Living in Different Cultural Environments

Travel is often associated with movement, novelty, or escape. Yet living in different cultural environments can also function as a way of understanding how values, behaviors, and social systems shape everyday life — and how individuals respond to them. While destinations are usually presented through tourism, culture becomes most visible through ordinary routines: communication styles, social expectations, concepts of freedom, and the structures that organize daily life.

Within this project, living in different cultural environments is approached not simply as travel, but as a form of experimentation. By temporarily immersing oneself within unfamiliar environments, it becomes possible to observe how different cultural systems influence comfort, interaction, autonomy, and personal well-being. Rather than asking which destinations are the “best,” the focus shifts toward understanding why certain environments resonate more strongly than others.

One of the most widely known frameworks for comparing cultural environments is Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory. The model compares countries across several dimensions, including power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). Together, these dimensions attempt to explain how societies differ in their attitudes toward hierarchy, autonomy, achievement, structure, future orientation, and enjoyment.

“Power distance” refers to the extent to which inequality and hierarchy are accepted within a society, while “individualism” measures whether people primarily view themselves as independent individuals or as members of a collective group. “Uncertainty avoidance” concerns how comfortable societies are with ambiguity and unpredictability, whereas “indulgence” relates to the extent to which enjoyment, leisure, and personal gratification are socially accepted (Hofstede Insights, n.d.).

According to Hofstede, culture can be understood as the unwritten rules that shape how individuals behave as members of a group. Although every individual has a unique personality and personal history, people also share collective systems of meaning that influence communication, relationships, and expectations (Hofstede Insights, n.d.).

However, Hofstede’s framework is not the only approach to understanding cultural values. Schwartz's Cultural Value Theory approaches values from a more individual and motivational perspective. Schwartz (2012) describes values as beliefs connected to desirable goals that guide action and behavior across situations. Within this framework, values such as self-direction, stimulation, security, conformity, and benevolence influence how people interpret and respond to the world around them.

Particularly relevant within this context are the values of self-direction and stimulation. Self-direction emphasizes autonomy, exploration, and independent thought, while stimulation relates to novelty, challenge, and excitement (Schwartz, 2012). These values may help explain why some individuals feel drawn toward unfamiliar environments, while simultaneously experiencing discomfort once immersed within them.

Another relevant perspective is Hall's Cultural Context Theory, developed by Edward T. Hall (1976). Hall argues that cultures differ in how communication is structured and interpreted. In low-context cultures, communication is generally more direct and explicit, while high-context cultures rely more heavily on indirect communication, social cues, and shared understanding. These differences can strongly influence how individuals experience social interaction and belonging within unfamiliar environments.

Prior to formally defining this bucket list item, two cultural immersion experiences had already taken place: one in Dublin (Ireland) and one in Kingston (Jamaica). Both experiences involved engaging with daily life in local contexts rather than participating purely as a tourist. The intention was not only to visit these places, but to experience how living within these environments affected daily routines, comfort, interaction, and perspective.

As someone raised within Dutch culture, these experiences were inevitably interpreted through previously internalized cultural norms and expectations. Dutch society is generally characterized by relatively low power distance, high individualism, direct communication styles, and comparatively strong structural organization (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). These characteristics influence not only institutions and infrastructure, but also everyday interactions and expectations surrounding autonomy, predictability, and personal freedom.

Despite similarities in intent, the experiences in Dublin and Kingston differed significantly. The period spent in Dublin was experienced positively, characterized by enjoyment, accessibility, and relative social ease. Communication patterns, public infrastructure, and social interaction often felt relatively familiar and understandable from a Dutch perspective. Although Irish culture has its own distinct characteristics, similarities in communication style, public organization, and social norms may have reduced the degree of cultural friction experienced.

In contrast, the experience in Kingston was perceived less positively, with lower levels of comfort and a more persistent sense of tension and unfamiliarity. From a theoretical perspective, this may partially relate to differences in communication structures, social dynamics, and environmental predictability. Hall’s Cultural Context Theory suggests that cultures differ in the extent to which communication relies on implicit social understanding versus direct verbal expression (Hall, 1976). Entering an environment with different social expectations and communication patterns may therefore require significantly more adaptation and interpretation.

Differences in infrastructure and perceptions of safety may also have contributed to these experiences. Dutch society places relatively strong emphasis on planning, organization, accessibility, and public structure. As a result, environments that feel less predictable or more socially complex may reduce feelings of autonomy and control. This aligns with broader discussions surrounding uncertainty avoidance and the psychological importance of environmental stability (Hofstede Insights, n.d.).

This also connects to philosophical discussions surrounding freedom. Freedom is often understood not only as the absence of restriction, but also as the practical ability to move, decide, and participate comfortably within an environment (Berlin, 1969). The extent to which individuals feel capable of navigating their surroundings may therefore influence whether an environment feels liberating or limiting.

At the same time, these experiences do not necessarily indicate that one cultural environment is superior to another. Rather, they demonstrate how individual preferences, expectations, and internalized cultural norms interact with broader social systems. Environments that align more closely with previously learned behavioral structures may feel easier to navigate, while environments that differ more strongly from those structures may create discomfort, uncertainty, or overstimulation.

This also raises questions surrounding daily life versus tourism. Tourist experiences are often structured around temporary enjoyment and consumption, whereas living within a cultural environment exposes individuals to the routines, systems, and social expectations that shape everyday life. As a result, perceptions of a destination may shift significantly once temporary observation becomes daily participation.

For this reason, living in different cultural environments can function as more than travel alone. It becomes a form of experimentation through which individuals can better understand not only other cultures, but also the assumptions, preferences, and values embedded within themselves.

Within this project, future experiments will therefore focus not only on destinations themselves, but also on the structures surrounding them: comparing highly organized and less structured environments, experimenting with reduced obligations and increased autonomy, and reflecting on how different cultural systems influence daily experience, decision-making, and personal well-being.

Ultimately, the goal is not simply to identify where life feels most comfortable, but to understand why certain environments resonate more strongly than others — and what this reveals about the kind of life one wants to build.

References

Berlin, I. (1969). Two concepts of liberty. In Four essays on liberty (pp. 118–172). Oxford University Press.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.

Hofstede Insights. (n.d.). Country comparison tool. Retrieved May 6, 2026, from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/

Hofstede Insights. (n.d.). National culture dimensions. Retrieved May 6, 2026, from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-culture/

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116