54 © 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved CULTURE AND SECURITY RELATIONS ON THE BASIS OF HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE Nizamettin Doğar1 1The Turkish Land Forces Command, PhD., Ankara, Turkey ABSTRACT Aim of this paper is to find out answers to the questions; if culture has an effect on security, and the way of relations between personal and national security after 9/11. Hofstede’s cultural perspective is used for the research and individualism- collectivism dimension is applied. Results show that there is a strong relation between culture and security and also there is a transformation in security perception after 9/11, pointing out a direction from personal security to national security. Keywords: Culture, Security, Hofstede, Individualism-collectivism, 9/11 attacks. Received: 30 April 2016/ Revised: 11 May 2016/ Accepted: 17 May 2016/ Published: 23 May 2016 Contribution/ Originality This study is one of very few studies which have investigated culture - security relations from Hofstede’s cultural perspective and effect of 9/11 attacks on security paradigms. By using Hofstede’s individualism- collectivism dimension to search for the relations between culture and security, paper makes an important contribution to literature. 1. INTRODUCTION There are two different perspectives of culture. One points the geography and characteristics of human living in the geography. The other consist of styles, behaviour, etc. stressing culture as an instrument of problem solving, way of life etc. This paper will use first perspective of culture. Social life needs to be understood in the context of rules, norms and structures and that provide parts of its coherence and, often, its regularities. But there is a question if culture a domain of rules † Corresponding author and norms that directly governs or determines the actions of agents? If so, then questions are how these cultural structures are translated into individual actions (Williams, 2007) what are the effects to social life, what are the relations between agents and person? Surely my intention is not to answer all questions above. But taking into consideration the effects of culture on the different agents of society as general, and getting this perspective as an initial point, this paper will discuss culture and security relations on the basis of two topics: 1. Culture - security relations? 2. Effect of 9/11 attacks on personal and national security paradigms? 2. CULTURE Culture is a social product. It can not obtain from birth, does not inherited. It is the result of interaction of people and sum of learned behaviours (Özkalp and Zıllıoğlu, 1983). It is transmitted through the process of learning Humanities and Social Sciences Letters 2016 Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 54-61 ISSN(e): 2312-4318 ISSN(p): 2312-5659 DOI: 10.18488/journal.73/2016.4.2/73.2.54.61 © 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.18488/journal.73/2016.4.2/73.2.54.61 Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2016, 4(2): 54-61 55 © 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved and interacting with one’s environment, rather than through the geneticprocess. It can be thought of as a storehouse of all the knowledge of a society and passed on from one generation to another within a society (Ferraro, 2002). As we noticed all the definitions emphasize the “after learned” character of culture. At the beginnig everyone is equal, then family and social circumstance shape the person as a part of culture. Pointing about another perspective of culture, House et al. (2002) emphasizes the distinguishing characteristic of culture. They express societies have evolved into groups with distinguishable characteristics that set them apart from other groups. That means even if inside of the society there exists different cultural groups. Culture is a combination of values depicting societies’ identity and showing who and what the society is. Since it includes; codes of society and learned behaviour, it has a characteristics to improve permanently. When we mention identity it is needed to highlight that among many other characteristics, ethnicity and nationality are prominent parts of identity. They are often forged through history and are quite closely related to territory (Kaba, 2012). Geert Hofstede is well known for his pioneering research on cross-cultural groups and organizations. He states that culture is “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another (Hofstede, 1980). His most notable work has been in developing cultural dimensions theory, and in this research I am going to use his perspective. In his original study Hofstede used an existing data bank from a large multinational business corporation (IBM), covering matched populations of employees in national subsidiaries in 64 countries. Survey questionnaires collected between 1967 and 1973 (Hofstede, 1980). As a result, the structure evealed by the IBM data consisted of four largely independent dimensions of differences among national value systems. These were labelled "power distance" (large vs. small), "uncertainty avoidance" (strong vs. weak), "individualism" vs. "collectivism" and "masculinity" vs. "femininity” (Hofstede et al., 1990). In the 1980s, a fifth dimension “Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation” (Hofstede and Bond, 1988) and in the 2000’s, a sixth dimension “Indulgence versus Restraint” was added (Hofstede and Minkov, 2010). In order to focus on culture security relations, it is needed to understand Hofstede’s perspective. So I am going to give a summary/description of six dimensions: 2.1. Power Distance It is related to the different solutions to the basic problem of human inequality (Hofstede, 2011). In high power distance cultures, individuals respect their superiors and avoid criticizing them. In low power distance countries, it is very acceptable to challenge superiors, albeit with respect (Bergiel et al., 2012). 