The concept of culture has long been central to mission theory and practice. However, current understandings of culture can easily fall into one of two extremes: on the one hand, essentialist views of culture can easily lead to stereotyping, and on the other hand, extreme postcolonial cultural hybridization theories reject typologies of cultural differences altogether and tend to disregard empirical research on cultural differences. This article describes how to speak of cultural differences, including the use of typologies of cultural differences, without falling into these extremes. Five myths and seven recommendations regarding research and description of cultural differences are put forth.
AcheraïouA (2011) Questioning Hybridity, Postcolonialism and Globalization. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
2.
BrewerPVenaikS (2010) Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies41(8): 1294–1315.
3.
DavoodiTSoleyGHarrisPLBlakePR (2020) Essentialization of social categories across development in two cultures. Child Development91(1): 289–306.
4.
FougèreMMoulettesA (2007) The construction of the modern West and the backward rest: Studying the discourse of Hofstede’s culture’s consequences. Journal of Multicultural Discourses2(1): 1–19.
5.
GillespieAHowarthCSCornishF (2012) Four problems for researchers using social categories. Culture & Psychology18(3): 391–402.
6.
HanelPHPMaioGRMansteadASR (2019) A new way to look at the data: Similarities between groups of people are large and important. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology116(4): 541–62.
7.
HofstedeGHHofstedeGJMinkovM (2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
KimM-S (2007) Our culture, their culture and beyond: Further thoughts on ethnocentrism in Hofstede’s discourse. Journal of Multicultural Discourses2(1): 26–31.
9.
KompridisN (2005) Normativizing hybridity/neutralizing culture. Political Theory33 (3): 318–43.
10.
LiJWangLFischerKW (2004) The organisation of Chinese shame concepts?Cognition & Emotion18(6): 767–97.
11.
LingenfelterSGMayersMK (2016) Ministering Cross-culturally: A Model for Effective Personal Relationships, 3rd edition.Grand Rapids: Baker.
12.
McSweeneyB (2002) Hofstede’s “model of national cultural differences and consequences”: A triumph of faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations55(1): 89–118.
13.
Nederveen PieterseJ (2004) Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14.
PereiraMEEstramianaJLAGalloIS (2010) Essentialism and the expression of social stereotypes: A comparative study of Spain, Brazil and England. The Spanish Journal of Psychology13(2): 808–17.
15.
RezHKraemerMKobaysshi-WeinszieherR (2011) Warum Karl und Kiezo sich nerven: Eine Reise zum systematischen Verständnis interkultureller Missverständnisse. In KumbierDFiredmannSvonT (eds) Interkulturelle Kommunikation: Methoden, Modelle, Beispiele. Hamburg, Germany: Ro, Ro, Ro, pp. 28–72.
16.
RhodesMMandalaywalaTM (2017) The development and developmental consequences of social essentialism. WIREs: Cognitive Science8(4): 1–18.
17.
RynkiewichMA (2020) Mission in an increasingly mobile and complex world. International Bulletin of Mission Research44(4): 335–49.
18.
SignoriniPWiesemesRMurphyR (2009) Developing alternative frameworks for exploring intercultural learning: A critique of Hofstede’s cultural difference model. Teaching in Higher Education14(3): 253–64.
19.
Skovgaard-SmithIPoulfeltF (2018) Imagining “non-nationality”: Cosmopolitanism as a source of identity and belonging. Human Relations 71(2): 129–54.
20.
VenkateswaranRTOjhaAK (2019) Abandon Hofstede-based research? Not yet! A perspective from the philosophy of the social sciences. Asia Pacific Business Review25(3): 413–34.
