In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Confucianism and Utilitarianism in Jiang-Clinton Rhetoric 129 Introduction Political leaders may be expected to reflect the cultural values implicit in their respective cultures. When leaders from different civilizations and cultural systems meet at a summit or exchange visits and address the national audiences of their counterparts, we would expect them to communicate different cultural values in those speeches. Considerable research has been published on the impact of cultural values on political communication (Heisey 1997; Zhao 1999; M. T. Wang 1999; Heisey 1999, 2003; Li 2000; Qiu 2000; Yin and Hall 2002; M. L. Wang 2002; Kluver 2002; Brockett 2005; Lu and Simons 2006). When two world leaders, such as President Jiang and President Clinton, meet in each other’s country and engage in addressing the national audience, what evidence do we see of the respective cultural values coming out in those speeches? Intercultural communication is studied in order to reduce miscommunication and to understand better the culture of the other (Gallois 2003). Examining the political communication of world leaders would help in understanding their respective positions if their cultural values, indeed, do get reflected in their speeches. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the cultural values expressed in the public statements of two former international leaders — President Jiang of the People’s Republic of China and President Clinton of the United States. The selected cultural values examined are the concepts of Confucianism and Utilitarianism, representing these leaders’ respective discourse systems, as described by Flowerdew (1997) and Scollon and Scollon (1995). The public statements of these leaders will be examined to see if they conform to the characteristics of Confucianism and Utilitarianism in their language and arguments. The speeches selected are their respective addresses to Harvard and to Peking University in their 1997 and 1998 summit meetings and to the joint 7 Confucianism and Utilitarianism in Jiang-Clinton Rhetoric D. Ray Heisey 130 D. Ray Heisey press conference in their meeting in Beijing in June 1998. Though the language used tends to conform to the respective cultural characteristics, there is also evidence that their communicative behavior demonstrated adaptation to the other’s cultural values. Finally, this chapter argues, that in this international case study of two leaders, the concepts of Confucianism and Utilitarianism should be viewed on a continuum when seen within the framework of the rhetorical dimension of an international leader seeking identification with the so-called “opponent” or “partner” in international relations. The adaptation by each leader is seen as a rhetorical message for both the domestic audience and the audience of the other country. In this way, each one can be interpreted as “standing up” to the other but also as adapting to the other in keeping the international dialogue open and the partnership realistic. The plan of this chapter is to present first the discourse systems of Confucianism and Utilitarianism, then the context of the speeches, the method of analysis, the language and arguments used by Jiang in the Harvard address and the Beijing joint press conference, the language and arguments used by Clinton in the Peking University address and the same press conference, and finally, the discussion of the findings and the conclusion. Confucianism and Utilitarianism The Hofstede (1980) concepts of individualism and collectivism (I-C) have received much attention in the intercultural literature as descriptors of the national behavior of peoples living in different cultures. Generally, the countries of the West are described as being individualistic, where people believe in the value of behaving and thinking in ways that conform to their individual values as opposed to those of the larger in-group or collective society, and those of the East as collectivistic, where people give greater credence to the value of group membership and conformity to in-group expectations (Gudykunst 1998). Before Gudykunst, Hui and Triandis (1986) also explored the concept of individualism and collectivism in communication where the contrast between the importance of the individual self and the importance of the collective group is emphasized. Scholars have used the I-C concept to examine many different contexts of communication, such as motivation in Chinese organizations (Yu 2000), conflict resolution and conflict management style (He, Zhu, and Peng 2002; Knutson et al. 2002), modernization and economic reform in China (Ng, 2002), and humanism and human rights (Wang 2002), among others. The concept has become almost standard for studying cross-cultural communication. Kapoor et al. (2003, 687) claim that the cultural value dimension of individualism-collectivism is “perhaps the most utilized value...

Share