Power Distance In American Culture
Culture - Power Distance
This is a determinant basic to all societies that Hofstede has named. It is describing the distribution of "power" among individuals and groups in the society, and how inequalities in power are dealt with in these societies.
Inequality of power is a basic fact of life. It cannot be 100% eliminated. Iit is impossible to have _no_ power distance, because this means everyone is exactly equal (skills, actions, genetics, etc) unless of course you are on about a bunch of identical lumps of rock...
Inequality can take many forms -the differences of physical and mental characteristics (genetics, fitness, education, IQ, etc), social status, and prestige, wealth, political power, laws, "rights", "priviledges" etc. All of …show more content…
these are somewhat independent of each other, and in fact the link between them is culturally dependent
.
For example, the Samurai of Feudal Japan enjoyed status, prestige, wealth, and many "rights and priviledges" - all because of their physical prowess and family connections.
Another example is modern "Supermodels" who enjoy pretige, wealth, but no real "rights" or political power - all because of the fact that a few people think them "beautiful". Odd, isn't it...
The idea of power distance can help explain a great deal of cultural differences. Often when looking at other societies governmental structure, you may wonder "How do they let those people in power get away with all that?!" or the opposite "How do they stand all that chaotic quibbling and argument?". What Power Distance explains is that a particular society is willing to accept a certain "inwequality" in power - this allows for the fact that there will be some who lead, others who follow. So you can go from an "absolute democracy" (low power distance - and I don't think this actually exists anywhere) to an "absolute dictatorship" with the all power of life/death over the subjects concentrated in a few people (think phaoronic eqypt, etc)
But besides "centralisation of powe", what other things go along with the acceptance/rejection of power inequalities? And what caused these feelings?
The Social Norms of Power Distance
This should be a table, comparing equivalent high-low power distance attitudes. I will number the equivalent attitudes...
Low Power Distance:
1. Inequality should be minimised
2. All people should be interdependent
3. Hierarchy is an inequality of roles - for convenience only!
4. Superiors/Subordinates are people just like me.
5. All use of power should be legitimised, and is subject to moral judgement, (what is good or bad or even evil use of power)
6. All have equal rights.
7. Powerful people should try not to look too powerful.
8. Reward, Legitimate and Expert power are accepted
9. If something goes wrong - System is to blame.
10. To change the social system, redistribute the power. (evolution)
11. People are more prepared to trust one another.
12. There is a latent "harmony" in the society
13. Co-operation in "lower class" is based on solidarity.
High Power Distance
1. Inequality is a fact of life - Everyone has their rightful place.
2. Some are independent
, others are dependent
.
3. Hierarchy is something that exists and is accepted.
4. Superiors/Subordinates are different to me
5. Power is a basic fact of society which is independent of morality. It is there to be used - legitimacy is irrelevant
6. Power gives priviledges.
7. Powerfule people try to look as powerful as possible. (pomp + ceremony)
8. Coersion and referant power are accepted
9. If something goes wrong - it's the underdog's fault.
10. To change the social system, dethrone those in power (revolution)
11. everyone wants your power - don't trust them.
12. latent conflict between powerful-powerless.
13. co-operation is hards due to lack of trust.
Some real world examples from "Culture's Consequences" (about 0-100; scale can go outside these bounds, but no real societies did)
Denmark: 18
New Zealand: 22
Ireland: 28
Sweden: 31
Great Britain: 35
Australia: 36
US: 40
Japan: 54
France: 68
India: 77
Phillippines: 94
Power distance is not "good or bad".
It just is. Definitions of what is desirable/undesirable are culturally dependent
.
Please note - Power distance CANNOT be measured for individuals. It is a statistical result coming from many thousands of people. You can have people expressing ideals from either high/low power distance in all societies.
Origins of Power Distance
(Origins are "independent
" variables. All these "origins" _lead to_ a society having power distance.)
How does power distance come about? You can predict the power distance of a society - without knowing much about them - from a couple of things (this is for modern societies). 41% from geographical position (latitude - Pole/Equator) 51% from latitude and population size 58% from latitude
. population and wealth.
