Family and Human Development Across Cultures

A View From the Other Side

€igdem Kagitibasi, Cigdem Kagitibasi

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780805820775
• eBook ISBN: 9781317779209
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

The culmination of 15 years of research by a Turkish psychologist who was educated in the West, this volume examines both the theoretical and practical aspects of cross-cultural psychology. It takes a contextual-developmental-functional approach linking the child, family, and society as they are embedded in culture. A refreshingly different view, the author presents a portrait of human development from "the other side"--from the perspective of the "majority world." In a world seemingly dominated by American psychology, she proposes the cross-cultural orientation as a corrective to the culture-boundedness of much of Euro-American psychology.

Analyzing human development in context while avoiding the pitfalls of extreme relativism, this work studies development with an inclusive, holistic, and ecological perspective, focusing on the development of the self and of competence. In so doing, it also attempts to combine cultural contextualism with universalistic standards and psychological processes. It proposes a theory of family change which challenges some commonly held modernization assumptions, and links theory and application while examining the role of psychology in inducing social change.

1	Introduction

ABOUT THIS VOLUME

This volume is, on the one hand, about the psychology of human development and human relations within the cultural context. The development of human relations and the self is situated within the family and society. In my thinking, the links between the person, family, and society are crucial for an understanding of global human psychology. On the other hand, this volume is also about the integration of theory and practice. Specifically, I make an attempt to find out whether a culturally sensitive conceptualization of individual–family–culture links has any relevance for applications and policies designed to promote human well-being. Clearly, there are two types of linkages that need clarification. The first one has to do with some of the intersections between the levels of analysis–the individual (self), the group (family), and the larger context in which both exist (culture and society). The second one relates theory and application.

Linking Self, Family, Society

My purpose here is to look into some limited aspects of family dynamics and family socialization within varying sociocultural contexts with a view to discover their functional (or causal) links with human development. Thus, a contextual–developmental–functional approach is undertaken here.

The approach is contextual in that the study of the person and human development automatically implicates the family as the context, and thus figures the family explicitly in the conceptualization. Similarly, when the family is under focus, it is automatically situated in its sociocultural environment. This approach is very much in line with the ecological orientation of Bronfenbrenner (1979), with traces of the classical field theory of Lewin (1951), and symbolic interactionism of G. H. Mead (1934), on the one hand, and with the current contextualist models, on the other (e.g., Featherman & R. M. Lerner, 1985; Hurrelmann, 1988; R. M. Lerner, 1983, 1989). Much thinking in cross-cultural psychology is also contextualistic, almost by definition, and the approach here is akin to the current theorizing in this field (e.g., Berry, 1976; Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992, p. 12; Eckensberger, 1990; Price-Williams, 1980).

The approach here is also developmental. This is because it is not enough to note or even to establish with some certainty differences across contexts. The way these differences emerge is just as important for psychological inquiry. More and more, the significance of a developmental approach is being recognized, and a developmental orientation is seen as inherently complementing a cross-cultural one (Bornstein, 1984; Bornstein & Bruner, 1989; Eckensberger, 1990; Heron & Kroeger, 1981; Jahoda, 1986; Rogoff, Gauvain, & Ellis, 1984; Rogoff & Morelli, 1989). This is not to say that all cross-cultural work takes cognizance of developmental processes, but that the recognition of the need to do so is increasing. It is interesting to note in this context that in her invited address at the centennial convention of the American Psychological Association, Anastasi (1992) pointed to the recent progress of cross-cultural psychology and life-span developmental psychology as the two most important developments of the last decades.

Finally, the present approach is functional because social and psychological adaptive mechanisms are invoked to explain why a particular type of development occurs. I should note, however, that this functional approach is not deterministic and allows for flexibility and feedback mechanisms. It also tries to stay away from teleological reasoning. Adaptive mechanisms are, rather, used as clues to understand why self–family–culture linkages get established in particular ways, showing variability as well as similarity across cultures. The contextual, developmental, and functional approaches are elaborated on when necessary throughout.

