探寻中国人的多重互依自我:理论、挑战与整合
|
摘要
为了全面理解中国人的互依自我内涵,整理相关文献后,发现主要有华人本土与跨文化两种研究取向及相关的多种典型理论,如差序格局理论、华人四元自我理论、道德自我理论、三重自我理论和文化会聚自我理论。这些理论适合解释不同类型的互依自我,并面临各自的挑战。在意义维持模型下对这些理论及互依自我类型进行了整理,发现中国人的互依自我是多层次的、动态的。
Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama first proposed that there can be two views of self-construals, namely the independent construal and the interdependent construal. Many scholars recognize that the Chinese are prominently interdependent self-construal to their western counterparts. Besides theoretical disputes, there are mainly two approaches in studying Chinese interdependent self-construal. One is Chinese indigenous approach; The other is cross-cultural approach.The Chinese indigenous approach advocates that researchers should base on the principle of "indigenous compatibility" to study self. They construct three typical theories: the theory of differential mode of association(DMA), the four-part theory of the Chinese self(FPT), the theory of moral self(TMS). DMA treats individual as the center of the world and gives different values to other people associated with the individual. Some studies discover that the contemporary Chinese attach not only to blood ties, but also to other forms, for instance, classmates, friends, colleagues, etc. Ideas related to FPT first appeared in 1960 s. Hsu argued that the Chinese self is situational or social centered. Inspired by Hsu, Ho regarded the Chinese self as the relational self. At nearly the same time, Yang believed that the social oriented Chinese interdependent self contained three subtypes, that is, relational orientation, family orientation and others orientation. Some scholars who supported TMS had different viewpoints. They advocated that individuals who had the ultimate meaning consciousness under the enlightenment of the Confucian culture could make a new psychological identity of the unity of heaven and man. However, studies supported TMS have mainly stayed at the speculation level or phenomenological description level.Cross-cultural approach recognizes the tripartite model of self-construal(TMS) and the polycultural self theory(PST). According to TMS, self can be divided into individual self, relational self and collective self based on different levels of representation. Some studies discovered significant differences between the Chinese and the Westerners in representing themselves at those three levels. For the Chinese, in the early stage of processing, relationship self and collective self are more dominant; In the late processing stage, the individual occupies the advantage of processing. However, the Westerners have always been the dominant individual self. The differences between the three levels of self in Han, Tibetan and Hui Nationalities are compared also. Chiu and Yang created the polycultural self theory(PST), and argued that some people had a new type of self-construct, the polycultural self, to adapt to the complex multicultural environment. Possessing a dynamic structure, the polycultural self was characterized by its hybrid cultural identities and managed multiple cultural identities at the same time.Those theories concerning interdependent self-construal can be systematically grasped from the Meaning Maintenance Model. From different views to understand the essence of Chinese selves, DMA is suitable for explaining the individual centered interdependent self-construal; FPT is suitable for social oriented interdependent self-construal; TMS is suitable for explaining the ultimate meaning self in Confucian culture; PST is suitable for explaining the new kind of self-identity emerged in the globalization era. In sum, the Meaning Maintenance Model offers a dynamic multiple perspective to explicate the Chinese interdependent selves.
Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama first proposed that there can be two views of self-construals, namely the independent construal and the interdependent construal. Many scholars recognize that the Chinese are prominently interdependent self-construal to their western counterparts. Besides theoretical disputes, there are mainly two approaches in studying Chinese interdependent self-construal. One is Chinese indigenous approach; The other is cross-cultural approach.The Chinese indigenous approach advocates that researchers should base on the principle of "indigenous compatibility" to study self. They construct three typical theories: the theory of differential mode of association(DMA), the four-part theory of the Chinese self(FPT), the theory of moral self(TMS). DMA treats individual as the center of the world and gives different values to other people associated with the individual. Some studies discover that the contemporary Chinese attach not only to blood ties, but also to other forms, for instance, classmates, friends, colleagues, etc. Ideas related to FPT first appeared in 1960 s. Hsu argued that the Chinese self is situational or social centered. Inspired by Hsu, Ho regarded the Chinese self as the relational self. At nearly the same time, Yang believed that the social oriented Chinese interdependent self contained three subtypes, that is, relational orientation, family orientation and others orientation. Some scholars who supported TMS had different viewpoints. They advocated that individuals who had the ultimate meaning consciousness under the enlightenment of the Confucian culture could make a new psychological identity of the unity of heaven and man. However, studies supported TMS have mainly stayed at the speculation level or phenomenological description level.Cross-cultural approach recognizes the tripartite model of self-construal(TMS) and the polycultural self theory(PST). According to TMS, self can be divided into individual self, relational self and collective self based on different levels of representation. Some studies discovered significant differences between the Chinese and the Westerners in representing themselves at those three levels. For the Chinese, in the early stage of processing, relationship self and collective self are more dominant; In the late processing stage, the individual occupies the advantage of processing. However, the Westerners have always been the dominant individual self. The differences between the three levels of self in Han, Tibetan and Hui Nationalities are compared also. Chiu and Yang created the polycultural self theory(PST), and argued that some people had a new type of self-construct, the polycultural self, to adapt to the complex multicultural environment. Possessing a dynamic structure, the polycultural self was characterized by its hybrid cultural identities and managed multiple cultural identities at the same time.Those theories concerning interdependent self-construal can be systematically grasped from the Meaning Maintenance Model. From different views to understand the essence of Chinese selves, DMA is suitable for explaining the individual centered interdependent self-construal; FPT is suitable for social oriented interdependent self-construal; TMS is suitable for explaining the ultimate meaning self in Confucian culture; PST is suitable for explaining the new kind of self-identity emerged in the globalization era. In sum, the Meaning Maintenance Model offers a dynamic multiple perspective to explicate the Chinese interdependent selves.
引文
安乐哲.(2016).儒家伦理学视域下的“人”论:由此开始甚善.华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),48(3),145-158.
杜维明.(2017).儒家论做人(上).人民教育,8,75-78.
费孝通.(2016).乡土中国·乡土重建.北京:群言出版社.
冯友兰.(2001).三松堂全集(第11卷).郑州:河南人民出版社.
何友晖,彭泗清,赵志裕.(2007).世道人心.北京:北京大学出版社.
马伟军,冯睿,席居哲,陈滢滢,梅凌婕.(2015).“差序格局”的心理学记忆视角的初步验证.心理学探新,35(6),514-519.
沈毅.(2013).迈向“场域”脉络下的本土“关系”理论探析.社会学研究,4,203-228.
唐君毅.(2005).人生之体验续编.桂林:广西师范大学出版社.
汪凤炎,郑红.(2015).中国文化心理学.广州:暨南大学出版社.
王建民.(2016).自我主义与社会秩序--关于“差序格局”的再思考.社会学评论,4(6),3-19.
王沛,陈庆伟,唐晓晨,罗俊龙,谈晨皓,高凡.(2017).中国人三重自我建构加工中的相对优先性:来自ERP的证据.心理学报,49(8),1072-1079.
王艇,郑全全,韦庆旺.(2017).中国情境下的关系自我和群体自我区分研究.心理学探新,37(5),465-470.
吴莹.(2015).中国社会心理学评论.北京:社会科学文献出版社.
夏瑞雪.(2016).自我边界的结构、功能及神经基础.北京:科学出版社.
徐冰.(2003).两面性与真诚性.中国社会科学院研究生院博士学位论文.
徐晓军.(2009).内核-外围:传统乡土社会关系结构的变动--以鄂东乡村艾滋病人社会关系重构为例.社会学研究,1,64-95.
许烺光.(1989).美国人与中国人:两种生活方式比较.北京:华夏出版社.
杨国枢,陆洛.(2009).中国人的自我:心理学的分析.重庆:重庆大学出版社.
杨宜音.(2008).关系化还是类别化:中国人“我们”概念形成的社会心理机制探讨.中国社会科学,4,148-159.
杨宜音.(2015).中国社会心理学评论.北京:社会科学文献出版社.
杨中芳.(2009).如何理解中国人.重庆:重庆大学出版社.
赵志裕,吴莹,杨宜音.(2015).中国社会心理学评论.北京:社会科学文献出版社.
朱滢,伍锡洪.(2017).寻找中国人的自我.北京:北京师范大学出版社.
左世江,黄旎雯,王芳,蔡攀.(2016).意义维持模型:理论发展与研究挑战.心理科学进展,24(1),101-110.
Brewer,M.B.,&Chen,Y.R.(2007).Where(Who)are collectives in collectivism?Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism.Psychological Review,114(1),133-151.
