Abstract
In a Chinese cultural context, Renqing (personal relationship), Guanxi (relationship) and Mianzi (face) are important concepts in understanding social relationships and people's behaviours. A study was conducted on village secretaries in Taiwan who have the power on the social assistance qualification assessment for low-income households. The study found that personal interest and Renqing (personal relationship) are the two major factors in considering resource allocation instead of distribution justice as advocated in the West. In fact, the fundamental principle is to avoid harm on oneself by others. Resource allocation is one of the key concerns of social work, so the findings have important implications for indigenous social work practice. Social work practitioners and other social work professionals have to understand the local cultural context and keep alert to possible unethical practices.
中国文化中的人情、关系和面子都是了解人际关系和行为的重要概念。本文作者对在台湾负责社会救助低收入户资格审查的村里干事进行研究，发现个人利益和人情都是决定资源分配的主要因素，而不是西方主张的分配性公正。事实上，基本原则就是要防止自己因为别人而受损。资源分配是社会工作的主要关注点，本研究的发现对社会工作本土化实践有重要意涵。社会工作实践者和其他社会工作专业人员需要了解在地文化环境和警惕可能的缺德行为。
Introduction
Renqing (personal relationship) is the description of the emotional distance between people, a tool to be used, exchanged or even traded, and a basis of judgement on matters and personal interests. As the macro system within the ecosystem of civic culture, it limits and guides our way of thinking and adapting at all times (Pinderhughes Citation1983).
Although the disciplinary ideology and the related system of indigenous social work were transplanted from the West, as a part of the human activities under the cultural field of the ecosystem, it is difficult to isolate it from its cultural context (Yan and Tsui Citation2007). Through assessing a human's ability when facing environmental challenges, indigenous social work attempts to bring in resources and enhance adaptation ability of the individual, so as to achieve the purpose of enhancing social functioning among individuals (Ashford, LeCroy, and Lortie Citation2001). In this social work process it must have involved issues related to culture and resources allocation.
‘Who gets what and why’ is the key issue of resource allocation (Lenski Citation1966). It is also the core of the political discussion. However, resource allocation is difficult to free from the effects of the aforementioned Renqing (personal relationship) culture emerging from the interpersonal distance and relationship in Chinese society. In the daily practice of social work, we can often see what we have just mentioned: everything is related to ‘who’ gets the resource, and the question of ‘why’ that follows. Guanxi (relationship) is an influential but usually unstated factor in the answers to these questions, no matter whether expressed in the routine obedient or cooperative behaviour of the client, the personal relationship with the official, or the concerns and requests from colleagues, friends, supervisors, or persons with any type of relationship.
Similar situations seem difficult to avoid in the assessment of low-income household qualification for social assistance. In the daily operation of Taiwan social assistance assessment, the village secretaries in the township, city, and district offices are usually responsible for accepting applications and conducting the preliminary assessment. While processing the application, the village secretaries can vary in attitude from actively investigating and reporting to passively processing; in practice they can facilitate or can intentionally hinder the process; they can even freely exercise discretion, act in accordance of supervising assignment, and bend the law (Liao Citation2006). The above capacity for flexibility and whether to manipulate the applications of applicants indicates the powerful effects of the interpersonal distance and relationship. In addition, low-income household qualification not only relates to the statutory living assistance subsidy, but it also affects the threshold of the private sector's decision to make donations. Therefore, under many visible and invisible calculations, the efficiency of utilizing Guanxi (relationship) in the grey area of the low income qualification assessment is greatly enhanced.
Next, we will begin by discussing the topic of ‘distributive justice’ on ‘who’ and ‘why’, to explain the reasoning for fair distribution of social resource in the West. After that, through examples of low income qualification assessment behaviour by the village secretaries, we illustrate how elements of Renqing (personal relationship) culture in Chinese society affect practical operation.
Literature review
The modern theory of the fair distribution of social resources in the West
Although we often demand the resource holder to allocate the resource justly, opinions vary on what justice is. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle thought that the discussion of justice embodied both components of ‘distributive justice’ and ‘rectificatory justice’ (Gao Citation1979).
Social work should discuss the former component, about how to justly allocate resources, especially scarce resources. Specifically, the resources in the helping process can be utilized to help people. Its tangible form consists of human resources (leaders, professionals, volunteers), material resources (land, facilities, housing, equipment), and financial resources (money). The intangible form is made up of social values, the power of awareness, belief, professional skills, knowledge and concepts and social relationships (Huang Citation1988).
The author of A Theory of Justice, John Rawls, was a liberal. He was concerned about the protection of citizens' freedoms and rights, such as the fundamental political freedom (to vote and to be elected), the freedom of speech and assembly, the freedom of conscience and thought, the right of personal security and property ownership, the rule of law, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention. Only after the equal allocation of fundamental freedom as the basic right of citizens can we discuss the arrangements on social and economic inequality.
Next, besides the above fundamental freedom, how can the unequal arrangement of primary goods such as wealth, income, opportunity, power, social status be justified? Rawls (Citation1971) set the people earning less than half of the mean income as ‘those who are worst off’ and considered their conditions. Under the precondition of ‘benefiting everyone’, he thought if ‘those who are worst off’ could accept the inequality, others can also accept it.
