Measuring and mapping cultures

Measuring and Mapping Cultures:

25 Years of Comparative Value Surveys

International Studies in Sociology

and Social Anthropology

Editors

Tukumbi Lumumba-Kasongo

Rubin Patterson

Masamichi Sasaki

VOLUME 104

Measuring and Mapping Cultures:

25 Years of Comparative

Value Surveys

Edited by

Yilmaz Esmer and Thorleif Pettersson

LEIDEN • BOSTON

2007

Originally published as Volume 5 no. 2–3 (2006) of Brill’s journal ‘Comparative Sociology’

Coverphoto © World Values Survey (http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org)

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa (10th : 2004 : Olomouc,

Czech Republic)

Gregory of Nyssa : Contra Eunomium II : an English version with

supporting studies : proceedings of the 10th International Colloquium on Gregory

of Nyssa (Olomouc, September 15–18, 2004) / edited by Lenka Karfíková...

[et al.] with the assistance of Vít Hu“ek and Ladislav Chvátal.

p. cm. — (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, ISSN 0920-623X ; v. 82)

English, French, and German.

Contra Eunomium II translated from the Greek by Stuart George Hall.

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

ISBN-13: 978-90-04-15518-3

ISBN-10: 90-04-15518-X (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Gregory, of Nyssa, Saint,

ca. 335-ca. 394—Congresses. 2. Eunomius, Bp. of Cyzicus, ca. 335-ca. 394—

Congresses. 3. Eunomianism—Congresses. 4. Church history—Primitive and

early church, ca. 30-600—Congresses. I. Karfíková, Lenka. II. Hall, Stuart

George. III. Gregory, of Nyssa, Saint, ca. 335-ca. 394. Contra Eunomium.

ISSN 0074-8684

ISBN-10: 90 04 15820 0

ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15820 7

© Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,

IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior

written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted

by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to

The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,

Danvers, MA 01923, USA.

Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................... 1

Esmer, Yilmaz; Pettersson, Thorleif

Mapping Global Values .................................................................. 11

Inglehart, Ronald

A Theory of Cultural Value Orientations: Explication and

Applications .................................................................................. 33

Schwartz, Shalom H.

Globalization, “McDonaldization” and Values: Quo Vadis? ...... 79

Esmer, Yilmaz

Individualization in Europe and America: Connecting

Religious and Moral Values ...................................................... 99

Nevitte, Neil; Cochrane, Christopher

Religion in Contemporary Society: Eroded by Human

Well-being, Supported by Cultural Diversity ............................ 127

Pettersson, Thorleif

Democratization in the Human Development Perspective .......... 155

Welzel, Christian

Index ................................................................................................ 187

This volume, commemorating the 25th anniversary of values surveys, is

dedicated to Dan Brändström, Director of the Bank of Sweden Tercen￾tenary Foundation, an enthusiastic believer in values research and a

staunch supporter of the academic study of values. The World Values

Survey project is deeply indebted to Dan for his relentless efforts to make

available comparative survey data on values to the wider social science

community and policy makers around the globe.

Dan Brändström

Introduction

Yilmaz Esmer and Thorleif Pettersson

The study of human values has a long and distinguished tradition. The

importance of the citizens’ mindset for various spheres of social life has

been recognized by thinkers going all the way to Ancient Greece. Indeed,

Plato is well known for establishing a one-to-one correspondence between

the types of constitutions and the orientations of the individuals’ minds.

According to him, states were shaped by the character of their citizens.

Aristotle, on the other hand, likened the rulers of a society to flute play￾ers. It was the people who actually made the flute. Thus, at the end of

the day, the determining factor – the independent variable, if you will￾was the character, the nature, the mindset of the citizenry.

From Ibn-i Khaldun, to Montesquieu, Tocqueville and Weber, to

name but a few, many great classical thinkers emphasized the impor￾tance of cultural values, if we are to use the contemporary terminology,

for understanding and explaining social structure, institutions, and change.

Despite this highly eminent tradition of over two millennia, the empir￾ical study of the collective mindset is an extremely recent phenomenon.

