Summary

This book introduces a framework for thinking about differences in cultures. The framework is binary, there are two extremes that constrain cultures, one defined as tight, and the other loose. Tight cultures can be thought of as cultures where order is the priority, this leads to strict adherence to rules and norms. Loose cultures on the other hand prioritize freedom and creativity, with less adherence to rules and norms. Or in the words of the author, “Tight cultures have strong social norms and little tolerance for deviance, while loose cultures have weak social norms and are highly permissive. The former are rule makers; the latter, rule breakers.” The author also makes a major claim that human behavior largely depends on culture, which is influenced by the level of tightness or looseness of the culture. In general the book argues that the best approach is to find a balance between tightness and looseness as there are societal issues that arise when any society becomes overly tight or loose.

Norms

A major component in any culture, and especially tight cultures, is the societal norm. Adherence to norms starts at the beginning of life for humans; “...babies follow norms and are willing to punish norm violators even before they have formal language.” Psychology experiments prove that “...we’re all prone to following group norms that can override our sense of right and wrong.” So why have we inherited this social skill? The author writes, “Ignoring social norms not only can damage our reputations, but also may result in ostracism, even death. From an evolutionary perspective, people who developed keen abilities to follow social norms may have been more likely to survive and thrive.” When societies do not abide by social norms, behavior becomes unbearably unpredictable.

One example of a norm that we don’t think about is the handshake. Perhaps the oldest evidence of the handshake is seen in a relief of a handshake between King Shalmaneser III of Assyria and a Babylonian ruler from the 9^th century B.C.

One fascinating historical account of vastly different societal norms is described by Herodotus as he illustrates his point with a story in which “...King Darius, the ruler of Persia, asks a group of Greeks who were cremating their dead fathers how much money it would take for them to eat their father’s corpses. The Greeks, shocked, reply that they’d never agree to do such a thing. The King then asks the Callatiae, an Indian tribe, who were known to eat their parents, how much money it would take for them to cremate their corpse. The Callatiae cry out in horror and tell Darius to not suggest such appalling acts.”

Tight Cultures

In tight cultures “People are more likely to dress the same, buy the same things, and generally downplay their uniqueness.” “Generally, people in tight cultures are more likely to believe their culture is superior and needs to be protected from foreign influences.” “...tight cultures have a comforting order and predictability but they’re less tolerant.”

“People in tight states are more likely to have a personality trait that psychologists call ‘conscientiousness,’ which entails self-discipline, rule following, and the desire for structure. These people report being more organized, careful, and dependable, and agree with statements such as ‘I see myself as someone who is a reliable worker,’ as someone who ‘makes plans and follows through with things,’ and as someone who ‘does things efficiently.’”

Loose Cultures

“...loose cultures tend to be open, but they’re also much more disorderly.” “Loose cultures may be less orderly than tight ones, but a certain level of disorderliness actually proves beneficial to thinking outside of the box.” “...people in loose cultures, such as Brazil and Greece, are more likely to believe that entrepreneurship is a good career choice and that they have the capabilities to start their own business, as compared with those in tight cultures, such as Korea and Germany.”

Collectivism/Individualism and Tightness/Looseness

There is not necessarily a link between tightness or looseness to collectivism or individualism. Some examples include Japan and Singapore (collectivist and tight), Brazil and Spain ( collectivist and loose), the United States and New Zealand (individualist and loose) and Austria and Germany (individualist and tight).

Contrast of Tightness/Looseness Around the Globe

The following are a variety of passages in the book that explore the variations in tightness and looseness around the globe:

“Japan’s obsession with cleanliness made international headlines after the nation’s defeat in the 2014 world cup, when Japanese fans swarmed over Brazil’s Arena Pernambuco stadium with bright blue trash bags, gathering up liter to discard-a post game tradition in their home country that they’d taken on the road.” “By contrast, in an extreme show of loose behavior, when the Vancouver Canucks lost the Stanley Cup in 2011, the city transformed into a ‘drunken vomity hellhole’ that cost $4 million to repair…”

Singapore is an example of a very tight culture. “...some elevators in Singapore are equipped with urine detection devices that, if activated, lock the doors until the authorities arrive to identify the shameless urinator.” “In 1984, the Singapore government established the “Social Development Unit,” which arranges dates between citizens and educates them on what constitutes a good marriage.”

The very tight culture of Japan has such a strict culture that crime has become a rarity. “The streets of Japan are so safe that some police officers have resorted to prodding individuals to steal.”

“In southern Germany, residents of apartment buildings strictly abide by a cleaning system called “Kehrwoche,” or sweeping week, where each person is responsible for cleaning up the building’s steps and sidewalks.”

“...there are far fewer ‘lefties’ in tight cultures. For example, while about 12 percent of Americans write with their left hands, only about 3 percent of people in Turkey do.”

“...the German word for debt and guilt is the same (Schuld).”

“Austria, another tight culture with little ethnic diversity, surveys show that almost thirty percent of Austrian citizens hold anti-Semitic attitudes.”

“Germany has mandated quiet hours on Sundays and holiday evenings. During these quite hours, you’re forbidden to mow your lawn, play loud music, or run washing machines….After one Cologne resident complained about a yapping dog, a judge allowed the dog to bark for thirty minutes a day in ten-minute intervals.”

“...in Japan, where foreigners make up only 2 percent of the population, many landlords have a “no foreigners” policy, and certain bathhouses, shops, restaurants, and hotels deny entry to foreign customers.”

Even tight nations have select domains where anything goes, for example Takeshita Street in Tokyo.

