After a considerable amount of time working in SE Asia and immersing myself in the intellectual life of these countries I am completely convinced that "Asian values" is a slogan that is cynically manipulated by dictators and self-intersted politicians who claim that "political stability" (ie. them holding onto their jobs and perks) is more significant than taking responsibility for prosecuting human rights abuses (which are often their own).

Can I urge you to read Yash Ghai's article in the Public Law Review (1997, from memory) about Asian values. By far the most compelling article on the topic.

Here here to the above poster's comments.

The importance of individual rights is that they give us some protection from the power of governments. "Asian values" are too often used as the excuse for Asian governments to deny those rights in the name of the collective, whose interests, of course, they claim to represent.

I have no problem with the author's family practising their values in the way that they do. That is their right. But upscale that to the level of governments and you take the road to totalitarianism.

As an aside, I've seen the way a number of Asian parents put enormous pressure on their children to succeed and honour the family and at times, quite frankly, it approaches the level of emotional abuse.

Jieh-Yung coins the term 'Asian' values to describe a 'different ethical structure' that operates in Asia (a complex geo-political cultural construct to put it mildly); but to me his formulation seems nothing more than words stretched to their very limit, if not beyond breaking point.

Jieh-Yung asserts that "Even human rights, which we assume in the West are universal, may be different depending on one’s culture, religion or family. Asian values have influenced and governed the lives of Asian cultures for centuries and as history has shown, its success is in its survival."

Let's be specific. Which human rights are not universal and where are human rights rendered less valid because of 'Asian' values? Free speech in China? Arbitary politically-motivated imprisonment in Malaysia or Burma? Child prostitution in India or Thailand? Slaughter by militia men in East Timor or Aceh or West Papua? Child labour in sweatshops in Bangladesh? Sexual violence against women in Cambodia? More than half the women in Nepal illitierate? And do on...and so on...

These situations can't be explained away or excused by reference to something as slippery as 'Asian' values which exist independently of the right to human dignity and freedom simply because of history - or a version of history that suits those currently in power.

When Jieh-Yung says: 'To sum it up, the community takes precedence over individuals, social and economic rights take precedence over civil and political rights and rights themselves are a matter of national sovereignty', you have to ask: who benefits and who suffers as a result of accepting such a skewed view of the world?

I think The Skeptic is right to claim "that 'Asian values' is a slogan that is cynically manipulated by dictators and self-interested politicians who claim that "political stability" (ie. them holding onto their jobs and perks) is more significant than taking responsibility for prosecuting human rights abuses (which are often their own)".

Speaking of how so called "values" can be used to create and justify any possible historical and political situation I think this reference re the "best intentions" of the USA can lead to unintended consequences.

1. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107H.shtml

But are they really unintended?

In the contemporary scene, Asian Values, have been addressed by S. Gordon Redding and Robert Silin and Francis Hsu. The constructs, they offer; are personalism over professionalism, control over delegation, patrimonialism over equitable power, mistrust over trust, secretness over openness, and, familial atruism over community altruism [though Asian society is often classified, "collective", in a different sense, relating to the group].

Even guanxi is exists for it practical utlitity. The Asian Ethic is very different to that in West, especially, after the eighteen century French progressive thinkers.

Singapore is an interesting posit. They have a speakers' corner, where one can speak provided speakers receive a police permit and disclose to police what the they will speak about. Say a word against the system or the judicial process and PAP members will line to sue you.

And Singapore is oft' the cited as the model of Asian country.

The confucian view of the virtuous state does not sit well with many realities, especially, regarding business practices [perhaps in the case China, rooted in the Shang]

Should China wish/succeed to assert herself, as a world power, and, if historical traits, remain, then, deference, rather, than domination [Western trait], would be the expectation

I see the development of human ideas as similar to the development of a human being. Ideas have developed faster in the west than anywhere else, and so it has reached the messy stage of adolescence. Two hundred years ago the largely pre-democratic west was still in its childhood, and western values at that time were still family-based, and society-based, not unlike "Asian values" of today. Asian values will go enter a similar messy stage when they are ready to proceed, and the dictatorial regimes that are so common there now will fade away. In who-knows-how-many years, the west will presumably be the first society to reach a kind of mature adulthood, in which individual freedoms will be generally expressed widely, creatively, and responsibly, so that all of society will benefit.

