This is interesting particularly when one considers how modern Chinese society has stretched this norm. It used to be that children are financially responsible for taking care of their aged parents.
Now, due to social pressures, aged parents are expected to literally give all their wealth to their children so they can buy a house, invest in some get-rich-quick scheme, or pay for childcare/education for grandkids. The pressure is even higher to do so for sons, who have trouble attracting wives if they don't have a house (recall there are less women than men in China).
If, given that donation, their children can buy a home, they move in and behave as live-in childcare for grandkids, while their children work 80-hour weeks to pay off their debts.
Under the guise of filial piety and "being taken care of", the elderly are under high pressure to give both their wealth and autonomy to their adult children. That loss of autonomy matters; if you get sick, you have to rely on your children to navigate through and pay for the healthcare. This may include getting approval to spend money from a son-in-law or daughter-in-law who doesn't much like you (despite their filial obligation to take care of you) and is thinking the money is better spent on more tutoring for the grandkids (in the hyper-competitive education system) or paying down the mortgage.
The word is rooted in family relationships. It places a very high value on being blood related and how people are expected to care for their own. Society changed a little bit but the concept remains the same at its very core: it is your blood, you must provide for them if you are able to.
It’s like saying that the root of western culture lies in Greek philosophy or Judeo-Christian traditions. It’s not totally inaccurate, but the realities of life and modernity means that it is an oversimplification of something that is complex and living.
It is useful context, however, just as studying Socrates is useful context for understanding Western thought.
This is still very much a thing, but the degree of adherence varies depending on the family. I know people that don't follow it, but I also know people who pay part of their income to their elders & some voluntarily invite their otherwise healthy parents to live with them.
I personally think it's a good thing to take care of your parents within reasonable boundaries. However, I don't think the current social structure provides a good framework for this. We don't live in the same village compound in modern times, afterall.
Some people may say it is old and not as important as it once was. But imo that is like saying racism is an old and outdated mode of thinking in the US. It is still there and quite prevalent, but it is more out of sight yet whoever are interested in it still take it quite seriously.
S.E.A. Chinese here. It definitely exists. Any countering of this via individualism is small, with emotional guilt & baggage primarily being used to reinforce obedience towards the family hierarchy, along with the occasional slap/beating for disobedience/talkback.
I think you are mistaken. While people may no longer explicitly speak about it I see in Korean manhwa that the idea of using gifts to obligate a wealthy persons lessers, or being shrewed considering who to accept favors from one’s betters to avoid owing obligations to, is a common theme and understanding it is an automatic assumption for readers. This seems to support that there remains an implied cultural norm.
From the arrticle it sounds like the same thing you’d see within a western church but there it extends more weakly outside the family and ends outside the church.
You can also read Western comics about cowboys dueling in shootouts, but that’s not a legitimate or relevant aspect of American culture. Be careful about assumptions drawn from manhwa
Yes it is relevant.
While it’s true that no cultural output can say anything about a culture. Taking many examples can give some insight. I referenced one I believe is exemplary.
The example of western comics is weak since I don’t know there is much of a broad genre of comics in the western style. So comparing to the old western films is more direct to your point and I would infer some small things. As an example, there is an implied belief that killing is okay if it’s in defense of the powerless and vulnerable. And any number of people can be killed in service to protecting the weak.
Any way I’m only observing an implied cultural awareness of the hierarchy described in the article is assumed. Also I suggest comparison to chivalry is poor and a better comparison is to biblical family hierarchy which is still relevant even if popularly ridiculed.
You know this concept is in indian, korean and japanese cultures as well. A friend insists it is an asian culutural thing but I hard disagree, but I do understand I need to learn more.
Outside of Europe, just about every society in the "old" world has this concept. You basically live for your parents and then also for your children. Parents use the pride and disappointment as ways to control the future of their child and children strive to become the perfect child.
I'll give you an example: what immigrant ethnicities dominate medicine in the US? Indian, Nigerian, east asian. And the people I have spoken to largley attribute their parent's desire as the main/initial motivator for choosing such a difficult field.
