Abstract
Typologies are widely used in the field of intercultural communication to explain cultural differences. Especially the typology ‘individualism versus collectivism’ (I/C) is a central theoretical construct in cross-cultural comparison. But are such typologies really suited for explaining cultural phenomena? Is their explanatory power limited because the theoretical underpinnings are based on a Western mindset? And is using typologies as scientific models appropriate to explain intercultural incidents and uncover cultural patterns from a non-Western view as well? Do such typologies meet the demands of a modern view on the field of intercultural communication? This article casts a critical light on the appropriateness and applicability of typologies. The aim is twofold. The first part examines the limitations of typologies from an East Asian standpoint, bringing out the hidden cultural mindset on which this bipolar construct is built. The second part presents a model meant to contribute to a more profound debate between East Asian and Western views on intercultural communication.
Keywords
Analysing culture by using cultural typologies
While Frank Sinatra may sing ‘I did it my way’ and celebrate the individual, in China conformity is favoured, as is clear from the proverb ‘the nail that sticks up gets pounded’ (Scronce and Li, 2011: 9). This example symbolizes the typological differentiation between an individualistic (USA) and collectivistic (China) cultural mindset. In the field of intercultural communication, typologies are still prominently applied to explain cultural differences. In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers constructed a huge range of cultural dimensions to compare cultures on a dualistic scale. Especially the worldwide landmark study of Hofstede shows the fast developments of typologies in the field of cross-cultural comparisons. Over three decades later, Hofstede’s typologies are still – without reformulation – omnipresent in intercultural research, and a large body of literature has been developed with empirical data to support these dimensions of culture (see e.g. Chinese Cultural Connection, 1987; Fiske, 1992; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1989; Trompenaars, 1993).
Typologies are not theories: as noted by Mary Douglas (quoted in Ellis and Thompson, 1997: xiii), they should be recognized as ‘analytical schemes’ or ‘heuristic devices’ whose value lies in their usefulness. Typologies are the equivalent of scientific models. They are intended to reduce complex phenomena to manageable dimensions without trivialization, and to make possible generalizable findings. Viewed critically, typologies are just any category, often unsystematically and haphazardly developed, and user-defined. They are arbitrary, implying only a model character, and they may lead to stereotyping (Herdin, 2006).
Without doubt, typological abstraction can reduce complexity to manageable dimensions. But do bipolar dimensions really meet the requirements of a thorough-going discussion, also from a non-Western viewpoint? Trivialization is a major danger, and can lead to stereotypes and prejudices. Moreover, nations tend to get seen as homogeneous entities, which may result in a form of methodological nationalism.
Typologies from a critical viewpoint: Limitations of the binary opposition paradigm
Hofstede’s research remains the largest empirical comparative study conducted in the field of cross-cultural communication. Data collection for his pioneering research was carried out in the 1980s, with a systematic mapping of 53 countries by questioning 116,000 people. The elaboration resulted in the development of four dimensions: individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity/femininity.
The typology of the differentiation in the dichotomy of individualism/collectivism (I/C) has been one of the most extensively studied constructs in cross-cultural research (see Fischer et al., 2009; Kagitcibasi, 1994, 1997; Lee and Tamborini, 2005; Triandis, 1995). This dimension describes the relation between the individual and his or her fellow individuals. In individualistic societies, the ties between people are very loose. Personal freedom is highly valued. Seeing themselves as independent, people focus on their own interests and personal goals, and on their immediate family. Whereas individualists think in terms of ‘I’, collectivists think in terms of ‘we’. The ties between individuals in such societies are very tight. People are born into a social structure, the in-group, and everybody looks after the interest of the whole group. Loyalty is expected, and the in-group provides protection if trouble arises. Being oriented to the collective, people are willing to yield priority over their own personal goals (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995).
Beyond doubt, Hofstede’s contribution influenced and professionalized the field, but his typologies are also open to serious criticism. For one thing, the research lacks a clear correspondence between an operational definition of I/C and the items employed (Kagitcibasi, 1997). The methodology has been criticized as regards how representative the samples for each country were, since the interviewees were all skilled managers, technicians and other white-collar workers (Voronov and Singer, 2002: 466). Moreover, quantitative methods were applied to examine cultural issues and were later deduced on the personal level (Bond, 1994). A further limitation is the lack of reliance on factor analysis: items were clustered together without demonstrating construct validity (Kagitcibasi, 1997). Also other criticisms have been presented, but one conceptual limitation in particular has come increasingly into focus: this concerns the philosophical origins of thought underlying the typologies.
