Jie Li
Dr. Lance Massey
ENG 724
18 April 2008
Chinese Intellectual Discourse Through the Lens of Western Rhetoric
Introduction
Rhetoric as a western concept originated from democracy. For over two thousand years, rhetoric has been one of the major laws that govern the written and oral communication in the Western world, because the structure of the country as well as the social and cultural context provide the conditions that nurture various rhetorical behaviors ranging from state affairs to academic and civic activities. However, China, a representative of the Oriental cultures, inherits a 5000-year tradition which is tremendously different from the Western culture in terms of its language, history, social structure, values and beliefs, etc. In spite of the differences, rhetorical approaches in the east and the west share some attributes that could possibly facilitate the success of persuasion, such as identification, ethos, worldview, values, beliefs, experience, education, sociocultural context, etc. However, these attributes are not only culturally situated and they work in different manners in different linguistic and sociocultural settings but also related to orators’ knowledge, cognitive abilities, and personal experiences, etc. Some unspoken norms which may seem irrelevant to rhetoric in a Westerner’s eyes may also govern the Chinese daily rhetorical behaviors. They affect the effectiveness of communication and add cultural characteristics to the art of language or speech that western rhetorical concept entails.
In this essay, I will use Kenneth Burke, S. M. Halloran, I. A. Richards and C. K. Ogden’s rhetorical theories to analyze Chinese intellectual discourse and various political, sociocultural, psychological factors as well as their beliefs and values that make the western and eastern rhetorics different. This essay focuses on intellectual discourse because these intellectuals receive good education, can manipulate the language well, have higher moral standards, and can best demonstrate the essence of the Chinese culture through their speech, attitudes and behavior. This study exemplify that although Chinese discourse is different from the English discourse, the Western rhetorical theories could also be employed to analyze rhetoric-related factors that influence daily communication. Comparative studies will illuminate both rhetorics and foster better understanding between peoples, which is of primary importance in such an increasingly globalized world.
Traditionally, rhetoric has been thought of as “the art of persuasion” or a study of the “available means of persuasion,” which leads people to think that rhetorical skills help to achieve the goal of persuasion or to create the intended effect on its audience. If it is true, it will lead orators to the misperception that they persuade by just relying on rhetorical strategies. In fact, human communication is not such a simple game that once a person grasps the rules, he or she will definitely be the winner. Many factors beyond language participate in and affect communication. Therefore, to be a successful orator, just getting good training of persuasion is far from enough. As a matter of fact, the tactic used by rhetoricians, such as some salesmen, politicians or utilitarian, who manipulate their audience just for the purpose of persuasion has earned rhetoric a bad comment: “it’s mere rhetoric.” Admittedly, eloquence, taste, style as well as communication skills are essential because they are the basis in the rhetorical construct; however, the things on which the above-mentioned skills are built, such as knowledge, the concern for the interest/benefits of the hearers, morality, and ethos are the superstructure, or the core for good communication. They remediate to what language or rhetorical strategies cannot fulfill in the course of rhetorical transactions.
Remediation to Rhetoric as the Art of Speech
Contemporary scholars and philosophers like Kenneth Burke, S. M. Halloran, and I. A. Richards and C. K. Ogden have expanded the classical rhetorical theories and made them more adapted to the modern people’s mentality and lives. They foreground identification, ethics, common interest over the art of speech in rhetorical studies and civic lives though they may view the issue from their own perspectives. They all hold the idea that language is the medium of communication and that through language self is made. “Making self” through rhetoric means that what a person speaks or writes reflects his or her worldview, moral standards, habits, values, etc., which, to a great extent, determines if the speaker or writer could convince the audience and move them into action in the end.
