Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
India culture vs american culture
India culture vs american culture
Western culture vs indian culture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The purpose of this paper is to do a personal assessment of Indian culture. I will also be explaining Hofstede's five dimensional model, will use it to analyze the Indian culture and talk about the five dimensional model from my own observations.
Hofstede has identified five different cultural dimensions. These dimensions include power-distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance and lastly long term orientation. According to Hofstede, power distance is the first dimension which translates to how all individuals in a society aren't equal and there is a decent amount of inequality when it comes to the division of power. The second dimension involves the theme of individualism which translates to the degree of interdependence as well as how we identify ourselves in terms of "I" or "We". Additionally, Hofstede states that in individualist societies we tend to look only after ourselves and our blood family, however, in collectivistic societies individuals identify themselves as part of groups and take care of each other in exchange for loyalty. The third dimension would be masculinity/ femininity. A high score would translate to a masculine culture which demonstrates a culture driven by competition, achievement and success. On the other hand, a low score which demonstrates a feminine culture shows that the dominant traits involves caring for others and quality of life. The fourth dimension involves uncertainty avoidance which translates to how a society deals with not knowing how the future is going to turn out. This amount of vagueness brings about anxiety and different cultures deal with this issue differently. The fifth and final cultural dimension according to Hofstede is long term orientat...
... middle of paper ...
...
Throughout the course of this paper, I have discussed Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions where I broke down these dimensions. Additionally, I have stated how India tends to appreciate the hierarchical relationship structure, is a collectivist country and leans towards being a more masculine society. Additionally, India tends to possess a medium to low preference towards uncertainty avoidance and leans towards being a future oriented society. Having lived in the United States for almost a decade I think I have become more “Americanized”. India is a great country and I’ll always visit it in the future, but from the way things are going I am going to permanently settle down in New York where I would like to start my career and family.
References:
Hofstede, Geert. "THE HOFSTEDE CENTRE." India. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. .
For this study, researcher classified the cultural identity of the participants as traditional, assimilated, bicultural, or marginalized by how they identified with highly with Indian values, highly with white values, ewally with both, or with none.
A culture’s tendency to be individualistic or collectivistic can be found at the root of
Zakaria captivates is readers at the beginning of his essay, he uses descriptive language and appeals to his audiences pathos describing what he thought of as the American dream back in the 1970s. He elaborates how over time his view of America changes, especially when he journey’s to the U.S. on a college scholarship. When visiting with friends in the U.S. Zakaria uses imagery to describe the “spacious suburban houses and the gleaming appliances” (Zakaria 461) most Americans at the time and compares it to life in India. Zakaria transitions from his method of comparison of India and America, and
Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Second Edition, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, 2001
Geert Hofstede performed the most lauded research on The Dimensions of Culture theory. His findings and the model that he created were outlined in his 1980 book “Cultures Consequences.” The work was met with both acclaim and disregard from fellow academics. Hofstede’s work is generally quoted and cited without any hesitation even today and his model is still widely used the main guideline for dealing with human resources from a cultural perspective.
Kumar. "Personal Life, Comfort, Enjoyment in America Vs. India." RedBus2US RSS. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. .
Experiencing a society of multi-cultures is beneficial through a variety of concepts to epitomize each individual identity. A person may vary in the degree to which he or she identifies with, morals, or...
Materialistic versus Non-Materialistic is a dimension that focuses on the hedonism of humans, for it compares the search of happiness through material items to the search of happiness internally, which these two are quite the opposites according to their definitions. Geert Hofstede proposed several other dimensions of culture and how the differed in their regards. Examples of cultures and services will be discussed within the assignment, for these two dimensions cover extreme levels of culture, while the information on these dimensions is robust, and the importance of each dimension will be discussed with the cultures and services.
Cultural Differences in Hofstede’s Six Dimensions According to Professor Geert Hofstede, dimensionalizing a culture requires a complex analysis of a multitude of categories including differing nations, regions, ethnic groups, religions, organizations, and genders. Hofstede defines culture as "the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from another". Throughout his many years of contribution as a social scientist, he has conducted arguably the most comprehensive study of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture, leading to the establishment of the Six Dimensions of National Culture. From this research model, the dimensions of Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long Term Orientation, and Indulgence are defined according to their implication on individual countries, which when comparatively examined provide a broad understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to the workplace. Identification and Definition of the Six Dimensions In initially defining each of Hofstede's dimensions, a foundational understanding of the six categories is established, from which a greater understanding of different cultures can be built off of.
Pandey, T. N., 2014. Lecture 1/9/14: Culture of India: Aryan and Indigenous Population. Cultures of India. U.C. Santa Cruz.
Hofstede has a total of six dimensions of culture, each of these refer to distinctive traits of various cultures. Accordingly, each culture will share their own set of values and characteristics, and while this behavior might not be mirrored by everyone in the culture, it can be true generally speaking. For example, as you can see above the United States scores high in the individualism trait, that means that Americans are highly independent. In fact, being independent and being able to take care of yourself are seen as positive
Siva, Manu. Difference in Cultural Values. India Today (20) 3. 45-48 Retrieved April 03, 2006
Basically, Hofstede’s cultural dimension is divided into five dimensions along which national culture could be described: power distance (PDI), individualism-collectivism (IDV), masculinity-femininity (MAS), uncertainty avoidance (UAI) and long-term orientation versus short-term normative orientation (LTO).
Different cultures perceive and interpret the world around them in different ways and they fall into two separate categories, independent construal of self and interdependent construal of self. Depending on which of the categories one was born in, they will socialize differently and
In the end, what we learn from this article is very realistic and logical. Furthermore, it is supported with real-life examples. Culture is ordinary, each individual has it, and it is both individual and common. It’s a result of both traditional values and an individual effort. Therefore, trying to fit it into certain sharp-edged models would be wrong.