The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A cultural compass without an East or a West > Comments

A cultural compass without an East or a West : Comments

By Stephen Crabbe, published 9/3/2005

Stephen Crabbe argues for a re-evaluation of the East West discourse as a step towards greater cultural understanding

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Stephen Crabbe makes some astute observations on issues that will become increasingly important to Australia when dealing with any form of relationship with China. My own experience is more limited than Mr. Crabbe's, and consists mainly of commercial discussions and negotiations, but the impact of the cultural polarity was evident every time. The two main themes - the importance placed in the concept of trust between individuals, and the acceptance of obligations over rights - were critical issues that needed to be included in every discussion. And as I was working for a US company at the time, the contrast between the requirements of my management to "stitch up a deal" and my potential Chinese business partners' requirement to develop trust, carefully and thoroughly, was even more marked.

But I fail to see how changing labels will help. Where there is such a fundamental difference in the individual's definition of their role in society, the labels themselves are simply an accurate reflection of the antithetical nature of these perceptions. It would be like changing the label on a bottle of Scotch and calling it lemonade, because people get drunk on Scotch but not on soft drinks. Even if everyone agrees to call it lemonade, it will not change the effect of drinking the contents.

The choice is in fact made at a personal level. If we decide that it is in our best interests to continue with the "linear time model" that is the outward manifestation of our fixation with process at the expense of content, then we will continue to be "westerners", with all the baggage that label implies.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 10 March 2005 11:49:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, glad to know u have encountered cultural difference and noted the importance of developing trust and obligation. I'm in the process of doing this with a client in Singapore. Its clear that far and above the business angle is the human trust and relationship angle.
Now you know me, I can't resist a little bit of biblical woffle each time I post, and if I may quote Paul, he gave us all a good example by becoming all things to all men, (yet not at the expense of Christian principle) that he might save some. (1 Cor 9:22)

One cultural difference I found in Borneo, was quite obscure, and I'd been there for around 8 yrs before I even knew this, which was that to the culture in which I was based, you never ask a person their name directly. I found this out when picked up by a driver on the road where I'd been jogging. As we are prone to do, I attempted to introduce myself "HI, my name is ...., Whats yours" ? at which point he almost choked ! After a few swallows and gathering his senses, he told me his name, but in the most muffled and mumbled tones imaginable.
This name reluctance went back to the days of head hunting, when groups of head hunters would be looking for slaves as well has heads, and would have particular people in mind. Persons of high social status were the more desirable slaves. So, the hunters, when they encountered people in the jungle would always ask 'what is your name'.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 10 March 2005 12:05:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do we call ourselves a Western nation? Because our cultural roots as a society - our institutions, our basic values and so on - come from a bunch of islands off the western coast of Europe, where people were, for a good long time, aware of living at the western edge of the bit of the world that they knew about.

Brazilian society is fundamentally Latin; ours is fundamentally British. Both are derived from Europe, and another word for "derived from Europe" is "western". Where's the problem? Difference doesn't mean opposition.
Posted by Ian, Monday, 14 March 2005 2:15:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,
your statement about "I can't resist a bit of biblical woffle (waffle?)" brought a smile to my lips. It is the understatement of the millenium.

Why do you cloud every issue with your theological fairytales? That you believe in unsubstantiated, religious mumbo jumbo is your business but boring everyone else with it is quite another.

Give us a break!
Posted by Sinni Kal, Monday, 14 March 2005 5:21:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many of the Chinese cultural antecedents Stephen mentions are well known to the academic literature and to a lesser extent known to the business world.

The loci of traditional Chinese thought are patrimonal and familial. traditional Chinese society is highly male dominated and the current generation of males exist on a timeline anchored in the past (ancestor worship) in preparation for the future (sire a son. A person is a (networked) conduit, not an individual.

Particularly, before 1912, women were not permanently part of the traditional family and under Chinese kinship arrangements could be exported as a biological necessity to facilitate the patriarchical lineage systems of other families. Some leagacies of traditional system remain today. Herein, in traditional China, the basic political, economic, legal and religious unit is the males-only family. That is, Mao's assertion "women hold up half the world" hasn't really caught-on.

