• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
29.07.2013

ARMENIA’S VALUE ORIENTATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF INTER-CULTURAL RESEARCHES

EnglishРуский

   

Anna Zhamakochyan
Deputy Head of the Center for Information Studies, “Noravank” Foundation, Senior Expert

Lilit Hakobyan
Expert at the Center for Information Studies, “Noravank” Foundation

Inter-cultural studies have become rather widespread in the world recently. The researchers try to study different countries, compare them and set civilizational areas of the world, their borders, closeness and remoteness by means of one common methodology. One of such methodologies is the theory of basic values elaborated by the researcher of the Jewish University (Jerusalem) Shalom Schwartz; it has provided the basis for many researches in recent 20 years. In his approach Schwartz puts forward the idea that the basic values are based on general human wants1 and that studying basic values inside the societies one can receive the picture of closeness and remoteness of cultural commonalities between the countries. Schwartz singled out following 10 basic values:

  • Power – social status, power over people and resources, which goal is setting social control;
  • Achievement – this value is based on achieving personal success, providing competence in correspondence with the social standards;
  • Hedonism – this value is based on pleasure and emotional satisfaction;
  • Stimulation – it is based on a natural physiological demand for changes, novelties for providing optimal activity of the organism;
  • Self–Direction – motivational ground of this value consists of independence of types of behavior, thinking and creative activity;
  • Universalism – motivational basis of this value consists of understanding, tolerance, desire to preserve people and nature;
  • Benevolence – this values is based on preservation and increasing of the welfare of close people;
  • Tradition – this value is based on the respect of cultural and religious traditions and their preservation;
  • Conformity – it is based on repression of the actions which contradict to the social expectations and can harm others;
  • Security – it is based on provision of security and stability of the society, relations and self.

After grouping together and analyzing averages of the aforementioned values, Schwartz singled out seven cultural landmarks, with the help of which he drew up cultural profiles of the societies and compared them. These cultural landmarks are inversely proportional and, in essence, they are opposite poles of one axis. Thus, “affective autonomy” and “intellectual autonomy” (separate self-sufficient sides of autonomy) are opposite poles of “embeddedness” (in the aspect of community). The opposite pole of “hierarchy” is “egalitarianism” and the opposite pole of “harmony” is “mastery” (see Pic.1).

Picture 12

In many countries studies and comparative analyses of national cultures are carried out with the help of such a methodology. In 2010-2011 such a study was carried out by the Chair of Psychology of Personality of the YSU which allowed considering our cultural orientations in comparison with other countries and see positioning of the Armenian society in regard to them. The results of the full-fledged research carried out in Armenia are at a processing stage and very soon the authors will present it to the public. But before the public declaration of the results the head of the research group, head of the Chair of Psychology of Personality Narine Khachatryan kindly presented some of the results at the seminar at “Noravank” Foundation.

According to the results of this research Armenia is mostly closer to “embeddedness” and “hierarchy” poles and it is almost in the middle of “harmony-mastery” axis. This means that such values as “social order, obedience, respect for traditions, authority, humble” prevail as compared to “broadmindedness (tolerance towards dissent), curiosity, pleasure and exciting life”. The Armenian society is in the middle of such value poles as “unity with nature, world at peace” and “ambitions, daring”. Among the countries which were included in the research, Georgia is the closest to Armenia; Cyprus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Philippines and Bolivia are also close.

By means of mapping of national cultures of the countries in regard to the aforementioned axis Schwartz also distinguishes eight separate cultural regions (see Pic.2) which reflect geographic proximity, history, language and other factors.

Picture 2

By its cultural disposition Armenian is situated in “East Europe (Orthodox)” region, which includes Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Russia, Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine. In general this region is mostly close to “East-Central and Baltic Europe (Protestant/Catholic)”, as well as to “Latin American” cultural zone and “South and South-East Asia”.

S. Schwartz describes all the aforementioned cultural zones and some countries, which were not included in those zones or were considered to be exceptions, by means of comparison in his monograph. According to Schwartz “East Europe (Orthodox)” as well as “East-Central and Baltic Europe (Protestant/Catholic)”3 regions have the low showings of “embeddedness” and “hierarchy” orientations as compared with “Muslim Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa” cultural zone, but these showings are higher than the ones of the “West European” zone. “East Europe (Orthodox)” region is remote from “harmony” and “intellectual autonomy” axes and is closer to “hierarchy” as compared with the “East-Central and Baltic Europe (Protestant/Catholic)”. These regions are closer to the “West Europe” in the aspect of their cultural profile as compared with the countries of “East Europe (Orthodox)”. Schwartz conditions it by closer historical and commercial relations between them, Catholic and Protestant religion and less continuous influence of communist regime. And vice versa, countries of “East Europe (Orthodox)” (including Balkan countries) had weaker ties with West Europe; they were also historically connected with the Ottoman Empire, were more influenced by communism and profess Orthodoxy which is more conservative and intra-group oriented. Taking as a ground these descriptions by Zemov (Zemov, 1961, 1971), Schwarz explains by these factors comparatively lower level of “egalitarianism” and “intellectual autonomy” and comparatively higher level of “hierarchy”.

These researches are important especially in the aspect of considering cultural dynamics in different periods of time. While speaking about reciprocal influence of globalization and cultures, Schwartz mentions that the opinions about the fast alternation of cultures are wrong: “There has no doubt been some convergence across countries in styles of dress, food consumption, and musical tastes. But do such changes also reflect change in the normative value orientations that underlie the functioning of societal institutions, the orientations that provide the basic cultural press to which people are exposed? Both case studies and empirical analyses of change in basic values can give us a sense of the pace of change in cultural values”4. In their article Sona and Arpine Manusyan demonstrate validity of Schwartz’s approach, mentioning that very often the receiving culture reacts to the novelties by “ruse”, i.e. it takes only the outward form of the value but it still preserves traditional landmarks5.

The importance of Schwartz’s theory is in the fact that he considers value orientations in their conjunction with the social practice. In his words the structure of the society is based on cultural orientations and they serve the purpose and ground for the activity of the leaders who establish social institutions. Different social institutions inside the society mostly rest upon the values, connected with their functions. As an illustration Schwartz brings hierarchy for army, embeddedness for family, mastery for market and intellectual autonomy for science. At the same time activity of social institutions and cultural values reciprocally influence each other. Success of one or another social institution stimulates and strengthens values, which are adequate to its activity. And visa versa, failure of the social institution brings to the loss of the legitimacy of the values which are connected with them and justify searching of the alternatives.

Correspondingly, study of the priority values in one or another country provides an opportunity not only to characterize its culture but it is also a showing of long successful and unsuccessful functioning of the social institutions of the society.

1 Шварц Ш., Культурные ценностные ориентации: природа и следствия национальных различий //Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики, 2008. Т. 5, № 2. С. 37–67.

2 The picture are taken from S. Schwartz’s researches carried out in 2008; see: http://www.hse.ru/data/2011/04/24/1210752636/37-67.pdf , http://blogs.helsinki.fi/valuesandmorality/files/2009/09/Schwartz-Monograph-Cultural-Value-Orientations.pdf

3 According to the study, carried out in 2008, this group includes Croatia, Czech Rep., Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia.

4 See. http://www.hse.ru/data/2011/04/24/1210752636/37-67.pdf

5 S.Manusyan, A. Manusyan “Values today, Cultural identity and Social Changes”, “Noravank” Foundation, “21-րդ Դար”, N 4, 2012, p. 45-61 (in Armenian)


“Globus” analytical journal, #7, 2013

Return
Another materials of author