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.