Some evaluative comments on Confucianism and indigenous psychology.

Confucian society placed great value on “having face” derived from distinctive achievement in helping relationships and consequent social status. Chen (1988) developed a scale that measured the significance a person places on honorable experiences in life and alternatively their sensitivity to disgrace. This concern to maintain face can be easily understood within Western psychology as a form of impression formation and therefore not unique to Confucian society (Tedeschi & Riess, 1981). A unique factor in Confucian theory is the strong emphasis on filial piety that seems to have no similar comparative place in Western thought. The main difference between Confucianism and Western ideas grew out different conceptions of the origin of life. In Christianity each individual is seen as independently created by God whereas in Confucianism the individual is seen as the continuation of parents and indeed the preceding ancestors. That conception of the individual led to the idea of the “greater self” since in Confucian culture people experience shame and glory together. However, that argument must be modified by the fact that the need to preserve face is probably universal, however manifested in different ways in varying cultures (Keil, Im, & Mahring, 2007). For example, “keeping face” is probably one way we can understand luxury consumption in both Confucian and Western societies (Qian, Razzaque, & Keng, 2007).

As we observed earlier the interest in Confucian theory and psychological concepts grew out of the dissatisfaction by non-Western psychologists with what seemed to them the domination of Western paradigms in world psychology. This assessment brought about a number of efforts to incorporate non-Western concepts and cultural factors into cultural and cross-cultural psychological research (Hwang, 2005a, b). The first wave called modernization theory was really a surrender to Western culture since it argued that the psychology in any society had to be modernized (and become more similar to U.S. and European personalities and dispositions) in order to facilitate the progress of society (Inkeles, 1966). Hofstede (1980) through his work on cultural work values later helped shift attention away from Western cultures. In the research that emerged the study on individualism and collectivism had a significant heuristic impact (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).

However, since the research on individualism and collectivism takes American or Europe society as reference points, how can we really understand collectivistic thinking? From these criticisms an indigenous psychology emerged in a search for non-Western psychological interpretations. The effort to create indigenous psychologies was partly motivated by the broader cultural influence of nationalism, and in particular by academic anti-colonialism (Kim, 2000).

The focus of indigenous psychologies however, also came under criticism. For example Triandis (2000) noted that anthropologists have used similar methods as those promoted by indigenous psychologies without producing results that significantly impacted scientific psychology. Further, the question might be asked about how many indigenous psychologies are optimal and should be developed? If every culture required a specific psychology we would not only have a confusing many, but it would represent ethnocentrism in reverse (Poortinga, 1999). Any psychology must also take into account the rapidly changing world that has produced concepts like the “global village”. It is doubtful that there is any pure homogenous or distinctive culture and it could be argued that there is a broader frame of human commonness that supports a universal psychology. In fact some authors argue that the ultimate goal is to develop a more universal approach from which to understand cultural variations (Kim & Berry, 1993; Ho, 1998; Yang, 1999). That proposition suggest that regardless of cultural variation there also exist in the human mind an underlying deep universal structure that functions the same in all societies, but over time have developed into different mentalities because of the cultural environment.

Summary

This chapter summarizes major approaches to theories of personality from Western conceptions to the thoughts of Eastern philosophy and the cultural psychologist’s work on indigenous traits. Definitions of personality in the West refer to enduring traits that are reflected in consistent behavior across situations, context and the lifespan. The dominant contemporary personality model in Western psychology is the trait approach through which researchers can learn what distinguishes one person from another. The departure point in Western psychology is the seminal work of Sigmund Freud. Through his method of having patients "free associate" he developed a broad theory of personality that emphasized the importance of childhood development (the child is the father of the man) and the dominant role of unconscious motivation. Freud argued for the presence of two opposing instincts in human life. The Eros represented life, love and creativity, the Thanatos death, aggression and destruction. Personality structure in Freud’s theory consists of three components. The Id is based on the pleasure principle, the Ego moderates behavior in compliance with social reality and demands, and the Superego incorporates parental values in the form of individual conscience. Probably the most useful construct derived from Freud’s psychoanalysis is the conceptualization of defense mechanisms that intuitively seem to match and explain great deal of human behavior. The neo-Freudians differed from Freud by emphasizing conscious motivation, the importance of social stages of development, and by deemphasizing the role of sexuality.

The contributors to humanistic psychology were more interested in the development of healthy people in contrast to Freud’s work with neurotic patients. Maslow and Rogers thought and wrote about the human potential for growth and happiness. Maslow developed a theory of motivation where the peak of personal development is the self-actualized person, a concept that has greatly influenced contemporary debate and research. Traits that describe a self-actualized personality include compassion, a concept similar to that advocated in Buddhism. Rogers emphasized the essential goodness of human beings and the importance of rejecting the false in life, striving toward self-acceptance and the acceptance of others through unconditional positive regard. Humanistic psychology served a heuristic role in encouraging research on the etiology and correlates of self-esteem.

