Graduate Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies 7:1 (2010), 70-83

Is China Conforming to a Westernized Global Culture? An Assimilation Theory Analysis of Chinese-Western Cultural Relations
Nicholas LOUBERE Xiamen University, China
NDLoubere@Gmail.com

Abstract

Assimilation theory has traditionally been used to evaluate cultural and ethnic relations within the nation-state, specifically, the extent to which a minority culture becomes more similar to a dominant host culture. However, due to globalization characterized by cultural flows extending beyond the nation-state boundary, the world today is beginning to look like a pluralistic global nation-state. At the same time, an overarching global third culture is forming that can be equated to a dominant mainstream culture on the nation-state level. Thus, assimilation theory becomes a viable tool on the international system level of analysis. There can be no doubt that Western culture has contributed the most to the global third culture. China, as the country with the worlds largest population and fastest growing economy, provides a fascinating chance to use assimilation theory on a global scale. Is China being assimilated into the Western cultural group? This paper finds that while China has exhibited some evidence of acculturation into the Western dominated global third culture, structural assimilation is still a long way off. In the mean time, Chinas growth is expanding its global cultural market share, pointing to the likelihood of a future, more equitably amalgamated global third culture.

ANY ATTEMPT to evaluate the level of assimilation of one cultural group into that of another will encounter the problematic issue of cultural definition. How do we define and put parameters on something as dynamic and fluid as culture? Of course the ultimate result of any classification of cultures, be it on the macro or micro level, will be disagreements on the criteria used for defining the various cultures and accusations that the scope is either too broad or too narrow. In the end a lot of time and energy will be spent on the definition of terms as opposed to the evaluation and analysis itself. This paper will try to avoid such disputes arising from the magnification of differences existing among groups within large overarching cultures by using an international system level analysis to view cultural groups as units acting on a global scale. From a global perspective Chinese culture can be defined as the dominant values and practices emanating from what is today, and has

70

www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

historically been China. A concise overview of the evolution and expansion of the Chinese cultural group can be found in John King Fairbank and Merle Goldmans (2006) China: A New History. Western culture, on the other hand, can be defined as the dominant values and practices historically emanating from Western Europe. As Roger Osborn (2006) notes, the Western cultural group has become more clearly defined since the end of the Second World War. Today, Chinese-Western cultural relations, which we will define as the total interaction between the two groups, is at an all time high. This is because the Chinese cultural group and the Western cultural group have closer ties and a better understanding of each other on every level of society than at any other time in history. This is not a surprise as throughout the course of recorded history there has been an unmistakable trend towards increased interaction between geographically dispersed cultures (globalization) resulting in the convergence of cultures worldwide (assimilation). In ancient times there are some records of interaction over vast distances. An example includes the second century B.C. Qin dynasty trade route extending from southern China all the way to Sri Lanka (Wen, 1985). Over subsequent centuries and millennia these trade routes lengthened and multiplied. After Zhenghes famous voyages and the beginning of the colonial era, interaction between China and the West increased rapidly, despite regulations like the Ming and Qing dynasties haijin (which literally translates to sea prohibition) effectively banning private merchants from conducting maritime trade (Li, 1990). During the nineteenth century this interaction extended into all levels of society as the era of Chinese immigration began. With the decline of the Qing, Western colonial powers asserted their military dominance. At the same time, due to political turmoil and unfavorable economic conditions, waves of Chinese immigrants flooded into colonial Southeast Asia and the Americas (Liu, 2006). After WWII and the emergence of a bipolar world characterized by the Cold War, international interaction manifested itself in the formation of blocs as different cultural groups came together and focused on their similarities as opposed to their differences in order to protect themselves from the perceived enemy culture. Finally, with the end of the Cold War, the establishment of US hegemony and the beginning of the Information Age, international interaction has increased exponentially resulting in what many have called the Cocacolonization or Americanization of the world (Flusty, 2004). As this short history demonstrates, for millennia there has been a trend of continuously increasing world interconnectedness that is progressing at a faster rate now than at any other time in history. Simultaneously, world cultures are experiencing some degree of amalgamated homogenization due to increased interaction and communication (Greig, 2002). However, as Mike Featherstone (1990) points out, at this juncture in history we cannot say that a single totally homogeneous global culture exists. Like many multi-ethnic/multicultural nationstates in the past and present, the world today is still very pluralistic, but unlike most nation-states there is not one easily identifiable overarching global culture that can be used to evaluate assimilation of one group into the mainstream. Instead, we must shift our attention to the emerging transnational culture or global third culture that stems from increasing cultural flows across national boundaries, and that is growing and developing at the same rate as global interconnectedness. To use the words of Anthony Smith (1990), our global third culture is both eclectic and simultaneously
Loubere/Is China Conforming to a Westernized Global Culture? 71

