What Is the Difference Between Chinese and American Families?

Published in Sohu
(China) on 29 March 2010
by Zou Zhizhuang (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Mark Frank. Edited by Brigid Burt.
In traditional Chinese society, the family plays a different role than it does in America. In American society, the individual can be seen as the basic constituent of society, and the role of the family is to support the individual and to allow him or her to develop. But the family is the nucleus of Chinese society, and the purpose of the individual’s existence is to hold the family together and ensure its continuation.

Following changes in the economy and society, the Chinese family is transforming violently. Expanding modernization, including reductions in marriages and births and an increase in divorces, is continuously changing the face of the family. A new book titled “Understanding Chinese Families” by Taiwanese scholars C. Y. Cyrus Chu and Ruoh-Rong Yu (Oxford University Press 2010) offers insight into the condition of the Chinese family.

This book discusses the shape of the Chinese family from many different angles, including family size, marriage, reproduction, the division of household duties between couples, investment in childhood education and living arrangements and financial management from generation to generation. Through their research, they discovered that the decrease in births has caused a reduction in the size of the family but that interactions between older and younger generations are still frequent and intimate.

The surveys show that in Zhejiang, Fujian, Shanghai and other coastal provinces and municipalities in the Southeast, as many as 32 percent of married couples live with the husband’s parents, while 6 percent live with the wife’s parents. In terms of the provision of daily needs, among couples living with parents, 24 percent take care of expenses separately from the older generation, while 23 percent of the couples provide living expenses to the parents with whom they are residing. Conversely, it is not rare for the older generation to provide living expenses to the younger couple, as is the case in about 10 percent of these households. The data also indicates that assistance goes both ways, and if the older couple helps care for the grandchildren or provides financial assistance, the younger couple is more likely to provide favors in return. It is evident from these findings that although Chinese society is being infiltrated by Western culture, older and younger generations in China are still co-dependent to quite a high degree. In their living arrangements and material provisions, older and younger generations of Chinese families have constructed an invisible safety net.

The results obtained above contrast sharply with American society. In 1981, Gary Becker, winner of the 1992 Nobel Prize for economics, published a monumental essay titled “Treatise on the Family” (Harvard University Press) analyzing the family from an economist’s perspective. According to a more recent thesis titled “The American Family and Family Economics” by Shelly Lundberg and Robert Pollak that was published in the “Journal of Economic Perspectives” in 2007, the American family has changed drastically in the brief 20-year period since “Treatise on the Family” was penned.

Increased incidences of cohabitation, divorce and birth out of wedlock have caused the shape of the American family to expand in multiple directions. Among the various family types, there is an increasing number of households comprised of unmarried heterosexual or homosexual partners, as well as a fairly high number of single-parent households or households comprised of re-married partners and their respective children. The traditional family is in decline, and the market and the government are gradually replacing the role of the family. For example, rather than depending on their children for care, the elderly are turning to retirement homes or government measures for care. Young children are being cared for by kindergartens, nannies or government-provided social welfare programs. Unemployment checks and welfare packages have replaced the safety net that was once maintained by family members.

Faced with the watering-down of the family’s role as people turn to the market and the government, Shelly Lundberg and Robert Pollak believe that the give-and-take among the family, the market and the government is self-perpetuating. On one hand, the decline of the family has forced the market and the government to step in and replace it. On the other hand, expansion of the functions of government and the market has caused a decline in the power of the family. As for the uncertain role of the family, the two scholars and Gary Becker all maintain an optimistic attitude. As Becker’s article 1988 article “The Family and the State” in the “Journal of Law and Economics” points out, if no one interferes with the role of the family in favor of family autonomy, there is a risk that parents will not be able to provide sufficiently for their children’s education or for care of family members, not to mention other potential problems. Through the implementation of government policies (such as the provision of kindergarten and day care services and measures for care of the elderly), these problems can be solved and the family becomes more efficient.

Can knowledge gleaned from the experience of the American family be applied to Chinese society, making the Chinese family more effective? From the work of C. Y. Cyrus Chu and Ruoh-Rong Yu, it can be surmised that the expansion of the Chinese family is different from that of the American family in that the safety net created by family members and the intimate relationship between generations have allowed the Chinese family to remain effective. If China were to rashly import America’s social safety structure, providing unemployment insurance, welfare packages, etc., it might make the Chinese individual dependent on this sort of social safety net rather than actively fostering family relationships, thus slackening the tight family safety net or causing it to collapse altogether. Moreover, a great deal of Western research has found that when provided with unemployment insurance and social welfare, some prefer to depend on the government for their own subsistence and refuse to work, resulting in dire social problems and serious financial burdens. Rather than pump its resources into the construction of a social safety net, it is better for the government to work on maintaining family safety nets, allowing Chinese families to sustain their traditional form as much as possible.

Thanks to the onslaught of Western culture, some may think that the moon shines a little brighter on the Western world and that Western systems and rules are worth imitating. The investigation in the book “Understanding Chinese Families” helps us to understand the Chinese family, to reconsider the advantages of the traditional Chinese household and to realize that we don’t have to take after America.


