Culture and Development

While most economists remain locked in a historical tug-of-war—cycling between the worship of Zeus (the market) and Prometheus (the state), each following either the whims of a mad king or the decrees of the temple priests—sociologists and anthropologists have consistently emphasized the importance of harmony for any functional social organization (Hobhouse, 1922; Midgley, 2003; Hodgson, 1997; Hodgson & Knudsen, 2004; Heiner, 1983; Callon, 1998; WCCD, 1996; UNESCO, 1997; Rosman et al., 2009, and others). Their central argument is captured well in this quote from the World Commission on Culture and Development (WCCD, 1996, p. 48): “Development divorced from its human or cultural context is development without a soul.”

 

We shouldn’t overstate their importance—they often resemble old men who keep insisting that the sun of their youth was warmer than the sun of today. They are the high priests of the Egyptian god Amon, who granted order through Ma’at—the moral force that upheld the divine rule of kings and the stability of Egypt in a chaotic world. These thinkers argue that Ma’at is the only path to paradise beneath the earth. Egypt, they insist, was heaven, while the rest of the world staggered under darkness and disorder. This view is clearly expressed in a synthesis by UNESCO (1997, pp. 45–46):

 

“Tradition represents a medium-term between the long-term perspective of ecological evolution and the short-term perspective of human desire for progress and change. As such, it constitutes an essential store of knowledge about the relationship between human beings and their environment… Culture, then, is the vital intermediary between the finite perspective of the individual... and the fabulously complex order hidden beneath the apparent chaos of nature… If development is to be sustained for the benefit of future generations, it will need not only the wisdom of past generations, but also the impersonal wisdom with which tradition unfolds…”

When Egypt is the only world you know, it’s not difficult to accept the stagnant rhythm of survival as a way of life. These cultural advocates warn us not to tamper with tradition. Like the high priests of Thebes, they caution against disturbing ancient wisdom, threatening catastrophe not only in this life but also in the afterlife—here, the future generations. “Respect Ma’at or perish,” they proclaim. It may sound absurdly impractical, and often it is—but beneath their simplicity lies enduring wisdom. Let us first appreciate that wisdom, before uncovering the absurdity.

 

Humans are not endowed with a multipurpose rational mind. True multipurpose rationality would require a universal deductive capacity that we do not possess. The evidence is overwhelming across disciplines (Cimoli et al., 2006; Arrow, 1969; Hodgson, 2007; Nelson, 2006; Simon, 1962, 1985; Kahneman & Tversky, 1982; Cosmides & Tooby, 1994a, 1994b, 1996, and many others). It’s amusing to see Einstein portrayed in films as an omniscient genius, or to hear people say, “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist,” as if expertise in one field equates to all-around intelligence. Brooks (2008, p. 1) humorously illustrates this misconception:

 

“I am standing in the magnificent lobby of the Hotel Metropole in Brussels, watching three Nobel laureates struggle with the elevator… I like to think of scientists as being on top of things, able to explain the world… But maybe that’s just a comforting delusion.”

 

Nobel laureates may be brilliant in their domain, but they’re not necessarily adept at everyday problems. Our minds are not general-purpose logic engines. Perfect rationality is a myth. Yet in our imperfect world, the kind of mind we do possess is remarkably effective (Cosmides & Tooby, 1994a, 1994b, 1996). Rather than searching for universal solutions—which would demand more knowledge, memory, and processing energy than we have—we look for context-specific strategies.

 

Consider the process of starting a business. If you attempt to plan for every contingency, you'll never begin. You lack all the information, capacity, and energy to foresee everything. Trying to do so leads only to paralysis. Instead, you begin somewhere, and through a process of feedback and refinement—thinking, experiencing, adjusting—you move forward. But where do you begin?

 

In practice, we use rules of thumb to estimate which paths are more promising. If the current problem resembles one encountered before, then experience and culture guide the selection process. As Simon (1962, p. 472) observed:

 

“Problem solving requires selective trial and error… human problem solving, from the most blundering to the most insightful, involves nothing more than varying mixtures of trial and error and selectivity.”

