Category Archives: transnational cultures

Cultural Values in Collectivistic Cultures

Posted on by

Collectivism and individualism were among the cultural constructs and dimensions that early cross-cultural psychologists identified and elaborated on in the 1980s and 1990s (Hofstede, 1980/1984; Marsella et al., 1985; Triandis, 1995). Since then, researchers have widely used the cultural parameters of collectivism and individualism in their cross-cultural studies. The characteristics of societies as collectivistic or individualistic have been the most popular among researchers in many social, economic, cultural, and psychological disciplines.

What Is Collectivism?

The key attributes of collectivism and individualism are

  • The normative relations between an individual and a group and
  • The degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups.

Societies are characterized as collectivistic or individualistic when these value orientations characterize the majority of their members (Hui & Triandis, 1986). People within a given society certainly vary in their personal cultural orientations, either collectivism or individualism.  The degree of collectivism and individualism can also vary across different types of interpersonal relationships. People can be more or less collectivistic and individualistic in their relationships with their kin, parents, neighbors, friends, and coworkers (Karandashev, 2021a).

What Are Collectivistic Cultures?

People in collectivist cultures are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, such as extended families. A paramount value of a collectivistic society is an individual’s loyalty to a group. The group in turn protects an individual’s interests and well-being while opposing other groups.

Collectivistic cultures prioritize in-group beliefs over individual beliefs. In terms of personal motivation, individuals subordinate their goals to group goals. Group goals take precedence over individual goals. In-group norms are higher in value than individual pleasures and personal motivation. In order to facilitate mutual support and shared experiences, the group encourages individuals to follow certain norms of emotional experience, expression, and behavior. The value of personal privacy is low and can be violated. One’s place in a group determines an individual’s sense of personal identity. People are emotionally dependent on a group.

The Values of People in Collectivistic Societies

The key collectivistic values emphasize:

  • interpersonal bonds,
  • unity, loyalty, and integrity,
  • group harmony and solidarity,
  • family relationships and obligation,
  • awareness of and responsiveness to the needs of others,
  • emotional interdependence,
  • and a sense of interconnectedness.

(Hofstede, 1980/1984; 2011; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Gelfand, et al., 2000; Kashima, et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995 ; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988).

The central tenets of collectivist beliefs are group cooperation, a sense of obligation, duty toward the group, and in-group harmony (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).

In-group versus Out-group Bias in Collectivistic Cultures

People in collectivistic cultures feel highly embedded in their relationships. Relationships with kin, family, and friends develop early in their lives.

People in collectivistic cultures tend to strongly differentiate their behavior toward in-group versus out-group members. They have different standards for members of their in-groups and out-groups. (Hofstede, 1980/1984; Smith&Bond, 1999).

Men and women are collectivistic in their interactions with in-group members (family, friends, etc.), but individualistic in their interactions with out-group members (strangers, people from other cultural groups).

Can People Build a True Egalitarian Society?

Posted on by

The idea of an egalitarian society, in which social equality between people is a cultural norm, sounds good for a society to be fair to all. Many could declare their desire to be fair-minded to others. However, this cultural value of an egalitarian society is hard to achieve in social reality. Why so?

Generally, the idea of an egalitarian society where people are socially equal may sound good. It is nice and fair when it is abstract. People in general, and particularly those who belong to the high and middle classes, so-called privileged people, tend to view inequality as something impersonal and fairly distant.

However, they follow this tendency only up to the point when they encounter real intergroup comparative contexts.  Then, they tend to perceive inequality with personal and social bias. As Professor of Psychological Science at the University of California, Paul Piff commented in this regard,

The new progressive social policies aim to reduce inequality and help the poor. These proposed policies may not necessarily motivate wealthy people to support such initiatives. These policies rarely make an appeal to the self-interests of people from the upper social class. Therefore, these advantaged people prefer to preserve the status quo as it benefits them.

In-group Versus Out-group Biases

In-group versus out-group bias and self-interest of people who are currently in a privileged social status play a role in resisting progress in social equality. As N. Derek Brown and his colleagues showed in their experiments (Brown et al., 2022), people of a privileged group consider social equality as good only if it increases equality within their social ingroup but not when it increases in another social group. These studies revealed that equality can appear in a negative shadow for people who have a privileged status because of in-group and out-group biases. Therefore, they misunderstand the social consequences of inequality and social disparities.

