Interpreting the Bible with the Value Orientations Model: history and prospects.

This article summarizes the Value Orientations Model developed by Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck (1961) and surveys publications in which the model has been used as an aid to cross-cultural interpretation of the New Testament (History). Like the Documentary Hypothesis and the Two-Source Hypothesis, this social science model has weathered challenges and proved itself adaptable to modifications and innovative applications especially in conjunction with other models (Prospects).

**********

I discovered the Value Orientations Model (VOM) while doing research on families and family therapy in 1987. Two books that I consulted used the model impressively. In ETHNICITY AND FAMILY THERAPY (McGoldrick, Pearce and Giordano 1982) each contributor relied upon this model to suggest appropriate ways for interacting with families of a specific ethnic background. In TRANSACTIONS IN FAMILIES, Papajohn and Spiegel (1975) adapted the model in their clinical work with families of three ethnic groups: Italian American, Greek American, and Puerto Rican American. The common Mediterranean cultural heritage of these families suggested that the VOM might be useful for analyzing families, groups, and persons in the Bible. Indeed it was (Pilch 1993).

The Value Orientations Model

While conducting field research in 1936 for her doctoral dissertation in Los Atarquenos, a Spanish-speaking village in New Mexico, Florence Kluckhohn developed the concept of "general life situation." She hypothesized that a group's orientation to some of life's universally experienced life situations would be an outward, behavioral manifestation of its inner belief about the nature of what is "best, right, and true." Subsequently she joined the Harvard Values Project which studied five distinct cultural communities that lived within a forty mile radius of an area called Rimrock. The communities were a Texan homestead community, a Mormon village, a Mexican American village, a decentralized Navaho Indian band, and a centralized Zuni Pueblo. The Project was conducted by a team of social scientists from Harvard's Laboratory of Social Relations co-directed by John Roberts and Evon Vogt (1966).

It was in the Rimrock Project that Florence Kluckhohn refined and field tested the Value Orientations Method. The method has two components: the Value Orientations Survey and the Value Orientations Model. The survey consists of twenty-two general life situations painstakingly designed by the Kluckhohn team to elicit the respondent's value orientations to four general life situations: human relations, human activity, relationship to nature, and time. Due to lack of time, the research team was unable to develop situations for human nature, the fifth general life situation. Similarly in the area of human activity, the team constructed situations for only two of the three orientations in the human activity dimension (being-in-becoming was omitted). A field test among the Zuni and Navaho in 1951 indicated it would be fruitful to conduct a larger scale project in all five communities. The results were published in the now classic and influential treatment of value orientations by E Kluckhohn and E Strodtbeck: Variations in Value Orientations (1961)

Florence Kluckhohn used the definition of value orientations developed by her husband, Clyde (C. Kluckhohn 1951: 409, 411)

   It is convenient to use the term value-orientation for those value elements
   which are (a) general, (b) organized, and (c) include definite existential
   judgments. A value-orientation is a set of linked propositions embracing
   value and existential elements.... Since value elements and existential
   premises are almost inextricably blended in the overall picture of
   experience that characterize an individual or a group, it seems well to
   call this overall view a "value orientation," symboling the fact that the
   affective-cognitive (orientation) elements are blended. More formally, a
   value-orientation may be defined as a generalized and organized conception,
   influencing behavior, of nature, of man's place in it, of man's relation to
   man, and of the desirable and nondesirable as they relate to
   man-environment and interhuman relations .... Like values, they vary on a
   continuum from the explicit to the implicit.

Florence Kluckhohn also hypothesized that the principles or values that guide human behavior result from an interactive interplay of three key elements in the process of making an evaluative choice: the cognitive (how one thinks about the challenge), the affective (how one feels about it), and the directive (a person's biologically determined disposition). Russo (2000: 5) relates an interesting illustration. A Canadian physician working in sub-Saharan Africa recommended amputation for a girl whose leg had been injured by a land mine. The parents thanked him for his advice but took her home where she died a few days later. The Canadian asked a native colleague how the parents could be so callous? Did they not care about life? The African colleague said it was not about sensitivity but about honor. The role of women in the tribe is to farm the fields, gather wood and water, and bear children. A girl with an amputated leg in this situation would be severely hampered. Her life situation would be shameful to her, to her family, and to the traditional beliefs of the tribe. Her life would have no meaning. Better that she should be allowed to die with honor than to live in shame.