Chen,S.X.,Lam,B.C.P.,Wu,W.C.H.,Ng,J.C.K.,Buchtel,E.E.,Guan,Y.,&Deng,H.(2016).Do people’s world views matter?The why and how.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,110(5),743-765.
Cohen,D.,&Gunz,A.(2002).As seen by the other:Perspectives on the self in the memories and emotional perceptions of easterners and westerners.Psychological Science,13(1),55-59.
Gaertner,L.,Sedikides,C.,Luke,M.,O'Mara,E.M.,Iuzzini,J.,Jackson,L.E.,et al.(2012).A motivational hierarchy within:Primacy of the individual self,relational self,or collective self?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,48(5),997-1013.
Gore,J.S.,&Cross,S.E.(2011).Defining and measuring self-concept change.Psychological Studies,56(1),135-141.
Heine,S.J.,Proulx,T.,&Vohs,K.D.(2006).The meaning maintenance model:On the coherence of social motivations.Personality and Social Psychology Review,10(2),88-110.
Hermans,H.J.M.(1999).Sell-narrative as meaning construction:The dynamics of self-investigation.Journal of Clinical Psychology,55(10),1193-1211.
Ho,D.Y.F.(1995).Selfhood and identity in Confucianism,Taoism,Buddhism,and Hinduism:Contrasts with the west.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,25(2),115-139.
Hong,Y.Y.,&Mallorie,L.M.(2004).A dynamic constructivist approach to culture:lLessons learned from personality psychology.Journal of Research in Personality,38(1),59-67.
Huang,W.,Mamat,M.,Shang,R.,Zhang,T.Y.,Li,H.,Wang,Y.,et al.(2014).Analysis of the private,collective,and relational self-cognitions among Han and Tibetan Chinese.Psychological Reports,115(1),179-198.
Jiang,T.,&Gore,J.S.(2016).The relationship between autonomous motivation and goal pursuit:A cross-cultural perspective.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,19(2),101-111.
Ka?it?ibasi,?.(1996).The autonomous-relational self:A new synthesis.European Psychologist,1(3),180-186.
Kim,U.,Yang,K.S.,&Hwang,K.K.(2006).Indigenous and cultural psychology:Understanding people in context.New York:Springer Science+Business Media,Inc.
Krahnke,K.,Wanasika,I.,&Kilpatrick,J.(2012).Concept of self in the east and the west.Journal of International Management Studies,12(1),97-109.
Le Febvre,R.,&Franke,V.(2013).Culture matters:Individualism vs.collectivism in conflict decision-making.Societies,3(1),128-146.
Lu,L.,Kao,S.F.,Chang,T.T.,Wu,H.P.,&Jin,Z.(2008).The individual-and social-oriented Chinese bicultural self:A subcultural analysis contrasting mainland Chinese and Taiwanese.Social Behavior and Personality,36(3),337-346.
Mamat,M.,Huang,W.,Shang,R.,Zhang,T.Y.,Li,H.,Wang,Y.,et al.(2014).Relational self versus collective self.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,45(6),959-970.
Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(1991).Culture and the self:Implications for cognition,emotion,and motivation.Psychological Review,98(2),224-253.
Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(2010).Cultures and selves.Perspectives on Psychological Science,5(4),420-430.
Morris,M.W.,Chiu,C.Y.,&Liu,Z.(2015).Polycultural psychology.Annual Review of Psychology,66,631-659.
Park,J.,Uchida,Y.,&Kitayama,S.(2016).Cultural variation in implicit independence:An extension of Kitayama et al.International Journal of Psychology,51(4),269-278.
Sedikides,C.,Hoorens,V.,&Dufner,M.(2015).Self-enhancing self-presentation:Interpersonal,relational,and organizational implications.In F.Guay,D.M.McInerney,R.Craven,&H.W.Marsh(Eds.),Self-concept,motivation and identity:Underpinning success with research and practice(pp.29-55).Charlotte,NC:Information Age Publishing.
Smith,P.B.(2011).Cross-cultural perspectives on identity.In S.Schwartz,K.Luyckx,&V.Vignoles(Eds.),Handbook of identity theory and research(pp.249-265).New York:Springer.
Spencer-Rodgers,J.,Boucher,H.C.,Mori,S.C.,Wang,L.,&Peng,K.P.(2009).The dialectical self-concept:Contradiction,change,and holism in East Asian cultures.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35(1),29-44.
Sun,C.R.(2017).An examination of the four-part theory of the Chinese self:The differentiation and relative importance of the different types of social-oriented self.Frontiers in Psychology,8,1-16.