The Author said:

For example, my parents instilling the importance of a good education is not about my individual achievement, but about representing my family and focusing on what my achievements bring to others.

COMMENT while this sounds ok on the surface, and is very true of Asian families, wooooe betide the child who stuffs up at school and fails to meet the families expectations for him or her ! The emphasis on 'representing my family' is a 2 edged sword. If you do well, all is fine, but if you don't do well.. you SHAME the family and they feel like losers 'Where did we go wrong'.. even though you might have struggled to the best of your ability. Then, this sometimes translates into suicidal tendencies.

HUMAN RIGHTS on the other hand, are still not the answer, nor are they universal, and in any case, they exist only in a 'power context'.
i.e. Without power to enforce them, they are meaningless sentimentality.

I agree with the author that the Western concept of human rights is at cross purposes with many value systems of Asia and in particular with Christianity. (and Islam for that matter) This is because 'Human Rights' were constructed without regard for faith based societies. Surprise surprise if you get Atheists to make a set of principles they don't quite fit with people of faith.

Some things are an abomination to Christians, such as homosexual behaviour, adultery etc. But 'human rights' says little about a wifes right to have a faithful husband and vice versa. Human rights, just like a Bill of rights, are far more socially destructive than many realize. What about the right to have ones child educated in a faith environment ? Some people call this Brain washing and child abuse, I call it an inalienable fundamental right.

So, if the authors intent was the challenge the 'universalism' of the UN concept of 'Human Rights' then I'm there with him waving the flag as hard as I can go and blowing on my whistle and banging my drum.

Universalism is challenged everywhere today. Human rights and cultural values are exactly the issues pressing on the modern world, as we know it today.

Nice essay Jieh-Yung Lo, but narrow if you intend to be "inclusive" of a whole world or a whole of our Australian society. I come from Austria myself and feel much of what you say can be applied to myself or in most cultures.

I believe you could consider underlying cultural issues through a topic in "sustainable development".

Ask us as well as yourself, why the need to address "inter-generational change".

This is because it is too easy to melt important issues of culture through our individual attempts to defend any sense of collectiveness through 'universalism' for human rights by alienating other cultures though our defense of these authentic human values.

If it is diversity and or a collectiveness we defend.... try including organisational cultures such as those we find in government, media, health, in schools or the business workplace for example. (Places we 'participate' in through everyday life.)

Be specific about cultural indices and sniff out why we are universally stuck as one humanity.

This is because culture is the new loaded "ism" and complex if we set one up against another. It is important to be critical of those cultures that hinder development of multi-cultural diversity, as well as our individual human rights.

Thank You Jieh-Yung Lo.

http://www.miacat.com/

"Universalism is challenged everywhere today. Human rights and cultural values are exactly the issues pressing on the modern world, as we know it today." - Miacat

Globalisataion is pushing societies together as never before. Not all societies are equally flexible. Some are authoritian tradititions (Popper).

Also, while there is some commonality across Asian countries, the are differences. Korea and Japan are not clones of China. There is occational friction [riots] against the Chinese business community by Malays and Indonesians.

A thought-provoking piece. Trust Boaz to jump in with some of his inimitable spin:

>>I agree with the author that the Western concept of human rights is at cross purposes with many value systems of Asia and in particular with Christianity. (and Islam for that matter)<<

Go back and take a look, Boaz. The author does not mention Christianity anywhere in the piece, so you can't possibly "agree" with him on this point. And what, apart from your own paranoia, possessed you to introduce Islam?