Typologies: Universally valid concept or Western paradigm?
In recent years, Asian scholars have presented highly critical views regarding typologies. Although typologies reduce the complex phenomenon of ‘culture’ to a bipolar dimension, especially the I/C typology has been criticized for building on Western ideas despite being formulated as a universally valid concept (Kim et al., 1994; Oyserman et al., 2002; Sun, 2002; Wang and Liu, 2010).
Typologies are based on a Western paradigm – as are the theories and models of intercultural communication derived from Western scholars. This field is overwhelmingly Euro- or Ameri-centric, as views other than those of the West have scarcely been discussed at all (Heisey, 2000; Monge, 1998). True, some attempts at exploring alternative views have been made to help to develop a non-Western view of communication (Dissanayake, 1988; Kincaid, 1987). But, until the turn of the millennium at least, even these attempts lacked – from a Chinese perspective – a systematic review and in-depth critique of the relevant approaches (Jia, 2002). Within the past decade, several attempts have been undertaken to provide a more profound discussion to systematize the field, to reflect it from a non-Western point of view and to develop new approaches (see e.g. Chang, 2007; Dissanayake, 2009; Miike, 2006). For the economic rise of Asian countries, the topic of ‘de-Westernizing communication research’ (Wang, 2011b) seems to capture the academic spirit of the times.
A critical Chinese viewpoint
Criticisms of the typology I/C are formulated from three different angles. First of all, the bipolar dimension does not fit into the East Asian mindset. The antipode of collectivism is not individualism, as in the Western conception, but is associated more with selfishness (Cao, 2009) and has therefore very negative connotations.
Second, the Chinese are described (by Western scholars) as a collectivist society. However, the Chinese see this as an insult, because collectivism is subordinated to the individualist approach. Wang and Liu (2010: 45) note that the term collectivism ‘has not had a good name in modern history’. They argue that although collectivism can be traced back to Plato’s Republic, collectivism did not receive any credit for inspiring nor did it contribute to the accession of European civilization to modernity. On the contrary, collectivism has had a negative effect, as it became associated with ‘belongingness’, traditionalism, the lack of personal freedom and human rights, and so on. This stands in contrast to the term ‘individualism’, which symbolizes a form of societal Enlightenment, with the protection of human rights, private property and enforced individual growth. ‘Collectivism, therefore, has been regarded as the opposition to individualism – something to be discarded if modernity is to be embraced as the better, more advanced, and more desirable option’ (Wang and Liu, 2010: 45). Lin and Clair (2003: 22–23), put this even more strongly: ‘Hofstede and his predecessors in the Western academies made an implicit or explicit association between individualism and modernity, and between collectivism and primitivity.’ These concerns can be traced back to Hofstede’s argument that the individualism index is positively related to national wealth and has a strong correlation with GNP per capita. Developed countries have therefore a higher level of individualism in comparison to developing nations (Hofstede, 1980: 167).
Third, and as a consequence, this typology cannot explain self-evaluations by the Chinese, who see themselves both as collectivists and individualists (Zhai, 1998). In contrast to Hofstede, several scholars (see below) have called attention to the fact that differentiations exist within countries, and they see this typology on a personal level as well in the sense of an individual-differences variable. Distinct characteristics of both individualism and collectivism can coexist within cultures, and the two categorizations may merely reflect individual differences (see e.g. Ho and Chiu, 1994; Kim, 1994; Moorman and Blakely, 1995; Triandis, 1995); moreover, they are multidimensional constructs rather than mutually exclusive single dimensions (Kagitcibasi and Berry, 1989). If an individual is able to occupy both ends of the bipolar individualist/collectivist construct, the typology is brought to the point of absurdity. The attempt from the Chinese side is to bypass this bipolar dimensionality and invoke relationalism, which is based on ‘reciprocal principles and relative positions in the interpersonal networks’ (Wang and Liu, 2010: 57). The primary rules governing interactions are the ‘rules of reciprocity’ – whereas from an individualist view such rules are the ‘rules of civic society’ and from a collectivist view the ‘rules of the collective’ dominate (Wang and Liu, 2010).