Burkean rhetorical theory “identification” fills up the gap that rhetoric being the art of persuasion leaves. “Identification” is a key word Kenneth Burke (1897-1993) uses in the discussion of rhetoric in A Rhetoric of Motives. For Burke, the persuading process is actually a process of identifying. In this piece, he defines rhetoric as “the use of language to form attitudes and influence action” (1325). At the beginning, both parties involved in the rhetorical behavior are an independent and isolated entity. They hold different views and have their own motives. To make the audience move toward him or her, the speaker or writer has to be “rhetorically honest” (Burke 1334) and display his or her “individualist motives” (Burke 1339) through language/words for the purpose of reaching the “tribal motives” (Burke 1339), values and beliefs that both the speaker and hearers share. Here the move from individual to tribal motives represents one of the important features of rhetorical activities. Persuading starts with digression and gets to concurrence, “unity” of thoughts. For example, Burke states that “If men were not apart from one another, there would be no need for the rhetorician to proclaim their unity. If men were wholly and truly of one substance, absolute communication would be of man’s very essence” (1326). Burke values “absolute communication,” and true communication depends on a speaker’s attitude, sincerity, moral standards, ethics and other merits because these elements have a more powerful influence than language on their audience. He specifies the place of identification in daily rhetorical practice. “Identification means to suggest more powerfully than persuasion the workings of rhetorical discourse in everyday language” (Burke 1325). Although rhetoric is purpose-oriented, the speaker’s knowledge is not enough to make himself accepted by the hearer. And that’s why Burke thinks “the key term for a modern rhetoric is not persuasion but identification” (qtd in Richards and Ogden 626) and thus the persuading process becomes the “a moralizing process” (Burke 1336). The hearer or reader examines and tests the validity and reliability of the orator’s words. So, in rhetorical transactions, the orator should represent him- or herself as an honest person, and demonstrate identification and high moral standards, share mutual interests; otherwise, it is hardly possible to achieve “consubstantiality” (1325) and “unity” (1326), or agreement. Burke explains his understanding of rhetoric and the harm of mere rhetorical strategies as follows, “this aspect of identification, whereby one can protect an interest merely by using terms not incisive enough to criticize it properly, often brings rhetoric to the edge of cunning” (Burke 1334). Finally, Burkes concludes that “Rhetoric comprising both the use of persuasive resources (rhetorica utens, as with the philippics of Demosthenes) and the study of them (rhetoric docens, as with Aristotle’s treatise on the “art” of Rhetoric) (1334), because “Identification…and persuasion… are possible only if both speaker and audience enter into the rhetorical transaction as a serious existential commitment” (qtd in Halloran 627). Rhetoric is a transaction in which both sincerity and persuasive skills function in order that the communication happens in the real life context, and reach its intended purpose in the end. Factors that can shorten the distance between the speaker and the hearer may also include love, care, respect, interest, concerns, or things all humans share. In a word, the orator has to make the audience feel that he talks about something that the audience is interested in and is caring about, giving the audience a sense of belonging, mutual understanding and support.
Another rhetorical scholar, S. M. Halloran, in “On the End of Rhetoric, Classical and Modern” lament that modern rhetoricians have lost the virtues of the ancient Greek and Roman. Halloran agrees with and makes Burke’s “identification” easier to understand by the metaphor that “speaker and audience inhabit different worlds” (626). He contends that the world is made up of many different and isolated people. My interpretation of Halloranian rhetoric is that human beings are like the countless celestial bodies in the universe. They may collide or ally with one another. Each person has his or her idiosyncratic personalities, beliefs, values, cultures, habits that make his or her world unique. Each person reigns his or her own kingdom. To communicate effectively, the speaker or writer has to “make his own world open” (Halloran 627) to others so that they can see the inner side of the world through the language he or she uses. I compare it to a window or a channel which allows communication to get through. If the speaker can represent the “hearer’s own best self, the ideal self defined by his education in the common wisdom of the culture” (627), then the orator can realize his rhetorical objectives. It is similar to Burkean rhetoric in that Hallorran visualizes the Burke’s identifying process in communication, allowing us to “see” how each of the two parties in communication governs his or her own world, enters another world, and makes a new world that belongs to the two of them, just as celestial bodies sharing similarities in the space form a system, like the Milk System, Solar System, etc. On the contrary, if the speaker and his or her audience do not share similar interest, values, and beliefs, like the stars in the universe they will collide, and communication ends up with digression. “The audience likewise is detached, hearing the speaker’s argument but never allowing it to touch his life, never measuring the images articulated in the speech against the contours of his world” (627). This quote explains why sometimes a wonderful speech in the speaker’s eyes will turn out to be waste words in the hearer’s ears/hearts. They can never reach a goal.
Both Burke and Halloran think rhetoric is not just the art of persuasion, ethos, and mutual interest are equally important in communication. But thinking beyond this aspect, we may find that understanding the intent and right meaning of a written or oral discourse has to depend on language but not just language itself. I. A. Richards and C. K. Ogden reveal a misque about using and understanding rhetoric. In their book The Meaning of Meaning focus on the cognitive process of understanding meaning which from linguistic and psychological point of view supplements the saying, rhetoric as the art of persuasion. In their words, “words are symbols or signs, and signs require interpretation” (1270). To understand the meaning of a word, “the interpreter understands the sign in context, which may be the surrounding verbal context, in the case of words; the experiences associated with the sign; or both” (1270). From another perspective, the quote reveals a feature of meaning: it is dynamic and contextualized. They analyze the relationship among “signs, thoughts, and things” in the work which could be explained as three dimensions “the conceptual domain—thoughts that are in our minds; the symbolic domain—words and symbols that we use to communicate with others; the real world—things in the real world that we refer to in our thoughts and with symbols” (“The Meaning of Meaning”). To understand a meaning, one has to associate the word with the “‘right’ context” (1271). So creating the context for successful interpretation seems to facilitate communication. “Meaning is rhetorical…because language is ‘an instrument for the promotion of purpose’ and not simply ‘a means of symbolizing references’ (1271)”. To understand the orator’s purpose, the audience has to rely on his knowledge, experience, the socio-cultural context, etc. Miscommunication occurs when a listener fails to retrieve the right and relevant context. So, interpretation is a dynamic rather than a static process, and the realization of the purpose depends on other factors rather than on language. Persuasive skills alone do not ensure a success because different experience, values, education, and other cognitive elements may result in misunderstanding or even rejection of the ideas.