Taras,V.,Sarala,R.,Muchinsky,P.,Kemmelmeier,M.,Singelis,T.M.,Avsec,A.,et al.(2014).Opposite ends of the same stick?Multi-method test of the dimensionality of individualism and collectivism.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,45(2),213-245.
Torelli,C.J.,Chiu,C.Y.,Tam,K.P.,Au,A.K.C.,&Keh,H.T.(2011).Exclusionary reactions to foreign cultures:Effects of simultaneous exposure to cultures in globalized space.Journal of Social Issues,67(4),716-742.
Tsuda,A.,&Hwang,K.K.(2016).Editorial:The construction of culture-inclusive approaches in psychology.Japanese Psychological Research,58(1),1-3.
杜维明.(2017).儒家论做人(上).人民教育,8,75-78.
费孝通.(2016).乡土中国·乡土重建.北京:群言出版社.
冯友兰.(2001).三松堂全集(第11卷).郑州:河南人民出版社.
何友晖,彭泗清,赵志裕.(2007).世道人心.北京:北京大学出版社.
马伟军,冯睿,席居哲,陈滢滢,梅凌婕.(2015).“差序格局”的心理学记忆视角的初步验证.心理学探新,35(6),514-519.
沈毅.(2013).迈向“场域”脉络下的本土“关系”理论探析.社会学研究,4,203-228.
唐君毅.(2005).人生之体验续编.桂林:广西师范大学出版社.
汪凤炎,郑红.(2015).中国文化心理学.广州:暨南大学出版社.
王建民.(2016).自我主义与社会秩序--关于“差序格局”的再思考.社会学评论,4(6),3-19.
王沛,陈庆伟,唐晓晨,罗俊龙,谈晨皓,高凡.(2017).中国人三重自我建构加工中的相对优先性:来自ERP的证据.心理学报,49(8),1072-1079.
王艇,郑全全,韦庆旺.(2017).中国情境下的关系自我和群体自我区分研究.心理学探新,37(5),465-470.
吴莹.(2015).中国社会心理学评论.北京:社会科学文献出版社.
夏瑞雪.(2016).自我边界的结构、功能及神经基础.北京:科学出版社.
徐冰.(2003).两面性与真诚性.中国社会科学院研究生院博士学位论文.
徐晓军.(2009).内核-外围:传统乡土社会关系结构的变动--以鄂东乡村艾滋病人社会关系重构为例.社会学研究,1,64-95.
许烺光.(1989).美国人与中国人:两种生活方式比较.北京:华夏出版社.
杨国枢,陆洛.(2009).中国人的自我:心理学的分析.重庆:重庆大学出版社.
杨宜音.(2008).关系化还是类别化:中国人“我们”概念形成的社会心理机制探讨.中国社会科学,4,148-159.
杨宜音.(2015).中国社会心理学评论.北京:社会科学文献出版社.
杨中芳.(2009).如何理解中国人.重庆:重庆大学出版社.
赵志裕,吴莹,杨宜音.(2015).中国社会心理学评论.北京:社会科学文献出版社.
朱滢,伍锡洪.(2017).寻找中国人的自我.北京:北京师范大学出版社.
左世江,黄旎雯,王芳,蔡攀.(2016).意义维持模型:理论发展与研究挑战.心理科学进展,24(1),101-110.
Brewer,M.B.,&Chen,Y.R.(2007).Where(Who)are collectives in collectivism?Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism.Psychological Review,114(1),133-151.
Chen,S.X.,Lam,B.C.P.,Wu,W.C.H.,Ng,J.C.K.,Buchtel,E.E.,Guan,Y.,&Deng,H.(2016).Do people’s world views matter?The why and how.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,110(5),743-765.
Cohen,D.,&Gunz,A.(2002).As seen by the other:Perspectives on the self in the memories and emotional perceptions of easterners and westerners.Psychological Science,13(1),55-59.
Gaertner,L.,Sedikides,C.,Luke,M.,O'Mara,E.M.,Iuzzini,J.,Jackson,L.E.,et al.(2012).A motivational hierarchy within:Primacy of the individual self,relational self,or collective self?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,48(5),997-1013.
Gore,J.S.,&Cross,S.E.(2011).Defining and measuring self-concept change.Psychological Studies,56(1),135-141.