Some years later the Canadian physician returned to Canada with his African colleague. After a few days, the African physician remarked about the number of homeless people he saw on the street. Why, he wondered, must some people live on the street while wealthy people have comfortable homes? Why don't the wealthy share with the homeless? Have they no sense of honor?

Both the Canadian physician and his African colleague were concerned about honor. The African sense of honor is rooted in collateral relationships (family, tribe) and the guiding hand of tradition (orientation toward the past). The Canadian sense of honor depends on individualism (people look after themselves and their family first) and achievement (people must strive to succeed in life on their own merits). To do this sometimes requires that one leave the past behind (family, tradition).

The theoretical framework or model created by Florence Kluckhohn for analyzing value orientations across cultures rests on three assumptions (Pilch 1992). First, there are a limited number of common human problems for which all peoples of all times must find solutions. These problems are actually five in number, though later in her life she thought of adding a sixth (space). What is the character of human nature? How do people relate to nature? What is the prevailing temporal focus of human life? What is the preferred modality of human activity? What is the modality of a person's relationship to others in the group?

Second, the answers or solutions to these problems are not unlimited nor random. Rather the answers or solutions vary within a range of alternatives or value orientations. Third, each of the value orientations is present in all persons and all societies at all times but is differently preferred both by the respective society and the individuals within that society. The rank ordering of these solutions helps identify the dominant and subordinate value orientations profiles for the individual and his or her group. In schematic form, the theoretical framework or model looks like the diagram above.

Persons and groups in a given society arrange the sequence of problems differently even as they arrange their preferred solutions differently. In the anecdote reported above, collaterality or group-orientation (group-preference over individualism) was clearly the major value orientation of the sub-Saharan parents, while doing and achieving (of course as responsible individuals in society) was the major value orientation of the Canadians. The shorthand developed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck for expressing this information uses the symbol ">" meaning: "is preferred to." Thus, for the sub-Saharan parents and the tribe to which they belong, the human relation value orientations are: collaterality>lineality >individualism. The Canadian physician's human activity value orientations are: doing>being>being-in-becoming. The primary emphasis on doing or achieving associates strongly with a human relation value orientation like this: individualism >lineality>collaterality.

The Value Orientation Model in Biblical Research

The first application of the Value Orientation Model that I made to biblical studies was to develop an understanding of healing in the ancient Mediterranean world (1992). That article was completed in 1989 and accepted but never published by Forum (see the now inaccurate reference in Pilch 1990). I explained the assumptions, sketched the model as it applied to America and to the Mediterranean world, pointed out the differences, and explained how a modern reader from the scientifically minded Western world might understand healing in the ancient, Mediterranean world of traditional peasants.

The first published application of the model to biblical studies appeared in Biblical Theology Bulletin (Pilch 1990).

That article summarized the information about the model and applied the insights to an understanding of Mary, mother of Jesus, as a "Mediterranean Maid and Mother," the title of a day-long seminar sponsored by the Theology Department at Creighton University, Omaha, NE, where the article was read as a paper. In this presentation, I described Mary as a Mediterranean maiden following the culture's value orientations and then proposed a way for those who might be so interested to "translate" those values into North European/North American culture.

However, I had been writing a text book since 1988 for Paulist Press: Introducing the Cultural Context of the New Testament, in which five of the eight chapters presented and refined the VOM for New Testament study at greater length (Pilch 1991). Drawing chiefly upon the insights and applications of the VOM by Papajohn and Spiegel (1975) to three family groups sharing a common, Mediterranean cultural heritage, I was able to refine the model for application to first century Mediterranean persons and groups described in the New Testament. In general, the value orientations of these persons and groups are collaterality or group-centeredness (typical of collectivistic personalities currently representing 80 percent of the planet's current population), spontaneity in human activity ("being") linked strongly with the peasant experience of being subject to nature, hence also strongly rooted in a present time orientation.