Real equal opportunity does not just mean opening job opportunities to ‘those with abilities’. It is to minimize the social and natural influences exerted on the original inequality in nature. Then, through the arrangement of purely procedural justice, it can make the entire social structure fairer. Any results from activities within this social structure, as long as they followed the same procedure, would also be just and fair.
Under the tradition of liberalism, positive differential treatment concerns the individuals within groups being discriminated or harmed. It advocates that society as a whole should provide special treatment to them as compensation. Through the extra efforts to equip their abilities, they would be able to enter the social structure again and participate in the social game with purely procedural justice. That could help them recover their ability and status, and under the precondition of real equal opportunity, live like a normal citizen. The goal of such policy is hoping that through the intervention of the state (hence the reason it is called positive), the individuals from the discriminated or harmed groups could recover or become compensated (Katzner Citation1982; Greene Citation1989).
The target of such policy in the UK and USA is usually the protection of jobs and educational opportunities for ethnic minorities (‘coloured’ people) and women. Certainly views for or against such method are numerous. At the same time, there are different interpretations of it due to different traditions (Gross Citation1977; Rosenfeld Citation1991). However, the author believes there are two reasons for the method to have a moral foundation. First, it is because it conforms to the ‘rectificatory justice’ of Aristotle (Gao Citation1979), to rectify and compensate for previous damages. Second, it is also in line with Rawls' principle of ‘distributive justice’. After the equal allocation of fundamental freedom, under the beneficial and real equal opportunity for everyone (especially those who are worst off), it could make a difference in social and economic arrangements.
Reflection on the modern theory of fair social resources distribution in the West
In the actual operation of social welfare and social work, the questions of ‘distribute to who’ and ‘why’ is usually more complicated than the theory itself. Because we engage in social welfare and social work, we must be exposed to the cultural context when considering the questions of the clients. Hence the concept of justice and who the concept will be applied to would be different according to the time, location and social groups. For example, Hochschild (Citation1981), Walzer (Citation1983) and MacIntyre (Citation1988) have suggested alternative pluralistic theories of justice to Rawls'.
We will attempt to further explain the potential problems when applying the aforementioned concept of ‘distributive justice’ with regards to the Chinese cultural context, social work values, and different timing and generations. First, in the Chinese cultural context, whether to apply a universal, non-discriminatory, Rawls-style concept of ‘justice’ is open to question. Rawls' theory presupposes there are equal and rational contractors. They do not know one another and base their decision on self-benefits and the principle of maximizing the minimum harm. However, the concept of self in Chinese culture is different from the individualistic expression mentioned, and perhaps can be explained by the concept of ‘dyad’. According to the explanation of Yan (Citation1998), ‘dyad’ are the people under the influence of Confucian ethics. Starting with the concept of ‘Ren (benevolence)’, people define the norm of interpersonal exchange with reference to the obligation under different roles. Based on the judgement of the vertical distance of status and horizontal distance of emotion, the rule of interpersonal treatment is to give appropriate different treatment to subjects who possessed different roles and positions. Such a concept is drastically different from the individualistic concept of self presupposed by Rawls' theory of justice in the West.
According to Huang (Citation1999)'s research on social psychology, the Chinese criteria of resource allocation relies on the definition of their Guanxi (relationship). Under different Guanxi (relationships), there are corresponding and recognized principles of fair resource allocation. For example, in the ‘emotional relationship’ constructed by family members, the criteria of fairness depend on the ‘need’ in the specific circumstances; in the ‘instrumental relationship’ among strangers, the criteria is ‘equity’; lastly, in the ‘mixed relationship’ between the two, the criteria are based on ‘Renqing (personal relationship)’ as constructed by ‘Mianzi (face)’, ‘conduct’, ‘Guanxi (relationship)’ and ‘Bao (reward)’.
We would like to point out that the cultural differences should not be overlooked during the practice process. If overlooked, experts may be ignorant of local practices, imposing Western ideas on the indigenous; or they would become excessively accommodating to local customs, losing the aim of social change in social work. All these are related to questions such as how social workers define their mission, how they perceive the basic unit of society, how they arrange the ideal relationship with others, and their vision of better society. These visions require the consensus between the society and social work through methods that meet ‘procedural justice’.
Nonetheless, the problem is that procedure itself is merely the most superficial bonding element of society. Besides respecting the procedure, there is the presumption of a contractor who can act rationally and make long-term self-planning when faced with the question of resource allocation. Unfortunately, we encounter clients who were incapable or awaiting to be empowered. They may not be able to equip themselves with the above capacities temporarily or even permanently. Therefore, in addition to meeting the procedural requirement, we have to be concerned about the connotations embedded in procedural justice. This depends on our degree and scope of preventing harm to client and protecting clients from harm. The degree and scope is still contested.
The resource allocation discussed above belongs to the same level temporally. If also considering different generations and timing, the questions on ‘intergenerational fairness’ and ‘intergenerational justice’ are indeed components of the current welfare resource allocation that should not be underestimated.
To conclude, the questions discussed above covered theoretical transplant and practical operations. We took only a small segment as an introduction and hope one day there will be more research. The next section is our attempt to study how Chinese Renqing (personal relationship) affected the behaviour of welfare qualification assessment.
