Abstract Social Obligation

[kdavid]

An issue I've been grappling with for as long as I've been in China is how (in general) the Chinese can be so indifferent to those around them. Issues in particular include: general public hygiene (e.g. spitting and urinating in public), smoking everywhere (and likewise holding their cigarettes far away from their bodies in crowded areas), blocking public walk areas and doors, littering, general rudeness to service-industry workers (e.g. restaurant servers, bank tellers, etc.), and the list goes on.

At first, I coughed it up to cultural differences. However, this issue goes beyond simply how the Chinese treat public space. Many people simply do not seem to place to same value on the lives of strangers as they do their own family. This can be found in the unethical practices of doctors, restaurant owners, and businessmen, as well as the day-to-day lives of average people.

Then, the other day, I came across the following passage in Kenneth Lieberthal's "Governing China":

"The Confusion understanding of human nature and society contrasts strongly with American thinking. The latter holds that each person owes every other person a general social obligation because of the very humanity shared by all. Underlying this view is the idea that every individual has a soul and therefore some inherent value. Although this tradition has often been more honored in theory than in practice, it has been quite fundamental to the development of American and modern Western society and culture.

Confucian society lacks this notion of abstract social obligation. Its obligations are concrete and determined by specific social relationships. As individual, indeed, never stands independently as Ms. Li or Mr. Zhao, but is always parts of a web of social relationships: wife, mother, daughter, sister, husband, son, student. One deals with others through these personal connections, and one's social strategy is based to a considerable extent on building supportive webs of personal ties.

This specificity of social obligation helps explain a paradox often observed by Westerners in China. A poor family living at bare subsistence level will take in any distant relative who shows up at their door step needing help.... This same family, though, would pass a starving beggar on their street every day and refuse to give him any money. How could the same people appear solicitous in one instance and callous in the other? The family's defined social obligation toward the distant relative and lack of obligation toward the beggar on the street explain this paradoxical behavior. A stranger without any "connection"... is simply of no concern to the family."

Clearly, not everyone would litter on the beach, or refuse to help a 2-year-old girl who had been hit by a car. And, indeed, Americans also pass beggars every day without giving them money. However, comparatively speaking, Chinese culture seems to be more indifferent to the inherent value of others than Western culture.

Beyond the scope of common decency, however, is the concept of civic mindedness and belonging to a nation. When watching the US Presidential debate the other night, my wife commented to me, "What have they done for you recently? How have they made your life any better? You're wasting your time keeping up with this." This comment seems to me to reflect how many Chinese feel about politics. If it doesn't affect their lives directly, they don't care.

My questions for everyone:

1. How would you translate this notion of "abstract social obligation"?

2. What experiences do you have with this in your persona lives?

3. What implications does this lack of abstract social obligation have for the Chinese polity?

[gato]

Some of this maybe a trait of totalitarian society rather than Chinese. I've heard that Russian society has many of same anti-social traits you mention, for example.

It might be due a Hobbesian rule of the jungle rather than Confucian rule of relationships.

Another matter to consider is Taiwan, which is clearly influenced by Confucianism and yet is not filled with as much anti-social selfishness as mainland is.

[skylee]

Re the last remark in #2, I had the same thoughts as gato's when reading #1. What does the OP mean when he says "Chinese"?

And I think the questions are bad leading questions. They assume that the readers agree with the OP's views.

[WestTexas]

This comment seems to me to reflect how many Chinese feel about politics. If it doesn't affect their lives directly, they don't care.

I know a lot of Americans who are the same way, and honestly, I would put myself in that group as well. Why should the Chinese care? It's not like they get to vote.

1. How would you translate this notion of "abstract social obligation"?

2. What experiences do you have with this in your persona lives?

3. What implications does this lack of abstract social obligation have for the Chinese polity?

1)Translate it how? Into Chinese?

2)It's crazy that the Chinese don't stop to help someone who is injured, but I've seen it first hand. It's definitely real. People would like to act like no one helping the little girl was unusual, but I could see it happening again. Still, the way Chinese people got so angry about the situation shows that they do not fully believe that other human lives have no value.

3)This question seems too broad. I'll pass

As for the litter, I don't think this is just an ethical thing. Outside of school campuses, trash cans can be extremely hard to find, even in places where they obviously should be (see: Muslim Quarter in Xi'an). Also, there are no penalties for littering. In Texas, littering carries a fine of up to $2000. I won't say that everywhere in Texas is perfectly clean but for the most part the roadsides are clean except for an occasional can and a few cigarette buts. I would never in a million years think to randomly throw a piece of trash down in Texas, but I have done so in China due to the lack of public trashcans, the fact that workers clean stuff up every so often, and the lack of negative consequences.

general public hygiene (e.g. spitting and urinating in public), smoking everywhere (and likewise holding their cigarettes far away from their bodies in crowded areas), blocking public walk areas and doors

I think you are just trying to take cultural norms that annoy you and use them to justify your ideas, when actually these norms are just different. I don't think urinating, spitting, and smoking signify any lack of 'abstract social obligation', they are just different norms than you are used to. I am 100% serious, I think being able to urinate outside is great, and I also like being able to hawk up phlegm without people staring. I don't smoke, but if I did (and I used to), I would love being able to smoke everywhere. Some people (most people?) don't worry so much about cigarette smoke. As for blocking public walk areas, you are expected to push by. That's normal in China - pushing is OK. They stand there because it is where they want to stand and they do not feel that having someone push by is weird.

[li3wei1]

When I lived in Taiwan (many years ago), I was struck by the ease with which people dumped litter or other pollution out their windows, over their walls, etc. It seemed that anything beyond their property boundary was a foreign country or even another planet. So I wouldn't say there was a huge difference between Taiwan and the mainland in this respect.

I don't think 'abstract' is the right word here. The Chinese have responsibilities to their (very extended) families, and perhaps to other groupings as well (tribe, local political group, company, work unit, whatever). Other cultures have similar responsibilities, plus a specific responsibility to a larger group: all living human beings (with some cultures using rather selective definitions of what counts as 'human being'). Some go further and count unborn humans and/or future generations, while Chinese and some other cultures have responsibilities to ancestors. Some feel they have responsibilities to animals, or at least to certain animals. All I'm saying is the responsibility you may feel to someone else because they are human is no more or less 'abstract' than the responsibility you feel to your maternal uncle's daughter.

[Ludens]

To me, littering seems to be more of a developing country thing, instead of a unique aspect of Chinese society. I've seen the same thing happen in Mongolia, India, etc. In fact, when I first arrived in Beijing, I was shocked at how clean everything was (coming from Ulan Bator).

[daofeishi]

...the idea that every individual has a soul and therefore some inherent value...

the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, neither in theory nor practice.

Take a country with few social safety nets and a malfunctioning legal system where opportunism is often the only way to survive, and you get a society where social obligations do not necessarily get prioritized. There is no need to invoke highly abstract and metaphysical concepts that people don't reason about in their everyday lives in order to explain that. If we really want a sweeping historical analysis, remember that so-called "American thinking" at different points in time led to a nation throwing different ethnic groups under the bus for their own benefit. Trying to explain that as a mere difference between "theory and practice" sounds an awful lot like special pleading to me.

[count_zero]

Seems a bit strange to me when people blame someone cutting in line on Confucius.

This article might give you some food for thought.

Altercations over polite behavior on public transportation offer a window on a changing society, reports Tang Yue.

If you're riding the bus or subway and see a pregnant woman, an elderly person or young child standing up in front of you, you might want to think seriously about offering them your seat.

If you don't, you may discover that the consequences are serious, given that a number of altercations have happened recently and some have even ended in violence.

On Aug 23, a young man on a bus in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, did not give up his seat to a pregnant woman. As a result, he was given five sharp slaps across the head by the woman's disgruntled husband, despite the fact that he wasn't occupying any of the seats usually reserved for the elderly and infirm, and, moreover, had a crippled leg.

Three days after that incident, a woman slapped a man on a bus in Jinan, Shandong province, after he failed to respond to a public announcement asking seated passengers to consider other travelers. Instead of offering his seat to the woman's daughter, aged around 6 years old, the man simply turned his back on them. Enraged, the mother struck him repeatedly and shouted, "I am fulfilling your mother's obligation to educate you."

The aggression hasn't only affected men. Media reports of aggressive behavior include that of an elderly man in Shijiazhuang, Hebei province, who sat on a young woman's lap after she refused his request to give up her seat. A similar incident is reported to have happened in Chengdu, Sichuan province.

Public opinion suggests that, while those who doggedly refused to offer up their seat weren't acting from noble instincts, the actions of those who beat them were antisocial and unnecessarily violent.

So what makes people feel justified about the use of force against those who fail to comply with their wishes?