邹至庄:中美家庭有什么不同

在传统中国社会中,家庭扮演的角色和在美国的有所不同。在美国社会中,个人可以看作社会的基本组成元素,家庭的功能在于支撑个人,让个人的生活得以开展。但在传统的中国社会中,家庭是社会的核心单位,个人存在的目的在维系家庭,让家族的生命得以延续下去。

  随着经济与社会的变迁,中国社会中家庭的面貌发生了剧烈转变。不婚、离婚比例的提高,生育子女的减少以及现代化的发展,使得家庭的面貌不断改变。从台湾学者朱敬一和于若蓉的新书《了解华人家庭》(Understanding Chinese Families,牛津大学出版社2009年出版),可以了解中国家庭的现状。

  这本书从多个角度讨论中国家庭的面貌,包括家庭大小、婚姻、生育、夫妻家务分工、子女教育投资、代际流动、两代的居住安排与财物移转等。研究发现,生儿育女数目的减少,让家庭的规模略为减小,但两代之间的互动仍相当频繁而紧密。

  以浙江、福建、上海等东南沿海省市2004年的调查资料来看,夫妻与男方父母同住的比例约达32%,与女方父母同住的比例则为6%。而就日常的财物往返来看,受访夫妻中分别有24%、23%会提供生活费给男方、女方父母;反过来看,上一代提供下一代开销的比例也不低,大约为10% 左右。另外,数据也显示,两代间的往来是双向的,如果上一代帮忙带孙子或提供大笔资助,下一代会回馈的可能性也较高。从这些结果可以看出,即使在受西方文化侵袭的中国人社会,两代之间仍有着相当程度的依存关系。透过居住安排、财物来往,为两代的生活构筑了无形的安全网。

  前述中国家庭的观察所得,与美国社会是截然不同的。1992年诺贝尔经济学奖得主盖瑞·贝克 (Gary Becker),1981年发表的《家庭论》(A Treatise on the Family,哈佛大学出版社出版),是首部由经济学观点剖析家庭行为的巨著。而根据Shelly Lundberg和Robert Pollak所撰写的一篇论文《美国家庭与家庭经济学》(the American Family and Family Economics,刊于Journal of Economic Perspectives,2007年),从《家庭论》发表到接下来的短短20多年间,美国的家庭发生了非常急遽的变化。

  同居、离婚和未婚生子的显著增加,使得美国家庭的类型朝向多元的方向发展。在各式各样的家庭中,有相当高比例是由未婚的异性或同性伴侣组成,也有相当高比例是单亲家庭,或是由再婚夫妻与各自的子女组成。在传统家庭式微的情况下,市场、政府的功能逐渐取代了家庭的角色。例如,家庭的养儿防老功能,改由赡养机构或政府的老人照顾措施取代。儿童的教养与照顾,转由保姆、幼儿园或政府社会福利机构分摊。而失业保险、社会救济则取代了家庭成员组成的安全网。

  面对美国家庭功能逐渐淡化,转而由市场、政府取代的发展趋势,Shelly Lundberg和Robert Pollak认为,家庭、市场、政府机能间的此消彼长,有着鸡生蛋、蛋生鸡的关系。一方面家庭的式微,使得市场、政府不得不取而代之。但另一方面,市场、政府机制的扩张,也造就家庭功能的萎缩。而对于家庭功能的不彰,这两位学者,或盖瑞·贝克,都抱持着相当乐观的看法。如盖瑞·贝克的文章《家与国》(the Family and the State,刊于Journal of Law and Economics,1988年) 指出,如果听由家庭自由运作而不加干预,可能造成父母对子女教育投资不足、父母乏人照料等问题。借由政府政策的介入(如提供幼儿照顾服务、老人赡养措施),反倒可以解决这些问题,改善家庭的运作效率。

  然而,诸如美国家庭的发展经验,是否可以借用到中国社会,让家庭的运作更具效率呢?由朱敬一和于若蓉的分析可以得知,中国家庭的发展情况不同于美国社会,由家庭成员构筑而成的安全网,仍旧非常紧密,并以相当有效率的方式运作。如果贸然引进美国的社会安全体系,提供失业保险、社会救济等社会安全措施,反而可能让个人仰赖这类社会安全网,而不积极营造家庭关系,让原本紧实的家庭安全网变得松散,甚或瓦解。此外,西方不少研究发现,失业保险、社会救济的提供,使得某些人宁可仰赖政府来养自己,而不愿投入工作,造成严重的社会问题以及沉重的财政负担。与其将资源投入社会安全网的建构,政府不如致力维系家庭安全网,让中国家庭尽量保存原有的风貌。

  在西方文化的冲击下,有人会认为,西方的月亮比较圆,西方的制度、规章都值得师法。《了解华人家庭》一书的问世,可以让我们了解中国人家庭,重新思考传统中国家庭有哪些好处,而不必向美国学习。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Turkey: Conflicting Messages to Syria: US Supports Integrity while Israel Attacks

Thailand: Donald Trump Buys Time with Weapons for Kyiv

Taiwan: Tariff Showdown Doesn’t Shake Confidence

China: Blind Faith in US ‘Security Commitments’ Is Short-Sighted

Topics

Russia: The Issue of Weapons Has Come to the Forefront*

Colombia: How Much Longer?

Germany: Tariffs? Terrific!

Spain: The New American Realism

Mexico: Trump vs. Cuba: More of the Same

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Related Articles

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle