Cultural Analysis: Concepts and Questions / From Cultural Topography: A New Research Tool for Intelligence Analysis

Cultural Analysis: Concepts and Questions 
From Jeannie L. Johnson and Matthew T. Berrett: Cultural Topography: A New Research Tool for Intelligence Analysis. Studies in Intelligence Vol. 55, No. 2, extracts, June 2011. https://cia.gov


Identity
•Is individual identity seen as comprising one’s distinct, unique self, or is it bound up in a larger group (family, clan, tribe)?
•Does this group see itself as responsible for and capable of solving social problems? Are problems responded to with energy or left to fate?
•Which myths and national narratives compose the stories everyone knows? How do these speak about group identity?
•What is this group’s origin story? Does it inform group members of their destiny?
•What would this group list as defining traits of its national, tribal, ethnic character?
•Is one aspect of identity being overplayed, not because it is foundational for most decisions but because it is being threatened or diminished?


Values
•For the linguist, which concepts/things are described in nuanced ways (meaning that many words have been assigned to them)? Which concepts are missing from the language? (For example, the concept of “fair play” is hard to find outside of English.)
•What generates hope in this population?
•Which is viewed more highly as a communicative tool—emotion or logic? Are conversational styles which emphasize logic viewed as trustworthy?
•Is conspicuous consumption valued as a status marker? If not, what incentives exist to work hard?
•To what extent do security concerns trump liberty concerns in this society? Which parts of liberty are deemed attractive?
•Is social mobility considered a good thing, or is it deemed disruptive to a highly organized system?  Would this group fight to keep a hierarchical arrangement even if offered opportunities for egalitarianism?
•To what extent does loyalty trump economic advantage?
•Which is more value-laden for this group—“progress” or “tradition”?
•Is optimism rewarded as a character trait or is it considered naive, juvenile, and possibly dangerous?
•Which character qualities are consistently praised?
•What composes the “good life”?
•What sorts of myths, hero figures, segments of history, or identity markers does the material culture celebrate? What is revealed by the decorations in homes, modes of dress, food eaten (or not eaten), monuments respected (as opposed to those covered with graffiti), gifts given, etc.?
•In describing a proposed project, what will “impress” this audience? The project’s size? Its historical relevance? The technology used to produce it? How might new projects best be framed in order to win popular support?


NORMS

Political
•What is considered a legitimate pathway to power? How do “heroes” in film and other popular media obtain their power? Do they act as isolated individualists or in concert with others?
•“What gives a public the comfortable feeling that the way that decisions are reached and leaders are chosen is ‘right’?”
•How does the group view compromise?
•Where does “genuine” law come from? (Nature? God? A constitution? Current political institutions? Imagined, future institutions? Moral conscience? A personality from the past?)
•Is adherence to state-manufactured law admired or disdained? To what extent is state law equated with “right” and “wrong”?

Social
•Is social status in this society primarily ascribed (i.e., one is born into it) or achieved? If achieved, how so?
•What are the primary markers of a person of high rank in this society? How would you recognize him/her? Does political power or intellectual prestige rank higher than economic surplus?
•What is the process for establishing trust? How does one know when it has been achieved?
•Do people perceive their own place and the dominant hierarchy as natural?
•To what extent are subordinates responsible for their own actions?
•What do proverbs say about social expectations and the perceived pathway to success?


Economic
•What are the group’s views on work? Which types are admired? Which are disdained? What are the economic implications?
•Which economic activities are considered immoral?
•Is it considered appropriate to “master” the natural environment and bend it to one’s will?
•To what extent is the economy intertwined with kin obligations?
•What are obstacles to private property ownership?
•How does this culture group stack up when evaluated against the traits some claim are necessary for successful market economies? These can include:

• •Is there trust in the individual?
• •Are wealth and resources perceived as finite or infinite? Is the focus on “what exists” or “what does not yet exist”?
• •Is competition seen as healthy or unacceptably aggressive?
• •Is this society comfortable with a questioning mind?
• •Does the education system encourage investigative learning?
• •Are the “lesser virtues”—punctuality, job performance, tidiness, courtesy, efficiency – admired?
• •Which are emphasized—small achievements accomplished by the end of the day (preferable for market economies) or grandiose projects (the unfinished megaworks of progressresistant economies)?

