East and West

Ralph Jensen
March 13, 2005

A Western professor would probably object strongly to the notion that that is the essence of study. In the West, the essence of university study is, I think, to learn how to learn, to question, to research. Plus acquiring a broad background knowledge of the primary field of study.

That seems to be different in Asia -- I speak mainly based on my experience in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Here -- for most students -- study means memorizing and imitating the teacher. Especially, pre-university education is geared towards that goal. (I have 3 children attending Chinese schools.) People begin to realize, that that approach is not sufficient. But still it is dominant. If it will ever change, it is a matter of generations. Questioning is not encouraged. Students here don't ask the teacher questions. Teaching is very much a one way thing. That's very good for the teacher.

The result is kind of a linear approach to reality. Analytical thought is an option, it's not at the root of things.

A friend of mine, university professor and educated in USA, puts it bluntly: "We (the Chinese culture) don't encourage creativity. We encourage following. If you are creative, you are encouraged to study and work abroad. We want a few creative people, but not so many."

Asia has acquired wealth by selling their labor cheaply. That could be done without creativity. Concepts and methods developed in the West had to be implemented efficiently and at low cost. That could be done without creativity. Actually, creativity would have hindered the process. The Confucian ethics, which tells everybody clearly where they belong and how they should behave in that position (or rather location) has been helpful in encouraging a focus on followership.

But now, many Asian countries have reached a level, where labor is no longer cheap and they need to develop more creative assets to grow further, even stay on the same level. They are very challenged in that regard. I don't see it happen.

One country that is not in the category where that is a problem is mainland China. Mainland China, that's China minus Taiwan and Hong Kong, still has abundance of free labor and obedient followers, created by Confucianism and a few decades of Communism, enforced by a strong state. More and more investments go there, regardless of human rights violations, almost inhuman working conditions etc. etc. And they will deliver the goods, just as the rest of Asia delivered them until now.

I have studied MBA in Hong Kong with a Western university (University of South Australia). I witnessed the phenomena first hand. The number one reason for failing a class (assignment or examination) is blind, indiscriminate application of the concepts learned. Many students just apply any concept or tool to a particular case without making a connection to the environment. The usefulness of their assignments or the concepts learned in the real world is not an issue.

Sometimes the teacher asks at the end of the course: Do you have any questions? A very frequent question (of course): What will happen in the examination? How do I write a good assignment?

The answer of the Western professors always is: You have to show that you can apply the concepts and tools we studied. Number one reason for failing are lack of analysis, too descriptive approach, lack of logic, not grasping the real situation of the case study etc. Be logical, analyze the case, crunch the numbers, draw your own conclusion. You can make mistakes, but you must show logical development of your conclusions.

Etc. etc. again and again.

And bang, the same thing happens again. 5 analytical approaches thrown at the case, no conclusions or conclusions not based on the analysis. I was surprised to see that even in Hong Kong, which for decades had been under influence of a Western culture influence (British).

So, when it comes to Eastern and Western approaches to the same thing we are in for a long time of misunderstanding while we are seemingly doing the same. That is also the case with the Principle. The meaning of king, messiah, God, father, mother, parents, love, service etc. is entirely different depending on which culture looks at them.

I firmly believe that essentially the Western approach is closer to the heart of God. However, it lacks something like humility, doesn't accept anything. The Confucian approach demands acceptance of everything that is in a position and thus encourages a descriptive approach. Western people usually think they 'own the place' and question everything, encouraging analysis.

The notion to 'own the place' is not wrong either. After all we are the children of the creator, with the potential and promise of becoming kings and queens. Of course, we aren't there yet.

Anyway, as I mentioned when Father speaks he mostly speaks to people that are from a world different than mine. Those things that are temporary (another word for 'relevant for implementation and immediate action') are spoken to people with a very different culture and on top of that with very different problems. All the issues I mentioned above can be seen in our movement which is at different stages of development and exposed to different cultures -- all at the same time.

I think it takes some courage and creativity to deal with that.