How cultures carry responsibility — and why this matters in times of change
Image generated with ChatGPT.
Something goes wrong. Not dramatically, not through a single mistake, but slowly and quietly. Plans stall. Expectations drift apart. When the moment comes to ask what happened, no one can quite point to a clear failure. No rule was broken. No promise was openly violated. And yet, something has clearly gone wrong.
Situations like this are familiar — in families, neighbourhoods, communities and societies. We often describe them as failures of leadership or accountability. But beneath those explanations lies a deeper question: how do different cultures understand responsibility itself?
As in the previous blog on low and high-context, we use the concepts of low-context and high-context cultures to make sense of these differences.
In low-context cultures, meaning is carried mainly by words. Communication is explicit. What is said or written matters most, because shared assumptions cannot be taken for granted.
In high-context cultures, meaning is carried largely by context. Much is understood without being said. Relationships, shared history and social cues carry more weight than explicit wording.
Most societies fall somewhere in between. Misunderstandings arise when people assume their own way of carrying meaning is universal.
These differences do not stop at communication. They shape how responsibility itself is carried.
In low-context cultures, responsibility is usually explicit. It is tied to clearly stated commitments, defined roles and visible decisions. Responsibility can be traced: someone agreed, someone decided, someone is accountable.
This approach values clarity and fairness. It allows societies to function at scale, among people who may not know each other well. Responsibility becomes something that can be assigned and reviewed.
In high-context cultures, responsibility is more diffuse and relational. It is embedded in social bonds, mutual expectations and long-standing ties. Responsibility is not always spoken aloud, because it is assumed to be understood. Calling someone out directly can feel less like justice and more like a rupture in the social fabric.
Here, failure is often experienced not as guilt — breaking a rule — but as shame: a disturbance of harmony, a loss of trust, a weakening of the group.
Neither model is morally superior. Each reflects a different way of holding society together.
The contrast becomes especially visible in times of change.
Low-context cultures tend to manage change by rewriting rules. Laws are updated, procedures adjusted, responsibilities redefined. Change is something that can be planned and implemented.
High-context cultures approach change more cautiously. Because responsibility is woven into relationships, change requires renegotiating trust, status and shared expectations. Too much speed can feel destabilising.
This helps explain why reforms that appear perfectly reasonable on paper may meet quiet resistance in practice. One side sees clarity and progress; the other experiences disruption and loss.
History offers many examples. In medieval Spain, Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities lived side by side for centuries, not because they shared beliefs, but because they operated within overlapping yet distinct systems of responsibility. What ultimately failed was not only tolerance, but compatibility.
Similar tensions emerge whenever universal systems meet local worlds. Centralised states encounter regions governed by tradition. Formal institutions meet relational communities. The conflict is not only about power, but about how responsibility is understood and enforced.
Understanding this does not provide easy solutions. But it changes how we interpret failure and resistance. What looks like irresponsibility from one perspective may be an attempt to preserve social coherence from another.
In times of change, the question “Who is responsible?” is never only technical. It is cultural.
Recognising that responsibility can be carried in different ways does not eliminate conflict. But it allows us to see that many fractures are not driven by bad intentions or incompetence — they arise from incompatible expectations, and from the fragile balance between rules and relationships that every society must find for itself.
