{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02575488454706927, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.474137931034483, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Understanding Chinese Concept of “Face”: The Limits of F. Fukuyama’s Approach to the Problem of Identity

The basic concept of Chinese culture – the concept of “face” ( mianzi ) – remains one of the most debated topics in philosophy, cultural studies and ethics. The author argues that the main methodological problem is “translation” of realities of Chinese mentality into the language of European discourse, the question of how European thinking interprets concepts that have no analogues in a non-Asian worldview and outlook. The problem of understanding realities of foreign consciousness is complicated by the fact that we can say, with a certain degree of confidence, that today there is no common global scientific field of social and humanitarian research. In spite of international contacts and diligent study of foreign languages, Asian, Euro-American and Russian studies on China do not actually constitute a single area of research. In spite of assurances of unbiased research, scientific objectivity, tolerance and equal respect for scientific schools of different countries, these studies are often afflicted with Eurocentrism or, reversely, Sinocentrism. This article discusses the main ideas of F. Fukuyama’s recently published book, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment , regarding the Chinese concept of “face.” The article presents a brief analysis of the concept of “heart” in Christianity, which largely formed the general European understanding of personality and identity, and then a description of “heart” in the Taoist-Confucian philosophy, which is fundamental to the Chinese mentality. The article considers the methodological foundations of Fukuyama’s concepts and demonstrates the inefficiency of Eurocentric and Americentric criteria in interpretation of the “face” and personality in China. It is shown that the traditional understanding of Chinese consciousness as collectivistic and of European consciousness as chiefly individualistic is nothing more than a cliche. The author concludes that studying the Chinese concept of “face” requires a different methodological approach, which will be relevant not to epistemological views entrenched in the West, but to the subject of research itself.