Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

The relationships between these types represent the three basic value alternatives that each society faces and has to resolve autonomy vs. conservatism, egalitarianism vs. hierarchy and harmony vs. mastery (fig.1).
Each alternative or value conflict forms a bipolar dimension (table 2). First dimension, autonomy vs. conservatism, represents the relationship between the individual and society. If the autonomy is of more importance than the conservatism, the person is viewed as an autonomous, bounded entity who finds meaning in his or her own uniqueness, who seeks to express his or her own internal attributes (preferences, traits, feelings, motives) and is encouraged to do so. If on the contrary, the conservative values prevail that means that the person is looked upon as an entity embedded in the group and finds meaning in life largely through relationships with others. People draw significance from participating in and identifying with the group, in carrying on its shared way of life.
Second dimension, egalitarianism vs. hierarchy, refers to the relationships between an individual and "the other". If the hierarchy values dominate that means that culture uses power differences and rely on hierarchical systems of ascribed roles to provide responsible social behavior. People are socialized and sanctioned to fulfill their roles, the roles define social obligations, and acceptance of the hierarchical order assures compliance with the rules that preserve the social fabric. If the egalitarianism is more important than hierarchy, the problem of responsible social behavior is based on the recognition of the other as equal to self in deservingness, so that people share interests that can serve as bases for voluntary agreements to cooperate.
The third dimension, harmony vs. mastery, concerns the relationships between the individual and his environment. If harmony is favor more than mastery, the culture focus on the fit between individual and the world, on its acceptance and preservation rather than on its change and exploitation. When mastery is considered as more important than harmony, the culture is focused on active mastering and changing of the world, on bending it to our will and assertion of control. The world is an object to exploit in order to serve personal or group interests.
The structural model of value system was verified in the big cross-cultural study of values that comprised more than 50 countries from Europe, Asia and America (Schwartz, 1994). For each country, data from two matched samples – students and teachers, were gathered. Teachers were chosen as they play an explicit role in value socialization, they are presumably key carriers of culture, and probably reflect the mid-range of prevailing value preferences in most societies. Students are younger and probably represent the modernizing trend in culture.
One of the important results of the cross-cultural study was the description of the differences between Eastern and Western cultural values (Schwartz&Bardi, 1997). It proved that, samples drawn from Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s attributed particularly great importance to conservatism and hierarchy values and low importance to egalitarianism, intellectual and affective autonomy values, when compared with West European samples. These same contrasts appeared when comparing East European countries from Central Europe such as Hungary, Czech and Poland and more East European countries (Bulgaria, USSR, Georgia), in which communism had penetrated more deeply. The interpretation of East European value pattern suggested it to be a result from people’s adaptations to the day-to-day reward contingencies and opportunities present under communist regime. The authors concluded that 40 years of pervasive communist rule in Eastern Europee has influenced people’s basic values.

The aim of the study.

The present study is aimed to extend the analysis of cultural values in Eastern Europe started by Schwartz and Bardi (1997). Several tasks were formulated.

1. To compare the ways of resolution of basic value conflicts in Eastern and Western Europe
2. To compare value hierarchy and value priorities of Eastern and Western Europe
3. To study conservative and modernizing trends of value system in Bulgaria
4. To describe the basic direction of value changes in Bulgaria.

9 teacher’s and 9 student’s samples representing Eastern Europe were from Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Samples representing West Europe were from Denmark, Finland, France, West Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. Student samples were from the same countries as teachers. All data were gathered between 1988 and 1993 (Schwartz&Bardi, 1997). Data from Bulgaria come from several samples that took part in the study during 1993, 1995 and 1996. The first sample comprises of 176 teachers from Sofia, the second - 329 teachers from 30 big cities of Bulgaria. 103 teachers that participated in 1995 were tested again in 1996.

Results.

European data from cross-cultural study (Schwartz & Bardi, 1997) were reanalyzed in order to find the ways of resolution of basic value conflicts. The dominant forces of the conservatism, egalitarianism and harmony over autonomy, hierarchy and mastery were estimated (fig.2).

Fig. 2. The dominant forces of conservatism, egalitarianism and mastery in Eastern and Western Europe.

