2. Three Decades Have Passed

It is essential to recall that three decades have passed since Hofstede proposed his cultural dimensions and his classification of countries. During that time, there were many reviews of Hofstede’s work expressing several important caveats in dimensionalising cultural values. A large number of questions remains as to how exactly these concepts work in real-life relationships. These concepts suffer from the same weakness as the concepts of culture in that they are too readily used to explain everything that occurs in a society (Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, 1994). Concerning individualism versus collectivism, the multidimensional nature of these concepts has been frequently discussed. We can be both individualistic in some situations and collectivistic in others (Kim et al., 1996).

In a recent paper, Chirkov, Linch, and Niwa (2005), examining the problems in the measurements of cultural dimensions and orientations, raised three basic questions:

(1) “The operationalization of individualism/collectivism assumes a high degree of cultural homogeneity of the surveyed countries across geographical regions and across different life domains. This assumption however is far from reality, especially in multiethnic countries”.

(2) Moreover, this operationalization of cultural dimensions ignores the fact that different cultural values and practices may be internalized by people to different degrees, thus demonstrating high interpersonal variation in their endorsement (D’Andrade, 1992).

(3) Measuring culture-related constructs to average individuals’ scores on, for example, an individualism–collectivism self-report scale, across samples taken from different countries is wrong. “This does not make sense because culture is not an attribute of a person, nor is it the main value of some aggregate of individuals”. Further, quoting Fisk (2002), Chirkov et. al. (2005) conclude that “taking the mean of a group of individual scores does not make such variables into measurements of culture”.

Moreover, the expressed cultural values of many intercultural surveys and questionnaires are not necessarily the same as behaviors. The sample and the participants used in intercultural surveys have often been criticized as not representative of the culture of a given country being studied. In many cases, the participants were college or university students, and sometimes surveyed outside of their country of origin, without taking into account the cultural influence of the country in which they had been international students for some years.

Visser, Krosnick and Lavrakas (2000) have emphasized the non-probability and the non-representative sample of participants in most cross-cultural studies. These authors warned social and cross-cultural psychologists that “social psychological research attempting to generalize from a college student sample to a nation looks silly and damages the apparent credibility of our enterprise”.

In Goodwin’s book Personal Relationships across Cultures (1999), one can find interesting discussions of Hofstede’s classification. In the introduction, Goodwin writes: “I will try to demonstrate how many of our cherished views of other cultures are becoming less relevant and less accurate – If, indeed, they were ever accurate at all” (1999). What is also striking is that data from a reexamination of Hofstede’s country classifications, conducted twenty-five years after the original research, suggests “significant shifts in value classifications in some countries” (Fernandez, et. al., 1997). In an interview in Canada published in the InterCultures Magazine, Oct. 2006, when asked, “Between the time that you were first analyzing the data and now, has your definition of culture changed at all?” Hofstede answered: No, not really. Of course, you have to realize that culture is a construct. When I have intelligent students in my class, I tell them: “One thing we have to agree on: culture does not exist.” Culture is a concept that we made up which helps us understand a complex world, but it is not something tangible like a table or a human being. What it is depends on the way in which we define it. So, let’s not squabble with each other because we define culture slightly differently; that’s fine.

From this interview, it is quite clear that Hofstede’s “cultural dimensions” are not at all the rigid and universal fixed sets of polar attributes that several scholars are still using in their intercultural research.

Three Basic Facts for a Theory of Culture and Intercultural Understanding. Any theory of culture in this globalized world must address the following three basic facts: (1) Cultural Predestination!, (2) Individual Values, and (3) A Set of Dynamic Processes of Generation and Transformation.

Some aspects of these facts are not new and have been discussed by scholars in the past; these basic facts, however, have often been disregarded by those doing research in intercultural communication, resulting in very dubious affirmations about the nature of various cultures and people living in these cultures. The pragmatic integration of these three facts in intercultural research represents the essential basis for the new approach to a theory of culture proposed in this paper.