In fact, large scale comparative values studies involving a variety of cul￾tures have a history of few decades only. Almond and Verba’s The Civic

Culture and Alex Inkeles’ Becoming Modern are roughly half a century old

and both included only a handful of societies. The Eurobarometer, a

remarkable project indeed, was envisaged and implemented by the

Commission of the European Communities in the early 1970s. Although

currently replicated in different parts of the globe such as Latin America,

Africa and East Asia, at the time of its inception it was very much a

“European project.” Nevertheless, we owe a great debt to the Euro￾barometer both for taking the bold step in the right direction and for

the invaluable European time series data it has made available to all

those interested.

However, we believe it would not be inaccurate or unfair to say that

1981 is the actual year of birth of the empirical study of cultural values

2 • Yilmaz Esmer and Thorleif Pettersson

on a global scale. European and World Values surveys were born in

that year thanks to the laudable efforts of such visionaries as Jacques￾Rene Rabier, Ruud de Moor, Jan Kerkhofs and, shortly thereafter,

Ronald Inglehart. Today, as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of values

surveys, we gratefully acknowledge our indebtedness to them and to their

collaborators.

The number of countries included in the first values survey was mod￾est by today’s standards and the project comprised mainly nations of the

industrialized West. Even then, however, such diverse societies as the

United States, Mexico, South Africa, Japan, S. Korea, Argentina, Australia,

in addition to Western Europe, were surveyed. Today, looking back 25

years, one realizes that data collected in this first round is a treasure

beyond description for those interested in cultural change and in the

mapping of cultural values. One only wishes, egotistically, that more

societies could have been part of that first round. Fortunately, it took

less than a decade for this wish to come true. The second round of

Values Surveys carried out around 1990 comprised no less than 43 soci￾eties from every corner of the globe and all major cultural traditions.

In the following rounds, the total number of countries that participated

in one or more of the surveys exceeded 80.

At the time of this writing, World Values Survey researchers, who

now form a truly global network of social scientists, are busy in all con￾tinents collecting data for the fifth round of World Values Surveys.

Consequently, the academic community as well as policy makers will

shortly have access to data on a very broad range of values at five points

in time covering a time span of one quarter of a century, We, as the

editors of this special issue of Comparative Sociology, believe this is

indeed cause for celebration.

A much welcome development in the field has been the coming into

existence of a number of additional international surveys. The International

Social Survey Program which started in the 1980s now covers a wide

range of countries. The European Social Survey is the most recent pro￾ject (it was first fielded in 2002) and covers around 25 European coun￾tries. It has a well-deserved reputation for its uncompromisingly rigorous

methodological standards. Both the ISSP and the ESS contain core ques￾tionnaires which are repeated in every round and, in addition, rotating

modules on important topics. Then, as already mentioned, there are

regional or continental barometers which can be regarded as the offsprings

of the Eurobarometer. In addition to the general ones, there are a num￾ber of international survey programs on more specific topics such as reli￾gion or electoral behavior. Nevertheless, the World Values Survey continues

to be the largest and most comprehensive survey project with the widest

geographical coverage.

Introduction • 3

The core assumption of values studies is that culture matters. Since

values, which are the basic orientations or principles that guide attitudes

and behavior, are central to any culture, it follows that values matter as

well. Values are intrinsically interesting and have been shown to be

closely related to formal structures. Just to give one example, values per￾taining to tolerance, individual freedom and interpersonal trust are all

highly correlated with the existence or non-existence of democratic insti￾tutions. But values are also very useful for the mapping of cultures.

Cultural classifications and cultural maps of the world depend on val￾ues and are either drawn by using data from values surveys (e.g. Inglehart)

or – if they are a priori theoretical constructs – (e.g. Schwartz) need data

from these surveys to be validated. Either way, it is necessary to delin￾eate basic value dimensions. Two of the best known and most frequently

cited schemes for classifying and mapping basic value dimensions in the

literature belong to Ronald Inglehart and Shalom Schwartz. Both authors

have contributed articles to this volume summarizing and updating their

respective theories.