standardized (p. 176). It is an amalgamation of global cultures creating the possibility for geographically dispersed populations to share a cultural identity. Moreover, as Mathias Albert (2007) pointed out with regards to global society, the creation of a global third culture is not only a bottom-up process. This is because the global third culture itself has a top-down homogenizing effect on other world cultures. An example of this is the world-systems theory assertion that homogenizing forces have been accompanying global capital flows from highincome to low-income countries resulting in the aforementioned Cocacolonization of the developing world (Flusty, 2004). This example also points to the fact that the global third culture is not equitably amalgamated and is currently dominated by the Western cultural group, a point we will return to later. Given the above, this paper will seek to determine the extent to which Chinese culture is becoming more similar to, or assimilating into this global third culture. Answering this question will require us to adapt assimilation theory for use on a global scale in order to analyze the global third culture and its implications for the future of the Chinese cultural group. The rest of this paper is organized into five main sections, the first of which will review globalization and the idea of global society, as well as looking at the main ideas behind assimilation theory. In the second section we will adapt aspects of assimilation theory that have traditionally been used on the nation-state level of analysis for use on the international system level of analysis in order to create a framework for analysis. In the third section we will use assimilation theory to assess Chinas assimilation into the global third culture based on the four core factors of population, language, governmental policy and economic situation. The fourth section is a discussion of our findings and their implications, followed by the conclusion. The Process of Globalization and Assimilation Theory Globalization In order to view the world as a global nation-state, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the globalization process. A simple definition of globalization is the advance of human cooperation across national boundaries (Bourdreaux, 2008, p. 1). However, it is important to differentiate between internationalization, which is a mere quantitative increase in the contacts and flows across nation-state boundaries or an increasing outward-orientation of the nationstate, and globalization, which influences and structures processes of economic production and exchange, political authority, the formation of individual and collective identities, or cultural frames of reference (Albert, 2007, p. 167). In other words, internationalization simply focuses on the amount of interaction between cultures and the adoption of some simple cultural norms to facilitate this interaction, whereas globalization is the structural change that results from continued interaction over time. Interestingly, we can equate internationalization and globalization to acculturation and structural assimilation, two aspects of assimilation theory discussed below. Of the many strands of globalization theory, the concept of global society (Albert, 2007) is of the most interest for this paper. Global society theory, like the idea of a global third culture, implies that the world is a singular place (after
www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

