Free Sample Article
Linux and the Appeal to Cultural Values
Linux and the Appeal to Cultural Values
CLINT LANIER
The technological shrinking of the world’s boundaries and distances, bringing diverse societies into a partnership in a shared, global economy — known commonly as globalization — has had a profound impact on the ways we design, market, and use technology. The opening of the global market has changed the thinking of organizations and made product development teams consider how a technology will fare when transferred to another country or organization [1]. With this transfer comes a new set of matters that corporations were previously not concerned with. One such issue is how the technology will succeed in a culture different from the culture in which it was created. This consideration was noted early [2], and even now researchers are trying to understand the relationship between a technology and the forces exerted by a culture [3]. The primary problem such an understanding tries to address is whether or not global products are possible.
As researchers study the relationship between culture and the success of transferred technology, much of the focus is on culture as a socio-environmental force; one that exerts influence on a technology from without [1], [2], [4]. Dimensions we are told to consider about a society or organization receiving the technology include those about the receiving body’s general understanding of the concept of technology [4], or (in the case of knowledge transfer) about the learning capacity of the receiving body [1].
But what about the culture imbedded in the technology itself? How do the cultural values that a technology reflects impact its success in another culture? How do a technology’s embedded values interact with the values of the culture to which it is being transferred?
Linux’s Appeal
In this article, the Linux operating system provides a good example for demonstrating how the cultural values of both the technology and the culture that the technology is being transferred to could influence a software’s popularity. The Linux case study also provides insight into how software localization — tailoring a piece of software to “fit” the market that it is being sold in — could be better performed. Linux is useful as an example for this demonstration because of the attention it has been receiving by both developing countries, and by researchers who began investigating Linux after its rapid popularity in certain parts of the world.
Early predictions made by those researchers forecasted the overwhelming attractiveness of Linux in developing countries because of its inexpensive availability and the fact that older, slower, and cheaper personal computers run the operating system at very fast speeds. Predictions were made as far back as 1995 [5] and continued through the late 1990s [6], [7]. Even recent publications about the operating system focus more on questions of economics than on other factors [8].
These predictions, or assumptions, certainly seem valid, because it is easy to see how the economics of Linux would contribute prominently to its growing use in certain parts of the world. However, when considering Linux in developing countries, indeed when considering the localization of any technology (especially software), it is important to allow for more than economic factors [2]. As considerations in localization, cultural values far outweigh the single question of economics when a technological system is transferred to a country, and should be thoroughly studied before the transfer is made. Enhancing a software product so that it appeals more completely to values specific to a culture increases the likelihood that the product will become accepted in the culture and used more widely.
Cultural Values
Cultural values allow us to judge courses of action and choose what we would determine to be “good” or “bad” when compared to other choices we could have made [9]. Cultural values give us a framework to decide what is important in our lives, as determined by the society in which we live. Each culture prefers certain values over others. This is not to say that differing values are not at times preferred by some people within the culture. But intercultural studies have demonstrated that cultures as a whole lean towards certain cultural values in a broad range of contrasting values [9], [10].
This discussion will focus on two of the cultural values identified in intercultural research. These two values, I believe, have greatly influenced the rising use of Linux in countries that were previously thought to value Linux due to economic factors only. These countries include China, India, and Pakistan, all of which have cultural values that have been studied and identified [9], [10]. These cultural values include particularism and collectivism, both of which will be discussed in contrast to their opposing values of universalism and individualism, respectively.
Particularism and Universalism as Cultural Values
People in cultures favoring particularism tend to reject the philosophy that there are universal laws, and instead evaluate each rule according to the unique circumstances of each specific context. While evaluating, members of such a culture will consider whether those circumstances generate exceptions to existing rules.
In cultures favoring particularism, faced with the decision of whether to follow an established rule or take a different course of action, people will often question how the rule applies to their particular situation, what’s happening right at that moment. In every situation, there are areas in which the rule fails to completely apply. Such exceptions allow members of a culture to interact with one another under sets of rules exclusive to whatever setting they are acting in at the time. Companies conducting business in South America, for example, often experience issues of particularism. Frequently the decision to award a contract or buy a product comes down to the strength of the relationship between the people conducting business in those countries, instead of to the cost of items or time for delivery. The “rules” for business follow the particular circumstances of the context (in this case the relationship) instead of what some would believe are rock-solid and commonly accepted business concepts.
