Contemporary Chinese communication made understandable: A cultural psychological perspective

Abstract

Cultural psychology as a discipline is designed ultimately to help understand and to help guide cultural practice. In the present study, we focus on the case of present-day Chinese communication (or discourse) and argue that an adequate understanding must take into account its cultural ways of thinking and feeling—a discourse-dialectic collective consciousness connected with Chinese history on the one hand, and international cultures on the other hand. From this perspective, we propose in particular that the Chinese cultural psychological entity be seen as a network of values, rules and resources for thinking and feeling that are embodied and strategically utilized in contemporary Chinese discursive practice. To elucidate this cultural psychological perspective, we cite and examine a range of empirical discursive examples in diverse settings. In conclusion, the future research agenda is discussed.

Keywords

Culture dialectic history power principles strategies

Introduction

Cultural psychology is designed ultimately to help understand and to help guide cultural practice (Ratner, 2008; Shweder, 1990; Valsiner, 2009). In this paper we attempt to present a version of Chinese cultural psychological make-up that accounts, to some extent at least, for contemporary Chinese linguistic communication, or discourse. Specifically, we canvass a number of important components of the Chinese cultural psychological system with special reference to discursive practice in contemporary China. Further, we spell out these Chinese cultural psychological constituents in terms of particular strategies of speaking/listening and writing/reading. To elucidate this discourse-oriented Chinese cultural psychological approach, we shall supply empirical examples from diverse settings and analyse them accordingly.

Here we do not intend to present a complete picture of Chinese cultural psychological organisation. The particular aspects and elements that we want to highlight in this paper include: (a) the overarching value or norm of conducting oneself, he (“harmony”); (b) the most crucial part of self-concept, mianzi (“face”); (c) the collective memory and self-concept related emotion, aiguo zhuyi (“patriotism”); (d) the authority oriented emotion, chongshang quanwei (“respect for authority”); (e) the linguistic belief, yan bu jinyi (“meaning beyond language”); and (f) the overarching pattern of reasoning, bianzheng siwei (“thinking dialectically”).¹ These stand at the heart of Chinese cultural character and practice (Bond, 2010; Chen, 2001; Shi-xu, 2010; Wang & Zheng, 2005). But unfortunately they have not appeared to be generally understood amongst the international academia (see, for example, Brady, 2008).

Chinese forms of communication have been studied from many perspectives, ranging from linguistics, rhetoric, literature and philosophy, to political economy (Chen, W-d., 1979; Chen, G-m., 2001; Heisey, 2000; Jia, Heisey, & Lu, 2002; Shen, K-m., 1996; Shen, X-l., 2001; Shi-xu, 2007; Shi-xu, Kienpointner, & Servas, 2005; Xing, 2000). But they have hardly ever been considered from a Chinese cultural psychological perspective, due at least in part to want of a Chinese cultural psychological account that links explicitly and systematically with the discourse(s) of present-day China. In other words, there is hitherto little particular and precise knowledge of the relationships between Chinese cultural cognition and emotion on the one hand, and Chinese discourses on the other, though Chinese cultural psychological principles for social (inter)action have been recognized more generally (Shi-xu, 2012; Wang & Zheng 2005). This missing cultural psychological approach is probably attributable in turn to the wider lack of recognition and understanding of the essential relationship between cultural psychological make-up and human discourses (Shi-xu, 2005, 2009).

The distinctiveness of the Chinese ways of thinking and feeling is well grounded in the literature (Bond, 2010). There are records of a rich Chinese psychological research tradition of more than two thousand years, with unique concepts, categories and theory (Yan, 1998). There is also extant literature registering a wide spectrum of indigenous Chinese psychological experiences, for example, ren (“benevolent Self”), guanxi (“acquaintance relations”), yuan (“predestined favorable liaison”), and jingjie (“moral and spiritual height”) (Bond, 1986, 1996, 2000; Chu, 1985; Wang & Zheng 2005). Further, Chinese psychology is rooted in the unique Chinese philosophical and religious traditions—Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism (cf. Chen, 2001). However, determining how quintessential Chinese ways of thinking and feeling fit into a picture of Chinese cultural psychology has remained to be accomplished.