Chinese Discourse in the Western Rhetorical Setting
China’s literary history is dated back to Shang dynasty (14th century B.C.). Because the social cultural context, habits, social norms are different from those used in the English language, we may find that in some situations, the Chinese rhetoric does not conform to what the English language abide by. But if associated with its history, social system, these examples may also offer some insights to rhetorical studies. In the following part, I will draw on two examples of Chinese intellectual discourse to show how communication between the Chinese violate the English rhetoric but does not quite affect the effects of it. The reasons lying behind the words are the key to the success of the communicative behavior.
Case 1: Conversation between a middle school teacher and a worker parent
At a conference, a female teacher (Li Laoshi) and Lao Wang talk about the performance of Lao Wang’s son at school. The student, Wang Xiaole, is studying in the 8th Grade Junior High. The conversation happened in the early 1980s. ( Bitter Memories)
Teacher: Since our last meeting, Xiaole has not made any progress. Your son is not
well-disciplined. He does not do his homework, talks to his deskmate during class
time, does not clean the classroom when he is on duty… I have told him many times
that he has the lowest grade in class. But he does not seem to care. Yesterday he had
a fight with another boy in my class…. He is not stupid, but study is not for him,
and he does not put any effort into his work. He does well in PE class and won a
prize for our class at the sports meet. But at this time he should not play so much
basketball any more. The entrance exam for high school is coming soon. If he does
not improve, he will affect the ranking of our class. I hope parents can cooperate
with school.
Parent: Li Laoshi, thank you very much for spending so much time on him. I know my son,
and I cannot control him either. If there were not school, I am not sure what I
should do about him. My son is your son. Go ahead punishing or hitting him, just like treating your own son. I know being stricter is better for him.
Teacher: There are over fifty students in my class, so I hope you and Xiaole can communicate
with each other so that he can keep up with the class.
The above conversation cannot happen in America, because of a different teacher-parent relationship and different approach people take toward student’s achievement, and different responsibilities teachers and parents shoulder. I interviewed a friend of mine, Barbara Laird, about her response if a teacher talked about her son in such a manner. She said she would not accept the comment because the teacher could not be so authoritative that she told what the parent should do. She could only report some observations and what she has done to help the student improve, and suggest who should be involved, etc. A workable plan for the student could be a summer school so that the student can be promoted to the next grade. But American parents are usually defensive rather than cooperative; teachers are expected to be encouraging and factual rather than subjective or authoritative. So if the teacher works in an American school and talks like this, the communication will end up in failure because American parents do not share the same values, beliefs, hierarchies, responsibilities about education. So communication is decided by sociocultural factors which entail “the deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notion of time, roles, spatial relationships, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people” (Porter and Samovar 15).
However, if interpretation is associated with its social and cultural context, although the language itself sounds jarring to the ear, the conversation is not only possible because of the shared values and attitude toward education but generates a lot of deep thinking. From the parent’s response, we can see that the parent is grateful for what the teacher has done for his son. My memory as a junior high student in the 1980s confirms what the teacher says. Agreement with the comment also shows that the teacher and parent identify with each other in the conversation, as they have a common goal that is to educate a student to be a good citizen and achieve good results at school. The common goal is consubstantiality according to Burke, and shared world as Hal loran describes. But an American cannot accept the comment because the social cultural environments he or she lives in makes it hard to enter the Chinese teacher’s world and resist being part of that rhetorical community.
The key to the understanding of the conversation is to situate oneself in the context in which the conversation happens. The above conversation manifests the characteristic of the Chinese educational system, teacher-student-parent relationship, and people’s attitude toward education. In China, knowledge and person of good scholarship are respected since ancient times, and this tradition still influences Chinese educational systems and personnel policies. Traditional Confucian philosophy holds that “The pursuit of knowledge is superior to all other trades of life,” (万般皆下品，唯有读书高) and “Scholars with outstanding expertise make good officials”（学而优则仕） (words from Analects). Back in feudalist China, officials were selected through the Imperial Examination System, which lasted for 1300 years, from its founding during the Sui Dynasty in 605 to its abolition near the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1905” (“Imperial examination”). This examination system has an insisting influence on the Chinese and has become a “political attraction to the learned” (Wan) and has constituted an important part of China’s political culture because a person’s knowledge is associated with his or her position in the government. For a long time, commitment to excellence has been the learned people’s psychological pursuit and satisfaction. Once a person’s expertise has been recognized, chances of being promoted to officials are great. However, some people earn degrees just to get promoted, so diploma becomes a sign of knowledge and great abilities, which was especially true after the Great Revolution (1966-1976). In Xiaole’s case, if he could first enter a good high school and then a university, he did not have to worry about job, housing, and a lot of other opportunities of promotion and further studies in the 1980s. It was indeed a way to be self-made because his father as a worker could not pave his way to success and good life.
