A COMMON SENSE VIEW OF CHINESE SOCIAL NORMS

Let me begin by giving you a few anthropological views on the interpretation of behavior of people of other societies. First of all, the anthropological view is that the causes of behavior lie outside of the individual; that is, the causes of the kinds of behavior of anthropological interests. The function of behavior is to maintain the continuity of society - in this case, to keep the Chinese acting like Chinese. The native’s version of his own behavior or explanations of his own cultural patterns are always psychologically descriptive - never sociologically analytical. This is presumed to be so because if a member of a particular society really understood the cultural imperatives of his behavior, he might seek to side step the rules of the behavior which, of course, would make for social chaos. So, we have to presume that the native cannot understand what is making him behave the way he does. If you ask a native why he is doing something, he will give you a psychological explanation, that is, he will tell you what it means to him. This, of course, is valid psychology, but what we are talking about here is the sociology or ethnography of behavior patterns.

Information and analysis on foreign behavior can be used for several things. You could try to emulate the behavior or try to accomodate to it or subvert it or side step it. It doesn’t really matter, but I say that language (foreign language) is the only piece of foreign behavior which we attempt to emulate exactly. It is almost impossible to go native in all aspects of behavior.

Let’s turn now to some descriptions of Chinese behavior. Chinese society is characterized by elaborate rituals of politeness protocol, demonstrations of friendship, and the like. Apparently ironically, the Chinese society stresses that the individual shall have a personality which we call internalized. This does not mean introverted. Internalized personality is one that gets its satisfaction from its own existence - not from close warm personal interaction as we think of it in western society. The ritual formulas obviate the necessity of real interpersonal involvement.

Let’s take, for example, the way we in the United States use formal behvior. There are two kinds of people, for example, that we treat formally - important personages and unimportant personages. If we meet a famous person with a great deal of status, we leave our own personality out of the engagement and take up a set of prescribed formal rules. Our personality does not show through. On the other hand, if we have to deal with somebody below us in status and we do not want to get closely involved with him, we also treat him formally, that is, we keep a distance. We do this by calling him “Mr.” and saying, “Please, Mr. Jones, I would appreciate it greatly if you would clean the floor as soon as you can.” Of course what we are thinking is, “Look you, hop to it or I’ll have your job.”, but to talk that way gives him permission to talk to you in the same way, which would get you involved. That is what we do not want. So, once again, the social forms for interpersonal behavior in Chinese society were developed to ensure privacy, thereby permitting an internalized method of obtaining satisfaction. The formality of politeness in Chinese society has no feeling of politeness in the western sense. It is, in effect a way of keeping a distance between people. We will return to this idea later.

Saving Face and Losing Face
Let’s turn now to two aspects of Chinese behavior with which Americans are familiar. We have words for these in the English language - one is face behavior - saving face and losing face. The other deals with the go-betweens, or the intermediaries which we say the Chinese are fond of using.
First, face behavior. Face behavior is highly formalized interpersonal behavior belonging to rigidly stratified groups. I emphasize this because what I have given you is a technical, specific definition. The terms “loss of face” and “saving face” are generally used as figures of speech by westerners. “Loss of face” is not simply a form of embarrassment. Such an interpretation would be a psychological one, and I am speaking of behavior as a function of group integrity.
Face behavior is power oriented behavior with the purpose of maintaining stability of the small social group - the group with each member in a specified relationship with every other member of the group. There is no concept of equality in Chinese interpersonal relations. For the Chinese, this is natural and proper, and, normally, people accept the position they are in. There are, of course, exceptions to this. An individual of low rank may attempt to unseat a person of higher rank. In so doing, he is attempting to cause the higher ranking person to lose face. That is, he is attempting to cause the higher rank person to lose his power position. If the attempt is successful, the person losing the status position is said to have lost face. “Face” is the Chinese word for one’s social position - a position which carries with it a certain kind of interpersonal power. If a person, whose “face” is threatened, is successful in putting down his adversary’s attempts, he is said to have “saved face”. It is not proper to equate loss of face with embarrassment. In the design of Chinese social structure, one’s ego - one’s personality is spared by separating a status from the individual occupying that status. The Chinese use of formality, which we sometimes mistakenly call politeness, keeps their personalities at a mutually safe distance.