In forming the links among the self, family, and the larger sociocultural environment, I work from a cultural and cross-cultural perspective. A cultural approach is presupposed by contextualism, and a cross-cultural approach is required for the unambiguous interpretation of the observed cultural differences (Van de Vijver & Poortinga, 1990). To understand the functional relations among the society, the family, and the development of the self, the underlying dynamics need to be discovered. A cross-cultural comparative orientation provides the grounds for such an endeavor, as it supplies more variation than can be obtained in a single culture study (Berry et al., 1992; Rogoff et al., 1984; J. W. Whiting & Child, 1953).

Linking Theory and Application

The second basic task I undertake in this volume is to integrate theory and application. By application I do not mean individual-focused psychological practice, which readily comes to mind, but rather the use of psychology in large-scale efforts to improve human well-being and to contribute to societal development. Psychologists’ contribution to development efforts focuses on its human aspects; therefore, any applied work would benefit from a knowledge of the cultural context in which human phenomena occur. Intervention attempts in developing countries need to be especially sensitive to the human relations in the “culture of relatedness” (Kağıtçıbası, 1985a) prevalent in these societies. Thus, interventions may be expected to work better if they take into consideration and build on the existing human connectedness, as reflected in closely knit family, kinship, and community ties, rather than counteracting them, for example, in building individualistic independence and competition.

The emphasis on applied research occupies a central place in my orientation to psychology (Kağıtçıbası, 1994b). Theory that is not put to the test of application has limited utility, and applications not informed by theory tend to be haphazard and expensive “shots in the dark” that can’t be afforded, especially in the Majority World (see footnote 5 in Preface) countries with limited resources. In other words, I believe that psychology need not choose between theory and scientific rigor on the one hand and relevance on the other, and it is incumbent on the psychologist, especially on one who lives in the Majority World, to be involved in efforts to uphold human well-being. Culturally sensitive and both “socially and scientifically responsible” (Drenth, 1991) psychological research can go a long way toward contributing to social development efforts.

This book presents, in some detail, an applied research project that I have carried out with my colleagues in Istanbul, Turkey. I believe it deserves attention both for demonstrating the integration of theory and practice on the one hand, and the potential of psychology for contributing to human development on the other. The Turkish Early Enrichment Project and its follow-up study together spanned a 10-year period. I attempt to bridge the gap between theory and application by using this applied research as a case in point.

A CULTURAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

This topic covers a wide scope and includes extensive research and theory spanning the fields of cultural and cross-cultural psychology, anthropology, and sociology. I would like to give here a rather brief and general overview of the issues involved and examine the relevant concepts. My approach here is basically psychological, though I resort to anthropological and sociological conceptualizations where appropriate.

Recent Developments in Cross-Cultural Perspective

Human development always occurs within culture, but it is rarely studied as such by academic psychology. The issue does not concern only developmental psychology but is true of all psychology whose unit of analysis is typically the individual. This outlook is in line with the goal of discovering universal regularities in psychological processes and behavior, which psychology inherited from physics. Accordingly, a physical science model adhering to a positivistic philosophy of science is typically adopted. This implies a methodological orientation isolating the behavior from its natural context to control for “unwanted” variation. Thus, social and cultural factors are often absent in analyses.

This is noticeable from a cursory glance at popular developmental psychology textbooks. They tend not to include cultural differences, or they treat them as extraneous variables (noise), and they view the individualistic trajectory as the normal way of developing. These textbooks influence how development is viewed in American psychology and abroad.

This state of affairs has been noted by critics both within and outside psychology. For example, focusing on human development, T. Schwartz (1981) stated: “Developmental psychology has largely missed the opportunity to consider the child in the cultural milieu, which is the sine qua non of the developmental completion of a human nature” (p. 4). Similarly, Jahoda and Dasen (1986), in their introduction to the special issue of the International Journal of Behavioral Development, called for a “Cross-cultural developmental psychology… [which] is not just comparative [but] essentially is an outlook that takes culture seriously” and deplored the fact that “theories and findings in developmental psychology originating in the First world tend to be disseminated to the Third World as gospel truth” (p. 413).

