The Lewis Model is the latest to gain world-wide recognition, being developed in the 1990s and articulated in Richard

Lewis’s blockbuster, When

Cultures Collide (1996), which won the US Book of the Month Award in 1997. Lewis, after visiting 135 countries and working in more than 20 of
them, came to the conclusion that humans can be divided into 3 clear categories, based not on nationality or religion but on BEHAVIOUR. He named
his typologies Linear-active, Multi-active and Reactive.

Lewis considered that previous cross-culturalists, in accumulating the multiplicity of dimensions listed in the preceding paragraph, ran the risk of
creating confusion for those who sought clarity and succinctness. Moreover, he pointed out that the experts’ preoccupation with north/south, mono-
chronic/poly-chronic dichotomies, had caused them to overlook or ignore the powerful Asian mindset (comprising, in fact, half of humanity). He
named this behavioural category Reactive, thereby creating a model that is essentially tripartite and cites the following characteristics:

The Linear-active group is easily identified. It comprises: the English-speaking world – North America, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and
Northern Europe, including Scandinavia and Germanic countries.

The Reactive group is located in all major countries in Asia, except the Indian sub-continent, which is hybrid.

The Multi-actives are more scattered: Southern Europe, Mediterranean countries, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Arab and other cultures in
the Middle East, India and Pakistan and most of the Slavs. Though these cultures are wildly diverse, geographically and in their religions, beliefs and
values, they can be categorised as a group, as behaviourally they follow the same pattern with the following traits and commonalities: emotion,
talkativeness, rhetoric, drama, eloquence, persuasion, expressive body language, importance of religion or creed, primacy of family bonds, low trust
societies, unpunctuality, variable work ethic, volatility, inadequate planning, capacity for compassion, collectivism, relationship-orientation, situational
truth, dislike of officialdom, tactility, sociability, nepotism, excitability, changeability, sense of history, unease with strict discipline

Samuel Phillips Huntington (April 18, 1927 – December 24, 2008) was an influential American conservative political scientist, adviser and
academic. He spent more than half a century at Harvard University, where he was director of Harvard's Center for International Affairs and theAlbert
J. Weatherhead III University Professor. During the Carter administration, Huntington was the White House Coordinator of Security Planning for
the National Security Council. He is most well known by his 1993 theory, "The Clash of Civilizations", of a post-Cold War new world order. He argued
that future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures, and that Islamic extremism would become the biggest threat to
Western world domination. Huntington is credited with helping to shape U.S. views on civilian-military relations, political development, and
comparative government.[1]

During 1993, Huntington provoked great debate among international relations theorists with the interrogatively-titled "The Clash of Civilizations?", an
influential, oft-cited article published in Foreign Affairs magazine. In the article, he argued that, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Islam would become
the biggest obstacle to Western domination of the world. The next West's big war therefore, he said, would inevitably be with Islam.[13] Its
description of post-Cold War geopolitics and the "inevitability of instability" contrasted with the influential End of History thesis advocated by Francis
Fukuyama.

Clash of Civilization
Huntington expanded "The Clash of Civilizations?" to book length and published it as The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order in
1996. The article and the book posit that post-Cold War conflict would most frequently and violently occur because of cultural rather than ideological
differences. That, whilst in the Cold War, conflict occurred between the Capitalist West and the Communist Bloc East, it now was most likely to occur
between the world's major civilizations—identifying seven, and a possible eighth: (i) Western, (ii) Latin American, (iii) Islamic, (iv) Sinic (Chinese), (v)
Hindu, (vi) Orthodox, (vii) Japanese, and (viii) African. This cultural organization contrasts the contemporary world with the classical notion of
sovereign states. To understand current and future conflict, cultural rifts must be understood, and culture—rather than the State—must be accepted
as the reason for war. Thus, Western nations will lose predominance if they fail to recognize the irreconcilable nature of cultural tensions. Huntington
argued that this post-Cold War shift in geopolitical organization and structure requires the West to strengthen itself culturally, by abandoning the
imposition of its ideal of democratic universalism and its incessant military interventionism. The identification of Western Civilization with the Western
Christianity (Catholic-Protestant) was not Huntington's original idea, it was rather the traditional Western opinion and subdivision before the Cold War
era.[original research?]

Critics (for example articles in Le Monde Diplomatique) call The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order the theoretical legitimization
of American-caused Western aggression against China and the world's Islamic and Orthodox cultures. Other critics argue that Huntington's
taxonomy is simplistic and arbitrary, and does not take account of the internal dynamics and partisan tensions within civilizations. Furthermore, critics
argue that Huntington neglects ideological mobilization by elites and unfulfilled socioeconomic needs of the population as the real causal factors
driving conflict, that he ignores conflicts that do not fit well with the civilizational borders identified by him, and they charge that his new paradigm is
nothing but realist thinking in which "states" became replaced by "civilizations".[14] Huntington's influence upon U.S. policy has been likened to that
of British historian Arnold Toynbee's controversial religious theories about Asian leaders during the early twentieth century.