 

Most of our problem-solving follows this model: means-to-end analysis. We identify a desirable outcome, then reverse-engineer a path to achieve it. When you first encounter a complex model, you don’t grasp every part rationally—unless you’re already an expert. You start with a rough understanding. Over time, through effort and exposure, your comprehension deepens. You might eventually revise or reject the model entirely—but only after step-by-step engagement.

 

However, our inability to think through every scenario becomes a liability in social life. A single set of information can be interpreted in vastly different ways. Beyond informational imperfections, the imperfections of knowledge itself can breed confusion and conflict (Mezgebo, 2014). To manage this, our thinking must be narrowed—limited to shared frameworks. Some of this narrowing is biological—what Steven Pinker (1997) calls the hardware of the mind. But much of it is cultural and experiential (Hodgson, 1997; Heiner, 1983; Callon, 1998; Hodgson & Knudsen, 2004).

 

Biology supplies the hardware, but culture provides the software. Biology tells us to eat, but culture tells us what’s edible. One person relishes a rat stew, while another gags at the thought. The reaction feels instinctive—but it’s cultural conditioning at work.

 

A vivid example of culture’s role in shaping cognition is the case of the Wild Boy of Aveyron (Cayea, 2006). Discovered in 18th-century France after growing up with no human contact, he behaved more like an animal than a person. He never acquired human language, and despite years of scientific effort, he failed to develop beyond basic social skills. Biology may offer us potential, but without culture and experience, it remains unrealized. Culture shapes how we think and what goals we pursue.

 

Culture and experience teach us what is rational or irrational, moral or immoral, fair or unfair. They shape our notions of virtue, vice, purpose, and perversion. By framing our understanding, culture simplifies the social world and enables harmony.

 

For society to function harmoniously, there must be shared understandings—norms, values, morals, and ethical systems that define both how people think and what they pursue in life. Rousseau (1762) called this the “general will.” Ibn Khaldun (1978) referred to it as “group feeling.” It is a powerful tool that helps guide individuals toward social goals by shaping both their mental framework and their conception of self. Clark (1918, p. 12) put it well:

 

“He can make nothing out of the world that the world does not first make out of him… He is at the mercy of whatever system he happens to be born into for creating, transmitting, and directing stimuli.”

 

Does this mean we can mold people however we wish? Some, like McCloskey (1987, 2002) and Skinner (1972), thought so. But there is strong evidence against the idea of a “blank slate” mind (Cosmides & Tooby, 1994a, 1994b, 1996). In truth, any system of identity, culture, or morality must remain compatible with human biology to be sustainable. Still, the mind is elastic enough to host a wide range of cultural diversity—as long as it enhances fitness in the long run (Mezgebo, 2014).

 

What society can indeed shape is our definition of self, using the principle of extended identity. A person who identifies as a patriot serves the nation. A scientist chases truth. A football fan lives and dies by the team's score. A humanist seeks to advance human dignity. Identity shapes goals. Culture and experience then generate the associated norms, values, and beliefs to form a cohesive society. In short, both society and individual experience program our minds and direct our lives (Mezgebo, 2014).

 

This has major advantages. We don’t need constant coercion or high-powered incentives to coordinate people. As Hobhouse (1922, p. 68) wisely stated:

 

“Compulsion is only deemed necessary to secure predominance of creed by those who do not in their hearts believe that creed to be strong enough to avail by its own acceptability.”

 

Why do soldiers give their lives for their country? Why are people willing to sacrifice everything for an idea? It isn’t just about long-term rewards or social respect. It’s about deep, effective socialization. Akerlof and Kranton (2005, p. 9) describe this well in their account of West Point:

 

“On plebes’ first day at West Point… They strip down to their underwear. Their hair is cut off. They are put in uniform… They must repeat a formal greeting until they get it exactly right, all while being reprimanded for every mistake… This is just the beginning of a training program that re-engineers identity to produce loyal officers ready for battle.”

