Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.5 Interpersonal relationship in Chinese societies
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
18
of Chinese societies. Chinese social network is operated under a complex cultural mechanism.
Guanxi as an indigenous construct of interpersonal relationship may shed some lights on understanding the way social networks function in Chinese societies. The most fundamental idea underlying the Chinese social networks is concept of lun (倫). Understanding it is significant for exploring Chinese social networks. Thus the discussion Chinese social networks will start from lun concept.
2.5 Interpersonal relationship in Chinese societies
There are two major concepts in any discussion of social networks in Chinese societies: “lun”
(倫) and guanxi (關係). The origin of lun concept can be traced back the classical text of Confucianism. Guanxi is relatively a modern expression. The usage of the term “guanxi” and the relevant studies began to receive research attention at the early stage of economic reform in China. However, the scope of guanxi research has extended over the decades from dominantly instrumental to the general perception of interpersonal relationships in Chinese societies. The two concepts are related but not the same, it is like the two sides of a coin Pan (1948) indicates the major features of lun in Confucianism are differentiation between individuals and the types of relations which should be built between individuals. The most fundamental idea underlying the concept of lun is differentiation (別)(King, 1991). Role relations for individuals distinguish in accordance to different lun. Social order is maintained when everyone behaves in the appropriate role.
In the Book of Rites (禮記), the ten relationships: gods and ghost, ruler and subject, father and son, the noble and humble, the close and distant, the rewarded and punished, husband and wife, public and private affairs, seniors and juniors, superiors and inferiors are fundamental types of human relationships. Everyone should know his or her place and behave accordingly (Fei, 1992).
Based on lun concept, Fei (1992) was the first anthropologist to propose the concept of different mode of association (差序格局) to explain interpersonal relationship in Chinese societies in 1947. Interpersonal relationships in Chinese societies are base on different foundation. Different bases lead to different principles in interaction. Kinship is the primary determining factor for the closeness or distance, those related by blood or marriage located in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
19
the circle closest to the core. This is called zijiren ( 自 己 人 ). However it is not an impermeable circle. Zijiren is often used to indicate the closeness between the two, and anyone can be added to that primary circle under different circumstances or context. The networks in Chinese societies are elastic with the self constantly at the core of circle (Fei, 2007)
Fei (1992) made a comparison on the concept of relations between Western and Chinese societies. He points out that all members in an organization of Western societies are equivalent, similar to straws in a bundle. He called it organizational mode of association (團 體格局). By contrast, social relationships in Chinese societies are self-centered, “like the ripples formed from a stone thrown into a lake, each circle spreading out from the center becomes more distant and at the same time more insignificant” (Fei, 1992).
The fundamental idea of lun is still deeply embedded in the Chinese social system today.
Chen and Chen (2004) point out the various aspects of lun in Chinese societies. First meaning of lun is about human relationships. Human is not seen as independent entity, but exist in relation to others. The second meaning of lun is social order. Social order can be interpreted hierarchically and horizontally. In hierarchical differentiation, certain members enjoy some privilege, such as ruler over subject, father over son, husband over wife, senior over junior.
Horizontally, everyone is the core of their own social network. Others are differentiated in terms of their closeness to the self. Lun also refers to moral principles dominating the interaction between individuals. Moral principles are differentiated in correspondence with the differentiated relationships (Chen & Chen, 2004).
At early stage of economic reform in China, the mechanism of market economy is far beyond mature. Law and regulation system is in transition period. There are things that cannot be done or achieved by proper procedures, people rely on guanxi to achieve their goals (King, 1991). According to a Chinese saying: “It is not who you are, it is who you know that counts”. This shows the importance of guanxi in Chinese societies.
Guanxi is constituted of two characters, “guan” (關) literally means close, barrier, concern, involve; “xi” ( 係 ) means connection, bind and relation. Literally guanxi means
“particularistic ties” (Jacobs, 1979), “personal connections,” “interpersonal relationships”.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
20
Guanxi research at this early stage is perceived as instrumental ties between individuals. The scopes of guanxi behaviour/norm are focused on the gift-giving behaviour as the primary means to gain access to limited resources (Yan, 1996a). Mayfair Yang (1994) pointed out the exchange nature of guanxixue by saying “guanxixue or art of guanxi places an emphasis on the binding power and emotional and ethical qualities of personal relationships” (p.4).
Fieldwork had been conducted in various villages/cities in different part of China. Yan (1996b) investigates the moral principles and cultural logic underlying the gift-giving structure/system in a village in northern China.
The concept of guanxi takes a turn as the economic power of China becomes stronger.
Attracted by the huge market potential, Western investment started to channel into Chinese market. However, some of the initial explorations were baffled. Cultural difference is considered one of the major problems. Thus guanxi caught the attention of Western academia, research attention had been paid to guanxi and organizational communication. On the other hand, research on guanxi from a larger scope, seeing it as indigenous construct of interpersonal relationships also prospered. This enables the guanxi concept to develop beyond the limitation of instrumental ties in a gift economy.