From etic to emic: Methodological nationalism versus ‘concept hopping’
Typologies represent the etic approach – viewing culture from the outside and comparing cultures on a dualistic scale. This could lead to a form of methodological nationalism, with the dangers of narrow, stereotyped views of the specific people of a nation. This binary opposition paradigm has its natural limitations. The other possibility is the emic approach, which guarantees a view from within the society in question. Its culture is experienced and learned from within. This culture-specific approach ‘insists that individual attitudes and behaviours, institutional structures and social phenomena should be understood and analysed within their cultural frameworks’ (Wang, 2011a: 2). In the field of intercultural communication, genuine cultural concepts are used to describe cultural characteristics and are then transferred and applied to the field of intercultural communication. Through this process of indigenization and localization, the research – which may have been based mainly on Western theories (Sun, 2002) – achieves a less Western bias, as can be easily traced in China. With the ‘reform and opening up’ (Deng Xiaoping) and the resultant economic upsurge of China has come an expansion of Chinese cultural approaches. Concepts like mianzi (‘face’), guanxi (‘relationship’), renquin (‘favour’), ren (‘humanity’), Confucian ethics, harmony, the dichotomies of we/I and yi (benevolence)/li (utilitarianism) and many other deep-rooted cultural approaches have gained entry into the academic field to explain Chinese communication patterns (see e.g. Bond and Hwang, 1986; Jia, 2002; Kashima and Kashima, 1998; Lu, 1998).
In the etic approach, the problem of methodological nationalism arises; but the emic approach could lead to disadvantages as well. If the concepts are not embedded in a broader cultural discussion, these cultural characteristics can be misguiding, if applied in a segregated way as specific, isolated cultural conceptions – the phenomenon of ‘concept hopping’ (Herdin, 2006: 6). To a certain extent, both these modi operandi (emic and etic) disregard the complexity of culture. The cause lies in the academic background of scholars and their methods which follow the either/or principle.
Aristotelian logic versus Taoist thought, and implications for the academic mindset
The recent critique from Asian scholars is based, inter alia, on the discrepancies between the Aristotelian linear either/or thinking of the West, and the tradition in East Asia based on a cyclic process which can be described as a both/and framework (Chen, 2002) or a Taoist yin/yang mode of thinking (Lu and Gilmour, 2006; Wang, 2009). Gunaratne (2011: 29) writes of the ‘fundamental philosophical East–West differences that have given rise to these contemporary divides in terms of the principle of the dialectical completion of relative polarities (i.e., the yin–yang principle of diversity within unity)’. By contrast, Western cultural identity is based on a ‘Hebraic-Greco-Roman tradition of Western rationalism, scholasticism, the Enlightenment and the so-called Scientific Revolution. In addition the West shares a Judeo-Christian religious outlook and/or moral tradition’ (Asante, 2011: 21). With the term ‘West’ or ‘Western’, Asante (2011: 21) refers to ‘any set of European-derived scientific, literary, social, cultural or communicative values, norms, customs, beliefs and technologies’. Thus, ‘effective communication’ is seen as a ‘linear, rational, militaristic approach… that does not allow ambiguity and non-linearity’. This discussion has been taken up in the West as well, even to explain how to cope with the upcoming challenges. Beck (2005) claims that the transition to a reflexive modernity can be made possible through overcoming the either/or thinking. Only the principles of both/and can help to transcend the limitations of Western thinking and explain the way of balancing integration and autonomy – a stabilizing of contradictory imperatives between separation and integration.
These different worldviews of the either/or and both/and frameworks can be traced back to the era around approximately 500
In the following section of this article, the I/C model (with its limitations as described above) will be replaced by a model that integrates emic as well etic approaches by using the both/and approach.
The loop structure of the circumplex
From a Western perspective, the Asian criticisms are very helpful for adopting a meta-perspective and avoiding a pro-Western bias in explaining intercultural differences. The challenge lies in developing a more sophisticated approach that can capture both worldviews. The danger of methodological nationalism as well as specific, isolated cultural conceptions (concept hopping) should be integrated into the model, not simply avoided. The following matrix is so constructed that both dimensions in the field of individualism and collectivism can be captured without creating a contradiction. It allows the integration of singular cultural concepts into a broader framework, which means following an etic as well as an emic approach.
The problem with current I/C typology is that the self-conception of the individual and its relations to others are intermingled. This apparent pre-assumption leads to serious limitations in the bipolar typology. To circumvent this limitation and provide a more nuanced view, there must be a discussion of the ‘definition of self’ and the ‘relatedness to others’.