Renqing (personal relationship) in the behaviour of low-income household qualification assessment
We live in a society that is constructed by many types of relationship. The determination of Guanxi (relationship) is the key to resource allocation (Qiao Citation1982; Huang Citation1988; Chiu Citation1991; He, Chen, and Chiu Citation1991; Yang Citation1992). According to Huang (Citation1988), the resource allocator will first use the relationship type between self and the subject and the strength of the relationship as the foundation of the interpersonal exchange and resource allocation. Judging on the relationship, with reference to Fei (Citation1985)'s concept of ‘differential pattern’, Huang divided the relationship between the resource allocator and applicant into three categories, the emotional, instrumental, and mixed relationships. He also explained that the three categories corresponded to the long-term stable social relationship (such as family members), the short-term benefit-based market relationship (such as trade), and the other relationship between the above two that is somehow close but not too close. According to the three categories, Huang (Citation1988) pointed out that the allocator's action was based on three rules: need, fairness, and Renqing (personal relationship).
More specifically, ‘the rule of Renqing (personal relationship)’ is the core of concern here. First, Renqing (personal relationship) by definition and to some level, possesses simultaneously the three aspects of emotional reaction (such as joy, anger, sorrow, and happiness), social exchange resource (doing people favours, gifts), and pattern of interpersonal exchange (knowing the way to conduct oneself, mutually beneficence) (Huang Citation1988). The meaning it represents depends on the linguistic context. Second, the core of the operation of Renqing (personal relationship) is ‘Bao (reward)’. We elaborate on the Huang's argument that the phrase ‘mutually beneficence’ is a good modern interpretation of ‘Bao (reward)’. Moreover, ‘Bao (reward)’ on a timeframe, can be divided into reward in this life and reward in the next life; on the subject, the reward can be given to oneself or the others. Third, when in a difficult position where interests must be weighed carefully, the cost paid by the resource allocator, the expected reward to the allocator, and the influence of key persons within the applicant's relationship network are the key concerns during the decision-making process. Lastly, after considering the above, combined with the consideration of whether the relationship would last, whether it has to deepen, and the consideration of Mianzi (face) (such as, respecting one's honour and dignity?), a decision format of ‘ingroup bias’ are often discovered. ‘Ingroup bias’ means that after social members divided themselves into mygroup and their group(s), Favourable and emotional judgements on ingroup members are evident by mygroup members' attitudes and behaviours (Forsyth Citation1990). Such a concept is quite distant from the just and fair judgement mentioned before in the West or in the ideals of most people. Perhaps the concept of ‘differentiated love’ as elaborated from Mencius's saying of ‘Be affectionate to his parents, and then be lovingly disposed to people generally. Be lovingly disposed to people generally, and then kind to creatures (Qin qin erhou ren min, ren mín hou ai wu)’ in Jin Xin Part One (Xie Citation2000) and Fei (Citation1985)'s interpretation of ‘differential pattern’ in contrast to the ‘organizational pattern’ of the West are the typical behaviours of resource allocation in the Chinese culture.
Research method
This research primarily employed ‘scenario experiment’, examining as the research targets 105 village secretaries who conducted the low-income household qualification assessment for social assistance. The research saw them as the resource owners and allocators, and treated the qualification of low-income household as the resource to be allocated. After examining the scenario and types of resource allocation (meaning ascertaining the age, educational background, family condition, and identity of the low-income household of the resource applicants), the researcher would study how they would react to applicants of different Guanxi (relationship) (meaning if the resource applicant is, e.g., a stranger, an old neighbour, a sister-in-law or is referred by the township council). Moreover, the reactions of the village secretaries on the mandatory investigation when the low income qualification was complained by someone, to observe what principles the officers on the frontline with the power to allocate resource would operate under.
A specific case scenario involved three 35-year-old single mothers, each having three sons (seven, five, and three years old). The oldest son suffered from intellectual disability (Moderate grade). Their relationships with the village secretaries responsible for the low-income household qualification assessment were strangers, old neighbours (those cases who have been neighbours of the village secretaries for a long time), or cases referred by township council members.
The research questions to the village secretaries are: Given the above cases that all qualified for the second tier low income household subsidy this year, but at the same time got reported for violating the conditions of subsidy.
If you are the village secretary responsible for the case, how would you conduct the investigation and report (to suggest cancellation of the subsidy)?
If it was someone else, how would he report on the case?
If the relationship "strangers" changed to "the village secretary's sister-in-law", how would the report sequence be?
In the first research question, we distinguished the two actions of ‘investigation’ and ‘report’. In the second question, we would like to know how they perceive others would handle the case. In the last question, we included the change of the Guanxi (relationship) because we wanted to explore the effect of interpersonal distance on the village secretaries' decisions.
In this study, we used the method of collective survey to collect the data. Utilizing the opportunity of the monthly routine work briefing, we explained the research purpose and under the principle of informed consent, we recruited attendants to fill in the questionnaires anonymously. When the work briefing was over and the respondents left the venue, they were free to decide whether to drop the questionnaires into the collection box at the exit. Moreover, we invited the village secretaries to leave their telephone contact numbers if they were willing to be interviewed later for follow-up contact and consultation.
As a result, we distributed 117 questionnaires at the venue. Excluding incomplete or unrecognisable answers, we collected 105 effective questionnaires.