Though Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck did not have time to develop life-situations for the being-in-becoming dimension of human activity, it was possible for me to identify expressions of this value orientation in the New Testament with the help of a model first proposed by De Geradon (1958) then refined and introduced into social scientific analysis of the New Testament by Malina (1981). According to Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, being-in-becoming reflects that conviction by which a person seeks out such activity that will develop all aspects of the self both intrinsic and extrinsic as an integrated whole. Mediterranean persons are non-introspective (see 1 Sam 16:7); indeed, they are anti-introspective. They ignore the intrinsic aspect of human existence and focus instead on the extrinsic aspects. They perceive human beings as consisting of three mutually interpenetrating yet distinguishable zones that interact with other persons and things in the human environment: the zone of emotion fused thought (heart-eyes and synonyms), the zone of self-expressive speech (mouth-ears and synonyms), and the zone of purposeful activity (handsffeet and synonyms; Malina 2001: 68-76). These physical zones of the human body, as is evident in the model, are endowed with symbolic meaning.

Thus it was possible in my textbook (Pilch 1991) to analyze Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-8) using the VOM and noting that being-in-becoming considerations permeate the Sermon. For instance, in that section of the Sermon where Matthew's Jesus criticizes righteousness as practiced by the Pharisees (Matt 6:1-18), he singles out three key elements by which they were known: giving alms (Matt 6:2-4, hands-feet), praying (Matt 6:5-15, mouth-ears), and fasting (Matt 6:16-18, mouthears). Conspicuously absent in their devotional practices are heart-eyes activities! ("This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me"--Matt 15:8 citing Isaiah 29:13 LXX). Jesus, whose healing activities sought to bring all these three zones into working order and balance (Pilch 2000), scores the Pharisees for their deficiency.

Because my textbook (Pilch 1991) was interested in comparing values across cultures, I was able to offer some refinement to the human nature value orientations as pertaining to American culture and to Middle Eastern culture. Each chapter has three parts: a look at the value orientation for a given problem in American culture; an examination of the arrangement of value orientations in Mediterranean culture; and finally, an attempt to build a bridge, or to "find the middle ground" between the two. Thus initially, under Puritan influence, it would be fair to say that the primary value orientation among early arrivals to America concerning human nature is that it was immutably evil to core. Nearly all Americans are familiar with the classic sermon by Jonathan Edwards, "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God." After the Enlightenment and as a result of it, it would be more appropriate to say that the primary value orientation concerning human nature in America is that it is neutral but corruptible or perfectible. This change in value orientations as well as the fact that some Americans may still hold the earlier American view which they believe is confirmed by the Bible (see Pilch 1993) has an impact on the different ways in which American parents raise their children.

On another of the general life situations, the biblical view of human nature in general is that it is a mixture of good and evil. Rabbinic speculation about the two drives implanted by God into the human being at creation based on the double yod in the Hebrew word ysr (Gen 2:7) was based in part on reference to the predominance of the evil inclination or drive in later texts (Gen 6:5; 8:21). In other words, God planted two drives or inclinations in the first human being: an inclination toward good and an inclination toward evil. As the flood story twice reports, the evil inclination predominated. Paul echoes something of that tradition when he admits knowing good and evil, wanting to do good but experiencing difficulty resisting evil (Rom 7:18-20; see also Malina and Neyrey below). It is also echoed in Paul's reflections on the works of the spirit and works of the flesh in Galatians 5:16-23.

I made yet another application of the VOM to the problem of pain and suffering based on a series of keynote addresses I delivered to three International Conferences on Pain and Suffering sponsored by McMaster Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (1983-1985). In the presentation to honor (Jewish) Holocaust Ovservance Week at Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ, on April 22, 1990, I was able by means of the VOM to situate pain and suffering in a cross-cultural perspective and then compare the responses to pain and suffering of three distinct cultural groups: Judean Peasants in the first century biblical world; "old Americans" (that social group that seems to set the cultural model of our society as reflected in values and structures, or as I prefer to call them: mainstream United States citizens); and native Poles as they differ from Americans of Polish descent. The key value orientation here is the relationship of each of these groups to nature: Americans believe nature can be mastered and need not be suffered or endured; Judean Peasants and native Poles tend to be resigned to what life brings, to "fate." Though the paper was never published in English, it was translated into Polish and published by the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Krakow, Poland (Pilch 1999).