Jieh-Yung Lo describes well the pain that many individuals experience while adapting to a different cultural environment. But I am less sure that he can generalise from the particular in the way that he does.

>>human rights, which we assume in the West are universal<<

I would take serious issue with this statement, unless the "we" he refers to are in fact Asians making the assumption that all Western values are identical. This would make sense within the sentence, but would reflect badly on the somewhat naive "we".

But I think he is saying that "we-in-the-West" assume that human rights are universal, when no more than a cursory glance at the offerings on this Forum would prove the opposite. Whenever the topic is raised there are multiple views, none of which is at all convincing and none that is consistent with any other.

The fact that a bunch of bureaucrats once put together a charter that no-one actually voted for does not prove anything except how naive they are that their words actually mean anything.

Adore "Popper" Oliver. Yes I like your point but add again, it is not easy to compare justice systems. The structural indices of crime and voilence appear in all cultures, some more series - depending, then other.

Cultural awareness be it global or local is impacting our values of daily life, everywhere.

The degree is all that is in question.

I would argue this aspect as development verses under-development. It take resources as well as equity to achieve "civilised".

ie: Good Goverance and Transparency is an issue everywhere and no more real today at a local and individual domain.

Ah.

Is there really a single asian culture. It seems doubtful. More likely there's as much commonality to asian culture as there is to asian cooking. In practice - the Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Malays, Thai and other groups seem very different.

The more China interacts with the rest of the world and fully awakens from it's self imposed narcolepsy the "borg" mentality of sacrifice for the State will have to incorporate the concept of human rights and other social rights like freedom of speech. I think China has chosen a very measured approach to democracy and in the end may well be the envy of the original. Britain's democratization began with the Magna Carta of 1215. The next step was due an accumulation of events between 1265-1295 that lead to the formation of Parliament and formalized during the reign of Edward III. I think because it took place so long ago (relative) that some forget the trials and tribulations of that burgeoning democracy.

If we assume the correctness of our “human values” and someone else has a different set, which set should prevail?
Those which we think are right or that which, by deduction, we must think are either “wrong” or at least “inferior”?

One of the great influences on western cultures of the last century (20th) was the breakdown of artificial social orders and structures, class and religious influence and the adoption of racial and gender equality, all being “works-in-progress”.

I would agree with many posters here, sense and value of “individualism” is what protects us from the perversion of a social system which would turn us into worker-ants.

Regarding family and the western model, I think our author has a misconstrued view of western values if he assumes “Rather than focusing on individualism and democracy, Asian values provide greater emphasis on the moral and collective duties of a human being.”

Margaret Thatcher wrote “There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

Margaret expresses our “moral and collective duty” to our family as a shorthand for “those that we know”.
Considering everyone knows someone else and appreciating the notion of “six degrees of separation”, it is simple to see how western philosophy can address the wider “moral and collective duties” without compromising the values of “individualism and democracy”.

Skeptics comment “"Asian values" is a slogan that is cynically manipulated by dictators and self-intersted politicians”, I agree, especially in the context of China and Mao and what passes for government in North Korea, for which Margaret provided us with

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Emphasizing the pre-eminence if the individual, the subordination of the state to servant of the individual and the dangers which ensure when the state does become greater than the individuals it is supposed to be duty bound to serve.

Many Asians assume that because western family structure is the "nuclear family" that westerners must have a limited sense of family and family values relative to the Asian experience of the extended family. What is often left unconsidered is that it is the material wealth of western society that has allowed parents to be free of the familiar confines of the extended family household, and not any depreciation of familiar appreciation or value. Western children in the main are taught to think for themselves because the opportunities are such that the advantage of wealth and independence are more readily available. However western society cares to the extent even while promoting independence we ensure that our citizens have a social net to soften any personal or familiar hardship.

aqvarivs, I agree with you that there is widespread misunderstanding of family values; however I'm not sure your analysis helps reduce those misunderstandings.