Re-conceptualizing a culture’s discourse from the angle of a cultural psychological system and, conversely, a culture’s psychological make-up from the viewpoint of discourse, has a number of advantages. For one thing, it will expand the horizon of both fields of study, and so enrich respective disciplinary understanding, and ultimately enable systematic disciplinary cross-fertilization and sophistication. For another, it will consolidate a dialectic (viz. holistic, relational, and dynamic) approach to cultural psychology on the one hand, and to discourse on the other hand, and so perhaps lead to a much needed re-thinking of the entrenched universalist discourse and cultural psychological scholarships (Shi-xu, 2009; Shweder, 1990; Triandis, 1999). At a culturally particular level, similarly, such approaches will not only deepen our understanding of culture specific forms of psychology and discourse, but possibly also highlight existing academic ethnocentrism and so enhance scholarly intercultural rebalancing. In addition, a culturally (see below) conscious and critical study of a particular cultural psychological and discursive system as we shall pursue in this paper can have important implications for re-orienting or transforming a culture’s psychological make-up and its discursive practice as well, for it can reveal strengths, weaknesses and challenges in addition to characteristics.

Cultural psychology and discourse studies

Cultural psychology as a discipline has been growing since at least the early 1990s, but there has not yet been a general consensus on the object and objectives of research (Boesch, 2001; Cole, 1996; Stigler, 1990; Valsiner, 2007, 2009), let alone theory and methodology (Ratner, 2008). Culture & Psychology, the main journal publication outlet of the discipline, is witness to this (Valsiner, 2009). This may not necessarily be a hindrance to development but is certainly a sign of openness and the great potentials of the discipline.

In this paper we wish to suggest a version of cultural psychology that defines its object of enquiry as the collective consciousness of a people as part of a culture. Culture, which has been variously conceived (Cole, 1996; Ratner, 2008; Shi-xu, 2009; Valsiner, 1998, 2007, 2009), is very crucially understood here, not as some separable, historical- and practice-independent entity, but as the historically situated, interculturally competitive, and so power saturated, way of life of a people, such as Subaltern/Eastern/Southern/Asian/Chinese cultures versus West-centric/Eurocentric/Anglo-American cultures, or the dominant majority cultures versus marginalized minority cultures (Shi-xu, 2009; Williams, 1983). From this point of view, a cultural psychological make-up is relational: it cannot be understood and defined in isolation from the historically evolved international and intercultural relations, and therefore is intrinsically historical and intercultural (Shi-xu, 2005). In our analysis of the Chinese feelings of patriotism below, we shall highlight its historical and intercultural dimensions. Subaltern/Eastern/Southern/Asian/Chinese people’s thoughts and feelings are rooted in and organized by their philosophical beliefs, historical experience and tradition, socio-economic conditions, and current international order of domination, repression and prejudice. In this sense it is different from indigenous psychology (where peoples or their cultures and minds are taken to be “inward-looking”) in that it has a globally minded perspective in which thoughts and feelings are considered as interculturally connected. And it is different from cross-cultural psychology and certain other forms of cultural psychology (where peoples or their cultures and minds are presumed to be on equal footing with one another) in that human history (e.g., of colonialism and imperialism) and so relations of power (e.g., of exploitation and exclusion) are taken into account as defining dimensions.

Further, the present account conceptualizes the cultural system of thinking and feeling in terms of a network of values, strategies and resources of social interaction, including, in particular, discourse (see below), i.e., values for things, people, actions and relations in the world; strategies for thinking, feeling, acting; and resources for thinking, feeling and acting (i.e., concepts and beliefs). Of note here is that this is not an abstract, independent and fixed set of psychological mechanisms, but rather, as hinted at above, it is in dialectic relation with socio-cultural practice. That is, cultural psychological entities and processes are formed, reproduced, maintained, utilized, and transformed in and through socio-cultural activities including, especially, discourse (Billig, 1991; Shi-xu, 2005, 2009).

Discourse, in turn, is conceived of here as linguistic practice, as of socio-cultural practice more generally (Fairclough, 1992; Gee, 1999; Shi-xu, 2005, 2009), by thinking and feeling cultural members and groups, in interaction with particular history and cultures. In this view, discourse is a way and site in which a cultural psychological system is formed, transmitted, recreated, utilized, and changed. Because discourse is the primary, prevalent and prevailing part of our social cultural life (Shi-xu, 2005, 2007), it is the main medium in which cultural psychological systems are embodied and operate. Consequently, cultural psychology should have a crucial role to play in the understanding of human discourses where and when agents of discourse, speakers, hearers, third-party over-hearers/interpreters/researchers draw upon, make use of, (re)create, and transform cultural psychological consciousness.

The present account is designed, emphatically, not to speculate about abstract cognitions, emotions, strategies, or thought processes. Rather, and in particular, it is constructed as a device and resource for making sense of especially practical cultural discourses. The particular Chinese cultural psychological perspective as we shall outline in the remainder of the paper is therefore to be understood as a descriptive, analytic, interpretative, as well as evaluative, tool to help understand and critique more adequately, and so make more transparent and accountable, present-day Chinese discourses in the present times of globalization and, paradoxically, continuing alienation.