 

This is not limited to military academies. It’s the thread that runs through all history. Why does William Wallace give a rousing speech before battle in Braveheart? Why do sports teams invest heavily in unity and motivation? Because the strength of collective identity can mean the difference between failure and success.

 

Socialization can also take darker forms. As Kuran (1987, p. 663) notes:

 

“Regarded as 'polluted', [untouchables] are barred from village life… Yet they tend to consider these restrictions neither exploitative nor offensive… Many believe their inferiority is karmic… They genuinely feel that they are best off working with the system, not fighting it.”

 

If people can be programmed this low, how hard is to program them so they can achieve better life for themselves, family, society, nation and the world. The practical question of practical man will be at this point: how does this apply to our daily life? There are those who even reject the connotation as unpractical in market economy. Fuller and Winston (1978, page 357-358) stated

 

There are two basic forms of social ordering: organization by common aims and organization by reciprocity. Without one or the other of these nothing resembling a society can exist…. It should be noticed that the conditions which make these two principles of ordering effective are directly opposite to one another. To make organization by reciprocity effective the participants must want different things; organization by common aims requires that the participants want the same thing or things.

 

The authors finally conclude that if man is going to be end by himself than means to an end, organization by common aim should be replaced by organization of reciprocity. In simple words socialization is only applicable for communist system not for market oriented system (Fuller and Winston, 1978). However the role of socialization can be found in both bureaucratic organizations and exchange institutions all over the world as can be seen in examples below.

 

Ouchi (1980) do insist on the fact that the two problems we face in any coordination problem are the problem of diverse goals of decision making agents which made an organization and problem of performance ambiguity. In one side decision making agents are selfish and often have goals which are not necessary consistent with objective of the organization. You can use market incentive or coercive power to guide them to right direction but still this is hard to do if performance evaluation is not precise in identifying productivity.

 

This will allow us to work on socialization or on modifying the goal of individuals to be consistent with goal of the organization (Ouchi, 1980). In real world socialization process is the most commonly used way of organizing people to given objective. But it is often given least emphasis in actual research work within economics, excluding pioneering work of few. We should notice

 

A bureaucratic organization operates fundamentally according to a system of hierarchical surveillance, evaluation, and direction. In such a system, each superior must have a set of standards to which s/he can compare behavior or output in order to provide control. These standards only indicate the value of an output approximately, and are subject to idiosyncratic interpretation. People perceive them as equitable only as long as they believe that they contain a reasonable amount of performance information. When tasks become highly unique, completely integrated, or ambiguous for other reasons, then even bureaucratic mechanisms fail. Under these conditions, it becomes impossible to evaluate externally the value added by any individual. Any standard which is applied will be by definition arbitrary and therefore inequitable (Ouchi, 1980, page134-135).

 

This is problem of bureaucratic system, because it needs continuous and costly follow up to make it efficient. One possible solution is market forces to be used. When performance measurement is easy, market will easily handle any opportunistic behavior. However if performance measurement is poor and the workers’ and employers’ goal are not the same; some form of socialization in to workers and employer clan will be effective. The clan will reduce the occurrence of opportunistic behavior and can be useful when the performance measurement is very costly or impossible. Clans are organic solidarity between closely related persons but not necessarily family members. And the socialization process will embody organizational goals in to their personality so they can push organizational objective by harmonizing their interest with the organizational objectives (Ouchi, 1980).

 

People who build strong teams always work hard in guiding the goal and psychology of the team members as they work in other structures of performance like facility, machinery and training. In every meeting and programs, governments do work hard to guide the intention and goal of people in right direction by using different propaganda methods. Socialization is effective tool in guiding people in to functional system. After all the most important resource is humanity and directing humanity in the right direction is the best way to achieve better performance. More practical explanation can also be found from Cox and Fafchamps (2006, page 22-23) who insist that

 

Identification with a group can also be created artificially by providing bonding experiences such as initiation ceremonies and other kinship activities. We suspect that bonding is strongest if it is accomplished at a young age, probably around puberty and in teenage years. This tends to bond people of the same age together. Once the kin group has been socially engineered, it can serve many of the same functions as extended family…… Other social phenomena, such as religious sects and brotherhoods can also be used to generate strong bonds and engineer a family feel. Churches often seek to tap into the emotions triggered by family relationships by using titles such as “father,” “brother,” and “sister.” The use of such titles demonstrates a desire to trigger the same emotional attachment as ideally found within an extended family.

