>>The system model on the other hand assumes that most basic elements are pieces of communication that in an endless process relate to prior communication and so on. Thus, systems (re-)produce themselves. According to Luhmann this is called "autopoeisis".<<
Excellent.
My thought is that "Chinese" is an oversimplification. Jay is both Han and Hakka, but the two seem to be different somehow. Maybe he can explain, but I'd still fidget, unable to quite contain my own deep-seated prejudice against people who talk about the "efficient Germans", the "volatile Italians" and the "hardworking Chinese." Not as offensive but not that dissimilar from the "happy black man eating watermelon."
There are national stereotypes, but they can't be universally true. Surely not all Japanese love karaoke, and not all English are soccer hooligans.
On the other hand, it seems to be true that there is great social pressure in Japan to remain part of a group rather than stick out as an individual, and that in England where you went to school and what sort of accent you have matters more than what you know.
Nevertheless, I am always wary of the whiff of prejudice, no matter how jolly and well-meaning. It causes one to be blind to elements of reality, so tainting one's observations.
So what about China? Can't we talk about China without talking about "the Chinese"? Or at least recognize that the people at the top of the heap in China have always been extremely civilized and cultured, even if we don't like their politics? And isn't it important to note that in China, a hard-working diligent young man always had a chance to move up in the world, in contradiction to cultures which are being advanced as bastions of civilization? By accumulation of wealth, peasants might become gentry, and once in the gentry, their children would be allowed to take the bureaucratic exams and enter the world of the mandarins. No, it's not democracy, but this tradition may explain why China is modernizing at a faster rate than India with its caste system. |