In his contribution to this issue, Ronald Inglehart expounds on his

two-dimensional map of global values based on data collected from

World/European Values Surveys since 1981. Inglehart and his collabo￾rators (see, for example, Inglehart and Baker, 2000; Inglehart and Welzel,

2005) have argued that although values and beliefs vary in a great many

different ways, they can be adequately summarized in two basic dimen￾sions: the traditional/secular-rational dimension and the survival/self￾expression dimension. Inglehart’s global values map places all societies

on these two dimensions. Data show that societies occupy meaningful

and predictable positions on this map forming “cultural zones.” Two

factors seem to have a profound effect on a given society’s position on

the map. First, whether a society is predominantly agrarian, industrial￾ized or postindustrialized makes a difference in its value system. Second,

the cultural tradition of the society, that is history, seems to have a deep

impact on the configuration of values. Inglehart observes that “gradual”

but nevertheless “major cultural changes are occurring, and that a soci￾ety’s religious tradition, colonial history, and other major historical fac￾tors, give rise to distinctive cultural traditions that continue to influence

a society’s value system despite forces of modernization.” Although

Inglehart emphasizes that modernization is not a linear process, never￾theless he predicts that economic development and welfare will give rise

to self-expression values and that these in turn will support and enhance

democratic institutions.

Shalom Schwartz takes a different approach in that his cultural ori￾entations are theoretically derived. As explained in his article in this issue

as well as his earlier writings (see, for example, Schwarz 1994a; 1994b,

4 • Yilmaz Esmer and Thorleif Pettersson

2003; 2004) Schwartz takes as his starting point the specification of “a

coherent, integrated system of relations among the orientations” and then

moves on to test this theoretical model. Very briefly, Schwartz’ theory

is based upon “seven cultural value orientations that form three cultural

value dimensions.” These orientations and dimensions are explained in

Schwartz’ article in this issue and therefore will not be repeated here.

However, another major difference between the Inglehart and Schwartz

models is worth noting: Inglehart’s dimensions are orthogonal while

Schwartz’ theory depicts a circular configuration of value orientations

and distinguishes between close and distant orientations.

It is interesting and reassuring that, despite their differing method￾ologies and entirely independent data sources, Inglehart’s two dimen￾sions are closely related to two corresponding Schwartz dimensions.

However, Schwartz notes that his third dimension, mastery/harmony,

“taps a different aspect of culture” and that this is to be expected since

it is the only dimension that is “not strongly related to socio-economic

development.” Both Inglehart’s and Schwartz’ articles include cultural

maps of the world (Figures 1 and 4, respectively) reflecting, of course,

their approaches and their data. Those interested in the classification

and charting of cultures will find great comfort in Schwartz’ conclusion

that “The most striking finding when comparing the mapping of national

cultures in the research based on the Hofstede, Inglehart, and Schwartz

approaches is that they identify such similar cultures around the world.

[. . .] This is amazing, considering how different the approaches are.”

This is not only amazing but at the same time extremely significant. It

is a forceful refutation of the skeptical viewpoint that cultures cannot be

measured.

The article by Yilmaz Esmer is an attempt to trace value change dur￾ing the longest time period that data from the values surveys will allow,

that is, from 1981 to 2001. Two decades is a rather short span for the

study of cultural change. As indicated by Schwartz in his article in this

volume, cultural change is slow and cultural value orientations are “rel￾atively stable.” However, the last two decades of the 20th century are a

period of intense political and economic changes and turmoil. It is rea￾sonable to assume that such far reaching changes should have had some

impact on values as well. Esmer finds some evidence of change in his

sample of some 20 countries but these are not “sweeping” by any stretch

of the imagination. More interestingly, Esmer fails to find any confirmation

of a value convergence. He concludes that cultural values are robust and

resilient. Contrary to what is often assumed, the strong winds of glob￾alization have according to Esmer’s analyses not yet been able to sweep

away cultural diversity. At least for his limited sample, he observes that

Introduction • 5

values are as dispersed as ever and that “McDonaldization” has not

reached beyond the surface.

While Esmer tries to trace change and possible convergence in a broad

range of values between 1981 and 2001, Neil Nevitte and Christopher

Cochrane, in their article entitled “Keeping it together: individualization

and changing moral values” focus on the process of individualization

during the same period of time. It is commonly assumed that modern￾ization and particularly economic advances accelerate the move towards

individualization (Ester, Halman and de Moor, 1993). Inglehart emphasizes

the role of the “postmodern shift” in freeing the individual both from

religious controls (mainly a consequence of the transition from the agrarian

to the industrial society) and from state authority (mainly a consequence

of the transition from industrialism to post-industrialism) (Inglehart, 1997).

