140 replies to this topic

[snowybeagle]

*He elaborated that in the west if someone (even a family member of close friend) were to break the law you must hold that person accountable to the law since that is the perceived "moral" thing to do. But in China if a family member or close friend breaks the law, then the moral thing to do is protect that person from punishment since he is your kin and to protect your kin is the moral thing to do. He also said that Chinese "hate law", but I don't know if he meant for this reason though.

It seems that the professor does not know the West very well.

"Code of honour" has long prevailed amongst closed-knitted groups in the West, from criminals to aristocrats, old-boys-network, union members etc., and etc.

Miscarriages of justice, due to members of a group shielding their fellow member, are not uncommon.

On the other hand, he forgot that 大义灭亲 did happen more than once in Chinese history, and was not consider immoral.

[JiG]

And also of course Plato's "Noble Lie". This is why I didn't agree with his assessment of Western morality because I know there are many western philosophies that contradict his statement.

I forgot to add another thing he also said that Chinese people are more considerate of others then Western people. He used this example of how Chinese restaurants will have western utensils for those who cannot use chopsticks yet western restaurants will not do the same. But then I told him, doesn't this have to do more with supply and demand? More people would go into a Chinese restaurant and ask for utensils as opposed to Chinese person going into western restaurant and ask for chopsticks. And on top of that anyone can use western utensils on first try since they require much less skill then chopsticks, so of course you would offer the alternative to chopsticks for those not familiar with them.

He replied that even in China with western restaurants they will not serve chopsticks.

Edited by JiG, 18 January 2008 - 07:04 PM.

[XL5]

It seems that the professor does not know the West very well.

"Code of honour" has long prevailed amongst closed-knitted groups in the West, from criminals to aristocrats, old-boys-network, union members etc., and etc.

Miscarriages of justice, due to members of a group shielding their fellow member, are not uncommon.

On the other hand, he forgot that 大义灭亲 did happen more than once in Chinese history, and was not consider immoral.

To paraphrase Neal Stephenson in "The Diamond Age": the British are perhaps the best example of a nation that declares the highest moral standards and then proceeds to act with disregard to those standards.

I believe that the West may share this characteristic. I wonder how it compares with everyone's perceptions of China's morality.

[XL5]

I have a professor from Beijing University teaching my 20th Century Chinese History class and he taught in his first class about "Chinese and Western Difference in Cultural and Historical Perceptions"

So let me post them up here and we can discuss the accuracy or inaccuracy of the assessments:

Difference in the concept of morality
Western: a moral person must be honest, namely, always telling the truth
Chinese Confucian: honesty gives way to loyalty and filial piety

*He elaborated that in the west if someone (even a family member of close friend) were to break the law you must hold that person accountable to the law since that is the perceived "moral" thing to do. But in China if a family member or close friend breaks the law, then the moral thing to do is protect that person from punishment since he is your kin and to protect your kin is the moral thing to do. He also said that Chinese "hate law", but I don't know if he meant for this reason though.

Differences in the way of thinking
Western: "comes to the point", from micro to macro, focusing on the specifics
Chinese: step-by-step exploring the idea and purpose, from macro to micro emphasizing the "general"

History perspective
Chinese historians: analyze from general perspective, and explore motive and significance
Western historians: more attention to a witness narrative and statistics that show different aspects of the event and results. Their conclusions are based on interpretation of the info.

View of the ideal world
West: broadly associated with democracy, freedom, equality
Chinese: Confucian concept; "Harmony" based on collective effort and responsibility as well as perfect top down arrangement.

If you have access to your professor still, can you ask him/her about something posted elsewhere on this forum? It was noted that Chinese people appear to not understand sarcasm or irony, or use of metaphor, in jokes. That is, if a joke uses some abstract depiction that illustrates a concept indirectly, then it is less likely to be understood by a Chinese person than a Westerner. I have myself observed how many of my Chinese friends appear to prefer very direct puns rather than what I would consider to be more indirect allusions or illustrations in jokes. And some of the jokes I like just seem to be completely indecipherable to them. I can give some examples.

I'd love to get some insight into this.

[JiG]

Can you give me an example?