Research discovery and discussion
According to the questions above, we list out the survey results according to the frequency of answers.
On the surface, against not having respect of their job authority and not given enough Mianzi (face), officers demonstrated the modest concept of justice; but Renqing (personal relationship) is still key to resource allocation
In the scenario of the study, the responding village secretaries received reports that the low-income household with differing closeness to him had concealed details of their earnings and properties and must undergo the ‘investigation and report’ process. ‘Investigation’ can be real investigation or a sham investigation. However, the ‘report’ would be the actual act of cancelling the low-income household qualification after the investigation proved the allegation. Because the two actions are related to different aspects, we will handle them separately.
First, on the question of ‘who to investigate first’, the first in the order is a referred case from township council members (32%), the second is the stranger (26%), the third is an old neighbour (18%), while investigating simultaneously (15%) and putting on hold (9%) takes fourth and fifth. From this order, we found the sequence of investigating referred cases from township council members first (representing the consideration of power), then the stranger (representing the consideration of neither power nor emotion), and lastly old neighbours (representing consideration on emotion). The sequence may seem to differ from the hypothesis of Renqing (Relationship) affecting resource allocation, but indeed they are related.
In order to see the relation, we have to exclude the referrals from the township council members. The behaviour of investigating the stranger before the old neighbour obviously reflected the hypothesis that the respondents' Renqing (Relationship) affected the order of resource allocation. For example, when we asked ‘Why don't you investigate your old neighbour first but the stranger?’ one of the respondents said,
You want me to get scolded? If she has been my old neighbour for so many years, we will meet every day. Not to mention really cancelling her qualification, just “investigating” her will lead her to tell all the neighbours that I want to set her up [to lose the government subsidy]. I would dare not to cut off others' financial income. If I do such things, how can I deal with others in the village? Oh a stranger, anyway I don't know her. I cannot hear her even if she scolds me! Otherwise you tell me, what would you do?
Whether knowing her or not and whether hearing her criticism or not are only the reasons on the surface, at the core, the key of who to investigate first is how to ‘deal with others’ among people in the inner circle. Such situation of dealing with others is similar to the ingroup mutual protection.
Investigating the referred cases from township council members can mean that the officers had no fear of crossing those in power and wished to extend justice. We partly agree and disagree with that observation. The reason for agreeing is that it met the requirement for procedural justice on the surface. The reason for disagreeing, once we get the bottom of it, is that the procedural justice was merely the pretence of demanding respect and saving Mianzi (face). That is because we found out from further interviews that the higher priority to investigate referrals from township council members was the direct psychological reaction to the lack of respect by others to their authority. It had nothing to do with the fair distribution of resources. A typical response is that,
If you [township council member] ask me to do something and I follow suit, who would be responsible if something bad came out of it? … That will not do! Not even giving a telephone call to warn me, then ask my boss to intimidate me … I understand that people's matter can be complicated, but there must be more respect, more communication to have the issue settled, right?
That is the result of a lack of ‘Mianzi (face)’ and fear of blame from supervisors. Hence, the investigation is a way to save Mianzi (face) and demand respect. Therefore, the behaviour of investigating the referral of township council member first is only a simple, instrumental concept of justice that is filled with Renqing (personal relationship) and demanding fair treatment. The key to resource allocation is still the closeness ranking based on the Renqing (personal relationship) principle.
In action, on the surface it was still the expression of simple concept of justice; in fact the first consideration is interest, followed by Renqing (personal relationship).
Next we will look at how the respondents deal with the question of ‘reporting’ that will affect the low-income household qualification. First, from the order of the answers to ‘who to report first’, the sequence of investigating the referral from township council members, a stranger, and an old neighbour shares the same priority on both investigating and reporting, which shows no change. The only variance is the difference in order (see Table ). In reality, the simple concept of justice caused by the lack of respect and request for recognition, and the differential treatment due to Renqing (relationship) are also reflected. However, the interesting part is that in such a scenario, reporting would mean the loss of low-income household qualification. The decision of the village secretaries could not follow those on investigation, with the room of either avoiding or pretending to investigate. Therefore, the order of ‘report simultaneously’ and ‘put on hold’ is different from the one of investigation, ranking first and third respectively. The answer that one of the respondents gave us after we got familiarized still left us a vivid impression. He said:
Oh teacher! [His eyes suddenly beamed, and he talked with a smile with deep meaning] You don't understand that investigation and reporting are quite different? We can use ‘with valid reasons’ or ‘lack of evidence’ to ‘check off’ the ‘investigation’ to close the file. Everyone is taken care of, and no one is slighted. But if we file the ‘report’, then that's different. That way we have to bear the actual consequences.
Table 1 Questionnaire statistics results.
We thought that the fundamental difference between investigation and reporting in executive procedure and legal standing affected the respondents' decision.