The typology of I/C is grounded in the theory of self. ‘The independent, separated self with clearly defined boundaries reflects individualism, and the interdependent, embedded self reflects collectivism at the psychological (individual) level’ (Kagitcibasi, 1997: 20). Wang and Liu (2010) broaden this bipolar view by integrating a new dimension, the dimension of relationalism. ‘Relationalism therefore suggests that individuals in a relational culture define themselves according to their relative position in the interpersonal networks. The position is both culturally/socially ascribed, according to the role of the self vis-à-vis that of the others, and fluid, constantly revised by reciprocal interactions’ (Wang and Liu, 2010: 56). In this sense, relationalism is the glue which holds the dimension of both ‘self’ and ‘others’ together. This dimension captures the very core of the model. In a further step, the terms ‘self’ and ‘others’ must be clarified.
The first dimension relates to the definition of self and therefore is divided into ‘individual orientation’ (definition of self is based on independence) and ‘group orientation’ (definition of self is based on interdependence). The second dimension in this model focuses on the relatedness to others. It can be reciprocal and balanced between the members of society (‘socio-centred’), or non-reciprocal and one-sided (‘ego-centred’).
This blending of the two dimensions of ‘definition of self’ and ‘relatedness to others’ creates a circumplex in which a variety of approaches are arranged around the perimeter of a circle (Figure 1): emotional collectivism (group-oriented and socio-centred), rational collectivism (group-oriented and ego-centred), altruistic individualism (individual-oriented and socio-centred) and utilitarian individualism (individual-oriented and ego-centred). This avoids another limitation of typologies, whereby the categorization of a person, a group of people or a nation is pressed into one category (e.g. Chinese people are collectivists). This rigid and oversimplified view of separate entities will be replaced by a model with a flexible structure. The advantage of this cyclic model lies in the avoidance of a strict either/or classification system which categorizes people into a bipolar dimension and actually aggravates the problems of methodological nationalism and stereotype formation. According to the philosophical background of the both/and or yin/yang mode, this matrix has a flexible loop (both/and) structure. One single person can capture all – even seemingly contradictory – dimensions depending on the personal disposition and situational context. This cyclic model provides flexibility to interpret people’s actions based on a situational context and to deal with ambiguous situations.
Beyond the I/C dichotomy: fluid matrix based on the both/and approach.
The four personal dispositions exemplified by the concepts of ‘face’ and ‘harmony’
We can explain the cyclic model by applying two central Chinese concepts to illustrate this flexible structure. The well-known concept of ‘face’ as well as the concept of ‘harmony’ will be integrated into each dimension, revealing that these concepts are present in all facets of human action and are interwoven within the communication process. Within the Asian context, being able to maintain harmony is an important skill factor in the area of communication. Maintaining harmony, even if the communication partners have different opinions, is crucial for establishing a successful relationship. As a result, respect can be gained and no one loses face. In contrast, Westerners tend to discuss contradicting views from an open, direct and rather controversial approach – something to be avoided or minimized in Asia, for face-saving reasons. The following personal dispositions show that according to the situational context, paying attention to ‘face’ and establishing and maintaining harmony may have varying motivations.
Emotional collectivism indicates that the person is very group-oriented and therefore interdependent. Relatedness to other people is reciprocal and balanced. In all actions undertaken by such a person, the consequences for the group are in focus. This involves a form of intrinsic motivation because the person has a strong emotional attachment to the group: the decision-making process is not based on group pressure. This strong identification with the group of people leads to acting without looking for individual benefits. Typical of this kind of disposition is the relationship to kin; it can be described as ‘the family model of emotional interdependence’ (Kagitcibasi, 1997: 20). In China this form of relationship is particularly important within the Confucian tradition. The family as the core element of society has enormous significance because the state is seen as an extension of the family. Face and harmony play a vital role in building common bonds based on reciprocal and balanced relations. They function as social adhesives.
