A common cultural stereotype of the Chinese is that they are collectivist, i.e. they regard themselves as part of a “we” rather than an “I,” and they see themselves as parts of groups, especially families. This stereotype is widely disseminated by Chinese elites and political leaders, for example Lee Kuan-yew in his assertion of “Asian Values,” as well in the cross-cultural psychology and business management literature, e.g. the work of Geert Hofstede. Moreover, terms associated with private, the self, or the individual have strong negative connotations in Chinese, implying selfishness or egoism.

However, there is significant evidence that Chinese act for themselves at the individual or family household level. First, when I did my first anthropological field research in Taiwan, 1969-70, it was not uncommon for teenagers to keep diaries or photograph albums, page after page chronicling their lives from their earliest baby pictures to the present. Some chose an English name in their English classes for its rarity or uniqueness resulting in some very unconventional names, for example, a fellow who named himself “Shadow” because he practiced Taijiquan, Chinese shadow boxing. A fad emerged in the 1980s in which 18 to 19 year-old women would have a photo shoot, many tens of photos of themselves, including nude shots, to record themselves at what they believed was the height of their beauty. And, of course, Chinese are avid takers of selfies and want themselves to take centre stage in photos snapped at famous tourist sites.

Second, during its economic development from the late 1960s to the 1990s, Taiwan spawned tens of thousands of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as, following the preference to be the “head of a rooster rather than the tail of an ox,” people wanted to be their own boss because of the widespread belief that no one prospers working for someone else. This is why Taiwan has so many SMEs. Its economy is characterized by an extensive sub-contracting system in which bosses, knowing that their skilled employees want to set up their own companies, actually help them do so and promise them future contracts in order to maintain access to their skills. Although the employees’ motivation is to benefit their families as well as themselves, this does not indicate collectivity, which is defined as interdependency beyond the immediate family.

Worker turnover, while rare in the 1960s and 1970s because of the scarcity of jobs, became a problem for management in the 1980s, when there was a shortage of workers. Taiwan’s martial law regime at the time forbade workers going on strike, so to increase their earnings they would find jobs that paid better wages then issue an ultimatum to their bosses to match the offer. This prompted employers to offer New Year bonuses based on a share of profits to workers who stayed with the company. PRC workers in Taiwanese companies in the Pearl River Delta Region were similarly motivated. Researching management culture in the mid-1990s, the most common complaint I heard from managers was worker turnover. Workers making RMB 500-700 per month would leave for another company for an extra RMB 10 per month. One employer, who had been operating for half a year, had only six of his original 180 workers left when I interviewed him.

Third, Chinese society was historically made up of myriad kinship groups. There were some large lineages with thousands of members, but most were small families of seven or fewer persons. Although there was cooperation among families at the local level, people felt no obligation to help others. In fact, assisting others was regarded as a waste of resources. This explains why Chinese nation-builders in the early twentieth century regarded Chinese society as a ‘plate of loose sand,’ many people but lacking in cohesion. Collectivism toward the kinship group did not translate into a collective national identity.

Finally, and most obvious, is the importance of ‘face’ (mianzi). Face is about prestige, social honour, and respect, and whereas one’s face can benefit by, for example, membership in a prestigious club or being a professor at a high-ranked university, face is individual, and individuals will go to great lengths to enhance or protect their face.

The concern for face makes cooperation or accepting the authority of a peer difficult. Chinese folk sayings hold that Chinese on their own are very capable, but this capability is lost when they are in groups. Chinese intellectuals note that if one disagrees with or criticises someone leading a discussion, they will lose the friendship of that person forever. Thus, a worker making a suggestion to a superior must do so indirectly in order to prevent the superior from feeling criticised and losing face. In an environment with strangers, people will withhold courtesies from another for fear that the courtesy will not be reciprocated, making them suffer a loss.

David Schak, is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Griffith Asia Institute.