Social changes in Brexit context: A brief analysis based on

cultural dimensions

Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Management

Tourism Management
First Semester
1 – INTRODUCTION
Analysing or describing a culture, mainly if this culture is not your own
culture, it is always a challenging and exciting task. Exciting because it is always a
discovery journey; throughout, during which you may end up not only understanding
the culture under analysis better, but also discovering aspects not yet perceived by
you about your own culture. In reality, understanding your own culture could be
more complicated than understanding a foreign culture. The challenging side rests on
the fact that “culture hides more than it reveals” and “hides most effectively from its
own participants” (Edward T. Hall, Lecture 1, slide 23).
Based on this understanding, the challenging aim of this work is to produce a
brief analysis of the British culture, focussing exclusively on the cultural and social
changes observed in the context of Brexit. Its specific objective is to point out some
cultural factors behind the political aspect of this event and discuss them using
Hofstede’s work on culture. The three major questions that arise from this objective
are a) what social and cultural changes led England to Brexit? b) how did the British
society manage these cultural changes? c) and to what extent cultural characteristics
may have influenced the determinants within this context? Additionally, this work
also discusses some issues related to changes in intercultural interactions around the
world, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The current study was developed based on literature review and on the
contents learned in the Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Management course,
taught by Prof. Dr Cummings-Koether, during the summer semester 2020 in the
Deggendorf Institute of Technology – DIT.
As an approach, this work uses an etic perspective. The culture under
analysis is described from an outsider perspective; applying categories and concepts
to describe it. This outside position has some positive aspect; for example, it could
deliver a more neutral analysis. However, it could also lead to a superficial
description, capturing only visible behaviours which do not understand cultural
values, beliefs and attitudes. Some cultural aspects, observable only from an emic or
insider perspective, could be missed using this approach. On the other hand, being
inside could give the spectator the view from only one angle (Lecture 1, slides 17-
21).
The motivation to analyse the British culture is first related to the worldwide
significance of this nation in several areas such as economy, science, history, art,
literature as well as tourism. The focus specifically on the Brexit context could be
explained as part of personal interest and experience. Recently, while I was studying
the English Language, I became interested in all news and information about the UK.
Reading newspapers and watching British tv programs at that time gave me the
possibility to follow the Brexit process from an outsider perspective. From Brazil,
where I was that time, it was possible to get a better comprehension of the British
political structure and its social problems. When the opportunity to discuss a topic
about cultural change came in the Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Management
course, the choice was almost natural.

– Culture and cultural dimensions

Describing how culture is changing and reacting to crises, in the first place,
requires discussing the concept of culture, as well as the theoretical approach used in
the description. There are different approaches and perspective through which
cultural characteristics can be described. This work is based mainly in the conceptual
framework of cultural dimension developed by Prof. Dr Hofstede. It is based on the
concept of cultural dimensions that the cultural changes observed in the Brexit
context will be analysed.
There are numerous definitions of cultures. Each researcher or scholar has “a
relevant claim to a meaningful understanding of the terms of culture” (Jones, 2007,
p.2). The idea of culture is a relative and temporal concept; it may vary according to
who defines it and also it changes over time. The current concept of culture may be
different from what societies understood as culture some century or decades ago;
there is no consensus or precise definition on this field. Hofstede (2011) argues that
the term is commonly used to refer to tribes, ethnic groups, nations and
organisations. However, depending on the type of study applied, the nature of the
concept may change.
In general, it could be stated that culture is the result of social interactions
with the environment and among its members; consequently, culture is a social
construction. Cambal and Luptakova (2010, p. 51) define culture as “the way we do
things”, as well as the way “we behave as individuals and in group”. It is a short and
concise definition, but that helps to guide us into the direction of its concept.
The way we do things could mean the way we dress, prepare our meals,
build our homes, greet each other, and deal with the day to day situations. In
summary, the way we do things could be understood as the way we interact with the
environment around us. Our individual behaviour and our behaviour as members of a
group translate into the mentioned social interactions. It is through the experiences
gained in these interactions that culture is constructed. In this process, culture is
built, and in turn, it forms the way we see and understand the world. This process is
transmitted and learned by members of society. It is composed by elements such as
“thoughts, communications, actions, customs, beliefs, values, and institutions of a
racial, ethnic, religious, or social group” (Cambal & Luptakova, 2010, p. 52).
In contrast, Hofstede (2011, p.3) understands culture as a “collective
programming of the mind that distinguishes the member of one group or category of
people from others”. According to this concept, culture involves a slow process via
which we are programmed, since our birth, to receive our cultural program. We could
say that the way we are programmed or influenced by different interactions we have
into society, is what distinguishes us from others (Lecture 1, slide 23; Hofstede,
2011; Jones, 2007, p. 2). From this point of view, it seems that the definition of
culture relies on comparison among groups to find differences. Hofstede in Traquandi
(2016) also understands culture as a source of conflict more than a source of
synergy, and cultural difference as a source of annoyances of often disaster. From
this perspective, it is possible to understand how vital intercultural management can
be in a globalised and connected world.
As mentioned, this work is based on the theoretical approach of cultural
dimensions that analyses, describes and orders cultures based on their main
characteristics. It was the Psychologist Dr Geet Hofstede that developed this study,
known as Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture. His analysis and observations of
cultures give us an essential base to deal successfully with cultural differences, as
well as better understand cultures.
As expected, many scholars have discredited Hofstede’s work on culture, and
also it has received extensive academic support from many others. His critic present
arguments that go from the research instrument used in his researches (survey) as
not appropriate for measure cultural disparity, passing for his homogenous view of
the domestic population, to the assumption of nations as a unit of analysis (Jones,
2007). However, for Bhagat and McQuaid (1982), as cited in Jones (2007), Hofstede
has “undoubtedly, the most significant cross-cultural study of work-related values”.
In order to have an idea about the mentioned approach, a brief definition of
Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture will be presented as well as a short description
of some main characteristics of each one:
Power Distance – It is related to “the extent to which the less powerful
members of organisations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that
power is distributed unequally”. Additionally, this level of inequality is supported by
the followers as much as by the leaders (Hofstede, 2011, p. 9). In sum, it is how
individuals accept the unequal distribution of power into a society (Lecture 7, slide
98).
 Table 1 - Small Power Distance Societies vs Larger Power Distance Societies
Small Power Distance
- Use of power should be legitimate and
is subject to criteria of good and evil;
- Low level of inequality among people;
- Decentralisation is common;
- Hierarchy means inequality of rules,
established for convenience;
- Corruption is rare and has a good level
of the income distribution.
Source: Hofstede, 2011; Lecture 7, slide 107
Larger Power Distance
- Power is a basic fact of society
antedating good or evil: its legitimacy is
irrelevant;
- Inequality among people is expected
and desired;
- Centralisation is popular;
- More complex hierarchy;
- Income distribution is unequal.

