At the same time, culture is constantly being affected by changes both internal and external to the group. Among the internal changes are the average age of the population within that group. Depending on whether the average age increases or decreases, a culture will need to reflect the needs and interests of either younger or older people. For example, in the United States and other aging societies, television programs and the advertisements associated with them are more oriented to older people than is the case in societies with increasing numbers of younger people (Carter and Vega 2011). A good example of this is the great popularity, especially among older viewers, of CBS’s NCIS. On the other hand, television certainly cannot and does not ignore its younger audience. The great popularity and cultural influence of Fox’s Empire is indicative of that.
Similarly, cultures need to adapt to other changes, such as a group’s gender composition. For example, today there are more female gang members in general, and this is also true of the membership of the Bloods and the Crips (Goldman, Giles, and Hogg 2014). As a result of this shift, a gang’s culture needs to change to deal with things such as the tasks to be allotted to female members (e.g., carrying concealed weapons) and, more specifically, to those who are pregnant or have young children.
Technological innovations are among the external changes likely to alter a group’s culture significantly. For example, with the growth of smartphone use, texting has become wildly popular as a communication method (including among street gang members), and cell phone conversations have become proportionally less common. Thus, not only newcomers to the group but also those who have participated for years must constantly learn new aspects of culture (e.g., gang members using prepaid “burner” cell phones that are difficult or impossible to trace) and perhaps unlearn others (using traditional cell phones) that are no longer considered desirable.
There are few rules on what should and should not be discussed on a cell phone in places where others, especially strangers, are close enough to overhear what is being said.
Gary Hershorn / Corbis News / Getty Images
Figure 3.1 Cell Phone Use and Texting-While-Driving Laws, 2019
Source: Map Showing Cellphone Use and Texting While Driving Laws in “Distracted Drivers.” Copyright © National Conference of State Legislatures. Reprinted with Permission.
The near ubiquity of the smartphone has created a whole new set of realities for which clear and firm cultural rules are not yet in place. There are few rules about texting, and those few that do exist are notoriously difficult to monitor and police, especially in settings such as classrooms (Pettijohn et al. 2015). Long, loud, and frequent phone conversations are not a problem in the privacy of one’s home, but they may be a problem in public areas where there is an expectation of quietude, such as at a nice restaurant.
A more formal set of rules, even laws in some places (e.g., Georgia), limiting or banning drivers from talking and texting on handheld cell phones is being developed to control these activities on the part of drivers. It has become apparent—both from insurance company statistics and from experimental research—that using a handheld cell phone while driving increases the risk of accidents (Horrey and Wickens 2006). In 2015, more than a quarter of automobile crashes in the United States involved the use of cell phones while driving (Kunkle 2017). As shown in Figure 3.1, many states have enacted laws against the practice, and some safety advocates are pressing for a similar federal law. If both campaigns succeed, using a handheld cell phone while driving will no longer be culturally acceptable and will in fact become illegal across the nation.
Although we generally accept and learn the various components of culture, sometimes we refuse to comply with, or even accept, them. For example, many continue to talk and text on cell phones while driving even though they know it is illegal and the larger culture and legal system are increasingly characterized by negative views on such behaviors. To take a different example, premarital and extramarital sexual relationships continue to be disapproved of by traditional American culture, but many people have come to reject these ideas and to engage increasingly in these behaviors (on premarital sex, see Elias, Fullerton, and Simpson 2015). Indeed, it could be argued that both these forms of sexual behavior have come to be widely tolerated; premarital sex in particular has become an accepted part of the culture.
The Basic Elements of Culture
As pointed out earlier, every group and society has a culture. Culture surrounds such diverse social phenomena as athletics, cooking, funeral ceremonies, courtship, medicine, marriage, sexual restrictions and taboos, bodily adornment, calendars, dancing, games, greetings, hairstyles, personal names, religion, and myths. However, the specific content of each of these domains, and many more, varies from culture to culture. Cultures differ from one another mainly because each represents a unique mix of values, norms, objects, and language inherited from the past, derived from other groups, and created anew by each group.
Values
The broadest element of culture is values, the general and abstract standards defining what a group or society as a whole considers good, desirable, right, or important. Values express the ideals of society, as well as of groups of every size.
In his classic work Democracy in America ([1835–1840] 1969), the French scholar Alexis de Tocqueville detailed what he perceived to be America’s values. Among the things Americans valued in the early nineteenth century were democracy, equality, individualism, “taste for physical comfort,” spirituality, and economic prosperity. Although Tocqueville wrote about his impressions of the United States almost 200 years ago, the vast majority of Americans today would accept most, if not all, of the values he described (L. Crothers 2018).
Indeed, Americans find these values so natural that they expect them to be accepted in other cultures around the world. However, this expectation has had some disappointing, even disastrous, consequences for the United States. For example, when the United States undertook invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the objectives was the creation of democratic regimes in those societies. The assumption was that Iraqis and Afghanis wanted the same kind of democracy as the one that exists in the United States. But creating democracies in those countries has proven to be extremely difficult for a variety of reasons, including the fact that their cultures lack a tradition of democratic government. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to impose a value, such as the value of democracy, on a society where it does not already exist, or where it exists in a very different form.
Researchers using data collected through the World Values Survey (WVS) have found support for the idea that democracy is a hard, if not impossible, sell in many parts of the world (Welzel and Inglehart 2009). As you may recall from Chapter 2, the WVS has gathered data from a variety of countries around the world on individual views on topics such as gender equality, tolerance for abortion, homosexuality, divorce, desire for autonomy over authority (for example, obedience and faith), and democratic participation over security. Respondents in countries where personal freedom is not valued highly—such as Pakistan, Jordan, Afghanistan, and Nigeria—tend to think of antidemocratic authoritarian regimes as being democratic. The data also show that citizens within these countries have little knowledge of the meaning of liberal democracy. There is little chance