Pursuing cross-cultural research

I have been thinking about the process of pursuing cross-cultural research. Often time, when there is a 'cross-cultural' research conducted in China, we saw 'findings' like Chinese like red, Chinese government are autocratic, Chinese are collectivists, Chinese are bonded by guan-xi, and so forth. However, these terms, rather than telling us anything, are merely a coat of paint we smeared on the same piece of paper to make it more colorful. Not knowing what drives guanxi or autocracy, we turn to the mysterious state and point figures to human rights and arcane policies. But how do we see beyond the paint and below into the acts?

First, I think it is vital to see that humanly actions are not always conscious and visible by the society at large. That is, if you were to visit a Chinese, she would bring you to nice restaurant, being very hospitable to your needs, keep you away from danger, and other Chinesey things. And perhaps you may report that Chinese are hospitable and develop guanxi through dines and politeness. However, I would like to say, still, those are too on the conscious surface of the society. They are things people are still able to TELL you, can be observed, found in everyday discourses, and thus well aware by everyone. What is more important is what is not said, assumed and unexpressed, taken for granted (bad expression here for what is not expressable cannot be 'taken'), and when someone broke these assumptions, other might react with a sense of bewilderment - a 'huh?'

I would argue that in cross-cultural research, it is vital to penetrate into this level of dynamics within a society. For instance, how do Chinesey behaviors maintain the structure of guanxi. How do people conduct themselves, without guidance from meta-perspective, in a way that builds guanxi between individuals? What are the roles within a guanxi network, what are the responsibilities, hierarchies, and outcome?

Blogs are not meant to be long so I will give one last example using American culture. US has a very open, individualistic culture, with high resistance to failure, that allows Americans to keep trying. We all know that. But why US alone? When we pay attention to the discourses between Americans, we start realizing repeated and shared, individualized, cultural notions being passed on, and reinforced between individuals. So much so that they were taken to be real, uncontestable - the holy grail. Something when broken equates to blasphemy. A common phrase people said to each other is 'such things happen,' especially when something important went wrong. A mistake is a mistake., but we learn to see it differently. I would argue that in Chinese culture, a typical discourse would be to find the culprit and get him to repent, reassuring everyone it would not happen again, questioning 为什么你没有问我就这么做 or why didn't you ask me before you do it? 'Such things happen' leaves all blames behind, just like the bankruptcy act allowing businessmen to start anew. When everyone embraces 'such things happen,' the society equips itself with a collective cognitive characteristics that allows creativity to happen. And 'why didn't you ask me before you do it' culture type embraces a consolidation and standardization behaviors.

Quality, or Suzhi, of a Society

Suzhi 素质 is frequently written and described in anthropological discourses about China. It is indeed very visible in official and unofficial commentaries in China. Suzhi, or quality, is a loose term trying to point out the 'backwardness' of Chinese in today's world. However, its actual definition, e.g. pariotism, wealth, or intelligence, varied according to context (Fong, 2007).

I cannot help but think suzhi discussion is not uniquely Chinese. At least if you consider the use of similar words. For example, knowledge economy, American dream, or freedom of the society, were all similarly vague terms. Knowledge has not been well defined. American dream can means anything from wealth to hobby. Freedom can means anything from safety to free speech. All these ambiguities were meant to spur the society forward, acknowledging that every individual in a society has an important role to play.

About the Chinese suzhi, I just returned from San Francisco, and was waiting for the cable car (actually more like an old tram) at the fisherman wharf. In front of me was a caucasian family. Behind was .... ops, where did this Chinese family came from? I did not remember them being there when I first joint the line. Anyway, we waited a long time for the next car, and people were starting to whine. Finally, our car arrived. The family in front boarded first, and then it was, or supposed to be my turn, if not for the family behind me running for the front seats, shoving their way through. It was a vivid scene because I had not been in the same situation for more than a year, since I arrived in California, Irvine.

I am saying this because I do not think suzhi lies so much in personal qualities such as wealth, grades, or intelligence. Rather, I have seen people who are not well educated contributed tremendously to others. In world of warcraft, many of the best modders started with little programming knowledge, but worked their way deep into the nights to reach pinnacles of the trade. Moreoever, they worked so that others may benefit from the small addons they created. They share their knowledge in forums, chatrooms, and books.

I felt that the little incident I had at the cable car station in SF is not an isolation, but a microsm of a Chinese weakness, and conversely an American strength. I had a Chinese friend who worked in the US for almost 4 years. He told me that if you pit an American to a Chinese, you found that the Chinese always wins (I assume this is a scholarly competition). But if you pit a group of Americans to a group of Chinese, the Americans win. There is something about the society that I felt relationship matters more than each individual. If people care for each other more, everyone benefits. If people only care for themselves, then everyone looses. In fact, this is not even an American wisdom, because Chinese has it too, among the lately revived wisdoms of Confucius.

If that Chinese lady has not shoved me and we sat on the cable car peacefully. Perhaps we would talk. Perhaps I can share something I know about SF with her, and so can she. We may both benefit from the relationship, perhaps not. But I am sure nothing ever comes out of negative relationship. They only leads to societal segregation.

So goes my little discourse on suzhi of a society: that the links matter more than the dots.

--------------
Fong, 2007. Morality, Cosmopolitanism, or Academic Attainment? City and Society, 19, 1.