Amy Chua and the "Value" of Emotions in International Relations
In philosophy, there is a school of thought known as Absolutism, tracing back to the days of Hegel in its pursuit of absolute ideal standards in all fields of human society. From social structures and economics to governments and moral values, Absolutists held that there is that one elusive yet perfect model for humans of all backgrounds and beliefs to achieve absolute success. Some will discover the model earlier than others, but as knowledge is spread, the entire world and entire human civilization, will eventually converge the exact same application of the exact same model with perhaps a little regional variations.
Not surprisingly, the enthusiastic cries of triumph at finding that ideal one-fits-all model has been heard throughout the existence of Absolutist thought. And some, most notably "Western-style democracy" and "free-market capitalism" has been highly justified with increased happiness of common people brought by personal freedoms and materialistic prosperity. Using such reasoning, their "discoverers" have wasted no time trying to spread those ideals across the globe.
But just as long as the Absolutists have been frantically searching for and "finding" their perfect ideal models, there has been a simultaneous increase in sentiments of serious doubts on whether those good systems can be fully exported intact to countries with entirely different socio-cultural backgrounds and expect to remain as effective, successful, and ideal as they are in the locales of origin. And such doubts of "cultural incompatibility" have become the common retort against encroachment of Absolutist "universalistic ideals."
A controversial opinion piece published on Jan 8th, 2011 edition of the Wall Street Journal may help to rationalize the very doubts about the universal applicability of such so-called ideal systems.
Prof. Amy Chua of Yale Law School, herself born and raised in the US to Chinese-Filipino immigrant parents, used her dry wit to point out the harsh extremities of "Chinese" parenting style and the unfortunate "benefits" to the children raised under such parenting. Calling herself a "Tiger Mother," she publicly denounced "American" parenting to be too soft and used her own personal parenting stories to evidence the "superiority" of the Chinese in raising stereotypically successful kids.
Thousands of angry responses from offended "Americans," in the form of articles, blog posts, and death threats to Chua's mailbox, were largely expected. But what is unexpected, and indeed overlooked by the majority of the responders, is that Chua used deliberately controversial dark humor, a product entirely of her American background, to point out both the inhumane irrelevance of the Chinese parenting values against the universal trend toward individual freedom as well as the fragile sensitivity of the American psyche toward any assault on their long-held Absolutist value systems.
Although largely limited to one particular field, the predicted reactions to Chua's article does say much about the emotional "human factor" within international relations. To be specific, the reactions were a blunt exposure of people's tendency to resort first to emotional, rather than analytical, view of their surroundings. People are first and foremost threatened by and not willing to logically consider the merits of any foreign ideas that straightforwardly presented as completely contradictory to their own.
Thus, it can be said that the main issue with the spread of ideals, even if they proved themselves to be source of freedom and wealth, is not simply, or even primarily, that they cannot similarly be a source of such good things in other places. It is much more about the gap in understanding and confiding in the spreading ideals that allow for misunderstanding and ensuing reflexes of resistance that in turn give rise to those irrational "doubts of incompatibility."
Such doubts, when placed in the framework of national governments rather than individuals, will no doubt lead to so-called "conflicts of national interests." As national leaders of all sides are increasingly obliged to heed the illogically passionate responses of nationalists at home, they are forced to communicate their anger, or worse, use their diplomatic, economic, or military weapons to alleviate their sensitivities to pointed oppositions from abroad. The resulting mutual suspicion does not need explanation.
Therefore, ability to generate restraint against irrational emotional responses, rather than ability to promote communication using rational scientific theories, should be the main field of research in promoting better international relations. If more in officialdom, not to mention common people like myself, can learn to smooth out their opinionated messages to people of different backgrounds, then the spread of some Absolutist ideals, with their obvious practical merits, may be possible with fewer violent outcries and more joyous acceptance.
Not surprisingly, the enthusiastic cries of triumph at finding that ideal one-fits-all model has been heard throughout the existence of Absolutist thought. And some, most notably "Western-style democracy" and "free-market capitalism" has been highly justified with increased happiness of common people brought by personal freedoms and materialistic prosperity. Using such reasoning, their "discoverers" have wasted no time trying to spread those ideals across the globe.
But just as long as the Absolutists have been frantically searching for and "finding" their perfect ideal models, there has been a simultaneous increase in sentiments of serious doubts on whether those good systems can be fully exported intact to countries with entirely different socio-cultural backgrounds and expect to remain as effective, successful, and ideal as they are in the locales of origin. And such doubts of "cultural incompatibility" have become the common retort against encroachment of Absolutist "universalistic ideals."
A controversial opinion piece published on Jan 8th, 2011 edition of the Wall Street Journal may help to rationalize the very doubts about the universal applicability of such so-called ideal systems.
Prof. Amy Chua of Yale Law School, herself born and raised in the US to Chinese-Filipino immigrant parents, used her dry wit to point out the harsh extremities of "Chinese" parenting style and the unfortunate "benefits" to the children raised under such parenting. Calling herself a "Tiger Mother," she publicly denounced "American" parenting to be too soft and used her own personal parenting stories to evidence the "superiority" of the Chinese in raising stereotypically successful kids.
Thousands of angry responses from offended "Americans," in the form of articles, blog posts, and death threats to Chua's mailbox, were largely expected. But what is unexpected, and indeed overlooked by the majority of the responders, is that Chua used deliberately controversial dark humor, a product entirely of her American background, to point out both the inhumane irrelevance of the Chinese parenting values against the universal trend toward individual freedom as well as the fragile sensitivity of the American psyche toward any assault on their long-held Absolutist value systems.
Although largely limited to one particular field, the predicted reactions to Chua's article does say much about the emotional "human factor" within international relations. To be specific, the reactions were a blunt exposure of people's tendency to resort first to emotional, rather than analytical, view of their surroundings. People are first and foremost threatened by and not willing to logically consider the merits of any foreign ideas that straightforwardly presented as completely contradictory to their own.
Thus, it can be said that the main issue with the spread of ideals, even if they proved themselves to be source of freedom and wealth, is not simply, or even primarily, that they cannot similarly be a source of such good things in other places. It is much more about the gap in understanding and confiding in the spreading ideals that allow for misunderstanding and ensuing reflexes of resistance that in turn give rise to those irrational "doubts of incompatibility."
Such doubts, when placed in the framework of national governments rather than individuals, will no doubt lead to so-called "conflicts of national interests." As national leaders of all sides are increasingly obliged to heed the illogically passionate responses of nationalists at home, they are forced to communicate their anger, or worse, use their diplomatic, economic, or military weapons to alleviate their sensitivities to pointed oppositions from abroad. The resulting mutual suspicion does not need explanation.
Therefore, ability to generate restraint against irrational emotional responses, rather than ability to promote communication using rational scientific theories, should be the main field of research in promoting better international relations. If more in officialdom, not to mention common people like myself, can learn to smooth out their opinionated messages to people of different backgrounds, then the spread of some Absolutist ideals, with their obvious practical merits, may be possible with fewer violent outcries and more joyous acceptance.
Comments
Post a Comment