Uncertainty Avoidance – It is not related to risk avoidance. It is related to

how society is tolerant for ambiguity, how comfortable or uncomfortable members of
a culture feel with unstructured situations (Hofstede, 2011; Lecture 7, slide 98).

Table 2 - Weak Uncertainty Avoidance Societies vs Strong Uncertainty Avoidance

Societies
Weak Uncertainty Avoidance
- The uncertainty inherent in life is
accepted and each day is taken as it
comes;
- Comfortable with ambiguity and chaos;
- Dislike of rules – written or unwritten;
- More emotional and open for changes
and innovations;
- Trust in generalist and intuition.
Source: Hofstede, 2011; Lecture 7, slide 115
Strong Uncertainty Avoidance
- The uncertainty inherent in life is felt as
a continuous threat that must be fought;
- Need for clarity and structure;
- Emotional need for rules – even if not
obeyed;
- Uncertainty is seen as a threat;
- Resistance for chances and innovations;
- More rational.

Individualism/Collectivism – It does not refer to individual characteristic.

The collectivism here also does not have a political meaning, since it is related to the
group and not to the state (Traquandi, 2016). What it reflects is “the degree to
which people in a society are integrated into groups” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 11). The
level of individualism or collectivism reflects the balance between personal and
groups goals; it is how they are prioritised into a society (Lecture 7, slide 98).

Table 3 – Individualist Societies vs Collectivist Societies

High Individualism High Collectivism
- Everyone is supposed to take care of - People are born into extended families
himself and his or her immediate family or clans which protect them in exchange
only; for loyalty;
- “I” – consciousness; - “We” – consciousness;
- Right of privacy; - Stress no belonging;
- Propose of education is learning how to - Purpose of education is learning how to
learn; do;
- High value for privacy and freedom. - High importance for the harmony
among the group.
Source: Hofstede, 2011; Lecture 7, slide 102
 Masculinity/Femininity – Refers to the distribution of values between
genders. In masculine societies, men and women rules differ more than in feminine
cultures. The assertive and competitive pole is associated with masculinity, while
modest and caring are related to femininity (Hofstede, 2011; Lecture 7, slide 98).

Table 4 – Masculine Societies vs Feminine Societies

Masculinity
- Maximum emotional and social role
differentiation between the genders;
- Men should be, and women may be
assertive and ambitious;
- Work prevails over family;
- Admiration for the strong;
- More value to achievement.
Source: Hofstede, 2011; Lecture 7, slide 104
Femininity
- Minimum emotional and social role
differentiation between the genders;
- Men and women should be modest and
caring;
- Balance between family and work;
- Sympathy for the weak;
- More importance to relationship and
quality of life.

Long-Term/Short-Term Orientation – This dimension is related to the

perspective of future and past present in a culture. The long-term pole corresponds
values such as perseverance, thrift, ordering relationships by status, and have a
sense of shame. On the other hand, short-term orientation is related to social
obligations, respect for traditions, personal steadiness and stability (Hofstede, 2011;
Lecture 7, slide 98).

Table 5 - Long-Term Oriented Societies vs Short-Term Oriented Societies

Short-Term Orientation
- Most important events in life occurred
in the past or take place now;
- There are universal guidelines about
what is good and evil;
- High importance for traditions and
strong convictions;
- Family life guided by imperatives.
Source: Hofstede, 2011; Lecture 7, slide 111
Long-Term Orientation
- Most important events in life occurred in
the future;
- What is good and evil depends upon the
circumstances;
- Traditions are adapted and changed
according to circumstances;
- Family life guided by shared tasks.

Indulgence/Restraint – In an indulgence society, the “basic and natural

human desires related to enjoying life and having fun” is permitted. In contrast, in a
restraint culture, these desires are controlled (Hofstede, 2011, p.15).

Table 6 – Indulgent Societies vs Restrained Societies

Indulgence
- Higher percentage of people declaring
themselves very happy;
- Perception of personal life control;
- Optimistic and focus on individual
happiness;
- Freedom of speech seen as necessary;
- Higher importance of leisure;
Restraint
- Fewer very happy people;
- A perception of helplessness: what
happens to me is not my own doing;
- Lowe importance of leisure;
- Freedom of speech is not a primary
concern;
- Less likely to remember positive
 - More likely to remember positive emotions;
emotions; - Status objects are essential.
- Objects need to fulfil a purpose, not
status.
Source: Hofstede, 2011; Lecture 7, slide 118

These are a brief definition of the six cultural dimensions studied by

Hofstede, and that will be used as the theoretical basis in this work. Based on these
concepts, the changes in the context of Brexit will be described.

– An overview of British culture based on cultural dimensions

Based on the dimensions described above, it is possible to get an overview of
British culture, which could help to understand some aspect of Brexit process. The
description below was carried out based on the information available on the Hofstede
Insights platform (https://www.hofstede-insights.com), which operationalises
academic research into business areas, focussing mainly on Hofstede’s studies.

