Congratulations on having an agile thumb! (If you did all that on an iPhone) I enjoyed your comment. When Nixon was getting ready to reestablish relations with China I was invited to meet a delegation at the Chinese embassy in Ottawa. Most of the US folk folk I went with were children of missionaries who had lived most of their early lives in China. After watching some documentaries and a day of discussion, they seemed of the opinion that the dominant ethos of the diplomatic group we met was more Confucian than Communist. There was no suggestion of tribalism.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Harold Orbach <[email protected]> wrote: > It's nice to theorize about Chinese and other societal modes of > reciprocation based on what one learned in courses some three (or more) > decades ago, but as someone who spent seven weeks in China in mid 1998 > traveling all over the country after giving some lectures at Rinbin > (People's) University in Beijing at the invitation of the head of the > sociology institute who I had met when I invited him to speak at my > university where we had Chinese students from the PRC for some years as > well as from Taiwan and faculty from Taiwan including one PhD from Michigan > (in demography) in my department twice as a visitor who I got to know > well, not to mention visiting and being involved with many Chinese in > Toronto when I taught there including a fellow faculty member from China > who I had known as a student in the US as well as on in innumerable visits > to family in Toronto and suburbs and visiting people's homes in China in > Beijing and smaller cities, visiting locations in China with one other > American and a Chinese student as interpreter, traveling backpack on > Chinese transport of all types from tiny mini bus to regular bus, train, > airplane and river boat to huge cities Beijing, Shanghai, Chungching, > Nanjing,some then moderate size cities Xian, Wuhan, Suchow ... as well as > tiny isolated villages in the countryside; in all size places often people > did not want to sit or stand next to "white" foreigners. I have often been > given small gifts or tokens or meals with no form of reciprocation or favor > expected or any form of bribe to expedite acceptance or assistance in > obtaining admission to a university or other position I could help them > obtain. > I have been given small cultural tokens after students I had taught or > befriended during their study here -- students from the US, China, Korea, > Chile, Austria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sweden that had no relation to > any population size of the location where I met them or taught them. So > much for theoretical concepts as permanent rules on a list service devoted > to Charles S. Peirce. > > Harold L. Orbach > Emeritus, Kansas State University > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 10, 2014, at 2:25 PM, "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ulysses - well, we do have our differences; I taught anthro for 30 > years - and certainly don't see a tribe as in any way non-stratified, for > there can be and usually are, hierarchies of hereditary authority in a > large tribe. Indeed, since a tribe is also a political entity, there HAVE > to be clear lines of authority and non-authority. You can't have 1,000 > different voices in a collective system. > > Furthermore, 'culturally distinctive' is an ambiguous term and doesn't > define, per se, a 'tribe'. After all, it can define a clan, an ethnic > group, a religious group etc. And yes, I know all about the phatries and > moieties and these terms have no relevance to this discussion. > > Of course a clan is a mode of political organization, as is a tribe, for > any organization of society establishes 'who has the authority to make > decisions in that group', be it a clan or tribe'...and that focus on > who-has-authority defines the political activities of the group. Is it the > elders - all the elders? Is it one hereditary family? Is it the men? The > women? Is it one subclan in the tribe? > > You are misunderstanding the notion of tribalism in my analysis of Chinese > society. By tribalism I mean as differentiated from a civic societal > organization. A society organized within the tribal mode views interactions > between people to operate within a network of personal obligations akin to > those within a family. Guanxi, in the old Chinese ideology (Confucian) is > the visible method of establishing networks of personal obligations and > expectations. Therefore, you must interact with people on a personal level > - and you 'get things done' - within the network of bonded interactions. > The 'gifts' are signs of the recognition, by both sides, of this bonded > obligation. This is not the same as corruption. > > No-one is doubting that China is as a nation, operating politically and > economically as a state. BUT, it hasn't shaken its old infrastructure of > local, not national, agriculture - and that was politically and societally > - tribal - understanding tribal as meaning based around kin-networks of > obligations and expectations. I used to tell my students that it takes at > least three generations to change a societal ideology. Much of China is > still agricultural - and a large proportion of the population, even those > in cities, remain ideologically embedded in the 'old ways', and these are > not Mao's ways, for he ignored and indeed rejected the vast diversity of > China, in its peoples, dialects/languages, economic modes etc. You can't > ignore this diversity by trying to establish one size-fits-all in a > geographic territory with such huge ecological diversity. > > Blood kinship or marriage is not the only method of establishing > kin-based or tribal networks. The very notion of loyalty to those with whom > one interacts need not be biological. In, for example, the smallest > societal groups, bands, the kin bonds are NOT necessarily biological or > based on marriage. > > It's the notion of personal loyalty and bonds that defines tribalism. The > civic mode, on the other hand, rejects interactions based only on personal > bonds and instead, inserts a mode of interaction based on the work-action > (not the persons involved). So, you treat the patient because of your > obligation to your profession. In the tribal society, you treat the patient > because of your obligation to the personal network and to the person. You > can immediately see that one mode functions in very large populations > (civic) and the other, in smaller populations. > > The civic model developed to deal with very large populations; the tribal > model was dominant for most of human history - and functioned in smaller > populations. > > I don't see that this focus on 'getting things done for each other out of > personal interactions and loyalty' - which is the tribal mode - has > anything to do with a reaction to communism. And people in modern China > (and India etc) don't form relationships with bureaucrats to reduce the > severity of life. They BRIBE bureaucrats to get things done because the > centralized communist system has, all on its own, decentralized into local > personalized power-blocs and local powerful authorities immersed in > nepotism. You have to deal with them by the tribal method of acknowledging > their personal existence and their power rather than appealing to their > civic duty. And the