72

Roland Robertson, in Featherstone, 1990, p. 5). As a singular place, the world is similar to a pluralistic multi-cultural nation-state, albeit, on a larger scale. Because of advances in communications technology, we can compare what is happening today on a global scale to what happened from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century in the United States or in some post-colonial, newly independent Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, where a variety of ethnic/cultural groups experienced a sudden increased level of interaction. At the international system level of analysis, this idea of global society is useful to track the growth of a global third culture and evaluate its top-down effect on other cultures (i.e. Chinese culture). By redefining the world as a pluralistic global nation-state with a dominant culture (the global third culture), it is possible to utilize assimilation theory to analyze the interactions between cultural groups within the global nation-state. Assimilation Theory Central to any debate over assimilation are two ideas described by Donald Horowitz (1975) as incorporation, where one cultural group takes on anothers identity, and amalgamation, where two or more groups merge to become a larger group. These two ideas roughly translate into the concepts of Anglo-conformity and the Melting-pot that dominated assimilation theory in the United States until the middle of the twentieth century (Gordon, 1961). The classical model of assimilation theory was characterized by Robert Parks (1950) race relations cycle consisting of four stages: contact, competition, accommodation and assimilation. This cycle describes assimilation as an inevitable process following a linear trajectory over time. While Park (1950) believed that certain obstacles could temporarily slowdown a race relations cycle, he was confident that primary personal relationships would ultimately be the facilitator of assimilation. The second half of the twentieth century brought with it the idea of cultural pluralism as a rebuke to traditional assimilation theory. This concept proposes that assimilation or homogenization is not necessarily the natural end state for multicultural societies. Proponents of cultural pluralism point out that Parks (1950) race relation cycle is often left incomplete and groups retain their culture. The mantra of unity in diversity that was taken up by many multicultural societies is one manifestation of this idea that different cultures should be celebrated instead of being encouraged to assimilate into the dominant culture (Gordon, 1961). The sociologist Milton M. Gordon (1964) devised seven stages of assimilation, the two most important being acculturation, which is the adoption of the core principles of the dominant culture, and structural assimilation, which is the entrance of a minority group into the core social institutions of the dominant culture (for a more comprehensive overview see Alba & Nee, 1997). As noted above, the difference between the two can be compared to the difference between internationalization and globalization in that it focuses on the form of interaction that is taking place between cultures. Minority groups that undergo acculturation still retain their cultural traits (pluralism), but at the same time they develop the means to interact with the dominant cultural group. On the other hand, those groups that undergo structural assimilation eventually lose their cultural identity and are accepted into the mainstream dominant culture through intimate primary personal

Loubere/Is China Conforming to a Westernized Global Culture?

73

relationships. Gordon (1964) believed that either acculturation or structural assimilation can be end points in a race relations cycle. Herbert Gans (1997) agreed with Gordons definition of acculturation and structural assimilation, and went one step further by declaring that acculturation depends on the minority groups acceptance of the dominant culture, whereas structural assimilation depends on the dominant cultural groups acceptance of the minority. Gans asserted that assimilation invariably lags behind acculturation and proposed the concepts of straight-line and bumpy-line assimilation. Straight-line assimilation is the idea that each new generation born and raised in a dominant host society will inevitably reach a higher level of acculturation, finally ending in structural assimilation. Later, Gans (1992) developed the idea of bumpy-line assimilation in order to account for tangents along the road towards assimilation. Gans also posited that assimilated cultural groups can maintain a kind of symbolic cultural identity or, in the words of New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd, a designer ethnicity (cited in Gans, 1992, p. 45), meaning that even though the group holds onto some of its symbolic cultural heritage, this is manifested in terms of the dominant culture. Using Assimilation Theory on the International System Level of Analysis It is possible to relate some of the main assimilation theory concepts, like Parks (1950) race relations cycle and Gordons (1964) definition of acculturation and structural assimilation, to ideas that are commonly used on the international system level of analysis. In the field of international relations there is research like Robert Keohane and Lisa Martins (1995) on neoliberal institutionalism and Alexander Wendts (2003) work on the possibility of a future world state, focusing on homogenization and integration on a global scale with regards to global governance. Keohane and Martins work is useful for evaluating the difference between acculturation and structural assimilation on a global scale. As Stanley Leiberson (1961) pointed out the crux of any (race relations) cycle must deal with political, social, and economic institutions (p. 903). International institutions can be defined as those institutions at the core of a global society and unconditional acceptance into these institutions would be evidence of structural assimilation. Keohane and Martin (1995) have also observed that international institutions have continued to grow in both number and size, indicating the expansion of the global society. Wendt (2003) proposed that advances in technology on the whole, and communications technology in particular, are causing the world to enter a stage where a global identity has the possibility of forming. These advances have shortened both travel and communication time on a global scale completely transforming the way that different cultures interact with each other, a phenomenon that was most eloquently described by David Harvey (1990, p. 147) as a space-time compression. Wendt (2003) also asserts that over the course of human history there has been a trend of smaller political units consolidating themselves into larger ones. This is just as true for cultural groups as it is for political ones, providing a strong argument for a possible future homogenized world culture. Wendts five stages of progress towards a world state (i.e., system of states, society of states, world society, collective security and the world state) can be equated to Parks (1950) race relations cycle (i.e.,
www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