As China undergoes rapid urbanization, people who have grown up in an "acquaintance society", one where everyone knows everyone else in the neighborhood, face challenges from the increasing need for daily interaction with strangers, according to Yang Yiyin, director of the social psychology research office at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing.

"In traditional Chinese society, where people are tied by family and blood relationships, emotions and morals, rather than reason and law, guide people's behavior," said Xiao Qunzhong, professor of ethics at Renmin University of China.

As a result, people tend to automatically, but mistakenly, use their sense of moral superiority to legitimize their behavior, including the use of verbal and physical violence.

However, while the traditional mindset remains, tragedies such as the case of Xiao Yueyue a 2-year-old girl who died after being ignored by 18 passers-by as she lay in the street in Foshan, Guangdong province after she had been hit by a car and then run over twice more also indicate a value-system in flux as the country moves through a period of rapid social transformation, said Xiao.

"Civil society in China is not as developed as in the West. People are still learning how to respect the fundamental rights of others and the bottom line for behavior," he said.

Stranger society

To deal with other passengers on a bus, where people come and go in a very short time and very limited space, serves as a very good test of social attitudes. It's one many people fail, noted Yang Yiyin of the CASS.

"You will always see female colleagues or friends trying very hard to persuade each other to take the only seat, even if there are only a couple of stops to go," said Yang, 57. "But they still don't know how to negotiate with strangers.

"That helps to explain why those with a sense of moral superiority just skip the discussion process and begin dictating to strangers, sometimes in a very rude manner."

People in the West have more experience in dealing with everyday public life and are better at expressing their needs and opinions, be it through lectures, negotiation or debate, she noted.

Zheng Liudi, a 29-year-old who rides the subway to work in Shanghai, knows exactly what Yang means. Zheng said most people are pleasant when help is offered. However, she said that on occasion, usually just as she was about to offer her seat to someone else, she has noticed a "You owe me" look in the eyes of seniors or mothers with young children. "I change my mind, then. I just dislike their attitude," she said.

She recalled that on one occasion, a woman in her 50s kicked her shoes from time to time. "I think she did it on purpose, to hint that she wanted the seat. But there was no way I would offer it to her under those circumstances," said Zheng.

"These extreme examples of wrangling over a seat also reflect a general feeling of anxiety and irritability," according to Yang.

Individual personality, values and the prevalent mood at the time of an incident all contribute to people's behavior. The background socially, however, is that many people are highly stressed and restless, and thus tend to appear aggressive on such occasions, she said.

"The prevailing mood in China now is being competitive every single second and not miss a single opportunity to gain something, anything. Sometimes, people just use incidents such as these as an outlet for suppressed anger," she explained.

Just too crowded

Regular users of public transportation might not know much about social theory; but they certainly feel the social reality during rush hours in the mega-cities and fully realize that a seat on a crowded bus or train is a precious commodity.

Every working day at 6:30 am, Jiang Xin, a 26-year-old auditor in Beijing, gets on the bus at the first stop on the route. Her journey takes roughly 90 minutes.

"At first, I used to sit down as soon as I got on the bus, just near the ticket seller. But I found I had to give up my seat several times on each journey and felt exhausted when I arrived at my office. So I changed seats and now sit in the corner instead," she said.

"On the weekend, I always offer my seat to people if they need it, but during the working week I really need that seat in the corner so I can take a nap."

Qin Jianhua is not as lucky. The 31-year-old works in Beijing, but bought an apartment in Yanjiao, Hebei province, in 2009. His daily commute to work takes two hours door to door, including one hour on the bus, a 10-minute walk and another 50 minutes on the subway.

The bus is always crowded, so it requires an enormous effort just to get on and there are always four or five passengers always standing crammed on a single step by the door. People always swear loudly if they can't squeeze on and some even block the road to stop the bus if they can't gain access, he said.

"When I'm on a comfortable bus, I give up my seat if others need it. But it's always so crowded and smelly on the bus I take to work. Everyone is very sleepy, almost collapsing, so giving up your seat would be the last thing you'd want to do," said Qin. The bus trip got old quickly, so Qin now lives in a rented apartment near his office during the working week and only goes home on the weekend.

The experience has given him a fresh insight into the issue: "Don't judge someone until you have been in his shoes. That person may be aggressive on the bus, but may also behave politely in a different environment," he said. "Also, standards seem to vary. I've seen some people happily and politely give up their seats to seniors, but the same people acted totally differently to a migrant worker. So, how do you rate them?" he asked.