1. In Western Europe, in both samples – teachers’ and students’ as well, autonomy dominates over conservatism. In Eastern Europe autonomy dominates in the students’ sample. In teachers sample conservatism is of greater importance than autonomy. This means that the concept of the autonomous individual is dominant in Western Europe and in students’ sample from Eastern Europe. Teachers from Eastern Europe considered the individual as imbedded in a group.
2. Egalitarianism dominates over hierarchy in both cultural regions and in both samples. This dominant is more expressed in Western than in Eastern Europe.
3. Teachers and students differently resolve the conflict between harmony and mastery. Teachers attribute greater importance to harmony, while students – on mastery. In other words, students are striving towards active mastering of the environment. Teachers are more inclined to seek for unity with the environment based on unity not on mastery. However the dominant of harmony in teachers sample and of mastery – in students’ sample is not strong.

The resolution of the three intradimensional value conflicts results in hierarchical structure in which value types are ordered from more to less important (table 3).

Table 3. Value hierarchy in Eastern and Western Europe for teachers’ and students’ samples.
 

Western Europe		Eastern Europe
Teachers	Students	Students	Teachers
1. Egalitarianism	1. Egalitarianism	1. Egalitarianism	1. Egalitarianism
2. Harmony	2. Autonomy	2. Mastery	2. Harmony
3. Autonomy	3. Mastery	3. Harmony	3. Conservatism
4. Mastery	4. Harmony	4. Autonomy	4. Mastery
5. Conservatism	5. Conservatism	5. Conservatism	5. Autonomy
6. Hierarchy	6. Hierarchy	6. Hierarchy	6. Hierarchy
Oriented to harmony	Oriented to Mastery	Oriented to harmony ? Mastery	Oriented to harmony

Egalitarianism and autonomy are of prior importance in Western Europe. Egalitarian liberalism characterizes value priorities of Western Europe. In teacher’s sample it is oriented towards harmony while in student’s sample – towards – mastery.
Eastern Europe culture is also egalitarian one but conservative values are of more importance than in Western Europe. Harmony is among the priority of teachers and students as well. As a whole the value system of the teachers can be described as egalitarian conservatism oriented towards harmony, while that of the students – as egalitarianism focused on harmony and mastery.
The most important difference between Eastern and Western cultural value priorities refers to the relationship between individual and society. East European culture is based on the priority of conservatism while Western Europe – on the priority of the autonomy values. In other words in Eastern Europe the individual is considered as more or less imbedded in group and society, he strives to preserve the status quo. Western Europe culture is based on the priority of the autonomy, the individual is considered independent from others and commit to their welfare voluntarily.
It is important to stress that in the student’s sample from Eastern Europe autonomy prevail over conservatism although is not among the first three, most important value types yet.
Data of Europe were gathered up to 1993. So the analysis of cultural value priorities represents the past of the European culture not its future. Let me now focus on the dynamic tendency of East European culture.

Modernizing trend in East European culture.

I shall analyze it using my data from Bulgarian, gathered in 1993, 1995 and 1996.
From developmental perspective the social transition that is going on in Eastern Europe, in particular in Bulgaria, can be considered as a struggle between the old and new values, between conservative and modernizing trend. That is why I have expected that nowadays in Bulgaria, there would be not one cultural value pattern but at least two – one that should be more or less stable and unchanged and another – dynamic, out of which the future will be born.
My aim was to identify these relatively opposite patterns of Bulgarian culture – the conservative and modernizing ones. It was suggested that the relationships between individual and society are the basic and crucial variable that determines these opposite trends. In other words I expected that Bulgarians who differ in their concept of the individual, imbedded or autonomous, will show two relatively opposite cultural patterns of values.
So in my study of values and value changes in Bulgaria I have controlled the concept of the individual and society. I have used the Bulgarian scale of individualism/collectivism to measure the basic concept of the relationships between the individual and group – independent or imbedded (Gerganov&al., 1995). Two groups, of collectivists and individualists, each consisting of 352 persons were formed. The individualists give priority to values such as self-respect, wealth and success while collectivists – to order, tradition, social justice and collaboration.
I expected that within Bulgarian culture two relatively opposite cultural patterns will appeared. The pattern of the Bulgarian collectivists would be similar to that of East European teachers while that of Bulgarian individualists – to that of West European students. Egalitarian conservatism was hypothesized for collectivists and egalitarian liberalism - for the individualists. In other words, West European pattern of value hierarchy was expected to exist not only on the European scene e.i. outside, but also inside or within one and the same culture, the Bulgarian one.
Data confirm the hypothesis – Bulgarian individualists attribute considerably more importance to autonomy, hierarchy and mastery and less to conservatism, egalitarianism than Bulgarian collectivists (fig.3).

Fig. 3. Means for each value type in the groups of collectivists and individualists.

How are the intradimensional conflicts resolved in both groups? As expected conservatism dominated over autonomy in the group of collectivists. Vice versa – in the group of individualists autonomy dominates although not very much, over the conservatism. In both groups mastery take precedence over harmony but the dominant force of mastery is greater in the group of individualists. In both groups egalitarianism is considered of greater importance than hierarchy but this dominant is stronger in the group of collectivists.
There are also differences in the value hierarchy and priorities (table5)
Table 5. Value hierarchy of Bulgarian collectivists and individualists (1995) and East European teachers and West European students
 

Eastern Europe	Bulgaria - 1995		Western Europe
Teachers	Collectivists	Individualists	Students
1. Egalitarianism	1. Egalitarianism	1. Mastery	1. Egalitarianism
2. Harmony	2. Conservatism	2. Autonomy	2. Autonomy
3. Conservatism	3. Mastery	3. Egalitarianism	3. Mastery
4. Mastery	4. Harmony	4. Conservatism	4. Harmony
5. Autonomy	5. Autonomy	5. Harmony	5. Conservatism
6. Hierarchy	6. Hierarchy	6. Hierarchy	6. Hierarchy
Oriented to harmony	Oriented to Mastery	focus on Mastery	Oriented to Mastery

Data confirm the hypothesis. The cultural pattern of Bulgarian collectivists is relatively opposite to that of individualists – egalitarianism of the individualist is based on autonomy, while that of collectivists – on conservatism. But at the same time, Bulgarian individualists as well as collectivists consider mastery of great importance. Individualists consider mastery of primary importance – 1-st rank, while collectivists - put it on the third place.
As suggested, the egalitarian liberalism characterizes the value priorities of individualists and West European students as well. Bulgarian individualists are more focused on Mastery than on egalitarianism, West European students – vice versa.
The egalitarian conservatism is typical for the collectivists and East European teachers as well. Mastery is more important for Bulgarian collectivists while Harmony – for East European teachers.
These results lead to the following hypotheses tested in the longitudinal study sponsored by RSS.

1. Change of relationships between the individual and society is the essence of the value shift in Bulgaria. – The concept of the imbedded individual is being substituted by the concept of independent individual. The increase of the individualism at the expense of the collectivism will gradually take place in Bulgaria.
2. Those persons who experience a shift from collectivism to individualism will change their cultural value pattern as well. – They will experience the increase of the autonomy, mastery and hierarchy and decrease of the conservatism, egalitarianism and harmony.