Heine,S.J.,Proulx,T.,&Vohs,K.D.(2006).The meaning maintenance model:On the coherence of social motivations.Personality and Social Psychology Review,10(2),88-110.
Hermans,H.J.M.(1999).Sell-narrative as meaning construction:The dynamics of self-investigation.Journal of Clinical Psychology,55(10),1193-1211.
Ho,D.Y.F.(1995).Selfhood and identity in Confucianism,Taoism,Buddhism,and Hinduism:Contrasts with the west.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,25(2),115-139.
Hong,Y.Y.,&Mallorie,L.M.(2004).A dynamic constructivist approach to culture:lLessons learned from personality psychology.Journal of Research in Personality,38(1),59-67.
Huang,W.,Mamat,M.,Shang,R.,Zhang,T.Y.,Li,H.,Wang,Y.,et al.(2014).Analysis of the private,collective,and relational self-cognitions among Han and Tibetan Chinese.Psychological Reports,115(1),179-198.
Jiang,T.,&Gore,J.S.(2016).The relationship between autonomous motivation and goal pursuit:A cross-cultural perspective.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,19(2),101-111.
Ka?it?ibasi,?.(1996).The autonomous-relational self:A new synthesis.European Psychologist,1(3),180-186.
Kim,U.,Yang,K.S.,&Hwang,K.K.(2006).Indigenous and cultural psychology:Understanding people in context.New York:Springer Science+Business Media,Inc.
Krahnke,K.,Wanasika,I.,&Kilpatrick,J.(2012).Concept of self in the east and the west.Journal of International Management Studies,12(1),97-109.
Le Febvre,R.,&Franke,V.(2013).Culture matters:Individualism vs.collectivism in conflict decision-making.Societies,3(1),128-146.
Lu,L.,Kao,S.F.,Chang,T.T.,Wu,H.P.,&Jin,Z.(2008).The individual-and social-oriented Chinese bicultural self:A subcultural analysis contrasting mainland Chinese and Taiwanese.Social Behavior and Personality,36(3),337-346.
Mamat,M.,Huang,W.,Shang,R.,Zhang,T.Y.,Li,H.,Wang,Y.,et al.(2014).Relational self versus collective self.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,45(6),959-970.
Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(1991).Culture and the self:Implications for cognition,emotion,and motivation.Psychological Review,98(2),224-253.
Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(2010).Cultures and selves.Perspectives on Psychological Science,5(4),420-430.
Morris,M.W.,Chiu,C.Y.,&Liu,Z.(2015).Polycultural psychology.Annual Review of Psychology,66,631-659.
Park,J.,Uchida,Y.,&Kitayama,S.(2016).Cultural variation in implicit independence:An extension of Kitayama et al.International Journal of Psychology,51(4),269-278.
Sedikides,C.,Hoorens,V.,&Dufner,M.(2015).Self-enhancing self-presentation:Interpersonal,relational,and organizational implications.In F.Guay,D.M.McInerney,R.Craven,&H.W.Marsh(Eds.),Self-concept,motivation and identity:Underpinning success with research and practice(pp.29-55).Charlotte,NC:Information Age Publishing.
Smith,P.B.(2011).Cross-cultural perspectives on identity.In S.Schwartz,K.Luyckx,&V.Vignoles(Eds.),Handbook of identity theory and research(pp.249-265).New York:Springer.
Spencer-Rodgers,J.,Boucher,H.C.,Mori,S.C.,Wang,L.,&Peng,K.P.(2009).The dialectical self-concept:Contradiction,change,and holism in East Asian cultures.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35(1),29-44.
Sun,C.R.(2017).An examination of the four-part theory of the Chinese self:The differentiation and relative importance of the different types of social-oriented self.Frontiers in Psychology,8,1-16.
Taras,V.,Sarala,R.,Muchinsky,P.,Kemmelmeier,M.,Singelis,T.M.,Avsec,A.,et al.(2014).Opposite ends of the same stick?Multi-method test of the dimensionality of individualism and collectivism.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,45(2),213-245.
Torelli,C.J.,Chiu,C.Y.,Tam,K.P.,Au,A.K.C.,&Keh,H.T.(2011).Exclusionary reactions to foreign cultures:Effects of simultaneous exposure to cultures in globalized space.Journal of Social Issues,67(4),716-742.
Tsuda,A.,&Hwang,K.K.(2016).Editorial:The construction of culture-inclusive approaches in psychology.Japanese Psychological Research,58(1),1-3.