The New York Times obituary on Samuel Huntington notes, however, that his "emphasis on ancient religious empires, as opposed to states or
ethnicities, [as sources of global conflict] gained...more cachet after the Sept. 11 attacks."[15]

Huntington wrote that the Ukraine might divide along the cultural line between the more Catholic western Ukraine and Orthodox eastern Ukraine:

While a statist approach highlights the possibility of a Russian-Ukrainian war, a civilizational approach minimizes that and instead highlights the
possibility of Ukraine splitting in half, a separation which cultural factors would lead one to predict might be more violent than that of Czechoslovakia
but far less bloody than that of Yugoslavia.[16]

Gemeinschaft vs Gesellschaft

Gemeinschaft and gesellschaft are both sociological theories developed by German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies describing two normal types of
human association. Gemeinschaft is a social association in which the individuals are inclined towards social community rather than their individual
wants and needs. Gesellschaft is a civil society in which the individual needs are given more importance than the social association.

“Gemeinschaft” is a German word which is translated as “community” and mainly emphasizes common mores wherein the individuals believe in
appropriate behavior and responsibility of each other to the association instead of focusing on individual interests and needs. Ferdinand Tonnies
believed that family was the perfect epitome of gemeinschaft. On the other hand, gesellschaft translated as “society” mainly focuses on individual
interests rather than large association. There is no shared mores concept involved in this type of association as the large association is not given
prime importance. The individuals of the society act according to their own interests. Modern businesses, managers, workers, and owners are a
good example of a gesellschaft association.

In a gemeinschaft association, the status is obtained by associated ownership/authorship i.e., by birth. In a gesellschaft association, the status is
obtained through achievement i.e., through education and work.

Gemeinschaft emphasizes community ties in which personal relationships and families are given more importance. In contrast, gesellschaft
emphasizes more on secondary relationships instead of families and personal relationships. Gesellschaft is characterized by a more elaborate
division of labor. Gemeinschaft typically derives from a moderate division of labor.

Gemeinschaft is identified by small, localized societies as opposed to gesellschaft which is characterized by complex, impersonal societies. The
communities in the gemeinschaft theory have strong social bonds, shared values, and benefits. In gesellschaft communities, social ties are
impersonal, instrumental, and narrow.

Talcott Parsons, a renowned American sociologist, further expanded the two theories by introducing five dichotomies also known as pattern
variables based on social interaction. He described gemeinschaft as a collective orientation and gesellschaft as self-orientation with his pattern
variable value alternatives.

The gemeinschaft association occurs in small cities where the individuals focus more on the social community interests than their own self interests.
The idea is to focus on the “will of all” rather than self interest. The group values and norms regulate the gemeinschaft community. Gesellschaft can
be seen in very large cities where individuals are self-centric. The gesellschaft society doesn’t believe in social ties and group values as individual
needs are given more importance than anything else. Fernand Toonies believed that most of the associations exhibit both gemeinschaft and
gesellschaft characteristics.

Summary:
1. Gemeinshaft association focuses on social bonds whereas gesellschaft association focuses on secondary relationships.
2. In a gemeinschaft association, the status is obtained by birth whereas in gesellschaft the status is obtained by work and education.

3. Gemeinschaft can be seen in small cities whereas gesellschaft can be seen in large cities. Gemeinschaft emphasizes group values and norms
whereas gesellschaft focuses on individual needs and interests.

4. Gemeinschaft associations can be seen in families whereas managers, businessmen, workers form a good example of gesellschaft associations.

5. Gemeinschaft is described as collective orientation whereas gesellschaft is described as self-orientation.

Sex is "The biologic character or quality that distinguishes male and female from one another as expressed by analysis of the person's gonadal,
morphologic (internal and external), chromosomal, and hormonal characteristics."

Gender is "The category to which an individual is assigned by self or others, on the basis of sex."

Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics, while gender refers to behaviors, roles, expectations, and activities in society. Sex
refers to male or female, while gender refers to masculine or feminine. The differences in the sexes do not vary throughout the world, but differences
in gender do.

Sex = male and female

Gender = masculine and feminine

So in essence:

Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.

Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man'
or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally. These 'gender roles' have an impact on the health of the individual.

In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real
man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman'
needs female sex and feminine characteristics. To summarise:

'man' = male sex+ masculine social role

(a 'real man', 'masculine' or 'manly')

'woman' = female sex + feminine social role

(a 'real woman', 'feminine' or 'womanly')