{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022265625, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007421875, 'mean_word_length': 5.185990338164252, '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}}
Collectivism, relations, and Chinese communication

Hofstede (1980) did not claim to have based his conception of cultural dimensions on the features of any particular culture or ethnic groups. Yet since the publication of his cultural indicators in 1980, Chinese and East Asians have often been chosen to represent the typical collectivist cultural group to contrast with Americans as the typical individualist cultural group. Likewise, the communication style that has reportedly characterized collectivistic cultures is also found to represent the features of Chinese and East Asian people. There is little doubt that the paired concept of individualism and collectivism has been useful in distinguishing cultural differences in studies of communication, yet some issues and questions have begun to emerge about Chinese collectivism after decades of empirical research. First, there is the matter of scope; most of the studies on collectivism among Chinese have focused on interpersonal communication but not as extensively on media uses. A second, and perhaps more fundamental, issue is about depth; to what extent is collectivism a factor when Chinese communicate? In the face of frequently mixed findings, a question that is begging for answer is: can Chinese truly represent a concept that dates back to the premodern era of human civilization (Triandis, 1994), including Plato’s Republic and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Du Contrat Social (cited in Brewer & Chen, 2007, p. 133)? Increasingly, relations has emerged as an important dimension in the study of Chinese communication. While Chinese relations (guanxi) has become a popular topic of research by itself, in individualism/collectivism (I/C) studies, it seems to be difficult not to include this dimension when Chinese or East Asian respondents are used in a study. What is the implication of this development? How much effort has been made to look into the issues from a Chinese perspective? In other words, while Chinese have been an “object” of individualism/collectivism research, how much has been done to gain ownership of the study? The papers in this special issue represent a collective effort in responding to some of the above critical questions. The purpose here is not to provide all the answers and draw conclusions, as neither is possible given the limitation of resources and labor. Yet it is hoped that by confronting the issues square in the face and putting important pieces together we will be able to have a more comprehensive view of the entire picture of Chinese communication.