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.

.. 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.

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.

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

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".

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.