Chinese cultural mind and its contemporary discourse

In what follows, we shall define some basic Chinese cultural psychological categories and principles and, then, spell them out in terms, and the form, of discursive rules in contemporary Chinese communication. It may be noted here that cultural–psychological properties will be wider in scope than their discursive embodiment, since they are appropriated in other forms of social action as well. We shall illustrate the actual functioning of these discursive rules with examples from various socio-cultural settings. It will be realized that people may not only follow discursive rules but also take advantage of them or even break them for some pragmatic purposes. It should be borne in mind, too, that the features under discussion, whether at the cultural psychological, or discursive, level, may actually be inter-connected in one way or another, but the current exposition is designed to highlight their salient qualities.

He (“harmony”): The overarching value for social (inter)action

The most basic and central social value in the Chinese cultural mind is he or “harmony” (see below). This is the overriding norm or principle for conducting oneself in social life: building harmonious relationships upon egalitarianism or balance of power relations. The notion can be traced back to the classical Chinese concept he as found in “He Wei Gui (Of primary value is harmony)” in the Analects by Confucius (551–479 BC) more than two thousand years ago. But it should be pointed out immediately that he in contemporary Chinese cultural ways of thinking is different from its traditional Confucian counterpart in that, whereas before modern China hierarchy was the foundation of the value—e.g., the authority of parents over children, men over women, or the emperor over the subjects, in contemporary China balanced social relationship is the basis. Further, the contemporary Chinese concept of he or harmony is also different from what the European/Anglo-American term, harmony, suggests: whereas the latter emphasizes agreement and conformity, the Chinese notion allows for internal differences or even opposition and therefore may be best conceived of as a value of unity in diversity and of the balancing of contradictions. So, from these historical and intercultural perspectives, the contemporary Chinese notion may be best translated as “balanced harmony” or “equilibrium” (but see Chen, 2001).

Considered and re-formulated in terms of strategies in contemporary Chinese discourse, then it may be said that the value is manifested in a number of general and specific strategies for linguistic communication, which may be used separately or in combination:

Build up harmonious relationship, avoid conflict

Be polite, sincere, sympathetic, convivial, generous

Attend to the interests of others

Be modest

Choose the middle, avoid extremes (“zhongyong”)

Be inclusive of alternative or opposite opinions

Let us look at how these may actually be utilized in practice (all citations below are my translation unless otherwise indicated; the bold type is added to highlight relevant discursive strategies):

The sinking of the ship [Cheonan] is a tragic event. After the incident, the Chinese side has expressed its condolences and sympathy over the casualties of the ROK on many occasions, which fully shows China’s understanding and sympathy toward the grief of the ROK Government and people. China has noted the investigation results released by the ROK. We maintain that all parties should stay calm, exercise restraint and properly handle relevant issues so as to avoid the escalation of the situation. I want to stress that China has always viewed and treated international and regional issues on their own merits in a fair and objective manner. We have all along stood for and committed to regional peace and stability. We will continue to push forward the Six-Party Talks and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and oppose behaviors against such efforts. (Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu’s Regular Press Conference on 20 May, 2010. Original: http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/2511/t696115.htm)

In this text, there is expression of sympathy in times of the other’s suffering (“tragic”), reference to this expression of sympathy (“expressed …”), calling for peace (“should stay calm …”) and restraint (“to avoid the escalation”), sitting in the middle (“noted …,” “on their own merits …”), expression of one’s position for peace (“stood for …,” “will continue …”) and of one’s opposition to conflict (“oppose …”). It may be argued, too, that, as two warring parties as well as relevant third parties are all implicated here, whilst no one particular relevant side is left out or given extra attention, the text may be said to be all-encompassing. Nearly all strategies listed above are taken up in this one single instance.

The following excerpt appeared at the start of critical Sino–Euro trade disputes, in which the European Union (EU) accused China of shoe-dumping and over four million Chinese jobs were involved.

Chinese Minister of Commerce Bo Xilai said at the 20th Sino–Euro Economy–Trade Joint Conference that the shoe trade takes no more than 2% of the total of the Sino–Euro trade. “We wouldn’t want to have our harmony damaged for this little trade profit.” (http://www.gutx.com/news /jryw/151809.htm)

In the face of threats of anti-dumping from the EU, the Chinese minister of commerce understated the possible trade loss (“no more than 2%,” “this little trade profit”) on the one hand and on the other hand evoked the most important Chinese value (“wouldn’t want to have our harmony damaged”). So both generosity and harmony are exercised here.

