Introduction Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck were cultural anthropologists who believed that there were a limited

number of problems that are common to all societies as well as a limited number of solutions to those problems and that the problems and corresponding solutions could be represented by value orientations which could be used to describe the dominant value system of a society and draw distinctions between societies. They identified five value orientations based on the relationship of individuals and groups with nature, relationships among individuals within the society, orientation regarding preferred form of human activities, relationship with time (i.e., time orientation, a common theme among other researchers in this area) and evaluation of human nature. People's attitudes are based on the relatively few, stable values they hold. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's (1961) Values Orientation Theory proposes that all human societies must answer a limited number of universal problems, that the value-based solutions are limited in number and universally known, but that different cultures have different preferences among them. Suggested questions include humans' relations with time, nature and each other, as well as basic human motives and the nature of human nature. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck suggested alternate answers to all five, developed culture-specific measures of each, and described the value orientation profiles of five SW USA cultural groups. Their theory has since been tested in many other cultures, and used to help negotiating ethnic groups understand one another, and to examine the intergenerational value changes caused by migration. After examining numerous cultures, they came to the conclusion that all people turn to their culture to answer the same five basic questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What is the character of human nature? What is the relation of humankind to nature? What is the orientation toward time? What is the orientation toward activity? What is the relationship of people to each other?

Human Nature Orientation Evil: Most people can't be trusted. People are basically bad and need to be controlled. Mixed: There are both evil people and good people in the world, and you have to check people out to find out which they are. People can be changed with the right guidance. Good: Most people are basically pretty good at heart; they are born good. The first value orientation spoke to the inherent nature of man. Is he basically good? Evil? Or neither good nor evil, but mixed? Kluckhohn stated that societies make such distinctions. She added the caveat that such predispositions could be mutable or immutable. For example, human nature could be seen as "evil and unalterable" or "evil and perfectible." Evil and perfectible was how she described the American view of human nature that had grown out of the Puritan heritage. That heritage dictated that "constant control and discipline as essential if any real goodness is to be achieved and maintained," and that "the danger of regression is always present". Person-Nature Orientation Subordinate to Nature: People really can't change nature. Life is largely determined by external forces, such as fate and genetics. What happens was meant to happen. Harmony with Nature: Man should, in every way, live in harmony with nature. Dominant over Nature: It the great human challenge to conquer and control nature. Everything from air conditioning to the "green revolution" has resulted from having met this challenge. In the second value orientation, man's relation to nature - Kluckhohn suggested that "man is subjugated to nature," "man in nature" and "man over nature." The first passively accepts natural forces as inevitable, the second sees man in harmony with nature and the third sees man as attempting to control

nature. The American orientation, as she said, definitely tends toward controlling or conquering approach to nature. In her discussion, Kluckhohn does not distinguish between "natural forces" and "supra-natural forces." Instead the two are co-mingled and used as substitutions for each other. She provides the example: "To the typical Spanish-American sheep-raiser there is little or nothing which can be done if a storm comes to damage his range lands or destroy his flocks. He simply accepts the inevitable as the inevitable. His attitude toward illness and death is the same fatalistic attitude. 'If it is the Lord's will that I die I shall die' is the way he expresses it". Time Orientation Past: People should learn from history, draw the values they live by from history, and strive to continue past traditions into the future. Present: The present moment is everything. Let's make the most of it. Don't worry about tomorrow: enjoy today. Future: Planning and goal setting make it possible for people to accomplish miracles, to change and grow. A little sacrifice today will bring a better tomorrow. The third value orientation deals with time. As Kluckhohn stated, "All societies have some conception of the past, all have a present, and all give some kind of attention to the future time-dimension". All societies are similar in that all deal with time and have a sense of the dimensions of time. Societies differ in which dimension they emphasize: past, present, or future. She added, "Illustrations of these different emphases are also easily found". Undoubtedly, the dominant American culture emphasizes the futureorientation and illustrations are plentiful. "Always be prepared," to every television commercial that touts "new and improved," to the news reporters speculating "what next," to the Futurists cults riding on the "wave of the future," American life is filled with a future-oriented perspective that looks ahead. A positive perspective is associated with a forward looking perspective and

