Kluckhohn’s cultural values and definition of culture

In the first place, it is necessary to provide a definition of culture. Culture can be construed as either a behavioural or semantic system, and as being either an independent, measurable entity or a nominal construct that exists only in the mind of the researcher (Rohner, 1984;

Jahoda, 1984). One well-known anthropological consensus definition is as follows:

Culture consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values (Kluckhohn, 1951, p. 86).

Another noteworthy definition of culture is suggested by Greet Hofstede, who determines culture as: “The collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another (Hofstede, 2001, p. 9).

Hofstede notices, that this is a shorthand definition; it implies everything in Kluckhohn’s more extensive definition above. The “mind” by Hofstede stands for the head, heart, and

hands – that is, for thinking, feeling, and acting with consequences for beliefs, attitudes, and skills. As Kluckhohn has affirmed, culture in this sense includes values; systems of values are core elements of culture.

According to Hofstede (2001), values are invisible until they become evident in behaviour or visible artefacts. From the many terms used to describe visible artefacts of culture, the following three, together with their associated values, cover the total concept: symbols, heroes, and rituals. Symbols are words, gestures, pictures, and objects that carry often complex meanings which are recognised as such only by those who share the culture.

Heroes are persons, alive or dead, real or imaginary, who possess characteristics that are highly prized in a culture and thus serve as models for behaviour. Rituals are collective activities that are technically unnecessary to the achievement of desired ends. However, rituals in a culture are considered essential to keep the individual bound within the norms of the collectivity.

The idea that there are basic human values, and that they are measurable, has been exciting researchers to investigate them for many years, from Allport, Vernon and Lindzey in 1931 to the present day. It has been widely accepted that uncovering those values, and devising means of measuring them, would facilitate valuable insight into the similarities and differences between human beings from differing cultural backgrounds.

One theory of basic human values, which has been very influential was introduced by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961). Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck set out to operationalise a theoretical approach to the values concept developed by Florence’s husband, Clyde Kluckhohn (1949, 1952). He argued that humans share biological traits

and characteristics which form the basis for the development of culture, and that people typically feel their own cultural beliefs and practices are normal and natural, and those of others are strange, or even inferior or abnormal (Hills, 2002). Kluckhohn defined a value as: “A conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the selection from available modes, means and ends of action” (Kluckhohn, 1951, p. 395).

In his work Clyde Kluckhohn (1952) argued that there should be universal categories of culture:

In principle … there is a generalised framework that underlies the more apparent and striking facts of cultural relativity. All cultures constitute so many somewhat distinct answers so essentially the same questions posed by human biology and by the generalities of the human situation…. Every society’s patterns for living must provide approved and sanctioned ways for dealing with such universal circumstances as the existence of two sexes; the helplessness of infants: the need for satisfaction of the elementary biological requirements such as food, warmth, and sex; the presence of individuals of different ages and of differing physical and other capacities. (pp. 317-318)

Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck (1961) developed a theory, which put the principles suggested above into action. They started with three basic assumptions:

• There are a limited number of common human problems for which all peoples must at all times find some solution;

• While there is variability in the solutions to all these problems, it is neither limitless nor random but is definitely variable within a range of possible solutions;

• All variations of all solutions are present in all societies at all times but are differentially preferred.

They suggested that the solutions to these problems preferred by a given society reflects that society’s values. Consequently, the measurement of the preferred solutions would indicate the values espoused by that society. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) suggested five basic types of problem to be solved by every society:

• On what aspect of time should we primarily focus – past, present or future?

• What is the relationship between Humanity and its natural environment – mastery, submission or harmony?

• How should individuals relate to others – hierarchically (which they called “Lineal”), as equals (“Collateral”), or according to their individual merit?

• What is the prime motivation for behaviour – to express one’s self (“Being”), to grow (“Being-in-becoming”), or to achieve?

• What is the nature of human nature – good, bad (“Evil”) or a mixture?

The kind of framework Kluckhohn described must consist of empirically verifiable, more or less independent dimensions on which cultures can be meaningfully ordered. Such empirically discovered and validated dimensions were suggested by Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede in his large research project into differences in national culture among matched samples of business employees. While Kluckhohn suggested a new model for cross-cultural studies, Hofstede turned it into practice and applied it to the field of business.