[Meng Lelan]

won't say that everywhere in Texas is perfectly clean but for the most part the roadsides are clean except for an occasional can and a few cigarette buts. I would never in a million years think to randomly throw a piece of trash down in Texas

You ought to come see what a dump San Antonio is! I don't think anyone gets fined for trash throwing because the cops are busy running after the drug traffickers.

[liuzhou]

Try reading Dickens' American Notes. He complained about Americans doing most of the things you complain of in China. Spitting in particular.

Not so long ago in historical terms. It's just part of being a developing country.

Many places in China are a LOT cleaner than much I have seen in the oh-so-perfect west. Many are not. Poor places, generally

[xiaocai]

OP, this is a real story happened at my home town near where I live. A couple from rural area brought their daughter to the county central hospital to have surgery for her congenital heart problem done. As you may be aware of, most farmers in China are not medically insured and hence they couldn't not afford the bills. The hospital decided to exempt all their outstanding payment as they are really very poor and it didn't really cost too much with the aid of social donation. The couple felt much in debt and then spent three years to pave a path all by themselves by hand to give back to the society. That many Chinese's take on "society". We are poor, and we are insecure unlike many people from the West, but we do what we can to help each other. We really do want, without getting ourselves in trouble. With many people still struggle for basic education, medical care and even food under certain circumstances, what do you expect them to offer?

[prateeksha]

I can testify a lot of things which the OP mentioned happen unabated in India too. I see these more as a characteristic of a developing, overpopulated country where there are 10 hospitals for 100,000 people, hundreds of eligible candidates for a $200 per month job and thousands which would be willing to do the same for $100. I am in NO way endorsing or approving of this, only making an honest commentary - In such a cut-throat struggle for college admissions, jobs, bus seats, apartments which is then topped by corruption, favouritism and (in India's case) terrorism - the ideal of abstract social obligation does get lost somewhere.

[edelweis]

The issue was explained to me both by a Chinese person and a French person thus:

The Western mindset is framed by absolute notions of good and evil (Manichaeism, 10 commandments...)

Western children are (or were?) taught absolute virtues like not stealing, not lying, giving to the poor, doing a good deed, replying politely when addressed - by family as well as by a stranger - and so on.

Of course kids are also taught to obey their parents and so on. However doing the morally right thing from the good/evil viewpoint is supposed to have priority over relationships.

The Eastern mindset (including India and China) is framed by relationships. For instance Confucianism is based on 5 relationships.

So Eastern kids are taught relationship virtues like obeying, respecting, honouring, supporting, elders and especially family and people with whom they have a direct relationship, such as teachers. Of course they're also taught about following laws and not stealing etc. However in Confucian thought, doing the right thing from a relationship point of view surpasses obeying the law or absolute notions of good and evil.

The Chinese guy also added that a Chinese kid who says "hello" to a stranger will probably get scolded by his or her parents. (But perhaps that's specific to that guy's family? Don't know.)

===

Regarding Communism / Confucianism: I think both teach about doing things as a group. But then what happens to people who are not in the group? I don't know whether the issue has to do with totalitarianism or rather with the view of the world as "within my group" and "outside my group"...

(Even the Confucean virtue of Rén (仁, Humaneness), is, according to wikipedia, qualified by "for other individuals within a community.")

I don't mean to imply that the same thing (indifference towards people who are outside one's group) does not happen in the West. Of course it does. Groups in the West generally seem wider and vaguer and more based on religion, nationality, language, ethnicity... rather than strictly family + direct social relationship.

I also don't mean to imply that Eastern people never help people who are outside of their group. Of course it happens all the time.

[daofeishi]

Western children are (or were?) taught absolute virtues like not stealing, not lying, giving to the poor, doing a good deed, replying politely when addressed - by family as well as by a stranger - and so on.

I find that a very unconvincing explanation. People's moral development does not happen through an abstract chain of moral thought. A child doesn't care if you believe morals are deontologically founded or based on pragmatism, or whether the system itself favors arbitrary social structures. That is the kind of reasoning that happens among philosophers and theologians, but is not part of the reasoning behind ethical choices in real life. A child learns not to steal like thus:

America: Don't take your brother's truck! He is playing with it!

China: Don't take your brother's toy drum. He is playing with it!

Sharing?

America: There is one slice of cake left, and you have already had two. Give the last one to Steve.