The attitudes of people who are oriented towards rational collectivism are, in comparison to emotional collectivism, more ego-centred. They consider relations to be non-reciprocal and one-sided. Even if they are interdependent, the motivation to do or avoid activities is extrinsically driven. Especially people with dense and complex networks, who therefore live interdependent lives, will feel a greater degree of urgency to act in specific ways expected by their social surroundings. If group pressure is high, they will follow group rules simply to fulfil the expectations of the majority. In this way they can avoid being left out, and they can secure their position within the group. But it is not just that they behave in certain ways because of group pressures. This is also based on rational decision-making calculations: by remaining in the group they can derive personal profits from belonging (Zhai, 1998) and they gain more individual benefits than by withdrawing. Therefore reciprocation is a matter of cognitive decision-making processes: support is provided, to demand favours or services in return. To respect the needs of others, to avoid losing face and to maintain harmony thus become surface actions intended to secure one’s own personal interests. In interpersonal communication, for instance, a rational collectivistic approach is that, if communication has become mired down in an uncomfortable situation but harmony has to be maintained in order to achieve a greater goal, people will act as if there is no problem involved in protecting themselves and others from losing face. This form of ‘superficial harmony’ can be found on the political level as well. The Communist Party of China (CPC) has invoked the ‘harmonious society’, striving for a friction-free society to avoid conflicts which might jeopardize the unity of Chinese society.
If a person in a situation is individual-oriented and not dependent on others, then this could be termed situational utilitarian or altruistic individualism. From a non-reciprocal and one-sided view, utilitarian individualism has as its central goal the maximization of personal benefits. With rational collectivism one’s human surroundings are taken into account so as to build up ‘social capital’, which Bourdieu (1986: 248) describes as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition’. By contrast, utilitarian individualism ignores this form of interconnectedness, and the person acts so as to gain purely personal benefits. In the context of interpersonal communication, the concept of saving/losing face is misused, in order to get one’s own way. The communication process can be guided in an artful, even tricky way that could lead to checkmate for the other person, who becomes unable to proceed with the communication without losing face or destroying harmony. Typical strategies are rooted in Chinese history, as with stratagems which are powerful aphorisms – based on historic principles – and embody the essence of the ancient Chinese art of cunning (Von Senger, 1991).
Altruistic individualism can be described as the transcendence of selfishness – to which utilitarian individualism belongs – according to Durkheim, to a more moral individualism (Fish, 2008). If the attitude of the actor is based on a reciprocal and balanced relationship to the counterpart and the acting person is completely independent of others, then this would be a form of altruism. Instead of being guided by selfish interests, new social bonds are generated on an individual basis. All actions are based on individual decisions without any constraints imposed by group pressure. Individual integrity is an important factor which leads to a positive form of social connectedness within society. In this case, face and harmony are not directly linked. Even in less harmonious situations, everyone involved can keep face without necessarily being of the same opinion, because the foundation is mutual respect and acceptance. From their quantitative analysis of Chinese sayings, Ho and Chiu (1994: 147) conclude that ‘altruism is strongly valued’. In an altruistic situation, the individual is acting to the benefit of society and is therefore contributing to the good of all.
As mentioned, these four personal dispositions should not be taken as fixed categories in the sense of typologies. Still, they can help to explain current social phenomena in a holistic way based on the both/and approach. To illustrate this, let us look at some emerging social trends. With the fast-paced developments in China today, sociocultural changes have become a matter of fact. This model serves to explain complex – and to the Western mind often contradictory – processes without simplifying through flat categorization. Rather than applying strict typologies, the various facets of personal motives, ambitions and attitudes are spotlighted to gain a complex picture.
Sociocultural developments in rising China: The research
In 1978, Deng Xiaoping proclaimed the ‘reform and opening up’ – the starting point which brought China back on the global agenda. Within the course of approximately the past two decades, China has recorded two-digit economic growth. This fast-paced development has necessarily had an impact on Chinese society, the young generation in particular.
The intention behind the research project described here was to identify social changes and challenges for the young Chinese generation with the focus on current changes in people’s value systems. To avoid a Western bias and to ensure a culture-linked approach, the study was conducted in close collaboration with researchers from China 1 (Herdin, 2007). Based on initial qualitative pre-research activities in China, the first step was to develop and set up a quantitative study. As a theoretical and empirical basis, the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) was applied. Schwartz (1992) has developed an empirically sound concept of cultural values grounded in cross-cultural psychology. It takes into account the complexity of culture and is well suited for comparative culture research. Values, analysed at the individual level, were regarded primarily as an influential element of the personality. They included terminal values (guiding principles in life) and instrumental values (preferred modes of behaviour) (Rokeach, 1973). The SVS gathers 57 multiple values categorized into 10 value types: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition and security. These 10 value types can be subsumed into four value dimensions: openness to change, self-enhancement, conservation and self-transcendence. These four value dimensions form two bipolar conceptual dimensions, yielding a spectrum with successive closely related values: the dimension of openness to change (individualistic efforts and action) versus conservation (preservation of the existing order) and the dimension self-enhancement (pursuit of own success and dominance) versus self-transcendence (acceptance of others as equal individuals). As representatives of modernization, business people (N = 1108) were chosen as the target group. To narrow down the research, two major cities were selected: Beijing as the political capital, and Shanghai as a leading financial centre. One of the objectives was to identify which values drive the younger generation, and which values they consider to be important.