Figure 1 - The British culture according to Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture

Source: https://www.hofstede-insights.com

The figure above gives us an overview of British culture through Hofstede’s

six dimensions model. As could be observed, it presents a low rank for Britain in
power distance and uncertainty avoidance. These two dimensions, as described,
could mean, for example, that the level of inequalities among people is lower, as well
as the prevalence of decentralisation and a good level of the income distribution.
Additionally, the low score on uncertainty avoidance means the British people are
comfortable with ambiguity and abut not knowing what the future brings. It also
means that people dislike rules and are more emotional and open to changes and
innovations. This feature may contradict the general view we usually have about
Britain society. However, to a certain extent, some ideas we have about some
cultures may be based on stereotypes and does not reflect the culture (Lecture 2,
slides 25-33). On the other hand, the cultural dimensions approach give us a general
view of the culture; it is not a precise measure or description.
Other two points that are worthy of observation are the similar level of
masculinity and indulgence. At 66 score, the United Kingdom could be considered a
masculine culture. This feature refers to a high level of emotional and social role
differentiation between the genders, as well as high success-oriented society. Being
an indulgent culture means being optimistic, caring for freedom of speech, giving
high importance to leisure and showing a “willingness to realise their impulses and
desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun” (https://www.hofstede-
insights.com).
Another characteristic exhibited by the British people in this analysis is the
high level of individualism. Based on it, Britain could be characterised as an
individualist and private society, where everyone is supposed to take care of himself
and immediate family only. About long-term orientation, according to the score on
the graph, there is no dominant pole. The UK culture cannot be classified as either
long-term oriented or short-term oriented.

2 – THE DIVIDED KINGDOM

The division that Brexit movement caused in British society was not a new
fact to the world. At that time, similar events, where countries show a polarised
political scenario, were taking place in some parts of the globe. In this aspect, what
happened in England was not something new or exclusive to this country.
Movements based on extremism, populism and against immigration were present in
the global scenario. Only to give some examples, the United States of America with
Donald Trump election was taking place. The USA was also divided among pro and
against-Trump, in a polarised dispute based on hate, extremism and fake news. In
South America, the campaign that elected the far-right politician Jair Bolsonaro as
President of Brazil was just starting.
In these two cited examples, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, religious
issues have played a significant role, sometimes more than the political aspect. In
Brazil, for instance, this process began with a massive scandal of corruption involving
the government at that time. It was a government considered as socialist that had
managed to improve some social indicators rankings, such as education, public
health and decreased the level of poverty of the country. This event opened space
for a far-right movement that elected the current Brazilian President, Jair Messias
Bolsonaro, an unknown politician at that time. He saw in the corruption of the
socialist government, the opportunity to increase his political capital and put himself
as a supporter of these far-right voices. Brazil was divided then, to an extent as
never before seen, and Bolsonaro ended up as President some years later.
A similar aspect can be observed concerning the most recent European
migrant crisis. Around 2015, a wave of migrants, coming mainly from countries as
Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, most of them fleeing from wars and poverty, started
arriving in Europe. The world was shocked by the daily death scenes in the
Mediterranean Sea, and a global discussion arose about immigration. Inadvertently,
the world was almost evenly divided between pro and against migrants. However, it
seems that there was more discussion than actions to solve the problem.
According to the information available on the website of United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), around 362,000 refugees and migrants risked
their lives crossing the Mediterranean Sea in 2016. In the following year, Europe
received over 105,000 more refugees and migrants. The main arrival gates were
Italy, Greece, and Hungary, and Germany and England were the most desired
destination of all them. The balance of this terrible account was that over 2,700
people have died or gone missing crossing the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe
until October 2017. Together with these numbers, according to UNHCR, numerous
types of abuse have been committed against migrants
(https://www.unhcr.org/europe-emergency.html).
The figure for this horrifying fact did not stop there. The data on the UNHCR
website shows that people continued dying on their journey for a better life. As the
table shows, more than 19,000 migrants and refugees have lost their lives or are
missing from 2014 to 2019.

Figure 2 – Immigration in Europe

Source: https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean
 It is a terrible picture from any perspective, which shows the inequity of the
world, and how the problem among cultural, economic and geographic differences is
far from getting solved. Furthermore, undoubtedly cultural management,
understanding of cultural differences could play an essential role in this scenario. The
ignorance about other cultures, the fear of migrants take “our jobs” are based more
on cultural rejection than on reliable facts. It is quite easy to agree with Melissa
Fleming, the Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications of UNHCR, that
“the simple truth is that refugees would not risk their lives on a journey so
dangerous if they could thrive where they are” (https://www.unhcr.org/europe-
emergency.html).
It was in this context that the Brexit showed up. At first sight, it was only a
political movement that aimed to protect the UK economy, British jobs and gave the
so-called “independence” to the country. The social and cultural problems behind it -
that were much more complex than the referendum, were covered up by the
political debate. Moreover, instead of tackling the problem from its origin, and seeing
that it could not be solved merely by voting remain or leave the country, instead, the
political forces, decided to find a guilty entity to pin the blame on. At this point, as
we know, the guilty entity was the European Union (EU).
The discussions around the referendum were the shifting points that turned
the United Kingdom into a “divided kingdom”, putting pro and against Brexit on
opposite sides. It was the point at which social demands and cultural changes came
into the political arena and turned into a dispute between the labour party and
conservatives.

