Australia Mini Country Culture of Society - Research Paper Example

Australia Mini Country – Culture of Society According to John and Fathi (91-121), there are many factors which affect the culture of a society. These cultural factors are measured by the Hofstede’s Power distance Index which shows a number of indices on a society’s culture. Australia ranks low in the power distance index scale and this means that Australians are less likely to accept rules and laws created by those in power. The wealth distribution in Australia is much equalized and this indicates the power distance score is lower.

Unlike in countries where the wealth distribution is low and the power distance is higher, Australians have a higher chance of having a say in how the affairs of the nation are run. The way this affects communication and the media is that the media can have more freedom to say what they think is the truth. Australia falls in the midrange in the power distance index, falling lower than that other developed countries such as United States of America. For instance, Australia scores 36 on the power distance index as compared to United States of America which scores 40 on the same scale.

This is a much lower score, as compared to other countries, especially Arab countries such as Malaysia, Egypt and Philippines which score over 90 on the power distance index scale. According to Nisbett & Miyamoto (467-473) Asians and seem to engage in cultural practices in a different way than westerns who regard issues in a context-independent manner.The main reason why the power distance in Australia is low may be the fact that there is equality in wealth distribution in comparison with other states like the United States where the wealth gap in continually increasing, leaving a thin middle class and a large part of the population being poor while a small percentage owns much of the wealth.

Australia also scores a 90 for individualism and a 61 for masculinity. As Ihator (38) says, this kind if individualism are most likely to be seen in first world countries like America and not in countries in Africa. Masculinity as measured in the Hofstede’s Power distance Index is a measure of the factors that are considered to be masculine such as power, materialism, assertiveness, etc. According to Kimmel (90) society with a high masculinity score on the Hofstede’s Power distance Index is an indication that males in that country are more likely to be more assertive on their rights and are more likely to have their own choices and not be dominated.

These are people who are not easily affected by public opinion and are not likely to accept power roles are meted for them. Australia defiantly scores high with a score of 61 in the Hofstede’s Power distance Index. Australia also scores a whole 91 for individualism in the Hofstede’s Power distance Index. This high score shows that Australia is an individualist nation. Individualism in the Hofstede’s Power distance Index refers to the rate at which individuals in a society are expected to live individually.

Individualism is the opposite of collectivism. Collectivist societies are more likely to have a high power distance rates because in such a society, roles are placed and the ranks are placed based on ones class in the society Zaharna (12).Works CitedKimmel, Michael. The Gendered Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2000. Print.Ihator, Augustine. “Understanding the Cultural Patterns of the World: An Imperative in Implementing Strategic Public Relations Programs.” Public Relations Quarterly 45. 4 (2000): 38-44.

PrintZaharna, R.S. (Working Draft 2010). Overview: Florence Kluckhohn Value Orientations.John Condon and Fathi Yousef (1975) From values to beliefs: Human nature, nature, the supernatural. in Introduction to Intercultural Communication by J. Condon and F. Yousef. (Bobbs Merrill). pp. 91-121Nisbett, R. E. & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10, 467-473.Miner, Horace. (1956). Body Ritual among the Nacirema; American Anthropologist 58 (3), pp. 503-507.