Tom is about to graduate from high school. He decides he doesn’t want to go to college, despite his parents’ wishes. Instead, he wants to join a rock band. What will the family members all say to one another? What will happen in the end? Who is right?

To overgeneralize: if you are an educated American, you probably have some sympathy for Tom, and you may even think he should go for it and forget his parents’ advice, even though you also think he will probably fail. You may think that he should pursue his dream; you may even think that he must pursue his dream, if he has truly been given a rare talent. You may believe that no matter what his parents say or do, they will not and cannot change Tom: he needs to learn lessons on his own, even if they are hard lessons, even if he suffers. His life is his to make, and the most valuable lessons are the ones learned through direct experience.

When I was a graduate student in linguistics doing research for my dissertation, I asked this question to several pairs of U.S.-born, native-English-speaking people. I also translated the question into Chinese and posed it to pairs of China-born, native-Chinese-speaking people. (The native dialects of the Chinese interviewees varied, but, being educated, all spoke Mandarin with great ease.) The summary I just offered of possible American views reflects a standard set of “cultural models” which my American interviewees turned to consistently in discussing this scenario.

Brief terminological aside: “cultural model” is a quasi-technical term used by scholars at the margins of linguistics, anthropology and psychology. Essentially it refers to an idealized notion of how the world works or should work. If I go to a restaurant and my server asks me to fill out a deposit slip or endorse a check, I will be surprised because the question violates my mental “model” of how restaurants should work. These models are called “cultural” because they are shared: I can reasonably expect my restaurant companions to be equally surprised about the server’s actions.

The cultural models that make up the “standard” Chinese view of the rock band question diverge sharply from the American cultural models. Before describing the “standard” Chinese view, though, I need to stop for a moment and address a concern that I hear every time I present my research. The concern is usually expressed as a statement like, “But that’s not how I think,” or “That’s not how it would go in my family.” My response is not to quote statistics, because I have none to offer. Instead, I say: Absolutely. No one person is going to follow the “standard” line entirely. I certainly don’t. The “standard” view I’m referring to is an approximation or aggregation, based on responses from interviewees, and, in the years since the research, on countless conversations with Americans and Chinese on the topic. The analysis will not stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny; no social science research ever can, no matter how many statistics are quoted. It is by nature inexact, because the subjects, human beings, are by nature inexact.

The “standard” Chinese view (I’ll now stop “scare-quoting” the term) differs radically from the standard American view. Tom — or, more properly, his Chinese alter ego Wang Er — has an opportunity to receive an education. Fewer things are more valuable than this opportunity, because in an overpopulated world, competition is intense, resources are scarce, and you need every edge you can get. Wang Er’s parents are absolutely right to insist that he go to college. Nothing is stopping Wang Er from pursuing music as a hobby. But his focus should be on studying hard and getting a solid, reputable job upon graduating. Not only will this set up Wang Er and his family with a strong economic foundation to guard against future calamity, but everyone will look good too and gain the respect of those around them.

Two years into his tenure, Schulze recommended reducing the work week for Chinese workers from six days to five. In an internal memo, he reasoned: “The employees will gain more time for their housework and still have time for rest and social activities.” (p. 257)

From an American perspective it’s easy to see the appeal: reduced costs from one more idle day per week, plus rested and rejuvenated workers. Why wouldn’t workers want more time away from the factory, to do “housework,” pariticipate in “social activities,” and such?

It turns out there were plenty of reasons Schulze’s proposal didn’t fly, and was never implemented. Here we’ll take a look at one major cultural factor.

Deep in our American bones is a belief that, when we’re not consumed with life’s usually unpleasant necessities like work, we should be off doing fun, fulfilling things — in short, pursuing happiness, just like the Declaration of Independence says is our unalienable right.

People the world over want happiness; there’s nothing particularly American about that. What sets Americans apart is our quasi-religious belief in our right to pursue happiness, and our often absolute prioritization of the pursuit of happiness over other things.

In China other concerns often take precedence. I’ve already looked at this in earlier posts on following dreams. Pursuing happiness is closely related to this; the stakes are just lower than they are with dreams, because we aren’t talking about the entire purpose of someone’s life.

In the case of Beijing Jeep, Jim Mann’s own words best capture the cultural miscalculation. Schulze’s proposal “recommended for China the American ideal of regularly alternating hard work and leisure.” (p. 258) To an American it’s natural to assume this ideal; to the Chinese workers and management, there were countless practical obstacles, including the factory being thrown off kilter with other Chinese factories (all of which were at that time on a six-day work week), and calling, in Mann’s words, “for fundamental changes in the entire rhythm of Chinese life.” (p. 258)

Beyond some frustration on the part of Ed Schulze, the repercussions for Beijing Jeep were minimal. It’s not hard to imagine other scenarios, though, where a cultural miscalculation like this could cost real time, money and goodwill. It’s crucial that we remain mindful of our own cultural assumptions and their impact on our success.