[Yun]

*He elaborated that in the west if someone (even a family member of close friend) were to break the law you must hold that person accountable to the law since that is the perceived "moral" thing to do. But in China if a family member or close friend breaks the law, then the moral thing to do is protect that person from punishment since he is your kin and to protect your kin is the moral thing to do. He also said that Chinese "hate law", but I don't know if he meant for this reason though.

This perception comes from a passage in the Analects in which Confucius says a righteous man should cover up his father's crime. This dilemma between filial piety and the law has indeed been a serious gray area in Confucianism. Snowy mentioned cases of 大义灭亲, but I would point out that these have usually involved a righteous father refusing to shield his son from punishment - not the other way round. There have even been cases where a son was executed for accidentally killing his father, even though he did so when trying to prevent his father from committing murder.

Western View on suspect
You are innocent until proven guilty

Chinese view
You are guilty until proven innocent

This difference has often been overstated. Until the late 18th century, the European and Chinese justice systems shared the principle that suspects could only be convicted of crimes they had confessed to (in the European context, a confession could serve as the prosecution's 'proof' of the guilt of the accused/suspect), and the belief that torture was an effective and efficient method of obtaining confessions. In the early 19th century, Europeans began expressing distaste at the Chinese legal practice of extracting confessions through torture, even though they themselves had only changed their attitude towards judicial torture as a result of the rise of liberalism in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

See also http://en.wikipedia....Burden_of_proof and http://en.wikipedia....on_of_innocence and http://en.wikipedia....Qing_Legal_Code and http://en.wikipedia....e_law#Procedure

[Yun]

It was noted that Chinese people appear to not understand sarcasm or irony, or use of metaphor, in jokes. That is, if a joke uses some abstract depiction that illustrates a concept indirectly, then it is less likely to be understood by a Chinese person than a Westerner. I have myself observed how many of my Chinese friends appear to prefer very direct puns rather than what I would consider to be more indirect allusions or illustrations in jokes. And some of the jokes I like just seem to be completely indecipherable to them. I can give some examples.

I suspect your Chinese friends were having trouble 'getting' more subtle, complex, or allusive jokes in the English language, simply because their facility in that language was weaker. You would be hard put to catch many of the more sophisticated and ironic Chinese-language jokes too, and even Chinese puns (of which there are many more than English ones) would leave you cold if your vocabulary isn't up to it!

Sarcasm and irony are often the hardest forms of humour to appreciate in a language that is less familiar to the hearer, since so much of their effectiveness depends on the flavour and nuance of the language and the tone of the voice. Simple and even corny puns, in contrast, are easy to catch despite being impossible to translate. Slapstick, being mostly physical and visual humour, is probably close to universal. A tourist guidebook to my country Singapore (I think it was Lonely Planet) claimed that Singaporeans do not appreciate ironic humour well, and seem to prefer slapstick. I found that claim to be both patronising and parochial. The thing is that Singaporeans do not use English at the same level of style or nuance as Americans or Brits do, but we are perfectly capable of ironic humour in our own native languages: the hybrid local lingo known as Singlish, and the various south Chinese dialects. I wonder how good an American tourist would be at appreciating a Singlish or Hokkien joke?

[fireball]

I suspect your Chinese friends were having trouble 'getting' more subtle, complex, or allusive jokes in the English language, simply because their facility in that language was weaker. You would be hard put to catch many of the more sophisticated and ironic Chinese-language jokes too, and even Chinese puns (of which there are many more than English ones) would leave you cold if your vocabulary isn't up to it!

Sarcasm and irony are often the hardest forms of humour to appreciate in a language that is less familiar to the hearer, since so much of their effectiveness depends on the flavour and nuance of the language and the tone of the voice. Simple and even corny puns, in contrast, are easy to catch despite being impossible to translate. Slapstick, being mostly physical and visual humour, is probably close to universal. A tourist guidebook to my country Singapore (I think it was Lonely Planet) claimed that Singaporeans do not appreciate ironic humour well, and seem to prefer slapstick. I found that claim to be both patronising and parochial. The thing is that Singaporeans do not use English at the same level of style or nuance as Americans or Brits do, but we are perfectly capable of ironic humour in our own native languages: the hybrid local lingo known as Singlish, and the various south Chinese dialects. I wonder how good an American tourist would be at appreciating a Singlish or Hokkien joke?