I'll say this, ancestor worship is only in some societies that are mostly asian (to my knowledge), that includes concepts like the way you live honors or displeases your ancestors who can bless or curse you in real time.
It isn't jusr filial piety but piety towards elders. When I started watching east asian dramas many years ago, I kept thinking how their dramas reminded me of so many other cultures outside of asia.
My theory is that even europe used to be this way pre-renaisance. Any society that had arranged marriages meant parents did the arranging to the most part. It is difficult for me to imagine allowing your parent to decide who you will be stuck with for the rest of your life without filial piety.
Of course, I don't mean to suggest specific countries' concept of filial piety is unique and shouldn't be studied on it's own like this. Just pointing out that there are more non-western countries outside of asia that still follow this concept than there aren't.
Look at a map of China. See the bit that sticks out to the east, toward Japan and Korea? That's the Shandong peninsula. At the western (inland) end of that is Qufu, where Confucius was born. Japan and Korea were influenced by Confucianism, as was Vietnam. This is the source of the English phrase "filial piety" with regard to East Asian cultures.
India is a totally different beast.
Source: Studied ancient Chinese history with an interest in broader Asian history and ancient philosophy. Lived in the region 20+ years. Have visited all of those countries and places.
Vast portions of the world have some concept of filial piety, it is a local optimum for society in the absence of technology and modern conveniences, that so many cultures naturally converged on it. Go ask some Hispanics, South Asians, Southeast Asians, they all have some version of it that is really not far from the Confucian version.
The big value shift happening now is that in a modern technological society, having children is optional, a personal choice, so parents are now expected to provide for the child if they make the choice to bring one into existence, without expecting anything in return. In the past, having a child was a necessity for the sustainability of the country (and even species, to a great extent) at large, so it was done by all, even parents who could not provide, so filial piety was the only way it could be sustained.
> In the past, having a child was a necessity for the sustainability of the country (and even species, to a great extent) at large, so it was done by all, even parents who could not provide, so filial piety was the only way it could be sustained.
It’s still true. No society can sustainably go below a total fertility rate of 2.1. They can engage in temporary arbitrage, by importing people from societies that haven’t yet undergone that “value shift,” but that’s a band-aid. The math will catch up with those groups and they’ll be replaced by groups that still prioritize reproduction.
For example, by 2050, the number of Catholics and Muslims is projected to increase greatly, while the share of the population that’s not affiliated with religion will actually drop 3 percentage points (despite the rapid dechristianization of the US and Europe): https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/12/25/4607977...
What recent reports have there been? It's arguable that report from 2015 might not be the best source. Now that proper American values are making their way into libraries, Christianity should boom, wouldn't you agree?
> In the past, having a child was a necessity for the sustainability of the country
I would argue it still is now unless you patch things with immigration (but that's just having another country do the work for you) or AGI becomes a thing.
As someone who actually lives in Japan for over a decade, you are wrong about the idea that the filal piety in East Asia comes from China. It is common but incorrect of many Chinese to overstate their impact on East Asia, but in reality the Chinese have had little impact on Japan and most of South East Asia (except for Vietnam) until recent immigration of Chinese in the last century.
I also live in Japan. I disagree with your take. I think the Chinese influence on Japan has been massive and enduring. I am not Chinese.
Being long term residents of Japan doesn’t make either of us experts on this matter. We’re just two people who have interpreted our experiences differently. I understand you feel strongly about this (I also often find myself jumping to correct what I consider to be misconceptions about Japan, so I kind of get it) but I think you’re overstating your opinion in this thread right now.
I also studied Asian history in Asia. I am aware that a lot of Americans who study Asian history study it from an Sinocentric viewpoint, but overlook how the rest of Asia actually developed.
I strongly disagree about Chinese influence on Japan. I agree about the Chinese influence on Korea and Vietnam, but to call it the "Greece of Asia" is laughable at best.