In his influential work on the ecology of human development, Bronfenbrenner (1979) complained about the “marked asymmetry: a hypertrophy of theory and research focusing on the properties of the person and only the most rudimentary conception and characterization of the environment in which the person is found” (p. 16), and claimed that “developmental psychology… is the science of the strange behavior of children in strange situations with strange adults for the briefest possible periods of time” (p. 19).

These views are echoed by those who believe that a noncontextual approach to behavior in general and to human development in particular is inadequate (e.g., Bornstein, 1991; Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Dasen, 1984; Jahoda, 1986; Kağıtçıbaşi, 1984, 1992b; R. M. Lerner, 1989; MacDonald, 1986; Pepitone, 1987; Price-Williams, 1980; Rogoff et al., 1984; Rogoff & Morelli, 1989; Shweder & Bourne, 1984; Tajfel, 1972; Triandis, 1972; Tyler, 1989).

The extensive criticism, substantiated by insightful research, has aimed to be a corrective to the “narrow” focus of psychology. It has been an outcry, loud and clear, serving as the basis for the advancement of a wide range of disciplines and critical views spanning cross-cultural and cultural psychology, on the one hand, and social constructionism and indigenous psychology, on the other.

Most research in mainstream psychology is still going about its usual business. Nevertheless, the developments in cultural and cross-cultural psychology over the past 25 years are substantial, and they do challenge the established scientific traditions of psychological research though probably not yet strongly enough to shake them (Bond, 1988; Lonner, 1989). As a crude indicator of the notable growth of the field, several publications and textbooks could be cited. A number of journals are devoted to cross-cultural psychological research, among them are the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, International Journal of Psychology, International Journal of Inter cultural Relations, International Journal of Behavioral Development, and Psychology and Developing Societies. Some others have an international cross-cultural outlook: for example, Journal of Social Psychology, Inter-American Journal of Psychology, European Journal of Social Psychology. To date, there have been four reviews of cross-cultural psychology in the Annual Review of Psychology (Brislin, 1983; Kağıtçıbası & Berry, 1989; Segall, 1986; Triandis, Malpass, & Davidson, 1973) and one of cultural psychology (Shweder & Sullivan, 1993). The six-volume Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology appeared in 1980. A second edition of the Handbook is currently in preparation.

A great number of books, written or edited by cross-cultural psychologists have been published in the series on Cross-Cultural Research and Methodology and in the selected volumes from the conferences of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. There are also numerous publications that provide overviews of the field, including the annual Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Berman, 1990) and some textbooks of cross-cultural psychology (Berry et al., 1992; Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1990); cross-cultural social psychology (Moghaddam, Taylor, & Wright, 1993; P. B. Smith & Bond, 1993; Triandis 1994), and psychology in cultural context (Brislin, 1993; Lonner & Malpass, 1994; Matsumoto, 1994). All this activity points to a growing cross-cultural psychology.

Particularly in the cross-cultural study of human development the affinity to an anthropological approach emphasizing the specific cultural context is notable. Starting with the pioneering work of the Whitings and their associates on child rearing in six cultures (Minturn & Lambert, 1964; B. B. Whiting, 1963; B. B. Whiting & J. W. Whiting, 1975), much work has been conducted by psychologists and anthropologists at times working together. Several books on cross-cultural child development, including a handbook (R. L. Munroe, R. H. Munroe, & B. B. Whiting, 1981) provide overviews of this work (e.g., Bornstein, 1991; Greenfield & Cocking, 1994; R. L. Munroe & R. H. Munroe, 1975; Stigler, Shweder, & Herdt, 1990; Valsiner, 1989; Wagner, 1983; Wagner & Stevenson, 1982; Werner, 1979).