Mianzi (“face”): The most valued part of self-concept

Mianzi (“face”) is the most important part of the Chinese self-concept: the public image one has of oneself (cf. Gu, 1990, Jia, 2003). It has a number of crucial features. First, just as the Chinese self-concept, which contains features of the family, groups, communities and the country one belongs to is broader than the Western counterpart (Goffman, 1967), the Chinese face is more socially extended. One can speak of faces of the family, the group, the community and the country of which one is a member. Second, different from the Western counterpart which emphasizes freedom and control (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Leech, 1983), the Chinese face is composed of two parts or levels: the personal in terms of rare social resources (e.g., image, position and worth) on the one hand, and the societal in terms of attainment of high moral standards on the other hand. Thirdly, and more importantly, the Chinese face requires more recognition and respect from social others and is therefore more highly valued and more strongly protected or defended than the Western counterpart.

In terms of discursive strategies, this may be observed in the fact that Chinese speakers will do much more (than “politeness strategies,” Brown & Levinson, 1987) to keep (up) one’s own face and to enhance or protect others’ faces than Westerners—sometimes even at heavy costs. In terms of discursive strategies, Chinese speakers typically create, maintain, show or highlight a positive image of themselves in character, position, worth, etc; given the understanding of the importance of this aspect of the self-concept, they will make efforts to enhance, protect or save others’ faces, too (cf. Gu, 1990). What we saw above in the Chinese Minister of Commerce’s remarks is a case in point: a gesture of showing one’s nation’s noble and generous face.

When face as dignity and respect requiring recognition and respect from social others is “lost,” then the Chinese may become defensive or even confrontational. Thus, they will protect or mend their “face,” counter-accuse the other, or even oppose the other vehemently (sipo lianpi—tear up the “face”). So for example, after many years of US accusations of Chinese human rights problems which China deemed hegemonic, starting from 1999, the Information Office of the State Council of China began to publish an extensive annual record of human right violations by the US—in strict, regular tandem response to the US country reports on human rights (carried in full in major Chinese newspapers, as well as websites more recently). In addition, the office makes positive reports on Chinese human rights progress (Shi-xu, 2012).

Aiguo zhuyi (“patriotism”): Emotion of love of the motherland

Chinese love for the mother-country or aiguo zhuyi (“patriotism”) has usually been perceived and interpreted negatively in Western academia, as sentiments of nationalism, nationalist fanaticism, or even xenophobia. This understanding ignores the Chinese historical experience of aggression, exploitation and domination by the Western colonial and imperialist powers since the Opium War in the 1840s and so also the Chinese collective memory thereof. More importantly, it should be pointed out that from this memory, as well as the over two thousand year long tradition of patriotism, arises the valued emotion of love of the mother country. Because of this memory and history, it should be realized, too, that the Chinese cultural emotion of love for the mother-country has the particular and unique dimension of cultural humiliation, bitterness and indignation from that experience and tradition.

With respect to contemporary Chinese discourse, this sentiment is used much more frequently than in Western discourses. More particularly, it occurs typically in the contexts of:

National Day commemoration

War commemoration

Historical patriotic movement/event commemoration

Perceived foreign, but especially Western, aggression/provocation/repression

Sovereign issues

Scientific, technological breakthrough

Remarkable personal achievements/contributions

Crisis or disaster

It should be noted, too, that the Chinese emotion of love for the motherland has continuously been attributed or assigned other, new meanings than its conventional one. This motherland-loving emotion can best be seen as most vociferously attested to in the well-known books, Zhongguo Keyi Shuo Bu (China Can Say No, by Song Qiang & Zhang Zangzang, 1996) and Huhuan: Dangjin Zhongguo de Wuzhong Shengyin (The Calls: Five Voices of Contemporary China, by Lin Zhijun & Ma Licheng, 1999). The following excerpts give clear indications:

Putting the State and the Nation’s interest first and never succumbing to foreign aggression are the corner stone of our great nation’s patriotism. In the 30s of the 20th century, the Japanese waged a full-scale war against China and brought it to the brink of national calamity … (Editorial of Guangming Daily on the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the victory of the Anti-Japanese War and the World Anti-Fascist War. http://www.gmw.cn/content/2005-09/13/content_300065.htm)

We should advocate the ideology of patriotism, collectivism and socialism among all people, combat and resist money worship, hedonism, ultra-egoism and other decadent ideas, enhance the Chinese people’s national self-esteem, self-confidence, and the sense of pride, and stimulate them to make unremitting efforts for the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. (Jiang Zemin’s speech at the meeting celebrating the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200107/01/eng20010701_73927.html)

