Culture in the Grip of Uncertainty: A Perspective from Hofstede to Postmodernism

Social psychologist and sociologist Hofstede defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or society from another and is acquired through the process of living, shaping the interactions between a society and its environment.”^【1】 According to him, culture represents a shared set of characteristics; it is an phenomenon in which material and immaterial interactions or actions are jointly performed and sustained. Hofstede further examined culture and introduced his model, which he called “Cultural Values.” According to this model, he analyzed cultures along six dimensions: Power distance, Uncertainty avoidance, Masculinity–femininity, Long–short term orientation, Indulgence and restraint, and Individualism–collectivism.

The primary aim here is to make sense of cultures, which are inherently diverse and ambiguous. Throughout history, many disciplines have resorted to classification when confronted with such variability; however, this model differs from other classifications in its purpose. Rather than adopting a reductionist approach, it emphasizes diversity through a qualitative distinction. In particular, the society, economy, traditions and customs that gave rise to a culture enable us to understand the people shaped by it. These dimensions provide us with a kind of “fragment” of that culture.

Two dimensions in the model are especially critical: the first is indulgence, and the second is uncertainty avoidance or the capacity to tolerate ambiguity. There is a positive relationship between tolerance for ambiguity and indulgence; however, this cannot be described as a direct cause-and-effect relationship. Ambiguity, in fact, instills a kind of tolerance in cultures; when people are constantly exposed to uncertain situations, they develop cognitive flexibility. Living within a flow-oriented culture does not cause distress to its members but instead provides them with greater motivation for life.

Thus, Thomas Bauer states on this matter: In societies where ambiguity is perceived as a disadvantage, individuals confronted with ambiguous situations feel discomfort and tend to accept proposals that eliminate dualities. If uncertainty avoidance is successfully achieved, people strive to reduce complex, multifaceted realities to uniformity.^【2】 As a consequence, in some cultures, uniformity and homogenization are emerging in many fields, including art. Unfortunately, in such conditions, uniqueness and authenticity are negatively affected.

In cultures that avoid uncertainty, there is a kind of “compulsion to understand” — everything must be explained and comprehended; anything else is unacceptable. This is a major misconception imposed by the capitalist system on the modern human mind. Postmodernity deliberately targets this misconception as its weakest point. The human mind, by its very nature, tends to convert ambiguity into certainty and impose structure upon it. When individuals resolve this ambiguity, their environmental and internal anxieties subside; once anxiety is gone, reasoning takes over and rational thought begins.

But for the modern system, this is not desirable; because managing and persuading such a society is difficult. If we condition people to live in a state of mild anxiety and uncertainty, we produce a infantilized society. As Cenap Şahabettin said, “Every crowd is somewhat childish.”^【3】 The capitalist system easily educates this childish crowd, aiming to keep society perpetually caught in the spinning wheel of uncertainty. The phenomenon known as consumption mania begins to function perfectly here; managing a society gripped by anxiety and panic due to uncertainty becomes remarkably easy.

Those seeking to escape this wheel turn to science, but even here they are mistaken, because the mere act of “knowing” does not liberate them. The feeling that everyone must know everything only convinces them that the world is fully comprehensible — yet this is merely an illusion. The result is a uniform life, a predetermined existence, and an accepted path. With everyone holding an opinion on every subject, distrust toward science also increases in this sense. Thus the question arises: “Why should people need an expert?” — which is another major misconception.