People in cultures that lean more towards universalism, particularism’s contradictory value, insist that the same rules apply to every circumstance for every member in a culture. This form of judgment does not take into account the context of the event for which the rule does or does not apply or to whom the rule applies. This type of culture has been described as “abstract.” Indeed, rules that apply to everyone regardless of status, relationship, or context cannot be evaluated in any real way other than to say that they attempt to equalize the station of everyone falling under the umbrella of such rules. The idea of equality itself is abstract, let alone a system of regulations seeking to equate one person with another.
An example of universalism used in literature [9] is a case of illegally walking across the street in a country like Germany (which leans very much towards universalism). Though there may not be any traffic on the street, you may still be frowned at for doing it. Such a rule, then, does not consider the fact that there is no traffic, there is no precluding harm that could befall the person walking across the street (which would be the purpose for the rule); there is no context to the rule, only the rule itself. This rule applies to everyone, all the time.
The tension between particularism and universalism extends beyond laws and regulations and to important business considerations. Global corporations attempting to fill the needs of their entire worldwide market with only one product would be conducting business with a universalist philosophy. Such business habits happen quite often. When businesses decide to sell internationally there seems to be an immediate belief that everyone shares the wants, tastes, and needs of consumers from their own culture [9]. The fact that people around the world buy the product seems to reinforce the universalist values of the business or manufacturer selling the product. However, in certain countries that are more particularist (countries like China, India, and Japan), it has been argued that it may be necessary for manufacturers to adapt their product to the needs of those countries, perhaps even going so far as to make products specific only to those certain countries [9]. To borrow an analogy, a company engaging in such a practice realizes that perhaps Eskimos would rather purchase and use a dogsled than a snowmobile [2]. This corporation would be accounting for the unique values of the culture and disregarding its own, universalist philosophy.
Universalism and Particularism in Operating Systems
While universalism and particularism apply to personal relationships and international business, they also extend to computer operating systems. Like business practices, technologies also carry and reflect dominant traits of a culture, and those technologies developed in the West will frequently reflect Western values [11]. As pieces of technology, the operating systems created by Microsoft could be viewed as international products reflecting the cultural values of universalism (a prominent value in the United States) rather than particularism. While they are marketed globally, they are only marketed as one universal product (Windows) not truly adaptable to specific circumstances. Though Microsoft does release internal information about the operating system to developers so that applications can be made to work on top of, or in conjunction with Windows, the company has never made it possible for programmers to change the main body of the operating system should the programmers need or want to. This lack of susceptibility to change, or rather the attempt to provide one operating system that is all-inclusive instead of more portable to particular needs, is a universalist approach to manufacturing the product.
Linux, however, contains different cultural values from those embedded in Microsoft Windows. Because of these values, Linux is a product that is appealing to the more particularist notions in countries that generally subscribe to this value. Since the code has been revealed from the very first day of its inception it is easier to mold Linux to the problems that are unique to only certain countries in the world. Language requirements, for example, can be fulfilled in and by the areas of the world that need them, by the people speaking that language, no matter how obscure the language is (think here about porting applications to dialects instead of simple the majority-spoken language in a country). In regions that score as very particularist, the capability to alter the operating system itself, rather than just the software that works on top of the operating system, is an important and attractive feature when deciding what type of system to use because this ability directly parallels the cultural values of those making the decisions.
Further, the flexibility of a transferred technology allowing it to vary according to the changes of a culture is also extremely important. As the needs of a company or society change (which happens frequently and often in developing countries), so too should the technology. The ability to quickly alter an operating system to meet a unique, at-the-moment need, parallels the philosophy of particularism. When using Linux, users are not bound by the same rules as (in the case of Windows) but can alter the operating system as they need to, when they need to. Thus, Linux is appealing to cultures subscribing more to particularism because the values of the operating system itself are more particularist than universal.