After further interviews with the respondents, we discovered the reasoning of ‘reporting simultaneously’ was usually ‘execute by law’, and the reasoning of ‘put on hold’ was usually ‘do not want to be the bad guy’, ‘people who have ways will find their way, our superior will handle it, I need not worry about it’ and ‘I am only a minor figure with no power to decide, such matter is better dealt with by my superior’. Faced with such answers, personal interest seems to be the best interpretation of the difference between investigation and reporting. We thought that ‘reporting simultaneously’ and ‘put on hold’ were the typical reaction after interest calculation in a difficult situation. Using lawful execution as the reason for ‘reporting simultaneously’ was to avoid being criticized and protect oneself from harm. The statement heard most often was
Ar! For real, it is not easy to be a civil servant nowadays, especially people like us who are on the frontline with no background and support. Acting carelessly will lead to charges. Executing by law and reporting simultaneously is the safest and most time-saving way!
On the other hand, those who gave no comments to ‘put on hold’ actually had something to tell but could not say it directly. The reason behind that was to avoid being the bad guy cancelling others' qualification. Hence, they either leave a special note for reservation, or they pass the responsibility to their superiors for decision, so they can stay out of the matter. For example:
You think nowadays the people will go easy on you? Who doesn't have relatives or good friends who are political representatives or journalists? Such cases can be put on hold. If it must be handled, most importantly is not to tie your own hands. Why be the bad guy? Let everyone have room. Let the supervisor have room to handle it. Anyway the money is not yours. Best to leave it to the superior.
In other words, investigation and reporting on the surface are both affected by the simple concept of justice of whether one is respected in their jobs and whether there is enough Mianzi (face). But once they are implemented in practice, the first consideration is personal interests by distinguishing who the egg is and who the stone is, while the importance of Renqing (personal relationship) comes second.
Cognitively, comparison between others and self follows the principle of ‘self-serving bias’, meaning ‘I’ have a better concept of justice than others; but the key consideration is still Renqing (personal relationship) and interests.
In the first two questions, we directly asked the respondents' opinions. However, such method of query is affected by the subjective view of the respondents on how they should be, but not the reaction when they face the real situation. Therefore, we ask the respondents on how they project others would act to reflect on their own world view.
First, the strangers were ranked first to be reported for cancelling their qualification (33%). This phenomenon partly reflects the effect of interpersonal distance. But interestingly, the respondents saw themselves quite differently from others. One of the respondents commented:
Not everyone is as fair and just as I am, and talking about conscience! Nowadays, who are not ‘looking up but never looking down’, besides protecting themselves in society? Others would most certainly cancel the qualification of a stranger first! Why would you have to ask?
When the respondents look at themselves, referral from township council members is the one they investigate and report first. However, they suggested others would report on a stranger first. Such a difference demonstrates their simpler concept of justice that they would not fear those in power, while others are less righteous and inclined to sacrifice the benefits of strangers first. The result is similar to the ‘self-serving bias’ in social psychology (Myers Citation2005).
Second, ‘report simultaneously’ and ‘put on hold’ ranked second (27%) and third (17%). Despite the different meanings of the two, adding up the pair takes it up to 44%. They reflected the subculture of the village secretaries' circle to avoid troubles, while considering the stakes and Renqing (personal relationship). Third, according to the same reasons, referral of township council members (14%) and old neighbours (9%) were the last two types of people to be reported. They represented the characteristics of understanding the stakes involved and the emphasis on Renqing (personal relationship) respectively. Interestingly, the old neighbours were ranked last to be reported for both questions by the respondents themselves and by the projected other secretaries. That again reflected that village secretaries, as frontline civil servants, valued the comments among neighbours such as ‘whether they know how to deal with people’ and ‘whether they have no sense of Renqing (personal relationship)’. This also proved the function of knowing about Renqing (personal relationship) and how to deal with people on maintaining interpersonal connections.
The fundamental principle of resource allocation is not justice, but to avoid harm
In order to highlight the effect of the degree of closeness between the village secretary and the three types of people, namely the stranger, old neighbours and referral from township council members on the resource allocation behaviour, we replaced strangers in the last question with someone much closer to the secretaries, their own sister-in-law. Then we asked the respondents to rank again on who they would report to have the low-income household qualification cancelled.
First, originally we hypothesized that resource allocation operates under the ‘principle of closeness’, which is according to the closeness of interpersonal distance. In other words, under the effect of the ‘principle of closeness’, when the identity of the resource applicant is changed to be the sister-in-law, her low-income household qualification should be the last to be cancelled. However, the sister-in-law was ranked first to be cancelled (44%). It seemed that the respondents upheld the principle of justice, fearless of the complaints from their wives and handled the resource allocation case fairly. However, we discovered that the respondents' consideration was not so simple from the later interviews: ‘This way it is easier to handle later and would not get gossips from others’; ‘It would be easier to work with my wife's sister! I can think of other solutions.’ These two explanations are the most typical responses from the respondents. These two typical responses can be interpreted externally and internally. On the surface, sacrificing their relatives first can gain the reputation of fairness. But in fact, they can properly compensate their relatives, probably through other channels and other methods. For example, one of the respondent embarrassingly said:
Matters with women are the most difficult to handle. If you let others know you are biased towards your sister-in-law, that is your end! Not to mention there is no secret in the world. Once they investigate, they will find out. It is best to go home and explain to your significant other first, so to leave something for others to snoop on (In Taiwanese it means paying attention to the public opinion and leaving a good reputation). We can cancel it first, and then tell her ‘I will think of some other ways later’. I have to help her in other ways!
