Escape from Kantian Eurocentric bias in cross-cultural psychology

Abstract

Taking Kant’s misjudgment on Confucian silver rule as the point for first cut, this article is designated to illustrate the fallacy of imposed Orientalism prevailing in mainstream cross-cultural psychology which tends to understand non-Western cultures by a mental set of dualism with a tendency of Westcentrism, particularly the popular research on individualism-collectivism. This type of Euro-centric or Westcentric misjudgments are very common in Western social sciences, for instance, Confucian ethics are frequently described as particularistic in consideration of the distinction between universalism and particularism made by Parsons. In order to help the international academic community to escape from the trap of Eurocentric bias, this article will argue for and illustrate its characteristic of contextualized universalism step by step on the basis of Hwang’s previous research. Finally, the meaning of constructing scientific microworld of Confucian ethics will be discussed to explain how Chinese people are facing the impact of Western cultured during the globalization age of multiculturalism.

Keywords

Eurocentric bias contextualized universalism Confucian ethics particularism multiculturalism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ames

R. T.

(1986). Taoism and the nature of nature. Environmental Ethics, 8(4), 317–350.

Archer

M. S.

(1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.

Bhaskar

R. A.

(1975). A realist theory of science. Verso.

Bhaskar

R. A.

(1978). The possibility of naturalism. Humanities Press.

Bodde

(1953). Harmony and conflict in Chinese philosophy. Princeton University Press.

Lin, D. (2002). Confucian ethics under the globalization, Confucian ethics and legal culture. China University of Political Science and Law Press, p. 187.

Earley

P. C.

Gibson

C. B.

(1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism-collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24(3), 265–304.

Fiske

A. P.

(1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. The Free Press.

Fiske

A. P.

, et al. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures—A critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 78–88.

10.

Gert

(1973). The moral rules. Harper & Row.

11.

Hwang

K. K.

(1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 944–974.

12.

Hwang, K. K. (1995). Knowledge and action: A social psychological interpretation of Chinese cultural tradition (in Chinese). Taipei: Psychological Publishers.

13.

Hwang, K. K. (2001). The deep structure of Confucianism: A social psychological approach. Asian Philosophy, 11(3). 179–204.

14.

Hwang

K. K.

(2011). The mandala model of self. Psychological Studies, 56(4), 329–334.

15.

Hwang

K. K.

(2012). Foundations of Chinese psychology: Confucian social relations. Springer.

16.

Hwang

K. K.

(2015a). Cultural system vs. pan-cultural dimensions: Philosophical reflection on approaches for indigenous psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(1), 1–24.

17.

Hwang

K. K.

(2015b). Culture-inclusive theories of self and social interaction: The approach of multiple philosophical paradigms. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(1), 39–62.

18.

Hwang

K. K.

(2019). Culture inclusive theories: An epistemological strategy. Cambridge University Press.

19.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture consequence: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

20.

Kant

(1788/1963). The critique of practical reason (T. K. Abbott, Trans.). Longmans.

21.

Nunner-Winkler

(1984). Two moralities? A critical discussion of an ethic of care and responsibility versus an ethic of rights and justice. In Kurtines

W. M.

Gewintz

J. L.

(Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 348–361). John Wiley.

22.

Oyserman

Coon

H. M.

Kemmelmeier

(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.

23.

Parsons

(1949). The structure of social action. McGraw-Hill.

24.

Said, E. N. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.

25.

Schimmack

Oishi

Diener

(2005). Individualism: A valid and important dimension of cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 17–31.

26.

Shweder

R. A.

Goodnow

Hatano

LeVine

R. A.

Markus

Miller

(1998). The cultural psychology of development: One mind, many mentalities. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 865–937). John Wiley.

27.

Sundararajan

(2015). Indigenous psychology: Grounding science in culture, why and how? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(1), 64–81.

28.

Sundararajan

(2019). Whither indigenous psychology? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 39, 81–89. http://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000115

29.

Taylor

(1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press.

30.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press.