What the Old Allegory Teaches Us about Modern False Perceptions of Equality

In a deep-rooted folk parable, God appeared before Vladimir, a poor peasant, and offered to grant him one wish. God told him that he could wish anything.

“Vladimir, I will grant you one wish. Anything you wish for shall be yours.”

Vladimir was excited and started to turn over the numerous possibilities in his head.

But then God adds a stipulation: Anything that he grants Vladimir, he also grants twice to Ivan, Vladimir’s neighbor.

“Anything, I grant to you, I will give to your neighbor, Ivan, twice over.”

After giving it some thought, Vladimir replied,

“Okay, God, I want you to gouge one of my eyes out.”

This punchline tells us something quite intriguing about how paradoxically people can behave in situations of choice.

What Is the “Minimal Group Paradigm” and How Does It Work in Our Group Relations

This fable reminds me of the “Minimal Group Paradigm,” the theory that social psychologist Henri Tajfel developed in his research in the 1970s. He discovered that people willingly categorize people into in-groups and out-groups.
Once we identify ourselves with a group, we come up with explanations of why we are better and why we should all be in the same group. As it turns out, group identity hates a dry spell.
When groups are divided, we naturally favor our own. But what’s more, we prioritize immediate relative gain over absolute overall gain. In his studies, Tajfel demonstrated that the one thing we never do is try to maximize the final result for everyone. Therefore, even though we could all benefit, we’d prefer not to if it meant that the other group would benefit more.

According to Brown and his colleagues’ findings (Brown et al., 2022), even when the people of a privileged group stand to gain some benefits, they frequently refuse to assist a disadvantaged group. Even though they say they want more equality in society, they tend to keep and protect their relative advantage.

How American History Illustrates This Grim Truth About Inequality

The grim history of American racism exemplifies the paradox of social inequality. This is how the policy advocate and New York Times author describes it in her recent book, “The sum of us: What racism costs everyone and how we can prosper together.”

McGhee, H. (2022). The sum of us: What racism costs everyone and how we can prosper together. One World. In the 1940s and 1950s, some white American communities were forced to integrate public pools and parks, which grew in popularity. Then, many of them frequently chose to destroy the spaces rather than share them with their black neighbors.

The Last Equality Study Showed a Grimmer Perspective on Equality

Posted on by

Many modern societies have made great strides in promoting social equality. Some nations promote equality more than others. In Western and northern European countries, social equality has advanced quickly. The U.S. equality movement is slower. Voters and policymakers often oppose equality legislation.

Why do conservatives and liberals oppose fair proposals that benefit all? A series of studies have shown that they just misunderstand contexts and, therefore, resist social equality.

Here Is What the Previous Studies on “Zero-sum” Mindsets Revealed

In my previous articles, I presented several experiments conducted by N. Derek Brown and his colleagues (Brown et al., 2022). Their results showed the hidden role that people’s “zero-sum” thinking plays in making them have opposing thoughts, attitudes, and actions.

They agree with equality and see it as a positive change in their privileged social group. However, they oppose equality once it increases between their own and other social groups.

The following experiments produced even more striking results. Researchers formed a fictitious “privileged” group of Rattlers and offered them the chance to take actions endorsing or opposing certain equality policies.

Unexpectedly for researchers, the Rattlers perceived the win-win scenario to be marginally more detrimental to their interests than the lose-lose proposal. Therefore, they preferred “the lose-lose” option over “the win-win” option as a desired policy. These findings are extremely compelling and “grim.” As Derek Brown and his co-authors noted (Brown et al., 2022),

“The misperception that equality is harmful is stubbornly persistent, resisting both reason and incentivization.”

Researchers attempted to address scarcity concerns and assure people that a more equitable policy would not affect their opportunities. Nevertheless, people tend to oppose such equality policies.

What the Final Eagles-Rattlers Experiment Showed

In a second Eagles-Rattlers experiment, the Rattlers were given two options to reduce inequality. In the “unharmful” option, the Eagles get more resources without any change for the Rattlers. The “harmful” option involved the Rattlers getting less, with no change for the Eagles.

Researchers presented those options side-by-side. They wanted to help people recognize that the unharmful one is the more rational choice. Therefore, people would have a chance to choose the less harmful one. Even though the Rattlers chose that option as policy, they still saw it as more harmful to their interests than the harmful option. The study demonstrates why equality is bad or appears to be bad for many people of privileged social classes. Inequality and disparities persist because people fundamentally misunderstand the social consequences of their actions.

