Consider the implications of cultures which have strict or loose norms.
Distinguish between different political culture systems.
Introduction
Culture, broadly defined, is the combination of customs, social institutions, arts, media, and social, economic, political achievements of a social group. In many ways, culture can be seen as a “catch-all” for so many factors of social behavior, habits and traditions found in a society. This also includes norms, which are standard practices, rules, patterns and behaviors that are considered acceptable in a society. In some situations, the inability or unwillingness to abide by norms in a culture can result in punishments and violence. Some scholars have argued that norms can have significant influence on political behaviors. Michele Gelfand, a psychology professor at the University of Maryland, wrote a book entitled, Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire the World. In her book, she argues that cultures which enforce strict adherence to norms tend to have greater control over their own populations, and often less crime, and the promotion of self-control among individuals. In contrast, countries that do not promote strict adherence to norms may be more disorganized and have potentially higher crime, but are more open to other ideas, cultures, and ways of life. Also, interestingly, Gelford argues that cultures that do not have strict adherence to norms tend to perform better in the open market, and experience strong economic outcomes. In explaining how cultures tend to adopt strict or loose adherence to norms, Gelford wrote:
There’s a hidden logic for why these differences evolve: groups that have experienced a lot of threat tend to be tighter. The threat can come from a variety of sources, such as a high level of natural disasters and famine, a scarcity of resources, the potential of invasions, a high population density, economic uncertainty, etc. It makes sense: Groups under threat need rules to coordinate to survive. Cultures that have less threat can afford to be more permissive. There are exceptions, but I’ve found that this general principle helps to explain tight-loose differences across nations, states, social classes, organisations and in pre-industrial societies. (Gelford, 2019)
According to Gelford (2019), cultures will develop as a result of various contexts. In light of historical origins, present-day strains and stresses, and ambitions to acquire or attain certain goals, cultural norms will evolve to adapt to their environment. In evaluating data on political, social and economic measures within 30 different countries, the authors found that cultures had either too-strict or too-loose adherence to cultural norms also had lower levels of happiness and higher rates of suicide. Conversely, cultures which had more moderate adherence to norms were among the happiest and most economically successful countries.
Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Gelfand’s book argues that difference adherence to cultural norms affects political and economic outcomes within a country, as well as levels of happiness and prosperity. (Source: Gelfand, M. (2018). Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire our World, Scribner.)
Drilling down further, there is the concept of political culture to consider. Political culture is defined as a shared set of ideological views and beliefs held by a population as it relates to the political system in which they live. A number of factors are related to how political culture manifests in different cultures. Trust, the extent to which citizens believe in the reliability, validity, or truth of their government and their fellow citizens, plays a significant role in political outcomes. For instance, if citizens do not trust the election process, how likely will their representative political parties be willing to accept election results? As discussed in previous chapters, being able to accept election results, even when your party has lost, is an important and foundational feature of any democracy. If trust does not exist here, what are the chances that institutions can perform their functions? The odds for political conflict and violence increases as the level of trust decreases. Another factor relating to how political culture manifests in a given country is postmaterialism, which is the extent to which a political culture focuses or cares about issues which are not of immediate physical and material concern, like human rights and environmental concerns. Both of these factors, along with many others that could be considered, help us understand the political cultures of countries around the world.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, both major contributors to the study of comparative politics, have also studied the importance and influence of political culture worldwide. Their contribution in the book, The Civic Culture, recognizes three types of political culture as it relates to political participation and interaction with their political systems. According to Almond and Verba, the first type of political culture is called parochialism, which is a system where citizens are not involved, engaged, or remotely aware of the political operations in their country. In a parochial system, citizens are not interested, and do not care to become interested, in the politics of their countries. In a subjectsystem, citizens are somewhat aware and responsive of their governmental systems, and at the same time, heavily controlled and legislated by their governments. In this system, there is no room for opposition or dissent, they are merely subjects to the government and must abide by the laws or rules or face punishment or violence. This system tends to be aligned with authoritarian regimes. Lastly, the Participant system is one where citizens are aware of government actions, are able to influence and participate in governmental decisions, and at the same time, they must abide by the laws and rules of the government. This system tends to be aligned with democratic regimes.
