Tag: Japanese Culture

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science

jítǐ zhǔyì

jĂ­tǐ zhǔyĂŹ+ ((jí·tǐ gathered; collected · {body [→ [style; form]]} → [collective] 集䜓 集體) (zhǔ·yĂŹ master · meaning → [-ism] äž»äč‰ äž»çŸ©) → [collectivism; community spirit]) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Generally speaking, Western societies are considered to be relatively individualistic, while Eastern societies, like Chinese ones, are considered to be relatively collectivistic, emphasizing the collective, or group, over the individual. This week’s MEotW, “jĂ­tǐ zhǔyĂŹ ((jí·tǐ gathered; collected · {body [→ [style; form]]} → [collective] 集䜓 集體) (zhǔ·yĂŹ master · meaning → [-ism] äž»äč‰ äž»çŸ©) → [collectivism; community spirit])”, seems to be the main Mandarin expression referring to such collectivism. (The MEotW post on “kǒngbĂč huĂłdĂČng ((kǒng·bĂč fearing · terror → [terrorist] 恐怖) (huó·dĂČng living · moving → [activities] æŽ»ćŠš æŽ»ć‹•) → [terrorism; terrorist activities])” contains a brief discussion about some other Mandarin -isms.)

Differences and Possible Causal Factors

While researching this post, I came across a scientific paper that has some interesting information about individualism and collectivism, including some information about measurable regional variations in collectivism that have been found across the Chinese mainland. Here is a quotation from it, regarding individualism and collectivism in general:

The distinction between individualism and collectivism captures important differences in how the relationship between self and others is constructed, as well as whether the individual or the group is understood as the basic unit of analysis (Cross et al., 2011; Hofstede, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2010; Oyserman et al., 2002; Triandis, 1995). People living in individualistic cultural contexts (e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom) tend to pay more attention to the achievement of their own goals and their own uniqueness. They have clear boundaries with others and pursue well-being or life satisfaction by sharing feelings and achieving personal success. In contrast, people living in collectivistic cultural contexts (e.g., China, Japan, and Korea) tend to be more concerned about maintaining harmonious relations with in-group members, and the boundaries between themselves and these others are much less firm. This distinction is reflected in cognition, perception, memory, cultural products, and even brain function (Morling, 2016; Nisbett & Masuda, 2003; Oyserman et al., 2002; Zhu et al., 2007). Many explanations for these differences have been proposed, including cultural heritage (Ma et al., 2016), modernity (Inglehart & Baker, 2000), climato-economic theory (Van de Vliert et al., 2013), the subsistence system (Uskul et al., 2008), the historical risk of infectious disease (Fincher et al., 2008), and geographic and relational mobility (Oishi, 2010).

Later in the paper, the authors divide China into four regions, and present a table listing some factors that may have contributed to the varying degrees of collectivism in those regions.

Triple-Line Framework of variations within China.




Table 1. Ecological Factor Differences Among the Four Regions.

Region I Region II Region III Region IV
Collectivism Lowest Lower Higher Highest
Climate Harsh Harsh Comfortable Comfortable
Water Less Enough Less Enough
Rainfall <400 mm 400–800 mm 400–800 mm >800 mm
Subsistence
system		 Herder Wheat or herder/wheat-blended Wheat Rice
Voluntary
settlement		 No Yes No No
Population
density		 Low Low High High

Pluses and Minuses

Collectivistic societies can have certain good aspects, as expressed by this example sentence from the entry for “xĆ«ntĂĄo+ (xĆ«n·tĂĄo {cure (meat/etc.) with smoke} · {mould (as with clay)} → [influence positively; nurture; edify; train] 熏陶 熏/薰陶)” in Pleco’s built-in dictionary:

ZĂ i jĂ­tǐ zhǔyĂŹ jÄ«ngshĂ©n de xĆ«ntĂĄo xiĂ , hĂĄizimen hĂčxiāng guānxÄ«n, hĂčxiāng bāngzhĂč. [Word division was edited.]

Nurtured in the spirit of collectivism, the children care for each other and help each other.

However, recently, some research has come out that shows that some negative ways of thinking, feeling, and acting are more likely to be displayed by those in collectivistic societies.

To clarify, here is a definition of “zero-sum” :

Of any system where all gains are offset by exactly equal losses.

So, a zero-sum game or system is one in which another must lose for one to win—no win-win situations. That means that if you hold zero-sum beliefs, as, according to the studies referred to in the above post, collectivists are more likely to do, then you will think that any goodness that’s enjoyed by someone else is goodness that’s no longer available to you.