Guanxi has been interpreted “as an indigenous Chinese construct and define it as an informal, particularistic personal connection between two individuals who are bounded by an implicit psychological contract to follow the social norm of guanxi such as maintaining a long term relationship, mutual commitment, loyalty, and obligation” (Chen & Chen, 2004, p.306) . Luo (2000) indicates that there are several important principles underlying building and maintaining guanxi. First, guanxi is transferable. Two individuals that have a shared acquaintance may initiate guanxi through the introduction or recommendation of the connecting person. Guanxi is reciprocal and intangible. People in a guanxi are committed to the invisible reciprocity norm in the long run. Guanxi is a utilitarian concept that emphasizes exchange of favors, instead of sentiment. Guanxi is also personal ties building on the anticipation for long term development (Luo, 2000). Luo (2000) examines guanxi from the instrumental perspective which portrayed guanxi as an instrument for resources/social exchange.
Hwang (1987) develops a theoretical model of interpersonal relationship of Chinese societies.
He categorizes interpersonal relationships into three types: the expressive tie, the instrumental
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
21
tie, and the mixed tie. The types of tie will determine which interaction principle is applicable.
The expressive tie generally refers to extended and stable social relationship, including immediate family members, and close friends. This is the core group of an individual‟s guanxi network. The need rule dominates the interaction within expressive ties. The instrumental tie refers to the relationship one has to establish with others outside of the core circles target to fulfil his or her material or service needs. This relationship is usually unstable and temporary, for example between salesmen and customer. The equity rule is fundamental for this type of guanxi in which one will question what are the cost and reward (Hwang, 1987).
Next is the mixed tie, also called particularistic tie, is the mixture of expressive and instrumental ties. The perception of favor (人情) and face (面子) are most frequently used in this type of relationship. It occurs chiefly among relatives, neighbours, colleagues and so on.
The bases perspective considered guanxi is determining not only the interaction pattern also the potential development of guanxi. It is easier for a relationship of instrumental tie to become mixed tie, but always difficult to change from relationship of mixed tie to expressive tie. This is because expressive tie involves a much deeper sense of trust between members that may not exist in mixed tie (Hwang, 1987).
Yang (1995) also distinguishes relationship into three categories: family, acquaintance and strangers. There are different principles of interaction associate with different ties, responsibility for family, favor for acquaintances as well as gain and loss for strangers.
Ye (2004) distinguishes two most distinctive dyads of complementary interpersonal relationships in Chinese societies: acquaintance (熟人) vs. stranger (生人) and one of us (自 己人) vs. outsider (外人). Through frequent social interaction over a period of time, a stranger may become acquaintance but does not necessarily shift from outsider to one of us which has fixed boundary.
Viewing guanxi as mechanism to facilitate social exchange may be an oversimplification of concept of guanxi. It overlooks the rich cultural connotation and complexity of guanxi and the sentimental attributes of guanxi. Seeing interpersonal relations in Chinese societies simply performing the role imposed by hierarchy or obligation prescribed by lun in maintaining social order also disregards the dynamics of dyadic relationship between
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
22
individuals. Thus the dyadic perspective may contribute to understanding of information sharing as it is integral part of interaction between individuals (Chen & Chen, 2004).
Yang (2001a) points out that the limitation of categorical view on guanxi is seeing the core circle with fixed boundary that eliminates the possibility of others to become one. The boundary of various circles is flexible in correspondence with the context, and it is up to the individual to define and distinguish. The emphasis of categorical approach is placed on connection between guanxi categorization and interaction mode. Guanxi or the interaction itself and their operation model are unexplored.
Interpersonal interaction is largely determined by self-other relationship. Although individuals generally consider themselves as members of a collective which is a central feature of collectivism, however the concept of the collective is non-existent in Confucianism.
The absence of “group” concept leads to a void of guiding principle for interaction between self and those with no relationship. Individuals are the central of their own social network in a concentric pattern. The layer closest to the core is the strongest tie, and as layers move further away from the core they become less and less significant. Moreover, each relationship is unique one way or another (Wang & Liu, 2010).
The definition of relationship between individuals is fluid and roles can change following reciprocal interactions between the self and the “other” involved. Underlying this fluidity of relationships is the principle of reciprocity or “報” (repay, retribution) in the Chinese culture (Wang & Liu, 2010). The concept of bao is not only applicable in self-significant others relations, it is generally applied in all self-other relations.
Confucianism emphasizes both interdependence and self-reliance (Wang & Liu, in press). At first glance, the Confucian seems to put conflicting demands on Chinese individual. On one hand, individual is supposed to fulfil one‟s obligations impose by social position. On the other hand, the individual self is at the core of concentric circles, relationships are determine by the psychological distance self and other (Chen & Chen, 2004).
Take a deeper look at the Confucianism socially interdependence and concentric circles of social network, will find out selfism plays a central role in both concepts. An individual has to know his/her social position to know the social role before fulfilling it. One also has to know the closeness in self-other relations to response properly during the interaction. Thus
‧
Confucianism socially interdependence consist of vertically upward levels and concentric circles are horizontally outward movement from an individual self.