Post-China Entry 2

When viewing the instruments of torture and punishment used against criminals in historic China, the comment was made that such harsh measures were necessary to control the huge population. This got me thinking about whether the size of a given population could act as a primary formative element in other ways as well. It certainly seems to logically explain the often-mentioned divide between East/West and Society/Individual. In a larger community, a sense of cooperation would be essential; if there had been no such group cooperation, the community would have collapsed into anarchy. Smaller groups, on the other hand, encourage individualism, given that any individual stands a better chance of being well-known in his or her own right by the others. This also appears to help explain why the democratic and republican systems of governance formed primarily in the West, while Asian countries relied more heavily on authoritarian styles of absolute governance. In a small community, not only would everyone would want his or her own voice heard when important decisions were to be made, but such inclusion was also possible. In a much larger community that existed prior to current voting procedures, there would be no way to possibly take a vote from amongst the common people. The average citizen would have no real part in government and therefore be uninformed about what was going on, making him or her even less suitable and desirous of democratic voting.

Small things can be indicative of larger differences. Historically, Westerners greet one another by shaking hands. The reason for this custom is evident: it is a blatant check to make sure that the person with whom you are meeting is not carrying a knife or other concealed weapon with which to attack you. Eastern greetings, however, have historically been quite different. A traditional bow shows not only a greater focus on social hierarchy and subservience, but it also serves a second purpose: by exposing one’s neck to the other person, one is showing respect and trust that the other person is not armed or desirous of harm. It is possible that these two drastically different styles of greeting stem from a continuation of the ideas mentioned above. Since family serves as the functional unit of Chinese society (as opposed to the individual here), the Chinese place a much greater degree of importance upon ideas of obedience and subservience to parents and other family members. Working for the good of society presumably helps build a trusting attitude, whereas the smaller groups of Westerners, due to their constant fighting back and forth, have no real trust for those with whom they are very familiar.

Another formative element which I would be remiss for not mentioning is China’s isolation from the rest of the world. The Great Wall alone suggests that isolationism, even borderline xenophobia, is a facet of China that cannot be ignored. China is one of the few societies to voluntarily take a major developmental step backwards, and perhaps its act of burning its merchant fleet and destroying its maps and charts stands out as the most serious of any societies’ steps back. It seems as though a case could be made for isolationism and xenophobia as the causes of this drastic action. Although I’ve focused mainly on population size and a little bit on China’s history as being isolated, these are by no means the only two factors that worked to make modern Chinese culture the way it is. No doubt there are incalculable number of elements responsible, and not being an anthropologist or sociologist, I am probably the last person who should attempt a more comprehensive theory of how any culture arose, much less one with which I have as little experience as China.