Tight culture
Some theories about how societies work are so obvious that you can spot them from a mile away. But in some cases, those theories fall apart when you try to examine them close up. There’s something not quite right about the way the theories are stated, or the definitions are lacking—or perhaps there is and always was less there than meets the eye. It feels intuitively real, but you can’t quite put your finger on it or how it works.
One such appealing but elusive theory was that of tight and loose cultures as described by psychologist Michele Gelfand on Russ Roberts’s Econtalk podcast a couple years ago. It seems rather obvious that in some cultures, living within the official and unofficial rules is expected more than in others. A classic example is the lone German pedestrian standing alone at a red light when there’s no traffic around, waiting for the light to turn green. Then along comes some strange person with loose scruples who crosses on the red light, at whom the rule-following German will loudly gasp or tutt or even openly declare disapproval—in spite of the lack of hazard. Yes, I was that dashing young scofflaw at times. (Verbal disapproval often consists of: “That’s not how one behaves!”)
Meanwhile, next door in France, the attitude is to cross the street wherever and whenever, expecting drivers to mind the pedestrians. Or so the French will tell you. Except they wouldn’t behave that way on a busy thoroughfare with only few pedestrians around. The culture isn’t suicidal. But the attitude is not first to go to a pedestrian crossing, then to wait for the official approval of a light changing. French attitudes toward obeying the rules are worlds apart from the Germans’.
Professor Gelfand would describe these as examples of tight and loose cultures, respectively, in which adherence to rules is expected in one, while it is considered optional in another. Plenty more examples spring to mind, often enough based on stereotypes, which can be observably quite real. In Europe, most northern countries seem outwardly to consist of devoted rule-followers. Mediterranean cultures seem to play it loose. The Japanese seem to be fastidious rule followers, whereas one gets the sense that Taiwanese culture is quite loose. And so on.
As the podcast discussion progresses, the clarity fades. It turns out that loose cultures can have plenty of very rule-adherent subcultures, and vice-versa, all the way down to the granular level of families. The cultures at some companies are looser than at others. Likewise at schools and universities. Gelfand describes some of this conformity as a conformity of generally held opinions about the world, and tries to explain historical factors that account for the differences. But in the process—at least for this listener—her theory fails to hold.
At any rate, if you have the time, give it a listen or skim the transcript, both available at the link. There’s a bit more of interest in it than the cross-cultural comparisons I mention here: quite a bit more, in fact. And she does discuss exceptions to her theories, too, such as the relatively loose culture of Israel, as well as various American subcultures of enforced conformity or extreme looseness. I found it to be thought-provoking, even if it didn’t inspire me to obtain her book. It seems that she has identified something and given it a name, but it isn’t quite clear what it does.
Run-off management: another one of those government functions that should be a-political and have no trouble being properly funded. Science that is actually settled (water flows downhill, lots of water needs lots of run-off space) and could reasonably drive updated storm water maps and protect actual real people and their property - shucks, where's the fun in that?!
Italians do not appear to know what traffic signals are.
But the gelato is worthy dying for. Which you’ll do if you cross when the pedestrian light signals you may. 😳