Do ‘Values’ Have Value? In Search of ‘Asian Values’

You may have heard this set of phrases before: People of “different cultures” have “different values.” Sometimes it sounds as if those values are something nearly physical, unchanging and defining. Two people representing different value sets cannot marry, I heard once. If we are specific about what we mean by this, then that knowledge may be helpful. If we assume, for instance, that a belief in God and adherence to certain religious customs represent a value to certain people, while others do not believe in God or adhere to religious practices, this, indeed, may be a line that marks differences between individuals. Yet, very often, the word “values” is used precisely because it is so generalized.

Mapping Galaxies or Searching for Mice?

“Values” are something that are supposed to set various cultures apart. The term is waved in intellectual discussion with a raised hand to suggest that the person is aware of cultural nuances. In reality, however, to say “people have different values” is an escape from nuance. It’s true, but it’s a cliché. By itself, it does not explain anything, not before we define what we mean by “cultures,” by “values,” and how we research these differences.

For a person like myself, dealing with a country other than one’s own (India) and writing for a medium like The Diplomat, which covers the affairs of nations in the Asia-Pacific region, it will always remain a question: Is there any point in looking for Indian or Chinese values? Confucian or Muslim values? Not doing so is like ignoring the elephant in the room because I am busy looking for mice. But focusing on them is like linking the stars with our own, arbitrary lines, to name galaxies.

The World Values Survey...

There is at least one ambitious project, which has run for decades, that is trying to deal with different values globally – the World Values Survey. I am no expert in this field, but I have taken glances at its progress now and then for a few years. I must admit one thing at the start: Whatever I may think about its assumptions, it is a mammoth, thorough work. Its proceedings appear very careful and academic, and its methodology and results are presented in a very transparent and informative way. The persistence of the researchers also deserves praise. Having started in 1981, it is an ongoing project that has so far covered more than 400,000 global respondents.

Once in a few years the survey also brings out charts that map out value differences between cultures. The map is updated after five-year research cycles. The latest is from 2015, but its recent circulation on the internet implored me to finally write about the survey.

The charts do seem to confirm well-known differences, as on the value maps various national cultures often group themselves in broader civilizations, such as the Confucian and the Orthodox. Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Belarus, and Ukraine seem to be close to each other in results, for instance, seemingly confirming the shared values of an Orthodox bloc.

The chart is arranged in two dimensions, one representing a spectrum ranging between “traditional” and “secular-rational” values, and the other between “survival” and “self-expression values.” The survey seems to confirm many times what we feel we know anyway. Nordic countries, for instances, are high on the “secular-rational” values line. But here problems commence. The definitions of values are as follows:

Traditional values emphasize the importance of religion, parent-child ties, deference to authority and traditional family values. People who embrace these values also reject divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide. [….]

Secular-rational values have the opposite preferences to the traditional values. These societies place less emphasis on religion, traditional family values and authority. Divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide are seen as relatively acceptable. […]

Survival values place emphasis on economic and physical security. It is linked with a relatively ethnocentric outlook and low levels of trust and tolerance.

Self-expression values give high priority to environmental protection, growing tolerance of foreigners, gays and lesbians and gender equality, and rising demands for participation in decision-making in economic and political life.

…And the Trouble With It

There are a few troubling assumptions here and I will go from the most general level down to the most specific.

First, what the survey digs into are individual respondents’ answers. There are no national or civilizational divisions ingrained in the questions or replies; they can be only preconceived or deducted. This is, it would seem, a good thing: The survey asks the people about their preferences, rather than simply try to label them as belonging to culture X or Y. It thus has a vast and granular set of raw material, but it proceeds to cook that material with readymade condiments.

While the chart translates the aggregate replies into national units and puts them on a map, it is the authors of the survey who have superimposed the lines dividing these units into civilizations. They have not researched civilizations as units; they just assumed they must be there. But while sometimes they do seem to be rather coherent groupings, as with the Orthodox civilization, in other places the dividing lines turn out to be arbitrary. My home country, Poland, used to be very close to the country I am interested in – India – on earlier charts, but they were divided into two separate civilizations. China is awkwardly squeezed between three Baltic countries and it seems it should belong in one group with them. Now, as of 2015, Poland is placed within Latin America, while Pakistan, for instance, is a bit far from India, within the “African-Islamic” civilization, but just on the border with Latin America, right next to Peru.