WORLDVIEW COMPONENTS 3

05.04.2012

Beneath the surface of observable human behavior and socio-cultural institutions are shared values and core worldview assumptions. A worldview is the story-based present tense grid work through which ones “sees” and interprets all aspects of life. Like most core foundations, worldviews are generally hidden from sight. They are outside of one’s awareness or tacitly assumed. A worldview may be fixed in time, that is, synchronic. However, the big story or metanarrative is not fixed in time, but spans across time. Metanarrative is diachronic.

Empirical research in the social sector shows that all societies have a system of classification, by which all aspects of life are divided into categories. There is an exposition of what is and is not. At a most basic level, humans have an awareness of self, Other, and the relationship between the two. These are the characters in the story. Inside these relationships lies the component of causality. The story has a plot. Causality provides movement to the plot. Finally, life is lived out in the setting of time and space.

The core components of a worldview

In summary, six components or categories make up the worldview of any one person anywhere in the world. They are: self, Other, relationship, causality, time, and space. How does Global Perspectives define these core components of worldview?

1. Self is the entire essential entity of a sentient human being who is distinct from but able to dynamically relate to Other.
2. Other is the total environment that is distinct from but related to self. Other includes the material and immaterial worlds, entities that are other worldly and this worldly, including human and nonhumans.
3. Relationship is the dynamic value-based interaction between self and Other that occurs within socio-cultural institutions.
4. Causality is the orderly structured interplay between causes and effects.
5. Time is a past, present, and future sequence of existence and events
6. Space is a demarcated multi-dimensional realm in which all things exist and all events occur. Time and space occasionally rise to a level beyond simply the stage of life. They both can become foils in the story. For example, time is elevated to a place of causality among people who see time as linear and segment it into measurable and scheduled components such as minutes, hours, and days. A time/task orientation becomes a story character that influences the movement of the life story. In a similar way, space can rise to a role of causality. Some people believe that a confluence of spiritual powers may occupy a territorial region. Or, societies understand that designated locations are sacred.

It could not be emphasized more that unless one understands the core worldview assumptions of other people, communication across cultures will be woefully limited. For example, what are the most significant socio-cultural institutions in the culture in which you are attempting to carry out business processes? What are the values that drive each and every human interaction in the culture? What is the fear/power paradigm? Are you able to identify the source of the conflict? How does one negotiate with a high context, shame oriented business counterpart? How can we avoid the oft adopted approach that vacillates between the two extremes: “Our cultures are really the same” versus “They are stupid”? There is a better path forward.

  

 inShare4

WORLDVIEW COMPONENTS 2

04.22.2013

Beneath the surface of observable human behavior and socio-cultural institutions are sharedvalues and core worldview assumptions. A worldview is the story-grid through which ones “sees” and interprets all aspects of life. Like most foundations, worldviews are generally hidden from sight. They are outside one’s awareness or tacitly assumed. [The concept of worldview was popularized in 1954 through a book by Robert Redfield, a professor of cultural anthropology at the University of Chicago. Later in 1984, it was skillfully analyzed by Michael Kearney, a professor of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside. Historically, our English word worldview is borrowed from the German noun weltanschauung.]The graphic below, provided by Global Perspectives Consulting, identifies fourcomponents of worldview. They are described both in story terms as well as categories adapted from the writings of Kearney.

Empirical research shows that all societies have a classification system, by which all aspects of life are divided into categories. It is an exposition of what is and is not. At a most basic level, humans have an awareness of self, other, and the relationship between the two. These are thecharacters in the story. Inside these relationships lies a component of cause and effect. The story has a plot. Finally, life is lived out in the setting of time and space.

Are these explanations merely philosophical or do they have application to business processes? What happens when the U.S. American SOF trainer does not understand the classification system of the Wolof-speaking soldier in the Senegalese army? The Wolof people believe in personal spirit beings and impersonal spirit forces. The SOF trainer may not. Rather than kevlar type III body armor, the Wolof warrior understands that his amulet phylactery containing verses from the Qur’an will provide equal protection. Or, at a negotiating table are businesspeople from both vaishya and sudra communities. How does one know who is who? How will they relate? Which negotiation strategy should be employed?

Without understanding worldview components across cultures, at best, communication will be extraordinarily shallow. And, likely, efforts in normal business processes will result in folly.

  

 inShare

WORLDVIEW: TOO COMPLICATED TO CONSIDER BUT TOO IMPORTANT TO IGNORE

05.25.2013

Figure 1: What we see though…

Worldview is the “present tense story-grid through which we see and interpret all aspects of life”. Over time and in varied relationships story experiences form the grid-work of worldview. As such, the story narrative is diachronic. However, a worldview is synchronic. At any moment of time the story-grid of worldview forms the prism through which we perceive everything.

Michael Kearney from the University of California argues that all worldviews have interrelated classifications. He suggests sixclassifications: self, Other, relationships, causality, time, and space. See detailed definitions of these classifications below provided by Worldview Resource Group.1

A person’s worldview is not stagnant or motionless. It is not indifferent, that is, devoid of feeling. It is not simply a construct of cognitive assumptions. Even though, as per the insights of Edward T. Hall, worldview is generally tacitly assumed and outside of our awareness, worldview assumptions are deeply embraced and impact all aspects of our identity and values.