Similarly, "other" families are intrinsically untrustworthy. Trust is earned over time and guanxi networks formed. However, the aforementioned web of connections are utilitarian, because one needs to go outside the family to live.

Lastly, the Middle Kingdom as the "ultimately" Chinese family, historically, has looked down on other nations as unequal supplicants. Herein, current relationships between the West and China are based on economic opportunism and technology transfer. China tolerates the West to re-establish and reassert herself. Meanwhile, the West is markets for its production and services.Who is playing the better hand? - Only time will tell.

(I have worked in China too.)
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 14 March 2005 7:21:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, I worked in Singapore for three years and have dealt directly with Chinese business people. Look out for smoke and mirrors no matter how good the relationship "feels". If you are dealing with a subsidiary make sure you have a GX guarantee or director's guarantee, if you or your company are to exposed financially.

Look at the overall corporate structure. If there are private companies AND public companies, beware. Make sure the latter are not being milked to feed the former. A dangerous tell-tale indication can be a family owned "Holding Company" at the apex of the oganisational chart. Also, be careful with SMEs about to go IPO, as the accounts can be set-up to ensure listing and help the owner cash in share options. A year or two down the track the company makes an accounting disclosure then folds.

If listed: Some Penny stocks are closely held. So, share price is not indicative value. Also, watch out for previously poorly run European companies forming JVs with Chinese companies to re-capitalise on the Singapore exchange after problems in their home environment.

Think serious about obtaining a mercantile agent's report (e.g., D&B).

Sorry, Stephen, the above has little to do with your topic. Just helping Pericles.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 14 March 2005 7:51:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver, I think your comments are very much on topic, a perfect illustration of the misunderstandings that will continue to disadvantage us in trade negotiations.

When I worked with the Chinese, there were any number of Australians and Americans who proffered similar advice, always concentrating on minutiae, and always looking at issues from a "western" perspective.

I had to chuckle at the litany of sins you reel off, particularly "...SMEs about to go IPO, as the accounts can be set-up to ensure listing and help the owner cash in share options" Sounds pretty Australian to me.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 7:11:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.. and I had to chuckle at the 'in talk/jargon' that flowed from Oliver, SME'S hmmm IPO's. I wonder how many contributors had to do a search to get the meanings of those abbreviations. Thats tantamount to me using 'anthropomorphism' about Biblical language and expective every Tom Dick and Harry to get it. bUT Oliver, I don't mean to be too critical, I found some valuable hints in what you said, re the cultural aspects and holding companies at the apex etc.

I tend to agree about 'no matter how the relationship is going' re the chinese. They will always (as most of us tend to do) gravitate back to family ties and survival in the long run.

I missed a ferry to Batam Island in Singapore because I was enthralled with my chinese hosts story of a "Non China chinese' who was ripped off by a 'mainland Chinese'. The "reputable importer" urgently needed US$100k worth of white goods. The supplier wanted money within 7 days. (cough) By the time he eventually got his money, he had to bribe the accounts guy, wasted over a year of his life chasing it, and ended up making zero, with all his money tied up for that time.
Excuses
-No US currency till next week.
-Only the boss can sign cheques.(and he is outstation)
etc etc etc.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 6:45:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, David, Oliver, Ian,

My point is that a “label” can invoke a whole paradigm. For instance, to talk in terms of “Australian culture”, “Chinese culture”, “Brazilian culture” and “US culture” leaves room for real acknowledgement of differences among the four without necessarily implying opposition. But to talk about the Australian, Brazilian and US cultures as “Western” and the Chinese as “Eastern” has two effects that I believe spoil our thinking and communication.

Firstly, it overlooks the significant differences among the first three. Secondly, it puts those three at the opposite pole from China on a single dimension – i.e. it denies any common ground between them and China. Using shorthand labels thus may seem to simplify the language of dialogue while in fact creating a barrier to understanding each other and defining common ground. This can only make it more difficult to form peaceful and rewarding relationships among nations.