New Zealand is an example of a very loose culture. In New Zealand “Women have the highest number of sexual partners in the world-an average of 20.4 during their lifetime (the global average is 7.3).

“About half of all Dutch children are born to unmarried parents.”

Tightness and History of Conflicts

There does appear to be a correlation between the tightness of a culture and the history of conflicts of that culture. Countries in the Middle East, China, and some European countries like Germany have a long history of war and conflicts. “The Thirty Years’ War in the early seventeenth century killed off 20 percent of Germany’s (then Prussian) population…” “...China’s location makes territorial threat a constant source of anxiety. It borders fourteen countries, and has had disputes with each of them.” “Countries in the Middle East have repeatedly faced invasions and colonization from foreign powers.”

Contrast of Tightness/Looseness Within the United States

The following are different quotes from the book illustrating the variety of tightness and looseness within the United States:

“...in Mississippi you can be fined up to a hundred dollars for swearing in public.”

“New York was listed as the ‘Most Rude,’ followed by Massachusetts and New Jersey. The least rude leaned tight, such as North Carolina, Arkansas, and Wyoming.”

“...in Washington, Colorado, and Idaho, ‘419.99’ mile markers on roads had to replace ones that read ‘420’ because the signs kept getting stolen by pranksters on National Weed Day (April 20)!”

“In towns where negative reputations can spread overnight, the fear of being bad-mouthed can help to deter bad behavior and promote cooperation.”

In “...loose states, you might pass thousands of strangers on your daily commute and find yourself living in relative anonymity…”

“...divorce, single-parent households, and even homelessness – are higher in loose states.”

“...people in loose states also seek out more creative experiences. They’re far more likely to attend cultural events, read poetry and fiction, and watch or listen to arts programming at home.”

Contrast of Tightness/Looseness Among Individuals

Just as the framework can be applied to different scales of society (i.e. countries/states/communities) it can also be applied to individuals. Dahlia Lithwick’s “Muppet Theory” divides people into two groups, “...those who emanate chaos, much like Cookie Monster, Gonzo, Animal, and Ernie; and those who embody order – think Sam the Eagle, Kermit the Frog, Scooter, and Bert.” “Each of us has a default setting on the tight-loose spectrum, which reflects our upbringing, geography, generational attitudes, social class, occupation, and other factors.”

Tightness/Looseness and Social Class

Below are some of the book's claims on how tightness and looseness interface with social class. “The upper class faces less threat and, as a result, can afford to break the rules.” “For the lower class, rules are meant to be followed, as they provide moral order in a world of potential turmoil.” “Those in the lower classes were more likely to endorse survey items such as ‘I like order’ and ‘I enjoy" having a clear and structured mode of life’ and to report that they ‘don’t like change’ and ‘prefer to stick with things that [they] know.” “Lower-class parents stressed the importance of conformity, wanting their children to be obedient and neat. Upper-class parents wanted their kids to have self-direction – to be independent.” “...parents with a high school education or lower are almost three times more likely to spank their children than parents who have an advanced degree.” “In the working class, people perform jobs in which they are closely supervised and are required to follow orders and instruction.” “...lower-class individuals, this study showed, prefer to blend in whereas upper-class individuals prefer to be unique.” “People who are lower on the social ladder are also more easily influenced by the opinions of others.”

“In other words, the schools’ norms were designed to reward nonconformity and independence. No small wonder, then, that upper-class children, who are more likely to have grown up in loose cultures where individuality and creativity are fostered, tend to flourish in university environments.” “Just as cross-cultural training programs help people to adjust when they travel abroad, educational institutions need to take steps to reduce the culture shock experienced by lower-class individuals who are transitioning from tight to loose cultures.”

Tightness/Looseness and Work Culture

“People in loose cultures prefer visionary leaders who are collaborative. They want leaders to advocate for change and empower their workers.” “People in tight cultures view effective leaders as those who embody independence and great confidence – that is, as people who like to do things their own way and don’t rely on others.” “Sectors such as nuclear power plants, hospitals, airlines, police departments, and construction evolve into tight cultures due to their life-or-death stakes.”

A quote by American marine Steve Colley, “The military is like a machine built out of hierarchy. And if you break the hierarchy, you’re breaking the machine.”

Modern Society

The general migration to cities from close-knit rural communities has resulted in people receiving greater freedom, but often very isolated, “...surrounded by strangers indifferent to their well being.”

In Durkheim’s well known study “Suicide”, he claimed that people were more likely to “...take their own lives in either very constraining or excessively disorganized societies.” The term “Anomic suicide” represents suicide as a result “...when individuals lived in societies that lacked clear behavioral norms to regulate behavior. In such situations, people felt unguided in their choices, which led them to feel disillusioned.”

Finding a balance

There must be an ideal balance of order and autonomy. “...The nations that were extremely tight and extremely loose had the lowest levels of happiness and the highest levels of suicide. By comparison, nations that were less extreme on the tight-loose scale exhibited higher happiness scores, and lower suicide rates.” “...Nations with excessive freedom or constraint show higher levels of political instability. The loose nations of Ukraine, Venezuela, and Greece were at high risk for political instability…”

John Walker Lindh was an American citizen who chose to fight with the Taliban in 2001. “’Most teenagers, when they rebel, say they want more freedom,’ wrote journalist Evan Thomas in Newsweek. ‘John Walker Lindh rebelled against freedom. He did not demand to express himself in different ways. Quite the opposite. He wanted to be told precisely how to dress, to eat, to think, to pray. He wanted a value system of absolute, and he was willing to go to extreme lengths to find it.’ In short he felt more at home in a tight culture compared with his loose motherland.”