Chinese are both more open and more rigid than Westerners: The Confucian-Daoist paradox

1. Chinese are both more open and more rigid than Westerners: The Confucian-Daoist paradox . Ian Hansen, Takeshi Hamamura and Ara NorenzayanDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, www.psych.ubc.ca/~ihansen Abstract To explore whether Chinese dialecticism and authoritarianism may have derived from Daoist and Confucian traditions, participants also completed scales of agreement with Daoist and Confucian attitudes respectively. Among both East Asians and Euros, Daoism was positively correlated with Dialectical Self, and Confucianism was positively correlated with Authoritarianism (see Tables 1 and 2, below). Introduction The ubiquitous cultural differences found between (Eastern) Chinese and (Western) Euro-Americans are often thought to arise from a monolithic source of difference: e.g. individualism vs. collectivism. However, both Chinese culture and Western culture arise from complex confluences of distinct cultural psychological processes. Chinese culture is strongly influenced by Confucianism and Daoism, for instance, with Confucianism potentially promoting authoritarianism and Daoism potentially promoting dialectical understandings and perceptions. Though authoritarianism and dialecticism could both be considered collectivist cultural syndromes more likely to be found in the East than the West, there is potential psychological tension between these syndromes: authoritarianism suggests political-moral rigidity and dialecticism suggests openness to change and equal valuing of opposites. Indeed, Chinese scored higher than Euros on both dialecticism and authoritarianism scales, although these two variables were inversely correlated in both groups. Scales designed to measure agreement with Confucian precepts were correlated with authoritarianism, while those designed to measure Daoist precepts were correlated with dialecticism. Implications for how to interpret cultural differences are discussed. Several studies have found Chinese to be more dialectical in their reasoning, while Westerners are more analytic (e.g. Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Chinese dialecticism is primarily attributed to Daoist influence in Chinese culture, since Daoism is skeptical of the value of exalting one point of view over its opposite, and expects dialectical change in all domains of life. In contrast to Chinese, Westerners are inclined to exalt one side of an apparent contradiction against the other, in accordance both with Greek rationalism and Judeo-Christian monotheism. This suggests that exclusivist rationalist Westerners are more epistemically rigid than Daoist-influenced Chinese. Yet Chinese, as Confucians, are often perceived as more politically-morally rigid than post Enlightenment freedom-and-democracy-valuing Westerners. If epistemic looseness goes with political-moral tightness in Chinese culture and the opposite is true in Western culture, this implies that The West and Conclusion Figure 1: Cultural differences in Dialectical Self and Authoritarianism The East both have domains of rigidity and domains of flexibility. Does this apparent cultural choice between rigidity-flexibility combo #1 and rigidity-flexibility combo # 2 imply that epistemic rigidity is most psychologically compatible with political-moral flexibility and vice versa? Thus, two psychological proclivities that are in tension with each other at the level of individual psychology are more likely to be harmonized in a culture composed of many individuals. Chinese culture is distinguished both by its Daoist-influenced dialectical portrait of selfhood and by its Confucian-influenced authoritarianism. Western culture is distinguished both by its “analytical” self which rigidly eschews paradox and contradiction, and by its more liberal political-moral orientation (where contradictory visions of the good mix on equal footing and hold equal rights). The tapestry of any culture perhaps reflects a complex history of balancing the needs and demands of the rigid and the flexible in that culture. The rigid and the flexible appear to have made a different truce in Chinese culture than in Western culture. Movement from one culture to another might best be construed as movement from one particular set of ecologically-functional contradictions to another. Dialecticism and Authoritarianism 114 East Asians (predominantly Chinese), 67 Euros and 21 others completed scales measuring Dialectical Self (Spencer-Rodgers, Srivastava, Wang, Hou, & Peng, 2001) and Authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1998). East Asians were higher than Sample Dialectical Self items “I sometimes believe two things that contradict each other” “I have a definite set of beliefs, which guide my behavior at all times” (reversed). Sample Authoritarianism items “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and immorality that are ruining us,” “Our country needs free thinkers who will have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.” (reversed). Euros on both Dialectical Self, t(198) = 3.36, p = .001, and Authoritarianism, t(198) = 4.67, p < .001 (See Figure 1). However, for both East Asians and Euros, Dialectical Self and Authoritarianism were inversely correlated! (See Tables 1 and 2, top right). Epistemic rigidity Daoism and Confucianism Sample Confucianism items “All decent people accomplish something in life, and to accomplish something requires diligent study and hard work above all else,” “Children need to challenge and sometimes even disobey their parents to assert their independence and grow into independent human beings.” (reversed). Sample Daoism items “There are many life paths that are called ‘The Path’ but if you can describe a path in words and rules, it is not a consistently reliable path” “Useless things and useless people are a drain on themselves and on the world. How miserable it is to be useless.” (reversed). References Altemeyer. (1998). [The 20-item RWA scale]. Unpublished data. Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741-754. Spencer-Rodgers, J., Srivastava, S., Wang, L., Hou, Y., & Peng, K. (2001). [The Dialectical Self Scale]. Unpublished data. (flexibility) and political-moral flexibility (rigidity) do not seem so psychologically compatible after all.