The original Chinese Esquire series referenced in the Time piece is here (in Chinese only). It seems Chinese Esquire is using the power of dreams, along with fashion photography, to narrate a thoroughly modern Chinese man.

This kind of “modernity” highlights the shift, in certain young and “fashionable” circles in China, to a more future-based orientation. Dreams are by definition grounded in the future. The “pragmatic” aspects of Chinese culture in which we find resistance to dreams are, in contrast, based in the past: long and bitter experience has shown that the whims of the world can and do thwart the best of human intention and effort.

In an earlier post I wrote of Hoftede’s concept of “time orientation.” I mention it here because the drag of China’s deep past upon dreams can be formidable. And still we have the portraits in Chinese Esquire of China’s modern dreamers. No wonder so many Westerners return from China scratching their heads at the contradictions and the complexity. And while what I’m about to say is to some degree true of every place, and while I’m not nearly the first to say it, China defies all our efforts to put it into tidy boxes.

In case you’re thinking, “I’m not religious,” or “I’m not spiritual,” you’re still not off the hook. Sociologist Robert Bellah famously studied what he termed American Civil Religion: a set of religiously-based beliefs shared by Americans of all religious and non-religious stripes. These beliefs — about many things, including our duties toward our fellow humans, as well as the uniqueness of human life and the need to “express ourselves” and develop our talents — provide the energy behind much of the language used by the Americans in my research.

In America you don’t mess with someone’s dreams. Dreams may be impractical, far-fetched, pie-in-the-sky. But dismiss them and you’re in trouble.

“Dreams,” in the default case in Chinese culture, don’t carry the same charge — as evidenced in the Chinese discussion of the rock band question, discussed in yesterday’s post. One respondent referred to Wáng Èr’s music as a “hobby” (兴趣爱好) that he could pursue after college; another participant said — and stick with me here if you don’t read Chinese — 我觉得每一个人还是要follow自己的heart.” Do you see the English in there? I translate the sentence as: “I think every person should follow their own heart.” After being admonished by her partner for using English, she “translates” back into Chinese: “还是应该坚持自己的想法吧”: “[They] should maintain their opinions.” The flavor of dreams is completely missing without the English.

Now, I’m not claiming that the language of dreams in English “can’t be translated into Chinese.” There are much closer translations in Chinese for the language of dreams than the language chosen by this one participant. And I’m certainly not claiming that thinking in terms of dreams isn’t done in Chinese: if it weren’t, why would the respondent have said what she said, namely that every person should follow their heart?

What I find interesting about her approach, though, is that she felt pulled to use English, and that the first “translation” into Chinese that she thought of was that one, about maintaining opinions, which is so devoid of the spirit of following one’s heart.

Dreams are alive and well in China. I would argue that dreaming big dreams is as much a part of our humanity as anything. Still, default modes of thinking and reasoning about dreams in the U.S. and in China are strikingly different. And so we need, as always, to take care in what we assume our Chinese counterparts and partners are thinking.

One question asked of participants:

Tom is about to graduate from high school.  He decides he doesn’t want to go to college, despite his parents’ wishes.  Instead, he wants to join a rock band.  What will the family members all say to one another? What will happen in the end?  Who is right?

王二快要高中毕业了。虽然他的父母希望他上大学,但是他不想上大学,想组一个摇滚乐团。你觉得王二会怎么样和他的父母说?他的父母又会怎样反应? 最后他们会决定怎么做? 你会支持哪一边?

The Chinese and American responses differ sharply, with the Americans generally supportive of Tom despite his likely failure, and the Chinese in favor of the parents.

In their reasoning the Americans employ a cultural model I’ve called Follow Your Dreams: humans get one life; each human has unique talents; we are duty-bound to develop and express our talents; therefore Tom has a duty at least to try and be a rock star. One respondent offered up what became my favorite quote in the entire data set: “You have to do what you want to do.”

The Chinese focus more on the likely economic downsides of such an impractical venture. Wáng Èr (Tom’s Chinese alter-ego) can keep rock music as a hobby, but forget about it as a profession.

The question raises deep issues about what a human life is fundamentally about. Per usual, American assumptions that all humans inherently want, even need, to “follow their dreams” at the expense of everything else isn’t as universal or powerful as we might think. There is a lot of cross-cultural pull to following dreams; it just doesn’t rule the roost as decisively as Americans often assume it does.

More on this tomorrow.

Today, a bit more building on last week’s discussion of “individualism.” This time not my thoughts, but those of Lin Yutang, one of the most famous interpreters of China to the West.

His most famous book in the West is My Country and My People. He wrote it in 1935, before the full occupation of China by the Japanese, before the rest of World War II, before the Communist revolution and Mao Zedong and the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution and Deng Xiaoping and Tian’anmen and Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. He wrote the book in English, after having lived in the U.S. for several years. Nobody before or since has written with such clarity and wit about fundamental aspects of Chinese society.

He kicks off Chapter Six, “Social and Political Life,” like this:

The Chinese are a nation of individualists. They are family-minded, not social-minded, and the family mind is only a form of magnified selfishness. It is curious that the word “society” does not exist as an idea in Chinese thought.…

“Public spirit” is a new term, so is “civic consciousness,” and so is “social service.” There are no such commodities in China. To be sure, there are “social affairs,” such as weddings, funerals, and birthday celebrations and Buddhistic processions and annual festivals. But the things which make up English and American social life, viz. sport, politics and religion, are conspicuously absent.…They play games, to be sure, but these games are characteristic of Chinese individualism.…Teamwork is unknown. In Chinese card games, each man plays for himself. (Lin Yutang, My Country and My People, Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000 [orig. 1935], p. 169)

To me this rings a lot of bells around Chinese responses to the “fallen tree” question: it’s not about “right” and “wrong”; it’s about getting my truck where it needs to go. And with the “rich person” question, recall for a moment the interviewees who commented that the question is too general, and that we can only ask what you would do with your money. Lin Yutang writes: “To a Chinese, social work always looks like ‘meddling with other people’s business.’” (p. 171)

Of course this is one man’s opinion. All grain-of-salt warnings remain in force. At the same time, this was a particularly insightful person.

And he’s not alone. Observers East and West, as well as a great many social scientists (chiefly psychologists, but also anthropologists and linguists), have provided further evidence for an enduring Chinese mindset roughly along the lines sketched out here by Lin, and echoed in my research.

For your own China explorations, thinking of China as “collectivist” and the West as “individualist” is helpful, as far as it goes. Maximizing your success in China requires that you go further. The more you’re able to nuance your view of the Chinese cultural mindset, and how it relates to the U.S. and the West, the better off you’ll be.

In their own words:

Universalist, or rule-based, behavior tends to be abstract. Try crossing the street when the light is red in a very rule-based society like Switzerland or Germany. Even if there is no traffic, you will still be frowned at.…There is a fear that once you start to make exceptions for illegal conduct the system will collapse.

Particularist judgments focus on the exceptional nature of present circumstances. The person is not “a citizen” but my friend, brother, husband, child or person of unique importance to me, with special claims on my love or my hatred. I must therefore sustain, protect or discount this person no matter what the rules say.

Business people from both societies will tend to think each other corrupt. A universalist will say of particularists, “they cannot be trusted because they will always help their friends” and a particularist, conversely, will say of universalist, “you cannot trust them; they would not even help a friend.” (taken from Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner, Riding the Waves of Culture, 2^nd Edition, 1998, pp. 31-32.

In a survey distributed to tens of thousands of managers worldwide, the following question was asked, in order to probe this distinction (from pp. 33-34):

You are riding in a car driven by a close friend. He hits a pedestrian. You know he was going at least 35 miles per hour in an area of the city where the maximum allowed speed is 20 miles per hour. There are no witnesses. His lawyer says that if you testify under oath that he was only driving 20 miles per hour it may save him from serious consequences.

What right has your friend to expect you to protect him?

1a            My friend has a definite right as a friend to expect me to testify to the lower figure.

1b            He has some right as a friend to expect me to testify to the lower figure.

1c            He has no right as a friend to expect me to testify to the lower figure.

What do you think you would do in view of the obligations of a sworn witness and the obligation to your friend?

1d            Testify that he was going 20 miles an hour.

1e            Not testify that he was going 20 miles an hour.

It’s a tough question. The title of this post is taken from the title of another book by Trompenaars. People from particularist cultures have asked if the pedestrian died, in order to help them think through their response — though it’s hard for a hardcore universalist to see why it would matter.

Responses to the scenario were aggregated from national cultures the world over, with 100 representing 100% of respondents from that culture choosing c or b + e. In other words, the higher the number, the more universalist. China comes in at 47, the U.S. at 93. Of the 31 cultures listed, only four are more particularist than China (Venezuela, Nepal, South Korea, Russia), and only one (Switzerland) is more universalist than the U.S.

