Evolution of Evaluating Values

By: Shahab Sabahi, Policy Analyst in Energy Security and Policy Research Group

Empirical  evidence shows how social evolution changes worldviews and motivations in societies [The World Values Survey www.worldvaluessurvey.org ]. According to the results there are cross-national differences which are robust and enduring, and they are closely correlated with a society's level of economic development: people in low-income societies are much likelier to emphasize traditions than are people in rich countries. These values surveys demonstrate that the worldviews of people living in rich societies differ systematically from those of people living in low-income societies across a wide range of political and social norms. The differences run along two basic dimensions: traditional versus rational values and survival versus self-expression values.

Traditional societies emphasize religion, respect for and obedience to authority, and national pride. These characteristics change as societies become more rational.

 The shift from survival to self-expression values is linked to the rise of postindustrial societies. It reflects a cultural shift that occurs when younger generations emerge that have grown up taking survival for granted. Survival values give top priority to economic and physical security and conformist social norms. Self-expression values give high priority to freedom of expression, participation in decision-making, political activism, environmental protection, gender equality, and tolerance of ethnic minorities, foreigners, and gays and lesbians. These values create a culture of trust and tolerance in which people cherish individual freedom and self-expression. These attributes explain how economic growth, which takes societies from agrarian to industrial and then from industrial to postindustrial, leads to democratization. The unprecedented economic growth of the past 50 years has meant that an increasing share of the world's population has grown up taking survival for granted. Mass priorities have shifted from an overwhelming emphasis on economic and physical security to an emphasis on subjective well-being, self-expression, participation in decision-making, and a relatively trusting and tolerant outlook.

 

From Dualism to Triplism: The conflict of Tradition-Patriotism-Globalism

By: Shahab Sabahi, Policy Analyst in Energy Security and Policy Research Group

One of the characteristics of the ancient civilizations is their belief in the duality that underlies the essence of societies’ worldview. Societies, in general, have the fundamental belief in the conflict of good and evil, light and dark, or two eternal discordant forces. Indeed some civilizations had been constantly showing a permanent tendency for embracing dualism and sowed the seeds of dualism while there were such civilizations of Greece, Babel and Egypt revered polytheism and later middle eastern who practiced monotheism and broke away from dualism.

Monotheism had been founded on and the belief in the unique essence of God and spread throughout the world. The triumph of monotheism over dualism significantly shifted the traditional societies’ worldview. The people who had converted to the new belief had nonetheless preserved hidden or open sympathies and respect for their old faith. This enabled them to transmit the remainders of their old beliefs to the collective memory of future generations. Years after this shift, a culture came into being that was no longer tradition, but based on a synthetic patriotic-global-tradition value system. Although this culture discarded the philosophical duality that was the unifying origin of the traditional thought system, it replaced it with triplism. A new complex worldview equipped a primitive people with the means of overpowering an old kingdom, along with its massive social and political infrastructure.
The dualism required a source which could govern and distinguish between good and bad. It needed a purified mandate who could be appropriate authorities for being that source. They were assumed being wise in order to guide their subjects’ life-affairs and setting justice through societies. The simple logic of “suppression of the weak by the strong” had no longer valid.

With the emergence of the Modern Constitutional system and following the globalization, internal and external strife between “patriotism” and “globalization” and “traditions” was finally compelled to face the two diverging paths: on the one hand, it could not easily detach itself from a tradition firmly rooted in the long history of tension within the cultures. On the other hand, it could see the pleasing outlook of the modernity and international markets. The inescapable introduction of globalization with its values to the societies, and its unquestioned ascendancy over the contemporary world, added a complexity to the cultural mixture that threatened the society traditional identity. Subsequently, the pull toward the modernity and all aspects of modern life, in both thought and practice, has become so powerful that the confrontation between tradition and modernity shapes the discourse in developed and developing societies.

The conflict between modernity and tradition has been; and still; is tense at particular historical junctures.  Yet two conflicting political and social tendencies are at work. One is the endeavors in using a rational method suited to the political realities, and the other is the attempt to maintain the traditions for the sake of keep the nation united. It is evident that both of these tendencies display an extreme factional bias dissociated from collective rationality and the interests of people.

Once again, in the downturn of heydays of the late twenty century, this heritage of duplicity undoubtedly underlies the ease with which societies submit to two entirely divergent styles in life, administration, and interaction with one another.  One thoughtful idea will be needed to introduce new lifestyle without or at least less social status competitions; no matter it roots in traditions or modernity.  

Social norms resistance to change

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

Social norms are evolved inside societies. The norms are being defined by specific group of people who share values, world view, principles and perceptions of new ideas. The norms are formulated based on the group’s real time needs, experience from past and cultural beliefs. When real time needs cannot be satisfied and societies cannot effectively adapt to new external forces, trust fades away from the effectiveness of norms. Frustration among the members of societies grows and pushes the societies to their limits. Society so often comes to a standstill. The phenomenon is so-called ideological trap happens. This situation drafts society from realm of realities and disables it to adapt to new contexts. To solve the issues, some members of society are basing their arguments on society’s glories in the past and strongly support a backward move to re-establish the old system structures. Among this group, some project the data in the past into future with taking into account the real time boundary conditions, and prescribe some sort of short term solutions. There is a group who looks for solutions out of the norms and view the norms themselves as obstacles for solving problems. They, at least in part, do not deny the dynamism of norms. But they believe the norms should be changed in the means to address the real time needs. Those of them who are radical reject the importance of norms dynamics and moderates keep searching for better norms to replace. The moderates usually fail to explain how society’s norms changes occur. What is the driving force behind the changes? What is the cost of the changes?          

Creating norm changes is triggered by changing the mindset of society’s population. Social progress requires a radical shift in society’s dominant value system and review the validity of the existing objectives in accordance with the new defined values. Norm change does not necessarily require breaking with the past. Infant norms rest over the outgoing ones and being consistent with the past. Shifting mindsets requires more than rational arguments and should bring about clear visions of a better life (Purpose) and are inspired to pursue it (Passion).

Norm change is a hard task. It requires a whole society commitment. It takes a big deal of time and has losers and winners. However it is unavoidable. Smart societies recognize realities and take action to change their value systems prior to external forces compel them to admit the changes