I’m an American who has lived in China since 2012. I can say confidently that there is enough truth to reasons 1, 3 and 4 that I’m not going to waste any time criticizing them. However, while there may be lip service given to reasons 2 & 5, in practical day to day terms nothing could be further from the truth. The population density has created a situation in which other people are treated with complete indifference. If you don’t know someone’s name then you treat them no differently than you would a rock or a an old stump. And society here, at least in the last 20 years or so, ever since the carrot-on-a-stick of upward mobility has been dropped in front of their faces, has degraded to a constant and vicious game of oneupmanship and keeping up with the Joneses, except that most people still don’t have the ability to become affluent, so they resort to bragging and lying and tearing each other down in order to appear a little higher in the pecking order than their neighbors. This state of affairs is more prevalent in the villages than the cities, but the villagers still make up the vast majority of the population.
Thanks for the on-the-ground perspective. You raise a real point, but I think two things are getting conflated.
On reason 2: Schwartz separates benevolence from universalism. Benevolence is concern for the in-group, family, friends, colleagues, the people whose names you know. Universalism is concern for all people, including strangers. China sits high on benevolence and low on universalism. The U.S. is closer to the inverse. So when a Chinese person treats a stranger like an old stump, that does not contradict benevolence. It is consistent with it. The circle of care is tight and intense, not broad and shallow. The same person who ignores a stranger on the street will sacrifice for their family, their company, or a respected official in ways most Americans would not.
On reason 5, you are closer to a real critique. The status competition you describe is happening, and it is worth naming. But it is not evidence that Chinese culture has flipped to American achievement values. It is evidence of what happens when a quality-of-life culture meets forty years of rapid economic mobility. The keeping-up-with-the-Joneses behavior you see is downstream of the carrot you mention, and it is concentrated among people who have not yet captured the gains. Hofstede's dimensions describe central tendencies. They do not predict every behavior in every village during a once-in-a-century economic transition.
Your rural-urban distinction matters too. Cultural dimensions are national averages. Variation within a country of 1.4 billion is significant, and rural China is going through its own distinct shift right now.
None of this changes the original argument. A Chinese citizen's deference to government does not become coercion just because village life includes status games. Those are separate phenomena, and Americans still read the first one wrong.
I agree with you on every point. On the condition that a Chinese person knows your name you can expect some of the most polite and generous behavior you’ve ever experienced. The drastic contrast between the treatment you see between people who know each other and between strangers can be quite shocking, though.
My wife grew up in the 90s in a village in Anhui Province and she can attest that the change in status competition has increased drastically over the past twenty years. I think the big change came when some people were able to purchase cars. It made those without a car feel worthless, and a vicious war of getting stuff and shitting on the stuff that other people got then ensued.
You definitely don’t get the feeling of an overbearing government in everyday life here. For the most part people are carefree and spend a lot more time enjoying each other’s company outdoors than do Americans. The only exception comes in the case of the free flow of information. One really cannot speak freely about politics without fear of repercussion, and the limitations on access to the internet really are brutal.
I have no idea if it's the same when it comes to your take on China, but most of what you said about the US is really "in theory"
That was true in several places, but I'll just throw out one example of what I mean
A lot of Americans despise individual freedom to the point they expect the government to rob others of the freedom to do some--thing despite the fact other people doing said thing has zero impact on them either directly or indirectly
You are right, and the framework actually predicts what you are describing.
American individualism in cultural theory is not the same as libertarian non-interference. It measures self-reliance, personal achievement, and individual identity over group identity. It does not measure tolerance for what other people choose to do.
The behavior you describe is better explained by Trompenaars' universalism dimension. The U.S. sits at the high end. Universalist cultures believe rules should apply to everyone equally. If I believe X is wrong, then X must be wrong for everyone, and the law must reflect that. Particularist cultures, like much of Asia and Latin America, are more comfortable with rules that apply differently to different people in different contexts. So an American who wants to ban a behavior they personally find wrong, even when it does not affect them, is not contradicting American individualism. They are expressing American universalism.
There is also a longer pattern at work. The U.S. has carried two competing traditions since its founding: the Jeffersonian libertarian strand and the Puritan moralistic strand. Both are American. Both shape policy. The individualism frame captures the first. It does not erase the second.
On the broader point about theory versus practice. Cultural dimensions describe central tendencies and relative positions, not absolute purity. The U.S. is more individualist than China. That is empirically supported. It does not mean every American behaves like a consistent libertarian, and it does not mean every Chinese citizen suppresses personal preference. The dimensions explain the dominant pattern and the gap between two cultures, not the behavior of every person on either side.
So your observation is accurate. The interpretation that it contradicts the framework is where I would push back. The framework anticipates it.
That's interesting. That tendency to believe "if I believe x is wrong then it must be wrong for everyone" is in direct contradiction to "Americanism". 🇺🇸 Is supposed to be the "land of the free".