– Brexit: to be, or not to be

The decision of leaving the European Union (EU) was confirmed on 23 June
2016, when 52% of Britain voted to leave, against 48% that voted to remain. The
result resonated around the globe shaking financial market and raising the debate
about populism and nationalism (Ford & Goodwin, 2017). This short margin of just
4% it is a precise quantitative picture that shows how divided the UK society was
about this fact. The famous “to be, or not to be”, translated as remain and leave the
EU, was an act performed by the British society in a play still far from its end; at that
point, many discussions “against a sea of troubles” still lay ahead.
Based on this margin of 4% that voted to leave the EU, the UK was no
longer part of the 28 members of the world’s largest single market area and second-
largest share of global imports and exports of goods (https://ec.europa.eu).
However, the economic opportunities that could be left behind at that moment were
only part of the problem. The Brexit was neither about politics nor economics. At
least not in the sense that it was presented to the rest of the world. It was more
about answering social demands and cultural changes that were, and still are, in
progress in that country.
According to Robert Fay (2019), director of research for the digital economy
at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), the Brexit central
claims were about the European Union controls over the United Kingdom and about
the impossibility of Britain to manage its own destiny. However, Brexit was really
about the UK’s inability to increase its economy, permitting rise inequality and
setting inefficient funds for welfare programs and the National Health Service. We
can possibly still find more elements directly linked to the economic aspect. Brexit’s
discourse was also about protecting jobs against the foreign workforce and migrants.
A similar discussion was taking place in the United States of America with Trump
election.
For Chan, Henderson and Sironi (2017, p.2), the movement to remain or
leave the EU has a multidimensional nature, and it is based on different narratives.
One narrative states that the Leave-Vote tended to be higher in regions that were
economically deprived of the country, those left behind by the economy and
globalism. The authors called this outcome “voters of material circumstances”. On
the other side, there is also a subjective dimension of the Brexit’s voters that
represents a second narrative where cultural issues and questions of identity take
place. The questions raised by the authors are not only about losing the national
identity because of immigration. The issue here is also “whether people see
themselves as English, Scottish, British, European, and so on”.
The votes to leave for material circumstances, in this case, economic
circumstances, were more likely to come from areas with traditional manufacturing
and high levels of employment. The part of the population with low or no
qualification was also more likely to be on this side. Again, those more impacted by
globalisation and by the exposure of the UK to the European Union. What happened
was that local governments and to some extent, the national government were not
able to improve public services and quality of life and follow the austerity policy of
the EU. Even though the discourse of the Leave-Votes was about the economy, “the
Brexit voters, like Trump supporters, are motivated by identity, not economics”. The
appearance of populist politicians in some countries could be attributed to voters of
economic reasons. However, this political populism also represents a cultural
backlash against the progressive value (Chan, Henderson & Sironi (2017, p.3).
 Being an individualist society, according to cultural dimensions approach,
could help explain or at least understand the acceptance by the UK society of
national governance based on populism. Voting and supporting populist politicians
with an agenda of protection of national values and anti-immigration may reflect the
characteristics described by this cultural dimension. When everyone is supposed to
take care only of himself and immediate family, it could be easy to accept nationalist
and populist discourses (Lecture 5, slides 66-67).
Following the same understanding of Brexit as a cultural change, Ashcroft
and Bevir (2016) argue that “mismatches between plural forms of culture, national
identity, and citizenship help to explain the referendum result”. The authors continue
stating the “Britain should take this opportunity to embrace more open and diverse
forms of identity, citizenship, and political organisation”. There is no doubt that this
event was an opportunity for Britain to accept and positively manage their
multiculturalism. However, according to Chan, Henderson and Sironi (2017, p.3),
supporters of populism in Europe, which include British, are associated with
“economic insecurity and cultural values such as anti-immigration feelings, mistrust
of global and national governance, authoritarian values as well as right-wing
identity”. Though the opportunity could have given the Brexiters of this populist
movement, and the British society the possibility to embrace its multiculturalism, this
seemed not to be feasible at that time.
The survey below, available on the website of the Migration Observatory of
the University of Oxford, gives us an idea about British feeling toward immigration.

Figure 3 - Public opinion on migration in the United Kingdom

Source: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk
 The figure shows a divided British society about immigration. However, some
argument around these numbers should be made. First, it is necessary to know how
this survey was carried out. Depending on the way it was developed, it could present
a not so reliable result. People, when asked openly about some sensitive topics,
could give an unreal answer. However, considering those who want the number of
migrants to remain the same, or reduce a little, or reduce a lot, made over 80%.
Additionally, more than 40% want a reduction in the number of migrants, against
fewer than 20% who desire an increase. Summarily, the figure shows that British
people are still divided when dealing with the question of immigration.
As mentioned, Brexit could be understood as a division - in terms of votes
and support - between “those left behind by the economic boom fuelled by
globalisation” and “the winners of globalisation”. On the side, pro-remain were more
present “the young well-educated professionals in the urban centre”. In an
individualist society as the UK, the members of this second group do not see
themselves as attached to group identity; they give high value for privacy and
freedom, self-realisation and autonomy (Chan, Henderson & Sironi (2017, pp.2-3).
After discussing all these perspectives, it is clear that the Brexit had an
economic and cultural base. Maybe the question is defined as which one led the
process. It is about understanding Brexit as a cultural change that drove a political
action or a political decision, and that generate a cultural change. If taken into
account, the impact of the EU could be taken as the cause in the UK economy and its
political scenario, it is possible to talk about politics changing culture. Did the open
border with the EU really increase the number of migrants, one of the pivots of this
referendum? For this case, the numbers could give us some indications. Let us see
some recent data of the Migration Observatory of the University of Oxford about EU
and non-EU born migrants living in the UK.