I agree with you totally about your points and had pointed out to XL5 many times before, but he did not believe me. Unfortunately, some of the Chinese who couldn't get his jokes have been in U.S. for many years and have perfect command of the English language in every aspects, etc., so ... Personally, I think it has more to do with their personalities and not their nationalities or ethnicities!

Btw, I got plenty of his jokes, and I am pretty Chinese myself!

[XL5]

If you have access to your professor still, can you ask him/her about something posted elsewhere on this forum? It was noted that Chinese people appear to not understand sarcasm or irony, or use of metaphor, in jokes. That is, if a joke uses some abstract depiction that illustrates a concept indirectly, then it is less likely to be understood by a Chinese person than a Westerner. I have myself observed how many of my Chinese friends appear to prefer very direct puns rather than what I would consider to be more indirect allusions or illustrations in jokes. And some of the jokes I like just seem to be completely indecipherable to them. I can give some examples.

I'd love to get some insight into this.

Can you give me an example?

Let's see... a lot of British humor applies here. They are often sarcastic (John Cleese in Monty Python). Or when a person in a joke is behaving in an eccentric fashion but according to some credible but improbable inner logic (Mr. Bean).

Well, to get my point across, I'll rely on some distinctly British sarcastic humor. The following is part of a preamble paraphrased from Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", a humorous sci-fi series:

Somewhere in the far-off uncharted backwaters of the Milky Way galaxy, in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm, lies a small unregarded yellow sun, around which rotates an insignificant blue-green planet, whose curious ape-like inhabitants are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a "pretty neat idea".

You had to be there (that's the problem with all I can remember right now). But the example I chose demonstrates exactly the type of humor I'm talking about. It's sort of involving a high level of participation in the joke in order to get the payoff.

[XL5]

I suspect your Chinese friends were having trouble 'getting' more subtle, complex, or allusive jokes in the English language, simply because their facility in that language was weaker. You would be hard put to catch many of the more sophisticated and ironic Chinese-language jokes too, and even Chinese puns (of which there are many more than English ones) would leave you cold if your vocabulary isn't up to it!

Sarcasm and irony are often the hardest forms of humour to appreciate in a language that is less familiar to the hearer, since so much of their effectiveness depends on the flavour and nuance of the language and the tone of the voice. Simple and even corny puns, in contrast, are easy to catch despite being impossible to translate. Slapstick, being mostly physical and visual humour, is probably close to universal. A tourist guidebook to my country Singapore (I think it was Lonely Planet) claimed that Singaporeans do not appreciate ironic humour well, and seem to prefer slapstick. I found that claim to be both patronising and parochial. The thing is that Singaporeans do not use English at the same level of style or nuance as Americans or Brits do, but we are perfectly capable of ironic humour in our own native languages: the hybrid local lingo known as Singlish, and the various south Chinese dialects. I wonder how good an American tourist would be at appreciating a Singlish or Hokkien joke?

I would agree in part and add the French to that category as well. There's definitely a comprehension gap at work here. But it's not so much about English language comprehension. I think it's more about the cultural background. For example, I believe that Westerners can appear to behave like fools in public more often to a Chinese person than a Chinese person will appear to behave like a fool to another Chinese person. This is because certain modes of behavior that seem appropriate to a Westerner may be unacceptable to a Chinese person. It doesn't take much reasoning to establish the link between just that one distinction and how characters' behavior in a joke may be perceived. And that's just one distinction--there are, of course, others that will come into play.

So, not just language, but cultural norms are at work here. And, obviously, not just the Chinese. However, as fireball pointed out, I do have Chinese friends with whom I've discussed this. And they have mentioned they don't care for British humor. When I asked them for examples of humor they really liked, it was--to be blunt--very obvious stuff I didn't find to be funny.

Edited by XL5, 18 January 2008 - 10:52 PM.

[JiG]

This perception comes from a passage in the Analects in which Confucius says a righteous man should cover up his father's crime. This dilemma between filial piety and the law has indeed been a serious gray area in Confucianism. Snowy mentioned cases of 大义灭亲, but I would point out that these have usually involved a righteous father refusing to shield his son from punishment - not the other way round. There have even been cases where a son was executed for accidentally killing his father, even though he did so when trying to prevent his father from committing murder.



