What collective? Collectivism and relationalism from a Chinese perspective

Abstract

Individualism and collectivism form a paired concept frequently used in studying cross-cultural communication. Yet conflicting findings on collectivism have led researchers to question its applicability across cultures, especially concerning the meaning of “collective”. By definition, “collective” refers to large groups that, through a common identity, tie the members together into a community. The scale to measure collectivism, however, has often used in-group members as examples to explore the way respondents relate to others. As these “others” were used to stand for “collectives”, something that they are not, the meaning of collectivism became muddied, and its validity and reliability suffered. A re-examination of the collectivism concept from a Chinese standpoint is called for, as Confucian teachings have been considered as the philosophical basis for collectivism, and East Asian societies – especially Chinese societies – have often been seen as prototypical collectivist cultures. The purpose of this paper is, however, not to propose a Chinese version of collectivism. Rather, the goal is to clearly distinguish between “collective” and “others” in studying collectivism. Based on an in-depth analysis of Chinese and Confucian cultures and the literature on guanxi, it is argued that the concept of relationalism will more closely reflect the way self relates to others in these societies. Moreover, a tripartite model of individualism, relationalism, and collectivism will provide a more comprehensive framework for the study of the way self relates to others in a cross-cultural context.

Keywords:

• relation
• guanxi
• relationalism
• collectivism
• individualism
• intercultural communication
• organizational communication
• interpersonal interactions
• self
• other

Notes

^1. Another possible explanation is that many East Asians surveyed come from fully industrialized modern societies where individualism is considered mainstream.

^2. This created term was preferred over “egocentrism”, a term carrying a host of connotations that the Chinese term does not.

^3. There is no indication of the gender of the subject in the original text, yet in traditional Chinese society, matters as such have never been women's business.

^4. Confucius said, “The father conceals the misconduct of the son, and the son conceals the misconduct of the father. Uprightness is to be found in this” (Feng, 1991a, p. 143).

^5. For a brief summary of definitions, see Chow and Ng (2004, p. 1075).