Page 36 - Cultures and Organizations

The Rules of the Social Game 21

that had developed during the preceding three centuries. In this colonial
period the technologically advanced countries of Western Europe divided
among themselves virtually all territories of the globe that were not held
by another strong political power. The borders between the former colo-

nial nations still reflect the colonial legacy. In Africa in particular, most
national borders correspond to the logic of the colonial powers rather than
to the cultural dividing lines of the local populations.
Nations, therefore, should not be equated to societies. Societies are
historically, organically developed forms of social organization. Strictly
speaking, the concept of a common culture applies to societies, not to
nations. Nevertheless, many nations do form historically developed wholes
even if they consist of clearly different groups and even if they contain less
integrated minorities.
Within nations that have existed for some time there are strong forces
toward further integration: (usually) one dominant national language, com-
mon mass media, a national education system, a national army, a national
political system, national representation in sports events with a strong
symbolic and emotional appeal, a national market for certain skills, prod-
ucts, and services. To day’s nations do not attain the degree of internal
homogeneity of the isolated, usually nonliterate societies studied by fi eld
anthropologists, but they are the source of a considerable amount of com-
mon mental programming of their citizens. 17
On the other hand, there remains a tendency for ethnic, linguistic,

and religious groups to fight for recognition of their own identity, if not
for national independence; this tendency has been increasing rather than
decreasing since the 1960s. Examples are the Ulster Roman Catholics; the
Belgian Flemish; the Basques in Spain and France; the Kurds in Iran, Iraq,
Syria, and Turkey; the ethnic groups of former Yugoslavia; the Hutu and
Tutsi tribes in Rwanda; and the Chechens in Russia.

In research on cultural differences, nationality—the passport one
holds—should therefore be used with care. Yet it is often the only fea-

sible criterion for classification. Rightly or wrongly, collective properties
are ascribed to the citizens of certain countries: people refer to “typically
American,” “typically German,” and “typically Japanese” behavior. Using
nationality as a criterion is a matter of expediency, because it is immensely
easier to obtain data for nations than for organic homogeneous societies.
Nations as political bodies supply all kinds of statistics about their popula-
tions. Survey data (that is, the answers people give on paper-and-pencil