With the usual caveats about too-broad brush strokes, this is a stark finding. It sets a rich and fraught stage for Chinese and Americans to do business together. It fits in well with many of my research findings, discussed in previous posts (look under the Cultural Models category), as well as with observations I’ve made earlier about contracts/hétong. It touches so many aspects of the differences between American and Chinese cultural mindsets that it’s hard to overstate its significance.

And it’s in an area where nerves can be raw: deeply-held beliefs about loyalty and principle. This is where our leadership will be most direly tested, and where we need to be most on guard for our automatic reactions winning the day. Definitely time to breathe deeply, detach, and refocus on why you’re in China in the first place.

Recall the following from the “rich person” discussion, said by Chinese participants:

C      How should he use his money,” “should”, this word, maybe I’m a little bit…uncomfortable.…“Should” has a bit of a feeling of morals, or preaching.

D      We should let everyone choose for themselves…how they should use…not “should.” Let everyone choose how to use his money.  We can only say if I were rich what would I do with it?

C      Right.

C         “应该怎么样用他的钱,” “应该” 这两个字我可能有一点…不舒服。”应该” 还有一点道德, 说教的感觉。

D     我们应该让每个人自己选择…应该去怎么用…不是“应该”…让每个人自己选择去用他的钱。  我们只能说如果我有钱的话我会怎么办。

C     对。

And:

E      This, I think…this question is different for each person.  Your saving or spending money depends on your own worldview, on the direction of your ideas about value.

F      I think this question should ask, “If you were rich, how should you spend your money?”

E      Yes.  In reality you’re just expressing your own view, right, about how you should use this sum of money.

F      It should be asked this way.

E     这个我觉得…这个问题就是因人而异的。  你这个钱的省花, 取决于你这个人的一种世界观啊, 价值意识的指向。

F     我觉得这个问题应该问, “如果你很有钱, 你应该怎么样用你的钱?”

E     对。  实际上你就是表达你自己的看法嘛, 应该怎么样去使用这笔钱。

F     这样问。

Here’s my question to you: In their responses to this scenario, between the Americans and the Chinese, who would you say is more individualistic? To me the answer is clear: the Chinese are hands down the individualists here.

How could this be? Especially for these two cultures, which are often presented as opposites based on the U.S. being “individualist” and China being “collectivist.”

No neat answers here. Instead, a healthy reminder that our generalizations and simplifications can come back to bite us when we least expect. And also a reminder that, as I discussed last Friday, there’s plenty about each culture contained in the other. There’s nothing inherently American or Western about “individualism,” and nothing inherently Chinese or Asian about “collectivism.” We can all comprehend both, and will call on some version of one or the other at different times.

Another of the interview questions I asked in my research was:

If a person is rich, what should he/she do with his/her money?

如果一个人很有钱,他应该怎么用他的钱?

As with the fallen tree question, the Chinese respondents hold to a very practical line: invest the money, because money makes money (钱生钱). The Americans, however, agonize over the question. They seem to feel intuitively that the “right” thing to do would be to give away a lot of the money. At the same time, they are troubled by the gap between ideal and real:

A      And you should give to people who don’t have much because they can’t…they’re not as fortunate as you.  They don’t have those capabilities.  They’re not in the same situation as you.  So I think people should give back to society.

B      I agree.

A      Do something, make a foundation, you know, I mean, you know like a charity.

B      Just put it where it’s needed.

A      Yeah.  A lot of people do say, yeah I earned the money, so I should keep it, but really what are you gonna do with all that money?  You’re just gonna spend it on yourself. That’s so selfish.  But then again if I were in that position I don’t know what I’d do.

B      Yeah.

A      It’d be…it’s easy to say…

B      Yeah, see, everybody says, this person should give it to charity, they should donate it, but that’s not what people do.

More than anything, what the Americans find troubling is hypocrisy: Saying one thing, doing something else. Not practicing what we preach. This is a function of the “universalist” aspect of American culture: Americans are inclined to judge a broad range of situations according to a fixed, static, set of criteria. In contrast, Chinese culture is “particularist”: specific situations, in all their complexity, tend to be privileged over abstract, universal principles.

The Chinese distaste for this kind of abstraction shows up in two responses. First:

C      How should he use his money,” “should”, this word, maybe I’m a little bit…uncomfortable.…“Should” has a bit of a feeling of morals, or preaching.

D      We should let everyone choose for themselves…how they should use…not “should.” Let everyone choose how to use his money.  We can only say if I were rich what would I do with it?