That isn't actually that true for Japan and most of South East Asia. It's only the greater China region, Vietnam and Korea where Confucianism was a big thing.
But the relative impact has been pretty low, and its relevance to Japanese cultural development is also very low. Neo-Confucianism was mostly evident in South Korean culture, less in China, and basically down to very little in Japan.
Don't bother much, that user just replies with "but the relative impact is low" to some of the most well-supported and obvious examples in this thread that argue presence of significant historical influence of imperial China on the region. In your case it was about confucianism, in one other, it was about kanji[0].
I also studied Asian history as well, but I studied it in Asia. I often come across a lot of Americans who study Asian history from a Sinocentric viewpoint which is why I write strongly on the matter.
Learning this term was required to move on to the next belts in my Taekwondo classes, thought it was a South Korean thing, but I guess not. I've only ever heared of Filial Piety a few times out of that environment.
Imperial China is basically the Greek/Roman empire of East Asia. Both of these civilizations made deep and lasting impact on the culture of East Asia and Europe/North Africa/West Asia respectively.
China only really had a strong impact in China and Korea - though a lot of Chinese people tend to overstate their impact for cultural chauvinism. Outside of possibly the Viet region as well, Chinese culture has had little impact. Imperial Chinese culture has had relatively little impact in the rest of East Asia (Philippines, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia etc...), and most of the Chinese culture in these regions is from recent immigration in the past century or so.
EDIT: not sure why the post is being negged considering it's basically true. I suggest people actually travel around the region and find out how little Chinese culture has impacted East Asia. I am a long term resident of East Asia and I understand the culture more than most Chinese people.
China's influence on Japan has been huge... It's very odd to read a claim that Chinese culture has had little impact on Japan!
Of course there are specifically Japanese aspects but more often than not there is Chinese influence. Architecture, writing, religion, dress, food, everywhere.
You could argue that other cultures have had similar impacts on Japan as well, including Western and Indian. What I disagree with is the idea that China is the "Greece of Asia" which is laughable at best. How exactly has the Chinese had a major influence on Japanese religion, architecture and dress? Chinese food shares the table with numerous cuisines from across Asia, and Chinese writing is also shared with Japanese, Western and Indian writing influences as well.
It's easy to come up with many examples of major Chinese cultural elements in the surrounding countries.
I'll give just one obvious example: Kanji. Kanji is obviously a major part of Japanese culture. It literally means "Chinese characters," because that's what it was adapted from.[0]
Or to give you just one more example, because it's incredibly striking: Japan's own name for itself, Nihon/Nippon, is borrowed from Chinese. The same is actually true of "Vietnam," which is also a loanword from Chinese.
But relative impact is low. Latin and Indian scripts are used throughout Asia as well, including Japan. i.e. to say that it is the "greece of asia" is a bit over-chauvinistic.
Somewhere around half of the words in modern Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese are borrowed from Chinese. The impact of Chinese culture is massive across the board in these countries.
Half the words in modern Japanese is a long stretch. All Japanese words have two readings so obviously you can say that, but only one of those readings is used in daily conversation.
The linguistic influence of Chinese in Japanese is similar to the linguistic influence of Latin and French on English. The more elevated a subject, the higher the percentage of Latin or French borrowings.
Everyday spoken language will have a lower rate of loanwords, but writing about any complex subject will have a higher level.
Once you get into philosophy, politics, literature, etc., you're dealing with a high level of borrowing, both in the case of English and of Japanese.
But regardless of whether the true rate of loanwords from Chinese is 20% or 50%, this is a massive level of linguistic influence. And again, this is just one aspect of China's cultural influence on Japan. I mentioned the Kanji writing system earlier, which is very important in Japanese culture, but I could also point out many other areas where there's significant Chinese influence, such as literature, philosophy or religion, or even more banal things like the game of Go, which is one of the most popular games in China, Korea and Japan.
