 / 2008