Figure 4 - The United Kingdom immigration

 Source: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

The figure does not show many changes in the last decade. The number of
non-EU borns was higher in 2000 and continues high almost one decade later.
However, this cypher jumped from around 3,5 million in 2000 to approximately 6
million in 2018. Non-EU born living in England was nearly double of the EU born in
2018. Based on this information and in all discussion about Brexit, it is possible to
infer that its cultural bases or reasons led the political referendum. It was not about
economics problem, taxation, public services or political dispute between left and
right. For Chan, Henderson and Sironi (2017), cultural issues such as immigration,
gay rights and national identity played a significant part in this game.
Ashcroft and Bevir (2016) are more incisive in this aspect and state that
“cultural pluralism was a clear case of Brexit”. The authors continue arguing that
post-war a non-white immigration generates this multiculturalism present in the UK
currently, and many see this as a threat to social cohesion and security. According to
them, “from the mid-1960s until the early 2000s, most government multicultural
policy aimed at integration, rather than assimilation, which resulted in a high degree
of internal cultural pluralism”.
Here we have to disagree with the authors, or at least suppose that there
was a misuse of the terms assimilation and integration. Integration is the adoption of
different cultural practices, without forgetting or leaving behind the aspect of your
own culture. Moreover, in this case, it is the integration that generates “internal
cultural pluralism” claimed by the authors. On the other hand, cultural assimilation is
when one culture overlaps or replaces others. In this case, the aspect of one culture
is replaced by the other (Lecture 5, slides 70-72). Since the authors state that
“resistance to multiculturalism contributed to Brexit”, we understand a misuse of the
terms, since only integration could build a multicultural society.
The description of British culture through Hofstede’s six dimensions showed a
low score on uncertainty avoidance. This feature tells us the society is comfortable
with ambiguity and uncertainty about the future, as well as more open to changes
and innovations. These characteristics may not be observed on those that voted pro-
Brexit that supported the referendum based on the described cultural issues.
However, when looking to those “winners of the globalisation”, pro-remain, pro-open
border and less group identity attachment, this cultural dimension could be better
observed.
It is essential to observe that when analysing or describing a culture what we
discover is that there is no national pattern that fit all behaviours of one culture.
Some multiple behaviours and identities should be taken into account. For Ashcroft
and Bevir (2016), a “more polycentric political arrangements may help to
accommodate the multiple identities that constitute modern British”.
The question related to the British political structure polarised by two main
parties certainly has contributed to turning this process even more complicated. It
could be argued that a multicultural society could not be represented by a political
system controlled by two main political forces. The authors also argue that “cultural
renewal is a necessary part of building a Britain that is both inclusive and
comfortable with pluralism”. Their understanding is undoubtedly true, and not only
for the UK but also for every country in the world. Managing intercultural interaction
is a vital skill for individuals, institutions and government. The borders of the world
will not be closed anymore, and the only way to deal with this multicultural world is
accepting it, and more importantly, seeing it as a unique opportunity to develop a
more humane society. The world has more to gain than to lose being multicultural.
Unfortunately, based on the discussion above, Brexit shows us a strong
opposition to cultural differences. The results of this referendum in terms of
economy, social and cultural changes are not known yet. Remain, the hope that it
would not mean one step back, and one more door closed to cultural interaction.

– Brexit: the endless process

Looking at things from an outside perspective, it is possible to state that the
way the British dealt with the Brexit process, was quite unexpected. In the first
place, it brought about a sharp division within the country between leave and
remain voters involved in a campaign that mixed up social and cultural issues with
economic and political interests. Second, it ended up becoming a disorderly process
that showed an England unable to take decisions.
When considering views we have about cultures; this was not what we
expected from British culture. It is surely arguable that this vision could be a
stereotype, a generalisation about a group of people, wherein some more visible
characteristics are credited to all members of this group (Lecture 2, slide 27).
However, the way we usually see British culture is as a precise and objective people.
Again, from an outsider and foreigner perspective, how the country dealt with this
event does not fit its international image. Here, it possible to argue in two
directions. One is that maybe the cultural issues, which are the real reasons for
Brexit, have played their role. The attempt to solve a social and cultural problem by
vote may have gone wrong. The other direction is that the British society we have in
mind may not exist; it is only a stereotype. A third possible argument is that this
modern and connected world has transformed cultures faster than we can realise.
However, what has been analysed about Brexit process till now was only its
visible aspect. The social changes that brought it to the scene began decades ago,
related mainly to the economic growth that impacted different social extracts in
different ways, and education, that put more people (voters) on the political scene.
According to Ford and Goodwin (2017), in the 60s, more than 50% of jobs in the UK
were manual jobs, and less than 10% of voters had a university degree. Four
decades later, the working class had around 50% of the UK electorate, and more
than a third of the voters were graduates. This picture could, to a certain extent,
explain the importance of the workers’ voters in the Brexit decision. This figure could
also make us question whether the economic aspect had driven the Brexit process.
Even though there are have other influential cultural and social issues, as already
discussed, economic aspects may have been the most influential.
The cultural changes observed in the Brexit context could be understood as
long-term changes at any perspective. It is a long-term change when considering it
as a “symptom of longer-term social changes that have quietly been reshaping public
opinion, political behaviour, and party competition in Britain as well as in other
Western democracies” (Ford and Goodwin, 2017, p.17). It is also a long-term
cultural change when thinking that the impact of its appearance could take time to
be perceived. Many changes related to this event took time to appear in the form of
a referendum. Once the leave-voters had decided, the results of this “not to be” are
yet to come.
The reason why the British were not able to deal with this question efficiently
could have many explanations. The simple fact of having political influence and
interests acting over a cultural problem could be enough for that. Furthermore,
populistic politicians using nationalist discourse could have driven citizen’ attention in
the wrong direction. In political discussion, being part of the EU was the main
problem, when, in truth, the problem was inside the UK.
Back to the theoretical approach used in this work, it is possible to make
some inference about why Brexit’s changes were managed in this way. The fact that
British culture has a low score on uncertainty avoidance when analysed based on
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions may give us some indications. This dimension is
related to society’s tolerance for ambiguity. As mentioned, according to Hofstede
(2011, p. 10), “it indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel
either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations”. Being a weak
uncertainty avoidance society means British people were comfortable dealing with
this situation in that way.
It was possible to observe until this point that in general, Brexit was about
intolerance; fear of differences was a critical element in this context. The sense of
national identity in the message content sent by the leave voters tries to picture a
“negative stereotypes of any minority group that fall outside this identity” (Ford &
Goodwin, 2017, p. 20). The message tells us about racism and xenophobia in the
first place. Behaviours that are far from being exclusive from British culture in the
Brexit context. A simple look in the news reveals that racism and xenophobia have
their roots spread across the globe. These type of feeling has been reinforced into
societies by populist and nationalist politicians as well as by events such as the 11
September attacks. By attaching this type of events to a specific culture, this has led
to some ethnically motivated riots, for instance, the Oldham riots in 2001, when
tensions between white and Asian youths ended up in violent conflicts spread
through many other cities in the United Kingdom. The Oldham riots are only one
example of problems and conflicts generated by race segregation.
Here again, cultural issues are in the centre of this related fact. According to
Bagguley and Hussain (2019), the undermined confidence of ethnic minority
communities in the local police was one of the starting points of Oldham riots.
Additionally, neofascist politicians with electoral interests brought to the scene their
platform in defence of white rights and the vilification of other minorities, such as
Muslims. Based on this and other examples, in England and other countries, it is
clear that many political actions have tried to solve the consequences instead of to
tackle the problems.
It is important to observe that the question here has nothing to do with
stereotypes. The related facts have to do with discrimination, xenophobia and race
 segregation. It is having “an unjustified negative or harmful behaviour toward a
member or members of a group simply because of their membership in that group”
(Lecture 2, slide 27). This type of social behaviour leads to violence as related above.
To conclude this part, it is not that anyone, any race, any different culture is
not welcome in England or anywhere. The British support for skilled workers and
international students is still high. According to Ford and Goodwin (2017, p. 21), the
“opposition has been focused on migrants whose economic contribution is less clear,
including asylum seekers, migrants joining their families, and unskilled workers”.
Here again, racism plays a role when some migrants are more preferred than others,
based on their skills and values, mostly economic and intellectual values (Lecture 2,
slide 27).