For the sake of the future world it is vital that we grope for everything we can find in common with other nations and celebrate it together. The compass-paradigm triggers, often unconsciously, a refusal to do this. As soon as we hear or read "Western" our minds tend to constellate a vaguely defined bunch of other benighted nations as "Eastern" and therefore antagonistic.

As you and I agree, Chinese culture has aspects that we find difficult to deal with. But let's also acknowledge whatever common ground we can find, however mundane. For example, Australia and China share regional interests that many other “western” countries don’t. In response to Pericles’ analogy, we could say that both Scotch and Lemonade are potable liquids that two people can imbibe in a mutually enjoyable feast, even though the two drinks have some different qualities.

Perhaps, far from "changing the label" as Pericles puts it, we should try to avoid labels altogether. It means we have to use more words instead of glib short-hand, but if the words are carefully considered that may bring a lot more sweetness and light to the world.

Thanks for your responses to the article.
Posted by Crabby, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 8:59:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly, Stephen, why is it ok to use a national category like “Australian culture” or “Chinese culture”, but not a higher level one like “Western culture”? The term “Australian culture” performs exactly the same functions that you decry in the formulation of “Western culture”: it flattens out the internal differences and heightens the external ones. It could be taken as suggesting that the culture lived by a teacher in Sydney is necessarily more similar to that of a Warlpiri family in the Northern Territory than to that of another teacher in Christchurch. It implies that cultures have boundaries, and that those boundaries are the same as the boundaries of countries. It implies that cultures cannot overlap, cannot be combined. This, I think, is more dangerous than a higher level category such as “Western culture”, which is based on truly cultural similarities and not on an accident of national borders.

Secondly, I think you exaggerate when you say that the term “Western culture” overlooks differences between the cultures it includes, and I think you exaggerate dangerously when you suggest that it implies opposition, antagonism or denial of common ground with “Eastern culture”: both, after all, fall within the higher level category of “human culture”, which necessarily implies commonalities.

As countries, Australia and China have interests in common and interests that are in conflict. Our core cultures have values that are sharply different and values that are shared. We need terminology to describe those similarities and those differences: more terminology, not less. “Avoiding labels altogether” is not practical: we cannot think without categories. What we need to do is remember not to lock ourselves into one set of categories to the exclusion of others, and not to let difference turn into antagonism.

We need to remember that Australia is, at the same time, a Western country, a Pacific Rim country, an Aboriginal country, a British country, a Migrant country, an English-speaking country and so on: each of these categories implies a network of similarities and differences. Denying those similarities and those differences is folly
Posted by Ian, Thursday, 17 March 2005 3:30:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stephen, if you believe that I advocate "changing the label", then I hadn't expressed myself clearly. One of my earliest posts here was to draw attention to the vacuity of the labels "left" and "right" in a political context. I'm vehemently anti-label, it encourages laziness of thought and fertilizes prejudice. As Ian points out - although he didn't quite express it this way - when we carry so many labels ("Australia is, at the same time, a Western country, a Pacific Rim country, an Aboriginal country, a British country, a Migrant country, an English-speaking country and so on") they become, individually and collectively, utterly meaningless.

However I think there is more than a touch of the Pollyanna in a belief that the answer is to "grope for everything we can find in common with other nations and celebrate it together"

We would give ourselves a far greater chance to survive economically and politically if we forget about "finding common ground", and concentrate upon understanding the differences. Being different to "us" is not a sickness, it is simply.... being different. Trying to sidestep this by advocating some form of gradual homogenization via "everything we can find in common" is first of all a dangerous illusion, but is also quite insulting to the "not-us".
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 17 March 2005 8:16:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All:

The origin of the term Western is simply derived from the boundary of the Western Roman Empire, which fell circa 476. That is, with the fall of the last classical civilisation came the emergence of Western civilisation. The old Roman slave economies transmuted into fiefdoms. Herein, when we talk of the West, we do use a label, a form of definition, a descriptor and alike. The construct “Western” is pregnant with meaning, feudalism, the Magna Carta, the Renascence, mercantilism, colonisation, Common Law, the Industrial Revolution and Parliamentary Democracy: And that’s mainly just the Anglo-West aspect. Thus, we have a suite of characteristics, by which, we know the West from other civilizations. Similarly, the Sino and Chinese civilisations can be described in terms of dynasties, Confucianism, class structures based on public examinations, patrimonalism, the Boxer Rebellion, Mao and Ming vases. Again, the mind’s eye draws a picture, now, a Sino-Chinese picture. In sum, the terms, Western culture and Chinese culture, are indeed labels, having attributes. In this frame, it is the various culturally biased interpretations placed on these attributes that lead us to alternative perspectives.

