are the constraints like if I am a particular member of a particular group, will they allow me to have an orientation of homosexual or will they allow me to have equal rights for the women so, feminism, a kind of homosexuality how one see; one group see that is a kind of the rule of the group. Some group permits, some group do not permit okay so, it is a kind of law, hierarchy, kinship, race, gender that how it is viewed this is in a group, this is called grid okay.

So, we have like low grid where everybody is equal, egalitarian state of affairs, no one is prevented to participate in any kind of activities or social role depending irrespective of their race, gender, age or so forth, everybody is considered to be equal. In other case, where extreme we have high grid panel here, we can see that people are restricted; their activities are restricted based on caste, creed, class.

So, group when low, it is; the networks are radical, when high it is interconnected, in case of interactions low groups are rare, high groups are frequent, boundaries of interactions among individuals in case of low group is open and in case of high group is closed, shared groups like few, high groups are many. In case of grid, when the grid is low that means in a particular group, particular community, particular society, the low and high is like horizontal and vertical, one is very hierarchical one is very equal okay.

And allocation of roles is like achievement what you are; what you have achieved but in case of high, it is like ascribed, what your father was, what your mother was, whatever ancestor was, you become like caste system, okay and resource allocations; in case of low grid, it is like egalitarian, everybody is equal, everybody has the same opportunity but in case your hierarchical; in high, it is hierarchical. There some elite people have better access, the other people those who don’t have they have little access or little power to accessize.

So, if we put this low group and sorry, group and grid into a cross-tabulations, we can get 4 categories; one A, B, C, D, so if we move from A to D to C, we can say that from A to D is A is like individualistic, D is kind of egalitarian and C is like authoritative, some dictators are there and in case of A, it is like little classification and distinctions between individuals are there, they can nobody is segregated or discriminated because they are black because they are women, okay.

And in case of C which is very hierarchical okay, every movement of their social, cultural personal movements are restricted and ordered. So we can have this scenario, you can see through this picture that one in individualistic, one is egalitarian, hierarchical and authoritarian.

In case of egalitarian, it is like everybody is equal without there is no leader, there is no variation based on status and prestige, no one is okay and there are a lot of solidarities, people help each other between members, okay and but there is a problem that they believe they have a very strong, we feeling that this is we and this is they so, there is a difference between that we and them, okay.

Like we can see in case of hunter-gathering bands or some crimes of communes and another one is the authoritarian or fatalists, here is that somebody there is a ruler, life is constrained by rule imposed by other like defeated soldiers okay, they have to follow the order of the king and there is no trust or cooperations, this is just dominating, one person is dominating others, okay.

So, each people of these groups; these 4 groups based on the grid and group of these cultural groups or cultural categories, they looks every aspect of our social life in different manner, different values, different lenses, different perceptions and opinions they have so, it is not the individual biological characteristics that define their values. But which culture they belong that matter.

But which culture they belong that matter, for somebody is eating with chopstick, is okay for somebody it’s cultural shock because it is eating by fork or knife or for someone, it is like no alcohol, you should not drink alcohol, for Muslims example or a foreign white-skinned person is seen in a part of Sri Lanka or South India, this people are so surprised to see this one.

For the individualist, they believe that nature is like no matter how much human disturb it, it will; they can handle it, nature can handle it, it is super-powerful, so for your own well-being, for your own achievement for your own success, you can utilize the nature as much as you wish and okay, this myth of nature shows that there is no need for control or cooperations, people are free to use the nature.

In case of egalitarian which is kind of they see that actually the it’s very opposite of the individualistic any, they think that that nature is very vulnerable, any little mistake nature will come crashing down okay, like a ball balanced on a hill, if we just touch it, it will fall so, we need lot of control, lot of control okay and cooperation is necessary to protect yourself from that kind of threat okay.