The test-oriented educational system gives priority to grades, and that is why people say that in China the teacher is God in students’ eyes and grades are students’ life. Even one point lower than the lowest cut-off will keep students out of the gates of high school or universities. To train competitive spirits, most schools adopted tracking system, and let students know their ranking in the class and the whole grade. Low-achieving students are usually openly criticized by the teacher in class, because the Chinese do not think grades are privacy and that more pressure, more progress. This is extremely true with elementary and middle schools because a good habit formed at an early age will benefit all his or her life.
Besides, all Chinese parents wish their children especially sons to do better than them; hence, the so-called, (望子成龙)，“wishing their son to become a dragon” so as to “make them family as well as ancestors feel proud” (光宗耀祖). Parents usually support school and show conformity to teachers. Teachers symbolize power at school; knowledge is also power. Usually Chinese are expected to obey authority, because the country has been hierarchical since its early years, and has been characterized by central power since Qin dynasty (221 BC) when Qinshihuang (first emperor) unified all states and standardized measurement, laws, Chinese characters all over the country, and he became the supreme power. Thus, in a sense, the teacher is the person with this kind of power. In the modern times, he or she is thought to empower students with knowledge and helps him become a successful person in his or her future career or life. So, the teacher is respected because the scolding words express her love and concern for the student and care for their future. Teachers’ work ethics expect them to impart knowledge and teach students to be good people. Lao Wang really hopes his son could be a success, so he is grateful for the teacher when he cannot instruct his son with knowledge and reasons.
At that time, sports was thought to be inferior to intelligence, and there were not many opportunities for young students to become stars either, so students fought for a seat at schools and colleges. In 1977, China restored entrance exam for college which was suspended during the 10-year Great Revolution (1966-1976). The Great Revolution was a time when all knowledge and tradition were regarded as evil and as they were the very cause of all anti-Mao’s tendency and behaviors. Colleges and universities shut down, and professor and students went to the country-sides and factories to receive re-education because farmers and workers were the most loyal and reliable people to Mao. Because of a great demand of intellectuals, diploma, trademark of ability and expertise, became the thing that every young person was after, as passing the test and getting admitted to college was very hard, l.84 per 1,000 people (Du 21) after a 10-year chaotic period. Then, any successful applicant was regarded as a hero or a lucky bird who might incur envy by peers. After formal education at college, some ambitious young scholars emerged and made great contribution to the nation. In turn, these people enjoyed honors and were provided with better living and working environments, just like the selected candidates for the government in Chinese history, because China needed them to update its education and technology urgently so as to narrow the gap in economy and science between the advanced industrialized countries like the United States of America and some European countries. In the 1980s, receiving higher education and becoming an employee in the government or institutions of learning and research was the best and most honorable profession. To enter colleges and universities, the competition for the goal first started in high school, then junior high. At that time, higher education ensured the best profession, and to some, probably the only way to choose. Students burned the midnight oil just to be one of the 1.8 persons in a thousand. Parents and teachers experienced equal amount of pressure, because assessment for teachers are associated with students’ performance. Later the competition for college and universities started from elementary school, and at present even since the child is born. “Nobody wants to lose at the starting line,” as people say. It’s understandable in China that a two-year old learns English. Students study for themselves, for their family, and for their teachers and schools.
Collectivism and competition, as a tool of political propaganda and business management, could add pressure to the already heavy burden on teachers’ shoulders. Middle school teachers in China talk in a domineering and scolding manner because of long hours at school, large student number in each class, pressure and expectation from school, society and parents, and the particular issues of students at that age. In her eyes, Xiaole winning a prize and getting poor grades was both related to the standing of the class. Middle school teachers are stereotyped as fussy, picky, wordy… Teachers talk with a heavy heart: he or she has too much pressure to bear, too many responsibilities to take, and too much to be expected of …
The fact that Lao Wang gives the teacher the authority to punish or hit his son indicates a kind of courtesy or appreciation which is typical of the Chinese and has a historical implication. China has been thought of as a nation of “rite” or “rituals” since feudalist society, Confucius’s time (551 BCE – 479 BCE) to be exact. Rites are one of the cores of Chinese traditional culture, Confucianism. Confucius defines “rites” as the following.
Lead the people with administrative injunctions and put them in their place with penal law, and they will avoid punishments but will be without a sense of shame. Lead them with excellence and put them in their place through roles and ritual practices, and in addition to developing a sense of shame, they will order themselves harmoniously.” (Analects II, 3) (qtd. in wikipedia.com）
The following quote clarifies the differences between external authorities and internalized rite, which best manifest why the Chinese sound very polite or afraid of expressing different opinions. Giving others face and saving one’s own face are important components of Chinese daily conversation.
