The Functions of Cultural Patterns

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 677.

Characteristics of Cultural Patterns

In this section, we describe a set of similarities underlying all cultural patterns. In so doing, we drew heavily on the work of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck and their theory of value orientations. Next, we elaborate on those ideas to provide a general overview of cultural patterns.

Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck wanted to make sense of the work of cultural anthropologists who, for many years, had described systematic variations both between and within cultures. That is, cultures clearly differed from one another, but within every culture there were individuals who varied from the cultural patterns most often associated with it. To explain both these cultural-level and individual-level differences, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck offered four conclusions about the functions of cultural patterns that apply to all cultures:

1. People in all cultures face common human problems for which they must find solutions.

2. The range of alternative solutions to a culture's problems is limited.

3. Within a given culture, there will be preferred solutions, which most people within the culture will select, but there will also be people who will choose other solutions.

4. Over time, the preferred solutions shape the culture's basic assumptions about beliefs, values, norms, and social practices - the cultural patterns.

The first conclusion, that all cultures face similar problems, is not just about everyday concerns such as "Do I have enough money to gel through the month?" or "Will my parent overcome a serious illness?" Rather, as Edgar Schein suggests, the problems involve difficulties with external adaptation (how to survive) and internal integration (how to live together).

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck describefive problems or orientations that each culture must address:

I. What is the human orientation to activity?

2. What is the relationship of humans to each other?

3. What is the nature of human beings?

4. What is the relationship of humans to the natural world?

5. What is the orientation of humans to time?

Each culture, in its own unique way, must provide answers to these questions in order to develop a coherent and consistent interpretation of the world. We will return to these questions, in modified form, in our discussion of cultural patterns.

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's second conclusion is that a culture's possible responses to these universal human problems are limited, as cultures must select their solutions from a range of available alternatives. Thus, a culture's orientation to the importance and value of activity can range from passive acceptance of the world (a "being" orientation), a preference for a gradual transformation of the human condition (a "being-in-becoming" orientation), or more direct intervention (a "doing” orientation). A culture's solution to how it should organize itself to deal with interpersonal relationships can vary along a continuum from hierarchical social organization (" linearity”) to group identification ("collaterality" or collectivism) to individual autonomy ("individualism"). The available alternatives to the problem "What is the nature of human beings?" can range from "Humans are evil" to "Humans are a mixture of good and evil" to "Humans are good”. A culture's response to the preferred relationship of humans to the natural world can range from a belief that "People are subjugated by nature" to "People live in harmony with nature" to "People master nature” Finally, the culture's preferred time orientation can emphasize events and experiences from the past, the present, or the future.

The following table summarizes the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck value orientation theory.