Cultural Clashes in the Movie GuaSha

【Abstract】Culture is a force that cannot be neglected， influencing people from all over the world under the background of globalization. Thus， cultural differences often lead to some clashes or conflicts. GuaSha is such a movie that reflects many cultural clashes between China and America. Many researchers focused on cultural comparison and contrast between China and America. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are applied slightly in analyzing this movie. This paper will analyze some Chinese cultural phenomena and cultural clashes， based on collectivism/individualism. The guanxi principle is also discussed in this paper.

【Key words】collectivism/individualism， guanxi principle， Guasha， cultural clashes

1.Introduction

The cultural differences often lead to some clashes or conflicts among people who come from different cultures. The movie GuaSha is a case in point because it embodies many cultural differences between China and America. Yet， among those differences， Hofstede’s collectivism/individualism is the biggest one that has a great impact on such differences. From Hofstede’s cultural dimensions， China has a very low score on individualism （20 scores）， while America as its opposite has a very high score on individualism （91 scores）. （The Hofstede Centre，） The score indicates that China is high in collectivism and America is high in individualism. So， it is difficult for a person from a highly individualist culture to understand the value of a collectivist culture. （Jandt， 2007） Different understandings of guanxi principle also can cause a communication failure between two people who come from two different cultures.

In order to find out how collectivism/individualism influences cultures and how it leads to misunderstandings in a conversation， this paper will focus on several scenarios and dialogues chose from the movie. Meanwhile， in the process of analyzing these cases， some other concepts or theories will be needed so as to have a better understanding of those situations or dialogues.

2. Literature Review

Collectivism/individualism： This dimension refers to the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. In the individualist societies in which the ties between individuals are loose： everyone is expected to look after herself/himself and her/his immediate family only. Collectivism is the opposite side of individualism. On the collectivism side， people from birth onwards are integrated into strong， cohesive in-groups. These in-groups often are extended families， such as living with uncles， aunts， grandparents， etc.. In a collectivist society， people will continue to protect their in-group people in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. Again， the fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. In a collectivist culture， people belong to in-groups such as family and organization， and people look after them in exchange for loyalty. While in an individualist culture， people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. （The Hofstede Centre）Individualism emphasizes self-reliance， prioritizes personal goals over in-group goals， and places more importance on attitudes than on social norms （Triandis and Gelfand，1998， cited by Wang， 2013）. Collectivism emphasizes interdependence， prioritizes in-group goals over personal goals， and places more importance on social norms than attitudes （ibid.）.

Triandis （1995） identified four attributes that define collectivism/individualism： （1） conceptions of the self； （2） goal relationships； （3） relative importance of attitudes and norms； and （4） emphasis on relationships. Conceptions of the self refers to that people from a collectivist culture emphasize collective over self， while people from an individualist culture emphasize the self over collective. Goal relationships refers to that when setting goals， people from a collectivist culture are more likely to take the interests of their groups into consideration first； people from an individualist culture are more likely to take their own interests into consideration first. （Jandt， 2007） The third one means that people from a collectivist culture often do things according to some norms， social rules， for example； people from an individualist culture often do things according to their own attitudes. （Triandis， 1995） The fourth one refers to that people from a collectivist culture emphasize more on relationships than people from an individualist culture.

Guanxi： Guanxi principle actually is a typical manifestation of a collectivist culture， especially like China. Western media often use the pinyin of this Chinese word instead of the two common translations： connections and relationships. Because neither of the two terms can sufficiently reflect the wide cultural implications that guanxi describes. （Gold， et al.， 2002） The core idea of guanxi is the relationship between or among individuals and such relationship creates obligations for people to have a continual exchange of favors （Dunfee and Warren， 2001）.

Braendle， Gasser， Noll （2005） classified three layers of guanxi， namely， jiaren， shuren and shengren. Jiaren is the possible closest relation of guanxi， and it mainly refers to family members. For example， if a person （whether he/she is a Chinese or a foreigner） is regarded as the family member， thus he/she is jiaren and has the same status of a family member. Shuren are individuals who have some commonalities. They may come from the same village， the former school colleagues， or the same club. This layer can also be called the “helper guanxi”. Shengren is mainly connected with “strangers”.

The analysis of the movie GuaSha will be mainly based on the four attributes of collectivism/individualism and the three layers of guanxi principle.

3. Analysis

This paper will study on four cases in light of collectivism/individualism in combination with guanxi. Some important words in the dialogue will be added the underline in order to be paid attention to.

3.1 Jiaren layer

On the court， Datong shouldered the responsibility of the “child abuse” case， but in fact， it was his father who did GuaSha to Dennis. Furthermore， when the case became worse， he also didn't want to tell his father the truth about Dennis’ case.

Datong’s father decided to return to Beijing after he knew the truth. At the airport， they chatted with each other from their hearts. Datong cared about his father’s life back to Beijing and at the same time was encouraged by his father. Datong’s father also expressed his voice from heart that he wanted to see Dennis one more time. In order not to disappoint his father， Datong took his son from the Child Welfare Agency to the airport at the risk of being arrested.

Analysis： Jiaren is the closest relation of all guanxi in a collectivist culture. People are loyal to their family members or jiaren. For example， in this movie， three generations live in one house， and all family members show their love to each other. Datong showed the filial piety to his father and he would like to protect his in-group people unconditionally and unquestioningly.

So it evidently shows that the whole family or jiaren belongs to a strong and cohesive in-group， every family member is interdependent on each other. In addition， the extended family love and filial piety culture in China are reflected heavily in the movie. It indicates that extended family is the major in-group in a collectivist culture.

3.2 The helper layer

Before they entered in the hearing， John and Datong had a conversation as follows：

John： Datong， I want to tell you again. I'm entirely not comfortable with this. Family law is a very specialized field...You need to get someone who is qualified.

Datong： You know how much I love Dennis. You are the best lawyer I know and my very best friend.

John： God， I'm an intellectual property right lawyer.

Judge： These two areas of laws have nothing to do with each other.

Analysis： In East Asian societies， the boundary between business and social lives sometimes are ambiguous. People in such cultures tend to rely heavily on their closer relations and friends. （Wikipedia， 2014） In the movie， John was not only Datong’s boss but also his best friend. When in trouble， from Datong’s point of view， John should try his best to help him win the case because he took John as his best friend or his shuren. But in fact， John was an intellectual property lawyer and knew nothing about the family law. So， from John’s point of view， Datong should find a lawyer who is qualified with the family law. The two different concepts they hold reflect the “helper layer” of guanxi.

3.3 Different self and goal emphasis

John： Janning， just now， Datong's father told me that he was the man did GuaSha to Dennis， it wasn't Datong. But why？

Janning： Because he is Chinese.

Analysis： In this dialogue， John was confused about Datong’s behavior. Janning’s succinct words could not make John understood the reason but they manifested some cultural differences. We can explain the cultural differences with the help of two attributes of collectivism/individualism， one is the conceptions of the self， and the other is the goal relationship. In the collectivist culture， people emphasize in-group people over themselves. In the movie， Datong emphasized more on his father and placed his father in the first place. Furthermore， collectivists often subordinate personal goals to collective goals. When facing this case， he took the interests of his father into considerations because he planned to get an American green card for his father. In the individualist culture， people define the self as autonomous and often place personal goals ahead of group goals. So it’s very hard for John to understand Datong’s behavior.

3.4 A quarrel between Datong and John

Datong： I don't want to talk to you. Would you give me a break？

John： Datong， I'm sorry. I can't lie， they knew everything.

Datong： Leave me alone...I considered you as my friend， but you sold me out. How do the hell you expect me to work with you again？

ohn： I just told the truth. You shouldn't hit your son.

