Westerners seem inclined to believe there is only one kind of relation between the individual and the state that is appropriate. Individuals are separate units and they enter into a social contract with one another and with the state that entails certain rights, freedoms, and obligations. But most peoples, including East Asians, view societies not as aggregates of individuals but as molecules, or organisms. As a consequence, there is little or no conception of rights that inhere in the individual. For the Chinese, any conception of rights is based on a part-whole as opposed to a one-many conception of society. To the extent that the individual has rights, they constitute the individual’s “share” of the total rights. When Westerners see East Asians treating people as if they had no rights as individuals, they tend to be able to view this only in moral terms. Whatever the moral appropriateness of the behavior of East Asian officials—and I share with most Westerners the view that there is such a thing as individual human rights and that they sometimes are violated in East Asia—it is important to understand that to behave differently would require not just a different moral code, but a different conception of the nature of the individual. A different conception of the individual would in turn rest on an inclination to think about the world in terms of individual units rather than continuous substances at the most basic metaphysical level. It is also important to recognize that East Asians and other interdependent peoples have their own moral objections to Western behavior. When East Asian students become comfortable enough to speak out in Western classrooms, they will often express bewilderment at how much disorder, crime, and exposure to violent and sexually explicit images in the media Westerners are willing to tolerate in the name of freedom. They perceive these issues as entailing human rights because rights are perceived as inhering in the collectivity rather than the individual.
Different cultures can ultimately lead to different moral values. The traditional concept of “for the good of family/society” lends to be a more of a utilitarian approach. Whereas western values sees individual liberties as a universal right that should not be compromised even for the common good.
That might explain the disconnect and the outrage that people from each culture might have when experiencing the other. It also reflects itself by generations. Millennials and young generations in Singapore might have grown up with greater exposure to western values, which might contrast strongly with that of their parent’s generation.
If your Asian and you ever feel you have a hard time explaining to your Asian parents your personal values and decisions, that’s just the way it is. There is just a huge disconnect born from centuries of culture and history. One that requires a really long bridge of effort and empathy for us to connect.