74

contact, competition, accommodation and assimilation). In Wendts (2003) system, the world is currently between stage two: the society of states and stage three: world society, which is equivalent to being between competition and accommodation in Parks cycle. However, simply adapting existing theories will not sufficiently answer the question of whether China is assimilating into a Westernized global third culture. Especially if we are to use Gans straight-line or bumpy-line assimilation models, it will also be necessary to define some new terms, make some basic assumptions and set some parameters at the international system level of analysis. First, we need to assume that a dynamic and constantly expanding overarching global third culture exists. Admittedly this global third culture is not as homogenized as most dominant cultures on the nation-state level, instead it is an amalgamation of all the worlds large cultural groups. However, just as globalization theorists recognize that some regions feature more prominently than others in global governance (Albert, 2007), all cultures do not have equal weight in the amalgamated global third culture. Instead, we need to introduce the concept of a cultural market share. From this perspective the global third culture can be seen as a pie chart with different cultural groups contributing varying amounts to the whole. Countless factors contribute to the increase or decrease of a cultural groups global cultural market share, but for this paper it is sufficient to point out that, due to Western economic dominance resulting in Westernization (see Badie, 2000; Mehmet, 1999; Von Laue, 1989), the Western cultural group has by far the largest piece of the cultural market share pie. Therefore, from this point on we will talk about Chinese cultural assimilation into the global third culture while remembering that the Western cultural group dominates this third culture. Second, for the purpose of this paper it is necessary to look at the world as a singular place in the mold of a culturally pluralistic nation-state. Culturally, it is easy to equate the post-Cold War unipolar world with newly formed, multicultural nation-states like Indonesia or Malaysia directly after the colonial era. In this multicultural global nation-state, the amalgamated global third culture is the dominant overarching culture, much like the Anglo/WASP culture was for a pluralistic United States in the early twentieth century; additionally, on the globallevel, international institutions play the same role as core cultural institutions do on the state-level. Third, we must define the time period over which we will assess Chinese cultural assimilation into the global third culture. Both Parks (1950) race relations cycle and Gans (1992) bumpy-line assimilation approach progress along a linear trajectory. Usually, a state-level race relations cycle will begin with a contact point and progress will be analyzed over generations. Therefore, it is necessary to define a starting point, or contact in the global race relations cycle, and it is also necessary to define a time period for a global generation to determine if assimilation is progressing or not. For our purposes we will let the contact period coincide with the beginning of the colonial era (also known as the early modern period) at the end of the fifteenth century, which marked the start of more aggressive transoceanic interaction between geographically dispersed cultural groups (McNeill, 2006). A global generation is different from a human generation and can be defined as a phase in history that encapsulates a set of values and practices. Just like
Loubere/Is China Conforming to a Westernized Global Culture? 75