Interesting. I guess this outlook creates an inherent cultural clash with the mainstream culture of the Republic of Korea where old people are shunned, ignored, and not supported very well. This is demonstrably worse than how Americans treat their parents. I wonder about Japan: I think old people there maybe treated better than the American elderly but I guess it depends on how traditional vs. citified a particular family is.
PS: Disabled, elderly, poor Americans may soon have work requirements attached to receiving food assistance.
Filial piety solves the problem of economic and social stability in low income societies.
It's also one of the better winning strategies for group based power struggles.
It stunts investment and growth in the modern era.
1) In households below the poverty line, filial piety is exemplified by playing your role and not making mistakes. Roles streamline the household economy ensuring survival. There's little extra capital for mistakes, so avoiding mistakes is crucial. Filial piety stabilizes the family unit by enforcing roles and ensuring proper output for each member, especially without an education background.
2) Group power struggles are prevalent both in Asia and the West (Romeo and Juliet being the most famous story in Western media), but filial piety was codified in Confucianism, whereas law was coded in Christian/Jewish tradition, which changed the trajectory of both parts of the world.
In areas with weak 3rd party institutions (legal, military, etc), you fundamentally cannot trust others, and have to trust your group to defend your property and livelihood. Filial piety is a way to form a group, consolidate resources, and ultimately carve out a place of safety and power in a "law of the jungle" landscape.
Imagine not being able to trust the legal and military system to enforce laws or safety with strangers. A stronger family can kill your family without anyone stopping them. A business partner can backstab you because they are stronger than you, and you can't do anything about it. In this kind of environment, external relationships are too risky and disappear, whereas internal relationships become very sophisticated and thrive.
Filial piety works extremely well to develop those internal relationships that allow power consolidation to the top. In this landscape, groups fight against each other for survival and resources, and power consolidation is necessary to support that fight. As an individual you give up your individualism by doing things that the group needs, and in return, you get the protection and resources of the group.
3) In societies with weak institutions, you invest in your internal group - your family members - because you can only trust them. But with strong institutions that can enforce laws and contracts, it makes sense to look outside your group for rare talent, resources, capital, or opportunities. In developed societies, "trust" as a currency for business is made exponentially cheaper. Because you have some power to bind others to a fair contract, you are much more confident about doing business with strangers. Consequently, the pool of millions of strangers has much more attractive opportunities for resource synergies than a pool of a hundred family members.
However, filial piety teaches a whole host of antiquated socio-economic behaviors related to strangers, including fundamentally mistrusting and mistreating them, giving a strong front so you aren't exposed to being attacked, never letting anyone in, and forcing them to prove loyalty to you through acts. In the modern world, filial piety limits individuals to pursue their own opportunities, develop relations, and learn risk management.
While it may sound like love and unity of family is the center of filial piety's teachings, love relationships are the antithesis of what filial piety promotes. Instead, it's adherence to roles and sacrificing your own preferences and loves to do whatever the group needs you to do, because that's how you survive.
>You can compare this with the practice of going to church in strictly Christian communities. Attending the mass is a ritualistic act. Whether a person is a true believer or not, is another matter.
Maybe some communities are like this, but this isn't any sort of official Christian teaching.
>For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
>Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Now, due to social pressures, aged parents are expected to literally give all their wealth to their children so they can buy a house, invest in some get-rich-quick scheme, or pay for childcare/education for grandkids. The pressure is even higher to do so for sons, who have trouble attracting wives if they don't have a house (recall there are less women than men in China).
If, given that donation, their children can buy a home, they move in and behave as live-in childcare for grandkids, while their children work 80-hour weeks to pay off their debts.
Under the guise of filial piety and "being taken care of", the elderly are under high pressure to give both their wealth and autonomy to their adult children. That loss of autonomy matters; if you get sick, you have to rely on your children to navigate through and pay for the healthcare. This may include getting approval to spend money from a son-in-law or daughter-in-law who doesn't much like you (despite their filial obligation to take care of you) and is thinking the money is better spent on more tutoring for the grandkids (in the hyper-competitive education system) or paying down the mortgage.