Nevitte and Cochrane write that “at the core, the concept of individu￾alization is about the declining salience of traditional norm-generating

institutions in the lives of people in post-industrial societies,” and inves￾tigate “one central aspect of individualization, namely, the connection

between religiosity and moral values.” Their article tests a number of

hypotheses regarding this relationship using factor analysis, correlation

and regression techniques. One of the most significant conclusions is the

reaffirmation of “American exceptionalism.” The publics of all countries

in their sample have become more permissive, in varying degrees, dur￾ing the last two decades of the 20th century. However, although the asso￾ciation between religion and moral values has generally become weaker

in Europe, no such change is observed in North America. To the con￾trary, “Among North Americans, and particularly Americans, by con￾trast the connection between religious and moral outlooks actually becomes

significantly stronger over the same time period.” One explanation that

the authors offer for this difference is the much greater levels of associ￾ational involvement in North America compared to Europe.

There is no doubt that religion and religiosity are at the core of cul￾tural values. So much so that, according to Huntington “Of all the objec￾tive elements which define civilizations, however, the most important

usually is religion” (1998:42). Indeed, “religion is a central defining char￾acteristic of civilizations” (1998:47). One frequently asked question in

this respect is whether, as an overall trend, the world is secularizing (see,

for example, Norris and Inglehart, 2004) or it is in fact de-secularizing

(see, for example, Berger, 1999). Thorleif Pettersson tests the predictions

of the two major competing theories in this field: the widely known and

acclaimed secularization theory which predicts a negative correlation

between socio-economic development and religiosity; and the so-called

“supply side theories of religion” which view religious diversity as the

key independent variable. Using the economic market metaphor, the lat￾ter predict a positive correlation with religious diversity and the level of

religiosity in a given community. This relationship is expected to hold

true regardless of the degree of modernization. Analyzing data from

about 50,000 respondents in 37 predominantly Christian countries,

Pettersson finds support for both modernization and supply side theo￾ries. In what must be the largest scale test of these theories, the author

concludes that both theories bear some truth and that it would be too

simplistic to view modernization as a universal factor behind religious

decline.

The last article in the volume by Christian Welzel elaborates the

author’s theory of democratization as an “institutional component of a

broader process of human development.” According to the UNDP, the

publisher of the annual World Human Development Reports, “The real

objective of development is to increase people’s development choices”

(UNDP, 1991:13). Subsequently, in the 2002 Human Development Report,

it was declared that “for politics and political institutions to promote

human development and safeguard the freedom and dignity of all people,

democracy must widen and deepen” (UNDP, 2002:1). Welzel argues that

“rising emancipative ideals” are the force behind the process of human

development – a process that empowers people with ever-widening choices.

The all-important conclusion that Welzel reaches is that democracy is

not a regime or an “achievement” that is reserved exclusively for some

cultures. This conclusion has far reaching implications and is a clear

refutation of the contention that some cultures are simply unable to

develop a democratic culture. It is important to note that Welzel is very

explicit in accepting the crucial importance of democratic values while

recognizing that all cultures have the potential to develop these values.

This volume, then, brings together six original articles around the

theme of mapping and measuring of cultural values and tracing change

in a number of important value dimensions. The first two papers by

Inglehart and by Schwartz draw up two different but nevertheless com￾plementary approaches to the delineation of major value dimensions.

Both authors offer cultural maps of the world indicating the positions of

national cultures. The paper by Esmer that follows these two frame￾works for the study of cultural values presents a general overview of

value change/stability between 1981 and 2001 and tests the convergence

of values hypothesis. The subsequent articles by Nevitte and Cochrane,

Pettersson and Welzel tackle three important processes: individualization,

secularization and democratization. They all make generous use of the

World/European Values Survey data.

The volume is yet another and very modest demonstration that the

6 • Yilmaz Esmer and Thorleif Pettersson