Particularism versus Localization
It is important here to distinguish between particularism and localization. Localization involves a manufacturer, foreign to the market it is attempting to sell products in, actively seeking to make its product fit the market that it is transferring its product to. In software localization, it is often simply the process of changing one language to another [12].
The difference between localization and particularism lies in a number of factors. The first of these is that particularism relies on people within the culture that the technology is transferred to deciding on the circumstances that dictate the exceptions to the rules. Localization often depends on the manufacturer of the product deciding both the needs of the users in the culture that the technology is being transferred to, and changes to be made to the product (regardless of how intensively the user-market was surveyed). Because the values of the culture are inevitably imbedded in the product, it is easy to infer that to be localized a product created within a universalist culture must be changed to reflect a more particularist culture. However, the very rule of particularism denies this ability in traditional localization, because the culture itself, or those within the culture, must be the ones to decide what changes to a transferred technology should be made.
Secondly, the exceptions to the rules, the changes that are made to the product, may be more significant than language translations. If the population of a particularist culture decides the extent to which an exception is made, then the changes could be a broad transformation of the product. As stated earlier, experts in international business often recommend that a completely different product be made for each culture [9]. This type of resolution goes far beyond the concept of localization that global companies, such as Microsoft, carry out.
The main steps that the Windows operating system goes through on its way to localization in Japan include translation of the system’s documentation, of its user interface, and of a small amount of software engineering. This software engineering includes changes that allow the input and output of Japanese characters. These changes however, are completed and agreed upon in the offices of Microsoft in the United States rather than in Japan by the Japanese [13]. The changes themselves are not made by the culture that the changes are made for, but by members of another culture, a third difference between localization and particularism.
Linux, because no one owns it, is owned by those who wish to work on it. Transformations are made by the culture that wishes or needs the changes, rather than by a different culture. The changes are dictated by the same culture that makes the changes, so therefore the changes, or exceptions to rules, are unique to whatever circumstances they are needed for.
Ultimately, the differences between localization and particularism reside in who decides what changes get made, what changes actually get made, and who makes those changes.
Individualism and Collectivism as Cultural Values
Another important cultural value involves the way a technology appeals to the social bonds between people. Many areas of the world prefer a more collective or communal philosophy with regards to the relationships between people within their culture, instead of an individual or self-centered philosophy. Collectivism is a cultural value that places one’s orientation, or identification, with a group rather than with oneself. It affects to whom people in a culture identify themselves with when faced with certain situations. Collective identification places the goals of the group, whatever the group may be, ahead of the goals or aspirations of individual [9], [10]. This value causes much anxiety for American corporations when implementing programs such as a pay-for-performance scale for employees in other countries. In such an example, a corporation would expect employees to work hard in order to gain incentives like monetary bonuses or perks, but because of the collective value within the culture itself, employees would rather downgrade their working habits so that every one in the group either received the same performance benefits or received no benefits at all [9].
People in a collective culture will generally tend to be less personally demanding but will expect more from the group as a whole, and for the group as a result of their shared performance. In many cases, such a culture will foster the philosophy that by aiding the group in whatever the specific situation is, the group will later take care of the people within the group by distributing the (hopefully positive) ends that are obtained.
Collective groups themselves vary widely, as do the bonds that are felt within such groups. Close social bonds occur in collectivist cultures, where distinctions are made between in-groups and out-groups [14]. The in-groups can range from the family (with variables like what members of the family, who is included, etc.) to the organization (with variables like departments within the organization or the organization itself). These variables, and the strength of these social bonds, rely on the degree that a culture considers itself collective or not. People from Japan, India, and China would most often choose a collective over individual freedom. Further, in all three of these countries, fewer people would choose individual freedom over group identity. People from these countries would generally find their identity in a group (be it a social or a corporate/ organizational group) and the bonds between members within those groups would therefore be very tight [9].
The cultural value complementary to collectivism is individualism, which orients values towards oneself rather than to a group. To a higher degree, members of an individualist society will more often choose a course of action because the ends will directly benefit them. The focus is on personal freedom rather than on the good of the group. In such cultures, qualities like competitiveness, achievement, and self-determination are highly prized, and even fostered, whereas in the collectivist culture the norms are conformity, agreement, and collaboration.