Guan-Xi or "connections"
I will turn now to the second aspect of Chinese behavior, the use of intermediaries. The term I would like to introduce is the Chinese word for this use of intermediaries - guan-xi (pronounced goo-an shee)- literally, “connections”. I use the Chinese term because I have not discovered a satisfactory English equivalent. Guan-xi is a set of mutual obligations. One’s guan-xi, that is the number of and quality of his connections is an important factor in the individual’s social status. Guan-xi rules are designed for relationships between individuals known to one another, and do not apply to the public at large. As with face behavior, guan-xi relationships are small group relationships, that is, face to face. Guan-xi, like face behavior, are obligations between individuals for the purpose of maintenance of group integrity. We Americans become irritated at the prolonged tea drinking rituals that go on when we are trying to engage in some sort of business with the Chinese. We keep thinking, let’s get on with it; let’s get down to business. Well, the Chinese is already down to business. That is, he is evaluating you to see whether you are worthwhile. Relationships are made slowly and cautiously with the Chinese because once made, they are very difficult to break. So, while you are fuming and are restless at the Chinese with his chit-chat and tea drinking, he is sizing you up. He is sizing you up to see how much guan-xi you have, how much status, how well connected you are, or to be cynical, how much you can do for him - except the cynicism is ours, not his. It is not considered exploitation by the Chinese.

Their rules are: one simply does not get involved with people who are not worthwhile and their definition of worthwhile comes from a measure of the other person’s connections, status, guan-xi or his amount of face. Like face behavior situations, the guan-xi obligations or demands may be initiated from the top or the bottom of the hierarchy, but of course the top man has more power. The only way to find how much power a man has is to find out with whom he has guan-xi relationships, that is mutually obligatory connections. Once a guan-xi relationship is established, either party may make demands on the other withoutwarning, and without prior discussion. Of course, the demands have to be reasonable, and within the terms of the contract, so to speak. If one of the parties fails to resond to the request of the other, his status, face, his power, is put in doubt. To refuse a request, one must have a very good reason. It is in these situations of refusal that one hears what we Americans call “double talk” or hypocritical words. We Americans complain that the Chinese will promise anything and deliver nothing. If this happens, it means that you did not have the right to ask the question or to make the request in the first place. In the Chinese view of social relations the concept of harmony is very important - keep things looking smooth. Therefore, the Chinese find it very difficult to come right out with a “no” answer. They will equivocate, generalize, become vague, give you reasons which you will think are irrelevant, rather than say no. In Chinese social relationships, the emphasis is on form rather than content, and if you find yourself getting irrelevant answers to a request, there is no point in pursuing the interrogation or trying to force the Chinese to answer your questions specifically. You will not get a better or more specific answer. He doesn’t understand what you are after because he thinks he has given you the cues of telling you he cannot or will not respond to your request.

The Chinese do not do business with strangers, that is, they cannot interact with people they do not know. This is why it is so important for an individual to have a wide network of connections with people he can go to and make demands of. When a Chinese, let’s say, wants to get a visa permit, it would be inconceivable in his mind to go directly to the visa officer in the U.S. Embassy if he does not know the visa officer. He goes to a friend or to a person with whom he has a guan-xi relationship and makes his request or need known. The friend goes to another friend and so on until a person is found who has a relationship with the visa officer, and then the request is made on behalf of the initiator. We Americans interpret this as using go-betweens for the purpose of avoiding a potentially embarrassing situation if, for instance, the visa officer would refuse to grant the visa. I say that it is incorrect interpretation, however, that causes us to equate loss of face with embarrassment. We mistakenly say that the Chinese use intermediaries so that if the request is turned down, the Chinese will not lose face, that is, will not be embarrassed. I believe that is incorrect. The Chinese use intermediaries for the simple reason I have just stated - that they cannot, or will not do business with strangers. The word intermediary is misleading. These people between the initial requester and the visa officer are part of the tightly woven guan-xi network. The Chinese use intermediaries of another type in other types of situations. For example, the broker. The person hired for a fee, for a one time service, does not have to be and is usually not part of a guan-xi network. These are intermediaries in the American or English sense of the term.