The nuance is that, when there are rules, those rules apply to everyone equally as opposed to the "I don't like it so nobody should be able to do it" reality
There are conflicts throughout US culture. You're certainly right about the libertarian vs puritan aspect. It took me leaving the US to really see just how pervasive and influential (and, in my opinion, highly destructive) the puritanical aspect still is within American culture
I think the inherent contradiction between "America" the idea/ideal and the reality of the "United States" causes severe cognitive dissonance for a lot of people. Maybe that's part of the reason the US has such widespread drug use 😆 (both legal and illegal)
I’m an American who has lived in China since 2012. I can say confidently that there is enough truth to reasons 1, 3 and 4 that I’m not going to waste any time criticizing them. However, while there may be lip service given to reasons 2 & 5, in practical day to day terms nothing could be further from the truth. The population density has created a situation in which other people are treated with complete indifference. If you don’t know someone’s name then you treat them no differently than you would a rock or a an old stump. And society here, at least in the last 20 years or so, ever since the carrot-on-a-stick of upward mobility has been dropped in front of their faces, has degraded to a constant and vicious game of oneupmanship and keeping up with the Joneses, except that most people still don’t have the ability to become affluent, so they resort to bragging and lying and tearing each other down in order to appear a little higher in the pecking order than their neighbors. This state of affairs is more prevalent in the villages than the cities, but the villagers still make up the vast majority of the population.
Thanks for the on-the-ground perspective. You raise a real point, but I think two things are getting conflated.
On reason 2: Schwartz separates benevolence from universalism. Benevolence is concern for the in-group, family, friends, colleagues, the people whose names you know. Universalism is concern for all people, including strangers. China sits high on benevolence and low on universalism. The U.S. is closer to the inverse. So when a Chinese person treats a stranger like an old stump, that does not contradict benevolence. It is consistent with it. The circle of care is tight and intense, not broad and shallow. The same person who ignores a stranger on the street will sacrifice for their family, their company, or a respected official in ways most Americans would not.
On reason 5, you are closer to a real critique. The status competition you describe is happening, and it is worth naming. But it is not evidence that Chinese culture has flipped to American achievement values. It is evidence of what happens when a quality-of-life culture meets forty years of rapid economic mobility. The keeping-up-with-the-Joneses behavior you see is downstream of the carrot you mention, and it is concentrated among people who have not yet captured the gains. Hofstede's dimensions describe central tendencies. They do not predict every behavior in every village during a once-in-a-century economic transition.
Your rural-urban distinction matters too. Cultural dimensions are national averages. Variation within a country of 1.4 billion is significant, and rural China is going through its own distinct shift right now.
None of this changes the original argument. A Chinese citizen's deference to government does not become coercion just because village life includes status games. Those are separate phenomena, and Americans still read the first one wrong.
I agree with you on every point. On the condition that a Chinese person knows your name you can expect some of the most polite and generous behavior you’ve ever experienced. The drastic contrast between the treatment you see between people who know each other and between strangers can be quite shocking, though.
My wife grew up in the 90s in a village in Anhui Province and she can attest that the change in status competition has increased drastically over the past twenty years. I think the big change came when some people were able to purchase cars. It made those without a car feel worthless, and a vicious war of getting stuff and shitting on the stuff that other people got then ensued.
You definitely don’t get the feeling of an overbearing government in everyday life here. For the most part people are carefree and spend a lot more time enjoying each other’s company outdoors than do Americans. The only exception comes in the case of the free flow of information. One really cannot speak freely about politics without fear of repercussion, and the limitations on access to the internet really are brutal.
I have no idea if it's the same when it comes to your take on China, but most of what you said about the US is really "in theory"
That was true in several places, but I'll just throw out one example of what I mean
A lot of Americans despise individual freedom to the point they expect the government to rob others of the freedom to do some--thing despite the fact other people doing said thing has zero impact on them either directly or indirectly
You are right, and the framework actually predicts what you are describing.
American individualism in cultural theory is not the same as libertarian non-interference. It measures self-reliance, personal achievement, and individual identity over group identity. It does not measure tolerance for what other people choose to do.
The behavior you describe is better explained by Trompenaars' universalism dimension. The U.S. sits at the high end. Universalist cultures believe rules should apply to everyone equally. If I believe X is wrong, then X must be wrong for everyone, and the law must reflect that. Particularist cultures, like much of Asia and Latin America, are more comfortable with rules that apply differently to different people in different contexts. So an American who wants to ban a behavior they personally find wrong, even when it does not affect them, is not contradicting American individualism. They are expressing American universalism.
There is also a longer pattern at work. The U.S. has carried two competing traditions since its founding: the Jeffersonian libertarian strand and the Puritan moralistic strand. Both are American. Both shape policy. The individualism frame captures the first. It does not erase the second.
On the broader point about theory versus practice. Cultural dimensions describe central tendencies and relative positions, not absolute purity. The U.S. is more individualist than China. That is empirically supported. It does not mean every American behaves like a consistent libertarian, and it does not mean every Chinese citizen suppresses personal preference. The dimensions explain the dominant pattern and the gap between two cultures, not the behavior of every person on either side.
So your observation is accurate. The interpretation that it contradicts the framework is where I would push back. The framework anticipates it.
That's interesting. That tendency to believe "if I believe x is wrong then it must be wrong for everyone" is in direct contradiction to "Americanism". 🇺🇸 Is supposed to be the "land of the free".
The nuance is that, when there are rules, those rules apply to everyone equally as opposed to the "I don't like it so nobody should be able to do it" reality
There are conflicts throughout US culture. You're certainly right about the libertarian vs puritan aspect. It took me leaving the US to really see just how pervasive and influential (and, in my opinion, highly destructive) the puritanical aspect still is within American culture
I think the inherent contradiction between "America" the idea/ideal and the reality of the "United States" causes severe cognitive dissonance for a lot of people. Maybe that's part of the reason the US has such widespread drug use 😆 (both legal and illegal)