5 ms·

> These words encourages a more collectivist rather than an individual mindset with biases based on the person's seniority I don’t follow how very specific rel

by mint2 4y ago

> These words encourages a more collectivist rather than an individual mindset with biases based on the person's seniority I don’t follow how very specific relational pronouns leads equality. Explain.

akdor1154 4y ago
The unempathetic programmer in me says it prevents bikeshedding and the subsequent emotionally charged conflict. (The lefty liberal in me says don't be a cunt to people)
- mint2 4y ago
  We’ll thats certainly not the “lefty liberal” shining through with that gratuitous use use of derogatory terms for female anatomy as an insult in that comment.
  - gsinclair 4y ago
    You’re not from Australia, I see.
hosh 4y ago
I don’t claim that it leads to equality. That’s a problematic assertion. I said that the relational words in Mandarin leads to (and enforces) a collectivist rather than than individualist mindset. There is less semantics about identity and more about relations. Identity is a reference to a self, whereas relational words refer to how a self relates to another self. The emphasis is on the relation — and the social expectations, responsibilities, and priveledges of that relation, and less on the identity of either the speaker or the person the speaker refers to. So for example, I wouldn’t say “Bob”. I’d say “my da-ge” (big older brother). When I use the latter in conversations with other people, those people knows I have this relation I can lean on. When referring to younger siblings, I might not even use their names even if I could do so without being rude. I might say to someone else, “my xiao-de”, my little brother, making an implicit claim that this person is family, under my protection. Whether the kid is worthy of such protection, whether I personally want to or not, is secondary that there is a relation and there are expectations that goes with it.
- mint2 4y ago
  I don’t know if I agree, that seems more tribalism than collectivism. In comparing Bob, Jane and smith or similar nondescript lao baixing names vs distinguishing family/non family plus exact hierarchical familiar relation, it doesn’t seem hierarchical exact relations is more communal. Opinions can differ.
  - hosh 4y ago
    Collectivist, as I am using it, is not the same as being communal, as in having no hierarchy. I am using “collectivist” to mean a deemphasis on the individual and an greater emphasis on the collective. How exactly that collective is structured is not a part of this assertion. It could well be tribalism, and the way I mean “collectivist” is not exclusive to tribalism.
    - gsinclair 4y ago
      Your explanations are nice and clear. I’ve observed this as an outsider with my wife of Vietnamese background. Just one example — amazing to western eyes — is that our wedding invitation to her uncle, aunt and two cousins (i.e. one nuclear family) contained not one name. It was (if I translate) “aunt ten, husband-of-aunt ten, older brother two, older brother three”. And the two cousins are younger then her! But because the aunt is older than her mother, the “older” status transfers down the generation. That older status is reflected in the inter-family relationships and perceived obligations. It is fascinating to see the structure of language being persistently deployed to reinforce the sublimation of self and reinforcement of familial status and responsibility.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

by mint2 4y ago

akdor1154 4y ago

The unempathetic programmer in me says it prevents bikeshedding and the subsequent emotionally charged conflict. (The lefty liberal in me says don't be a cunt to people)

mint2 4y ago
We’ll thats certainly not the “lefty liberal” shining through with that gratuitous use use of derogatory terms for female anatomy as an insult in that comment.
- gsinclair 4y ago
  You’re not from Australia, I see.

hosh 4y ago

I don’t claim that it leads to equality. That’s a problematic assertion. I said that the relational words in Mandarin leads to (and enforces) a collectivist rather than than individualist mindset. There is less semantics about identity and more about relations. Identity is a reference to a self, whereas relational words refer to how a self relates to another self. The emphasis is on the relation — and the social expectations, responsibilities, and priveledges of that relation, and less on the identity of either the speaker or the person the speaker refers to. So for example, I wouldn’t say “Bob”. I’d say “my da-ge” (big older brother). When I use the latter in conversations with other people, those people knows I have this relation I can lean on. When referring to younger siblings, I might not even use their names even if I could do so without being rude. I might say to someone else, “my xiao-de”, my little brother, making an implicit claim that this person is family, under my protection. Whether the kid is worthy of such protection, whether I personally want to or not, is secondary that there is a relation and there are expectations that goes with it.

mint2 4y ago
I don’t know if I agree, that seems more tribalism than collectivism. In comparing Bob, Jane and smith or similar nondescript lao baixing names vs distinguishing family/non family plus exact hierarchical familiar relation, it doesn’t seem hierarchical exact relations is more communal. Opinions can differ.
- hosh 4y ago
  Collectivist, as I am using it, is not the same as being communal, as in having no hierarchy. I am using “collectivist” to mean a deemphasis on the individual and an greater emphasis on the collective. How exactly that collective is structured is not a part of this assertion. It could well be tribalism, and the way I mean “collectivist” is not exclusive to tribalism.
  - gsinclair 4y ago
    Your explanations are nice and clear. I’ve observed this as an outsider with my wife of Vietnamese background. Just one example — amazing to western eyes — is that our wedding invitation to her uncle, aunt and two cousins (i.e. one nuclear family) contained not one name. It was (if I translate) “aunt ten, husband-of-aunt ten, older brother two, older brother three”. And the two cousins are younger then her! But because the aunt is older than her mother, the “older” status transfers down the generation. That older status is reflected in the inter-family relationships and perceived obligations. It is fascinating to see the structure of language being persistently deployed to reinforce the sublimation of self and reinforcement of familial status and responsibility.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]