2.2. Individualism – Collectivism Reflects the degree to which a society views its members as individuals or as group members (Hofstede, 1984). In a collectivist culture, the interest of the group prevails over the interest of the individual. People are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups that continue throughout a lifetime to protect in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (Hofstede, 1997). In individualist cultures such as the United States, for example, when meeting a new person, you want to know what that person does. You tend to define people by what they have done, their accomplishments, what kind of car they drive, or where they live. Individualist cultures are more remote and distant. 2.3. Masculinity – Femininity Masculinity described as cultures where the dominant values are expected to be ambitious, assertive, and competitive. In contrast, in cultures high in femininity there is a dominance of feminine values such as preference for “friendly atmosphere, position security, physical conditions [and] security” (Hofstede, 2001). Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2016, 4(2): 54-61 56 © 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved 2.4. Uncertainty Avoidance It is related to the level of stress in a society in the face of an unknown future (Hofstede, 2011). Cultures high in uncertainty avoidance are made anxious by situations that are unstructured, unclear, or unpredictable. On the other hand, cultures low in uncertainty avoidance are reflective, less aggressive, relatively tolerant, and unemotional (Bergiel et al., 2012). 2.5. Long-Term Orientation Long Term versus Short Term Orientation, related to the choice of focus for people's efforts; the future or the present and past (Hofstede, 2011). Long term is related with future values while short term related with past and now (Hofstede and Bond, 1984). 2.6. Indulgence Versus Restraint Known from literature on “happiness research”. Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint stands for a society that controls gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms. Indulgence tends to prevail in South and North America, in Western Europe and in parts of Sub-Sahara Africa. Restraint prevails in Eastern Europe, in Asia and in the Muslim world. Mediterranean Europe takes a middle position on this dimension (Hofstede, 2011). 3. SECURITY Security is a core value of human life (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1990). Insecurity is associated with war and the threat of war; security is associated with peace and stability. Because security is a necessary precursor for human life it is a fundamental good in itself, both a personal good and a political good. Security is the most basic of all human values. It is the foundation upon which we build our individual and collective lives (Preece, 2011). In his famous research Moslow focused the needs of human on the basis of a hierarchy. In his research known as “hierarchy of needs” he confirms that security is the second basic need of human as shown in below (Maslow, 1954). Diagram-1. Moslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Source: Maslow (1954). Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2016, 4(2): 54-61 57 © 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved In terms of security, level of relations between person and state is an ongoing discussion coming from history and it must be discussed. Generally cultural, traditional and religion based assessments depicted the way of relations. Especially law oriented conflicts and discussions strengthened the position of individual or state sometimes sacrificing one of them. Discussions coming from middle ages – for example Hobbes’ Leviathan dating back to 1651 - focuses on the topic from personnel perspective. According to him Renaissance’s indivudualism must be carry out to next level as national individualism. For him person can be free but not secure. He rejects sacrifed state notion. For him, it is the duty of state to maintain personal security (Hobbes, 2007). In 20th. century same perspective is expressed by Karl Popper. For him “all the fenomens belong to society, especially proceeding of all social instutions must be understood as a product of personal perspective, actions and behaviours. And any explanation from a collectivist perspective could not be accepted” (Popper, 2013). Security paradigm is not out of this discussion either. And personal – national security perception became a dominant factor beginning with Cold War period. 