I also collaborated with Malina (1993; 1998) in editing and contributing to a mini-dictionary of biblical values that was built upon the VOM. In the introduction to that book (Pilch & Malina 1998: xxxi), we suggested differing value orientations that would aptly describe distinct cultural groups (e.g., Roman, Greek, Israelite Peasant, etc.) and individuals (e.g., Jesus, Paul). Contributors to the volume presented many biblical references to illustrate each value listed along with relevant social science bibliography. Just like the scholars currently associated with the Florence R. Kluckhohn Center for the Study of Values, we too solicit feedback and suggestions for refining the models and explanations we and our Context Group collaborators proposed in that volume.

Malina and Neyrey (1996: 187-201) incorporated the VOM into their study of Paul and the people of Paul's world. In that world, the prevailing value orientations are being (illustrated by Paul's emphasis on endurance and obedience); collateral relations (manifest in concern for the common good, love, self-sacrifice); present time orientation (evident in highlighting the virtues of constancy, loyalty, tradition); human nature is evil (especially in Paul's letter to Judeans living in Rome); and the conviction of being subject to nature which required of them endurance in the face of famine, floods, storms, and locusts. More than this, very much like scholars associated with the Florence R. Kluckhohn Center for the Study of Values, Malina and Neyrey integrated the VOM with other models that each had developed and used in previous research or designed specifically for this Paul volume.

Finally, Neyrey most recently applied the VOM to prayer (Neyrey 2001) distinguishing the value orientations of those praying from those attributed to the Deity, the object of prayer. Thus with regard to activity, God is always "doing" (performing) while Mediterranean people who pray value "being" (spontaneity) above all. God stands in a lineal or hierarchical relationship to humans; Mediterranean humans relate to one another collaterally and view and address God as a superior. Mediterranean people refer to the past for insight and assistance as they focus on the present. In contrast, God enjoys an eternity that stretches back and forward temporally without limit. Only God knows the future and can do something about it. The future is of little interest in the ancient Mediterranean world. Indeed the Hebrew language knows no future tense (or other tenses familiar to us: an action is either completed or incomplete). With regard to nature, God the creator is obviously in control, Mediterranean human beings are subject to nature. Finally God is holy beyond measure, but Mediterranean humans consider themselves a mixture of good and evil in need of redemption.

Prospects for Biblical Studies

The Florence R. Kluckhohn Center for the Study of Values held values symposia in 1993 and 1997 publishing a selection of articles from these in 2000 (Russo 2000). The articles focused on the method; on ethnicity and mental health care; on value orientations and education; and on value orientations and conflict resolution. While the contributors to the Russo volume represent the vast majority of those who use the VOM as practitioners involved in contemporary challenges, some biblical scholars such as members of the Context Group are probably unique as social science practitioners who use the model to understand people and groups in antiquity. Just like the contributors to the Russo volume, so too have biblical scholars found that the VOM and method is adaptable to many different cultural groups, and that it integrates well with models and insights from other disciplines. There is no question but that the model has provided new understanding of the ancient Mediterranean world and has provided fresh insight and understanding into ancient texts. The eminent adaptability of the Values Orientations Model to such diverse circumstances gives the lie to recalcitrant critics of the social sciences who view models as cookie cutters or some sort of Procrustean bed to which a researcher forces all the data to fit whether they do nor not.

One possible prospect for further applying the VOM in biblical studies is in the analysis of conflict situations. Gallagher (2000: 192) observes: "The Kluckhohn model is not itself a conflict resolution model." He believes instead that it should be integrated into the overall process and perhaps even linked with other models. Malina (1986) called this process "kitbashing," that is, similar to building model planes, boats, etc., so to a researcher combines appropriate elements from two or more models to create a new one. Since Mediterranean society is by definition agonistic, it would be interesting to explore how conflict resolution theory and strategies might contribute to a better understanding of the source, nature, and cultural dynamics of conflicts in biblical reports. For instance, what cultural dynamics or conflicting value orientations were operative in the conflict between Paul and the "so-called" Pillars in Jerusalem (Gal 1-2)? The model proposed by Malina (1987) would surely enhance the insights of the VOM in analyzing this and other conflicts in biblical reports.

In her involvement with conflict resolution, Pamela Brink has relied on a model of culture and personality constructed by Kluckhohn and Mowrer (1944) who created a chart (reproduced at the top of the facing page) that identifies the following determinants or "components of personality." The four determinants in the left hand column are differently shaped and expressed in each of the next columns.