Western attributes are normative to “Western” Europe, Australia, Canada and the US. Sino-Chinese attributes are normative to China PRC, Singapore (largely), Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan ROC. Herein, these Diasporas adopt their parent culture attributes. Friction, cooperation or “opposition” between cultures is founded in cultural attributes not in overarching labels:

For example, cooperation is an etic attribute "differentially" applied across cultures. Pericles, herein, lies the foundation of my cautionary comment. Moreover, Pericles, I am, in nature, neither restrained, inflexible nor lacking of empathy regarding other cultures; rather, my understanding is based on Chinese business models and Chinese histographies.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 18 March 2005 4:51:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Post script:

Pericles, further to the above, my comment was not based on a "Western" perspective - too the contrary. The oft reported socio-anthropologist, Harry C. Triandis, sees culture based on ecology and biology, and behaviour, which is, in turn, based on culure. Herein, for many centuries, Chinese lineage groups established ancestoral-geneological-intergenerational trusts. This template provides a framework for the contemporary family business having a "Holding Company" at its apex. Thus, a "macro" rather than "minutae" framework is taken from a Chinese behaviour revealed.

Also, historically, in the early days of the Overseas Chinese Diaspora, the true lineage groups broke down. Thus, blood cross-lineage brotherhoods and secret societies. Later thesse groups evolved into "Kongsi".

Going back to China itself, the lineage groups did not have the same cohension as did European villages. Herein, even today, the Scholar, S. Gordon Redding writes regarding the Chinese of "limited and bounded trust".

Trade negotiations? I have not worked for Austrade: But have worked with Austrade and German Chambers of Commerce. There are opportunities in China -no doubt- but watch-out. Non-familial connections are based on utility and you can be dropped very quickly, especially in you a Westerner.

Its late. Sorry, if I missed some typos.

Regards to the regular contributors to the "Stephen Crabbe Forum"
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 19 March 2005 5:06:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver, I strained to discern a point in your last two posts, but I will assume it was to provide some background to your original "just helping Pericles" remarks. But I am obviously failing to communicate effectively, as I was neither seeking nor needing assistance, nor even do I now need to "watch out" as you so kindly advise in your last post.

I was trying to offer an alternative view to the traditionally held "let's try to find some common ground" position adopted by international commerce theorists both here and in the US. Can we not accept that different cultures do not necessarily need to understand each other in order to do business, they just need to identify and take into account the risks inherent in the transactions, and then make the necessary accommodations and allowances.

The end result is not going to be the kind of utopian ideal where everybody's morals, ethics and business practices are identical, but it will be a far more successful and sustainable trading platform than kidding ourselves we can paint over the differences.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 20 March 2005 2:20:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, put simply, yes, I was trying to offer some advice. I now see that you seem experienced and don't need this and possibly a little hostile to it. On the advice side, I was trying to state that the Sino environment is less rosey than is sometimes shown in "how to market" and "how to do business" books. The academic literature supports this view, including how Chinese do business (Chen, Redding and Wu): Not just the negotiations, guanxi and long timeframe stuff, but, the high deceit, "use them" attitude to exploiting outsiders and bogus accounting stuff. I was saying, "lookout for artful Shylocks in Pollyanna clothing".

Otherwise, I was trying to establish that my original picture presented to the was a big scope picture not a small scope picture as you indicated, and, I was taking a nomative Sino perspective not a Western perspective, despite, being caught out using inappropriate Western jargon.

Incidently, I have purchased China PRC companies on behalf of Singapore listed company. I have never been burnt, but, have caught Sino initiated tricky practises in play
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 21 March 2005 1:43:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy