3: Acculturation: Theory and applications
3.4 An alternative to "Westernisation"
Inresponse to the criticisms levelled against the use of the term "Westernisation" as a cultural variable, the researcher employed Hofstede's (1980; cited in Bochner, 1994) Individualism- collectivism dichotomy to assess the cultural values and factors thought to predispose individuals to, or protect them from disordered eating. This approach has been suggested elsewhere (Lazarus, 1997) as an alternative to the stereotyped presentation of a monolithic culture where norms and
values are assumed to be convergent. The following section outlines the theory behind the individualism-collectivism dichotomy.
3.4.1 Individualism-collectivism
The individualism-collectivism dichotomy has been a prominent feature of discussion and research in recent years (Bochner, 1994; Hui, 1988; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Hui & Villareal, 1989; Schwartz, 1990; Triandis, McCusker, Betancourt, Iawo, Leung, Salazar, Setiadi, Sinia, Touzard & Zaleski, 1993). Hofstede (1980; cited in Bochner, 1994) developed a four- dimensional model based op. a measurement of work-related values amongst employees ofa large computer firm with subsidiaries in 53 different countries. Hofstede derived four dimensions (power- distance; uncertainty-avoidance; individualism-collectivism and masculinity-femininity) which were hypothesised to correspond to cultural values that are instrumental in social arrangements, institutions, customs and practices of any given society (Bochner, 1994). Societies have been found to differ in their position regarding these four dimensions.
For the purposes of this research, the discussion of Hofstede' s findings will be limited to the individualism-collectivism dimension which describes interactional forms of the relationship between individuals and the groups to which they belong (Bochner, 1994).
3.4.2 Definitions
The individualism-collectivism dichotomy lies on a continuum, and is said to reflect basic value emphases which function as guides to individual behaviour, and as group ideologies (Schwartz, 1990). At one end of the continuum is individualism and idiocentrism (the personality correlate of individualism) which prioritises personal goals over those of the in-group (Schwartz, 1990).
Persons are construed as separate entities, distinguishable from their social milieus (Bochner, 1994). Hence, individualist cultures and idiocentric individuals tend to prioritise values that emphasise autonomy, independence and self-containment. Bochner (1994) describes individualist values as Western.
Waterman (1984; cited in Hui, 1988) defines individualism as the embodiment of the following four psychological principles:
1. A sense of personal identity, an Eriksonian construct which includes knowledge of who one is, and what one's personal goals and values are.
2. Maslow's self-actualisation, a striving to actualise one's personal values and goals and be one's true self.
3. Intemallocus of control, the acceptance of personal responsibility for what happens in one's life.
4. KoWberg'sprincipl~d(postconventional) moral reasoning, where the individual espouses and acts on universal moral principles that are deemed to be "right".
Collectivism and allocentrism lie on the opposite end of the continuum, here the distinction between the individual and the social milieu is blurred. Individuals regard themselves and others as an extension of the social system to which they are a part (Bochner, 1994). Hence, collectivist cultures prioritise values that serve the in-group by negating personal goals in order to preserve interdependence between individuals, in-group integrity and harmonious relationships (Schwartz, 1990). Allocentric individuals tend to be responsive to the perceived needs of the community, and avoid the expression of emotions that may disrupt interpersonal harmony. Collectivists tend to attribute their own and others' behaviour to situational rather than dispositional factors (Schwartz, 1990).
Hui (1988, p.19) proposes that collectivism is reflected in the following seven categories (based on Hui & Triandis, 1986):
1. Consideration of the consequences of one's decisions and behaviours and the implications of these decisions on others.
2. Sharing material resources.
3. Sharing non-material resources (for example, time).
4. Susceptibility to social influence.
5. Self-presentation and face work.
6. Sharing of outcomes.
7. Feeling of involvement in others' lives.
3.4.3 Hypothesised links with disordered eating.
Becker and Hamburg (1996) argue that core cultural values which endorse achievement-oriented behaviour, self-determination, self-cultivation and the choice between a variety of lifestyles have contributed to the illusion that the body can be moulded and developed to portray personal attributes. The core psychological values of individualism as described by Hui (1988) can be argued to reflect certain of the risk factors and vulnerabilities to disordered eating described by Becker and Hamburg (1996).
The collectivist dimension de-emphasises self-cultivation (for example, a self-conscious regulation of body shape), which could be argued to be a protective factor in the development of disordered eating in collectivist populations. A clinical caveat is necessary at this point.
Members of different cultures have been shown to demonstrate a variety of phenomenological differences in the etiology and course of eating disorders."Fear offatness" has not been shown to be a requisite to pathogenesis in anorexia in countries such as Hong Kong and India (Khandelwal& Saxena; 1990; Lee, Ho & Hsu, 1993; cited in Becker & Hamburg, 1996). Hence phenomenological differences in the presentation of and etiology of eating disorders across culture requires more careful consideration, especially with regard to the hypothesised central etiological role of sociocultural factors.
The individualism-collectivism dichotomy is presented as an alternative to the more conventional and problematic assessments of Westernisation and reflects a dimensional approach to the understanding of cross-cultural phenomenon proposed by Price-Williams (1979) and Lazarus (1997).
3.5 Acculturation