These Studies Still Provide a Possibility of a Positive Perspective for Equality

On the bright side, the researchers found that people from advantaged social groups are much more open to policies that reduce inequality within their social group. This could help explain why some countries with less racial diversity than the U.S., like Scandinavia, have been better at making equitable social policies.

What Can Policy Makers Do to Increase American Social Equality?

Brown and his co-authors say that American progressive policymakers could use the findings of these studies to promote national unity. On the other hand, conservative Republican lawmakers increasingly do the opposite. They put social groups against each other based on gender, race, religion, citizenship, and party affiliation.

What Do Authors Suggest to Better Promote Equality?

In conclusion, the researchers suggest,

 “A critical next step concerns how the negative effects of zero-sum equality perceptions can be averted or how we can make progress toward equality despite these misperceptions.”

The question remains,

“How can advantaged groups be convinced to relinquish their relative advantages even as doing so inherently feels like a material concession?”

These studies do not present an optimistic picture for the future of American equality. However, Derek Brown advises policymakers that even though backlash is probably unavoidable, they can promote the change with the justification and motivation to create equality policies. Particularly when establishing a more equal and equitable society is on the table, the risk is still worth the reward (Brown et al., 2022).

These Experiments Show Why Equality Is Bad or Looks Bad

Posted on by

Many modern societies have made great strides toward implementing social policies and practices that promote social equality. However, cultural values of equality spread more rapidly in some nations than in others.

Significant progress toward social equality, for example, has occurred relatively quickly in Western and Northern European countries. However, the social movement toward equality in the United States of America remains slow. The legislative initiatives face resistance from many voters and policymakers. They are often reluctant to support such equality policies. The intriguing question remains why so many people, both conservatives and often liberals, oppose such apparently fair proposals that can benefit all. Nevertheless, they mistakenly perceive the contexts of possible outcomes and resist social equality.

What the Preceding Studies Showed

In my previous post, I described some of the experiments conducted by N. Derek Brown and his colleagues (Brown et al., 2022), which discovered the hidden role that people’s “zero-sum” mindsets play in affecting their oppositional opinions, attitudes, and actions. Because of this, they believe that equality can lead them to lose their advantageous status. They agree with the idea of equality and perceive this as a positive change when equality increases within their own privileged social group. However, they oppose this idea of equality and perceive this as an undesirable shift when equality may increase between their own and other social groups.

Here Are the Other Experiments with Equality, Even More Convincing

The results of the following experiments were especially striking. Researchers made up a special “privileged” social group. They administered a personality test (a bogus test). Then, the researchers told participants that, based on their “test results”, they placed them in either the Eagles or the Rattlers group. In fact, the researchers assigned all of them to the Rattlers’ group. This group held a position of advantage over the Eagles, a fictitious social group. Then, the researchers proposed the Rattlers to reduce the disparity between them and the Eagles. They could take one of two actions:

  1. Either making both groups better off while helping the Eagles more (the win-win, equality-enhancing option)
  2. Or making everyone worse off while harming the Eagles more (the lose-lose, inequality-enhancing option).

Surprisingly and counterintuitively, the Rattlers perceived the win-win scenario to be marginally more detrimental to their interests than the lose-lose proposal. Therefore, they favored “the win-win” option less than “the lose-lose” option as a desired policy.

What Is Especially Striking About These Findings?

One can see that these findings are very convincing. Derek Brown and his colleagues (Brown et al., 2022) characterize these as “grim.” They commented that

“The misperception that equality is harmful is stubbornly persistent, resisting both reason and incentivization”

As Paul Piff, Professor of Psychological Science at the University of California, remarked,

People in general, and particularly elites, “tend to perceive inequality as something abstract and fairly distant. Inequality-mitigating policies are often framed in terms of policies to help the poor, which isn’t necessarily all that motivating for (some) folks. In a sense, then, combatting inequality rarely appeals to self-interest, which is a massive motivation for those advantaged in society to preserve the status quo insofar as it benefits them.”

The Important Conclusion of These Experiments

People tend to resist such equality policies, even when researchers address scarcity concerns and assure people that a more equitable policy will not affect their opportunities. Thus, this study demonstrates why equality is bad or looks bad to many privileged people. Inequality and disparities continue to occur because people fundamentally misunderstand their social consequences.