We should hold high the banners of patriotism and socialism, strengthen the great solidarity of the people of all ethnic groups, and consolidate and develop the broadest possible patriotic united front. We need to strengthen our solidarity with the democratic parties and personages without party affiliation. We should handle well the work relating to ethnic minorities, religions and overseas Chinese. We should adhere to the principle of “one country, two systems” and bring into full play every positive factor in a common endeavor to accomplish the grand cause of national reunification and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. (Party Secretary General Jiang Zemin’s speech at the 16th Party Congress. http://xibu.tjfsu.edu.cn/elearning/lk/16en.htm)

Chongshang quanwei (“respect for authority”): Emotion for authority

In the past two thousand years of Chinese history, there has been a salient and valued emotion in the Chinese cultural mind, the respect for authority. That is, the Chinese habitually hold in awe anyone who is more advanced in social position, age, knowledge, experience, as the arbiter of truth or correctness, the moral standard, or otherwise the decision-maker. This kind of feeling may be seen as linked with the Chinese social tradition of respecting the authoritative and further the broader traditional Chinese social system of hierarchy. Today, respect for authority is of course not the same as in the past, but as a general rule, Chinese give respect to the government, the advanced in position, the elder(ly), the knowledgeable and the experienced.

In contemporary Chinese discourse, we may find that, when truths, correctness or important choice are at stake or in doubt, the Chinese will clearly and profusely express their respect for the advanced in social position, age, knowledge or experience by:

Naming the relevant social position, seniority, expertise or experience

Referring to/citing the authoritative for making judgements/decisions, or acting as standard

Exaggerating the value of their social position, age, knowledge, experience

So in the excerpt immediately following, the authoritative are resorted to for explaining why the damages of the Wenchuan earthquake are bigger than those of the Tangshan earthquake which took place early in the morning more than 30 years ago.

Experts analyze the situation and point out that, in comparison with Tangshan earthquake, fewer people died in the Wenchuan earthquake mainly because the former occurred at night when most people were asleep, whereas the latter during the day. Besides, the former took place in the urban area, whereas the latter in the mountainous countryside where the population is not dense. (http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2008-05/18/content_8197178.htm)

In this example, it may be reflected that experts are appropriated here, when no expert knowledge is needed and in fact what they say is mere common sense. Let us see how respect is paid in the following example:

Yesterday, many SARS experts and UN Health Organization China officials said when interviewed by the Morning Newspaper that at present they are not certain whether the retracted virus of the suspicious SARS cases of Guangzhou originates in rats but they do not rule out the possibility. (Eastern Morning Paper, 5 January 2004)

SARS was first discovered in 2003 and at the time of its occurrence there were no real experts on the virus. Thus the value of the authoritative is exaggerated by conferring “expert” to them to increase the acceptability of what they say.

Yan bu jinyi (“meaning beyond language”): The belief about language use

One of the central (and the most practical) elements in the Chinese belief system is that of the nature of language. That is, language can never express meaning entirely; it is often even deceptive. Consequently, one must use language carefully or strategically and go beyond language in search of meaning. This can be seen as linked with a Chinese culture-constitutive notion, Dao, the core concept of Daoism founded by Laozi (571–471 BC) and Zhuangzi (369–286 BC). According to them, Dao is both the origin of all things in the universe and the basis for them. And yet we do not have direct access to it. Therefore we must seek continuously to transcend all appearances in order to ascertain the true nature or significance of existence. The Chinese belief about the relationship between language and meaning can also be traced back to the Chinese classic Yijing (I Ching, circa the end of 9th century BC) and Wenxin Diaolong (Dragon-carving and the Literary Mind, 501∼502), where language is considered as limited in its power but meaning is boundless and requires endless search.

With regard to this basic understanding of the nature and function of language, contemporary Chinese discourse has a range of rules or strategies of meaning production and comprehension at its disposal (Cao, Li, Fu, & Li, 2001; Zhou, 2002):

Speak not

Speak sparingly or little

Speak implicitly or indirectly or vaguely

Speak poetically (imaginatively, beautifully, etc.)

Speak with the help of classical stories and proverbs

Understand by reading out the text repeatedly

Understand through empathy

Understand by listening to one’s inner voice

Understand by watching people’s actions as well as listening to their words

Understand through continuous dialogue with others and one’s own praxis

The Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is a typical example of such a strategic speaker. In the speech events where the following quotes occur, Premier Wen is speaking neither to the questions raised, nor on the topics that the immediate circumstances bring up. Even the genre, viz. poetry and imagery, is “unusual” for the occasions.