So as you can see, the environmental factors play a major role (the Equator is warmer, more vegetation, etc.)! Population is also determined by the carrying capacity of the area (how many can be supported without famine?) and partially on technology (which can change the environment - and needs
wealth)
Anyway, there is a big list of factors here. The earlier ones are more independent than the later ones. Same deal as with the societal norms...
Low Power Distance
1. Moderate to cold climates
2. Survival of population more dependent on man's intervention with nature
3. More need for technology (fire, etc)
4. Historical: early legislation epplied to rulers, One-child inheritance
5. More _need_ for education of the "lower classes" (lteracy, etc)
6. Greater social mobility, strong development of the Middle Class.
7. Greater _National_ wealth
8. Wealth is widely distributed
9. Politics based on system of representation
10. Independent streak - small population
11. Historical: independance, federalism, negotiation
12. Less centralisation of political power
13. Changing society - fast acceptance of technology
14. Children learn things their parents never did.
15. More questioning of authority in general.
High Power Distance
1. Tropical and sub-tropical climates
2. Survival and populaiton growth just less dependent on intervention with nature (food is easy to get...)
3. Less reliance on technology
4. Historical: Early legislation not applied to rulers, Divided inheritance.
5. Less need for education of "lower classes"
6. Less social mobility, polarised society (rich - poor)
7. Less _national_ wealth.
8. Wealth concentrated in the hands of a small "elite"
9. Political power is concentrated in a small "elite" (military, oligarch, etc)
10. Large population - little resistance to mass "integration"
11. Historical: Occupation, colonisation, imperialism.
12. Centralisation of Political power.
13. More static societies
14. Children dependent on Parents and elders
15. Less questioning of Authority in General.
Note: Power Distance is a measure of _internal_ thoughts - what people thing of others _in_their_own_ society. It is not a measure of tolerance to _outside_ races, religions, etc. (this is more to do with uncertainty avoidance, dealing with the unknown and unknowable)
Consequences of Power Distance
Hmm. You now know about what power distance is, and how it starts. But what does it affect the society in question. What are the things you would see?
Oh eyah - another one of these table thingys...
Low Power Distance
_Political effects_
1. Pluralist government based on majority vote
2. No sudden changes in governments (evoltion and stability)
3. Political parties tend to be "centralist"
4. Gevernment frequently led by those that stress equality (social democrats?)
5. Tax redistributes wealth
_Religion, Philisophy, and Ideological thinking_
6. Stress on Equality
7. Ideologies of power equalisation
8. Pluralist Theories of Society
9. Non Zero-sum theories of power
10. Conning and Quiet approach to power is seen as leading to stability
_Organisations_
11. Less centralisation
12. Smaller "supervisonry" personel
13. Smaller wage differences.
14. Higher qualification of the lower classes
15. Manual work has same status as clerical work.
High Power Distance
_Politics_
1. Autocratic/Absolutist governments
2. Sudden changes in government (Revolution/instability)
3. Polarisation of left/right wing parties
4. If democratic - tend to be led by parties not stressing equality (right wing)
5. Tax protects the wealthy
_Religion, Philosophy, ann Ideological thinking_
6. Stree on Stratification
7. Ideologies of power polarisation
8. Elitist theories of society
9. Zero-sum theories of power
10. Forceful and Loud approach to power is seen as leading to stability
_Organisations_
11 Greater Centralisation
12. Large proportion od supervisors
13. Large wage differences
14. Lower qualified lower-class
15. "white collar" jobs valued more than "blue collar" jobs..
Phew!!!
A few comments on Power Distance:
Interesting point is that the ideologic and Pragmatic realities of power distance can often be radically different. ie What people "say" they want is quite different to how they actually "behave". (think, French revolution, American Politics etc..)
An interesting point I have seen - many societies espouse "freedom and equality" but fail to realise that one comes at the price at the other. People are inherently unequal - they have different skills and abilities etc. In a "free market" economy, people tend to become unequal. But when you stress equality it becomes necessary to enforce "laws/rules" to keep this perceived equality... ie, you loose some freedom.
As a personal view, I tend to see right-wing politics as one which stresses "freedom", while left-wing politics stress equality. (I suppose this says more about me than anything else - but I am more of a pragmatist when it comes to politics - do what works!)
