Influence of N ationality A spects on M ediation

1. Influence of Nationality Aspects on Mediation Maria Claudia Solarte-Vasquez Tarmo Tuisk 18.04.2013

2. National Cultural Dimensions Geert Hofstede: “Culture is the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from others” Hofstede, G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Third Edition. 2010.

3. Dimensions of National Culture • Power Distance (PDI) • Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV) • Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS) • Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) • Long-Term Orientation (LTO) (added by Michael Bond, 1991) • Indulgence versus Restraint (added by Michael Minkov, 2010)

4. Power Distance This dimension expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. People in societies exhibiting a large degree of power distance accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. In societies with low power distance, people strive to equalise the distribution of power and demand justification for inequalities of power.

5. Individualism vs Collectivism The high side of this dimension, called Individualism, can be defined as a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. Collectivism, represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. A society's position on this dimension is reflected in whether people’s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “we.”

6. Masculinity vs. Feminity The masculinity side of this dimension represents a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material reward for success. Society at large is more competitive. Its opposite, femininity, stands for a preference for co-operation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life. Society at large is more consensus-oriented.

7. Uncertainty avoidance • The uncertainty avoidance dimension expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. • Countries exhibiting strong UAI maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. • Weak UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles.

8. Long-term vs. Short-term Orientation • Societies with a short-term orientation generally have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth. They are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results. • In societies with a long-term orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

9. Indulgence vs. Restraint • Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun.  • Restraint stands for a society that suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms.

10. Comparison of Dimensions The country scores on the dimensions are relative - societies are compared to other societies. Without making any comparison each country score is meaningless. These relative scores have been proven to be quite stable over decades. The forces that cause cultures to shift tend to be global or continent-wide. This means that they affect many countries at the same time, so that if their cultures shift, they shift together, and their relative positions remain the same.

11. Estonia vs. Finland

12. Estonia, Finland and Russia

13. Estonia, Italy and Turkey

14. France, Germany & the USA

15. Finland, Sweden & Norway

16. Estonia, Italy and Greece

17. A Case Study in Estonia • Ethno-national identity of Estonian and Russian Youth in Respect of Their Primordialist or Situationalist Orientations (Tuisk, 2012). • Method: Identity Structure Analysis (Weinreich, 2003). • Respondents: Students of Tallinn University of Technology majoring international relations (N=45), 2011-2012. • Custom-designed ISA specific reserach instrument. • Results analysed by computer software Ipseus (Weinreich & Ewart, 2007).

18. Ethnic identity - two stances • Primordialism (Shils, Geertz etc.) – emphasizes theissue of ethnic persistence (= ethnic identity is given forever) • Situationalism (Hechter, Mitchell etc.)– situationalfeatures of ethnic revivalism (= ethnic identity is constructed)

19. Primordialist vs. Situationalist Spectrum Situationalism «Home is where you hang your hat.» Primordialism «Home is where your hearth is.»

20. Primordialist vs Situationalist Spectrum • Primordialist view is modulated by later experience: Developmental primacy. • People will rarely hold either or (Spectrum!) • In times of crisis, people often revert back to primordialist views. • Views will not necessarily be held consciously. (Weinreich, Bacova & Rougier, 2003)

21. Conclusions (1) Estonian society is strongly primordially biased. Estonians form almost homogeneus primordialist community, as the situationalists distinguish from primodialists only to a small degree. Identity cores for Estonians were formed by: -Belief that Estonian language and culture have future; -Estonian language is a key to melt into Estonian society; -Soviet Union was an occupier of Eastern Europe after WWII; -Tolerance about different people and views.

22. Conclusions (2) Estonian Russians were strongly divided within primordialist-situationalist spectrum. Primordialists had the following identity cores: -Nationality is given forever -Language is an essential hallmark of nationality -Estonian language and culture will vanish in the globalizing world Estonian Russians - situatsionalists: -Tolerance about different people and views.

23. Literature Geertz, C. (1963). The integrative revolution: Primordial sentiments and civil politics inthe new states. In C. Geertz (Ed.) Old Societies and New States. New York: The FreePress. Hall, E.T., Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differerences: Germans, French and Americans. Intercultural Press, 3-29. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov. M. (2010). Cultures andOrganizations: Software of the Mind. Third Edition. 576 pages. Shils, E. (1957). Primordial, personal, sacred and civil ties. British Journal of Sociology,8, 2: 130–145. Tuisk, T. (2012). The Ethno-National Identity of Estonian and Russian Youth in Respect of their Primordialist or Situationalist Orientations. Baltic Journal of European Studies, 2 (12), 124-159. Weinreich, P., Ewart, S. (2007). Ipseus computer software for identity exploration. Belfast: Sycadex Ltd. Available from: URL http://www.identityexploration.com. Weinreich, P., Bacova, V., & Rougier, N. (2003). Basic Primordialism in Ethnic and National Identity.- Analysing Identity : Cross-Cultural, Societal, and Clinical Contexts, London and New York: Routledge, 115-169. Weinreich, P. (2003), ‘Part I: Theory and practice,’ in Analysing Identity: Cross-Cultural, Societal, and Clinical Contexts, London & New York: Routledge, 1–76.