These Experiments Show Hidden Reasons Why Privileged Social Classes Can Be Against Equality

Posted on by

The social policies and practices of social equality have progressed significantly in many contemporary societies. People in some countries, such as Scandinavia and other North European countries, adopted equality cultural values more quickly and easily than in others. However, in the United States of America, progress on equality is still sluggish and encounters opposition from voters and policymakers. People may explicitly express their support for social equality. Yet, implicitly, they may be reluctant to adopt the policies and practices of equality.

Why does such a discrepancy take place? Why do people tacitly resist equality?

Why Did Researchers Explore “Zero-sum” Beliefs?

A group of researchers led by N. Derek Brown (Brown et al., 2022) looked into the effects of conservative ideology, belief in the status quo, a preference for social hierarchies, and the “zero-sum” worldview of people who prefer to maintain their social advantage.

The study took a special interest in how the zero-sum mentality of men and women affects their opinions, attitudes, and actions. They think that equality can make it harder for them to get and preserve what they need. People in advantaged groups think it’s good when equality grows within their own group but not when it grows between groups. Researchers conducted a series of experiments with several samples of American participants. They discovered interesting results, illuminating why and how individuals in privileged social groups persistently believe that policies that advance equality are detrimental to their own interests. Accordingly, they mistakenly think that inequality is good.

What Did the First Set of Experiments Show?

For the first set of experiments, researchers recruited people from advantaged groups, such as white Americans, able-bodied people, men, and people who have never been convicted of a crime. Then the researchers showed them the proposals that would improve the resources available to members of a less-advantaged group, such as Latino Americans, people with disabilities, women, and people who have been convicted of a crime. In this experimental condition, researchers did not take anything away from the advantaged group. In some cases, researchers openly told the participants from this advantaged group that there were no limits on the resources. Therefore, these proposals to improve equality would not harm their own prospects. Still, on average, these people thought the proposals were bad. Nevertheless, these participants mostly perceived the proposals as harmful.

Here Is Another Experiment on Equality Beliefs 

Prior to the November 2020 election, researchers conducted another experiment among white, East Asian, and South Asian California voters. The researchers asked about a ballot initiative that would repeal an existing ban on affirmative action in public employment, contracts, and university admissions. Researchers considered these people to be the privileged group because many of them, compared to other social groups, studied at public universities or worked in the public sector.

Two-thirds of these respondents said they were liberal. Nevertheless, they thought that allowing affirmative action programs would have hurt their chances of getting public sector jobs, contracts, and college spots for their families. The results of this experiment showed that when they thought affirmative action would hurt their own interests, they more likely answered that they would vote against this proposition. The general vote that year did not support this affirmative action proposal.

Conclusion

Thus, the results of the first set of experiments supported the researchers’ prediction that “zero-sum” attitudes strongly affect people’s actions against social equality.

This Study Revealed the Impediment that Makes People Resist Social Equality

Posted on by

Modern societies in Europe and North America have made substantial progress in the social policies and practices of social equality. Nevertheless, further advancements in equality are still slow and meet with resistance from policymakers and voters. Some countries are more rapidly adopting the idea of equality than others.

For example, equality in the United States of America is still a long way, in many respects, from being good enough. Many privileged Americans, especially those with conservative values, are still reluctant to adopt the idea of equality.

Even though many people may say they want social equality, their thoughts and feelings about equality can be different. Why so? A new study conducted by N. Derek Brown and his colleagues (Brown et al., 2022) investigated how conservatism, belief in the status quo, preference for social hierarchies, and a “zero-sum” worldview influence the behavior of people aimed at gaining a social advantage.

What Are “Zero-sum” Beliefs?

The study has focused on the psychological function of the zero-sum mentality. This way of thinking makes people in privileged social groups think that policies that promote equality are bad for their own interests.

What is the psychology of the “zero-sum” worldview? People with a “zero-sum mentality” view many situations in social relations as zero-sum games. They believe that when one person gains, the other person loses. In other words, a person considers the other person’s gain as his or her own loss. Sometimes this happens in our lives. However, it is not necessarily true in other circumstances. People with this belief think that even simple things like buying food or a car have a winner and a loser. Because of these ideas, policymakers and voters may think that new policies will hurt them more than help others, even though the opposite is true.

What Did Studies Reveal?

Several studies with a total sample size of 4,197 participants showed that members of privileged groups mistakenly believe inequality to be beneficial. They think that equality can be detrimental to their access to resources. People of advantaged groups perceive equality as good only when it is increased within their social ingroup but not between social groups.

