The idea of a theory of values and the metaphor of value-landscapes

The paper begins by highlighting the increasing prominence of discussions about values across academic disciplines and political spheres, emphasizing their role as building blocks of identity. However, it posits two main problems: the absence of a universally accepted theory of values and the inherent elusiveness of values themselves. The author clarifies that the paper focuses on the evaluative use of values, due to their significant policy implications in areas like good governance and the frequent use of this definition within empirical disciplines. The paper then introduces the concept of "empirical axiology"—a framework for studying values supported by and tested against robust datasets of people's actual values—and distinguishes it from a more restrictive "science of values". A working definition of values is provided: values are reference points for evaluating something as positive or negative, often rationally and emotionally binding, providing long-term orientation and motivation. The introduction outlines the paper's structure, addressing historical value discussions, a critique of functionalist theories, philosophical perspectives, methodological hurdles in empirical value studies, the metaphor of value landscapes, and a call for transdisciplinary research.

The paper provides a historical overview of the value concept, tracing its development from ancient philosophy to its incorporation into academic discourse. It highlights the classical philosophical perspective of human action as encompassing cognitive, affective, and conative mental states, with values falling under the conative domain. The influence of economic theory in introducing the market as a platform for value transactions is discussed, acknowledging the reductionist view of values as economic utility while noting the opposition to this approach. The paper discusses the contributions of Durkheim and Weber in understanding values as social glue and the influence of Nietzsche's call for a "revaluation of all values." The paper then delves into the development of functionalist theories in social psychology and sociology, summarizing major approaches like Parsons' functionalism, Spranger and Morris' typologies, Rokeach's distinction between instrumental and terminal values, Inglehart's materialism vs. post-materialism, and Schwartz's value theory. It critically examines Gouveia et al.'s attempt to merge functional theories, arguing that these approaches suffer from collapsing into normative uses, failing to fully explain actions, and ignoring socio-cultural diversity in values.

The paper critiques functionalist value theories on three grounds: lack of empirical support, deductive imposition of pre-conceived models, and the problem of abstraction leading to immunization from falsification. It emphasizes the limitations of composite indicators in studying values, noting that their high level of abstraction leads to accumulating uncertainties in measurement. The author uses the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as an example to illustrate the complexity of measuring values indirectly through various indicators. The paper then considers philosophical perspectives on values, noting the analytic and positivist turn that sidelined value studies in philosophy, the Werturteilsstreit debate, and the limited engagement of current philosophical discourse with purely descriptive aspects of values. It acknowledges contributions from social choice theory and fitting-attitude analysis but emphasizes the lack of integration between philosophical analysis and descriptive empirical findings from social sciences. The paper presents a case study from the "Sustaining ethical aquaculture trade" (SEAT) project, using a three-tiered approach of surveys, qualitative interviews, and deliberative workshops to map Asian values related to aquaculture. This methodology highlighted cultural differences in value rankings and the contextuality of values, demonstrating the need for sophisticated models to understand value landscapes. The author proposes the 'value landscapes' metaphor, emphasizing the multi-dimensionality of values considering proximity, intensity, contextuality, and malleability.

The SEAT project, as an example, revealed significant differences in value landscapes across various Asian countries, highlighting cultural and religious influences on ethical priorities. These findings underscore the context-dependent nature of values and the limitations of assuming universal value structures. The paper further highlights that values, as currently understood, are not strongly predictive of behavior and sometimes discord with ethical principles. The study of value landscapes revealed the following: values are context-dependent, cross-cultural studies may unveil values not commonly discussed in Western scholarship, value concepts do not easily translate across cultures, values and moral principles are not always synchronized, and the connection between values, preferences, decisions, and actions is often vague. However, values appear to play a significant role in shaping visions of future development, notably in scenario-based workshops. Based on these observations, the paper proposes a multi-dimensional model of values within value landscapes, emphasizing proximity, intensity, contextuality, and malleability as key characteristics. The paper explores the concept of contextuality of purpose and meaning, arguing that values acquire different meanings depending on their context of use, exemplified by the ambiguous nature of concepts such as 'freedom.' The paper further emphasizes that value landscapes are not static but dynamic and malleable over time, adapting to changing environments. This dynamic perspective challenges the assumption of fixed, universal value systems.

The proposed metaphor of 'value landscapes' offers a more nuanced and complex approach to understanding values compared to existing functionalist theories. This model acknowledges the multi-dimensional and context-dependent nature of values and the need for both qualitative and quantitative methods in their study. The paper emphasizes the importance of integrating diverse perspectives from across disciplines to create a more comprehensive understanding of values and their influence on human behavior and policy-making. The results of the SEAT project and other similar studies highlight the limitations of applying pre-conceived models and universal value systems in studying different cultures. The paper challenges the assumption of a fixed and universal list of values, arguing that values are fluid and change over time and across contexts, and thus, a universal list of values may not be suitable for a theory of values. This model better accounts for the complexity of human decision-making and the influence of cultural and contextual factors. The paper concludes that a robust theory of values requires transdisciplinary research, integrating insights from various fields.

The paper concludes that a robust, empirically grounded theory of values is crucial for informing policy and guiding sustainable futures. It calls for a transdisciplinary research approach, moving beyond disciplinary silos to engage in radical interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. This includes collaborating with diverse communities, including indigenous cultures, to better capture the complexities of values and value landscapes. The ultimate aim is to develop a theory of values that can bridge disciplinary boundaries, enhance our understanding of human behavior and preferences, and provide a framework for effective policy-making.

While the paper advocates for a transdisciplinary approach, it acknowledges the challenges inherent in coordinating research across multiple disciplines. The case study on the SEAT project, while illustrative, is limited in scope and might not be generalizable to all contexts. Further research is needed to test the generalizability of the value landscapes model and its practical application in various settings. The paper focuses primarily on the evaluative aspect of values, leaving further exploration of the deontic dimension for future research. The paper also acknowledges the difficulty in operationalizing concepts like proximity, intensity, and malleability within the proposed value landscape model, which requires further methodological development.