The Fundamental Differences between Chinese and American Modes of Thinking and of Discourse

Abstract In the face of binaries, American scholars and officials will characteristically view them as either/or opposed dualities, such as democracy vs. autocracy, good vs. evil, rational vs. irrational. On that basis, American scholars typically view themselves as democratic and free, but view China as “dominated” and controlled, using the word “totalitarianism” to characterize China. China, on the other hand, tends instead to view the U.S. and China not as opposed binaries but rather simply as different. Under those very different modes of thinking, it has been difficult for the two sides to truly communicate with one another. Generally speaking, they do not confront directly such differences in modes of thinking and endeavor to overcome the gap to try to reach mutual understanding. What we need is for both sides to be aware of such fundamental differences; only then can they rise above the divides to truly communicate and consult with one another. Only if presumptive differences in modes of thinking are recognized and set aside can real and substantive differences be dealt with, and genuine mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence be attained.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Rural China
Published
2024-11-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1163/22136746-12341321
Primary Topic
Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Fundamental Differences between Chinese and American Modes of Thinking and of Discourse

Philip C. C. Huang
Rural China
Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
article

The Fundamental Differences between Chinese and American Modes of Thinking and of Discourse

Philip C. C. Huang
article en

Abstract

Abstract In the face of binaries, American scholars and officials will characteristically view them as either/or opposed dualities, such as democracy vs. autocracy, good vs. evil, rational vs. irrational. On that basis, American scholars typically view themselves as democratic and free, but view China as “dominated” and controlled, using the word “totalitarianism” to characterize China. China, on the other hand, tends instead to view the U.S. and China not as opposed binaries but rather simply as different. Under those very different modes of thinking, it has been difficult for the two sides to truly communicate with one another. Generally speaking, they do not confront directly such differences in modes of thinking and endeavor to overcome the gap to try to reach mutual understanding. What we need is for both sides to be aware of such fundamental differences; only then can they rise above the divides to truly communicate and consult with one another. Only if presumptive differences in modes of thinking are recognized and set aside can real and substantive differences be dealt with, and genuine mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence be attained.

Rural ChinaVol. 22(1)
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.