Chen Qigang (the music director of the opening ceremony): We have a responsibility to explain this to the Chinese viewers. I think the viewers should be able to understand that, in the national interest, for the perception of the country, it was an extremely important and serious matter to present the flag [in the best possible manner]. We made a decision, which I think was fair to both Lin and Yang. We felt the coupling of a perfect voice with the best appearance produced the most optimal result….
Mr. Chen’s Chinese mind naturally combines Miaoke’s best appearance and Peiyi’s perfect voice in a coherent picture, along with the marching in of the other 56 children in minority costumes representing China’s 56 ethnic groups, carrying the Chinese flag, the context of the National Stadium and its ninety thousand strong audience.
On the other hand, Western viewers encode Lin Miaoke’s appearance and Yang Peiyi’s voice as discrete elements and mutually exclusive. They call it lipsyching and find it unacceptable.
These different perceptions arise from the difference between individualistic and collective cultures. The mind produced from Western individualistic culture is concerned with the unique contribution and responsibility of each person (Miaoke versus Peiyi), whereas the mind produced from a collectivist culture generates a gestalt with all the elements merged together.
In 1991, University of Iowa Physics Ph. D. candidate Gang Lu killed another Chinese student who won a dissertation prize instead of him, all members of his dissertation committee, the department chair, the dean of the school and permanently injured a student worker at the dean’s office, before committing suicide. Michael Morris and Kaiping Peng (1992) did a study on cultural differences in the perception of that crime in particular and individuals’ behaviors in general. They examined how members of different cultures made causal attributions for the behavior of the crime’s perpetrator. Do they blame the perpetrator’s personality or his environment for the behavior? Their data collection started with the media. English language media (e.g., New York Times) focused on internal and personal reasons (his sick mind and flawed character). Chinese Media in the US (World Journal) focused on situational factors (e.g., he was alienated from the Chinese community and was socially isolated). Then they asked both American and Chinese students to list the factors they thought have contributed to Gang Lu’s violent behavior. American students listed more personality factors, while Chinese students listed more situational factors. A problem with this result is that it might have been caused by the Chinese participants’ desire to find excuses for the crime committed by one of their own in order to save face for their group. To eliminate this confound, Morris and Peng had American and Chinese students analyze another shooting-suicide incident, perpetrated by a white American. Again American students made more internal/personal attributions for the crime whereas Chinese students made more environmental/social/societal attributions.
Where do these different styles of making behavioral attributions come from? The authors explained that in Western (European and North American) individualistic cultures, a person is viewed as autonomous and independent. He or she is also held responsible for all his/her actions. In East Asian collectivist cultures, the individual is viewed as an integral component of a social network, an embedded element of a pattern. Related with the emphasis on individuality versus social connection are the different conceptualizations of behavior causality between the East and West. In Western individualistic cultures, the individual is endowed with independent agency, the power to initiate changes in his or her environment via actions, directed and driven by personal desires, choices and beliefs. The East Asian cultures tend to view the individual as passively responding to environmental constraints, pressures and inducements, directed by exigencies and obligations. Another way to put it is to characterize the Western view on the social world as analytical, with each element (individual) viewed as discrete and operating separately, while the East Asian cultures view the social world holistically, with the discrete factors mutually constraining and influencing each others’ movements. The application of these cultural-specific models of causality goes beyond the social world, and extends to physical phenomena. In a research by a Japanese-American group (Masuda and Nisbett 2001), American and Japanese students were shown an animation of a fish swimming in an marine environment, among sea weeds, sand dunes, rocks and other ocean-bed objects, and described what they saw in the dynamic scene. American students described the fish as a locus of agency, saying things like “it swims toward the sea weed.” Japanese students described the fish as more passively responding to the environment, saying things like “it was drawn toward the sea weed.” The model of causality is associated with more fundamental differences in processing information from the scene. After viewing the animation, American students remembered more details about the fish, the focal object, whereas the Japanese students remembered more details about the fish’s environment.
From the Olympics opening ceremony on August 8th, Western viewers are most likely to remember discrete elements, independent of each other, such as individual performers, and particular special effects (e.g., the fireworks, Li Ning’s running in the sky, Miaoke’s best appearance and Peiyi’s perfect voice). Chinese are most likely to retain a gestalt of the event, with all the elements fused together, i.e., the nation’s glory.
August 14, 2008 at 6:44 am |
Collectivism vs Individualism….
Interesting studies.
Personally, I see Individualism as a bit of an American myth. As much as Americans enjoy the story of the Individual, it is a society that doesn’t really like things to be outside of expectations. Evidence? Just two major political parties and the venom of the accusation of being “un-American” pop into mind. The whole reaction and reduction to personal freedoms following 911 bucks the myth too. Also, look at the movies and TV that come out of the States. Some creativity but the predictable formula takes the mystery out of even shows that are suppose to be mysteries. (At least not as boring as some Canadian content. My god, sometimes I think we redo shows just to make sure it hits the expected Canadian dullness.) Americans generally don’t suffer eccentrics well. Individualism but not too Individualistic.
At the same time, there is a streak of mythology in the Chinese Collectivism. The Chinese are not really the drones that the government nor the West seem to want to believe in. Walking around Beijing, you can see people doing all sorts of things. Taichi, ball room dancing, chess, playing with birds, flying kites, exercising next to the canal… Eccentrics have a place in Chinese society. How much? I don’t really know, but I have a sense that as much as there are pressures to conform to the collective, the eccentric is also valued.