The use of pop sociology should be carefully scrutinised. It thrives on cultural stereotypes about 'Asian' and 'Western" family structures. These sterotypes take for granted that 'typical' families are based on values common to vast geographical or culturally homogeneous areas (Asia and the West). Worse, some commentators go so far as to set these sterotypical constructs in opposition to each other as if there were international quarantine stations for family values.

The reality is far more complex. Many western families - in places like Greece, Italy, the USA and Australia for example - work on the extended family model that you say is an Asian phenomenon. I personally know Asian families that would be described as nuclear. In my experience, the variables that influence family values include wealth/poverty; education; gender balance and age of key family members; religious beliefs; and the political and historical contexts in which families find themselves.

Likewise the claim that 'Western children in the main are taught to think for themselves' and by implication, Asian children are not, is unjustifiable stereotyping. My regular visits to Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo and Bangkok lead me to believe that many 'Asian' children are savvy and well able to think for themselves. And I know quite a few Australians (of 'western' background) who don't read anything more taxing than the Herald-Sun (when they can take their eyes off the telly), and who fall for the crudist political spin at every election.

FrankGol, I suppose if your looking for argument you may interpret as you please. However, my post was referencing the authors premise that human rights values the individual, a western concept, while Asian values, value family and State rights over the individual, an Asian concept. I have not put myself over as purveyor of all social construct. I have not used what is stereotypical to belittle any people or race. I did not say extended family was an Asian phenomenon. These are your willful interpretations and distasteful implications.
Ie; "Likewise the claim that 'Western children in the main are taught to think for themselves' and by implication, Asian children are not, is unjustifiable stereotyping." Is an incomplete quote used purposely to promote your own prejudice and anger using me as justification. I am not amused.
When any educated reader would be able to follow along and understand that "Western children in the main are taught to think for themselves because the opportunities are such that the advantage of wealth and independence are more readily available.", wasn't there to belittle Asian family values or education but, rather further to "western thinking of individual independence vs. Asian thinking of the individual subservient to the State offered by the author.
I thought I had referenced the limit of "western independence" with the inclusion of "western" social safety nets.

aqvaris, you seem to be upset with my comments on your earlier post on three counts.

(a) You say: “I have not used what is stereotypical to belittle any people or race.” Show me where I claim that you were belittling anyone. What I was saying was your analysis was poor.

(b) You say: “I did not say extended family was an Asian phenomenon”. In your first post you said: “Many Asians assume that because western family structure is the "nuclear family" that westerners must have a limited sense of family and family values relative to the Asian experience of the extended family.” What part of your statement have I ‘willfully misinterpreted’?

(c) You claim I use an incomplete quotation. True, I did not quote your full sentence which was: “Western children in the main are taught to think for themselves because the opportunities are such that the advantage of wealth and independence are more readily available.” It was the first part of your sentence – your principal clause - that I was concerned with. The second part – your subordinate clause starting with ‘because’ – simply offers an alleged explanation of your main clause. Your extension to the idea of ‘western independence’ and a ‘western’ safety net needs no comment from me because the basic premise of the article and your supplement to it are so comprehensibly flawed.

Now I come to think some more about your claim about 'western' children being taught to think for themselves because of all their access to opportunities, the more absurd the argument appears. All the rhetoric and funding from the Federal government is in the opposite direction - Howard and Bishop don't want State schools to teach young people to think independently; and they'd really rather universities cut out that dangerous practice too.

FrankGol,
I began my post with,"Many Asians assume that because western family
structure is the "nuclear family" that westerners must have a limited
sense of family and family values relative to the Asian experience of
the extended family.", because that is my personal experience found
from conversations with Indians, Tamil, Chinese, Laotian, Vietnamese,
Thai and Filipinos. All having lived in the "western world" for many years.
You may consider it pop sociology, they see it as a fundamental social
difference in behaviour. I've even had your Greeks and Italians, who are
of the "western world" suggest that the "familiar caring" found in
"their extended family plan" removes what they perceive is a disconnect
precipitated by the "nuclear family" Structure.