method of acknowledgment is: bribes. That's the only > term for it. > > I don't see that defining guanxi as bribery has anything to do with > 'reductionism'. Indeed, the old guanxi is not the same - and I think you > are making an error in trying to conflate the two. To have to resort > to bribery to get anything done in these dysfunctional bureaucracies is > unethical, and for you to suggest that it's merely 'a different culture > with different morals' seems to me to be cultural relativism at its worst. > > What 'unilinear concepts of cultural evolution'? There's no such thing. > But there ARE clear cut normative modes of societal organization according > to the size of the population. And population sizes are directly related to > the economic modes..and the economy is directly related to the ecological > realities of the area, the biome. So, in a biome with rich soil, plenty of > accessible water, readily domesticated plants and animals - you can develop > a large population. In a biome with poor soil, water problems, climate > problems, local plant and animal problems - you can only sustain a small > population. And, all over the world, the modes of societal organization > will be the same - even though the people have never met - dependent on > the size of the population. {That's my first year ecological anthro > course...in part]. > > The article was flawed in its ignorance of Peircean pragmatics and its > ignorance of the difference between a tribal and civic mode of societal > organization - and - its ignorance that bribery, in a large population, is > not the same as semiotic signs of personal network obligations in a smaller > population and has nothing to do with Peircean pragmatics or indeed, any > philosophical theory of pragmatics. > > Edwina > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* U Pascal <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Peirce List 1 <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:28 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: NYTimes : From China, With Pragmatism > > Edwina > > > I subscribe to the contemporary definitions of terms used by cultural > anthropologists. > > Clan: a group that claims unilineal descent from the same ancestor, > though the actual genealogical path to that ancestor need not be > specified/specifiable. The ancestor often is thought of as a mythical being > called a totem. > > Tribe: nonstratified, cultural distinctive kin-based society > > note: yes, kin-relations include biological descent and perceived > descent. Though this degree of subjectivity is not flexible enough to > accommodate your doctor on the basis of giving him a gift. > > A combination of clans is a phratry. > In the case that a tribe is composed of two clans each clan is termed a > moiety. > Segments of clans are termed lineages. > > Clans are not forms or units of political organization. They exist in a > variety of forms of political organization, such as bands, tribes, > chiefdoms and states. Tribes are a form of political organization often > based upon clan lineage though they may be based upon cognatic descent > groups as well. > > There is no doubt that contemporary China is a state. The fact that > there are networks of reciprocity does not entail the society is tribal, as > the form of political organization is not based on a kinship or marriage. > Giving gifts cements social interaction. period. the interaction need not > be 'familial.' Again, a Hongbao is not a dowry. > > Over 680 million people live in China's cities, which is over half of > the entire Chinese population and over double the population of the United > States. So I do not know what your claim that 'China is still strongly in > the grip of its old agricultural mode of life' is supposed to mean. I > suppose I agree insofar as what you mean is that China has a cultural > history with some continuities. Frankly, I do not see guanxi networks as a > carry-over from agrarian life as much as I see it as an adaptation on part > of local agnatic cadres to "civic" life under maoist > dictatorship/managerial corporatism. If you wish to judge local cadres for > attempting to reduce the severity of life under maoist communism by forming > relationships with state bureaucrats there is likely nothing I can say to > convince you otherwise. > > The reduction of guanxi to bribery is very common western reaction. > While there indeed is overlap between guanxi gifts and bribery, guanxi can > operate within bureaucratic norms. In any case 'bribery' --as well as > unilinear conceptions of cultural evolution-- are highly morally inflected > categories to impose on a culture. I do not see any scientific or > analytical benefit to imposing moralizing categorizes on any subject of > research, especially on other cultures with different moral frameworks than > your own. > > But all-in-all I agree that the article is fatally flawed in its attempt > to link the teaching of American Pragmatism in Chinese universities to > colloquially 'pragmatic' justifications for guanxi and hongbao. > > ---Ulysses > > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Phyllis, >> >> Oh, I think I grokked the spirit with which you posted that, but it >> caught me headed off to bed and I couldn't manage any response more >> articulate than what I did. On third thought, I'll leave any public >> protest to those who have the energy and/or haven't already tilted with the >> ever-indominable windmills of mainscream press and popular understanding, >> whether it be about pragmatism or anything else more complex than hockey >> scores. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> Phyllis Chiasson wrote: >> >>> Jon & List, >>> >>> I didn't mean it was worth reading because it was a great treatise of >>> pragmatism, Peirce's or >>> otherwise, but because it wasn't and it was in the NY Times. I wonder if >>> there is a message here >>> for us-something like taking control of the way pragmatism is defined. I >>> think a piece like this >>> needs careful, objective analysis and refutation. I thought the comments >>> about social Darwinism >>> were especially important, considering how long it has held on as a >>> justification for the sort of >>> economic and social specialness we're encountering today. Gospel of >>> greed might be a good place >>> to start. Maybe we need to form a PAC for effectively communicating >>> Peirce's concepts the >>> masses. >>> >>> Regards, Phyllis >>> >>> Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, thankfully a few of them saved me from total despair. >>>> >>>> >>>> Jon >>>> >>>> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com >>>> >>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:05 AM, Phyllis Chiasson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Did you read the comments following the piece? >>>>> >>>>> Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> good grief, what tripe ... >>>>>> >>>>> >> -- >> >> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >> my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ >> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ >> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA >> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey >> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] 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 > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
