Reading time: 7 minutes
Little by little, the world’s inhabitants are coming out of their homes. It’s no surprise to learn that this confinement has left its mark on our psyches. Confined people are more likely to develop the symptoms of pathological stress: insomnia, constant sadness, anxiety, anger, irritability, fatigue, exhaustion and even depression, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder.
This impact of containment, and of the pandemic as a whole, will require resilience on everyone’s part.
On a national scale, just as on an individual one, the capacity for resilience varies. In recent years, a number of studies have attempted to identify the influence of culture on an individual’s capacity for resilience. We’re going to try and apply them to this pandemic, which is now affecting every country in the world.
For Boris Cyrulnik, there is indeed “an inequality in the way trauma is experienced, from the moment it occurs, depending on each person’s development, history and cultural context“. While resilience can be seen as a universal psychological capacity and process for coping with difficulties, stressful events or trauma, the data available in the literature show that the cultural context brings nuances to the ways in which resilience is expressed, and that there are culturally specific protective factors (S. Ionescu, 2010).
First of all, what do we mean by culture?
Culture is how we meet and greet each other, how we work and celebrate, what we eat and how we eat it, how we interact with each other and resolve our differences. It’s how we solve our problems, what we wear, what we believe in. It is the relationship we have with our family, our community and strangers. Culture is all this and more, and it’s everywhere in your daily life.
So, are some countries better equipped culturally than others?
to make their populations resilient in the face of the covid-19 pandemic?
The answer is: YES.
Why?
Because there are aspects aspects, values and mores of a culture that can make or break a population’s resilience.
In recent years, a number of studies have focused on the cultural factors correlated with resilience. A study by Martin et al (2005) identified 3 main elements that would be present to varying degrees in a population described as resilient:
1 Religion and spirituality
It is the strongest component of resilience, acting as a fundamental force in overcoming grief. The spiritual meaning given to events, words and expressions serve as scaffolding and help to break out of the state of confusion and dysfunction that surrounds the traumatized subject (Manciaux, 2003).
2. Family rituals and the importance of the family
According to Cyrulnik, they protect the individual and strengthen his or her self-esteem and sense of self-efficacy. The quality of the people around them and their support is a protective factor against the risks posed by traumatic events.
3. Social traditions and sharing rituals with the community
They also encourage and promote the development of resilience. Both elements are characteristic of a collectivist society. The close links between the individual and society are an important protective factor in resilience.
Individuals who possess and have grown up in a culture where these three elements are very present therefore seem to be more likely to be resilient.
So, based on what we’ve just said, which countries would emerge as more resilient in the face of this crisis?
Following on from what we’ve shown above, if we look at countries where religion is deeply rooted, where the family and its rites are omnipresent, and where the community counts as much as one’s own family, we can make the hypothesis that it’s the Asian and African countries that will emerge psychologically faster and more resilient from this crisis.
In fact, the countries where religion and spirituality are most deeply rooted are in Asia (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka…) and Africa (Ethiopia, Niger, Morocco…). A 2019 study by Raghavan and Sandanapitchai studied 200 adults from 19 countries around the world exposed to trauma. Results revealed that Asian participants scored significantly higher on resilience scales compared to other populations, mainly because they possessed a higher level of coping through spirituality.
F. Trompenaars and C. Hampden-Turner (2013), after many years of study, have highlighted the fact that, in general, Asian countries such as Singapore, Japan and South Korea are much more in favor of relationships, extended family and community (fun fact: “I” doesn’t exist in Japanese). Conversely, Western countries, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, favor individualism, and their populations consider laws and rules to be above relationships, making them less resilient in the face of collective trauma.
The most resilient countries will not necessarily be those with the fewest cases and deaths. Just like individuals, countries cope differently with the burden of trauma. The ability to emerge from trauma depends not only on the number of cases or deaths, but also on the resources that the individual and the country have at their disposal to cope, and in particular on the resources offered by their culture. It is therefore important to understand this cultural impact, so that countries and governments can best support their populations on the road to resilience.
Author: Anaïs Roux
SOURCES
- Cyrulnik.
- M.Ungar.
- A, Gunnestad.
- Sumithra S. Raghavan* and Priyadharshiny Sandanapitchai.
- Edith G. Arrington &Melvin N. Wilson.
- Serban Ionescu, Eugène Rutembesa and Valérie Boucon.
- F. Trompenaars and C. Hampden-Turner. The multicultural enterprise. 2013.
- Cultural approaches to resilience – CRIRES