As pointed out earlier, transferred technology will often contain and exhibit the dominant cultural traits of the society that created it. Hence, an individualistic mentality will be reflected by the technology created in an individualistic culture. What effect does this type of embedded value have within cultures that do not have the same values as the culture that created the technology? A common misconception is that the culture accepts the technology and those values in the technology. However, others insist that the culture in fact resists the embedded values and actually strengthens its own [11].
Moreover as technologies are predisposed to reflect the traits of the culture from which they are developed, they are in essence, extensions of the country in which they are developed. As previously stated, a collectivist philosophy necessitates an in-group versus out-group dichotomy. The out-group can consist of members of a different community or a foreign country. If the foreign country itself is seen as an out-group, then the technology developed there, as an extension of the foreign country, is also part of the out-group, and the resistance to the out-group (represented here by the transferred technology) is only natural from a collectivist society.
Here, Microsoft Windows serves as a transferred technology embodying the values of the culture it was created in; specifically of the individualistic mentality found in the United States. In one sense, the structure and functionality of the operating system itself, the small physical features, reflect its individualism. Users, for example, each have a unique identity. A different profile, with settings specific to only that person, can be created for any number of people that use the operating system. Groups of people can work together through the system, but on different machines, all using their own profiles. Further, although it is commonly shared among users, the operating system itself is designed for use on only one machine unless multiple licenses are purchased.
In a larger sense the Microsoft Corporation itself does not support a collectivist culture. The localization of Windows to the Japanese computer market includes changes made for Japan by developers in the United States. If Japanese groups perform any development to Windows, it must be on level above the operating system; only for applications that are supported by the operating system. There is no sense of ownership for the operating system. It is the product of the out-group.
Linux, however, was created through a cooperative from the very beginning. Though it has been validated by companies like Red Hat that sell the operating system, cooperative modification still exists. This cooperative movement allows the ownership of the product to belong to whoever is working on it. Much of the literature reporting on the popularity of Linux specifically mentions the extent to which the operating system itself has been worked on within the cultures that use it, rather than worked on in other cultures and then transferred [6]-[8], [15]. This speed to embrace Linux is a way for some cultures to create their own culturally-owned operating system. Further, a reluctance to depend on the product of an out-group is at the core of a collectivist culture, as the collective is more likely to trust relations within the in-group, and by association, trust the product of the in-group. Such mistrust of an out-group’s product is demonstrated by China, which is nationally embracing Linux and supporting a move away from Windows [15].
Implications and Conclusions
The conversation brings us back to one of the main focuses of technology transfer: are global products possible? At some level they have to be, as the case of the popularity of Linux proves. However, in the case of Linux, the cultural values of particularism and collectivism have assisted rather than hindered in the technology transfer to certain countries. Linux is a product that appeals to these values only at the specific level that it is able to function. The very code of the operating system itself can be molded to the circumstances of a group. There is no complete and finished product as in the case of Microsoft Windows. Rather, the product is only complete once the group that uses it completes it.
Also, the ownership is within the group. Since Linux is owned, legally speaking, by no one, whoever is modifying it or using it, owns it. The technology does come from an out-group, as everything that comes from outside of the in-group comes from an out-group, but it does not necessarily transfer the values of the out-group because the operating system is not really complete, and therefore its values can be altered, added to, or taken away by members of another culture. The instances of cultural values in this article focus on particularism and collectivism (and all traits generally included in those values), but a group could embed other values into Linux should it wish or need to. For example, one of the main ways in which Linux for desktop use is being marketed in the United States is as an alternative to Windows. This marketing initiative did not really have an effect on the common computer user until applications, much like Windows (which is reflective of an individual culture), were created for it. In other words businesses in the United States are appealing to the cultural values of users in the United States by embedding complimentary values into the operating system.