•What is the “radius of trust” in this community? Is trust extended to family only? How far does it extend to strangers?
•What are prestige commodities within this community? Why? Might these serve as stronger incentives for cooperation than direct funding?
•Is risk taking admired or negatively sanctioned? How widely spread is the “harm” of individual failure (damages family honor, potentially ignites retribution cycle, etc.)?

Security
•What defines “victory” for this group in a kinetic conflict?
•What types of battlefield behavior would result in shame?
•What level of internal destruction is acceptable?
•How do accepted myths describe this group’s military history? What is its projected destiny?
•Are allies viewed as reliable, or historically treacherous? What is the resultant ethic regarding alliance loyalties?


Time/Change Orientation
•Does this group behave according to linear time? Is there a marked contrast between rural and urban regions? Do deadlines matter?
•What is the future orientation of this group? Does it see itself as capable of changing the near future? Is it deemed appropriate or laudable to make aggressive efforts to do so?
•Which time frames are referenced with strong positive emotion—past or future scenarios?
•Is there a significant gap between socioeconomic expectations and reality? (This often is a precursor of social shifts.)


Problem-Solving Devices
•What is the order of activities for solving a social problem (often called an action chain)? Does face-to-face confrontation happen first or last? Is violence used as a signal or is it an endgame?
•How do those outside of official channels of activity (i.e. women in seclusion, youth in elder-oriented cultures) play a part in problem-solving processes?
•Which is preferred—action or deep deliberation? Is this group comfortable with trial and error as a discovery method?
•Are individuals comfortable with making a wide range of personal choices? Are individual choice and accountability practiced social norms? Would the choices present in democratic and market systems be overwhelming?
•To what extent must community consensus be reached in order for a decision to go forward?


PERCEPTIVE LENS

Cognitive processes
•What sources of information yield ‘truth’? Scientific/factual processes? Dreams? Inspired authority figures?
•Are most situations set into dichotomous frames? Are they made to be black and white? How comfortable are group members with situational complexity? How patient are they in working to understand it?

Of Self
•What are the basic expectations about the future? (“Poverty becomes a greater problem the moment wealth is perceived as a definite possibility.”) How might typical aspirations within this society be charted?
•How does this group characterize/perceive its own history? Which events are highlighted? Which are omitted?
•What does this group’s history tell it about “dangerous” behaviors/circumstances for a society? (For example, Chinese—chaos, Americans—tyranny).


Of Others Generally
•How do members of this group assign intentions? What motives make the most sense to them? (If the best US intentions do not “make sense” to the host population, they will assign intentions that do. It is to our advantage to understand and then emphasize areas of cognitive congruence when embarking on joint ventures.)
•What is this group’s view on human nature? Are people generally trustworthy? Are they prone to excess and beset by vices, or are they able to regulate themselves? How are these views used for legitimating less or more government?
•How does this group obtain its information about the outside world? Which sources are considered most reliable? How are those sources biased or deficient?
•Are outsiders perceived as fundamentally different or fairly similar to group members?


Of the US Specifically 
•What are regarded by this group as US vulnerabilities?
•What does this group believe drives Americans? What do they value?
•Does this group see common ground with its American counterparts? In which areas?
•To what extent does this group believe American rhetoric matches intentions?


Cosmology (The way the world works...origin and structure of the universe)
•When explanations for events are not easily accessible, how does this group fill in the blanks?

PwC Chairman Aims to Keep Millennials Happy

PwC Chairman Aims to Keep Millennials Happy
By JAVIER ESPINOZA
WSJ, July 11, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303365804576434223787503598.html

When Dennis Nally started at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 37 years ago, the business was simpler, says the chairman of the accounting and management-consultancy. Back then nearly 80% of firm revenue stemmed from PWC audit work in the U.S.

Today, the company has 175,000 employees operating in 154 countries. And about half of PwC's global revenues derive from tax and advisory work, which includes consulting on operations, human resources and M&A, among other things.