Zero-sum thinking makes it difficult to have true empathy for others who are suffering, and it makes it difficult to follow the Bible counsel at Romans 12:15:

Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep.

Collectivism and the Obsession with Chinese Characters

It seems, then, that there is a connection between collectivism and China’s obsessive refusal so far to move on from Chinese characters to more reasonable and modern writing systems like PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł). Consider this excerpt from my article “PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) Was Plan A”:

In addition to those who feel that phasing out the HĂ nzĂŹ [Chinese characters] would be a regrettable cultural loss, I have also noticed that there are some for whom knowledge of HĂ nzĂŹ is a matter of pride and self-identity. They are proud of knowing the HĂ nzĂŹ as they do, and they view their knowledge of the HĂ nzĂŹ as part of what makes them who they are, as something that distinguishes them from those who don’t know the HĂ nzĂŹ. Such ones may defend the HĂ nzĂŹ to the point of irrationality in the face of a more accessible alternative that would make them and their hard-earned knowledge of HĂ nzĂŹ less “special”, that would threaten to render worthless all of the blood, sweat, and tears they have invested into grappling with these “Chinese puzzles”. It’s as if they are saying, “That’s not fair! If I had to go through all this bitter hard work to learn characters before I could read and write Chinese, then everyone else has to too!”

Self-Identity and Balanced Self-Love

Self-identity is one thing that can particularly be a struggle for those raised in collectivistic societies, since the self is relatatively often neglected in such societies. It’s perhaps not surprising then, that, as mentioned above, in the relatively collectivistic Chinese societies, with their relative paucity, or scarcity, of more healthy ways to build and maintain self-identity, so many have such an unhealthy, obsessive attachment to Chinese characters, as something to desperately hang their neglected self-identities on.

As Jehovah’s organization has commented, for us to follow well the command at Matthew 19:19 to “love your neighbor as yourself”, we must first love ourselves in a healthy way. Also, while Romans 12:3 telling each of us “not to think more of himself than it is necessary to think, but to think so as to have a sound mind” is mainly an admonition against the overly self-important thinking that individualistic societies can tend to promote, it also shows that it is necessary to think a certain amount of ourselves to have a balanced, sound mind.

In turn, it seems that our developing a balanced, healthy view of ourselves can contribute to our avoiding things like zero-sum thinking, and to our developing a balanced, healthy view of Chinese characters. From that balanced, healthy place, we can be free to develop a balanced, healthy view of the possible alternative of PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł), which could empower us to serve Jehovah and help others in the Mandarin field as well as we ought to be able to.

Categories
Culture Current Events History Language Learning Science Technology

xuānchuån

xuānchuĂĄn+ (xuān·chuĂĄn declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] ćźŁäŒ  漣悳) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Several MEotW posts, including last week’s post on “cì’ěr (cÏ’·ěr {stabs; pricks → [irritates; pierces]} · ear → [grating on the ear; jarring; ear-piercing] ćˆșè€ł)”, have mentioned propaganda. So, it seems that it’s about time to consider the Mandarin expression “xuānchuĂĄn (xuān·chuĂĄn declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] ćźŁäŒ  漣悳)”, which is often used to translate “propaganda”.

Morphemic Breakdown

The “xuān (declare; proclaim; announce 柣)” in “xuānchuĂĄn (xuān·chuĂĄn declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] ćźŁäŒ  漣悳)” means “declare; proclaim; announce”, and it also appears in expressions like “xuānbĂč+ (xuān·bĂč declare; proclaim; announce · declare; spread; announce; publish; proclaim 柣枃 柣枃/䜈)”, “xuānjiǎng (xuān·jiǎng declare; proclaim; announce · {speak of → [explain]} 柣èźČ ćźŁèŹ›)”, “xuānyĂĄng (xuān·yĂĄng declare; proclaim; announce · {raise → [make known]} ćźŁæ‰Ź ćźŁæš)”, etc.

The “chuĂĄn ({pass on}; {hand down}; spread; transmit [→ [summon]] 䌠 悳)” in “xuānchuĂĄn (xuān·chuĂĄn declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] ćźŁäŒ  漣悳)” means “pass on; hand down; spread; transmit”, and it also appears in expressions like “chuĂĄndĂ o+ (chuĂĄn·dĂ o spreading · way → [preaching] 䌠道 悳道)”, “ChuĂĄndĂ oshĆ« (ChuĂĄn·dĂ o·shĆ« Spreading · Way · Book → [Ecclesiastes] 䌠道äčŠ ć‚łé“æ›ž)”, “chuĂĄnjiǎng (chuĂĄn·jiǎng spread · {speak of; say; tell} [(that)] 䌠èźČ ć‚łèŹ›)”, “chuĂĄntǒng+ (chuĂĄn·tǒng {passed on} · {gathered together (things) → [interconnected system]} → [tradition | traditional] 䌠统 ć‚łç”±)”, etc.