Such a strategy of working both on the surface and underneath was very much different from the ‘distributive justice’ theory, inherited from the image of the blindfolded Goddess of Justice who knows only what her balance tells her. Moreover, sacrificing their own relatives to a certain degree reflected the opposite of the idiom ‘squeaky wheel gets the grease’, that led to the least harm to the resource allocator. The least harm here is clearly due to the trust based on their relationship with their in-laws. Perhaps the provisional conclusion here is that resource allocation operates under the principle of causing the least damages. This theory requires further study later.
Second, on the response section that stated ‘put on hold’ and leaving no comment, the ideas of leaving no comment and ‘put on hold’ of the Chinese do not mean there will be no comment or no follow-up. It is intriguing that two third of the respondents filled in ‘put on hold’ in the blank space after their answer of ‘no comment’. As a matter of fact, putting on hold means ‘delaying’, which is a typical response in handling difficulties related to Renqing (personal relationship) (Huang Citation1988). The respondents took the opportunity to analyse the situation during the delay. They may calculate the stakes, compare the interests, or wait for a change of situation until the pressure to solve the problem disappears. One of the respondents said,
Oh teacher! Isn't there a saying ‘handle urgent matters slowly, deal with non-urgent matters quickly’? When things change so rapidly, who knows what will happen after a while? Why in such a hurry!
Due to such a statement, we initially thought the respondent was a typical civil servant who wants no trouble and follows the rules. Once we thought again, though, we recognized the Taoist wisdom hidden behind the statement. Moreover, everything was indeed variables in practical operation, including the circumstances, the client of the case, other people, and the service delivery system. If we define it in a positive way, analysing the case comprehensively before the deadline for decision will not be decision without consideration and delaying. In contrast, it is an important strategy to fight for time and space to negotiate. We think that this point also requires further study in the future.
Lastly, we tackle the results of the sequence of referral from township council members and old neighbours remained unchanged regardless of all four scenarios. On one hand it reflected the special nature of old neighbours in a society heavily influenced by Renqing (personal relationship). On the other hand, despite the dissatisfaction towards the referral from township council members that represented the power relationship, the officers would still consider their cases carefully in practice. For example, one respondent explained the importance of caring for the neighbours while saving Minazi (face) and being accepted by the villagers with the Chinese proverb ‘nearby neighbours are better than faraway relatives’. He also pointed out:
even though council members may sometimes be annoying, they may be helpful at times … Imagine if the villagers protest against you, low ranking civil servant like us will have big troubles. No one should do anything with no benefits!
In conclusion, the simple way to interpret either case of fearing the criticism of the village secretary's neighbour or worrying about the protest from the referral of the council member lies on the avoidance of trouble. Nonetheless, the concern for trouble is still within the consideration of avoiding harm mentioned above.
Conclusion: Renqing (personal relationship) culture, resource allocation and social work
We started the paper by referring to Lenski's (Citation1966) concept of ‘who gets what and why’ as guidance to the distribution of social resources. It encompasses the questions such as ‘distribute to whom’, ‘what to distribute’, and ‘why’. It is obvious that the person we distribute to is our client. What we distribute is linked to resources and that would simulate the client's adaptation behaviour. Its quality and quantity may differ across countries, but it basically meets the level for sustenance. In general, social justice is the theoretical foundation to the question ‘Why?’. Despite the second rule in the social work code of conduct stating that we shall ‘serve the client based on the belief of equality, regardless of their gender, age, religion, race’, the situations mentioned above may vary according to the people, circumstances, and resources involved.
Over the issues related to Renqing (personal relationship) culture in Chinese society, the behaviour of social resource allocation, and its implications on social work, we proposed the following ideas:
In essence, the resource allocation in a society influenced heavily by Renqing (personal relationship) has the characteristic of ‘Guanxi (relationship)-based discussion’ rather than ‘fact-based discussion’
‘Fact-based discussion’ is only the outward expression. It is the behaviour principle for strangers. Other common alternatives are ‘execute by law’, ‘handle justly’, and ‘business is business’. However, the real operation logic in a civil society is ‘Guanxi (relationship)-based discussion’ or ‘act according to Guanxi (relationship)’. This point was not only mentioned by Fei (Citation1985); others such as Qiao (Citation1982), Huang (Citation1988), Chiu (Citation1991), He, Chen, and Chiu (Citation1991), Yang (Citation1992) and Zhang and Yang (Citation1997) also had empirical research to support it. In regard to Guanxi (relationship), it is based on familial and pseudo-familial relationship and it expands outward gradually like ripples. Doing others Renqing (favours) (Jin Citation1980), Mianzi (face) (Ho Citation1976) and Bao (reward) (Liu Citation1992) are all tools for Guanxi (relationship) creation and maintenance. Under such a relationship framework, all matters, including the resource allocation that social work is most concerned about, have different importance and urgency configuration according to the relationship distance and interest involved.