About 18% of the firm's revenue comes from work for clients in developing markets in Asia, the Middle East, South America and Africa. Over the next five years, the company expects this to grow to 40%, as its clients become increasingly focused on emerging markets.

Recruiting and hiring, particularly in those markets, is the biggest challenge the firm and its clients are facing, says Mr. Nally. As evidence, he quotes from PwC's annual global CEO survey, released in April, in which more than 90% of the business leaders surveyed said that they are focused on making significant changes to their human-resource policies in the next 12 to 18 months.

The Wall Street Journal spoke with Mr. Nally in London where he talked about hiring and the importance of keeping the so-called millennial generation happy. Edited excerpts:

WSJ:How do you define talent?

Mr. Nally:Having the technical skills is important but that's almost a given these days. [Talent is also] having the right softer skills in terms of being [able] to work in a collaborative environment, teaming with people, good communication skills, good sensitivities to cultural diversity.

WSJ:What's the biggest challenge for companies when trying to recruit talented staff?

Mr. Nally:The competition for talent in the emerging markets has never been greater and that's placing a lot of pressure on salaries. Having a competitive compensation base is really important. It's [also] about how to create an environment where people want to be. This millennial generation is not just looking for a job, they're not just looking for salary and financial benefits, they're looking for skill development, they're looking for mobility, they're looking for opportunities to acquire different skills and to move quickly from one part of an organization to another. How you manage that sort of talent and how you deal with their expectations is very different from what's been done in the past.

So, clearly articulating your people strategy, what you can deliver and importantly what you expect in return is key. Connecting with your employees so they understand you can deliver the career they want is key.

WSJ:How do you go about creating that connectivity?

Mr. Nally:The human capital agenda has to be driven by the CEO. It's so strategic today that you want to have great support coming from the HR organization, but if this isn't viewed as just as strategic as new products and services or research and development, [it] won't be successful.

WSJ: Why is this thirst for talent more evident now than before?

Mr. Nally: The opportunities are so significant, coming from all different directions in all parts of the world that the demand for talent is at an all-time high. In today's global competitive workplace, you can't think just in the context of your own territory.

WSJ: What sort of policies will companies need to put in place?

Mr. Nally: The millennium generation is probably the most technological group of people ever joining the workforce. How they want to work, use social media and team within a company is very different than the prior generation. If your human policies aren't responsive to what they are looking for, they are going to go to a company that is. They want less-hierarchical structures, they want more flexibility, they want to work as hard but they want to define how they do their work. If you can't figure out a way to accommodate that kind of flexibility, you're not going to be able to retain that talent.

WSJ: What [is PwC] doing to attract and retain talent?

Mr. Nally:We have adapted both how we recruit and how we work with people once they join us to suit the millennial generation. For example, in the U.S. we have set up a LinkedIn application that allows students to track the career paths of existing graduate trainees already in the firm so a student can see how a career with PwC develops. In the U.K., we use a Facebook application to connect recruits together before they join so they can begin to build their own PwC community.

We also provide mentors for our people from day one both formally and informally and encourage people to actively use their mentors to build skills and experience. We understand that flexibility and the ability to gather useful experience are key, as a result we actively encourage our people to move both between different business areas and around the world to gain experience. We also provide career breaks, flexible working, cycles of experience outside PwC and we actively encourage volunteering.

---
Correction: Dennis Nally is the chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers. In an earlier version of this article, the caption and headline incorrectly said Mr. Nally was the CEO.

Richard Clarke's China's Cyberassault on America

China's Cyberassault on America. By RICHARD CLARKE
If we discovered Chinese explosives laid throughout our national electrical system, we'd consider it an act of war. China's digital bombs pose as grave a threat.
The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, June 15, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576373391101828876.html

In justifying U.S. involvement in Libya, the Obama administration cited the "responsibility to protect" citizens of other countries when their governments engage in widespread violence against them. But in the realm of cyberspace, the administration is ignoring its primary responsibility to protect its own citizens when they are targeted for harm by a foreign government.