The above-mentioned morphemes in “xuānchuĂĄn (xuān·chuĂĄn declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] ćźŁäŒ  漣悳)” are both basically verbs, and “xuānchuĂĄn (xuān·chuĂĄn declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] ćźŁäŒ  漣悳)” itself is also basically a verb. However, it’s also used as a noun, making it a verbal noun, or a gerundial noun, in those cases.

How Bad Is It?

As mentioned in the excellent Referenced Theo. Expressions (RTE) resource, “it seems ćźŁäŒ  [xuānchuĂĄn] is a neutral word in Chinese (can be either positive or negative)”. Indeed, the morphemes that make up “xuānchuĂĄn (xuān·chuĂĄn declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] ćźŁäŒ  漣悳)”, mentioned above, are themselves both morally neutral. Like any technology, whether the things that these morphemes represent result in good or harm depends on how they are used. Unfortunately, we are now living in the last days of a world ruled by Satan the Devil, a world filled with self-seeking people who totally would misuse anything that would potentially enable them to exert influence over other people.—2 Timothy 3:1–5; 1 John 5:19.

It should not be surprising, then, that the worldly Chinese governing authorities may at times disseminate what many would recognize as propaganda—biased, misleading distortions of the truth meant to promote certain viewpoints, political or cultural objectives, etc. Add to that how Eastern culture generally encourages people to conform to the group and not question authority, and it’s not surprising that many who grew up marinated in Chinese culture have come to just accept such propaganda as fact, as just the way things are in the Chinese world.

As for the West, even though it has more of a culture of questioning authority, it, along with the world in general that the Internet can reach, has been experiencing a rise in misinformation and disinformation. Social media and other technologies that have become available have given people more power to select what information they want to take in, and, egged on by engagement-seeking algorithms, many have unfortunately chosen to just focus on information sources that tell them what they want to hear, whether it’s true or not. As the Bible foretold long ago:

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.
—2 Timothy 4:3, 4.

As Jehovah’s people, we especially need to be wary of any worldly propaganda, because we want to be the true worshippers spoken of by Jesus, ones who “must worship with spirit and truth”.—John 4:23, 24.

Unfortunately, these days, even something as basically human as language gets politicized, so even just being language learners in the Mandarin field, we still need to watch out for worldly propaganda. Below are a couple of commonly accepted beliefs about the Chinese languages that are actually propaganda, not truth.

Propaganda About “Dialects”

“Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. are just dialects of the one Chinese language.” The truth is that being mutually unintelligible, Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. are really different languages, like French and English are different languages. The erroneous belief that Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. are just dialects of the one Chinese language has been promoted by the worldly central governing authorities in China to bolster the idea that China is indeed one big happy political entity that should have a central government—them.

Historically, though, it wasn’t always the case that there was just one government over the land that China now occupies. That didn’t become the case until QĂ­n ShǐhuĂĄng ((QĂ­n {Qin (dynasty)} 秊) (Shǐ·huĂĄng Beginning · Emperor 構皇) (the founder of the QĂ­n dynasty and the first emperor of China)) conquered the other Warring States—which were peers of his own state of QĂ­n ({Qin (one of the Warring States)} 秊)—and became the first emperor of a forcefully unified China. If it wasn’t for this, China could conceivably have become like modern-day Europe, with several peer states which are recognized as having their own distinct languages and cultures.

So, there is no need to allow the idea that Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. are just dialects to sabotage our efforts to learn Mandarin well by making us think that we can just take Cantonese, etc. and twist it a little to get Mandarin—all we would get then is a twisted mess!

Propaganda and the Characters

“Chinese characters are the primary aspect of the Chinese languages.” The truth is that when it comes to human language, speech is primary, not writing.

However, given how so many people around the world are so enchanted with the visually intricate Chinese characters, some may feel that the characters give China a certain amount of cultural—and maybe even political—soft power. Many also feel that characters have a unifying effect on Chinese people, since they use characters to write even if they speak different Chinese languages, as explained above. Thus, many may also feel that there may be some political advantages to characters for China’s worldly central ruling authorities. So, they may thus be motivated to promote Chinese characters over, say, a system like PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) that doesn’t have the same perceived visual and cultural pizzaz that the characters have, and that is only for Mandarin.

