I agree this article had a rather poor take on pragmatism but guanxi networks are not "pure tribalism." Clans are kinship groups, tied together by blood & marriage. Tribes are a form of clans not germane to Chinese social structure. Tribes exist outside of/against states. Chinese clans do not have an antagonistic relationship with the state. Clans have very little to do with guanxi networks and do not characterize the whole of Chinese social structure. The only way to get a surgeon to become part of your family is to marry him/her. Hongbao are not dowries.
---Ulysses On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > I support your interpretation too. > > > > Søren > > > > *Fra:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] > *Sendt:* 9. juni 2014 14:57 > *Til:* Edwina Taborsky > *Cc:* Jon Awbrey; Phyllis Chiasson; peirce-l@list iupui. edu > *Emne:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: NYTimes : From China, With Pragmatism > > > > Well done, Edwina. S > > > *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* > > > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > > I think that it was a naive and ignorant article and as such, because it > was written out of ignorance, not worthy of 'total despair'! > > I think that the author is unaware of the difference between a tribal and > a civic society. The former, and China fits in here, operates within the > network and ties of kinship obligations. The latter, which the West moved > into centuries ago, operates, legally at least, by rejecting the privileges > or lack of kinship bonds and focusing instead as per the Magna Carta and > Declaration of Independence, on human equality. > > This has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with 'pragmatism'. It's pure > tribalism; you claim the surgeon, for example, as a member of your clan by > your financial tribute to his skill; his accepting the tribute shows that > he accepts the patient into 'his tribe'. Both become members of the same > family clan. Nothing, nothing, to do with pragmatism, which would be > viewed, I think, as unethical because pragmatism shows no respect for 'the > clan', for 'the family obligations'. > > Absolutely nothing to do with the notion of 'god' as the author tries to > claim: "By contrast American ethics (and foreign policy) is still too > religious in its perspective, and even our democratic traditions are > asserted with dogmatic gusto. As it's been pointed out many times, someone > who thinks he has God on his side is capable of almost anything." > > Then, another aspect is missing. The Chinese, for the most part, are still > deeply superstitious and, in a way, quite nominalistic! The words you use > are considered important in effecting the result; that's not pragmatism; > that's superstition and suggests, if I may say, a lack of Thirdness!!!. The > colours you use, the sounds, the location of a house or window....all have > 'power' to make things happen. > > And another aspect - corruption. You don't get anything done in China > without that red envelope. That's not merely in the hospitals - and in this > communist socialist nation you pay for your medical care - but to get a > bureaucratic result - a form, a registration, a visa, a...you must take the > Boss Man out to dinner and hand over that red envelope. Corruption can't be > redefined as pragmatism. > > Edwina > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net> > To: "Phyllis Chiasson" <ath...@olympus.net> > Cc: "peirce-l@list iupui. edu" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 8:00 AM > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: NYTimes : From China, With Pragmatism > > > > Yes, thankfully few of them saved me from total despair. > > Jon > > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > > On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:05 AM, Phyllis Chiasson <ath...@olympus.net> wrote: > > Did you read the comments following the piece? > > Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > > good grief, what tripe ... > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > -- Ulysses
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
