| 其他摘要 | In recent years, more and more scholars have become aware of the cultural differences between individualism and collectivism within China but have often struggled to explain the reasons behind them. This is mainly reflected in two aspects: Firstly, many "imported" theories from Western cultural studies, such as pathogen-prevalence theory and modernization theory, do not fit well within the Chinese context. Empirical studies in China have found that these theories are inadequate in explaining the cultural differences in individualism and collectivism. Secondly, two local theories proposed in China一the rice theory and the climato一economic theory一conflict with each other, and their research methods have been widely criticized by local Chinese scholars. This study believes that these problems arise, on the one hand, because the relevant research has not strictly defined the sampling criteria, resulting in the inclusion of many provinces with cultural particularities (such as Sichuan and Yunnan), which exaggerates the effects of certain specific factors. On the other hand, the proposers of these theories lack a deep understanding of China's national conditions and history.
The study by Schulz and his colleagues provided inspiration for this study. They believed that social systems may have an impact on cultural change before ecological factors. They systematically investigated the destruction of kinship-based social systems by the Western Catholic Church, which promoted the development of individualistic psychology. While the West chose to destroy this system in the Middle Ages, China developed a new and unique kinship-intensive system, ZongFa system. The ZongFa system was a lineage system evolved from the blood relationship of the paternal clan, with the core being the inheritance system of the eldest legitimate son and the assurance of someone to worship after death. Based on the core features of kinship-intensive social systems, the ZongFa system further adjusted personal interpersonal and property relations, resulting in collectivist culture as an inevitable outcome. In terms of regional distribution, the ZongF a system showed a pattern of being stronger in the south and weaker in the north, similar to the distribution of collectivist culture in China.
Therefore, this study proposes that regional differences in ZongFa system may lead to differences in individualism/collectivism culture within China. Based on this premise, this study strictly established sampling standards at the provincial level and conducted four empirical studies to test the hypothesis. Considering that the ZongFa system no longer exists in China, this study is based on the cultural inertia hypothesis, which suggests that the differential patterns resulting from historical cultural practices still exist in contemporary China.
Study 1 collected data from 6,700 participants on collectivism, holistic thinking, and the frequency of activities related to ZongFa system (FAZF) using an online survey. After excluding the provincial clustering effect and controlling for demographic information of the participants, Study 1 used linear regression to explore the relationship between FAZF and individual collectivism/holistic thinking. The results showed that FAS significantly predicted collectivism.
Study 2 used Weibo data and related dictionary to measure collectivism and individualism among 322,051 and 300,515 subjects in 193 and 194 cities in 2011 and 2012, respectively. After controlling for ecological variables at the city level, such as rice planting ratio and per capita GDP, Study 2 explored the relationship between the city-level ZongFa system and individualism/collectivism at the individual level through hierarchical linear regression. The results showed that the city-level ZongFa system (surname concentration, fertility rate, and sex ratio of newborns) could significantly positively predict collectivism, but not individualism.
Study 3 further extended that regional differences in ZongFa system were for maintaining social stability and enhancing social control, and assumed a mediating model, that is "distance from the political center一regional differences in ZongFa system一individualism/collectivism differences". Study 3 measured individualism/ collectivism in 816 districts and counties in China using macro data (such as family size and divorce rate) and controlled for ecological variables at the county level. The hypothesis was tested through mediation analysis and structural equation analysis. The results supported the existence of the mediating model.
The three studies consistently show that the ZongFa system can effectively explain the differences in individualism/collectivism culture within China and has the greatest effect. Based on this, Study 4 used the Twenty-Six Histories as a research tool, extracted keywords related to individualism through natural language processing, and longitudinally examined the trend of individualism in Chinese history from the Han Dynasty to the fall of the Qing Dynasty, and speculated that the ZongFa system might be the driving force behind the cultural changes in individualism.
In summary, this series of studies supports the view that the ZongFa system is the cause of individualism/collectivism cultural differences in China. On the one hand, this study provides a perspective for interpreting cultural differences within China based on Chinese history and the current context. On the other hand, it provides new evidence for social system theory and further extends the theory in terms of the specific causes of social systems. |
修改评论