4. SECURITY OF STATE AND SECURITY OF PERSON It is easier to talk about security from two perspectives. First is description of security, second applications and results. And when we talk about security according to results, conflict and prioritizing of personal or national security is important. In other words when we talk about security, we must clarify balance and relations between two. According to Preece (2011) personal security is an essential precondition for human flourishing. It frees people to pursue their own interests, goals, ambitions etc. without the fear of harm by others”. On the other hand, security of the state refers to a state’s ability to protect itself from external dangers and menaces; for example, intervention, blockade, invasion, destruction, occupation, or some other harmful interference by a hostile foreign power or terrorist group (Preece, 2011). Main goal of security for individual is to preserve the rights of person while for state it is to prevent hostile actions against to state. 5. METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION Ural and Kılıç (2013) claims that researches trying to find the reality and to understand the current problem are called as descriptive researches. Paper tries to to find the current culture-security relations by using amprical inputs and also tries to understand the effect of 9/11 on culture and security relations. So paper uses descripive research methodology. Stemming from previous discussions and literature I will focus on relations between culture and security via two hypothesis. Hypothesis-1: There is a strong relation between culture and security. Hypothesis-2: 9/11 attacks effected security paradigms resulting with a transformation from personel security to national security. Discussion mainly will be on two countries and two cultures. US is an individualistic culture while China is collectivist as shown in Figure-1. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2016, 4(2): 54-61 58 © 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved Figure-1. Cultural Dimension Scores of United States and China. Source: Hofstede et al. (2010). Hofstede (2001). US has an individualism score 91 out of 100. As we know from literature individualistic cultures have characteristics such as dominance of individual achievement and career. So, question is US’s high individualism score is valid for security perception or not? In other words is there a correlation between culture and security in US example? To answer the question I am going to give two examples from US. Population of US is around 320 million and “the best estimates are that there are about 300 million guns in the United States, or an average of about one gun for every resident (www.washingtonpost.com/, Retrieved on 20 December 2015). This is really too much showing an important security perspective. First is the willingness of population to have a gun to secure himself/herself, second is the tolerance of government (with laws) for the sake of personal security. On this point it is logical to assert that person and nation has consensus on personal security paradigm in US. Second example is the government’s perspective. As I mentioned above, importance of personal security is not only an individual concern in US but also a government concern. As the 1995 Annual Report of the Secretary of Defense emphasizes one of the two main objectives of government is “…the protection of people lives and personal safety, both at home and abroad (Perry, 1995). So in an individualistic country personal security is important not only from individual perspective, but also from governmental perspective as well. And if anyone has doubt about the US example, think about Great Britain (has an individualistic score 89) and France (has a score 71) via their security applications on personal and national. On the other hand, belonging to a group and collective awereness is more important in collectivist cultures. China is one of the most collectivist countries having a score of 20 in individualism that means her collectivism score is 80 out of 100 (Figure-1) in Hofstede’s research. In collectivist cultures, collective benefit is more important than personal. Belonging to a group is the main instinct in the society and people can give up from their personal rights for the sake of government/society. Everything planned according to collective benefit, including personal security area. In other terms, it is national security that domains the security area. Surely there are a lot of examples, but I will again focus on two examples in China. First, China adopted a sweeping national security law on 1 July 2015. Importance of law is it sets an expansive definition of national security that outlaws threats to China’s government, sovereignty and national unity as well as its economy, society, and cyber and space interests. Additionally, law has a characteristics of repression of civil-society groups, heightened monitoring of social media, and sharpened warnings against the spread of Western ideas and influences (www.wsj.com/, Retrieved on 31 March 2016). Named Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2016, 4(2): 54-61 59 © 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved as “cybersecurity law” it could lead to slower internet