– Brexit: the day after

More than four years and three Primer Ministers later - after 52% of the
voters had decided the UK was not an EU member anymore - seems to be time to
think, plan and see what will happen in the days ahead. The shockwaves that this
52% of voters sent around the world, rocking financial markets and arising global
debates about populism and nationalism (Ford and Goodwin, 2017), seem to have
calmed down or found the reality of the facts.
Officially, the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 at 2:00 GMT. However, this
is not the end of this play, yet. What happened at this precise time was just the end
of one of its acts. In the next step, on both sides, UK and EU still have to agree
about their future relationship. Essentially this means agree about a free trade
agreement that permits goods and services to move across the UK borders to the EU
– and vice versa - without so many barriers, tariffs and taxes
(https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887).
At this point, we are talking about organisations, apart from cultural and
social, that have been affected by these changes. The economic and trade sectors
certainly are the most affected one, and also those who will receive more attention.
However, sectors related to culture, education, innovation and tourism will be
affected. The extent of the impact in each one of them is still in analysis and
discussion.
According to MacDonald (2017, p. 12), the sectors linked to international
cultural relations, were the most active against leaving the EU. Now, after the
referendum, these sectors have to develop “strategies to mitigate the impact, and
even, in some cases, identifying new opportunities for the future which are less
dependent on EU collaboration and financial support”. It is essential not to forget
that culture and education are two critical fields for building a multicultural
environment. Through culture and education, intercultural relationships can be
managed positively and effectively. The author also evaluates that the educational
sector could be one of the most affected by Brexit. Some educational programs, for
instance, Erasmus, which plays a vital role in an intercultural relationship among
European countries, may suffer the effect of being out of the EU. The consequence
could be perceived mainly by the new generation, that could lose its access to some
cultural and international experience.
MacDonald (2017) also points out some other sectors that may be impacted
by Brexit, for example, innovation and tourism. The possible increase in bureaucracy
to visit the UK may lead to a decrease in the number of visitors. Any restriction in
the tourism sector that reduce the number of people visiting the country could bring
not only economic loss but also reduce intercultural interaction. Additionally, staying
outside of the European Union may make things more difficult for the UK’s
participation in some EU innovation programmes. Taking into account that this is a
vital sector for development in terms of technology, science, arts, business and so
on, the result of such an impact is not hard to imagine.