Senior U.S. officials know well that the government of China is systematically attacking the computer networks of the U.S. government and American corporations. Beijing is successfully stealing research and development, software source code, manufacturing know-how and government plans. In a global competition among knowledge-based economies, Chinese cyberoperations are eroding America's advantage.

The Chinese government indignantly denies these charges, claiming that the attackers are nongovernmental Chinese hackers, or other governments pretending to be China, or that the attacks are fictions generated by anti-Chinese elements in the United States. Experts in the U.S. and allied governments find these denials hard to believe.

Three years ago, the head of the British Security Service wrote to hundreds of corporate chief executive officers in the U.K. to advise them that their companies had in all probability been hacked by the government of China. Neither the FBI nor the Department of Homeland Security has issued such a notice to U.S. executives, but most corporate leaders already know it.

Some, like Google, have the courage to admit that they have been the victims of Chinese hacking. We now know that the "Aurora" attack (so named by the U.S. government because the English word appears in the attack software) against Google in 2009 also hit dozens of other information technology companies—allegedly including Adobe, Juniper and Cisco—seeking their source code. Aurora wasn't an isolated event. This month Google renewed its charge against China, noting that the Gmail accounts of senior U.S. officials had been compromised from a server in China. The targeting of specific U.S. officials is not something that a mere hacker gang could do.

The Aurora attacks were followed by systematic penetrations of one industry after another. In the so-called Night Dragon series, attackers apparently in China went after major oil and gas companies, not only in the U.S. but throughout the world. The German government claims that the personal computer of Chancellor Angela Merkel was hacked by the Chinese government. Australia has also claimed that its prime minister was targeted by Chinese hackers.

Recently the computer-security company RSA (a division of EMC) was penetrated by an intrusion which appears to have stolen the secret sauce behind the company's SecureID. That system is widely used to protect critical computer networks. And this month, the largest U.S. defense contractor, Lockheed, was subject to cyberespionage, apparently by someone using the stolen RSA data. Cyber criminals don't hack defense contractors—they go after banks and credit cards. Despite Beijing's public denials, this attack and many others have all the hallmarks of Chinese government operations.

In 2009, this newspaper reported that the control systems for the U.S. electric power grid had been hacked and secret openings created so that the attacker could get back in with ease. Far from denying the story, President Obama publicly stated that "cyber intruders have probed our electrical grid."

There is no money to steal on the electrical grid, nor is there any intelligence value that would justify cyber espionage: The only point to penetrating the grid's controls is to counter American military superiority by threatening to damage the underpinning of the U.S. economy. Chinese military strategists have written about how in this way a nation like China could gain an equal footing with the militarily superior United States.

What would we do if we discovered that Chinese explosives had been laid throughout our national electrical system? The public would demand a government response. If, however, the explosive is a digital bomb that could do even more damage, our response is apparently muted—especially from our government.

Congress hasn't passed a single piece of significant cybersecurity legislation. When the Chinese deny senior U.S. officials' claims (made in private) that Beijing is stealing terabytes of data in the U.S., Congress should not leave the American people in doubt. It should demand answers to basic questions:

What does the administration know about the role of the Chinese government in cyberattacks on public and private computer networks in the United States?

If there is widespread Chinese hacking of sensitive U.S. networks and critical infrastructure, what has the administration said about it to the Chinese government? Specifically, did President Obama raise concerns about these attacks with Chinese President Hu Jintao at the White House this spring?

Since defensive measures such as antivirus software and firewalls appear unable to stop the Chinese penetrations, does the administration have any plan to address these cyberattacks?

In private, U.S. officials admit that the government has no strategy to stop the Chinese cyberassault. Rather than defending American companies, the Pentagon seems focused on "active defense," by which it means offense. That cyberoffense might be employed if China were ever to launch a massive cyberwar on the U.S. But in the daily guerrilla cyberwar with China, our government is engaged in defending only its own networks. It is failing in its responsibility to protect the rest of America from Chinese cyberattack.

Mr. Clarke was a national security official in the White House for three presidents. He is chairman of Good Harbor Consulting, a security risk management consultancy for governments and corporations.