Managing Life Overseas: Investigating the Muslim cultural cluster

In the blog last week, we not only extended our understanding of the cultural values of the English-speaking nations (ESNs), but we also compared these with what is called the Confucian cluster by exploring the Schwartz cultural map and Hofstede’s dimensions. The four Hofstede dimensions were selected as they have most relevance to living overseas.

This week, we will repeat the process but now focus on the Muslim cluster of nations as defined by Hofstede and Inglehart on his map of national cultural clusters. Finally, we will make a brief reference back to Schwartz when we examine the argument that Turkey is more of an outlier in the Muslim cluster of nations.

Introduction to the Inglehart map of cultural values

The Inglehart map of cultural values is based on research by the World Values Survey (WVS) and the European Value Survey (EVS) which examined more than 100 nations. The theoretical foundation is known as Modernisation theory which argues the case that industrialisation, and later what is labelled as post-industrialisation, promotes significant change in societal beliefs, expectations, and values. More specifically, Inglehart introduced the term Value Change. Here he describes the ways in which economic development promotes the focus on self-expression and quality of life as members become increasingly free from the daily challenge arising from material scarcity and external threats.

Traditional vs. Secular values

The map is based on two axes with the progression from traditional to secular rational behaviour shown vertically, while the horizontal axis depicts the continuum from survival to self-expression values. Traditional values are based around factors such as religion, respect for hierarchical relationships, the acceptance of institutional inequality, and traditional family values that combine to produce significant resistance to change.

Survival vs. Self-expression values

In contrast, the secular rational perspective is based on a desire for diverse lifestyles, freedom of choice, greater equality, and individual independence. Then, the survival orientation arises where cultures experience material or economic scarcities, and external existential threats. Consequentially, such societies tend to promote conformity to existing norms, a low tolerance for diversity of any kind, and very limited political participation. On the other hand, the shift to a self-expression orientation develops in post-industrial societies where members collectively promote the values of personal independence, freedom of speech, diversity, and active political participation.

Understanding the concept of cultural clusters

While numerous factors ultimately shape the development of shared values in cultural clusters, the primary influences include similar evolutionary roots, shared historical development, geographical influences, and common economic foundational perspectives. When combined, these act to shape common social norms, beliefs, interpersonal behavioural expectation, and the deeper unconsciously held values. We shall focus on three clusters of the ESNs, Confucian, and the Muslim nations.

First, Inglehart positions the ESNs cluster clearly in the self-expression zone and inclined towards the expression of a secular orientation, though, dependent on the nation, this is combined with varying degrees of traditional values.

Then, the Confucian cluster is situated centrally at the very top of the map signalling a strong secular disposition combined with highly refined rational norms, though rather limited in relation to self-expression values.

They are also characterised by an emotional sense of discipline, toleration of hierarchical relationships, and an orientation towards collective responsibility.

Finally, the Islamic cluster is congregated at the bottom left-hand quadrant of the map and thus heavily emphasises a combination of both traditional and survival values.

The cultural dimensions of example Muslim nations

While the numerous Islamic nations vary significantly at what Hall refers to as the surface level of culture as illustrated in the previous blog, they form a tightly homogenous group in terms of deeper value orientations as illustrated in relation to Hofstede’s dimensions.

First, all Muslim nations have varying degrees of large power distance that reflects their hierarchical structure with consequential inherent structural inequalities where deference is expected from those in higher status positions.

Next, they are all classified as collectivist societies, in which the concept of self-image is defined in terms of ‘We’ not ‘I’ and members belong to various ‘in -groups’ that take care of members in exchange for loyalty.

After this, all Muslim cultures include a high preference for the avoidance of uncertainty arising from change, while being significantly risk adverse. Moreover, such societies also encompass strict norms regarding behavioural expectations and social beliefs that are maintained by laws, policies, and regulations.

Then, these nations all adopt a significant restraint orientation that, while promoting a tendency towards pessimism, also places less emphasis on leisure time and significantly more on controlling immediate gratification by a combination of social norms and values.

Turkey as the example outlier in the Muslim cluster

With reference back to the Schwartz Map explored in the blog last week, on this occasion we can see that Turkey represents the outlier nation as the USA illustrated in relation to the ESNs and Japan in terms of the Confucian cluster.

The reason for this is that Turkey is rated higher in relation to egalitarianism and autonomy, while also being lower on the characteristics of hierarchy and embeddedness than all other Middle Eastern Muslim nations. One explanation for this difference is the engagement in forms of democratic process thus encouraging more participation, a long history of close relationship with Eastern European nations, and membership of western organisations such as NATO.

This concludes our brief focus on the importance of comparing our home culture with the new proposed host context as part of the initial planning stage for living successfully overseas for an extended period. Next week, we will continue our exploration of the pre-arrival preparatory stage by reviewing what is known as the U-curve to understand more about the challenges of the cultural adaptation process.

---

Question 1

What might trigger initial disorientation for people arriving in an Islamic culture from the ESNs?

Question 2

Would the cultural dynamics of Turkey make it more challenging or less for members of the ESNs?

Question 3

To what extent is it possible to anticipate the key challenges when adapting to life in a new culture?

---

We shall explore Question 3 in the next blog.

References

• Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.

• Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. & Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (2nd Ed.), McGraw-Hill.

• World Values Survey (2023). Findings and insights. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp?CMSID=findings

• Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures, Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp.43-73). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.