The truth is, though, that there is really no technical requirement for any language, Chinese or otherwise, to be written using Chinese characters—PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) works fine as a writing system for Mandarin without incurring the extraordinary costs in time and effort that the characters do, and separate but similar alphabetical systems can conceivably be designed and used for other Chinese languages as well.

Re the supposed unifying effect of the Chinese characters, there is not necessarily really much of a unifying effect among the Mandarin-speakers, Cantonese-speakers, Japanese-speakers, Korean-speakers, etc. who may use characters to write, any more than the use of the Latin alphabet unifies English-speakers, French-speakers, Italian-speakers, Mandarin-speakers, etc. who may use it to write. An especially stark current example of the relative insignificance of any unifying effect that a script or writing system may have is that unfortunately, Russia and Ukraine have hardly been unified because of their both using the Cyrillic script.

We who are Jehovah’s people in particular don’t need a product of human culture like the Chinese characters to unite us—we are united by the culture of spirit and truth from Jehovah God himself!—John 4:23, 24.

Don’t Be a Gullible “Tourist”!

As Jehovah’s people, let us make sure we are advancing the interests of God’s Kingdom, and not unwittingly serving the interests of worldly Chinese governments. As missionaries and rescue workers in the Mandarin field, and not just tourists (email me for login information, and include information on who referred you and/or what group/cong. you are in), let us be focused on what really helps us to do our God-honouring and life-saving work better. Let us not be misled by the self-serving xuānchuĂĄn (xuān·chuĂĄn declaring · spreading → [propaganda] ćźŁäŒ  漣悳), the propaganda, from Satan’s world.

Categories
Culture Experiences History Language Learning

jī‐tĂłng‐yā‐jiǎng

jī‐tĂłng‐yā‐jiǎng+ ((jÄ« chicken 鞥 雞/鷄)‐(tĂłng {together with} 搌 搌/仝)‐(yā duck éž­ 鎚)‐(jiǎng speaking èźČ èŹ›) → [people not understanding each other because of speaking different languages (from Cantonese)]) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Yes, this expression comes from Cantonese, but the above Mandarin version does appear in Mandarin dictionaries, so it qualifies as a Mandarin expression!]

Recently, while out to dinner with one of the first families to serve in the local Cantonese congregation, along with the circuit overseer serving the local Chinese circuit and his wife, the subject came up of how Mandarin and Cantonese are actually different languages, not just dialects of the same language.

Chickens Talking with Ducks

The wife of the circuit overseer asked what the difference is between a language and a dialect. So, I proceeded to explain something that is emphasized by American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair, that a primary way accepted by most linguists to distinguish a language from a dialect is mutual intelligibility, as is discussed in this excerpt from the MEotW post on “fāngyĂĄn (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] æ–č蚀)”:

It has been said that “a language is a dialect with an army and navy”, but in his article Professor Mair gives us a more linguistically correct and useful way to distinguish between a language and a dialect:

Regardless of the imprecision of lay usage, we should strive for a consistent means of distinguishing between language and dialect. Otherwise we might as well use the two terms interchangeably. That way lies chaos and the collapse of rational discourse. Mutual intelligibility [emphasis added] is normally accepted by most linguists as the only plausible criterion for making the distinction between language and dialect in the vast majority of cases. Put differently, no more suitable, workable device for distinguishing these two levels of speech has yet been proposed. If there are to be exceptions to the useful principle of mutual intelligibility, there should be compelling reasons for them. Above all, exceptions should not be made the rule.

What is mutual intelligibility? Simply put, in linguistics, two or more speech varieties are said to be mutually intelligible if they are “able to be understood by one another’s speakers”. For example, if one person only knows English, and another person only knows Spanish, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—English and Spanish are not mutually intelligible, and are suitably recognized as being different languages, not just different dialects of “European”.

Similarly, if one person only knows Mandarin, and another person only knows Cantonese, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible. So, while they may be “fāngyĂĄn+ (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · {(patterns of) speech} æ–č蚀)”, linguistically, Mandarin and Cantonese should really be considered to be different languages, not just different dialects of “Chinese”.