"backwards" has a negative connotation that goes beyond simple direction or location. In contrast, past-oriented cultures value history, experience, and traditions. Not surprisingly, whereas the "youth culture" may be worshiped in the American culture, past oriented cultures worship their ancestors. Such expressions as tried and true have more merit than "new and improved." Whereas the future may be circumspect at best, the past a reliable, steady wealth of information and lessons to guide human action. For some cultures, the future lies outside of man's control and falls under the domain of the supra-natural. This is why one may often hear "In-sha-allah" or "God willing" used by many Arabic speakers, because only God, not man, knows what will or will not happen in the future. Present-oriented emphasizes the here and now. There is not that pressing need felt by the future-oriented cultures "to change one's (present) situation." The situation is the way it is. It may have been different in the past. It may be different in the future. But, right now, it is the situation. As Kluckhohn described present-oriented cultures, "they pay little attention to what has happened in the past, and regards the future as vague and most unpredictable period" (p. 348). As an indication of how difficult it may be for Americans to conceptualize the present-orientation, one can look at the literature in communication and psychology that urge Americans to "be spontaneous" or "live in the moment." Such admonishments would not be necessary in a present-oriented culture. Activity Orientation Being: It's enough to just "be." It's not necessary to accomplish great things in life to feel your life has been worthwhile. Becoming: The main purpose for being placed on this earth is for one's own inner development. Doing: If people work hard and apply themselves fully, their efforts will be rewarded. What a person accomplishes is a measure of his or her worth.

Kluckhohn called the fourth value orientation, "valued personality types." She herself stated that this phasing was "not the 'happiest' of terms." I concur. I understood "valued personality type" to mean self-definition. "Being" orientation refers to self defined by relationships. The being-in-becoming orientation is self defined by relationship but with an element of self-development. The doing orientation defines the self by what the self does. The activity orientation places a premium on "activity which results in accomplishments that are measurable". Stewart calls the activity orientation "doing." He noted that such features of "doing" cultures are characteristic of the American culture's emphasis on the importance of achievement, visible accomplishments, and measurement of achievement. The proclivity toward "doing" is found in such common American expressions as "How are you doing?" or "What's happening?" In a "being-oriented" culture, one's primary sense of identity rests on fixed relationships and social structures. Examples of "being" cultures such as the Chinese, Japanese, or Arab cultures. The being-in-becoming orientation can be seen as a midpoint between the "being" which focuses primarily on relationship and place and "activity" which focuses primarily on doing and the products of activity. Relational (Social) Orientation Hierarchical: There is a natural order to relations, some people are born to lead, others are followers. Decisions should be made by those in charge. Collateral: The best way to be organized is as a group, where everyone shares in the decision process. It is important not to make important decisions alone. Individual: All people should have equal rights, and each should have complete control over one's own destiny. When we have to make a decision as a group it should be "one person one vote."

Kluckhohn proposed three relationship patterns or orientations: individual, collateral, and linear. In the individual pattern, characteristic of the American culture, the family bond is comparatively limited in scope and intensity. The concept of the "nuclear family" is very much indicative of the individual relationship pattern. The collateral pattern has more intense family bonds than the individual pattern. Also "immediate" family relations extend beyond the nuclear family to include grandparents, uncles, cousins, etc. In a collateral pattern one would not think of a "family" event without all of the extended members of the nuclear family of the individual pattern. The linear pattern appears very much like the collateral, except the family extends even wider to encompass distant relatives, both genealogically as well as chronologically. This means the tribe, the klan, or all those that are related by blood and family ties. That's among the living. The linear pattern also extends across time to include ancestors who are regard as an important member of the family. Few decisions, especially the important ones, can be taken without consulting one's ancestors.