This difference has often been overstated. Until the late 18th century, the European and Chinese justice systems shared the principle that suspects could only be convicted of crimes they had confessed to (in the European context, a confession could serve as the prosecution's 'proof' of the guilt of the accused/suspect), and the belief that torture was an effective and efficient method of obtaining confessions. In the early 19th century, Europeans began expressing distaste at the Chinese legal practice of extracting confessions through torture, even though they themselves had only changed their attitude towards judicial torture as a result of the rise of liberalism in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Yea he used that example, saying basically in China if a son exposes his father than he is considered immoral.

[Yun]

Somewhere in the far-off uncharted backwaters of the Milky Way galaxy, in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm, lies a small unregarded yellow sun, around which rotates an insignificant blue-green planet, whose curious ape-like inhabitants are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a "pretty neat idea".

Lots of people in China seriously still think digital watches are impressive, and would be very keen on owning one. So the social satire about the falling prestige status of digital watches in the affluent European and American societies since the mid-1990s would be mostly lost to a Chinese person. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch#Digital_display) The social context is just too different.

[snowybeagle]

Snowy mentioned cases of 大义灭亲, but I would point out that these have usually involved a righteous father refusing to shield his son from punishment - not the other way round.

Ah, but how many instances in the West can one find where it is the other way round?

Reason why it innocent-father guilty-son is more common than the other way round is usually because 上梁不正下梁歪.

However, Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga) was a prime example of the guilty-father innocent-son in Chinese history.

[XL5]

A tourist guidebook to my country Singapore (I think it was Lonely Planet) claimed that Singaporeans do not appreciate ironic humour well, and seem to prefer slapstick. I found that claim to be both patronising and parochial. The thing is that Singaporeans do not use English at the same level of style or nuance as Americans or Brits do, but we are perfectly capable of ironic humour in our own native languages: the hybrid local lingo known as Singlish, and the various south Chinese dialects. I wonder how good an American tourist would be at appreciating a Singlish or Hokkien joke?

Lots of people in China seriously still think digital watches are impressive, and would be very keen on owning one. So the social satire about the falling prestige status of digital watches in the affluent European and American societies since the mid-1990s would be mostly lost to a Chinese person. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch#Digital_display) The social context is just too different.

Actually the satirical comment was about the backwardness of Earth people compared to the rest of the galaxy. And that's an illustration of my point. Many people might not pick up on that context, even though there are hints of it in the excerpt, and of course, the title "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Your point is that Chinese people who still think digital watches are prestigious might not appreciate the joke. But my point is that the joke works especially well if you do think digital watches are current and trendy. That is where the satire is most effective, because of that very conflict in what you might think is trendy and what the joke is saying about it.

Now I'll go out on a limb and tell you why I think people who like digital watches might not get the joke. My answer: because they're not used to humor that challenges commonly accepted norms of behavior. They are not used to accepting self-mocking satirical humor in their culture. Whereas, at least in the U.S. and U.K., I believe that kind of humor is shown often enough in the media that people in those cultures are much more comfortable with it.

[大泽升龙]

I have a professor from Beijing University teaching my 20th Century Chinese History class and he taught in his first class about "Chinese and Western Difference in Cultural and Historical Perceptions"

So let me post them up here and we can discuss the accuracy or inaccuracy of the assessments:

Difference in the concept of morality
Western: a moral person must be honest, namely, always telling the truth
Chinese Confucian: honesty gives way to loyalty and filial piety

*He elaborated that in the west if someone (even a family member of close friend) were to break the law you must hold that person accountable to the law since that is the perceived "moral" thing to do. But in China if a family member or close friend breaks the law, then the moral thing to do is protect that person from punishment since he is your kin and to protect your kin is the moral thing to do. He also said that Chinese "hate law", but I don't know if he meant for this reason though.

Differences in the way of thinking
Western: "comes to the point", from micro to macro, focusing on the specifics
Chinese: step-by-step exploring the idea and purpose, from macro to micro emphasizing the "general"

History perspective
Chinese historians: analyze from general perspective, and explore motive and significance
Western historians: more attention to a witness narrative and statistics that show different aspects of the event and results. Their conclusions are based on interpretation of the info.

View of the ideal world
West: broadly associated with democracy, freedom, equality
Chinese: Confucian concept; "Harmony" based on collective effort and responsibility as well as perfect top down arrangement.

You can get a clue from Cai Zhi-Zhong's (Tsai Chih Chung) carnoon of I-Ching. I think everything is acceptable as long as it is logic.