Source: http://users.tkk.fi/~vesanto/ihfudge/culture-part2.html
This is a determinant basic to all societies that Hofstede has named. It is describing the distribution of "power" among individuals and groups in the society, and how inequalities in power are dealt with in these societies.
Inequality of power is a basic fact of life. It cannot be 100% eliminated. Iit is impossible to have _no_ power distance, because this means everyone is exactly equal (skills, actions, genetics, etc) unless of course you are on about a bunch of identical lumps of rock...
Inequality can take many forms -the differences of physical and mental characteristics (genetics, fitness, education, IQ, etc), social status, and prestige, wealth, political power, laws, "rights", "priviledges" etc. All of …show more content…
these are somewhat independent of each other, and in fact the link between them is culturally dependent
.
For example, the Samurai of Feudal Japan enjoyed status, prestige, wealth, and many "rights and priviledges" - all because of their physical prowess and family connections.
Another example is modern "Supermodels" who enjoy pretige, wealth, but no real "rights" or political power - all because of the fact that a few people think them "beautiful". Odd, isn't it...
The idea of power distance can help explain a great deal of cultural differences. Often when looking at other societies governmental structure, you may wonder "How do they let those people in power get away with all that?!" or the opposite "How do they stand all that chaotic quibbling and argument?". What Power Distance explains is that a particular society is willing to accept a certain "inwequality" in power - this allows for the fact that there will be some who lead, others who follow. So you can go from an "absolute democracy" (low power distance - and I don't think this actually exists anywhere) to an "absolute dictatorship" with the all power of life/death over the subjects concentrated in a few people (think phaoronic eqypt, etc)
But besides "centralisation of powe", what other things go along with the acceptance/rejection of power inequalities? And what caused these feelings?
The Social Norms of Power Distance
This should be a table, comparing equivalent high-low power distance attitudes. I will number the equivalent attitudes...
Low Power Distance:
1. Inequality should be minimised
2. All people should be interdependent
3. Hierarchy is an inequality of roles - for convenience only!
4. Superiors/Subordinates are people just like me.
5. All use of power should be legitimised, and is subject to moral judgement, (what is good or bad or even evil use of power)
6. All have equal rights.
7. Powerful people should try not to look too powerful.
8. Reward, Legitimate and Expert power are accepted
9. If something goes wrong - System is to blame.
10. To change the social system, redistribute the power. (evolution)
11. People are more prepared to trust one another.
12. There is a latent "harmony" in the society
13. Co-operation in "lower class" is based on solidarity.
High Power Distance
1. Inequality is a fact of life - Everyone has their rightful place.
2. Some are independent
, others are dependent
.
3. Hierarchy is something that exists and is accepted.
4. Superiors/Subordinates are different to me
5. Power is a basic fact of society which is independent of morality. It is there to be used - legitimacy is irrelevant
6. Power gives priviledges.
7. Powerfule people try to look as powerful as possible. (pomp + ceremony)
8. Coersion and referant power are accepted
9. If something goes wrong - it's the underdog's fault.
10. To change the social system, dethrone those in power (revolution)
11. everyone wants your power - don't trust them.
12. latent conflict between powerful-powerless.
13. co-operation is hards due to lack of trust.
Some real world examples from "Culture's Consequences" (about 0-100; scale can go outside these bounds, but no real societies did)
Denmark: 18
New Zealand: 22
Ireland: 28
Sweden: 31
Great Britain: 35
Australia: 36
US: 40
Japan: 54
France: 68
India: 77
Phillippines: 94
Power distance is not "good or bad".
It just is. Definitions of what is desirable/undesirable are culturally dependent
.
Please note - Power distance CANNOT be measured for individuals. It is a statistical result coming from many thousands of people. You can have people expressing ideals from either high/low power distance in all societies.
Origins of Power Distance
(Origins are "independent
" variables. All these "origins" _lead to_ a society having power distance.)
How does power distance come about? You can predict the power distance of a society - without knowing much about them - from a couple of things (this is for modern societies). 41% from geographical position (latitude - Pole/Equator) 51% from latitude and population size 58% from latitude
. population and wealth.