C      Right.

C         “应该怎么样用他的钱,” “应该” 这两个字我可能有一点…不舒服。”应该” 还有一点道德, 说教的感觉。

D     我们应该让每个人自己选择…应该去怎么用…不是“应该”…让每个人自己选择去用他的钱。  我们只能说如果我有钱的话我会怎么办。

C     对。

Another pair of interviewees goes as far as to suggest that a different question should have been asked:

E      This, I think…this question is different for each person.  Your saving or spending money depends on your own worldview, on the direction of your ideas about value.

F      I think this question should ask, “If you were rich, how should you spend your money?”

E      Yes.  In reality you’re just expressing your own view, right, about how you should use this sum of money.

F      It should be asked this way.

E     这个我觉得…这个问题就是因人而异的。  你这个钱的省花, 取决于你这个人的一种世界观啊, 价值意识的指向。

F     我觉得这个问题应该问, “如果你很有钱, 你应该怎么样用你的钱?”

E     对。  实际上你就是表达你自己的看法嘛, 应该怎么样去使用这笔钱。

F     这样问。

To put a harsh-sounding spin on it, we could say: What Americans do is pass judgment. We do so because we’re conditioned to judge based on how closely actual behaviors match up to a universal moral code. And lest I pass judgment on passing judgment, I’ll state again, as I’ve stated before, that in my own (very American) opinion, this has been, in the right contexts, one of the greatest gifts American culture specifically, and Western culture generally, has brought to the world.

You can see, though, what a mismatch a stubbornly universalist approach can be in the nitty-gritty, messy, detail-oriented context of Chinese culture. From one possible Chinese standpoint, Americans are hopelessly naïve: how could you hope to take one set of principles and apply them everywhere? Only someone who hasn’t lived in the world could think that way.

This is just one more way in which Westerners can get ourselves into trouble in our China dealings. It takes a special, hard-earned kind of self-awareness and leadership to function well, consistently well, in ways that are so contrary to our deepest, culturally conditioned norms.

In some research I did, I asked the following question to American and Chinese respondents:

A tree has fallen and is blocking a public road in a remote location, hours from the nearest city.  Several large trucks are present, and could move the tree off of the road.  Will they?  Should they?

在一个很偏僻的乡下地方,有一棵大树横倒在公路上,挡住了过往车辆。在这个时候正好有几辆卡车经过。你觉得他们会不会主动把这棵大树从公路上拉开?你觉得他们应该不应该这样做?

To most Chinese respondents this was a fairly straightforward question, with an equally straightforward answer: the truck drivers’ actions would line up with their personal interests. If they could significantly speed their own passage by moving the tree, then they would; otherwise not. Since from the question it looks like moving the tree would speed them along, then in this case they probably would move the tree.

The Americans sound a similar theme, but the focus of the discussion is entirely different. While the Chinese discussions center around the “Will they?” question, the Americans are drawn to the “Should they?” question. And they are broadly in agreement that the truck drivers should indeed move the tree. What I find most interesting is how the Americans, explicitly or implicitly, frame the discussion in moral terms. One American says flat out:

You know if there’s an ambulance that needs to get through that public road, and it’s sitting there and a tree happens to fall down in front of it, I mean I would think that there’d be a sense of a moral obligation to help out by moving it.

The word moral comes up several times in the American discussions. Not once, though, does any Chinese discussion touch even remotely on issues of morality. In fact, there seems to be an aversion even to discussing the “should” question. One Chinese respondent says:

I think they would do this.  “Should they do this?”  I think this is a conceptual question.

我觉得他们会这样做的。  “他们应该不应该这样做?”  我觉得这就是一个观念的问题。

By itself there’s nothing shocking about saying that this is a “conceptual question.” What shocked me, though, when I heard it is that being a “conceptual question” is grounds for dismissal: after saying this the speaker abruptly shifts the topic back to what would happen under various circumstances.

Eventually I discovered that the responses to the “fallen tree” question were but a small part of two contrasting systems of thinking: an American, “God’s eye view” that has to do with morality, and a day-to-day, problem-solving approach from the Chinese.

One way this difference can play out for Westerners in China is what I noted last Wednesday: a thirst for “justice” that can be blinding and counterproductive. “Justice,” though, is just one aspect of the broader moralistic system of American thinking that can cause problems for us in China. It’s just too easy for Westerners to make snap judgments about behaviors we see in China, labeling them “wrong” or “immoral,” without understanding — or, sometimes, even trying to understand — the broader cultural context for contrasting frames of reference.

We’ll keep digging into this as the week goes on.