connections and disclosure of source codes, etc. And according to a diplomat to China “In China the notion of national security [covers] a very wide range - from culture, technology, food safety up to religion. You can hardly find a field that is not relevant to national security concerns." (Chen, 2015) showing the China’s security perspective. Additionally, government’s expressions that “law is for to protect people” shows the again culture’s security perspective that is on the nation side. Second example is the country’s internet prohibitions that is famous all around the world. I mean China’s “Great Firewall” internet censorship system that is the biggest in the World, showing national security is ahead of personal one. It is possible to assert that China’s application are not only related with culture but lack of democracy and a system problem. Some part of assertion is true but what about Iran, Russia or Egypt? They all are collectivist countries (Table-1) and we can not deny they all have security implementations that is imposing national security for the detriment of person. Table-1. Collectivism Scores of Iran, Russia and Egypt Country Collectivism Score Iran 59 Russia 61 Egypt 75 Source: Hofstede et al. (2010). Hofstede (2001). Understood from discussions we can assert that culture is strongly correlated with security perception in terms of individualistic and collectivist dimensions of Hofstede. In other terms, in individualistic countries personal security is importantly balanced with national security. On the other hand, collectivist countries have national security that has an important effect on security paradigms. So Hypothesis-1 is accepted. Second discussion point is the effect of 9/11 attacks on national and personal security paradigms. This discussion will be on again US and some European countries. But before that it is important to emphasize the effect of 9/11 on world politics and security paradigms. With the 9/11 attack, threat assessment was defined again. The world focused on terrorism and asymmetric threats (Topcu, 2010). The use of the phrase “war on terrorism,” first used by George Bush on September 20, 2001 (www.theguardian.com/, Retrieved on 05 September 2015) and new type of combat and security perception were defined (Doğar, 2016). According to US officials “… public discussion of American interests changed dramatically with 9/11, the interests themselves have changed little, if at all. In particular, security of the homeland and the safety of the American population were always vital national interests even before the 2001 attacks (Perry, 1995). But 9/11 terrorist attacks are a breakingpoint for security paradigms for US. “The attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade towers, transformed the grand strategy debate and led to a sweeping reevaluation of American security policy” (Biddle, 2005). Beginning from this date, it is obvious that national security emerged for the detriment of personal security. New regulations began to demolish personal security and freedom area. Increasing degree of NSA’s interruptions to personal area for the sake of national security is a known reality. Similar implementations are valid in England, in France after Paris attacks. We have seen Italian soldiers in the streets of Rome after ISIS threat, and Belgians in Brussels. So beginning from 9/11, security perceptions/applications transformed from personal to national security with the effect of terrorism threat. And transformation continues as understood from the latest examples. So Hypothesis-2 is accepted. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2016, 4(2): 54-61 60 © 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved 6. CONCLUSION In this paper we discussed the relations between culture and security. Absolutely all the assertions and conclusions are not only related with culture because societies have a lot of dynamics shaping the population, such as regime, way of leadership, quality of democracy, background of society, level of wealthiness, etc. But after the discussions and examples it is difficult to ignore the correlation between culture and security. Hofstede’s cultural perspective is used and “individualism-collectivism” dimension is focused in the research. Mainly two big countries - US and China- chosen as examples, some other countries added to support the thesis. Results show that culture has strong relations with security from the point of Hofstede’s individualism- collectivism dimension. Individualistic cultures have the security perception and applications focuse on personal security while collectivist cultures on national security. Secondly, research shows that 9/11 terrorist attacks effected security paradigms. After the attacks there is a transfromation from personal security to national security and latest developments show that transformation continues. By using Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism cultural dimension to search for the relations between culture and security, paper makes an important contribution to literature. Further researches that will discuss culture security relations from all dimensions of Hofstede’s perspective will add valuable contribution to literature. Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this paper. REFERENCES Bergiel, E.B., B.J. Bergiel and J.W. Upson, 2012. Revisiting hofstede’s dimensions: Examining the cultural convergence of the United States and Japan. American Journal of Management, 12(1): 69-79. Biddle, S.D., 2005. American grand strategy after 9/11: An assessment, strategic studies institute. U.S: Army War College. Chen, A., 2015. China's sweeping national security law sparks uncertainty for foreign firms, diplomacy & defence, published 09 July 2015, Updated : 10 July, 2015. Doğar, N., 2016. Security-welfare dilemma from a strategic management perspective: The Albanian case. Journal of Military and Information Science, 4(2): 67-79. Ferraro, G.P., 2002. The cultural dimension of international business. 4th Edn., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Printice Hall. Hobbes, T., 2007. Leviathan veya Bir Din ve Dünya Devletinin İçeriği, Biçimi ve Kudreti, Kazım Taşkent Klasik Yapıtlar Dizisi, Translated by: Semih Lim, YKY İstanbul, 6th Edition, January 2007. Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage. Hofstede, G., 1984. The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 9(3): 389–398. Hofstede, G., 1997. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. 1st Edn., USA: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd Edn., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G., 2011. Dimensionalizing cultures: The hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1): 1-26. Hofstede, G. and M.H. Bond, 1984. Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach's value survey. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 15(4): 417-433. Hofstede, G. and M.H. Bond, 1988. The confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4): 4–21. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2016, 4(2): 54-61 61 © 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved Hofstede, G., G.J. Hofstede and M. Minkov, 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Revised and expanded. 3rd Edn., New York: McGraw-Hill USA. Hofstede, G. and M. Minkov, 2010. Long- versus short-term orientation: New perspectives. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(4): 493–504. Hofstede, G., B. Neuijen, D.D. Ohayv and G. Sanders, 1990. Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2): 286-316. House, R., M. Javidan, P. Hanges and P. Dorfman, 2002. Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project globe. Journal of World Business, 37(1): 3-10. Kaba, I., 2012. The role of identity perceptions on security: The Western Balkans case, Linköping university faculty of arts and sciences department of management and engineering Master in international and European relations. Master Thesis, Linköping. Maslow, A.H., 1954. Motivation and personality, copyright © 1954 by Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Copyright © 1970 by Abraham H. Maslow reprinted from the english Edition by Harper & Row, Publishers 1954. Available from http://s-f- walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Motivation_and_Personality-Maslow.pdf. Özkalp, E. and M. Zıllıoğlu, 1983. Davranış Bilimlerine Giriş. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları. Yayın No: 18. Perry, W.J., 1995. Secretary of defense. Annual Report to the President and the Congress, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1.9. Popper, K.R., 2013. Açık Toplum ve Düşmanları. (Translated by Gurol Irzık.), 2: 94. Preece, J.J., 2011. Security in international relations IR3140, 2790140 2011. The University of London International Programmes Publications Office Stewart House 32 Russell Square London WC1B 5DN United Kingdom. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1990. The concise Oxford dictionary. 8th Edn., Oxford: Clarendon Press. Topcu, M.K., 2010. Savunma planlamasının ekonomiye etkileri ve savunma bütçeleri. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1): 75-96. Ural, A. and İ. Kılıç, 2013. Bilimsel Araştırma Süreci ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık. Williams, M.C., 2007. Culture and security: Symbolic power and the politics of international security, first published 2007 by Routledge, simultaneously. New York, NY 10016: USA and Canada by Routledge. BIBLIOGRAPHY http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa13. [Accessed 05 September 2015]. http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-adopts-sweeping-national-security-law-1435757589. [Accessed 31 March 2016]. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/14/cbs-news-florida-has-a-staggering-10-2-guns- for-every-1000-residents/. [Accessed 20 December 2015]. Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Humanities and Social Sciences Letters shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Motivation_and_Personality-Maslow.pdf http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Motivation_and_Personality-Maslow.pdf http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa13 http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-adopts-sweeping-national-security-law-1435757589 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/14/cbs-news-florida-has-a-staggering-10-2-guns-for-every-1000-residents/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/14/cbs-news-florida-has-a-staggering-10-2-guns-for-every-1000-residents/