Brink uses the model to explore culture and role. She observes that every culture possesses the same four determinants of personality (biological, physical-environmental, social, and cultural), but role deserves careful attention. "One's cultural perspective [culturally differentiated roles] is modified and colored by one's social role [whether one is `marginal,' belongs to a clique or faction, etc.] as determined by one's biological role [age and sex differences] as further determined by one's environment [differential access to material goods, etc.]" (Brink 2000: 112). But it is also important to consider the values associated with culturally differentiated roles, that is, how a given culture specifies and shapes roles.

At this point she introduces and integrates yet another model from Morris Freilich called the Natural Triad (1964) that helps her analyze and predict role stress in traditional doctor-nurse-patient relationships (Brink 1984). Freilich's model was based on the relationships between mother's brother, nephew, and father as described by Malinowski on the basis of his field studies with Trobriand and Tikopia Islanders. One adult is a high status authority (HSA), another is a high status friend (HSF), and the youngster is low-status subordinate (LSS). Freilich showed that the relationships between HSA, HSF, and LSS were either negative (characterized by authority, distance, formality, or even non existence) or positive (characterized by friendliness, helpfulness, and informality). For the triad to hold together, it is important for one relationship to be positive and the other two to be negative. Thus the mother's brother might be the authority for the boy (negative) while the father will be like a friend to him (positive). The relationship between the two adults should be negative for the triad to hold. They are hostile to each other or don't even care to know or deal with one another. And so it was.

Brink applies this model to the physician, nurse, patient triad. The physician is HSA, but who will be the LSS? On the face of it, the patient looks like the proper candidate. The nurse traditionally buffers this dyad and is perceived by the patient as HSF, one who explains medical jargon and intercedes with the physician on the patient's behalf. Thus, the relationship between patient and physician is negative, between patient and nurse is positive. The Freilich model predicts that the relationship between HSA (physician) and HSF (nurse) physician will be negative. Often it is, but nurses are invariably frustrated and puzzled. In contrast, the relationship between HSA (physician) and HSF (nurses) can be more informal and friendly (positive) in the operating room when the patient (LSS) is unconscious. Here, the relationships of the physician and the nurse to the patient are the two negative ones needed for the triad to hold. Everyone in this scenario does wish for success! Freilich noted that role protectors exist to hinder any change in the triad. One is titles of respect, another is controlled interaction, and third is the amount and balance of tension production and reduction within the triad.

Consider Jacob, the young Patriarch-to-be (LSS) who has a positive relationship with Rebecca, his mother (HSF) but a fearful or negative one with Isaac, his father (HSA). Given the deception that Rebecca masterminds on Isaac her husband, it is possible to describe that relationship as negative. On the other hand, Esau the firstborn (LSS) appears to have a positive relationship with Isaac (HSF) but a negative one with his mother, Rebecca (HSA) who rearranges the inheritance and has a negative relationship to her husband, Isaac.

While biological, physical-environmental, and social determinants of role cast Rebecca the mother into what might appear to be a subordinate role, Mediterranean culture recognizes that women do indeed possess real, effective power in the family, but they exercise it in a different way than men who ostensibly hold power. It is no surprise that the mother of King Lemuel advises him: "Give not your strength to women, your ways to those who destroy kings (=men)" (Prov 31:3). Though Lemuel and his mother were not Israelites, Israel's traditions know a number of such powerful women: Delilah, Rebecca, Bathsheba, Esther, and Judith to name just a few. It would be interesting to apply the Natural Triad Model in conjunction with the VOM to similar analyses of David and his family, Paul and his co-workers, and John and members of his community.

Conclusion

The driving question behind Florence Kluckhohn's research was: how can we best understand why people from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds think and act as they do? Her contribution to this understanding was the development of the VOM involving the use of a model and a survey. It is possible, as biblical scholars have learned, to use the model profitably without the survey. Indeed the model is easily adaptable to a variety of groups and purposes as the publications of biblical scholars and scholars associated with the Center for the Study of Values attests (see also Kohls 2001). Russo (2000: xix) explains the success very well:

   The lasting relevance of Dr. Kluckhohn's method is also a tribute to her
   observation that cultural groups are mistakenly perceived by outsiders as
   homogeneous wholes guided by an all-inclusive set of norms, values, and
   beliefs. Dr. Kluckhohn asserted that, to the contrary, cultural groups were
   a rich tapestry of rank-ordered variations. This critical insight--that
   each of the value orientations were found in all persons and all groups
   through differently preferred--provides a guiding light for understanding
   the genius, ingenuity, and durability of the method.