Confucius argues that under law, external authorities administer punishments after illegal actions, so people generally behave well without understanding reasons why they should; where as with ritual, patterns of behavior are internalized and exert their influence before actions are taken, so people behave properly because they fear shame and want to avoid losing face. In this sense, “rite” (礼) is an ideal form of social norm. (wikipedia.com)
From the quote and interpretation, we know that easterners obey in order to save face, achieve harmony, or to avoid adverse influence. In other words, good behaviors are a way of protecting oneself, not to be shamed. Lao Wang may not mean that the teacher can punish his son, but saying so is a way to give face to the authority (the teacher), to show respect, and to express appreciation. The teacher really has her accountability there: she thinks and does for the good of Lao Wang and Xiaole.
Lao Wang, the parent, represented a typical Chinese worker or farmer who does not have much education but sounds straightforward, simper, unsophisticated, and reliable. “My son is your son. Go ahead punishing and hitting him.” A saying hidden behind this line is that in China, a teacher is compared to a father or mother. Even if he or she teaches a student for just a day, the student should treat the teacher like his own mother or father for the rest of his/her life. Fulfilling filial piety is one of the merits of the Chinese. In the old days, even if the father hits his son (not daughter) for his misbehavior or even if he is wronged, the son cannot argue head-on with his father. Only when a person really trusts a person, does he say words like these or allow others to treat his son like his/her own. Lao Wang did not really mean that the teacher could hit his son, but it expressed his gratitude and appreciation. But some Chinese parents especially worker or farmers who are thought to be rough still abuse violence at home. When the teacher thinks for his son, there is no reason that Lao Wang does not feel grateful. He accepts the comment which might sound quite unpleasant to the ear, but he believes that sincere advice does not come amiss. Lao Wang demonstrates his self in his words. The teacher is direct too because he/she knew Lao Wang’s personality, that’s his/her audience awareness.
The communication between the teacher and parent is thought to be an effective one because Lao Wang can rely on the teacher for his son’s life and future. The teacher opens her own world to Lao Wang, so Lao Wang thanks Li Laoshi in recognition of her thoughtfulness, sense of responsibility, and trustworthiness. The teacher does not talk over his head but helps to solve some problems for the student and parents, so she is still a good teacher. By contextualizing oneself and interpreting their words in the real life situation is the key for understanding the conversation.
Case 2: A typical conversation revealing the complexity of intellectual discourse
The conversation between a department chair (C) and a young faculty member, Hongyu (F), and another faculty member Zhang Gang. They talk about chances of further studies, personnel policies, and relationship between department chair and his or her inferiors.
Hongyu: I hear our Department is recruiting candidates for a study-abroad program. May I
know something about it?
Chair: You are really well-informed (消息灵通). As a matter of fact, we haven’t got the
document from the University yet.
Hongyu: I am not sure of the qualifications you seek….
Chair: Different programs request different qualifications. But we will consider you.
(… A month later, another faculty member, Zhang Gang, asks Honey about his application.)
Zhang Gang: Are you going to the USA?
Hongyu: Me?
Zhang Gang: What happened?
Hongyu: I am waiting, until others come back from the USA.
Zhang Gang: Ah… you don’t understand? You did not order enough food or you did not have
his taste? I saw Baoshan and him in a restaurant. That makes the difference?
Hongyu: Dare you ask?
Zhang Gang: He is a scholar, so…
Hongyu: But he is a chair too.
This is a conversation typical of university taste/style. From the conversation itself, it does not make much sense, as both speakers are more concise than expected. Apparently more information is needed. But judging by the cooperative principles (CP) by H. P. Grice, speakers in the conversation purposefully violate the conversational maxims so as to generate conversational implicatures, meanings beyond what is said. Grice proposed that in a conversation “participants proceed according to an implicit assumption that he terms the cooperative principle” (“Grice’s Cooperation Principle”) or the four maxims, to be specific: quality, quantity, relevance, and manner. The article “Grice’s Cooperation Principle and Conversational Maxims” explains the four maxims as follows:
1. Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true.
(1) Do not say what you believe to be false.
(2) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
2. Quantity
(1) Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.
(2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
3. Relation: Be relevant.
4. Manner: Be perspicuous.
(1) Avoid obscurity of expression.
(2) Avoid ambiguity.
(3) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
(4) Be orderly. (http://www.criticism.com/da/grice-maxims.php)
Based on the above CP, the speakers in this conversation violated the maxims of quantity, manner, and relevance. First, I will explain violation of quantity. For example, Hongyu says less than he knows, or he does not want to say much. “Me?” means that “It is impossible for me to land the opportunity,” or “How can you think of me?” He doesn’t proceed to answer who will go either probably. Another example that violates quantity is “He is a scholar, so…” Obviously, Zhang Gang means more than the words show. What is implied is that a scholar should be trust-worthy, or a scholar should be different from a politician who is good at rhetoric. But he does not say clearly that the chair is disappointing in order to avoid trouble. Honey is unhappy about the result, but does not say a word directly about the misdeed about the chair, because he, as an intellectual educated in the Chinese culture, holds harmony and rite, giving each other face, being indifferent to fame and profit (淡薄名利)， remaining humble are important. This practice is extremely true between inferior and superior. Honey so far has not realized his goal of obtaining a chance of further studies yet (his motive), so he is afraid that offending the chair will only result in even harmful subsequences, like losing or deferring an opportunity that should belongs to him. Chinese scholars feel shy to say that he meets the qualifications, or he does not have full trust in Zhang Gang, so he stops where he thinks he has made the meaning clear.