Indeed, I have heard people use this week’s MEotW, “jī‐tĂłng‐yā‐jiǎng+ ((jÄ« chicken 鞥 雞/鷄)‐(tĂłng {together with} 搌 搌/仝)‐(yā duck éž­ 鎚)‐(jiǎng speaking èźČ èŹ›) → [people not understanding each other because of speaking different languages (from Cantonese)])”, to specifically describe Mandarin-speakers and Cantonese-speakers trying to talk to each other, and not understanding each other. 🐓 🩆

After I explained the gist of the above, one of the daughters of the family at the dinner—who had been labouring for decades under the misconception that Mandarin and Cantonese are just dialects and that someone who knows one can easily learn the other—said, “Now I don’t feel like an idiot.”

Uncommon Knowledge?

It could be said that ones such as this family and this circuit overseer and his wife, who have all worked so hard and served for so long in the Chinese language fields, should already have known such a basic thing about the Chinese languages. However, the following things are unfortunately true:

  • Even publishers who are learning a language to serve in that language’s field generally consider such linguistic (language science) knowledge to be specialized technical knowledge that is beyond what they need to learn, and possibly beyond what they could even comprehend.
  • Western-educated publishers learning a Chinese language may unwittingly go along with the Western worldly tendency to exoticize things related to China. (John DeFrancis, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (p. 37), calls this “Exotic East Syndrome”.) They may be content with—or even enjoy—the alluring veil of mystery and mystique surrounding certain things related to China and Chinese culture. Thus, they don’t seek to learn about and understand deeper truths about such things, that may pierce through this obscuring veil, and burst this bubble.—Compare 2 Corinthians 3:14, including the margin note.
  • The central ruling authorities of China have long actively promoted the scientifically incorrect idea that the different varieties of speech in China are just dialects of the one Chinese language. This idea is political propaganda supporting the idea that it’s good for there to be central ruling authorities in China.
  • Traditional worldly Chinese language instructors and others who are knowledgeable about Chinese languages and Chinese characters are eager to promote and perpetuate the traditional thinking about Chinese languages and characters, that they have invested so much time and effort in, and that they are so proud of.
  • Chinese-educated publishers who are already steeped in the traditional ideas about Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc., and who are thus lauded and deferred to as experts by other publishers, may be eager to simply unquestioningly pass on the cultural knowledge and ideas that they were taught, and that they are lauded and respected for.
  • With so much misinformation “in the air”, including from trusted authority figures, “everyone knows” that there is one Chinese language, with dialects that include Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. Since “everyone knows” this, it’s easy to just go along with it, especially in an Eastern culture like the Chinese culture that emphasizes conforming to the group. As Eastern cultures, Japanese, Korean, etc. cultures are similar in this respect, so publishers from those cultural backgrounds may also tend to just go along with what “everyone knows” about there being just one Chinese language that has various dialects.—Ephesians 2:2.
  • The Bible makes it clear that Satan the Devil is “a liar and the father of the lie”. It also describes him as “the great dragon
who is misleading the entire inhabited earth”. So, while we can only speculate about the details of what strings are purposely pulled in the spirit realm by Satan and his demons as opposed to what human folly they simply passively observe, we can be sure that Satan is delighted with all the ways in which people are misled in and about the Chinese culture, in which the dragon is considered a positive, revered symbol.—John 8:44; Revelation 12:9.

So, for reasons such as the above, even the basic linguistic truth that Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. actually function as different languages is unfortunately not yet common knowledge among those serving in the Chinese fields. As the saying goes, which some say is a Chinese proverb, “error will travel over half the globe, while truth is pulling on her boots”.

Jesus said, though, that true worshippers worship “with spirit and truth”, and that “the truth will set you free”. With regard to Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc., the truth about them can even set one free from unnecessarily feeling like an “idiot”, as the sister mentioned above so eloquently put it, because of labouring under all the political propaganda, traditions, and other kinds of misinformation and wrong thinking that unfortunately surround Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc.—John 4:23; 8:32.

Huge Worldwide Effects

In addition to being hugely freeing for individual language learners, spreading the truth about the Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc. is also important on a larger scale, since the worldwide Mandarin field, for one, is the largest language field in the world, and probably the largest language field that has ever existed in human history. For comparison, according to Ethnologue, a resource on world languages, the worldwide Mandarin field (those worldwide whose mother tongue is Mandarin) is about twice the size of the second largest worldwide language field, the Spanish field, and it’s about two and a half times the size of the third largest worldwide language field, the English field. Allowing various untruths to continue to divert and bog down the language-learning efforts of those who come to help in the worldwide Mandarin field can have incalculable overall negative effects on the preaching work in this enormous field.

Chart: Languages by First-Language Speakers—2019

So, even as we hang on to Bible truth, let us also hang on to the linguistic truths that we learn, and let us do what we can to share them with our fellow workers in the vast worldwide Chinese fields.