The Model of Culture depicted in Figure 2 shows the components of culture that are derived from core worldview assumptions about reality. Worldview assumptions about self, Other, relationships, causality, time, and space are the basis for values that inform

Figure 2: Model of Culture

what ought and ought not to be. Values are inextricably linked to identity markers that regulate status and roles in society. Socio-cultural institutions are formed within a culture as people collectively embrace values, codify processes, and formalize groups. Finally, on the stage of life in real time/space history, people behave in observable ways. Socio-cultural institutions promote and prevent outward behavior based upon the shared values within a society.

Almost always the urgency of public policy in the government sector, the imperative of the  business transaction in the private sector, or the ministry objective in the non-profit sector conflicts with the stated need to understand people in a host society at a deep level. Deep understanding at a worldview level is not achieved easily. It requires time and authentic relationships. It necessitates intercultural competency. Urgency does not have time and cannot build relationships. Not infrequently, individuals in the public, private, and third sector tell interculturalists that worldview is too complicated to consider. Therefore, the tactic is to proceed without understanding, hoping that others will understand English, democracy, global business processes, and Western philosophical presumptions. Competency is sacrificed on the alter of urgency.

So, corporate executives attempt to negotiate in Bangalore, India in the same way they do in Denver, Colorado. Missionaries share Bible stories with Papua New Guinea spiritualists in a manner indistinguishable from a pastor preaching at a Presbyterian Church in Menlo Park, California. What is the fallacy? Corporate executives assume that the status and roles in socio-cultural institutions in Denver mirror those in Bangalore. They do not. Missionaries assume that assumptions about what is real and what is not are the same in PNG as the Bay Area. They are not. In both settings, India and New Guinea, locals decode messages and observable behavior in vastly different ways from US Americans.

Not knowing others, lacking cultural intelligence, bemoaning complexity, and feeling like we do not have the time are not strategies for effectiveness across cultures. The reliability of negotiation tactics or verifiability of a Scriptural text does not trump worldview. The gap is not bridged. Ignoring worldview usually leads to failure and thwarted objectives.

Contact Global Perspectives Consulting to learn more about how to work across cultures.

1 Definitions: Self is the entire essential entity of a sentient human being that is distinct from and able to dynamically relate to Other. Other is the total environment that is distinct from but related to self. Relationships is the dynamic value-based interaction between self and Other that occurs within socio-cultural institutions. Causality is the orderly structured interplay between causes and effects. Time is a past, present, and future sequence of existence and events. Space is a demarcated multi-dimensional realm in which all things exist and all events occur.

  

 inShare3

CULTURE CHANGE

04.22.2012

As a person of impact, do you know how to bring about culture change? By impact I mean create understanding, strengthen relationships, and increase productivity in your sphere of influence and beyond. As to culture, in some narrow circles, it is fashionable to deny that there is any such thing, that is, that there really are no differences between human beings. This may be true ontologically, but most of us who have worked internationally know better. Culture is the “learned, shared patterns of perception and behavior” that characterize people in a society. For example, in Indonesia there is a tacit assumption that mana, more than anything else, plays the significant role in success. In contrast, my grandfather, who was the Vice-President of the Georgia Power Company, believed in personal responsibility and knew that he had worked his way up in the company after being hired as an electrical engineer in the 1930s after graduating from Georgia Technical University. There are differences in perception and behavior from people to people.

Culture change

How do you change culture? I offer that there are different approaches based on five levels of cultural depth:

1. Observable behavior
2. Socio-cultural institutions
3. Values
4. Identity
5. Core worldview assumptions

In the early 20th century, there were assumptions in sociology supporting the notion that a change in human behavior could be brought about through operant conditioning.1 Simply change the outward behavior to change the person. More recent research has shown that cognition and affect play a much larger role in change than first recognized by behaviorists.2

Similarly, in the 20th century, there were theories of anthropology that emphasized the importance of structure and function in society as key explanations for behavior and its change.3

Current academic literature does not discount either behaviorism or structural functionalism, but builds holistically on them. Social research demonstrates that perception is key. Although unseen, and often outside the awareness of self, perceptions of values, identity, and assumptions about reality play the central role in how we behave. From values, identity, and worldview, socio-cultural institutions are organized and observable behavior is promoted. In turn, the behavior and institutions reinforce the perceptions underneath.

So, how do you change culture? I would argue that simply altering behavior is not really culture change. Correspondingly, neither is making adjustments at the institutional level. In my view, culture change is possible only by impacting people’s values, identity, and core worldview assumptions. How is this done? Empirical evidence shows that it is accomplished by changing the story. Consider the following possible methodologies and outcomes based on the levels of culture.

Level	Methodology of change	Outcome
Observable behavior	Operant conditioning, punishment, and reward	Temporary conformity
Socio-cultural institutions	Structural	Framework to promote and prohibit behavior
Values, identity, and core worldview assumptions	Story	True culture change - start with worldview

True culture change is only attainable when a rival story competes with the story-based worldview grid already in place. The key is not the technique (active listening, motivational interviewing, ontological coaching, collaborative negotiation, interest-based conflict resolution, third-party mediation, or more). The key question is, “To what degree are values, identity, adura, and Edward Thorndike

2Jerome Brunner, Howard Gardner, Jean Piaget, and Robert Sternberg
3Herbert Spencer, Bronislaw Malinowski, and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown 

 inShare3nd core worldview assumptions in focus?”

1B.F. Skinner, Albert Ban

Related posts:

1. Culture Model
2. The Form and Meaning Correlation

« Previous

Next »