Rites and harmony as good conducts on one hand makes communication seemingly smooth and speakers respectful, but on the other, may also indicate inequity and danger like corruption, and power abuse. He shows respect for the decision of the department although he thinks at least the chair should let him know the process of it. Analects sees the relation between respect, rites, boldness as follows, “Respectfulness, without the Rites, becomes laborious bustle; carefulness, without the Rites, become timidity; boldness, without the Rites, becomes insubordination; straightforwardness, without the Rites, becomes rudeness” (VIII, 2) (qtd. in “Confucianism”). So Hongyu seems right not to argue with the chair, as it has already been the result. Meanness, rudeness, or even straightforwardness, etc, will only incur greater loss and makes him lose the attributes of an intellectual, such as modesty, courtesy, politeness, understanding, responsibility for helping achieve harmonious, etc.
Hongyu tries to be cooperative, because of the influence of “Doctrine of the mean” which is thought to be perfect virtue of the Chinese people. “Doctrine of the mean” is translated into to “chan”, “render[ing] ‘mean’ as an ‘equilibrium’ identified as ‘harmony’” (“Confucianism”). One of the books by Confucius, “The Doctrine of the Mean” “focuses on the ‘way’ that is prescribed by a heavenly mandate not only to the ruler but to everyone” (“Confucianism”). Therefore, it is not hard to understand why the chair as well as faculty members talk in a way that avoids being clear and exact in order not to hurt the feelings of the others. In one way or another, they have the way of harmony in mind. Ethos or humanity was emphasized by Confucianism, so saying anything that interferes with harmony is not considered to be appropriate. That’s why Hongyu chooses to be silent in front of the chair. Chinese intellectuals do not like to argue for personal interest; but if it were for others, they would be more direct and active in gaining it for others. Once again, we see why Zhang Gang tries to help find the reasons for missing the chance. Another explanation of Hongyu’s non-violent disobedience is that he does not think the chair has identification, so he does not want to talk more with him, so their communication fails because they do not share common goals and beliefs.
Violation of the maxim of manner is found too in the conversation. For example, “Me?” does not answer the question, but expresses his opinion. In this way he could avoid pour blame on the chair. Other words that also violate the maxim of manner include “You are really well-informed,” etc. The chair remains vague, but comments that Hongyu knows more than he himself does, because documents usually spell out qualifications. The words also imply that if Hongyu is not selected it will not be the chair’s fault, because “different program have different qualifications” which is a typical tactic applied by administrators in China, shirking responsibilities and shifting blame onto others. “I am waiting, until others come back from the USA” by Hongyu means that the chair seems to hint that he should wait; Hongyu does but waits to miss the opportunity. He actually blames himself to be so silly that he will not know until others finish their studies and come back from the USA.
In Asian cultures, obedience to authority to achieve harmony, and the traditional perception of the relation of “jun chen fu zi” (traditional superior and inferior relationship) could be the causes of corruption and bureaucracy. Some Chinese merits such as giving face to others, the superior in particular, has been a tradition inherited from the ancient times. The good attribute is that it helps to achieve harmony in the family, workplace, and the whole state. The Chinese believe that harmony is the cause of prosperity. Harmony is desired for in running a state by Confucianism. Confucius advocates love and kindness/ benevolence. All people are called upon to think and act toward one center. So, once in China, one will not be surprised to hear all people say the same words and do the same things at the same time. But the negative impact is that some politicians may take advantage of the kindness of the people, resulting in misdeeds. China is a country which is run more by man than by law. It means that relation plays a bigger role than laws or regulations, at least sometimes and on some occasions. The reason for this is that the traditional hierarchical structure is deep-rooted in people’s minds, so they obey even if their interest or right is encroached upon. Democracy and free speech are not in their life yet. They fight for discourse power, but it seems authority or the unspoken influence is there threatening their courage. Most of the time, their education, values, face value, stop them; therefore, the officials of the cultures tend to be domineering.