3 – GLOBAL INTERACTIONS AND PANDEMIC

According to Muthukrishna (2020, p. 1), “the Covid-19 pandemic caught us
with our proverbial pants down”. It is a funny statement, but it is also true, and the
way each country managed the crisis varied significantly. Countries such as Portugal
and Germany could be cited as good examples in this context. On the other hand,
Brazil could be used as an example of chaos in dealing with Covid-19 crisis. At this
moment (21/07) the country counts with 80,120 deaths by Covid-19 and more than
two million cases, according to official data available on the platform Coronavirus
Brazil (https://covid.saude.gov.br). In this specific case, Covid-19 pandemic crisis
has been used for political disputes. It puts in one side the Brazilian President Jair
Bolsonaro, who is against lockdown and refuses to follow the guidelines of the World
Health Organization (WHO), and on the other side scientists, the press and a
significant part of the population.
Not only governments and institutions have changed and adapted to the new
situation, but also social behaviours. All of us had to follow orders, steps, guidelines,
be controlled, stay safe, stay at home, cover the face, wash hands, and a series of
other procedures Covid-19 required of us. These measures have to be followed by
almost all cultures around the globe. Seen from this point, this certainly changed or
will change some cultures somehow. However, it is not possible to say which cultural
change will come up due to this situation. Firstly, because we are talking about
changes that are still going on, and the discovery of a vaccine, for example, that
could quickly release people from all these measures, will design a different scenario.
Secondly, because we are talking about changes that have taken place for only a
short time until now. Adjusting behaviours for a short period to deal with a specific
and maybe particular situation, may not lead to a cultural change.
How this pandemic will change global interaction, it is also not possible to
answer precisely. However, how some measures can be taken to contain the spread
of the virus have impacted peoples’ interaction can be possibly mentioned. It is
possible to say that the world has become less interactive in terms of physical
contact during this crisis. Just by reading the news, and seeing airlines across the
globe with all their equipment grounded could give an idea of how many people
stopped travelling. How many contacts, interactions, exchanges, discoveries were
missed because of this crisis it is practically unquantifiable.
Other apparent changes observed during this crisis, are those related to
home office or work from home (WFH) and online learning. Due to the social distance
requirement, many companies were able to switch their working from the office to
working from home. Some giants, most them technology companies, such as
Facebook, Twitter, Shopify, only to say some, started planning for permanent remote
workers. Work from home – already featured courses in some sectors – it is a type
of change that could turn into reality worldwide after this crisis. There are many
discussions going on in the business circles as well as in the media about this new
work pattern.
However, even in this case, the benefits and disadvantages of working from
home seem not to be defined yet. Even though if companies seem to be sure that
remote work could have more advantages than drawbacks, the same does not apply
for workers. Questions about motivation, performance, salary and even physical and
mental health of workers have arisen. Furthermore, it is not only from the workers’
side that the situation is unclear. Companies, governments, agencies and institutions
still have to come up with several answers for a series of questions. In a recent
study published in The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) press, Fadinger
and Schymik (2020) found that only 42% of jobs in Germany could potentially be
done from home. The number for the United States of America, one the biggest
economy in the world, is just 37%. The study findings also point that the areas
where most of the jobs can be done from home are financial and insurance activities.
These figures show that changes in these fields can still hold some barriers and that
not all type of work can be executed from home or remotely. It looks more critical
when observed that the data are from two rich and developed countries. What about
other developing nations?
In another study published in the electronic version of the Munich Society for
the Promotion of Economic Research (CESifo), Irlacher and Koch (2020, p.10)
concluded that workers who benefited by working from home during the Covid-19
crisis were already privileged before the outbreak. This finding could lead us to
conclude that many works performed remotely during this crisis could already be
performed that way before, which means the pandemic is not changing anything in
this specific case. The authors also argue that these type of jobs seem to be more
“crisis-proof on average”. However, when “policy makers around the globe decided
to lockdown whole industries” to implement measures against the virus, “it is
plausible to assume that particular workers without the ability to work from home
will suffer under those prevention policies”.
As mentioned, online learning is another noticeable change related to this
pandemic crisis. According to data available on The World Economic Forum (WEF)
website, Covid-19 closed schools across the world had left 1.2 billion children out of
the classroom. The result was a dramatical change in the educational sector,
followed by a significant rise of e-learning. Many educational institutions around the
globe have to readapt to this new reality. One question put by the WEF is “whether
the adoption of online learning will continue to persist post-pandemic, and how such
a shift would impact the worldwide education market” (https://www.weforum.org).
There is no easy answer to these questions, but the answers have been given by
many educational organisations that were able to readapt fast and efficiently to this
new reality.
How governments and organisations will act to remain in a global world and
how intercultural connections will be affected are other challenging questions. In
general, it is possible to argue that this global world will not close its door. The way
back to the non-globalised world - despite the growth of populism and nationalism in
some parts of the planet – seems to be much longer and arduous than the road
ahead.
Only to give an idea about discussions on these questions, in an article
published on the Foreign Policy Magazine, some leading global thinkers were asked
about their predictions “how the world will look after the coronavirus pandemic”, and
here are some predictions (https://foreignpolicy.com):
For Stephen M. Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard
University, “the pandemic will strengthen the state and reinforce nationalism”. He
also thinks that “COVID-19 will also accelerate the shift in power and influence from
West to
East”. His assumption is based on the fact that South Korea and Singapore
responded efficiently to the crisis, and China also did well after its mistakes. The
professor G. John Ikenberry at Princeton University has a similar view, and he also
sees an increase of nationalism and anti-globalism globally. According to Kishore
Mahbubani of National University of Singapore’s Asia Research Institute, this
pandemic “will not fundamentally alter global economic directions”. In his opinion, “it
will only accelerate a change that had already begun: a move away from U.S.-centric
globalisation to a more China-centric globalisation.” While for Shivshankar Menon,
visiting professor at Ashoka University, India, “this is not yet the end of an
interconnected world”. For him, how this pandemic spread across the world only
proves our interdependence. Professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. at Harvard University goes
in the same direction and states that Trump national security strategies focused on
great-power competition, showed inadequacies against the Covid-19. Professor Nye
Jr. continues arguing that “even if the United States prevails as a great power, it
cannot protect its security by acting alone.”
These thoughts and predictions give us a clear idea that we are living in a
scenario with more questions than answer. The world is changing, but how it is going
to be after this crisis is still under discussion.

– Cultural behaviour and crisis management

There is no doubt that institutions and government have a central role in
crisis management. However, cultural behaviour also plays a significant role in this
context. Some analyses suggest “that countries with efficient government and tight,
norm-enforcing cultures have the lowest rate of increase in Covid-19 cases”
(Muthukrishna, 2020, pp. 4, 6). Other factors such as collectivist cultures, obedience
to authority may make a difference in moments when all have to come together to
deal with crises. On the other hand, individualist culture “may lead to inaction until
the epidemic touches the individual’s own life”.
However, this assumption, in some cases, seems not to be precise when
compared to the performance of some countries against Covid-19 based on their
cultural dimension characteristics.

Figure 5 – Countries comparison Hofstede’s dimensions

 Source: https://www.hofstede-insights.com

The premise seems to be true when looking to Portugal, a culture considered

more collectivist and one that had an excellent performance dealing with the Covid-
19 crisis. It also works when analysing the UK, individualistic culture that took time
to act appropriately against the crisis. However, looking into Germany, an
individualistic culture that did not show any inaction in the face of the pandemic and
took action on time.
What could be accepted as real is that the economic level defines the way
each nation deals with this crisis. Developing countries, where people are fighting to
survive, the lockdown and other measures against Covid-19, for example, using a
mask, washing hands and keeping social distance could be difficult to follow and in
some cases impossible. Muthukrishna (2020, p. 8) says that “in poorer countries,
people may die of hunger before they die of the disease”. It is a strong statement,
but we have no basis for saying it is not valid. As we know, it is what can happen,
and has indeed happened in some parts of the globe.