Datong： Why I hit him？ Why？ My own son？ I hit him to show my respect for you， to give you face， you know？

John： Oh！ What kind of twisted Chinese logic is that！ You hit your own child as to show respect to me？

Datong： Let me share this final Chinese proverb to you： “Men of totally different principles can never act together.”

Analysis： This case is much more complicated than previous three cases because it includes several cultural differences. From Datong’s perspective， John’s testify on the court sold him out so he decided to quit his job from John’s company. He thought that he should cut any connection with the man who had betrayed him. He even didn’t want to have a talk with John and could not put up with working with John any more. Datong viewed John as his shuren and the member of his in-group. So he took it for granted that John should be loyal to him in any case even at the cost of telling a lie to the judge. But John didn’t agree with Datong’s act， because Americans hold that parents and their children are equal， so they won’t hit their children.

The third underlined sentence in this dialogue is also worth noting. It reflects their different views on “face”. Ho （1976） claimed that the concept of face originates from China. Ho （1976） defined face as something that is often used metaphorically in a sociological context to refer to people’s reputation or standing in a society， particularly Chinese society. It is also taken as a kind of resource which can be won or lost. （Wikipedia， 2015） Chinese people often belittle themselves to save the face of people in their in-groups. They know how important the face is in a society or a community. This behavior has a very close connection with the “modesty” in China. In America， people are not willing to lose their face in public because they want to keep a good image of their own.

4. Conclusion

From the four cases and its analysis， we may conclude that collectivism/individualism can cause a communication failure under the background of international culture. It is obvious that intercultural communication is playing a more and more important role in today’s society. It is far from enough for us to understand the way collectivism/individualism cause communication failures or even conflicts. It is in an urgent need that we should figure out some solutions to avoid such communication failures and conflicts caused by different cultures.

First of all， living with people who come from other different cultural groups， we should overcome the ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism often makes people believe that their own group is superior to outsiders’ group. （Sumner， 1906， cited by Wikipedia， 2014）Therefore， in order to avoid ethnocentrism， we should judge other people’s behavior using the values， beliefs or norms of the culture where that people come from. Furthermore， it’s a necessary trend to realize the importance of cultural integration. With the appearing of the cultural clashes or conflicts， people will consciously or unconsciously find a way to integrate those cultural differences.

In a word， cultural differences between an individualist culture and a collectivist culture as reflected in this movie are caused by the values or beliefs connected with the individualism and collectivism. We should avoid ethnocentrism so as to achieve cultural integration when cultural clashes or conflicts have existed for a long time or will appear in the near future.

【References】

[1]Dunfee， T. W.， Warren， D. E. （2001）.Is Guanxi Ethical A Normative Analysis of Doing.Business in China.Journal of Business Ethics， 32：191–204.

[2]David Yau-fai Ho. （1976）.On the Concept of Face. American Journal of Sociology， 81（4）： 867–884.

Dimensions of National Cultures. .

[3]Gold， T.， Guthrie， D.， Wank， D. （2002）.Social Connections in China： Institutions， Culture and the Changing Nature of Guanxi.Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

[4]Jandt， F. E. （2007）. An Introduction to Intercultural Communication： Identities in a Global Community （The Fifth Edition）. The United Stations of America： Sage Publications， Inc.The Hofstede Center. .

[5]Triandis， Harry C.（1995）.Individualism and Collectivism.Westview Press.

[6]Udo C. Braendle， Tanja Gasser， Juergen Noll. （2005）. Corporate Governance in China —Is Economic Growth Potential Hindered by Guanxi Business and Society Review， 110 （4）： 389-405.

[7]Wikipedia. （2014）. Guanxi. .

[8]Wikipedia. （2014）. Ethnocentrism. .

[9]Wikipedia. （2015）. Face. .

[10]Ye Wang. （2014）. Individualism/Collectivism， Charitable Giving， and Cause-Related Marketing： a Comparison of Chinese and Americans. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing， 19（1）：40-51.