Research and conceptualization regarding the importance of the cultural context for psychology have also been emerging from the non-Western world. This is significant when we consider the fact that psychology has traditionally been a Western, and to a large extent, American preoccupation. The rest of the world has typically followed suit, demonstrating a remarkable degree of “traditional acquiescence” (Kağıtçıbası, 1994a, 1994b). More recently, however, the progress of cross-cultural psychology has benefited from scholarship in non-Western countries, particularly in Asia. In addition to a growing number of contributions to journals and books containing cross-cultural psychological work from non-Western psychologists, some volumes have come out dealing specifically with psychology and human development in the Majority World (e.g., Curran, 1984; Nsamenang, 1992; Ohuche & Otaala, 1981; Oppong, 1980; Pandey, 1988; Saraswathi & Dutta, 1987; Saraswathi & Kaur, 1993; D. Sinha, 1981; D. Sinha & Kao, 1988; Suvannathat, Bhanthumnavin, Bhuapirom, & Keats, 1985).

A new development emerging mainly from non-Western contexts is the socalled indigenous psychology (Adair, 1992; Bond, 1986; G. E. Enriquez, 1990; Heelas & Locke, 1981; Kağıtçıbası & Berry, 1989; Kim & Berry, 1993; D. Sinha, 1986, 1992). It purports that each culture should be studied within itself, as it forms the all-important context of psychological phenomena. In this approach “from within,” the historical-cultural characteristics, symbols and artifacts are used as materials to construct a meaningful portrait of a people. “Natural,” rather than “imposed,” categories are utilized, reminiscent of the typically “emic” approach of anthropologists.

”Indigenization,” or indigenous psychology, has been proposed to be an antithesis of the universalist orientation, typical of much of cross-cultural psychology. However I believe they are complementary approaches (Kağıtçıbası, 1992a), each providing feedback for the other. If indigenization is seen as an approach, rather than a goal in and of itself, then it is likely to be followed by a comparative approach. And when commonalities emerge out of such comparison among different indigenous realities, we begin to approach universality (Berry, 1989). This point is discussed further later.

Benefits of the Cross-Cultural Perspective

The greatly increasing volume of cross-cultural research is a clear indication of the growing appreciation of the value of a cross-cultural perspective. The advantages involved have been repeatedly voiced by those conducting such research. The following are some of the oft-quoted benefits within a developmental perspective.

A cross-cultural developmental approach uncovers a greater range of variation than any single culture study. With a more comprehensive coverage of diversity, a wider perspective emerges according to which what is typical and what is atypical may need to be redefined (Bornstein, 1984).

With increased coverage of variation, it also becomes more possible to distinguish between biological and environmental influences. That is, the greater the commonality found in a developmental sequence or psychological process over highly varied cultural contexts, the greater the likelihood of its biological roots, though shared social structures may also be a cause. With a finding of increased diversity in a psychological phenomenon across cultures, environmental causation is implicated.

In view of the aforementioned two points regarding increased degree of variability in cross-cultural study, theories based on research with more limited samples may need to be revised if they are to hold up to their claims of universality.

The theory-testing potential of cross-cultural research is thus very important. Any psychological theory claiming universality, as they all do, must be demonstrated to hold cross-culturally. Obviously, a theory can never be proven in absolute terms, as there is always the likelihood of one disconfirming case. Nevertheless, if a theory finds supportive evidence in highly diverse cultural contexts, its claim to “external validity” and universality would be a lot stronger than if it is tested in only a single cultural context. The more a theory receives cross-cultural confirmation, the more closely it approximates universal generality. Indeed, most cross-cultural research in human development has had such a theory-testing goal. This research has served theory very well; for example, Piagetian and Vygotskian theories have enjoyed cross-cultural extensions.

Such testing also helps refine theory. For example, as cross-cultural research showed that the “formal operations” stage of Piaget was very rare among illiterate adults, he changed his ori...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• 1. Introduction
• Part I: Human Development, Family, Culture
• Part II: Induced Change: Early Enrichment
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index