Everything that I learned about China taught me that it is a collectivistic nation. According to an article by Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, in collectivistic countries, people define the self as interdependent, as opposed to individualistic countries, in which the self is defined as independent. In collectivistic countries, the goals of the group are more important than the goals of the individual, whereas it is the opposite in individualistic countries. Lastly, people may emphasize relationships instead of exchange in collectivistic countries instead of the other way around in individualistic countries (Triandis, Chan, and Bhawuk 1995). Many psychology experiments have proven that China, as a nation, is collectivistic. However, the author of My Country and My People seems to disagree with these statements.
In the chapter titled “Absense of the Social Mind”, his first sentence states, “The Chinese are a nation of individualists” (167). Although one could say that his definition of individualists could be different than described above, he goes on to describe, “It is curious that the word ‘society’ does not exist as an idea in Chinese thought” (167). He also explains that there is no “public spirit”, “civic consciousness” or “social service” in China. For example, according to the author, teamwork is unknown. All of the games that are played in China are for individuals: Mahjong and poker, for example, are played one person against everyone else. There are no teams. In other countries, the games that are played require teamwork, such as sports, in which people have to work together to do well. This is amazing to me because he is saying the opposite that I learned in all of my psychology, sociology, and history classes: that in China, people are more individualistic and in the west, people are more collectivistic. For example, in the United States, we do play games on teams, which makes us work together to do well. That is collectivistic because the goals of the group (to win) are being emphasized.
Another example of the individualism in China that the author gave is in the newspaper system. He explained that each part of the organization of the newspaper is done without coordination – nobody knows what is happening with the other people working on the newspaper and nobody interferes with anybody else: “The man in charge of domestic news has his page, the man in charge of international cables has his…If you ask why there is no coordination, the answer is, there’s no social mind” (170). Therefore, the newspaper system, and on a grander scale, the working system, is individualistic. However, many times in the west, the newspaper systems and the organization of the newspaper is done with coordination so that everyone can have their articles fit on the page, etc. Perhaps people in the west coordinate and work together more in the work place, making them more collectivistic.
It seems to me that the collectivistic/individualistic scale must be a balance. Yes, the articles that I have read and the classes that I have learned from say that China is more collectivistic and the west is more individualistic, but perhaps in some ways some countries are collectivistic and in some ways they are individualistic. Maybe the scales that were used to measure the countries and the items that were asked did not correctly measure every item of life. In any case, reading this chapter surprised me very much, since it was the antithesis of everything that I had ever learned.
Triandis, H.C., Chan, D.K., Bhuwak, D., Iwao, S., & Sinha, J. (1995). Multimethod probes of allocentricsm and idiocentrism. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 461-480.