Like the Documentary Hypothesis and the Two-Source Hypothesis, the Value Orientations Method (Model and Survey) continues to prove its utility and survives all critiques both reasonable (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen 1992: 51-52) and wrongheaded (Robinson 2000). Wrongheaded critiques are developed mainly by those who do not understand how models work and are similarly unaware of differing thinking styles among scholars which will obviously reach different conclusions.

Problems                 Solutions, Value Orienlations

Human nature       Evil          > Neutral or mixed     > Good
Person to nature   Mostery over  > Harmony with         > Subject to
Human activity     Collotemlity  > Lineolity; hierarchy > Individualism
Time               Post          > Present              > Future
[Space             Personal      > Social               > Universal]

Determinants    Universal               Communal

Biological      Birth, death, hunger,   `Racial' traits,
                  Thirst, elimination,   Nutrition level,
                  etc.                   endemic diseases,
                                         etc.
Physical-       Gravity, temperature,    Climate,
environmental     time, etc.               topography,
                                           natural
                                           resources, etc.

Social          Infant Care,             Size, density, and
                  group life,etc.          distribution of
                                           population, etc.

Cultural        Symbolism,               Traditions, rules of
                  taboo on incest          conduct and
                  and ingroup              manners, skills,
                  murder, etc.             knowledge, etc.

Determinants    Role                  Idiosyncratic

Biological      Age and sex            Peculiarittes of slature,
                  diffrences,            physiognomy,
                  caste, etc.            glandular makeup,
                                           etc.
Physical-       Differential access    Unique events and
environmental     to material            "accidents' such as
                  goods, etc.            being hit by
                                         lightning, etc.

Social          Cliques, "marginal"    Social 'accidents' such
                  men, etc.              as death of a
                                         parent, being
                                         adopted, meeUng
                                         particular people,
                                         etc.
Cultural        Culturally             Folklore about
                  differentiated         accidents and
                  roles                  "fate," etc.

I am pleased to contribute this article to honor the memory of The Reverend Professor Leland J. White, Ph.D., J.D., good friend and colleague. Leland first encountered the Value Orientations Model in a presentation I prepared and delivered for (Jewish) Holocaust Observance Sunday at Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey, in April, 1990 (for the English text, please consult my web site: http://www.geovgetown.edu/faculty/pilchj/Suffering.htm). He found the model very useful and began using it with and administering its accompanying Value Orientations Survey to his undergraduate students at St. John's University, Jamaica, NY. The survey and the model helped to elicit their value orientations and to facilitate their study of religion and culture, Leland's theological specialty. Had he been able to continue and publish his research and insights, a report of his experience with the students at St. John's would have been welcome at the Florence R. Kluckhohn Center for the Study of Values, 119 N. Commercial, Room 820, Bellingham, WA 98225 which continues the work the late Professor Kluckhohn began in 1936.

Works Cited

Berry, John W., Ype H. Poortinga, Marshall H. Segall, & Pierre R. Sasen. 1992. CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brink, Pamela. 2000. Values and Conflict in Clinical Settings. Pp. 109-16 in FINDING THE MIDDLE GROUND: INSIGHTS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE VALUE ORIENTATIONS METHOD, edited by Kurt W. Russo. Yarmouth, ME.: Intercultural Press.

1984. Value orientations as an Assessment Tool in Cultural Diversity. NURSING RESEARCH 33: 198-203.

1972. Natural Triad in Health Care. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NURSING 72: 897-99.

De Geradon, Bernard. 1958. L'homme a l'image de Dieu. NOUVELLE REVUE THEOLOGIQUE 80: 683-95.

Freilich, Morris. 1964. The Natural Triad in Kinship and Complex Systems. AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 29:529-40

Gallagher, Thomas J. 2000. Value Orientations and Conflict Resolution: Using the Kluckhohn Values Orientations Model. Pp. 185-92 in FINDING THE MIDDLE GROUND: INSIGHTS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE VALUE ORIENTATIONS METHOD, edited by Kurt W. Russo. Yarmouth, ME.: Intercultural Press.

http://www.joe.org/joe/2001december/ttl.html (A brief article describing the VOM).

http://students.itec.sfsu.edu/itec815_s98/mbritt/Values.pdf (Illustrative charts for the VOM).

