Another difference in the nature of relationships across cultures is whether the relationship is focused on the individual or on the group as a whole. Culture within Western society is often individualistic. This is reflected upon relationships also within Western society, as the relationship is usually focused on the needs of the individual, highlighting and reinforcing the individual’s freedom of choice. Within Non-Western society, emphasis is put on the needs and interests of the entire group as it is a more collectivist culture. Relationships are often only considered when they propose economic benefits and approval by their family. Love and romance are not usually considered. A criticism of this theory is that it lacks temporal validity. Although 1993 may seem fairly recent, we still cannot ignore that from 1993 onwards, cultures have most likely changed. Cultures across the world are now widely accepting more Western views about relationships, and so a lot more people are focusing on their individual needs. The conclusions made from this theory cannot be generalised as they may not be considered representative of today’s society. As well as this, the theory does not regard individual differences. It ignores certain cases within Western society that don’t support the theory. For example, a person may enter a relationship simply because of the economic factors or to help support their children, even if the relationship doesn’t directly benefit them themselves. This makes the theory not suitable for generalisation, as it is not always true in some cases. Another criticism of this theory is that it suggests that Non-Western cultures only consider economic benefits, and ignore the concept of love. This makes the theory reductionist as it also ignores the many cases within Non-Western cultures where those in an arranged marriage have fallen in love. Gupta and Singh in 1982 compared love and liking in arranged marriages to ‘love’ marriages and found that love within arranged marriages exceeded the levels found in ‘love’ marriages by 10 years, supporting the idea that arranged marriages involve a lot more than economic factors. Again, as it does not take these into account, it can’t necessarily be generalised to all Non-Western societies.
A further difference found in the nature of relationships across cultures is the level of continuity. Western societies commonly thrive for change and progress, and so relationships also inevitably undergo change. Because of this, relationships within Western cultures are usually discontinuous and only temporary. In many Eastern cultures, they have a high regard for heritage and ancestry. Unlike in Western cultures, change is not so readily accepted. Non-Western cultures emphasise the idea of continuity and so relationships are often permanent. An issue with this theory is that Western cultures have only recently been more accepting of temporary relationships. In the 1950’s, women’s roles changed dramatically, and they since have had more of a choice within relationships. Since contraception also was introduced, women have gained greater freedom to participate in relationships as this makes the burden of a child optional. This has made break ups and divorces a lot more acceptable in the Western world. This recent change may mean that the differences between Western and Non-Western societies may not be down to the culture itself but due to the social mobility and urbanisation of the society. This makes conclusions taken from this theory hard to generalise, as it may not even be a correct representation of Western and Non-Western culture. You cannot define a culture by its level of urbanisation.
There are many distinct differences between relationships in different cultures, as highlighted by various psychological studies and theories. The main similarity in these is that they usually result in relationships being categorised by being Western or Non-Western. Although these categories are commonly used to describe cultural relationships within psychology, a major issue with this is that it makes the study or theory reductionist. This is because it suggests that all relationships can be broken down into two simple components. Reducing relationships into these two simple categories poses the danger of many factors of relationships being disregarded. Individual differences of those involved will massively shape their behaviour within the relationship. For example, some people who live in a Western society may still choose to undergo an arranged marriage (and vice versa), depending on their preferences. Because of this, it is hard to generalise conclusions from these studies/theories to a wider society as they don’t necessarily represent the entire demographic. Drawing such conclusions can leave them susceptible to abuse and manipulation, which could be seen as forms of racism. This can be considered as unethical.
by
underwhelmist (student)