 

Even in business firms the importance of socialization is well documented by Akerlof (1998) in stating efforts are not simply determined by wages only and formal contract, but also by the sentiment that the agent has to the firm and coworkers that create gift exchange condition. The workers will work hard as group given their sentiment to the firm and coworkers and the firm will return the gift in gift by giving more incentive, not firing people and acting fair in terms of norms defined internal to the workers and the firm.

 

Not only the positive side of socialization, but we should also notice the fact that wrong kind of socialization can also create serious problem in performance too. From example, the detrimental effect socialization in contract farming of Peru can be seen from the following observation of Glover and Kusterer (1990). According to the authors, contract farming was promoted in Santa and Viru with foreign credit which is channeled by contract buyer. Initially in Santa there were corrupt practices which are introduced by lack of proper accounting procedure. However even after the problems are solved farmers are observed to have negative attitude to everything that the company did. While farmers in Viru, who understand the process better, are able to have better attitude toward contract farming. This result is observed despite the fact that farmers in Santa benefited from contract farming more than farmers in Viru. This clearly shows lack of right socialization can be serious obstacle in any development effort.

 

The above facts and observation of our world clearly shows there is more to the world than the bad economic models predict and assume. In general any organization has three components of drive. One is reciprocity like market, another is coercive power like control, sanction and audit and most importantly there is harmony that units group of decision making agents under similar, if not the same, goal.

 

The implication of the above analysis is that what determines efficiency of organization is not only related to incentive structure used in reciprocity like market and the efficient use of coercive power, but also how the people are harmonized in to functional unit. Morality, ethics, trust, norms, values, culture and tradition are the reason why most people behave the way we expect them to behave. In addition the goals we chose in life are often defined by the society we found ourselves at birth and the societies we live in. Those tools as result can be effectively used to improve organizational efficiency as it is done in army, churches, clans, socialized business and soon.

 

What does this mean in practice? Don’t use you are fired and promotion only as carrot and stick to promote efficiency. Socialize with your workers by creating conducive working environment and sense of family (Hirschman, 1970). Explain, motivate and harmonize interest of your workers to be consistent with your organizational objective. Develop and internalize values, ethics, identities and goals in your workers that promote efficiency. As family you have to teach morality, ethics, norms, desire for hard work, self respect, nationality, humanity, other values and identities which are corner stone of our society in organizing us in to civilized human society. In schools teach duty, ethics, morality, honesty, hard work, nationality, right and civil servant attitude in your students not only by words but also by the way you live in.

 

The question is how elastic is this process? What socialization allows us is to rise above mere animal which lives by crude self interest. However as we are ethical beings, we are also dominantly selfish beings. This is very true how elastic the self seems to be. As result any identity, norms, values, ethics and culture we choice should able to generate better fitness to the decision making agents which made the organization in the long run. A West Point solder will not accept military norms which expose them to military defeat in battle field in the long run or that makes them slaves of poverty in long run. When institutions of harmony work to achieve not only organizational fitness but also decision making agents’ fitness in long run, they will have long standing relevance (Mezgebo, 2014). Despite this fact how far we can go in short run is function of wider realities that one found him/her self. Discussing this will push us beyond objective of this book; that is why for sake of brevity this will not be addressed here.