So as you can see, the environmental factors play a major role (the Equator is warmer, more vegetation, etc.)! Population is also determined by the carrying capacity of the area (how many can be supported without famine?) and partially on technology (which can change the environment - and needs
wealth)
Anyway, there is a big list of factors here. The earlier ones are more independent than the later ones. Same deal as with the societal norms...
Low Power Distance
1. Moderate to cold climates
2. Survival of population more dependent on man's intervention with nature
3. More need for technology (fire, etc)
4. Historical: early legislation epplied to rulers, One-child inheritance
5. More _need_ for education of the "lower classes" (lteracy, etc)
6. Greater social mobility, strong development of the Middle Class.
7. Greater _National_ wealth
8. Wealth is widely distributed
9. Politics based on system of representation
10. Independent streak - small population
11. Historical: independance, federalism, negotiation
12. Less centralisation of political power
13. Changing society - fast acceptance of technology
14. Children learn things their parents never did.
15. More questioning of authority in general.
High Power Distance
1. Tropical and sub-tropical climates
2. Survival and populaiton growth just less dependent on intervention with nature (food is easy to get...)
3. Less reliance on technology
4. Historical: Early legislation not applied to rulers, Divided inheritance.
5. Less need for education of "lower classes"
6. Less social mobility, polarised society (rich - poor)
7. Less _national_ wealth.
8. Wealth concentrated in the hands of a small "elite"
9. Political power is concentrated in a small "elite" (military, oligarch, etc)
10. Large population - little resistance to mass "integration"
11. Historical: Occupation, colonisation, imperialism.
12. Centralisation of Political power.
13. More static societies
14. Children dependent on Parents and elders
15. Less questioning of Authority in General.
Note: Power Distance is a measure of _internal_ thoughts - what people thing of others _in_their_own_ society. It is not a measure of tolerance to _outside_ races, religions, etc. (this is more to do with uncertainty avoidance, dealing with the unknown and unknowable)
Consequences of Power Distance
Hmm. You now know about what power distance is, and how it starts. But what does it affect the society in question. What are the things you would see?
Oh eyah - another one of these table thingys...
Low Power Distance
_Political effects_
1. Pluralist government based on majority vote
2. No sudden changes in governments (evoltion and stability)
3. Political parties tend to be "centralist"
4. Gevernment frequently led by those that stress equality (social democrats?)
5. Tax redistributes wealth
_Religion, Philisophy, and Ideological thinking_
6. Stress on Equality
7. Ideologies of power equalisation
8. Pluralist Theories of Society
9. Non Zero-sum theories of power
10. Conning and Quiet approach to power is seen as leading to stability
_Organisations_
11. Less centralisation
12. Smaller "supervisonry" personel
13. Smaller wage differences.
14. Higher qualification of the lower classes
15. Manual work has same status as clerical work.
High Power Distance
_Politics_
1. Autocratic/Absolutist governments
2. Sudden changes in government (Revolution/instability)
3. Polarisation of left/right wing parties
4. If democratic - tend to be led by parties not stressing equality (right wing)
5. Tax protects the wealthy
_Religion, Philosophy, ann Ideological thinking_
6. Stree on Stratification
7. Ideologies of power polarisation
8. Elitist theories of society
9. Zero-sum theories of power
10. Forceful and Loud approach to power is seen as leading to stability
_Organisations_
11 Greater Centralisation
12. Large proportion od supervisors
13. Large wage differences
14. Lower qualified lower-class
15. "white collar" jobs valued more than "blue collar" jobs..
Phew!!!
A few comments on Power Distance:
Interesting point is that the ideologic and Pragmatic realities of power distance can often be radically different. ie What people "say" they want is quite different to how they actually "behave". (think, French revolution, American Politics etc..)
An interesting point I have seen - many societies espouse "freedom and equality" but fail to realise that one comes at the price at the other. People are inherently unequal - they have different skills and abilities etc. In a "free market" economy, people tend to become unequal. But when you stress equality it becomes necessary to enforce "laws/rules" to keep this perceived equality... ie, you loose some freedom.
As a personal view, I tend to see right-wing politics as one which stresses "freedom", while left-wing politics stress equality. (I suppose this says more about me than anything else - but I am more of a pragmatist when it comes to politics - do what works!)
Source: http://users.tkk.fi/~vesanto/ihfudge/culture-part2.html