A sign of violation of relevance is that the questions asked are not answered; instead, another speaker responded with another question. They provide irrelevant information for the purpose of emphasis. “Me?” implies the surprise, or dissatisfaction. “Dare you ask?” means that “I dare not ask, do you?” which implies hierarchy, fear, conformity, and sacrifice. Obedience and collectivism are key values of hierarchical societies like China, Japan and Korea. Goals, beliefs, values shared with in-group are put over individual goals, so “self-sacrifice” for and “readiness to cooperate with in-group members” seems to be what Hongyu enjoys doing (Triandis 305), reaching a state of “harmony in differences” (Huang), one of the core essence of Confucianism. Although what the chair does interferes with Hongyu’s interest, Hongyu chooses to conform or keep quiet. It seems that in the same case, if others do not complain about this kind of inequity, Hongyu could not either. Harmony is what intellectuals in China value. Chinese intellectuals choose to be silent and seek harmony in terms of self interest.
The conversation also show that in practice, democracy is still far away from Chinese people’s lives because of restriction from the traditional culture, and the bad effects they get from call for democracy in contemporary and modern times. Admittedly, some scholars become politicalized once they come to power. Fame and profit are things they are interested in, and they neglect their responsibilities, and cause inequity and utilitarianism. Democracy is a most frequently discussed topic in universities or larger academic circle, because intellectuals know the good of it from books or experiences from democratic nations. But discussion turns out to be an everlasting research topic, but never became part of ordinary people’s lives. Very often, we find ourselves lost in what in-group demands, having no self and voice, being oppressed by politics. That’s why people joke that the whole nation wants to be officials because of the profits associated with position and power. In the Chinese history, there has been no record of success of intellectual uprising although these people really wish to win freedom of speech and democracy for the Chinese people. It is also one of the reasons that intellectuals are thought not to be able to change the world, because they do not have power. Most of them do value discourse power over political power.
In English people violate cooperation principle too, but in Chinese there is a much higher frequency, because Chinese is a high-context language, a language that depends heavily on contexts. But English, a low-context language, relies on information for meaning. It’s why sometimes Westerner cannot fully understand what the Chinese mean in communication. They usually need information than the Chinese do. Even if they understand the words, the deeper meaning remains vague. Westerners most of time want the Chinese to provide more support while the Chinese think they have made everything clear. But the Chinese have less trouble decoding the hidden meanings, particularly when the speaker is sensitive to the situation, familiar with the context, purpose and relation to the topic. Implication as well as ambiguity for the purpose of achieving harmony or provoking thinking are valued, which is extremely true of intellectual discourse because this group of people have a better education, a good command of the language, care more about speakers’ feelings, and the conversation’s overall effects, both negative and positive. M. Gerret, a scholar who has done a lot of studies on classical Chinese rhetoric, noted that “the Chinese place more emphasis on analogical thinking, while the West prefers rational thinking, and that the Chinese audience assumes an active role while the Western focuses on the role of the speaker in a rhetorical situation” (qtd in Lu 107).
The conversation also uncovers a very important aspect of China’s interpersonal relationship: connection or network. It is one of the features of a culture that the Chinese have outdone other nations in the world. In the whole conversation, Zhang Ling’s longest sentences describe in a very subtle way about what he sees in a restaurant. He uses is a pun, and only those who know Chinese fool culture and its relation to the purpose of such act can decode the underlied meaning of the words. Usually Chinese leaders distance themselves from the people under them, or even if they look or sound friendly, in their heart they enjoy being looked up to. “Business is business,” is not what they adhere to, because in the Chinese history, there has been the practice of “making appointments by favouritism” (任人唯亲) rather than “on merit or on moral standards” (任人唯贤)，which means that a close friend of the leader has a lot more chances of promotion. In ancient China, people say that “an acquaintance in the royal government helps one to be appointed” (朝里有人好做官). For a long time, the Chinese officials have been appointed because of this kind of connection. Those who are out of the game have to wait in the line but they never get there in the end. And it is true that a county fellow, a classmate, or a family member is usually the person who can say good words about him, and find the shortcut for him.
Restaurant in China is like the podium to politician in America, because a lot of transactions and decisions are made at dinner tables rather than in the office. On one hand, “You did not order enough food or you did not order to his taste?” means that you did not say words that the chair likes to hear, so Hongyu did not attend to his chair’s “taste.” On the other hand, it could also imply that Hongyu’s failure is caused by the fact that he did not invite the chair to dinner, or he didn’t bribe the chair with decent gifts. Dinner party has gone far beyond the meaning of eating if one associates it with the saying of “appointment on favouritism”. On the surface, Zhang Gang is talking about food but he means more than that. Zhang Gang is roundabout because talking about people behind their back is not a merit, or he is not sure if telling Hongyu what is going on under the table will offend him or if his words affect Hongyu’s impression about him. So, in China, speech is more than the art of language. But if one cannot speak in a manner that pleases the chair, he or she will fail when the leader is one who is after it.
Westerner may not understand some of the participants of the conversation, because they do not have the same habits, do not hold the same values and beliefs, and do not respond to unfair acts in the same way. But in the social and cultural context of China, both speakers understand each other as they are used to the discourse, and are sensitive enough to be able to decipher the underlied meaning. Zhang Gang and Hongyu can communicate because Zhang Gang thinks for Hongyu so they could share the same rhetorical community; but the chair does not have common goals with Hongyu, and, therefore, loses trust in him.