To improve the well-being of the people, we should make people feel happy about their life. To do so, we must ensure people’s democratic rights and promote social justice and fairness. You may ask: what do you mean by being happy? Let me quote a line from Ai Qing, a Chinese poet, “Go and ask the thawing land, go and ask the thawing river.” (http://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t304313.htm)

Wen, after his arrival Sunday, read a haiku-style poem describing his feelings about changes in China’s relations with Japan. “The ice melts into water in the spring. The rain is gone and the green mountain is extremely green and the earth is thick with grasses,” he said. (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1060058/1/.html)

Given what may appear a “transparent” text and “obvious” context, the meaning remains left very much for open and dynamic interpretation.

Bianzheng siwei (“thinking dialectically”): A cognitive resource for problem-solving

It is well-known that Chinese people have many typical patterns or ways of thinking.² The dialectic way of thinking is probably the most habitual, frequently used and highly regarded strategy. This may be expressed by the Chinese bianzheng siwei. This way of reasoning may be seen as anchored in the classical Chinese notion, and symbol, of yin-yang. That is, one should see:

The universe as unity, the One

The universe is composed of parts

The parts are interconnected

The parts are interdependent

The parts are interpenetrating

The parts are opposing to one another

Because of the internal opposition, the universe is changing

In contemporary China, there are a number of typical forms of speaking and language-understanding which have been handed down from the Chinese tradition. Of course they occur also typically in particular types of contexts: when disasters happen, difficult situations arise, conflict/complications/problems are to be understood and resolved, criticism is to be uttered, or one’s achievements are to be acknowledged. We can list the following as typical discursive strategies:

Avoid absolute or extreme terms and statements

Speak of the positive opposites of the current negative situation

Speak of other agents in an event or relation

Speak of connections between things or people

Speak of the overall situation

Speak of possible change

Speak of preparation for crisis

Understand contextually and holistically

Understand fairly

Understand by comparing one’s own desires

Understand by recognizing one’s own limitations

In the following we may be able to observe reflections of these patterns of speaking:

At the high-level forum on innovative economy and enterprise finance in central China, the Dean of the Research Institute of Speculative Investment Chen Gongfeng said, financing is a double-edged sword. The current financial “crisis” is on the one side dangerous; if the bubbles of the financial crisis continue to grow, then China will sustain severe injuries. But on the other side, the “crisis” also offers opportunities. He believed that the current financial crisis will bring about positive effects on China’s stock market. Besides, during this financial turbulence, China can try to attract some excellent overseas Chinese from the Wall Street to start business in China. (http://www.chinahrd.net/zhi_sk/jt_page.asp?articleid=149052)

No society can exist without contradictions; human societies develop and make strides forward in and through the dynamics of contradictions. (Xinhua Newsagency, 18 October, decision of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee on major issues in the construction of a socialist harmonious society)

In these examples, it may be observed that, consistent with the emphasis on a dialectic approach to thinking, discursively highlighted are opportunities from crisis, positive effects of negative events, balance of oppositions, complication of the positive interconnections between things, and possible positive changes. Through these ways of re-formulating problems speakers actively seek to neutralize them and achieve new outcomes.

Conclusion

The current proposal is set against the backdrop of the hitherto general lack of explicit, systematic cross-fertilization between cultural psychology and discourse studies. In addition, there is the more particular situation which the present study is directed at, namely, the growing interest in, desire for and, in an important sense, mixed sentiments against the fast changing China.

Accordingly, we argued that the communicative practice of contemporary Chinese culture cannot be understood without a cultural perspective, in particular, of its cultural psychology. At the same time we suggested that, conversely, a proper account of Chinese cultural thinking and feeling must include the culture’s ways of linguistic communication.

One of our starting points has been that Chinese discourses, anchored in historical traditions on the one hand and international and intercultural relations on the other hand, construct, transmit, draw on and change Chinese cultural ways of thinking and feeling. In this sense they embody Chinese cultural consciousness. From this point of view, understanding of the historically and interculturally embedded collective consciousness provides an important perspective on the discourses. Consequently, cultural psychology can re-orient itself to explaining and evaluating practical cultural ways of life or semiotic meditational practices (Valsiner, 2007).

One other related, basic assumption has been that the Chinese cultural psychological make-up, conversely, can best be conceived of as dialectic, a constituent part of its cultural practice, especially the practice of linguistic communication. As said above, language use as part of broader socio-cultural practice is the medium in which cultural psychological experience exists, operates and becomes transformed. In this way, discourse studies become an important method to understanding the cultural mind.