The studies are interesting because they remove the mythologies.
But what then are we left with? Is it really an Individualism vs Collectivism variation in perspective? Meaning, are those terms too limited to useful? And, as I mentioned, I expect that American Individualism to be a bit of believing ones own press releases. I’ve also found a rich diversity of individuality in the Chinese people I’ve met.
Without looking further into the studies, it seems that the East Asian subjects were more attuned to the context of situation than the American subjects. The Americans viewed the situation from the perspective of the focal object – personal reasons/fish’s actions. The East Asians considered the context of the focal object – social relationship/fish as part of environment. Yes, the Americans were true to their narrative because they took the point of view of the individual. But I am not convinced that the studies demonstrated Collectivism, as I understand it.
The East Asian subjects, as recounted in your posting, weren’t reflecting on a collective but rather a context. How did the students relate to their context and how did the fish respond to its context. The group, of course, provides a vital context. How do I relate to my family, my home town, my country, and so on. What is my relation to those around me – my context.
In the link you provided on Fool’s Mountain called The Drums of Change by Harold Meyerson, the author used the example of the 9 year old boy, Lin Hao*, to illustrate Chinese collectivism. Rather, it shows that the boy was aware of his context; how he related to his classmates and friends.
One of the problems I have with the term “Collectivism” when applied to Chinese culture is that it feels inadequate. Collectivism doesn’t seem to fit well with the idea of the Harmonious Society, as I understand it. The idea of the Harmonious Society has to mesh with 热闹 somehow. The chaos and noise of everyday life in China is at odds with harmony through collectivism thinking. Yet, if you consider that Harmonious Society has more to do with the individual’s context in society, how he and the group relate, then walking through busy, noisy, chaotic streets suddenly seem more in tune with harmony.
Some may consider that I’m just splitting hairs. But from what I have observed, while Collectivism may have been dominate until Mao’s death, it is not a fundamental characteristic of Chinese culture. The group is important but what is more important is the individual’s relationship within the various layers/members of the group. 孙悟空 is a fascinating Chinese character that can not be stuffed into a box of Collectivism. Yet, he is a character in various contexts with various relationships with the society around him.
*How odd for the Individualistic West to not catch the name of the boy. It took a lot of googling and help from a Chinese friend to track down the boy’s name.
August 14, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
Mark,
I hope this will work. Thanks for the thoughtful essay. I will read it closely and respond once I get my day job done. Got to pay the bills and feed the family.
August 14, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
That’s fine – thanks
August 15, 2008 at 1:21 pm |
MutantJedi,
You raise some important questions. First of all, all societies have expectancies for their members and reinforce these expectances as norms. However, is the individualism versus collectivism distinction is parallel to the conformity versus deviance distinction, or are the two identical? Can a group of people be highly collectivistic but possess different behavior patterns at the same time? I think the answer is yes; the Chinese society is like that. Can a group of people be highly individualistic but look to each other to determine what the appropriate action is? I think the answer is also yes; the Americans are like that. The eccentricity in the Chinese in all sorts of activities, such as the exercising practices you observed, does not dilute their collectivism.
I think you are correct in pointing out that how one reacts to context is the key difference between individuals from collectivistic and individualistic cultures. Individuals from the Western culture tend to operate as discrete units, taking actions sorely based upon one’s own desires and beliefs, although these desires and beliefs may have come from social influences instead of individual choice. Not all individuals have the motivation or mental capacity to think through all issues of relevance. On the other hand, individuals from East Asian collectivist societies operate as an embedded unit of a larger gestalt and expect others to do the same. There is plenty of room for creativity and eccentricity in how one fits in the gestalt or context, like the colorful exercise habits among the Chinese elderly in Beijing parks, as long as one uses one’s relation with others, from family and friends all the way to strangers and foreigners, as the reference system for determining reality and propriety. I agree with you that the terms “collectivism” versus “individualism” may be too broad and imprecise to be useful. Maybe they should be replaced with “relational” versus “atomic” styles of behavior choice. In fact it is not the terminology, but the definition and content of the terms that will determine their usefulness.
August 15, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
I agree with what you’ve said.
“Relational” vs “Atomic” might be better than “Collective” vs “Individual” when considering Chinese vs American culture.
My problem with the term collectivism with Chinese culture is that I don’t see a simplistic group trumps individual dynamic in Chinese culture. Perhaps it is my definition of collectivism that is the problem. When I think of collectivism, I think of Hutterite colonies or Kibbutz. I have a difficult time with the term as I don’t feel Chinese culture warrants the baggage that goes along with it.
That said, understand the difference in perspective helps understanding why people react to events as they do. The story of Lin and Yang demonstrate this. For myself, the girls performed well together for the whole experience. For others, they look at each performance as being incomplete on its own; the gestalt is not as important.
I said above “Chinese vs American culture.” I would suggest that a difference between Canadian and American culture is also one of Relational vs Atomic.
In the spectrum, I would put Canada in the middle of China and America.
July 5, 2009 at 1:16 am |
[...] Collectivism and individualism determine what you see and hear in Lin Miaoke and Yang Peiyi, as well… Mr. Chen’s [Qigang] Chinese mind naturally combines Miaoke’s best appearance and [...]