When resources and resource access are unlimited, misconceptions also endure. Even when policies that promote equality have positive effects on society as a whole, people still have wrong beliefs.

For example, a long-term study of American voters in 2020 found that this way of thinking about policy was a better predictor of how they would vote than their political beliefs or egalitarian beliefs.

Furthermore, the two final experiments revealed that advantaged people are more likely to vote for policies that increase inequality and harm their finances rather than policies that increase equality and help their finances. Despite any efforts to assist people in making better decisions, people continue to have these incorrect beliefs. So, it’s surprising that the mistaken belief that equality must be a “zero-sum game” may be why inequality still exists even though it has costs for society as a whole.

The Cultural Value and Practice of American Equality

Posted on by

Equality is commonly declared as a high cultural value in American society. And it is true in many regards. Many legislative norms and practices demonstrate widespread equality in American daily life. However, American equality is still inconsistent and far from ideal in some respects.

What Is Social Equality?

Social equality means that all members of a society are treated equally. This may include having access to civil rights, freedom of speech, autonomy, and certain public goods and social services. Social equality implies that there are no legally recognized social class distinctions and that there is no discrimination based on a fundamental aspect of an individual’s identity.

The best form of equality is equity. Therefore, social equality means that individuals have equal opportunity, not necessarily equal availability. Ultimate social equality means that all individuals are equal in their opportunities,

  • regardless of their age, gender, sexual orientation,
  • regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, social class, income,
  • regardless of their origin, language, opinions,
  • regardless of their health, and disability.

The Progress in American Equality

The history of American society has been quite controversial in terms of democracy and social equality. Even though American leaders always declared these social values, real legislative norms and practices were far from ideal.

The 20th century has made substantial progress in this regard. It has been especially true since the 1960s. Thanks to the efforts and persistence of countless American people and leaders. America has now come much closer to the ideal of equality upon which the country was founded. The 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom became a crucial momentum in this regard. One can see clear evidence of the progress in equality. For instance,

  • Race is no longer a barrier to entry at a lunch counter.
  • Restrictive covenants cannot legally state that only certain types of people can purchase certain types of homes.
  • Literacy tests are no longer a barrier to voting.

However, let’s take a closer look at the realities of today in various areas of American life. Studies have obviously demonstrated that real equality is still an ongoing process. Equality is still just a dream, rather than a reality, for many people in the United States.

Is Further Progress Good for American Culture?

On the one hand, many liberal and progressive men and women believe that social equality is good and is a desirable value for the future American culture. On the other hand, many conservative men and women may not think so.

For instance, white Americans, and white men in particular, have a tendency to view efforts to reduce prejudice toward black men and women as being prejudicial to them. This is especially true when the target population is black men and women. We have seen a lot of this conservative backlash against diversity and racial justice.

“The misperception that equality is harmful is stubbornly persistent, resisting both reason and incentivization.”

And the psychology of advantage can explain this social psychological tendency in beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Whether we identify as conservatives or liberals, we tend to hold on to our advantages at all costs (Brown et al., 2022).

“Self-interest…is a massive motivation for those advantaged in society to preserve the status quo insofar as it benefits them.”

How Altruistic Are Chinese Attitudes in Love Relationships?

Posted on by

The concepts of altruism and altruistic love are well known to Western and Eastern scholars and the educated public. Ideas of selfless, altruistic love can be traced back to ancient times in many cultures of the world, specifically in Western and Eastern civilizations. These altruistic ideas were among the earliest in the cultural ethics of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Islam (see for review, Karandashev, 2022a).

It is apparent that the Christian teaching of agape love, which I presented elsewhere, is similar and comparable to the Confucian concept of altruistic love, presented in another article. Yet, they have some important differences.

What Is the Legacy of Confucian Teachings of Altruistic Love in Modern Asia?

The religious and philosophical teachings of Confucius (trad. 551–479 BCE) have served as the cultural basis for many Chinese values, ethics, and social and moral philosophy. Altruism was a central tenet of Confucian ethics, and his ethical teachings placed a considerable emphasis on concepts such as loving kindness and selfless love. As he once said,

“Do not do to others what you would not like to do to yourself.”

The Chinese word “ren” expresses one of the most significant cultural meanings of love. Confucius defined “ren” as the common Chinese word for “love,” “ai.” In many lexical contexts, it is translated more specifically as benevolent love, kindness, compassion, and altruism.