Proceeding from those alternative stances, we outlined in this paper a version of a system of the Chinese cultural cognitions and emotions. This set of consciousness ranges from the basic Chinese principles of “being” and “doing” oneself, to thinking and feeling about oneself and the world, and understanding the relationship between semiotic medium and meaning. In this sense it constitutes the core of the Chinese cultural psychological make-up.

Further, we have specified this cultural consciousness in terms of discursive strategies—values, principles and concepts for speaking/listening and reading/writing in relation to specific types of contexts. Thus, we saw that the Chinese cultural system of thinking and feeling takes the form of interrelated sets of rules of speaking and understanding in specific types of settings. We stressed that these are open-ended principles of linguistic communication that are followed, appropriated, oriented to, and transformed by specific agents of cultural members and groups.

In addition, we have presented selected samples of contemporary Chinese discourse and highlighted the ways that Chinese cultural psychological principles organize spoken and written texts in various settings. In this way, the otherwise vague, obscured, puzzling practices of Chinese linguistic communication are rendered transparent and understandable.

As part of a future research agenda, we would like to suggest that efforts be made to develop a broader and more elaborate understanding of how the Subaltern/Eastern/Southern/Asian/Chinese mind is interrelated to the Euro–American/West-centric counterpart at different levels. This will lead to a deeper understanding of not just the psychological make-up of the different cultures, but also the nature of the cultural mind itself. Moreover, practical studies should be made to examine how, in particular situations of certain socio-cultural significance, cultural psychological experience is oriented to, appropriated, transmitted, (re)created, flaunted, or changed in and through ordinary, everyday, even private, discursive practices, beyond the public and institutional discourses. At the same time, similarly, research attempts may be made to find out how practical cultural discourses construct, recreate and transform cultural psychological principles and experiences.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was published in M. H. , The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 555–562), but the present one is much revised and expanded. The authors would like to express gratitude to the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. They gratefully acknowledge the support of the State Fund of Social Science, China, under the project titles of “Constructing a Chinese discourse theory of mass communication” (No.12BXW027) and “Cultural critique on applying Bourdieu’s habitus theory to Chinese society” (No. 12BSH001), respectively.

1

There are Chinese philosophical, sociological, historical accounts of Chinese communication which contain unique Chinese notions such as holism, guanxi (acquaintance relations), yuan (predestined favorable liaison), keqi (conviviality). We think it appropriate to keep philosophical, sociological, historical notions apart from those of cultural psychology.

2

, pp. 334–352) have characterized Chinese psychology in terms of eight preferred “ways of thinking:” (1) holism; (2) dialecticism; (3) moderation; (4) intuitiveness; (5) authority-worshipping; (6) pragmatism; (7) image-prone; and (8) circular-thinking.

Author biographies

Shi-xu (PhD) is Changjiang Distinguished Professor and Director of the Centre for Contemporary Chinese Discourse Studies (CCCDS), Zhejiang University, China. He received his BA and MA in China and PhD at the University of Amsterdam, and has taught in the Netherlands, Singapore and the UK. Amongst his numerous publications are four books in English: Cultural Representations; A Cultural Approach to Discourse; Read the Cultural Other (lead editor); and Discourse as Cultural Struggle (editor). He is founding Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Multicultural Discourses (Taylor & Francis) and serves on the editorial board of a dozen premier national and international journals. Website:

Feng-Bing is Associate Professor of Sociology at the School of International Studies of Zhejiang University, China. She obtained her first degree in English Language and Literature from Luoyang Foreign Studies University in 1982, did her post-graduate studies in American Studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University from 1988 to 1990, and received her doctoral degree in Sociology from the University of Ulster, UK, in 2004. She is the author of Ethnicity, Children & Habitus (P. Lang A.G, 2005). She has many years of cross-cultural teaching and research experience in the Netherlands, Singapore, the UK and China.

References

Billig

(1991) Ideology and Opinions, London, UK: Sage Publications.

Boesch

E. E.

(2001) Symbolic action theory in cultural psychology. Culture and Psychology. 7: 479–483.

Bond

M. H.

(1986) The Psychology of the Chinese People, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Bond

M. H.

(1996) The Handbook of Chinese Psychology, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Bond

M. H.

(2000) Distant anguish and proximal brotherhood: Using psychology to move beyond the Chinese face. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies. 1: 143–148.

Bond

M. H.

(2010) The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Brady

A-M.

(2008) Marketing Dictatorship: Propaganda and Thought Work in Contemporary China, New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Brown

Levinson

(1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cao

S-q.

Q-l.

Y-l.

S-q.

(2001) Zhongguo Gudai Wenlun Huayu (Chinese Classical Literary–Theoretical Discourses), Chengdu, China: Bashu Shushe.

