The upcoming 2008 Summer Olympic has already been the cause of much tumult and furor. As the event approaches ever more rapidly, the mix of emotions can only grow stronger and more polarized.
One of the factors complicating this inevitable face-off is the inherent difference between Western and Eastern cultures. The West, inheritors of the Greek and Roman ideals, has a tradition of open, frontal confrontations as a means to provoke and resolving conflicts. Ancient Greek warriors were all about one-on-one combat, even when it would be more prudent to stay within their city-states for a defensive war.
One well-known example is Hector of Troy (whose most recent incarnation is Eric Bana, in the 2004 movie). Although he knew that he was the strongest and best warrior in Troy, and its only hope of holding out against the alliance, and despite his wife's and his father's begging, his honor demanded he go out to confront Achilles one-on-one in battle. Despite his absolute knowledge that the result of defeat for Troy would be sacking and pillaging, with all the men killed and all the women and children enslaved, he will satisfy his honor. Thus his image is burnt brightly onto some abstract, eternal plane, forever symbolizing a doomed and tragic heroism. Which, in the Greek view, is the only kind of immortality us mortals could ever achieve.
On the other hand, we have the Eastern (fine, Eastern Asian) perspective, which was all about face, underpinned by practicality. Practically speaking, futile confrontation in war, while admirable, is wasteful. (The Art of War advocates the best war is won without ever having to fight. Our Greek warriors would have revolted against this blatant removal of their only chances to glory.) And face is often about preserving the public dignity of others, and allowing them to graceful retreat in defeat. To do this creates a debt upon the defeated, which one day will be paid back. This is the behavior of an admirable gentleman, an example to all.
As you can see, two totally different perspectives on the ideal behavior.
When reading news about China, I often find that western journalism seems to see the face of the CCP as its actual presence, and ignoring the underlying currents--which is where negotiations really happen in most Asian societies.
So in the Western world, we have a host of intrepid, muck-raking journalists and activities, rising up to Big Gov't CCP, face-on and confrontational, seeing the Olympics as an opportunity to force China, in this most public of its displays, into fixing all kinds of flaws and issues. From the Asian perspective, this is rude, childish, and embarrassing--which, were this played out between individuals, would force the host to be/appear even more rigid and inflexible, and hold its position long after this event, in order to preserve face.
A proper, Asian way of getting things done would be: respect what the host is trying to do on this occasion, shower praises, be agreeable, and this effort would be known--unspoken--among all participants. The host would then feel a debt to the guests--who clearly could have behaved otherwise, yet chose not to--and will give the guest face in return, and will find opportunities to grant favors in the future.
As it is, the West sees CCP as faceless, huge, inscrutable, and inflexible, and the East sees these "intruders" as rude and hypocritical (b/c, you see, in Asia, there are often two layers to everything that is publically spoken or written, and most people are used to this).
*Sigh!* I sometimes wonder how these differences would ever be reconciled.
Of course, miscommunication is only a very small element in the ultimate issue. I do not propose that either perspective is right or wrong. There are situations that would be more suited to be dealt either one way or the other--neither is correct in all circumstances: a foolish, unproductive rigidity. However, I do want to inject my thoughts as one, out of many, more balanced viewpoint.
One of the factors complicating this inevitable face-off is the inherent difference between Western and Eastern cultures. The West, inheritors of the Greek and Roman ideals, has a tradition of open, frontal confrontations as a means to provoke and resolving conflicts. Ancient Greek warriors were all about one-on-one combat, even when it would be more prudent to stay within their city-states for a defensive war.
One well-known example is Hector of Troy (whose most recent incarnation is Eric Bana, in the 2004 movie). Although he knew that he was the strongest and best warrior in Troy, and its only hope of holding out against the alliance, and despite his wife's and his father's begging, his honor demanded he go out to confront Achilles one-on-one in battle. Despite his absolute knowledge that the result of defeat for Troy would be sacking and pillaging, with all the men killed and all the women and children enslaved, he will satisfy his honor. Thus his image is burnt brightly onto some abstract, eternal plane, forever symbolizing a doomed and tragic heroism. Which, in the Greek view, is the only kind of immortality us mortals could ever achieve.
On the other hand, we have the Eastern (fine, Eastern Asian) perspective, which was all about face, underpinned by practicality. Practically speaking, futile confrontation in war, while admirable, is wasteful. (The Art of War advocates the best war is won without ever having to fight. Our Greek warriors would have revolted against this blatant removal of their only chances to glory.) And face is often about preserving the public dignity of others, and allowing them to graceful retreat in defeat. To do this creates a debt upon the defeated, which one day will be paid back. This is the behavior of an admirable gentleman, an example to all.
As you can see, two totally different perspectives on the ideal behavior.
When reading news about China, I often find that western journalism seems to see the face of the CCP as its actual presence, and ignoring the underlying currents--which is where negotiations really happen in most Asian societies.
So in the Western world, we have a host of intrepid, muck-raking journalists and activities, rising up to Big Gov't CCP, face-on and confrontational, seeing the Olympics as an opportunity to force China, in this most public of its displays, into fixing all kinds of flaws and issues. From the Asian perspective, this is rude, childish, and embarrassing--which, were this played out between individuals, would force the host to be/appear even more rigid and inflexible, and hold its position long after this event, in order to preserve face.
A proper, Asian way of getting things done would be: respect what the host is trying to do on this occasion, shower praises, be agreeable, and this effort would be known--unspoken--among all participants. The host would then feel a debt to the guests--who clearly could have behaved otherwise, yet chose not to--and will give the guest face in return, and will find opportunities to grant favors in the future.
As it is, the West sees CCP as faceless, huge, inscrutable, and inflexible, and the East sees these "intruders" as rude and hypocritical (b/c, you see, in Asia, there are often two layers to everything that is publically spoken or written, and most people are used to this).
*Sigh!* I sometimes wonder how these differences would ever be reconciled.
Of course, miscommunication is only a very small element in the ultimate issue. I do not propose that either perspective is right or wrong. There are situations that would be more suited to be dealt either one way or the other--neither is correct in all circumstances: a foolish, unproductive rigidity. However, I do want to inject my thoughts as one, out of many, more balanced viewpoint.
As China becomes slowly integrated into the global world--indeed, as all the different cultures ascend to a more level playing field--such conflicts will increase in number and scale, and only time will tell how they will all eventually resolve.
