【赫芬顿邮报 20150623】美国人和中国人对幸福理解的差异

满仓

【中文标题】美国人和中国人对幸福理解的差异
【原文标题】How Americans and Chinese Think About Happiness Differently
【登载媒体】赫芬顿邮报
【原文作者】David Sze
【原文链接】http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sze/how-americans-and-chinese_b_7642102.html?utm_hp_ref=china



研究人员通常认为，文化可以分为个人文化和集体文化。前者崇尚个人的满足和成就，而后者推崇家庭、组织和社会的集体目标。

美国人和中国人的文化一般被视为两个极端。美国有探险家、牛仔、个人的成功，比如美国梦，还有梭罗，他一个人在池塘边坐了两年。中国有孔子价值观、孝顺、关系，还有岳飞，这位民间英雄在后背刺青“精忠报国”。

那么个人主义文化和集体主义文化对“什么是幸福”这个问题的回答，会有什么不同？

两位心理学家，路罗和罗宾•吉尔莫，邀请142名台湾学生和97名美国白人学生回答同样的问题。（请注意样本的选择，研究并没有包括中国大陆居民和美国的少数种族，所以研究结果仅供参考。）

令人吃惊的是（或许也不那么吃惊），总体来说，两组人的看法基本一致。例如，两组学生都说幸福是“满足和满意的精神状态”、“正面的感觉和情绪”、“成就”、“脱离了恶劣的状态”、“与人有关”。

但是，中国学生和美国白人学生也有一些意见的分歧，以下是完整的清单。

1，中国学生认为幸福是“和谐”，美国学生不然。

中国学生把幸福描述为一种内在，或者自我与环境之间的“和谐的稳定状态”（例如平静或者平衡），但极少美国学生把和谐的平衡作为幸福的定义。

2，美国人注重外部，中国人注重内部。

美国白人学生对于幸福的个人主义描述集中在改造外部世界上，比如自律、实质性的成就和正面的自我评价。

与此相反，中国学生对于幸福的集体主义描述集中在改变自我上，比如自我提升、思想境界的改造和别人对自我的正面评价。

3，美国人认为幸福是“终极价值目标”，中国人不然。

美国白人学生普遍体现出的一种态度是，幸福是“人生的最终价值目标”。这种对幸福的强烈达成愿望并没有出现在中国学生的态度中，说明这种想法只来源于个人主义思想，而不是集体主义思想。

其它一些观察性的研究工作也支持这个观点，中国学生不大强调幸福，与美国学生比起来，他们不太担心生活是否满足。

4，中国人不像美国人那样关注极端情绪。

尽管研究人员发现和美国学生对于幸福的看法基本一致，但这些一致的观点当中包含了细微的差别。一个重要的差别是，尽管双方都强调正面的情绪，但中国学生对于极端情绪的关注度低于美国白人学生。

5，中国人和美国人对于社会关系的看法不同。

另外一个细微的差别是有关双方对社会关系的态度。尽管双方都认为社会关系至关重要，但中国学生强调的是如何融合两个自我，以达成和谐的共存。而美国学生强调的是在两个人通融的过程中进行协商，以保持相互的独立。

6，双方都认为幸福取决于自身，但对于“自律”的定义不同。

尽管双方都认为个人对于幸福的达成负有责任，但他们对“自律”的定义有所不同。对美国人来说，自律就是理想化的个人自由，唤醒内心的潜力，成为真正的自我。对中国人来说，个人的行为和选择必须依循道德标准，道德高尚的生活才是有意义的生活。中国学生还认为，尽管人应该自律，但最终还是需要接受命运的安排。




原文：

Researchers and thinkers have often claimed that cultures can be divided between individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures. The former prioritize individual satisfaction and achievement, while the latter prioritize the collective goals of the family, group and society.

American and Chinese cultures are often seen as falling on the opposite ends of this spectrum. U.S. has gunslingers and cowboys, individual class mobility, i.e. the American dream, and Thoreau, who sat by a pond alone for two years. The Chinese have Confucian values, filial piety, guanxi ("relationships/networks"), and Yue Fei, the folk hero who tattooed "Serve the Country with Utmost Loyalty" on his back.

So how differently will individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures answer the question: "What is happiness?"

Two psychologists, Luo Lu and Robin Gilmour, asked 142 Taiwanese students and 97 Caucasian American students this exact same thing.1 (Note the specific samples: The study didn't include mainland Chinese or non-white Americans, so take the findings with a pinch of salt.)

Surprising (or not), in general, the themes that emerged out of the two groups were broadly similar. For example, in both groups, students described happiness as "mental states of satisfaction and contention," as "positive feelings/emotions," as "achievement," as "freedom from ill-being," and as "relating to people."

However, there were several points of difference between the Chinese students and Caucasian American students. Here is the full list:

1) Chinese describe happiness as "Harmony," Americans don't.

While the Chinese students characterized happiness as a "harmonious homeostasis" (i.e., equilibrium or balance) within the self, as well as between the self and his environment; few American students referred to balance or harmony in their descriptions.

2) Americans focus externally, Chinese focus internally.

Caucasian American students gave individualistic descriptions of happiness focused on shaping the external world, such as self-autonomy, concrete achievement and positive self-evaluations.

On the other hand, the Chinese students listed communal definitions of happiness focused on shaping the self, such as self-cultivation, mind-work and positive evaluations of the self by others.

3) Americans describe happiness as the "ultimate value," Chinese don't.

One unique theme found in the Caucasian American students' responses was happiness as the "ultimate value in life." Such strong emphasis placed on happiness was not found amongst Chinese students, indicating that this may stem from an individualistic outlook, in contrast to a collectivistic outlook.

Other empirical work supports this, finding that Chinese students placed less emphasis on happiness, and worried less than American students about whether they were satisfied with life.

4) Chinese focus on intense emotions less than Americans.

As mentioned, researchers found broadly similar themes between Chinese and American students. Nonetheless, the details within these themes contained subtle differences. One important distinction is while both groups emphasized positive emotions, Chinese students focus on intense emotions much less than Caucasian American students.

5) Chinese and Americans perceive social relationships differently

Another subtle difference can be found in the groups' perceptions of social relationships. Though both groups valued relationships, the Chinese students emphasized the merging of two selves to achieve interdependence, while the American students emphasized the negotiation of an accommodation between two people who remained independent.

6) Both believe happiness was up to yourself, but definitions of "autonomy" differ.

While both groups believed we have personal responsibility for our happiness, they had differing definitions of self-autonomy. For Americans, autonomy is ideally complete personal freedom to fulfill your potential and become your authentic self. For the Chinese, personal actions and choices must be governed by morality, and a meaningful life is a virtuous life. The Chinese students also believed that while a person should be autonomous, she must eventually accept what fate brings.

胖月

这研究，真粗糙