The changes are consistent with those expected. The importance of the autonomy (affective) and hierarchy increase while that of conservatism, egalitarianism and harmony – decrease. Only the importance of mastery rests stable. The major change refers to the relationships between individual and "the other". Egalitarianism is going to become less important while the hierarchy values – more important.
However the changes are still not enough to provoke a change in the ways of intradimensional value conflict resolution. The conflict between conservatism and autonomy is resolved in favor of conservatism, between egalitarianism and hierarchy - in favor of egalitarianism and that between mastery and harmony - in favor of mastery.
Value hierarchy is as follows: 1-st rank – egalitarianism, 2-nd – mastery; 3-rd – conservatism, 4-th – harmony; 5-th - autonomy and 6-th – hierarchy. Value priorities fit the description of egalitarian conservatism, oriented to mastery and rest stable within a one-year period. These priorities are still more similar to those of collectivists not of individualists.
In other words, value changes that were found in this group are still weak and do not lead to changes in value conflict resolution and value hierarchy. The most expressed are the changes in the values that focus in relationship between an individual and "the other". The importance of the values that confirm the principal equality of I and You decrease while those that of values confirming the individual differences – increase. Less expressed are the changes in conservatism and autonomy. The former decreases of importance while the latter – increases.
Last I would like to risk suggesting some ideas about the future of East European culture based on Bulgarian case I spoke about.
This future depends on the dynamic trends that lead from conservatism to autonomy, from egalitarianism to hierarchy, from harmony to mastery. If these dynamic trends are not fostered in Eastern Europe, egalitarian conservatism will continue to dominate as in the case of East European teachers and Bulgarian collectivists. If the dynamic tendency is facilitated, East European culture will tend to egalitarian autonomy that is typical for Western Europe (teachers and students as well) and Bulgarian individualists.
Most probably these two models – of egalitarian conservatism and egalitarian liberalism will co-exist. More than that, within one country, as in Bulgaria for example, different social groups or persons with different political orientations, have relatively different cultural value profiles.
I believe that the process of value diversification is an important characteristic of an attempt of Eastern Europe to reconstruct its social and political structure. However this characteristics is underestimated. From the differences between Eastern and Western European culture pessimistic prognosis is made (Schwartz, Bardi, Bianki, 1998). It is expected that traces of the communist experience may continue to influence values over generations. European integration, at least its rate, is also under question as the East European value profile is ill suited for the development of democracy. The social responsibility in Western Europe is based on egalitarianism and autonomy values while Autonomy and mastery values provide the value bases for a free enterprise system. Contrary to that the emphasis on conservatism and hierarchy values in Eastern Europe implies a continuing desire for the government to take responsibility and to provide for basic needs.
Reflecting on my data, I am not such a pessimist but rather an optimist. The cultural differences between Eastern and Western Europe will of course prevent the European integration that is based on economic and political resemblance. I think that the future of Eastern Europe do not exclude a development based even on the previous dominant of the imbedded not autonomous individual. Cultural tradition, especially outside Central Europe, in particular that of Russia, Georgia and Bulgaria, is based on the concept of the individual as a part of the group. This concept by itself is not destructive and has its merits. The problem is how this concept of the imbedded individual is connected with egalitarian values. The communist regime in Eastern Europe was destructive as the equality was considered as equity, as sameness. In Western Europe this concept was developed in the last century and nowadays is based on the recognition of individual differences and uniqueness of the individual.
I think that what is of greater importance for post-communist Eastern Europe is not so much the concept of the individual as a further development and reconsideration of the concept of equality. Equality based on differences not on sameness that is what I believe we need. In other words, the primitive concept of the equality based on the sameness has to be replaced by more developed and dialectic concept of the equality, that takes into account differences and sameness of the individuals.
If this is not accomplished, Eastern Europe, or at least some part of it, will follow the development based on the hierarchical conservatism or liberalism. In these cases the values of hierarchy will become dominant over egalitarian values.
Today it is difficult to predict the changes of the Eastern European cultural model. It is possible even to suggest that within Eastern Europe we shall witness cultural diversification based on reconsideration of national history, culture and identity. That is why I do not think European integration can be based on the model of present West European democracy. The united Europe could be born not as a result of future cultural globalization but out of recognition of our cultural and political uniqueness. Most probably, the degree and forms of integration of each East European country can vary considerably and depend on the social political perspectives that are created today.
Let me summed up:

1. There are significant cultural value differences between Eastern and Western Europe. The most important difference is that in Eastern Europe the individual is considered more or less imbedded in society and group while in Western Europe - as an autonomous agent.
2. From the point of its value priorities East European culture can be defined as egalitarian conservatism, while that of West Europe – as egalitarian liberalism.
3. Nowadays East European culture, as it was shown in Bulgarian case, but seems to be valid also for the rest of East European cultures, is far from being monolithic. There are at least two relatively opposite cultural patterns within it. One is that of individualists who share a concept of the autonomous individual that is dominant in West European culture. The other is that of collectivists who follow the concept of the embedded individual, that is dominant in Eastern Europe.
4. Change of the concept of the individual is the essence of the value shift in Bulgaria. – The concept of the embedded individual is slowly being substituted by the concept of independent individual. The increase of the individualism at the expense of the collectivism is a psychological prerequisite for the social changes and building of the democratic society in Bulgaria.
5. The change of the concept of the individual can lead to the changes in sill dominant cultural pattern – egalitarian conservatism can be transformed into egalitarian liberalism although this process will be slow.
6. The dominant concept of the embedded individual in Eastern Europe is not dangerous by itself. It used to be so destructive only because it was connected with undeveloped concept of equality considered as equity, the sameness of the individuals.
7. Last but not least, nowadays Eastern Europe is at the crossroad. – Egalitarian liberalism is the optimistic version for its future development. But pessimistic version is also possible – hierarchical conservatism, similar to that was Webber called "adventure capistalism", can also develop.