INDIA / FRANCE: UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
In addition to the comparison of the two countries via HOFSTEDE's 6 cultural differentiation criteria (see article "# 3 The 6 Cultural Dimensions of HOFSTEDE: India / France Comparison"), the work of Richard D. LEWIS on the 3 dominant cultural types and their nuances should enable us to judge the proximity or the cultural distance between India and France. As a reminder, here are the relative positions of both countries on the graphical representation of the three-pole model:
We cannot miss the fact that both countries are distant from the dominant poles and almost exactly halfway between two cultures (Linaire - Active and Multi - Active for France and Multi - Active and Reactive for India). We can conclude at first that the analysis of the compatibility of the two cultures will be difficult. Countries located on the tops of the triangle and identified within a specific culture present clear cultural characteristic. A country with a more nuanced cultural profile does not bring as much readability.
If we delve deeper into the analysis of both countries, we can see that they are both composed of culturally "marked" areas. For France, Paris and the North are dominated by the Linear - Active culture while the South is influenced by the Multi-Active culture. The analysis of India is made even more complex because of its size. It is not surprising, however, that areas of Muslim influence such as Rajasthan are more multi-active, while eastern regions tend to be more reactive. More surprising still, Kerala, in the South of the Country, presents a particular profile and is difficult to analyze, with certain characteristics peculiar to the Linear - Active culture.
Both countries are almost torn between the dominant cultures of their neighboring countries. France, on the other hand, cannot be totally assimilated to a Latin country, and without being far from it, there are important differences with Anglo-Saxon and Germanic countries. Regarding India, the country cannot be included in the procession of Asian countries with a "reactive" culture. Nor is it completely assimilable to Muslim world and its western neighbors. They are therefore almost two cultural islands within their respective continents.
If the cultural proximity is not obvious, as following the analysis of the cultural dimensions of HOFSTEDE, a statement is also essential here: the disparities although they exist do not irreparably question the compatibility of the two cultures. We can even see a significant opportunity for repeated collaborations in the future. Indeed, France represents for India a culturally closer country than its Anglo-Saxon historical partners or Germany. Conversely, in the emerging Asian zone, India is probably the least difficult country to approach culturally speaking, especially compared to China. Diplomatic relations between both countries have always been fruitful and peaceful, and the light of Richard D. LEWIS's work serves to build confidence in this dynamic.