Different from the Christian concept of agape love, the Confucian concept of ren love reflected the Chinese hierarchical social structure of group relationships.

Selfless Giving in the Modern Understanding of Altruistic Love in China

In modern Chinese society and scholarship, the altruistic nature of love is expressed in selfless giving. In this regard, the Chinese understanding of altruistic love resembles the traditional Christian concept of agape love as being unselfish and undemanding. Both concepts include giving without expecting anything in return as one of their central emotions and actions (Chen & Li, 2007).

Sacrifices in the Modern Understanding of Altruistic Love in China

According to the traditional ideology of Confucianism, the commitment of an individual to the affectionate relationship of marital love implies sacrifices. It is applicable first to such a close relationship as the family.

In modern Chinese culture, people tend to exhibit the capacity and disposition to put their families’ harmony, cohesion, and prosperity ahead of their own personal interests, goals, and well-being. This is a cultural Chinese trait that goes back centuries.

For instance, Wang (1999) considered self-sacrifice and devotion as the primary components of family commitment. His research has shed light on the role of self-sacrifice in the Taiwanese culture of interpersonal relationships. The author provided convincing evidence supporting the high value of sacrifice in Taiwanese marriages. He revealed that even in today’s Taiwanese society, cultural norms anticipate that spouses will make sacrifices for one another. Results of the study showed that in most cases of marital relationships, partners are willing to sacrifice something if it helps improve the quality of their relationship or the health of their partner.

The Impact of Chinese Collectivism on People’s Willingness to Sacrifice in Marital Relationships

Depending on its individualistic and collectivistic values, a culture can affect a spouse’s willingness to make sacrifices within a marriage. The degree to which a culture places an emphasis on collectivism as opposed to individualism can have a direct impact on how men and women are willing to make sacrifices for one another in marriage.

In a collectivist Chinese society, societal beliefs can interfere with the individual rights of a spouse, such as a woman’s right to equality. This is why gender inequality is culturally acceptable. For men and women, such marital customs are acceptable for the sake of interdependence and relationship harmony. On the other hand, people from a culture that emphasizes individualism view such gender inequality as unacceptable. Their cultural beliefs about individual rights and independence may conflict with the potential need for self-sacrifice that marriage may necessitate. So, due to high values of autonomy and personal independence, it is challenging for men and women in individualistic cultures to maintain a balance between personal and family needs.

How Altruistic Are Western Attitudes in Love Relationships?

Posted on by

The Christian ideals of agape, which have been prevalent in Western cultures, placed a greater emphasis on the value of altruistic agape love as opposed to passionate Eros love.

Passionate Versus Altruistic Love

On the one hand, the experience of passionate Eros love makes a lover more likely to be egocentric, possessive, and sexually obsessive.

On the other hand, when a lover experiences altruistic Agape love, he or she is more likely be unselfish, act benevolently, to give freely, and be willing to sacrifice for others (Nygren 1989).

Throughout the centuries, one and another kind of these cultural values have competed with one other in the minds of romantic lovers inspiring various love story plots. The most romantic stories, however, inspired lovers to put the interests of the beloved first, above their own, prioritizing altruism over passionate possessiveness.

What Does It Mean to Love Altruistically?

Individuals with predominant altruistic love in heterosexual relationships perceive the beloved as an idealized, unique individual. Their passion is to make their loved one happy. Their love is capable of overcoming selfishness in a relationship centered on the well-being of a partner.

Such altruistic lovers are willing to give up a lot of things in their life for the sake of the person they love and care about.  The well-being of their beloved is the most important thing in the world to them. For the sake and life of a beloved, they are willing to endure inconvenience, discomfort, suffering, and pain, and if necessary, even death. This altruistic love, known as agape, is very romantic. It may look not less romantic than passionate love (for example, Ben-Zev & Goussinsky, 2008).

Their selfless attitudes prioritize the well-being of the beloved. Their altruistic attitudes go beyond their self. Reciprocation is not important: they do not expect anything in return. they are willing to give the beloved rather than receive from him/her.

Giving for them is a joy of love. They give everything they have and themselves without considering the material or psychological cost of what they do. As Erich Fromm (1956) once beautifully noted,

“Giving is the highest expression of potency. In the very act of giving, I experience my strength, my wealth, my power. This experience of heightened vitality and potency fills me with joy. I experience myself as overflowing, spending, alive, hence as joyous. Giving is more joyous than receiving, not because it is a deprivation, but because in the act of giving lies the expression of my aliveness.” 

