Abstract
What we witness with the development of the global economy is not increasing uniformity, in the form of a universalization of Western culture, but rather the continuation of civilizational diversity through the active reinvention and reincorporation of non-Western civilizational patterns.
History has not ended (Fukuyama, 1992; Haas & Omura, 2022). The Euro-American political, economic, and social system seems not to be the one-size-fits-all model welcomed by all people. Promoting Western values and solutions as the “human development syndrome” (Inglehart & Oyserman, 2004) seems like cultural colonialism. Also, we are not doomed to a clash of civilizations (Huntington, 1993). Our diversified cultural and religious identities do not have to be the source of endless conflicts. The vast majority of societies enjoy peaceful coexistence with other—culturally different—societies.
When working on this Special Section, we anticipated that neither homogenization (no matter whether voluntary or forced) nor a clash of civilizations are the “plan” for the future. Instead, we believe people can develop and flourish in various indigenously defined ways, as they always have. We—humanity—can peacefully coexist on the basis of diverse social models; we can culturally “specialize” our societies. Cultural differences may be the source of mutual inspirations, and we can learn from each other. Our models of development are already embedded in our traditions, and in our efforts to progress, we can follow different pathways encompassed by prioritizing different ideals.
Scandinavians may have a different vision for their societies than the Japanese. In turn, these two systems may differ from American or Chinese models. And that is fine. We do not have to homogenize. To acknowledge culturally diversified pathways of development, in this Special Section, we endorse the idea that societal development shall be conceptualized and studied in a culturally sensitive (CS) way (Krys et al., 2020). Idealistic? Yes. Possible? All solutions recognized today as standards—human rights, universal recognition of human dignity, decolonization, democracy, welfare states, or limiting extreme poverty and hunger, and so on—seemed difficult to attain at certain points of human history. We, the editors of this special section, prefer to think of such solutions as progressive and to assume that it is our—scientists, philosophers, lay intellectuals, and ultimately policy makers—task to bring these ideas into reality. The current special section is a small incremental step in this direction.
The Simplified History of Societal Development Paradigms
The history of societal development can be briefly described as the transformation from the so-called Malthusian world, which was guided by militarism, to the era of economization (see Table 1). This transformation seems to be a “success story.” To mention only one indicator, in just the last 50 years—since economization dominated societal development discourse—life expectancy has increased from 50 to more than 70 years globally. As of 2019 (pre-COVID-19 pandemic), there was no single country with a life expectancy below 50, and it was below 60 in only 6% of countries. This has been achieved due to economic progress, accompanying technological advancement, and enlightenment ideals serving as a compass. The above numbers can and should improve even further (in countries that still face poverty), but one can conclude that humanity, as of the 2020s, has managed to secure the basic needs of the vast majority of people, which was not the case when militarization was the guiding principle.
Brief and Simplified History of Societal Development Paradigms.
Note. GDP = gross domestic product.
Now, with basic needs seemingly secured (but also due to the growing body of research that documents the drawbacks of the current economic paradigm [Balestra et al., 2018; Stiglitz et al., 2009; van den Bergh, 2009; Victor, 2013]), the existing paradigm may need to be gradually replaced by a new one that will suit the challenges of societal development in the 21st century. What should be the next aim of societal development in the post-materialistic world? If universal basic needs are satisfied, then the next step could be the satisfaction of higher needs and the fostering of a good life. However, there is no universal one-size-fits-all way of living a good life. Depending on the cultural context, the concept of a “good life” has various meanings. Thus, the new development paradigm may need to let societies follow their own vision of a good life and flourish in their own indigenously defined ways.
The Idea of Cultural Sensitivity in Brief
In the CS paradigm, we propose to acknowledge that (1) there is no one-size-fits-all way of developing societies and (2) societal development should be conceptualized in a way that lets societies reflect their own indigenous vision of development (unless this vision threatens the well-being of other societies or groups within a society).
Throughout the ages, the potential of a society equated to its military power. This changed 70 years ago, when economic power became the main barometer of strength. In the CS idea, we propose that the key to societal flourishing in the 21st century is social powers. However, unlike uniform military and economic powers, social powers are culturally diverse. One can imagine that North American societies will guide their societal development toward different ideals (e.g., personal freedom and self-expression) than Europe (e.g., social security and comfort of life), Confucian Asia (e.g., social cohesion), Latin America (e.g., joyful and vibrant social life), or Africa (spirituality?). Moreover, societies within each region may have their own vision of ideal social power (e.g., Norwegian society may differ from Swedish, and Costa Rican from Panamanian).
If simple explanations are needed, please think of the CS idea as being like democratization of societal development dispute and processes. By now, this discussion mostly follows a top-down scheme. If the ideals of democracy remain unappealing to you, you can think of the CS idea in terms of the responsibility to guide a society according to what is good for your people. CS may become a pivotal tool for a good and caring ruler.
For a more comprehensive introduction to the CS idea, please consider reading our CS “theoretical manifesto” (Krys et al., 2020), our explanations on how to implement the CS idea to measures of societal happiness (Krys, Haas, et al., 2022), or our preliminary CS study introduction to folk theorizing on societal development (Krys, Capaldi, et al., 2022).
An Overview of the Special Section
“CS is a great idea, but I do not know how to contribute” was a common response we received from researchers invited to contribute to this Special Section. We are at the beginning of building the foundations of the CS idea. Six teams produced materials that we consider worth publishing.
Three papers took an empirical approach. Akalyiski (2022) shows that the distinct structure of freedom aspirations in East Asia and the West likely underpins the separate trajectories of societal development in these two currently hegemonic cultural circles. Klackl and collaborators (2022) compare the prevalence of the WEIRD folk theory of social change in the West and Asia. The team of well-being economists assembled around Yin (Yin et al., 2022) illustrates that the relation between subjective well-being and the Human Development Index (HDI) is culturally diverse. They conclude that the three HDI components only matter equally in Western and rich countries, which could serve as another warning that the current alternatives to gross domestic product (GDP) seem fine-tuned to Western societies.
Three other papers lay theoretical foundations. Thomas and Markus (2022) employ the (seminal in psychology) theory of cultural models of selfhood (Markus and Kitayama, Vignoles) to highlight how the current models of development are guided by the Western model of selfhood. To make their critique constructive, Thomas and Markus explain how models of interdependent agency can be productively integrated into development programs in the non-Western world. Badaan and Choucair (2022) discuss cultural sensitivity in development agendas and suggest “utopian thinking” as a bottom-up research device to tap into the social imaginary about development. Finally, Berry (2022) adopts two perspectives—functionalism and universalism—to explain how CS development, when viewed within this conceptual nexus, is not a “one size fits all” approach, but one that is rooted in, and can meet, both local and global needs and concerns.
Looking Forward
Our appetites are growing. This Special Section is not enough as it only prepares the groundwork for laying the foundations of the CS idea.
Preparing the methodology for a CS development paradigm and indices may seem challenging, but we believe it is worth the effort. On the example of the currently dominant economic paradigm, elaboration of the methodology for calculating GDP took decades, and many studies before it became a “universal” index that translates societal progress into numbers. GDP methodology has also evolved: the first version of an international standard system of national accounts (i.e., the GDP measurement manual) was published in 1953, and has since undergone several major revisions. A similar manual that guides our societies could be imagined for a CS paradigm and indices of societal development, and the current section in JCCP will hopefully be a step that stimulates efforts in this direction.