Contextualization and Cultural Analysis

Geert Hofstede is a leading organizational sociologist. He studied the interactions between cultures and the way people interact. Hofstede’s has found five dimensions of culture in his study of national work related values. Further studies have supported his dimensions to be very stabile over time. The dimensions give a stable way of comparing and organizing cultures, thus disclosing the practical relational dynamics of different cultures. The dimensions are a great diagnostic tool for understanding a culture and help a Christian to contextualize the gospel to any culture.

For those not familiar with cultural analysis a few words are in order. One, the categories of cultural differences describes averages or tendencies and not characteristics of individuals. Two, Hofstede’s dimensions are helpful paradigms of analysis of culture not the gospel. We need not confuse cultures ultimate cure and its diagnosis. Such confusion puts us at risk deluding or misrepresenting the gospel.

The dimensions are:
• Small vs. large power distance
• Individualism vs. collectivism
• Masculinity vs. femininity
• Weak vs. strong uncertainty avoidance
• Long vs. short term orientation

Small vs. large power distance

Small vs. large power distance is the paradigm describing how a culture relates to authority and social position. The paradigm is based on how much the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. It shows the way people perceive power differences. In cultures with small power distance people are more democratic. People relate to one another more as equals regardless of formal positions. Subordinates feel they have the obligation to contribute and the right to critique those in power. In cultures with large power distance the less powerful accept power relations in more formal ways. Subordinates acknowledge the power of positions.

Individualism vs. collectivism

This dimension is based on how much members of the culture define themselves apart from their group memberships. In individualist cultures, people are expected to develop and display their individual personalities and to choose their own affiliations. “I have to be me,” is a common slogan of such cultures. In collectivist cultures, people are defined and act mostly as a member of a long-term group, such as the family, a religious group, an age cohort, a town, or a profession, among others. Hofstede notes that this dimension seems to be sliding scale. It moves towards the individualist end of the spectrum with the increase of national wealth.

Masculinity vs. femininity (Quantity of Life vs. Quality of Life)

This is a tricky one given the use of the masculine and feminine metaphor. It is really a paradigm of relational tendencies and values. Use could use quantity of life vs. quality of life to extract the gender metaphor. In so-called 'masculine' cultures, (Quantity of Life) people (whether male or female) value competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions. In so-called 'feminine' cultures, people (male or female) value relationships and quality of life over things.

Weak vs. strong uncertainty avoidance

Here we have the dimension based on how much members of a society are anxious about the unknown and attempt to cope by minimizing uncertainty. In cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance, people prefer rigidity. They like explicit rules and formally structured activities, and show a high value given to loyalty. In cultures with weak uncertainty avoidance, people prefer guidelines to rules to have some flexibility and go with the flow informal activities. This side of the scale tends towards being open to risk and high in courage to act on an idea.

Long vs. short term orientation

This last dimension is one of vision. How much members of society values forward thinking verses thinking rooted in past and present. It is the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. In long term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that affect the future: persistence, perseverance, thrift, shame, and hope. In short term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that are affected by the past or the present such as immediate stability and respect for tradition. Other values of the short term are the value of reciprocation and saving face. In reciprocation such action like greetings, favors, and gifts are thought of as honorable. Social posturing like protecting ones owns reputation or the reputation of family or religious tradition are also considered honorable way of acting in society.

For the Missional Christian, His dimensions help to recognize three points of contact between the Gospel and a given culture: tension points, doughnut holes and common ground.

First, Common ground is any idea of human experience that harmonizes (analogically or propositionally) with the gospel. In so far as they are in harmony with the gospel they add in some understanding the truth. When Paul preached to the Jews he began with the history of Israel. He used the common ground of a shared history to explain the Messiah. In a post-Christian culture such common ground are places where the culture has not rebelliously rejected the gospel value for some contrary value. Paul used common ground when he preached at Mar’s Hill. He used their religious experience and worked from their “here and now” to move to God’s “way back when”. He did this to create a baseline from which to build an understanding of the gospel. He began with the common grace that the Greeks understood the need to be religious (devoted to a higher power).

Second, tension points are points of conflict between the ideas of a culture and the gospel. The culture holds an opposite view and thus opposition can be assumed. Theologically, we could say these points are where the veil of common grace is thin and the distance between the fallen human nature and the gospel narrows to the point of touching. The kind of touching that cause spars.

Third, a doughnut hole is not much of anything. Confusion can happen when a culture has little to no understanding of a gospel idea. The culture has no common ground nor does it hold some opposing view that brings conflict. It is just ignorant. They have no practical category from understanding of the culture. When Paul preached to pagans he began with nature and worked back to the one behind nature, God (Act 14).