(Fromm, (956/2006, p.21).

The Chinese Culture of Altruistic Love

Posted on by

Western scholars and the educated public are well familiar with the concepts of altruism and altruistic love. In the ancient Greek philosophy, the word “agape” defined this kind of altruistic, selfless, and all-giving love. Later, Christian teachings elevated the concept of universal altruistic love, characterized by unconditional kindness and compassion for others. However, these Western cultural ideas of altruistic love are not unique in the history of human civilizations.

In different parts of the world, especially the Eastern cultures, the ideas of altruistic love appeared quite early in the history of Chinese civilizations.

The Confucian Contributions to Chinese Culture

Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism are the three Chinese religious philosophies that have had the greatest influence on Chinese culture. Their schools of thought also substantially affected the Chinese understanding of altruistic love. The ancient Chinese philosopher and prophet Confucius (trad. 551–479 BCE) is perhaps the most significant social reformer in East Asian history. His name is associated with many of East Asia’s foundational concepts and cultural practices. He was known in early modern Europe as an originator of “Eastern” thought. He had a substantial impact on the social and cultural development of China in its early history. This is why his name is well-known as a global metonym for the culture of traditional East Asian societies.

Confucian religious and philosophical teachings have been the foundations of Chinese values’ ethics and social and moral philosophy. Altruism was a prominent theme in Confucian ethical teaching.

So, the concepts of loving kindness and altruistic love played a central role in the ethical teachings of Confucius. One of his frequently quoted sayings says:

“Do not do to others what you would not like to do to yourself.”

It is easy to see how this Chinese concept of love is comparable to the Christian teaching of agape love, which I mentioned earlier.

On the other hand, this Chinese concept refers to love in a structurally graded form and not the unconditional love advocated by Christian teachings. The concept of altruism in Christianity takes on a more egalitarian form. It emphasizes love for all people rather than the establishment of hierarchical structures as in Chinese cultural concepts.

The Chinese “Ren”

The fundamental virtue of Confucian moral ethics is the concept of “ren.” It’s important to note that the idea of “ren” is also highly valued in Buddhist and Taoist cultures (Chan, 1955; Dubs, 1951).

The word “ren” is frequently translated as kindness, altruism, compassion, benevolence, and benevolent love. Confucius defined the term “ren” with the common Chinese term “ai”, which means “love.” It is important to note that the Chinese character for “ren” consists of two parts: “human”and “two.” Therefore, according to Confucius, ren is an essential human quality in which two humans express benevolent and altruistic love for one another.

How Is Confucian Ren Different from Christian Agape?

In contrast to the Christian ideal of agape love, the Confucian concept of ren reflected the hierarchical social structure of Chinese society. The five (“wu-lun”) zones were distinguished by the hierarchy of their group relationships.

In Chinese culture, these five cardinals of wu-lun are, in descending order,

(1) Emperor-Ministers (state level),

(2) Father-son (family level),

(3) Husband-wife (family level),

(4) Older-younger brothers (family level), and

(5) Friends (individual level).

In Chinese culture, these five wu-lun of social relations establish the relationship web of society. In Chinese culture, the social life is made up of these five wu-lun of social relationships.

The Hierarchical Nature of Love Attitudes in Chinese “Ren”

Confucius viewed “ren” primarily as the love attitude of a bountiful lord. The superior must demonstrate generosity and kindness toward his subordinates.

Confucian ethics did not expect subordinates to show superiors benevolent love since this would be presumptuous. The culturally proper expressions of love from subordinates toward superiors are loyalty and submission (Chan, 1955; Dubs, 1951).

According to Confucius, people tend to feel and show more natural love towards their parents, relatives, and other close relatives. He taught that altruistic love between members of a small network of relationships is stronger than between members outside of this relationship network.

The Cultural Legacy of Confucian Teachings on Love

Confucius and his disciples in the following times believed that equal love for all was unnatural (Chan, 1955; Dubs, 1951). Therefore, the Confucian cultural ideas of this graded love have been prevalent in many Asian societies for a number of centuries (Ma, 2009). As a direct consequence of Confucius’ legacy and his cultural roots, the hierarchical model of love is still widely accepted in Chinese society. Such a hierarchical conception of love is also widespread in other East Asian cultures that are dominated by the Confucian philosophy (Karandashev, 2022a).