Kluckhohn, Clyde. 1951. Values and Value Orientations. Pp. 388-433 in TOWARD A GENERAL THEORY OF ACTION, edited by Talcott Parsons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kluckhohn, Clyde & O.H. Mowrer. 1944. Culture and Personality: A Conceptual Scheme. AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 46: 1-29.

Kluckhohn, Florence R. & Fred L. Strodtbeck. 1961. VARIATIONS IN VALUE ORIENTATIONS. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Kohls, L. Robert. 2001. SURVIVAL KIT FOR OVERSEAS LIVING. Fourth Edition. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Malina, Bruce J. 1987. Mark 7: A Conflict Analysis. FORUM 4/3: 3-30.

1986. CHRISTIAN ORIGINS AND CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY: PRACTICAL MODELS FOR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press.

1981. THE NEW TESTAMENT WORLD: INSIGHTS FROM CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press. Third Edition, Revised and Expanded. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Malina, Bruce J., & Jerome H. Neyrey. 1996. PORTRAITS OF PAUL: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF PERSONALITY. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

McGoldrick, Monica, John K. Pearce, and Joseph Giordano (eds). 1982. ETHNICITY AND FAMILY THERAPY. New York, NY/London, UK: The Guilford Press. Second Revised and Expanded Edition, 1996.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2001. Prayer, in Other Words: New Testament Prayers in Social Science Perspective. Pp. 349-80 in SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC MODELS FOR INTERPRETING THE BIBLE: ESSAYS BY THE CONTEXT GROUP IN HONOR OF BRUCE J. MALINA, edited by John J. Pilch Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill.

Papajohn, John & John Spiegel. 1975. TRANSACTIONS IN FAMILIES: A MODERN APPROACH TO RESOLVING CULTURAL AND GENERATIONAL CONFLICTS. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Pilch, John J. (ed.) 2001. SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC MODELS FOR INTERPRETING THE BIBLE: ESSAYS BY THE CONTEXT GROUP IN HONOR OF BRUCE J. MALINA. Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill.

2000. HEALING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. INSIGHTS FROM MEDICAL AND MEDITERRANEAN ANTHROPOLOGY. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

1999. Jak odbieramy nasze cierpienie? Proba actualizacji tekstow biblijnych. RUCH BIBLIJNY I LITURGICZNY 52: 105--29. Polish translation of How We Redress Our Suffering: An Exercise in Actualizing Biblical Texts (http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/pilchj/Suffering.htm).

1993. Beat His Ribs While He Is Young (Sir 30:12): A Window on the Mediterranean World. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN 23: 101-13.

1992. BTB Readers Guide: Understanding Healing in the Social World of Early Christianity. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN 22: 26-33.

1991. INTRODUCING THE CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. New York, NY/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

1990. Marian Devotion and Wellness Spirituality. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN 20:85-94

Pilch, John J. & Bruce J. Malina. 1998. HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL SOCIAL VALUES. Updated edition of BIBLICAL SOCIAL VALUES AND THEIR MEANING: A HANDBOOK (1993). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Roberts, John, Evon Vogt, & Ethel Albert. 1966. PEOPLE OF RIMROCK: A STUDY OF VALUES IN FIVE CULTURES. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Robinson, Richard D. 2000. Perceptions of Reality and the Modernizing Process: A Critique of the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck Values Orientations Model. Pp. 31-51 in FINDING THE MIDDLE GROUND: INSIGHTS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE VALUE ORIENTATIONS METHOD, edited by Kurt W. Russo. Yarmouth, ME.: Intercultural Press.

Russo, Kurt W. (ed.) 2000. FINDING THE MIDDLE GROUND: INSIGHTS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE VALUE ORIENTATIONS METHOD. Yarmouth, ME.: Intercultural Press.

John J. Pilch, Ph.D. (Marquette University) teaches scripture at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and is an associate in the Department of New Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Currently book review editor for BTB, he is also the author of more than twenty books including CULTURAL TOOLS FOP, INTERPRETING THE GOOD NEWS (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2002). His award winning THE CULTURAL DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999) has been translated into Italian; French and Polish translations are in process.