undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfaitswulff9y ago0 comments

I remain skeptical. All the examples you listed have Western analogues, not to mention that the West still also highly favors men. But again, my point was not about the shape of the social graph (men, family, age, organizational affiliations) or the characteristics of the relationships between them, because those will all have Western analogues.

From the Wikipedia page, the most useful paragraph in describing the differences is probably the second paragraph under "Western vs. Eastern social business relations": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi#Western_vs._Eastern_soc...

It's useful because it uses a framework for understanding relationships in either culture: trust, bonding, reciprocity, and empathy. Western guanxi and Chinese guanxi can be understood through this framework. While I'm open to the idea that it's a flawed framework, it proves my point that Western culture has analogous social expectations. Less like beet sugar and aspartame and more like bat wings and bird wings - both shaped differently, both used differently, but for the same function. I am interested in the differences, but there will be a fair amount of structural similarities.

I also disagree with your characterization of this perspective as being "very western." Considering guanxi as something fundamentally different from how Western culture works is Eurocentric - very Western, as you had said. Stepping back and analyzing how informal Western reputation systems work in the same light as how guanxi works in China is a way of de-centering the Western perspective and removing the exoticism from Chinese culture.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

mfgrimm9y ago· 1 in thread

Can only speak from my experience - I'm a westerner who spent time living with a Chinese family as a 16 y.o.

From my outsider perspective, it's not that there is no western analog; rather the meaning changes with context and therefore it is difficult to translate as a single concept (in English at least).

From your response above, I think that you're correct (from my experience) in saying it is "trust, bonding, reciprocity, and empath", just not necessarily at the same time.

Sometimes it's "trust", sometimes its "nepotism". But it's definitely fluid.

faitswulffOP9y ago

The full paragraph regarding "trust, bonding, reciprocity, and empathy" might help:

"In the Western perspective, trust is referred to as mutual reliability, dependability, and reciprocity. However, in the Eastern perspective, trust is also synonymous with obligation, in which guanxi is expected to be maintained through continuous long-term association and interaction. Whereas bonding in a Western context may refer simply to common interests with the client, bonding in an Eastern context refers to a close friendship with the client. The Chinese system of wu-lune (the basic norms of guanxi) supports this Eastern attitude, emphasizing that one’s fulfillment of one’s responsibilities in a given role ensures the smooth functioning of Chinese society. Reciprocity is also a dimension which is much more emphasized in the East than in the West. According to Confucianism, each individual is encouraged to become a yi-ren (righteous person) and repay a favor with significantly more than one has received. Lastly, empathy is a dimension that is highly embedded in Eastern business relations, more so than in its Western counterpart. The Confucian understanding of ren, which also equates to “Do not do to others as one does not want others to do to him”, stresses the importance for sellers and customers to understand each other’s needs.[19]"

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse