Introduction
The modern world is becoming increasingly more open, which helps to facilitate relations between the nations and even whole civilizations. Today, if a person has a wish and sufficient funds, they can freely and relatively safely travel around the world, study or work in different countries, and explore cultures. However, it was not always the case, and experience in understanding foreign cultures often came by trial and error method, sometimes at the cost of serious risks.
Those people had often suffered failures and setbacks on their way, but it would be impossible to establish any sort of communication without their efforts. Tim Clissold and Johnathan D. Spence tell the stories of people who acted as the trailblazers of intercultural dialogue. Their misfortunes can teach the reader that what humanity takes for granted nowadays was non-existent in the 18th century or, in Clissold’s case, just about thirty years ago.
Common Themes and Concepts
Both Clissold and Spence focus on describing the sheer cultural shock of a person who tries to explore and understand a foreign culture. Both of their protagonists had faced significant, if not impregnable, troubles in their Western-Chinese cultural dialogue. A British investor suffered a heart attack after the years of business activities in China, and a Chinese copyist’s life in France led him into a mental asylum. These troubles can be explained with a classic cultural context approach introduced by Edward T. Hall, which divides national cultures into two categories — high and low context, respectively (as cited in Norhayati, 2016, p. 350).
Western European and American cultures are generally considered low context — task-centered, regulated mainly by the written rules and laws, and characterized by shorter interpersonal interactions. On the other hand, Chinese culture belongs to high context cultures, where long-term relations are essential, many rules are not written and require internal knowledge, and strong boundaries divide the representatives from the outsiders. Without proper adaptation to context, protracted cultural interaction can turn into a shocking experience with unpredictable or even undesirable outcomes.
Characters of Mr. China and The Question of Hu experienced severe shocks caused by cultural context differences. Clissold remembers his own working experience in China as a business representative who tried to understand local business practices and enter the rapidly growing Chinese market by investing in Chinese companies. Due to existing protectionist restrictions of the Chinese economy, Clissold and his partners could not simply buy out Chinese firms. Instead, they had to buy a share and work together with their new Chinese business partners, which proved to be challenging and stressful.
At first, Clissold visited numerous Chinese state officials, who gladly received him and promised to facilitate the deals with local enterprises, but did not act according to their words (Clissold, 2004). The New York bankers, who he managed to persuade into visiting possible investment projects in Shanghai, were so shocked by Chinese enterprises that they aborted their business trip prematurely (Clissold, 2004). Finally, Clissold found success in attracting investments, only to face results like Chinese partners opening a new competitor company on invested funds or vanishing with American money due to help from Chinese banks and courts. In the end, an ambitious business undertaking turned into a full-scale legal war, which Clissold and his partners never won.
John Hu had also experienced a cultural shock, only in reverse, since he was a sole Chinese who had to face Western European customs and traditions while being entirely unprepared for that. A Jesuit missionary Jean-Francois Foucquet desired to prove that traditional Chinese religion comes from the Christian God and decided to hire a scholarly Chinese assistant for this work (Spence, 1989). Foucquet could not recruit preferred candidates, so he had to take Hu, a Christian convert from Canton, with a wish to see the Pope.
Even before reaching France, Hu faced difficulties in communication with the Frenchmen, as he did not know a single word in French or understood European table manners. Later Foucquet tried to tell him about European life and manners, but Hu seemingly did not listen and showed it on multiple occasions. For example, Hu silently struggled against the Renault household by insisting on sleeping on the floor or eating alone, as he used to do in China, or openly complained about women’s presence in Christian churches (Spence, 1989). He kept on openly rejecting European customs and raised personal rebellions when he did not like or understand something European.
Perhaps, if Foucquet paid more attention to his assistant, the problems could have been avoided. However, the Jesuit was too keen on his work and expected Hu to behave like a responsible European person and perform his duties properly. Hu, in his turn, was disgruntled by the fact that Foucquet brought him to Europe and did not give him any firm personal instructions, and never paid him (Spence, 1989). From the perspective of Western low context civilization, Foucquet’s behavior was justified since he signed a contract with Hu’s employer and rightfully expected Hu to fulfill his duties as a copyist.
However, the lack of personal approach set Hu against Foucquet, since in high context Chinese culture, personal relations are often valued more than written obligations. Hu felt abandoned from the beginning of his journey to Europe and paid his Jesuit employer with disobedience, well-deserved from his point of view. In the end, Hu never managed to overcome his cultural shock and safely returned to China only due to a lucky turn of events.
Different Aspects and Details
Stories of Clissold and Hu have two things in common — they tell the reader about failed cultural interaction between the Western and Chinese civilizations and describe the cultural shock caused by that unsuccessful experience. Despite having some common themes and concepts, Mr. China and The Question of Hu also have noticeable differences in several regards. The most vivid of them are the backgrounds of the main characters, their goals, their attitude to circumstances, and how they deal with stressful intercultural dialogue.
Tim Clissold expressed his own experience, and, compared to Hu, he was much better prepared for problems of adapting to the new culture. Firstly, Clissold had been to China several times before joining the investment initiative. He enrolled Mandarin language course and lived in the Chinese university for almost two years (Clissold, 2004). So, he was familiar with the general rhythm of Chinese lifestyle and had multiple opportunities to experience Chinese culture first-hand.
Compared to him, John Hu was totally unprepared for the European lifestyle. He adopted Christianity and served in the Saint Congregation, but it was the only part of the European cultural code that he knew before joining Jean-Francois Foucquet. Hu did not know a single word in any European language, and even his take on Christianity was mixed with Chinese customs, which revealed itself when Hu complained about women’s presence in European churches. However, while Clissold already possessed some understanding of Chinese society and culture and had to adapt only to Chinese business code, Hu had to learn everything about France from the basic level.
The critical difference between Clissold and Hu lies in the goals, which cause them to encounter the foreign culture. They also explain their general attitude and reaction towards events happening around the protagonists. Clissold had a clear goal in mind, as he wanted to succeed as an investor and achieve that in China since he had a willful infatuation for this country (Clissold, 2004). He tried to reach it and struggled against all complexities of Chinese business, ethical and legal codes.
On the other hand, Hu had a hope to visit Rome and meet the Pope. Hu saw no point in learning European customs and lifestyle because they could not bring him closer to the Pope. Moreover, Foucquet had no personal attachment to Hu and insisted that he must work due to the written contract, making Hu even more disgruntled and hostile towards European customs. Therefore, Clissold’s goal urged him to learn Chinese culture despite all hardships and shocks, while Hu had no such motivation and openly showed his frustration.
Conclusion
Although Tim Clissold and John Hu have completely different backgrounds and attitudes to foreign cultures and separated in time by almost three centuries, their stories help understand all possible intercultural communication problems. Protracted exposure to an unknown environment without a guide can turn into a shocking and unpleasant experience. In order to succeed in intercultural communication, one must carefully prepare, be polite and diplomatic, and learn about the other culture as much as possible, even in modern times, which are more forgiving to mistakes.
Of course, as time goes by and human civilization advances, the dialogue between the representatives of different societies and cultures becomes smoother. In that regard, Clissold had a much easier task, and his education and background helped him to pass through all the hardships without losing a sense of humor and becoming bitter towards Chinese nation and culture. John Hu just got confused, as he was thrown into the hostile environment without any cultural understanding or help from the outside. In the end, even if cultural dialogue goes not that well, one should not fall into despair and remember the words of Tim Clissold, who saw Chinese people not as mysterious or threatening, but flawed and beautiful, as we all are.
References
Clissold, T. (2004). Mr. China: a memoir. Robinson.
Norhayati, Z. (2016). Emergent patterns of switching behaviors and intercultural communication styles of global virtual teams during distributed decision making. Journal of International Management, 23(4), 350-366. Web.
Spence, J D. (1989). The question of Hu. Vintage Books.