The two concepts, “face” and guan-xi, refer to two aspects of a single social pattern. An individual is evaluated in terms of his social position, i.e. in terms of his personal power. This power is referred to as “face” or the amount of face. Face is measured in terms of guan-xi - the number and the quality of the connections. On the basis of face, people involved in interpersonal situations rank one another. Of course, any individual has various ranks, depending upon the group he is in at the moment. This status is given to him as the result of evaluating his guan-xi.

In a guan-xi relationship, each party has the right to make demands on the other. Each party has the obligation to respond to these demands. If a demand is refused, this can mean several things. It can mean that the person upon whom the demand is being made really does not have the face attributed to him, i.e. he does not have the necessary connections to fulfill the requirement or it can mean the person on whom the demand is being made would like now to terminate his relationship, and this is a hint that the relationship is over.

It is important to keep the network active. You have to make demands on the other person, otherwise, he cannot make demands on you. Once again, we Americans have trouble with this. We are reluctant to make demands on other people because we are fearful of getting obligated in some way, but to a Chinese, our refusal to ask them favors is confusing. Once they have evaluated us and have decided we have enough face and guan-xi to be significant, they may initiate a relationship.
Yet we won’t play the game. We rarely make demands of them. They interpret this as is interest on our part. Therefore, after they have made a few unrequited requests of us, they wander away. Of course, before they have wandered away, we have probably honored their requests, feeling taken - exploited. This is unfortunate because it is usually incorrect. The feeling comes from our own inadequacy and inability to make demands upon the other party. I have already mentioned that if you ask a person to do something and he doesn’t do it or if he gives you vague or irrelevant answers, then either you do not have a guan-xi relation with him, or your guan-xi is not strong enough to make that kind of request. There are other predictable effects of making a request of an individual with whom you have no guan-xi. The other person will redefine the request. He will do something irrelevant. This is a hint that you have asked the wrong person.

The Chinese divide the world into two types of people - the ones with whom they have guan-xi, and everybody else. To westerners, there appears to be a great discrepancy between the behavior of the Chinese towards people they know and towards the public in general. This discrepancy leads Americans to say “life is cheap in Asia”, and that no one takes care of the sick and the crippled and the starving. Contrary to these beliefs, the Chinese do take care of each other, but they take care of only those people they know. A Chinese would think it foolish to go over to a stranger who is lying in the street, injured and offer help. A relationship, made without prior necessary information is considered a very dangerous and cumbersome thing. It is partly for this reason, I believe, that Chinese public behavior seems so callous to us. The Chinese make derogatory remarks about foreigners whom they see on the street but whom they do not know. This is “no guan-xi” behavior - behavior toward strangers. Strangers are not people. Strangers do not deserve courtesy, politeness, consideration, and so forth, because they are not people. If, however, a foreigner walks up to a Chinese and asks him a question, his behavior changes. It changes because the situation changes. Now there is a face-to-face relationship. The foreign stranger is now seen as a guest in his country and the Chinese will suddenly become courteous and helpful. This also drives Americans to distraction. We label this change “hypocrisy”. The same Chinese who was yelling “foreign devil” at us a minute ago is now suddenly becoming very helpful. This is obviously hypocrisy, we say. I say it is not hypocrisy. I’d say the situation has changed.