 

Now we are ready to visit Egypt and the high priests Amon, the god of order and harmony, in their temple. What they say is traditions, norms, values, cultures and way of life are result of generation of trial and error which ensures the survival of the community. Not only wisdom is to be found on those institutions of harmony but also in way of life of the people. Imagine how birds perfect flying, fishes swimming, bats listening, humans thinking and soon. If you lose those animals and human beings, you lose a knowledge about flying, swimming, listening, thinking and soon. By studying birds we learn a lot how to fly and by studying fishes we know how to swim. This is because nature is storage of high functionality that is been tried and tested to be proven highly functional.

 

The same way in centuries of trial and error, cultures are adapted to different reality of humanity in this earth and they store a lot of known and unknown knowledge in life and thinking of the people. If you lose tradition you lose such knowledge that is known or that could be identified by study, after all bat have no science about listening and fish about swimming. That is why they insist if you lose traditions you will perish in the long run because you are destroying wisdom and truth stored in the tradition and you are replacing it by unproven ideas of the time.

 

Now it is time for reality check from someone who is able to visit the world beyond the order of ma’at under Egypt (see Kuiper, 2011). How much do we know about city of Ur around Babylon (see Rogers, 1900)? How much do we know about the first capitalist culture of Phoenicia (see George, 1889)? What do we know about the toilet inventing civilization of Asia (see Childe, 1929)? We know not much. Now imagine I can give you time machine and you can see their life in the past from now. Can you really make huge difference in our life which is as large as survival and extinction? Can you even give us very useful tools which determine human welfare as big leap? Or can you go to hunter and gatherers of Amazon and the short jungle dwellers of central Africa, and can you make decisive difference to humanity then after? Unless someone who is out of touch with reality, s/he can see the knowledge we can gain from such society is not much specially in social side of life.

 

However still there could be plants and animals that could be identified from such society that could cure Aids. Even some wisdom could be gained from life of Egypt, Greek, Babylon and hunter and gatherer of Amazon. So could you insist the tradition of Egypt, Greek, Babylon and Sparta should be preserved as it is, so we can use it as storage of knowledge and wisdom? Can any human with basic sense of right and wrong say this? Do you want to keep poor people under their own poorly functioning tradition, so they can preserve their culture? Worship of ma’at is a lie.

 

Yes tradition should not be lost as much as possible. Yes tradition should grow without losing its base. However growth always has loss and gain. You cannot preserve all the past without destroying all the future. Yes, if change must happen it should be built in existing good culture while refining bad cultures. In every refinement there is always type I and type II error and you cannot avoid both of them at the same time. But you could be careful in the process.

 

Most importantly your culture and tradition is what is odd and beautiful about you. So you have to grow to the world being you. If you can, please try to store and preserve as much as possible from your tradition without destroying your future. However to walk naked and to do absurd backward cultures that you know are stupid just for sake of tradition is absurd level of impracticality and being clues less in this cruel world. Old man you may keep complaining about the new sun and you may insist on glorifying the old sun, but you will die and time will go on without you. But as wise old man you could help the new generation to learn your wisdom and grow it farther by refining good from bad. After all if old generations learn, why is the new generation forced to be stupid who never learn? Is this because of the book of the dead?

 

Why is that we don’t learn much from old social cultures, as much as we loss from them do need explanation at this point. This is because our mind is not clean slit. Our basic operating system is determined by biology and the level of flexibility allowed for culture is not that much large. Most importantly most of the flexibility we observe is in flexibility of culture expression not on the basic thinking of the mind. The surplus of organization is what creates the flexibility in form of diverse cultures by rising man beyond mere survival. The essence of our thinking and life is not very different at all, though its expression can vary.

 

Humans are very diverse in their odd expression of identity not on their mode of survival when they face similar ecology. That is why much is not lost especially from social side. Or you can prove me wrong. Go to jungle of Amazon and teach me something new about any institution. If I give you 100 years to study them how much knowledge should I expect that can change humanity despite what you will say “they live in harmony with nature” and I add with poverty and poor functionality. Even if you can find something useful, it will not be as big as their poverty and uncertain life that you are framing them to accept as the best way to live. The reason why you don’t want to lose them is because a scientist will never want to lose the most useful evidence at his/her disposal. Nothing more and nothing less!