Particularism and collectivism, in this case, almost seem to be intertwined. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to determine the boundary between the two in the context of the appeal of Linux. Is the fact that a group can take ownership of the operating system and create what they need collectivism or particularism? Perhaps it is both values relying on one another, which suggests that products cannot try to appeal to only a limited number of cultural-specific characteristics, as is the case in traditional localization. Windows attempts to appeal to relatively small differences, like the localization of languages, but this one-dimensional appeal neglects some of the more important values. Linux, conversely, allows those who use it to decide what type of changes should be made to the operating system, and those changes are often significant.
The implications of this analysis suggest some steps that can be taken before attempting to localize a software product to different cultures:
• It is important to first and foremost identify the prominent values of a culture and the relationship between those values and the technology to be transferred. Use existing research conducted on cultures to better understand what they value most. Examine the product to identify which of those values exist in the product already and to find possible contrasting values (i.e., universalism instead of particularism).
• If contrasting cultural values are identified within the product, try to find ways to either replace those contrasting values with values preferred by the culture, or find a point in the product’s development where the product remains more flexible to alterations (i.e., an “incomplete” product). At such a point, the culture that receives the product could then complete the product and perhaps instill its own values.
• Realize that localization does not always come easy. Attempting to please an entire global market with one product, regardless of how much modification is done to that one product, may still not work. In some cultures the product may not be marketable at all because values are too deeply imbedded in the product. In cases like this, it may be better to produce a completely different product, or just skip trying to market to that culture altogether.
In conclusion, perhaps the key to true localization (from a Western perspective) depends on the product being incomplete. Let it be adopted and owned by the cultural group it is being transferred to, so that the group can consider it (in the case of collective cultures) an extension of its in-group, rather than as an extension of an out-group. Further, as an incomplete product, it would rely on the collective to complete it, considering their own unique circumstances and how those circumstances demand the product be completed. Instead of dictating surface level changes of technology to people within a culture, let the people within the culture dictate the changes of what they may come to feel is their own technology.
Author Information
Clint Lanier is a Ph.D. Candidate in Rhetoric and Professional Communication at New Mexico State University, MSC 3E, Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM 88001; email: clanier@nmsu.edu
References
[1] B.L. Simonin, “An empirical investigation of the process of knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances,” J. Int. Business Studies, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 407-427, July 2004.
[2] A. Pacey, The Culture of Technology. M.I.T. Press, 1983.
[3] G. Walsham, “Cross-cultural software production and use: A structural analysis,” MIS Quart., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 359-380, Dec. 2002.
[4] G. Cohen, Technology Transfer: Strategic Management in Developing Countries. London, U.K.: Sage, 2004.
[5] S.N. Bokhari, “The Linux Operating System,” IEEE Computer, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 74-79, Aug. 1995.
[6] S.H. Bokhari and R. Rehman, “Linux and the Developing World,” IEEE Software, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 58-64, Jan 1999.
[7] V.R. Shailaja, “Linux in India,” Performance Computing, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 15-17, Oct. 1999.
[8] N. Kshetri, “Economics of Linux adoption in developing countries,” IEEE Software, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 74-81, Jan. 2004.
[9] F. Trompenaars and C. Hampden-Turner, Riding the Waves of Culture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1998.
[10] G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences. London, U.K.: Sage, 1984.
[11] P.A. Herbig and J.C. Miller, “Culture and technology: Does the traffic move in both directions?” J. Global Marketing, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 75-102, 1992.
[12] T. Lieu, “Software localization: The art of turning Japanese,” Computing Japan, vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 23-27, Dec. 1997.
[13] A. Kaneko, “Software localization on Windows,” Computing Japan, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 17-18, May 1999.
[14] G. Demel and N. Meshkati, “Requisite variety: A concept to analyze the effects of cultural context for technology transfer,” in Proc. Human Factors Society 33rd Ann. Meeting, 1989, pp. 765-769.
[15] N. Thompson, “Closed society, open source: China’s unexpected enthusiasm for Linux,” The American Prospect, vol. 13, no. 16, pp. 34-36, Sept. 2002.
© 2005 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or ressale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted component of this work in other works must be obtained from IEEE.
Previous Articles:
|