I hope I am not begging the question, but it seems to me that this guan-xi concept is very pervasive in Chinese behavior. For example, if you give directions to a taxi driver as an order, most of the time there will be a lot of confusion in getting to your destination. If, however, you give the directions and then ask something to the effect “do you agree with this, is this the correct way to go?”, the driver will say “yes” and almost invariably he will go directly to your destination without interruption. I think this is kind of an ad hoc guan-xi relationship. You have made a contract with this man. Of course, it’s a one time contract and it’s of short duration, but it is in the same framework - the same set of values that requires the more elaborate guan-xi relationship.
Now a new topic: The area of meta-linguistics - that is, behavior which is associated with language but is not sound itself - hand gestures, facial expressions, the distance between people when they are talking face-to-face, and so forth. These are the kinds of things that Edward T. Hall talks about in his book, Silent Language, and that Benjamin L. Whorf wrote about some 25 or 30 years ago. For example, when a Chinese points to himself saying, “who me?”, he points to his nose. We point to our chests. If you’re speaking Chinese but your hand gestures are English, you may confuse your audience. When one wants to stress a point when speaking English, one raises his voice. He says it strongly and more loudly. In Chinese, to raise one’s voice means to become angry. That’s all it means. It never carries the idea of stressing a point. To stress a point in Chinese, one rubs his finger along-side his nose.

Food Manipulation. At Chinese meals people are forever exchanging morsels of food. I think this is not to make sure everybody tastes everything but it is a way of keeping in contact with other people at the table. Food manipulation seems very important to the Chinese. You must offer him some of your food. He on the other hand will offer you some of his and you must take it. To refuse it means you are refusing his attentions. It’s no good to say, “I am not hungry”, or “I don’t like that”. You’re being insulting to do so.

Personal Greetings. When one says “hello” to a Chinese, one must look him right in the eye. If he comes into the room, you must look at him when you say “hello”. You must also stop what you are doing and devote your entire attention to him. This is not necessary among Americans. If we know a person well, we can continue with our work while talking to him.
The Chinese give very definite cues when they are unhappy and have problems. This is contrary to the American way of doing things. We tend to keep our problems to ourselves, and an American who wears his problems on his sleeve is considered a tiresome crybaby. If a Chinese gives you an indication of being unhappy or of having problems, you must inquire about them. He may want nothing more than a sounding board. I have just been saying what not to do, and what to do in relation to Chinese behavior. This seemingly contradicts my initial position that you can use this information to emulate Chinese behavior, or to accommodate to Chinese expectations, or that you can use it to circumvent the Chinese, or to subvert them - it doesn’t matter. When I say do this or don’t do that, I am assuming a desire to get along with the Chinese on their own terms. There may be reasons for not wanting to do this, in which case you make your own rules, but with the information I’ve given you, you will have some idea of the areas in which the confusion and antagonism will lie if you cannot satisfy Chinese expectations.
Now, more on meta-linguistics. There are two ways of handing someone an object. You may use both hands to grasp the object or you may use one hand. Two hands is a polite way. If you use both hands in giving money to a store clerk, the clerk simply cannot the money in your presence to make sure it is sufficient. Of course, handing money to a store clerk as if it were a gift is really inappropriate. Try this as an experiment: Hand a Chinese clerk your money with two hands. Then again, in another store, hand the clerk the money with one hand. If it is with one hand, the clerk will quickly check to see that it is adequate. With two hands, if you tell him this is the exact amount, he cannot count it. Try it.
Who precedes whom through a doorway? In the American ethic, the man who goes through the door first is receiving courtesy. With the Chinese it may be the opposite. Let’s go back and talk about face behavior. In any interpersonal encounter, each of the people involved is ranked relative to the others. The person who comes out with the higher status has the right to dictate the general terms of the interpersonal relationship. If there is a contest as to who goes out the door first, the person who succeeds in dictation the terms of that situation, that is, the person who finally determines who goes first, wins the contest. He has the higher status. So, when the Chinese is behaving towards you in what you consider a polite manner, remember what I said earlier about politeness, and formality. Remember what I’ve said about face behavior and think twice about whether you want to go through the door first.