10.

Chen

G-m.

(2001) Towards transcultural understanding: A harmony theory of Chinese communication. In: Milhouse

V. H.

Asante

M. K.

Nwosu

P. O.

(eds) Transculture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Relations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 55–70.

11.

Chen

W-d.

(1979) Xiuci Xue Fafan (Development of Rhetorics), Shanghai, China: Shanghai Educational Press.

12.

Chu

G. C.

(1985) The changing concept of self in contemporary China. In: Maroella

A. J.

Vos

G. de

Hsu

F. L. K.

(eds) Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives, New York, NY: Tavistock Publications, pp. 252–277.

13.

Cole

(1996) Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

14.

Fairclough

(1992) Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

15.

Gee

J. P.

(1999) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, London, UK: Routledge.

16.

Goffman

(1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior, Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

17.

Y-g.

(1990) Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Pragmatics. 14: 237–257.

18.

Heisey

(2000) Chinese Perspectives in Rhetoric and Communication, Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

19.

Jia

(2003) Chinese conceptualizations of face: Emotions, communication, and personhood. In: Samovar

L. A.

Porter

R. E.

(eds) Intercultural Communication: A Reader, 10th edn. East Windsor, CT: Wadsworth, pp. 48–57.

20.

Jia

W. S.

Heisey

D. R.

(2002) Chinese Communication Theory and Research, Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

21.

Leech

G. N.

(1983) Principles of Pragmatics, London, UK: Longman.

22.

Lin

Z-j.

L-c.

(1999) Huhuan: Dangjin Zhongguo de Wuzhong Shengyin (The Calls: Five Voices of Contemporary China), Guangzhou, China: Guangzhou Publishing House.

23.

Ratner

(2008) Cultural psychology and qualitative methodology: Scientific and political considerations. Culture & Psychology. 14: 259–288.

24.

Shen

K-m.

(1996) Xiandai Hanyu Huayu Yuyan Xue (Modern Chinese Text Linguistics), Beijing, China: The Commercial Press.

25.

Shen

X-l.

(2001) Hanyu Yufa Xue (Chinese Grammar), Nanjing, China: Jiangsu Educational Press.

26.

Shi-xu (2005) A Cultural Approach to Discourse, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

27.

Shi-xu (2007) Discourse as Cultural Struggle, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

28.

Shi-xu (2009) Reconstructing eastern paradigms of discourse studies. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 4: 29–48.

29.

Shi-xu (2010) Wenhua Huayu Yanjiu: Tansuo Zhongguo de Lilun, Fangfa yu Wenti (Cultural Discourse Studies: Exploring Chinese Theory, Methods and Issues), Beijing, China: Beijing University Press.

30.

Shi-xu (2012) Understanding contemporary Chinese political communication: A historico–intercultural analysis and assessment of its discourse of human rights. Journal of Language and Politics. 11: 93–114.

31.

Shi-xu Kienpointner

Servaes

(2005) Read the Cultural Other: Forms of Otherness in the Discourses of Hong Kong’s Decolonisation, Berlin, Germany and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

32.

Shweder

R. A.

(1990) Cultural psychology—What is it? In: Stigler

J. W.

Shweder

R. A.

Herdt

(eds) Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–43.

33.

Song

Zhang

Z-z.

(1996) Zhongguo Keyi Shuo Bu: lengzhan shidai hou de zhengzhi yu qinggan jueze (China Can Say No: Political and Emotional Choices after the Cold War), Beijing, China: China Industry and Commerce Joint Press.

34.

Triandis

H. C.

(1999) Cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 2: 127–143.

35.

Valsiner

(1998) The Guided Mind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

36.

Valsiner

(2007) Culture in Minds and Societies: Foundations of Cultural Psychology, New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.

37.

Valsiner

(2009) Cultural psychology today: Innovations and oversights. Culture & Psychology. 15: 5–39.

38.

Wang

Zheng

(2005) Zhongguo Wenhua Xinlixue (Chinese Cultural Psychology), Guangzhou, China: Jinan University Press.

39.

Williams

(1983) Keywords, 2nd edn. London, UK: Fontana.

40.

Xing

F-y.

(2000) Wenhua Yuyan Xue (Cultural Linguistics) (revised), Wuhan, China: Hubei Educational Press.

41.

Yan

G-c.

(1998) Zhongguo Xinlixue Shi (History of Chinese Cultural Psychology), Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang Educational Press.

42.

Zhou

Q-g.

(2002) Zhongguo Gudian Jieshi Xue Daolun (Introduction to Classical Chinese Hermaneutics), Beijing, China: Zhonghua Shuju.