Conclusion
From the above two cases, we may find that Chinese speakers involved in the conversations do not communicate in the way western rhetoric demands. But they can identify with each other, move toward goals and values they share and have each other’s interest in minds, because they can well situate themselves in the context of the conversation, interpret each other’s words, and make the conversation continue.
Rhetoric is culturally based in meanings and practices. Chinese intellectuals use more metaphors because of their limited understanding of rhetoric as “modification of terms and stylistic devices (xiu ci)” (Lu 113). They also employ analogical thinking, more implication in topics related to personal interest and sensitive relations owing to their social, political, and cultural context because they think being ambiguous is the best way to express their opinions without damaging harmony, a core value that the Chinese culture values.
Confucianism has an enduring influence on the Chinese, especially the Chinese intellectuals, because Confucianism has been part of their political, social, cultural and professional lives, so that their speeches, attitudes and behaviors demonstrate the key values such as modesty, doctrine of the mean, harmony, identification, collectivism, etc.
But from another perspective, the Chinese intellectuals are more or less oppressed by the traditional political beliefs and practices. For over two thousand years, “Confucianism has been used as a kind of “state religion”, with authoritarianism, legitimism, paternalism, and submission to authority used as political tools to rule China. Most emperors used a mix of legalism and Confucianism as their ruling doctrine, often with the latter embellishing the former” (“Confucianism”). In present day, leaders still consciously or unconsciously exercise control over discourse power. Harmony seems to be what they desire for in the whole process of communication for the convenience of control. Different from western rhetoric, it seems that harmony is the starting point of rhetoric and it is also wished to the end product of rhetorical behavior. As a result, although superficial agreement could be arrived at, difference might be hidden beneath it which might constitute a danger to the unrealistic expectation of the harmony, because audience is not convinced but become the target of doctrination and propaganda. Intellectuals living in this rhetorical context have to exert their way of expressing differences, implication, and analogy out of self-protection. So, Chinese intellectuals still have a long way to go in order to get the equal right with government officials, because they control power and exercise power on citizens including the intellectuals.
Works Cited
Burke, Kenneth. “From A Rhetoric of Motives.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from
Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 1324-1340.
“Confucianism.” 23 Apr. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Rites>
“Doctrine of the Mean.” 23 Apr. 2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Mean>
Du,Ruiqing. Chinese higher education: A decade of reform and
development（1978-1988）. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992.
“Grice’s Cooperation Principle and Conversational Maxims.” 23 Apr. 2008
<http://www.criticism.com/da/grice-maxims.php>
Halloran, S. M. “On the End of Rhetoric, Classical and Modern.” College English. 36
(1975): 621-631.
Huang, Yu. “The Thought of ‘Ho-Tung’ in Confucianism and the Ethos of China.” 19 Apr.
2008 <The Thought of “Ho-Tung” in Confucianism and the Ethos of China>
“I. A. Richards.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Ed.
Patricia Bizzell and BruceHerzberg. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s,
2001.1270-1273.
“Imperial examination.” 23 Apr. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination>
Lu, Xing. “Comparative Studies of Chinese and Western Rhetorics: Reflections and
Challenges.” Chinese Communication Theory and Research: Reflecitons, New Frontiers, and New Directions. Ed.Wenshan Jia, Xing Lu, and D. Ray Heisey. Westport: Ablex Publishing, 2002. 105-120.
Luo, Anxian. “On ‘Scholars with outstanding treatise make good officials.’” 20 Apr. 2008
<http://www.philosophyol.com/dept/teacher/cp/luoanxian/200511/717.html>
Kates, Susan. Activist Rhetorics and American Higher Education: 1885-1937.
Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press,
Porter, Richard, and Larry A. Samovar. “Intercultural Communication: An Overview.”
Selected Readings in Intercultural Communication. Ed. Ruiqing Du, Texin Tian and Benxian Li. Xi’an: Xi’an Xiaotong University Press, 2004. 1-21.
Richard, I. A., and C. K. Ogden. “From The Meaning of Meaning.” The Rhetorical
Tradition: Readings from Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and
Triandis, Harry. “Collectivism vs. Individualism: A Reconceptualisation of a Basic Concept
in Cross-Cultural Social Psychology.” Selected Readings in Intercultural Communication. Ed. Ruiqing Du, Texin Tian and Benxian Li. Xi’an: Xi’an Xiaotong University Press, 2004. 304-316.
“The Meaning of Meaning.” 18 Apr. 2008
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Meaning>
Barbara Laird. Interview. Monday (4/21) at 9:00am.
Zhong, Gang. ‘Forum for All Schools of Thought’: ‘Academic Superman’ and ‘Academic
Superwoman.’” 14 Apr. 2008 <http://www.ycwb.com/xkb/2006-12/21/content_ 1324496.htm>