"Western children in the main are taught to think for themselves because
the opportunities are such that the advantage of wealth and independence
are more readily available." I made this statement due to the fact that
still today much of the Asian psyche is agrarian not industrial. That the
material wealth provided by "industrialization" brings with it a
corresponding change in that social psyche. One such change is the
"western psyche" of "go get your own", which manifest personal and social
independence. It was never a reference to scholastic success or a put
down of any race or society.

And Frank. I wasn't upset with you because you disagreed with my post.
You may still for all I care. What I'm concerned with is the habit I find
of some such as yourself, taking the liberty of recharacterizing a post to
suit their counter argument. Such as your,"The reality is far more complex.
Many western families - in places like Greece, Italy, the USA and Australia
for example - work on the extended family model that you say is an Asian
phenomenon." Or trying to make me responsible for your self-designed
implication, "Likewise the claim that 'Western children in the main are
taught to think for themselves' and by implication, Asian children are not,
is unjustifiable stereotyping."
Having said neither, my personal view is that it is an unnecessary belligerence.

Ok aqvarivs, I guess we are on different psychological and sociological wave lengths. I think terms like 'Asian values' and your new ones today, 'Asian psyche' and 'western psyche', are empty of real meaning; and in several posts have given what I think are sound reasons for my judgement that 'Asian values' is an invalid construct. But you obviously think these sorts of labels carry some content that you and others can talk about.

I put my opinion forward with the best tools at my disposal - sound argument and relevant evidence such as the sentence you quoted from me: "The reality is far more complex. Many western families - in places like Greece, Italy, the USA and Australia
for example - work on the extended family model that you say is an Asian
phenomenon."

You think I put forward my opinion using 'unnecessary belligerence'. My friends would not recognise that description of me, although they would say that I always insist on challenging sloppy thinking especially the use of vacuous terminology like 'Asian values'. That's the only way I know that can get people engaging properly with each other's minds.

aqvarivs, we are all adults on OLO (as far as I can tell); therfore we are responsible for our own feelings and reactions to others who challenge our opinions.

Best wishes

Frank

The trouble is Frank that stereotypical patterns exist. That these patterns are based on common mental pictures held by members of a group are not necessarily invalid because you can create an argument that says such generalities are not specific to every sociological map. The authors article speaks on the subject of this oversimplified, and uncritical judgment. People do this all the time to distinguish themselves from others. There are reasons. You may argue the veracity of such reasoning but, it exist. It's common thinking not uncommon thought. Perhaps you might relax your expectations and realize not everyone has your superior intellect or debating skills. I myself would never have thought to cut up a sentence and select one portion to disprove the context related by the complete sentence. I also don't think I'll adopt that approach or ever select it as one of my tools.
I thank you for pointing out to me that it is a common tactic employed by your class. I apologize for taking offense at what must seem to you common practice. I hesitate but, I dare say such behavioral thinking must be stereotypical of your group of like thinkers.

aqvarivs, I'll give it one more shot then I surrender!

You say: '...stereotypical patterns exist'. I agree. But I reserve the right to challenge them if I think they are invalid or dangerous. That's a simple distinction between 'is' statements and 'ought' statements.

You say: 'I myself would never have thought to cut up a sentence and select one portion to disprove the context related by the complete sentence.' If you think about it, that's what we do all the time for practical reasons; otherwise we'd just reprint the whole of the text that we want to comment on. You yourself quoted a selected sentence from my comments in order to make a comment on it. I don't object to your selecting only that bit of my whole text - I expect it.

I wonder if when you re-read your last paragraph you might find it a touch hypocritical. I try to refrain from personal abuse. It's the quality of ideas that interest me - that's why I bothered to make a response in the first place. I am not offended by your remarks: they help me clarify my own thoughts.

Thank you.