4 – WHAT I LEARNED
To express what I learned in this course is a challenging task. First, because
quantifying or measuring what you have learned is almost impossible. Second,
because I have learned so much in this course, I have had so many experiences and
opportunities to share ideas and get inputs, that makes it rather difficult to describe.
However, my first contact with the course was reading the four articles
posted on iLearn platform. The first I read was Koc (2013), and it was my first
contact with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. The article focuses on only one
dimension, power distance, applied in management communication in hospitality and
compared two cultures: Turkish and British. With the texts of Cambal and Luptakova
(2010) and Falkheimer and Heide (2006), I could realise for the first time the
importance of intercultural management in a globalised and contemporary world,
how communication in a multicultural context can lead to a serious problem when
not managed correctly.
The concept of identity discussed in the article of Hau (2013) was the most
exciting topic addressed on these four papers. In this specific article, what more got
my attention was the idea of identity as something multiple in nature. Till then, my
general view about identity was as something unique, indivisible, a core that defines
each one of us as singular. The idea that identity could be relational and situational,
that we could assume different identities in different situations was fascinating.
However, these texts were just the start point. When online classes started,
I could have other interesting discoveries. The discussion about cultures in the first
lecture and on stereotypes in the second were two good moments, not only because
of the content but because the way classes were, lively, active and opened to
discussion. Being participative and open for questions was one of the most relevant
aspects of the course.
The only topic that was not entirely new for me was about non-verbal
communication in the fifth lecture. About the most significant moment, I cannot say
precisely when I had that, and which one it was. In general, each class was a new
discovery, a new great moment, since each class was a new and exciting topic. I
particularly like the way classes were planned, having one specific topic per class.
This methodology allowed us to explore and further discuss each concept.
However, if I have to choose the most significant moment in the course, I
would choose not one but three moments. The first one was learning about
Hofstede’s dimensions in lecture 7. The second and third were learning about
Trompenaars and Hall’s dimensions in classes 8 and 9, respectively. These set of
theories of these three authors were the most relevant concepts I have learned in
the course. These theories not only gave me some tools to deal with cultural
differences as well as change the way I see culture currently.
I have to mention that the experience of writing this paper was also another
significant and changeling part of the course. It was one of the most challenging
works in this semester. Additional to the normal end-of-semester tiredness, the topic
was, at the same time fascinating and vast. When reading about cultural dimensions
or analysing some topic discussed in class, it was always tricky to decide what to
write about, how to organise so much information in one paper. The feeling that I
could do more still exists, but I am pleased with this experience and opportunity.
5 – REFERENCES
Ashcroft, R. & Bevir, M. (2016). Pluralism, National Identity and Citizenship: Britain
after Brexit. Political Quarterly, 87(3). Retrieved 20 June, 2020, from
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12293
Bagguley, P. & Hussain, Y. (2019). Ethnic Riots in United Kingdom in 2001. The
Palgrave Handbook of Ethnicity. Retrieved 20 July, 2020, from
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-981-13-0242-
8_30-1
BBC News (2020). Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU. Re-
trieved 19 July, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887
Cambal, D. C. M. & Luptakova, S. W. (2010). Intercultural management – Trend of
contemporary globalised world. Retrieved 23 March, 2020, from
https://ilearn.th-deg.de
Coronavirus Brasil. Retrieved 19 July, 2020, from https://covid.saude.gov.br
Chan, T. W., Henderson, M & Sironi, M. (2017). Understanding the Social and
Cultural Bases of Brexit. Department of Quantitative Social Science. Retrieved
08 July, 2020, from https://repec.ucl.ac.uk/REPEc/pdf/qsswp1715.pdf
Fadinger, H. & Schymik, J. (2020). The costs and benefits of home office during the
Covid-19 pandemic: Evidence from infections and an input-output model for
Germany. The Centre for Economic Policy Research, 9(24), 107-134. Retrieved
20 July, 2020, from https://cepr.org/file/9043/download?token=MZ89DuPo
Fay, R. (2019). The Long-simmering Economic Issues Behind Brexit. Centre for In-
ternational Governance Innovation. Retrieved 20 July, 2020, from
https://www.cigionline.org/articles/long-simmering-economic-issues-behind-
brexit?gclid=CjwKCAjwgdX4BRB_EiwAg8O8HV8Rfds-q5r-
hhtPU6YaEhPdAqEPuem6m2Ztbbnq25PEkj08DWQz0RoCq6QQAvD_BwE
Ford, R. & Goodwin, M. (2017). Britain after Brexit: A nation divided. Journal of
Democracy, 28(1), 17-30. Retrieved 20 June, 2020, from
https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0002
Foreign Policy Magazine (2020). How the world will look after the coronavirus pandemic.
Retrieved 22 July, 2020, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/20/world-
order-after-coroanvirus-pandemic/
Hofstede, G. (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context.
Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. Retrieved 20 June, 2020, from
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8
Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Management. Lecture 1, slides nº 17-21; 23.
Retrieved 19 May, 2020, from https://ilearn.th-deg.de
Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Management. Lecture 2, slides nº 25-33. Retrieved
19 May, 2020, from https://ilearn.th-deg.de
Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Management. Lecture 5, slides nº 70-72. Retrieved
07 June, 2020, from https://ilearn.th-deg.de
Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Management. Lecture 7, slides nº 98, 102, 104,
107, 111, 115, 118. Retrieved 15 June, 2020, from https://ilearn.th-deg.de
Irlacher, M. & Koch, M. (2020). Working from Home, Wages, and Regional Inequality
in the Light of COVID-19. Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic
Research. Retrieved 20 July, 2020, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3582329
Jones, M. L. (2007). Hofstede - Culturally questionable? Retrieved 20 July, 2020,
from https://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/370
MacDonald, S. (2017). The Impact of Brexit on International Cultural Relations in the
European Union. Ifa Edition Culture and Foreign Policy. Retrieved 26 June,
2020, from https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-54767-7
Muthukrishna, M. (2020). Long read: Cultural evolution, Covid-19, and preparing for
what’s next. Retrieved 10 June, 2020, from
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2020/04/22/long-read-cultural-
evolution-covid-19-and-preparing-for-whats-next/
Migration Observatory of the University of Oxford. Retrieved 19 July, 2020, from
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/eu-migration-to-
and-from-the-uk/
The European Union. Retrieved 20 July, 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu
The World Economic Forum (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education
forever. This is how. Retrieved 19 July, 2020, from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-
covid19-online-digital-learning/
Traquandi, L. (2016). Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions. Retrieved 19 July, 2020,
from http://my.liuc.it/MatSup/2016/A86047/3%20Multicultural%20schools.pdf
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Retrieved July 20, 2020,
from https://www.unhcr.org/europe-emergency.html