As the goal, the principal consideration of resource allocation operating under Renqing (personal relationship) is to ‘avoid harm’ but not the ‘principle of justice’
Distrust of strangers is the reason behind the statements of fact-based discussion and executing by law mentioned above. Therefore, claiming to adhere to the ‘principle of justice’ allows the officers to hide behind the shield of the policy and be sheltered from criticism. Nonetheless, the real goal was always to ‘avoid harms’. In order to meet such a goal of self-protection, besides claiming adherence to the principle of justice, the officers would allocate the resource to the least harmful option in the practical operation. In other words, the more likely the clients are to cause harm, the more easily they get the resources, and vicevise versa. ‘Interest’ is the key to everything. We must acknowledge this point in our practice of social work. We have to understand the interest we seek is in fact whose interest. Is the best interest of the client truly in their best interests (Chu and Tsui Citation2008)?
In operation, both the resource allocator and the resource applicant are playing the game of collusive survival
For the function of Guanxi (relationship) and Renqing (personal relationship) in the complicated society, the connection constructed from the interaction of people, and the principle of how Guanxi (relationship) is created and maintained are the alternatives to the struggle between individuals and structure.
For social work, service recipients need social workers to match them with resources and provide them services. Contrarily, social workers need the clients to prove the effectiveness of their professional service, or even the reason for the existence of the professional organization. Such mutual needs create room for psychological manipulation games between the help-seekers and help-providers. Help-seekers could appear to be passive, dependent, cooperative, or even accommodating to the psychological needs of the help-providers or redefine the Guanxi (relationship). They could also flatter the help-provider or overstate the service result in order to gain the most benefit. Help-providers can also consolidate their own professional image, seeking organizational and individual benefits. As a result, both parties would benefit. The focus of consideration is no longer whether the resource goes to the neediest client or ‘the client with best performance’. Such situations require our attention nowadays as we are emphasizing on welfare outsourcing and performance-oriented attitude. Therefore, the training on professional conduct provided for students through social work education and the supervision of social work by the professional bodies are crucial.
In conclusion, we must acknowledge that society being influenced by Renqing (personal relationship) is part of the Chinese ecosystem and understand the duality of Guanxi (relationship) as a tool for and goal of change
The emotional relationship operating under the principle of needs, the instrumental relationship operating under the principle of fairness, and the mixed relationship operating under the principle of Renqing (personal relationship) provide our society with a lively and rich outlook. It not only constructs the macro level of the cultural ecosystem, but also moulds our internal psychological mechanism and outward behaviours in our interaction with people in our daily lives. However, the pros and cons produced from such cultural constraints may have been neglected during the process of studying and transplanting the Western experience. We must carefully rethink and put them to proper use under the guidance of the present ecosystem. In fact, Guanxi (relationship) is always an important tool for change in the method of social work, ranging from individual cases to policy issues. If we cannot understand the role of Renqing (personal relationship) in the relationship construction process of Chinese society, it will be difficult to make progress in social work. On the other hand, if we overemphasize the role of Renqing (personal relationship), we would be exposed to the malpractices of allocating resources by the judgment of the interpersonal distance or favouritism in the indigenous cultural setting. Due to the duality of Guanxi (relationship) as the tool for change and the goal of change, we must carefully analyse, debate, and adopt it with critique. In order to do so in the social work profession that highly emphasizes individualized care, we must prioritize the construction of a resource allocation and supervision system with the highest transparency. Through the checks and balances of stakeholders (including the help-providers, help recipients, and independent third parties), perhaps excessively unfair distribution can be eradicated. As an artificial system, it will have flaws and cannot be perfect. Therefore, different treatment through the assessment of professional personnel is the only choice. Besides minimizing the degree of this section, we must prevent any potential malpractice though an open and supervised mechanism. As the prevention procedure can be costly, it is possible in principle to switch to self-discipline by the professional personnel. However, it may not be the most reliable way. How to strike a balance is another topic that requires further study.
Epilogue
The Renqing (personal relationship) culture mentioned in this article enriches but also restrains our modern lives. Moreover, it provides room for reflection on local social work and room for developing alternative methods to social work different from those in the West. These are important issues that we should further investigate when studying social work theories and the indigenization of social work practice. From the above discovery and discussion, we can perhaps think further on the controversy of the order of the sentiment, reason, and law in the daily life of Chinese society. In general, sentiment is always before reason, and reason is usually before the law in Chinese culture. Reasons and laws are constructed on human relations, which were founded on the framework governed by emotional distance. Such an ideological system shapes the characters, thoughts, and behaviours of the Chinese who emphasis on moderation, the rule of humanity, and the rule of virtue. That is different from the Western structure of the ‘law, reason, and sentiment’. ‘Sentiment within the law’ and ‘where sentiments and reasons both apply’ are the standards of harmonic behaviour in the Chinese culture. The reason for that was linked to the origin of law in the legal philosophy and the basic presumption of humanity in a good society. Which is better is not merely a judgment on values, but is an important choice that is related to fitting in our way of life. These topics are worth our attention and reflection on equating westernization with development and modernization of China.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Related Research Data
References
- Aristotle. 1979. Yalishiduode zhi yigaomai lunli xue [Aristotle's Ethika Nikomakheia], Translated and edited by S.Q. Gao. Taipei: Commercial Press Ltd. Taiwan.
- Ashford, J., C. W. LeCroy, and K. Lortie. 2001. Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Multidimensional Perspective. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
- Chiu, C. Y. 1991. “Yi: Zhongguo shehui de gongping guan [Justice: View on Fairness in the Chinese Society].” In Zhongguo ren, Zhongguo xin (Chuantong pian) [Chinese People, Chinese Heart (Traditions)], edited by S. R. Gao and C. F. Yang, 262–285. Taipei: Yuan-Liou Publishing Co.