After the evaluation of the quantitative study a further qualitative step (n = 30) followed. The findings were discussed on two levels. In an interdisciplinary setting, scholars from several fields 2 interpreted the data and linked the findings to current social trends in society. Students, as the academics of the future generation, discussed the data from a personal perspective, contributing their personal experience to enrich the results. This modus operandi could enhance the explanatory power of the data by integrating the societal context and thereby uncovering hidden sociocultural dimensions.
In the following paragraphs the focus is on the challenges facing the younger generation. The model serves as a schematic matrix to sample in parallel the various inherent dispositions. To illustrate these explanations, typical expressions from the qualitative study are cited as examples.
Challenges for the younger generation: Beyond individualism and collectivism
Emotional bonds within the family are a prime example of emotional collectivism in China. In Confucianism, the family is the centre of people’s social network. This was clearly visible in the qualitative interviews. Students were highly attached to their families. They remain in contact with their family at home through phone calls, and travel frequently to visit their parents and grandparents – trips that involve distances and travel times hardly imaginable for most Europeans. One student described the reciprocal bonds: ‘my family is very close. We love each other very much and we are dependent on each other.’ But at the same time, members of the younger generation are challenged by the rise of China. Living and housing costs are rising and the pressure of competition on the labour market has intensified. These young people have to make a living for themselves in an expensive environment; but they also have to build up a solid financial base to care for their parents, as long as the family is still not covered by a comprehensive social welfare system. ‘I should say the biggest change is that more people place making more money as their priority life object. Because the fast economic development brings about inflation, and living costs have been rising, people are under greater pressure, they have to be more practical, to make a living, to survive’ (ICT scholar in Shanghai).
A strong push towards a capitalist system is evolving. The words of Deng Xiaoping, ‘to get rich is glorious’, which led to capitalism with Chinese characteristics, are reflected in the value system of the young generations. Self-enhancement plays a vital role in gaining reputation, and ‘achievement’ is a dominant driving force for the aspiring young people of today. Priority is given to family, but also to personal success and recognition. Personal success, demonstrated competence and education are central here. Asked what the most important things in life were, one student replied: ‘I think there are two important things in my life: work, and the other is family. As for work, I want to contribute something to society by my hard work.’
This can lead to a utilitarian view of life to survive. This modern-day challenge to the individual is generating apprehensions that a ‘me-first society’ may be developing, one in which actions are based on utilitarian individualism. It was often mentioned that the form of individualism combined with a driving force to earn money changes people’s mentality. As one scholar in Beijing reflected: ‘They focus too much about themselves… People are more self-centred; people are more concerned with their own interests than those of other people. The change is very obvious.’ This topic was picked up by students as well: ‘But in China, unfortunately I see individualism, as people only care about themselves, and they don’t care about others.’ A raw climate of worry was mentioned by some students, especially those who did not grow up in the big cities and came in from more rural surroundings to study in the mega-cities.
A political scholar in Shanghai calls this development, which can be worrisome to Chinese society, as ‘extreme individualism’, referring to a ‘highly self-centred way of thinking, everything is for me, I am the most important. We say extremist, jiduan ge ren zhu yi. It usually leads to serious mistakes… crime, that’s something we never want.’
But these developments are only one part of modern-day developments. An altruistic individualistic attitude can be detected as well. The quantitative research showed that the younger generation is developing greater openness. This new openness to new experiences in China is often misinterpreted as a form of selfishness. According to the value survey (SVS), especially in Shanghai, young people tend to be more open than the older generations. Openness is characterized on the one hand as self-direction. Today’s young people act according to independent thought, enjoying their independence. They feel free to make their own decisions. A second attribute of this openness is the value of stimulation: the young people are looking for challenges in life and want to face them actively. A political scientist in Shanghai explains this in the following way: ‘Generally… individualism is something good, because they [the young generation] can provide us with variety. It is not a simple unified system; it is the variety of society that makes the society more dynamic and creative. Harmonious society can also be based on individualism.’