Edward T. Hall has made some interesting observations about proxemics - the study of man’s spacial relationships. Hall points out that people in different societies stand different distances from one another when they are talking to one another. If you, an American, go into a small neighborhood Chinese Post Office, you will find that you are the only one in the office on the outside of the counter. All the other people who are Chinese will be around back with the postal clerk buying stanps, chit-chatting back and forth. If a Chinese comes into your office the you’re sitting at your desk and there is a chair beside the desk or in front of the desk opposite you, the Chinese will move the chair around to sit beside you. He will look at the papers you have on your desk.
The Chinese seem to assume that if an individual requires privacy, it is incumbent upon him to ensure it. If you don’t want to be seen you put up the screen. If you don’t, the Chinese feel no compulsion to avert their eyes. Now we get into trouble on this. We, again Americans, get into trouble on this because we have the opposite view that somehow the public, strangers, other people have an obligation not to intrude. Several years ago, in Taiwan, an American Army sergeant shot a Chinese whom he accused of being a Peeping Tom - of looking in the bathroom window and watching his wife take a shower. The American’s behavior bewildered the Chinese public. Their retort was simply, “Well, if she didn’t want to be seen, why didn’t she put a blind over the window?” The fact that the Chinese Peeping Tom may have had to climb a fence and stand on a wooden box is irrelevant. You will find, e.g., that if you have papers in your hand, whether they have anything to do with the Chinese opposite you at the time, this man will seek to find out what is in the papers. If you don’t want him to know, that’s your problem. Don’t let him see the papers.

For the next few minutes I would like to discuss certain complaints Americans make about Chinese. I do this as a way of introducing some new information about Chinese behavior and as a way of reviewing and putting into context some of the things I have said earlier.
These complaints that Americans make are neither right nor wrong. They are not justified or unjustified. These complaints are symptoms, and indications that the Chinese and American societies do things differently. The Americans say, e.g., that the Chinese do not benefit from technical training; that they seem never to learn to construct or to repair modern equipment. The Chinese do not employ maintenance programs. Machines are used until they become inoperative and then a request for replacement is sent to the sponsoring U.S. agency. The Chinese do not adhere to formal organizational structures in the performance of operations, and it is very difficult to determine the line of responsibility in a Chinese operation. Cooperation between Chinese organizations themselves is rare and so U.S. agencies dealing with more than one Chinese department are handicapped. The Chinese will accept an agreement in a face-to-face meeting but will ignore it afterwards. Although the Chinese initiate most of the suggestions for advice or assistance, they sedom accept advice and seldom use financial and material aid in the prescribed manner. The Chinese seldom carry out a task according to specifications. They are satisfied with an approximation. In public, the Chinese stare and point at foreigners and use derisive terms referring to anyone who is not Chinese.

The discrepancy between public and private behavior towards foreigners is really the starting point for attempting to explain the behavior Americans find inexplicable. If there is one basic trait of non-western society, it must surely be the division made between strangers and friends. Strangers, whether foreign or native, are of an impersonal character. Friends, whether foreign or native, are partners in a binding reciprocal obligation relationship. There is a middle category which we could call acquaintances. Foreigners are usually in this class. It is towards these middle ground people that the native is polite, that is, from whom he keeps his distance. Empty promises are made as a matter of form. No one should expect them to be honored. The other type of agreement-breaking, in which specifications are modified beyond recognition, is caused, in some cases, by indifference to details. Asians are often more concerned with using the job at hand as an opportunity to activate their mutual obligation relationships. The importance of interpersonal connections and the corresponding lack of interest in persons not involved in the network would seem to underlie the rather cool public treatment of foreigners and the alleged propensity for nepotism and kickbacks in financial transactions.

All contents on this website are copyrighted ESI 1981-2003
If quoting any part of this site, reference must be given to ESI.