- Chu, W. C., and M. S. Tsui. 2008. “The Nature of Practice Wisdom in Social Work Revisited.” International Social Work 51 (1): 47–54. doi:10.1177/0020872807083915.
- Fei, H. T. 1985. Xiangtu Zhongguo [Native to China]. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Co.
- Forsyth, D. R. 1990. Group Dynamics. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.
- Greene, K. W. 1989. “Affirmative Action and Principles of Justice.” In Affirmative Action and Principles of Justice, 1–13. New York: Greenwood Press, Inc.
- Gross, B. R., ed. 1977. Reverse Discrimination. New York: Prometheus Books.
- He, Y. H., S. J. Chen, and C. Y. Chiu. 1991. “Guanxi quxiang: Wei zhongguo shehui xinli fangfalun xunqiu daan [Relations Orientation: Seeking Answers for Chinese Social Psychology Methodology].” In Zhongguo ren dexinli yu xingwei [Psychology and Behaviour of the Chinese], edited by G. S. Yang and G. G. Huang, 49–66. Taipei: Laureat Book Co.
- Ho, D. Y. F. 1976. “On the Concept of Face.” American Journal of Sociology 81 (4): 867–884. doi:10.1086/226145.
- Hochschild, J. L. 1981. What's Fair: American Beliefs about Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Huang, G. G. 1988. Renqing yu mianzi: Zhongguo ren de quanli youxi [Favours and Face: The Power Game the Chinese]. Taipei: Chu Liu Publisher.
- Huang, G. G. 1999. “Rujia lunli yu zhuanye lunli: Maodun yu chulu [Confucian Ethics and Professional Ethics: Contradictions and Solutions].” Si yu yan [Thought and Words] 37 (4): 31–58.
- Jin, Y. C. 1980. “Renji guanxi zhong de renqing zhi fenxi (chutan) [Analysis of Favours in Human Relationships (Preliminary Study)].” In Guoji han xue huiyi lunwen ji [Proceedings of the International Conference on Sinology], 413–428. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
- Katzner, L. I. 1982. “Reverse Discrimination.” In And Justice for All, edited by T. Regan and D. VanDeVeer, 64–85. New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld.
- Lenski, E. 1966. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- Liao, Z. H. 2006. Shehui jiuzhu zhidu zhong cunli ganshi de shencha xingwei yu yingxiang yinsu zhi tantao: Yi Taichung xian wei li [Discussion on Assessment Behaviour and Influencing Factor of Village Officers in Social Assistance System: Taking Taichung County as Example], Master thesis, Institute of Social Policy and Social Work, National Chi Nan University.
- Liu, Z. M. 1992. “Bao de gainian ji qi zai zuzhi yanjiu shang de yiyi [The Concept of Reward and Its Significance in Organisation Studies].” In zhongguo ren de xinli yu xingwei (linian yu fangfa pian) [Psychology and Behaviour of the Chinese (Concepts and Methods)], edited by K. S. Yang and A. B. Yu, 293–313. Taipei: Laureat Book Co.
- MacIntyre, I. 1988. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
- Myers, D. 2005. Social Psychology. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- Pinderhughes, E. B. 1983. “Empowerment for Our Clients and for Ourselves.” Social Casework 64 (6): 331–338.
- Qiao, J. 1982. “Guanxi chuyi [Discussion on Relations].” In Shehui ji xingwei kexue yanjiu de zhongguo hua [Social and Behavioural Science Research in China], edited by K. S. Yang and C. Y. Wen, 345–360. Taipei: Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica.
- Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
- Rosenfeld, M. 1991. Affirmative Action and Justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Walzer, M. 1983. Spheres of Justice. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
- Xie, B. Y. 2000. Xin yi si shu duben [New Translation of the Four Books]. Taipei: San Min Book Co.
- Yan, Q. F. 1998. “Bentu renji hudong zhi miaoshu moxing: Cong wenhua jiazhi yingxiang yu shisu hua xingwei guandian de tantao [The Descriptive Model of Local Human Interaction: Discussion on the Influence of Cultural Value and the Perspective of Secularised Behaviour].” Chung Yuan Journal 26 (2): 21–29.
- Yan, M. C., and M. S. Tsui. 2007. “The Quest for Western Social Work Knowledge: Literature in the USA and Practice in China.” International Social Work 50 (5): 641–653. doi:10.1177/0020872807079924.
- Yang, K. S. 1992. “Zhongguo ren de shehui quxiang: Shehui hudong de guandian [Social Orientation of the Chinese: Social Interaction Perspective].” In Zhongguo ren de xinli yu xingwei (linian yu fangfa pian) [Psychology and Behaviour of the Chinese (Concepts and Methods)], edited by K. S. Yang and A. B. Yu, 319–439. Taipei: Laureat Book Co.
- Zhang, Z. X., and C. F. Yang. 1997. Fenpei zhengyi juece zhong de guanxi quxiang [Relation Orientation in Distributive Justice Decision Making]. Taipei: Fourth Interdisciplinary Conference on Chinese Psychology and Behaviour.