These different explanations of current developments show that it need not be a matter of utilitarian individualism: altruistic attitudes may be involved as well. The lifestyles of the young generation are based on individual decisions, but they care about society as well. Altruistic behaviour is readily seen in time of catastrophes – as with the 2008 earthquake in Wenchuan city in Sichuan province. As reported by Wang and Zheng (2008): ‘The nation has probably never seen people being so enthusiastically involved in making donations and volunteering.’ Beside the traditional way of public collection of money, people started to donate through mobile-phone text messaging (SMS) on an individual level, without any public pressure in the sense of fundraising campaigns. The Red Cross Society of China worked together with Chinese mobile providers so that people could easily donate money by mobile phone. It seems clear that especially ICTs are a major factor in the individualization of the younger generations, how they use these new forms of communication and how they are influenced by them.
Rational collectivism also plays an important part in the everyday life of Chinese people. According Bond and Hwang (1986), there exist three different forms of relationship. ‘Affective’ relationship can be found among family members and friends (emotional collectivism) and the ‘instrumental’ form (rational collectivism), whereby people interact and deal with each other in order to achieve practical ends. The third form is a mix of the two. It is called guanxi, a well-known Chinese social construct, and can be translated as ‘personal connection’ or ‘personal relationship’ (Wang and Murphy, 2010: 147). Guanxi consists of several elements, including ganging (emotional attachment), renquin (reciprocal favours) and face (outward experience) (Wang and Murphy, 2010). According to Bond and Hwang (1986), as noted above, this concept even implies both the affective as well the instrumental aspect. Guanxi does more than describe merely how people are connected on the basis of emotional bonds: the meaning is also that they adapt to a certain extent, so as to gain individual advantages from being a member of the group.
This kind of rational collectivism became clear in one of the interviews. This student, who is finishing her master’s degree, assists bachelor-degree students – by encouraging them when learning problems arise, providing free private lessons and giving emotional support if they have personal problems. As she specifically mentioned, this is not because she is particularly close to them (emotional collectivism) – but she knows that she will get something in return from them later on. So she helps them now, in order to build up a win/win situation. Moreover, this support work provides her with a bonus from the faculty, in the form of a higher social status and recognition because she is doing something for the university.
This is a kind of positive face work. ‘[The] Literature shows that face protection (protecting dignity) and guanxi (personal connections) have been important parts of interaction within and outside of an organization’ (Wang and Murphy, 2010: 148). Reciprocal behaviour as well as face is mainly motivated by rational decisions. On the surface, rational collectivism collectivism may seem to have negative connotations, but this should not be misunderstood. Guanxi can serve to reinforce and establish social harmony (Wong and Leung, 2001) as well as personal benefit. This is reflected in the data from the qualitative study: in China today, conservation values (conformity and security) as well as performance orientation (achievement and power) are highly esteemed.
Conclusion
Understanding intercultural differences is a challenge in today’s networked world. Deciphering cultural patterns can help to improve the communication process and thereby the understanding between people from different cultural backgrounds. However, the typologies which were mainly developed in the West in the 1980s and 1990s (like the individualism versus collectivism category) are not suited for coping with the demands of the new millennium. Such oversimplified bipolar and one-dimensional concepts lead instead to methodological nationalism and stimulate the creation of stereotypes and prejudices.
The current debate on de-Westernizing communication research – which is driven especially by Asian scholars – represents a chance to develop more adequate models for understanding cultural differences. Living in a globalized world, we must always bear in mind that modern societies are still very diverse entities. It makes no sense whatsoever to categorize entire nations by lumping them into a single dimension, such as ‘China is a collectivist-oriented society’. We must acknowledge that, depending on personal dispositions and situational context, people may represent a range of different positions. Especially in China, with its remarkable ongoing growth, the fast pace of development cannot but have an influence on society, which has to cope with tremendous challenges. With its fluid character, the matrix presented here should offer support to a deeper discussion, without undue oversimplification or trivialization.
Footnotes
Funding
This research was partly supported by: Austria Wirtschaftsservice GmbH (aws) (www.awsg.at) and Eurasia-Pacific Uninet (EPU) (www.eurasiapacific.net).