National Culture & Global Health

Evident from its delicious foods, rhythmic music, and historic architecture, Cartagena, Colombia is a city filled with life and a rich blend of African, European, and Native Indiana culture. Vendors line the crowded, narrow streets of the old city selling fresh fruits like mango, watermelon, uchuva, lulo, oranges, and granadilla.  Traditional dishes like fried fish with arroz de coco (coconut rice) and arepas con huevos (a deep fried cornmeal cake stuffed with egg and sometimes meat) can be found in many of the local restaurants.  Even on the hottest days, street vendors, residents, and tourists (who are usually the only one’s sweating) fill the streets.  Artists, musicians, and dancers often showcase their talents in the most populated areas. In areas where there are no parks, you can still watch children enjoying an intense game of soccer near the streets and shops.  Needless to say, the culture in the Colombian city of Cartagena appears to be very different from the culture in the United States city of Indiana.  Taken a step further, one could argue that the national culture of the United States varies from Colombia.  How would these cultural differences influence individual health in these two nations?

Several studies and frameworks have explored and attempted to explain the intersection of culture and health.  One framework that I find interesting is Hofstede’s (1980a) model of national culture.  Founded by a study conducted at IBM on 400 management trainees from approximately 300 countries, the model offers six dimensions of cultural difference at the national level (Hofstede, 2011).  The dimensions include: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, long/short term orientation, and indulgence/restraint.  Power distance represents the perceived inequality that exists within a country.  Uncertainty avoidance is connected to the amount of anxiety a nation experiences related to the unknown.  Individualism versus collectivism represents how connected individuals are to larger social groups.  Masculinity versus femininity is linked to the difference between the emotional roles of women and men.  Long term versus short term represents how much individuals are focused on the future or the present.  Finally, indulgence versus restraint is associated with human desire and the need for gratification and enjoyment.  For further illustration, I have included the link to a graph depicting how the United States rates on the six dimensions.  You can also look up and compare other countries:
http://geert-hofstede.com/united-states.html.

I think Hofstede’s model is an interesting framework that can be applied to many of the global health topics that we have discussed in class.  For example, How does the dimension of indulgence versus restraint influence issues of obesity?  Do countries that score high in indulgences versus restraint have higher rates of obesity?  I also think the dimension long- versus short-term orientation could potentially affect preventative behaviors.  If a culture is more focused on the present, they may be less concerned about exercising or eating foods that prevent cancer or heart disease.  Hofstede’s model could also be applied to health communication.  For example, developing interventions that focus on the community may be more important for nations that rate high for collectivism.  In contrast, perhaps, more individual focused interventions would be useful in high individualistic societies.  Overall, I think each of Hofstede’s dimensions offers us another way to examine global health.


References:

Hofstede, G. (1980a). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.  Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.   

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures:  The Hofstede model in context.  Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).

The Hofstede Center (2014).  Cultural tools: Country comparison.  http://geert-hofstede.com/united-states.html.  Accessed 11/26/2014.