Social Distancing with Chinese (Value): Decoupling and De-Risking

This episode of 22 George Street examines the global trend of decoupling from China and its parallels in personal interactions with individuals deeply rooted in traditional Chinese thought patterns. We discuss the challenges of engaging with such mindsets, including rigid hierarchy, transactional relationships, and expectations of ideological conformity. Through examples like marriage dowries and utilitarian friendships, we highlight why these interactions often lack depth and mutual respect. Concluding, we argue that distancing from such mentalities is not discriminatory but a rational choice for fostering more meaningful and balanced relationships.

Transcript

 Social Distancing with Chinese Value: Decoupling and De-Risking 

Welcome to 22 George Street, I’m your host, George! 

Today, let’s talk about a topic that’s both provocative and timely: why it might be a rational choice to distance oneself from Chinamen. Let me clarify upfront that this term doesn’t refer to all Chinese people. Instead, it describes individuals who exemplify deeply traditional Chinese modes of thinking—rigid hierarchies, transactional relationships, and ideological conformity. These are traits that stem from centuries-old cultural frameworks and are now reemerging in modern China, reshaping its societal interactions and even influencing how the world engages with it. 

This conversation is set against the backdrop of a significant global trend: decoupling from China. Internationally, nations are reassessing their economic, political, and cultural ties with China to reduce risks. Economically, this manifests in “friend-shoring,” where companies relocate supply chains to more stable and like-minded countries. Politically, “wolf warrior diplomacy” and ideological conflicts have left China increasingly isolated. Culturally, censorship, nationalism, and an aggressive stance on foreign criticism have caused global sentiment toward China to plummet. 

This decoupling is more than an economic adjustment—it’s a reassessment of systemic risks. And just as nations decouple from China to safeguard themselves, individuals might consider the risks and complexities of engaging with certain cultural mindsets. That’s our focus today: understanding why distancing oneself from Chinamen can be a rational decision, not an act of prejudice. 

“Chinamen” refers to people steeped in traditional Chinese values that emphasize hierarchy, conformity, and instrumental relationships. These individuals often present themselves as proud carriers of cultural heritage but are deeply entrenched in outdated social frameworks. Their resurgence in influence reflects a broader societal trend in China, where these modes of thinking, once sidelined during the reform era, have regained prominence. 

This resurgence is tied to China’s broader ideological shift toward nationalism, cultural conservatism, and state-centered control. It has fostered a mindset where interactions are less about mutual respect or intellectual curiosity and more about enforcing conformity and extracting utility. 

Let’s explore why interacting with Chinamen can be intellectually unrewarding, emotionally taxing, and fraught with risks. 

One reason is the pervasive lack of intellectual diversity and depth. Centuries of rigid educational and cultural norms have cultivated a society that prioritizes practicality over creativity, conformity over critical thinking. The Chinese education system emphasizes rote memorization and standardized answers, leaving little room for exploration of philosophical or existential questions. This has produced a culture where people are more inclined to accept authority than to question it. 

In contrast, Western cultures, shaped by individualism and Enlightenment thought, encourage skepticism and intellectual curiosity. Foreigners often bring a broader range of perspectives, interests, and hobbies, from extreme sports to philosophical debates, making them more engaging conversationalists. Meanwhile, many Chinamen focus on pragmatic goals—career advancement, financial gain, or fulfilling family obligations—leaving their intellectual and cultural lives stagnant. 

The first major risk in dealing with Chinamen is their expectation of ideological conformity. Many of them assume that foreigners should align their views with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). However, this expectation is inherently flawed because the CCP’s policies and stances frequently shift. From the days of strict one-child policies to the recent push for three children, from “common prosperity” to market liberalization, and from “dynamic zero COVID” to a sudden and chaotic reopening, even Chinamen themselves struggle to keep up with these changes. 

Yet, this doesn’t stop them from demanding loyalty to the current official narrative. This stems from a cultural mindset deeply rooted in Confucian “君父观念” (the idea of rulers as paternal figures), where authority must be obeyed without question. Any dissent or deviation is perceived as a betrayal of loyalty, not just to the Party but to the nation as a whole. 

This expectation is amplified by the resurgence of “举报文化” (reporting culture). In Mao’s era, family members, neighbors, and colleagues were encouraged to denounce each other for perceived disloyalty, leading to widespread mistrust. Today, this manifests in online spaces, where public figures or brands that express support for LGBT rights, Hong Kong democracy, or Taiwan’s autonomy are attacked, boycotted, or even canceled. Such hypersensitivity to ideological alignment makes meaningful cross-cultural dialogue nearly impossible. 

The second risk lies in Chinamen’s rigid adherence to hierarchical social structures. Rooted in Confucian thought, these structures prioritize power and rank over equality and mutual respect. Relationships are often evaluated based on one’s ability to conform to these hierarchies. For example, foreigners are often expected to display exaggerated respect for Chinese traditions and defer to Chinamen’s perceived authority. Failing to do so is interpreted as arrogance or disrespect. 

This mindset makes interactions with Chinamen exhausting. Instead of fostering connections based on shared values or interests, Chinamen focus on asserting dominance or extracting validation. For instance, in workplaces, subordinates are expected to flatter their superiors and follow orders unquestioningly. In personal relationships, gestures of independence or refusal to conform can be seen as direct challenges to the established order. 

The third risk is the deeply transactional nature of relationships with Chinamen. Relationships are rarely built on mutual respect or emotional connection. Instead, they are viewed as a means to gain access to resources, favors, or advantages. For example, a Chinaman might cultivate a relationship with a foreigner hoping to bypass bureaucratic hurdles. If the foreigner cannot deliver, they might face resentment or accusations of insincerity. 

This transactional mindset is tied to China’s concept of “guanxi” (关系), where personal connections are leveraged for tangible benefits. While relationships in the West often thrive on shared values and mutual interests, guanxi operates on a quid-pro-quo basis. This makes such relationships inherently unstable and emotionally unsatisfying. 

Distancing oneself from Chinamen is not about prejudice but pragmatism. This perspective doesn’t generalize all Chinese people but identifies the risks associated with engaging with those who embody rigid traditional mindsets. In a society that suppresses independent thought and prioritizes conformity, even progressive thinkers often choose to remain silent, fearing social or professional repercussions. This silence makes it even harder to find genuine intellectual or emotional connections. 

If you are in China, focus on personal growth and intellectual enrichment. If you are abroad, embrace the opportunity to engage with diverse cultures and ideas. By broadening your horizons, you can find deeper connections and a more meaningful sense of belonging. 

China might be a part of your past, but it doesn’t have to define your future. True fulfillment lies in freedom, diversity, and exploration, not in the confines of a single cultural framework. 

Thank you for tuning into 22 George Street. Share this episode with your friends, and let’s all navigate these complexities with clarity. Until next time—Ciao!