グレッグBissky著

コミュニケーションの方の中国の態度は多くの影響によって形づいた。 最も重要のの2つは中国の社会的な哲学者の中国の社会歴史および思考、特にConfucius (およびConfucianism)およびラオス語Tzuである( Tao Te Ching). これらの影響の全面的な効果は特性および論争し、ずっとハーモニーのためのグループのアイデンティティそして欲求を浸透させる欲求を限ることである。 各影響は簡潔に次に検査される。

古代時から中国は労働集約的な米の耕作に存続のために密住まれ、依存した。 協同は堤防および潅漑運河の非常に複雑なシステムの作成そして維持のために重大、特にだった。 政治および地理的な理由のために人々は彼らの村、無数の生成のために繰り返されたパターンに、および結ばれて残されて旅しなかった。 実験のための少しだけ機会(か欲求を)去るそれから収穫の残された定数を植えることの周期: 壊れる実験は飢餓を意味する。

非常に不変の存在は知恵が経験および年齢によって経験によって来たことを意味した。 階層的な社会は権限のもとになっていて年齢が、現れた。 全く不在だった(演説し、「より古い兄弟、弟はとして)互いに従っていて均一な双生児が平等のどの考えでも」。 権限は理由から優秀な状態からないこうして来た: 年齢。

「より古いよりよく」または「より古いこの考えから権利」は欠乏来た質問の: 若者はどんな年長者に質問する基礎ででしようか。 年長者はなぜ青年に質問するか。 特性は祖先の執筆そして格言によってもうあまり重要均一な村の年長者に強いられなかったなった。 文書による仕事のボディが集まったと同時に長年かけて社会内の中国の社会そしてコミュニケーションは標準化されるようになった。 What was right yesterday had to be right today, and would still be right tomorrow.

This rigid hierarchy based upon respect for age was already well in place by the time of Confucius. China’s greatest sage, and the greatest influence on all aspects of Chinese society, Confucius gathered all the influences of popular culture and codified them into a series of well-structured rules and laws. Beginning in the Han Dynasty (206 BC) the writings of Confucius became the state-approved philosophy, and, though endlessly interpreted and added to, remained the official philosophy at least until the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911.

Confucius taught the importance of following rules and of maintaining relationships, and explained the hierarchy that all fit into, explained how one should act towards others above and below in the hierarchy, and made the goal of all human behavior the maintenance of harmony. The “goodness” of an individual could not be measured by the individual but only by the group, and was decided by how the individual acted towards the group. Proper behavior towards others became the only way to achieve “goodness,” thus making harmony with others more important than individual expression or desires.

In contrast to Confucianism and its emphasis on proper behavior towards others was the Tao Te Ching (Taoism) of Lao Tzu and its emphasis on man’s finding peace with himself and within nature. A philosophy perfectly suited for hermits, Taoism taught that man can never really know anything, and should therefore not strive to understand but to accept, not try to change nature but to live in harmony with it. Indeed, the entire concept of proactive change was viewed with suspicion―change happened only by not trying to make change happen.

Both philosophical orientations shunned clear speech and (especially) argumentation. Argumentation―the asking of difficult questions in order to find the true nature of a thing or idea―is necessary for discovery, but discovery was not necessary for either of the great Chinese philosophers: for Confucius because truth depended upon age, and was thus already known; for Lao Tzu because it was impossible to really know anything. In fact, both philosophies argued against what we now call eloquence, persuasiveness or precision. As said in the Tao Te Ching: “He who knows does not talk; he who talks does not know. Keep your mouth shut.” The final chapter sums it up:

True words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not true. A good man does not argue; he who argues is not a good man . . . The Way of the Sage is to act but not to compete.

Yet the Chinese still had to communicate: messages still had to be transmitted. What developed was one of the most sophisticated and complicated ways of communicating in the world. Understanding messages involved far more than the meaning of words. Chinese communication became like highly-structured poetry: understanding messages meant considering how something was said, then the meaning of the words, then who said it, then when it was said (and many other factors). The style was very indirect, with real skill being the ability to communicate something without ever saying it, and understanding something without ever hearing it. Such indirectness made the ultimate goal of Confucian thought―maintaining harmony in human relations―easier. Understanding Chinese attitudes towards communication depends upon understanding that the goal of all communication was (and is) the desire to maintain harmony in human relations. No matter what the message, it should be given in a way that would not upset the relationship between sender and receiver.

Emphasis was on “being polite,” something we now call the desire not to lose, or cause one to lose, face. Over the years this created a deep-set fear in most Chinese of going too far or saying too much when communicating. Other people’s feelings became very important, and negative messages such as disagreement or disappointment were communicated in an indirect, save face way. Further emphasis was placed upon accepting the world around you, on obedience and a lack of questioning. No need to discover the new meant no need for precision or clarity. Over centuries a body of ritual phrases developed, and communication skill came from repeating them at the appropriate time.

Greg Bissky, www.treasuremountain.com

This is the third part of the article “Communication in Chinese Offices”. Next week we will publish part four.