Core Brief: Why the U.S. and China Can’t See Eye to Eye
Culture—not just power—is driving the deepening the divide
The US and China are locked in a growing rivalry. The US is losing power and China is taking its place. From trade wars and chip bans to competing alliances and defense escalations, the tension is strong, but the misunderstanding is stronger.
While each country sees its actions as logical, the other sees them as threatening. That’s geopolitics, and the driver behind geopolitics is culture.
What’s Happening
In the past six months, the US has applied tariffs and restrictions on China, citing everything from national security concerns to trade imbalance to “unfairness”. China responded with retaliatory tariffs, export controls on rare earth metals, and escalated military exercises near Taiwan. At the same time, China is building economic blocs through BRICS expansion, ASEAN, the Belt and Road Initiative, and new alliances with Japan, South Korea, Central Asian, and African nations. America is isolating, extracting itself from global trade and diplomacy.
Beneath the policy moves are two incompatible cultural strategies. The primary divider may be individualism vs. collectivism. If individualistic America cannot dictate what other nations do, it prefers to do it by itself. Collectivist China seeks to work with other nations. The cooperation may not always be equal, but it does not dictate or force.
This is just one example of how differing cultural perspectives drive policy, action, and tension between nations
The Cultural Perspective
American culture is shaped by extreme individualism (Hofstede), where freedom, autonomy, and the right to challenge authority are core values. Success is measured by personal achievement, and rules are applied universally (Trompenaars). Fairness means equal treatment, regardless of context. Communication is low-context (Hall), favoring directness, speed, and clarity. Contracts, deadlines, and bottom lines matter more than relationships.
The US reflects Schwartz’s mastery orientation: nature and systems exist to be harnessed. American decision-making is driven by an internal direction (Trompenaars), problems are obstacles to be solved, not endured. This leads to rapid policy shifts, strong market reactions, and a belief in constant reinvention. Leadership is challenged, not followed.
American leadership culture mirrors the power-seeker and the scholar. It seeks to lead through the force of the individual, measurable results, and global influence.
Chinese culture is collectivist (Hofstede), where harmony, duty, and group identity override personal ambition. Status matters, and decisions are shaped by context and relationships, an indicator of particularism (Trompenaars). Communication is high-context (Hall); much is said without words. Trust is built slowly. Hierarchy is expected.
Schwartz’s harmony orientation shapes China’s preference for balance, not disruption. China is externally directed (Trompenaars), adapting to the environment and timing rather than imposing control. Stability is the goal, not speed. Policies are built for the long term. Challenges are handled quietly, with respect for process, not confrontation.
Its cultural ethos blends the guardian with the caregiver. It prioritizes duty, cohesion, and long-term sustainability over personal ambition or disruptive change.
Cultural Contrasts
Practical Implications
In business, American firms expect fast negotiations, clear contracts, and measurable outcomes. Chinese firms expect slow relationship building and often interpret speed as disrespect. US business culture prizes efficiency, deadlines, and documented terms. Chinese firms prioritize trust, hierarchy, and informal consensus before formal agreement. Misaligned expectations on timing, disclosure, and authority often derail partnerships before they begin.
US regulators demand transparency and open competition, assuming that a level playing field leads to innovation. China prioritizes national alignment, long-term industrial planning, and market control. What the U.S. views as a violation of market fairness, such as state subsidies or limited data access, China sees as necessary for national strength. This divide influences global norms, from tech regulation to AI ethics to the governance of critical minerals.
In diplomacy, the US sees its actions, such as alliance building or freedom-of-navigation patrols, as supporting liberty and order. China sees them as containment and provocation. Conversely, when China imposes internet controls, promotes Confucian values, or restricts Western media, the US sees censorship and authoritarianism. China sees cultural preservation and state integrity. Military posture, economic strategy, and climate diplomacy are interpreted through opposing cultural frameworks, where one seeks clarity, the other values ambiguity; where one pursues speed, the other trusts time.
Why It Matters
The most dangerous consequence of the US–China rivalry isn’t economic decoupling or military escalation, it’s cultural misinterpretation. When the US deploys naval forces near Taiwan, it sees deterrence; China sees provocation. When China builds infrastructure across Africa, it sees partnership; the US sees strategic encroachment. Each interprets the other’s behavior through its own cultural lens, mistaking caution for weakness, or resolve for aggression. If this misunderstanding continues, cooperation on global challenges like climate change, public health, and AI governance will break down. Global institutions will polarize. Trade blocs will have to choose sides. And misreading intentions could lead to conflict, not by design, but by assumption.
Both nations are exporting not just products, but ways of organizing life. China’s influence is rising in Asia, Africa, and Latin America through infrastructure, education, and long-term development. The US still leads in finance, tech, and defense, but it is increasingly isolated in how it interacts with the world. If it fails to understand China’s cultural logic, it will keep escalating the conflict and losing global trust.
What’s Next?
Expect US–China tensions to escalate. Most global cultures align more with China’s perspective than with America’s. This cultural alignment will accelerate the global balance in China’s favor. In response, the US will grow more defensive, framing China’s expanding partnerships and growing influence as threats. The more influence China gains, the less incentive the US will have to understand it, and the more it will frame it as bellicose and as a justification for retaliation.