China: There are 3 jiaozi left, and you have already had a lot to eat. I think Xiao Wang is still hungry, don't you?

Politeness?

America: Don't say things like that in public! It is not polite!

China: Don't say things like that, we are losing face!

And this is of course a huge oversimplification, not least because it does not take into account evidence for biological/non-taught morality in humans.

There are very few situations in which Chinese people and Westerners disagree on moral practice. If you sit down with a Beijinger and a Texan and present them with any moral scenario, they will agree on most particulars. Stealing is wrong, altruism is both good and beneficial, proper social conduct is admirable. I don't think people behave differently because of differences in overarching philosophy, but rather because different societies present individuals with very different challenges. In China, the family forms a unit because of necessity as much as out of culture. To survive you need a network, and systems that allow for that outside of the families are rudimentary. There is therefore sometimes a tendency to overlook ethical and moral breaches towards outsiders in order to protect the family. This becomes further exacerbated by the ubiquity of fraud and 忽悠. People tend to be more vigilant when dealing with others, and that dampens the proclivity to behave altruistically when not explicitly called to do so.

[gougou]

A child learns not to steal like thus: America: Don't take your brother's truck! He is playing with it!

I agree that a child doesn't follow complex philosophical trains of thought, but I think this is oversimplifying to the point where it becomes meaningless. Of course all kids learn from their parents, but why do parents teach them this way? It must be based in something, no? I think the abstract chain of moral thought often comes after the fact, explaining differences in behavior rather than creating them.

And while in the examples you picked Americans and Chinese come up with the same moral reasoning, certainly there are issues on which choices would differ between different countries (though I wouldn't know whether that is a function of their current level of economic development or of ingrained moral beliefs), such as helping an old lady that fell in the street, choosing a fair starting price in a negotiation or even just pointing a stranger asking for directions the right way.

What edelweis said reminded me of one of my favorite anecdote's I came across while reading Hofstede, which he used to illustrate the difference between collectivist and individual societies. Dutch missionaries in Indonesia were talking about the parable of the two sons, in which a father sends two of his sons to work in his vineyard. The first says he won't, but later changes his mind and goes anyway. The second says he will, but later changes his mind and doesn't go. Now the bible argues that the first is the better son, because he does his father's will, so the missionaries were quite surprised when the Indonesians chose the second son, as he was the one who upheld the father's authority and the family's harmony.

[WestTexas]

And while in the examples you picked Americans and Chinese come up with the same moral reasoning, certainly there are issues on which choices would differ between different countries

I agree. For example, most people in the US feel that a fair fight is one-on-one. In a fight in China, several people will gang up on one or two others, and this is not seen as cowardly.

Another example, I would say that most Americans look down on a person who is older than 22 or 23 and still lives with their parents, gets money from their parents, or allows their parents to tell them what to do. I know I personally would look down on any American over that age who let their parents make decisions for them or even placed too much value on their parents opinion. In China, both of these are considered good things, and I am considered a 'bad son' or something like that

[xiaocai]

Well the opposite of cowardice probably is not fairness. I know you are talking from your own experience but do not come to the conclusion, or pass on your judgement too quickly. China is big and there are many areas you probably have not lived in for long. You may not know how those people's opinion on "fair fight". I really don't want to say this but many foreigners who have lived in China for a few years and are kind of fluent in Chinese really like to think they know exactly what Chinese people would think under certain specific circumstances. I used to get offended by this but now I just find it funny.

And being independent is not considered as "bad" in many places in China. My own experience is that it is perfectly okay to rely on your family whenever you really need, but you also support your parents if they are in need of yours. As a matter of fact, a lot of my high school and uni classmates from low income families became fully responsible for their lives as well as taking care their parents who have retired with no or minimum pension at the age of 22 or 23 when they had graduated and found jobs.

[imron]

several people will gang up on one or two others, and this is not seen as cowardly.

I don't think this is necessarily a cultural thing. If for example you read any 武侠 novels, the concept of people ganging up on a person is also seen as cowardly. So there is definitely a portion of society that sees it as such, just as there are incidents of people being assaulted by multiple attackers in the west.

[roddy]

Got Confucius, huh? Well, we got the Marquis of Queenberry! How you like them apples, eh? Hey, hold on guys, what's with the sticks...ow...c'mon, lemme get my gloves on...

Does amuse me when people claim their cultures have a slightly elevated form of violence.

[Guest realmayo]

Whatever happens, we have got

The Maxim gun, and they have not.