Social-cognition is an interaction theory that explains personality from the point of view of principles of learning and cognition. The critical determinant in the development of personality is found in the interaction of the person with the environment called reciprocal determinism. Bandura argued that we all exercise choices in regard to our environment, and that these choices shape our personality. In many ways we become self-fulfilling prophecies as our attitudes sensitize us to environmental variables. Social-cognition interaction theory formed the framework for research on the locus of control variable. Because of their reinforcement history some people have developed an external locus of control and come to believe that they have little or no power over environmental forces and that their behavior has no affect on outcomes. Other people believe that the outcomes of life are primarily a function of their own behavior. Learned helplessness is a related concept where people exposed to powerful forces learn that there is no relationship between their efforts and their outcomes. A great deal of cross-cultural research has emerged out social-cognition interaction theory on the locus of control and autonomy variables.

On the whole Americans are more likely to score high on beliefs in the internal locus of control compared to Asian and some other cultural groups. Research has also supported the relationship between real life conditions of control and whether people believe in an internal or external locus of control. People who come from impoverished backgrounds believe more strongly in the external locus of control thus validating the concept. Further, in related research the relative influence of individualistic versus collectivistic cultures affect the degree of autonomy people experience. However, research supports the idea that people who are able to live their values feel they are autonomous regardless of other cultural organization of life that reinforce authoritarianism.

The chapter reports on personality types and how these can be understood as a hardwired legacy from our adaptive efforts to survive. The competitive and stressed type A personality seem to be a particular contribution of modern capitalism. Research support at least in part the genetic heritability of some personality traits and those that are discovered early in childhood have consistent affects across the lifespan. Research on the Big Five super traits support the genetic basis for personality structure as these traits appear in all cultures studied. Although the presence of the Big Five is now commonly accepted it is important to remember that culture affects the mean values of the traits within cultures. Conversely societies that are geographically closer also have a greater correspondence on the mean values of the Big Five supporting the role of culture. Criticisms suggest that the Big Five do not describe very well the interpersonal relatedness central to personality in Asia and elsewhere. Research has also demonstrated the universality of other personality traits like the relative levels of authoritarianism. Nevertheless the presence of the big Five has been explained as a universal adaptation that developed because it gave advantages in the common human struggle for survival. The research on national character also support the influence of culture in personality development as such self-stereotypes that serve to reinforce national identity.

Eastern thought and philosophies have made important contributions to personality theory and many mind-related constructs emerged from Eastern cultures across many centuries before they occurred to people in the Western world. The major difference between Western and Eastern thought is in the construal of the self. Whereas the self is seen as an enduring aspect of personality in Western thinking, the self is viewed as a reification and delusion in the Buddhist worldview. Central to Buddhist philosophy is the concept of the middle way where the healthy person seeks to find a balance that does not lead to self-indulgence or self-mortification. Suffering in life is real and from that affliction humans search for relief often in pleasure seeking that however produces nothing of enduring value and only provide a temporary cessation of desire. Buddha taught that suffering and desire can be controlled and lead to a personal transformation when we choose the path leading to self-fulfillment and an authentic existence by accepting the welfare other others as a high ethical responsibility. The ego based self is an illusion that only brings suffering.

Buddhist personality theory posits components called Skandhas that are interdependent in origin and functions and are based on the consciousness that emerge from the basic sensory processes. The mind is the location of complex cognition although all these processes are temporary. Nevertheless complex cognition gives rise to the “subjective knower” that seem to be in control. The aim of Buddhism is to eliminate or reduce all unnecessary suffering by creating an understanding of the delusion of the inner self and replacing that with more healthy conceptualizations found in the interconnectedness of the person to all in the universe. When we see ourselves as connected to all in the universe we are able to empathize with the sufferings of others and develop compassion. Meditation offers a path in Buddhism that can lead to greater peace and serenity. A critical thought about the Buddhist idea of reification of the self might be: does it matter if the self is a delusion and is reified when the individual and others behave as if it is real?

Confucian philosophy also made a major contribution to our thinking about personality. As a body of thought it seeks to explain basic aspects of personality, how it develops in the family structure, why people suffer, and healthy behavior and personality. According to Confucian thinking the locus of personality development is found in the family. However, Western psychology sees maturity of personality development in the formation of independent and autonomous persons, whereas Confucianism sees a healthy personality as someone who recognizes and fulfills important roles and responsibilities of relationships. The family is the initial place of role responsibility, but as the person develops he/she must respond to ever widening circles of relationships and associated duties. The independent Ego makes no sense in Confucianism since the autonomous personality favored in the West is seen as both unhealthy and dysfunctional. Although Confucius has been criticized for supporting authoritarianism in human relationships an alternative interpretation is to view hierarchical relationships as those between benefactor and beneficent.

Collateral to the cross-cultural comparative research on personality, the cultural psychologists have found evidence for traits that are unique to a particular culture and indigenous. The overall picture revealed by personality research would support the presence of both universal personality structures that can be compared across cultures, but also culturally specific traits unique to the cultural values of particular societies.

Chapter 10

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 829