Harveys (1990) assertion that due to technological advances we are experiencing space-time compression, the time period for a global generation can compress or expand due to varying factors providing a rich area for future research. For this paper we will simply demarcate several important historical periods that can be used to signify global generations. The first starts from contact at the end of the fifteenth century and lasts until the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the second from 1648 until the beginning of widespread Chinese immigration around 1850, the third from 1850 until the end of WWII, the fourth from the end of WWII until the end of the Cold War, and the fifth from the end of the Cold War until the present day. Now that we have defined the world in terms of a global nation-state that has an overarching culture represented by core cultural institutions, a start date and five generations of history, we can look at the process of assimilation on a global scale in a more traditional way. Acculturation and structural assimilation can be assessed based on a cultural groups acceptance into international institutions and progression along either Parks race relations cycle or Gans bumpy-line can be assessed based on cultural change over global generations. Therefore, our assimilation model will be a hybrid of ideas from Park (1950), Gordon (1964) and Gans (1992) and its most important function will be to track the rate of assimilation over time as well as the level of assimilation (i.e. acculturation or structural assimilation). Assimilation into the Global Third Culture For simplicity, we will utilize the same four core factors employed by Mary C. Waters and Toms R. Jimnez (2005) in their assessment of immigrant assimilation in the United States, in order to assess assimilation on a global scale. These are: intermarriage, spatial concentration (both classified under population), language assimilation, and socioeconomic status (classified under economic situation). Additionally, we will consider the role that governmental policy plays in global assimilation. Future research can look at a variety of other factors that affect assimilation, including but not limited to, philosophy/religion, morals and values, and even diet. Population According to statistics from the CIA World Factbook (2010), if we count Western Europe, all of the Americas, Australia and South Africa as regions controlled by the Western cultural group, we can place the total population at 1,377,000,000 people, slightly larger than the 1,338,000,000 population of China, or 20% and 19% of the world population respectively. It could be argued that the Chinese population is much larger if we consider all the ethnic-Chinese abroad. However, except for the case of Singapore, the ethnic-Chinese abroad do not constitute the majority cultural group in their respective nation-states (Ji, 2010). Therefore, not only is the Western cultural group slightly larger, but it also dominates a larger geographical area than the Chinese cultural group (CIA, 2010). There is evidence that the larger and more concentrated a minority cultural groups population is, the more resistant this population will be to assimilation (Alba & Nee, 2003). We can see evidence of this in the examples of the United States and Indonesia. After 1882 the United States passed the Chinese Exclusion Act causing the ethnic-Chinese population in the country to fall from 107,000 in 1890 to just
www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

76

77,000 in 1940 (Daniels, 1988). Over the next half-century, the ethnic-Chinese in the United States achieved a high level of structural assimilation (Wang, 1991). During the same time period, the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) encouraged Chinese immigration into the country causing the ethnic-Chinese population to grow from 537,000 in 1900 all the way to 3,533,000 in 1979 (Zhang, 1999). The second half of the twentieth century saw racial tension and a very low level of ethnic-Chinese assimilation in Indonesia (Dawis, 2009). Perhaps more important than the total size of a population is its growth, as this provides infusions of new members to the cultural group reinforcing that groups cultural identity. While the United States and some other countries in the Western cultural group are currently experiencing population growth, the Chinese population is expected to increase by around 200 million in the next few decades due to population momentum (Lutz & Sanderson, 2004). Therefore, it is possible that the Chinese population will overtake that of the Western cultural group in the future. Assimilation theorists look at widespread distribution (Alba & Nee, 1997) and eventual intermarriage (Morawska, 1994) as two important factors contributing to a high level of assimilation. In our global nation-state the third global generation (1850-1945) saw widespread Chinese distribution around the globe as the Qing dynasty haijin (sea prohibition) was lifted and the first wave of Chinese immigration overseas began (Daniels, 1988). Subsequently there have been more waves of Chinese immigration creating a substantial worldwide overseas ethnicChinese population. In countries like the United States this has resulted in an increase in both the total number and the proportion of ethnic-Chinese intermarriages. Before 1930 only 3% of the US ethnic-Chinese population were intermarried, whereas in 1980 over 30% had married outside the Chinese community (Wong, 1989). However, the approximately 38 million ethnic-Chinese overseas (Ji, 2010) is still small compared to Chinas population of 1.34 billion (CIA, 2010). Therefore, from the perspective of population numbers, growth and distribution, it seems unlikely that the Chinese cultural group is positioned to achieve a high level of assimilation into the global third culture. Language Adoption of the dominant cultural groups language is a fundamental step on the road to assimilation. In terms of our global nation-state, use of English as the lingua franca only developed over the past two, possibly three global generations. With the advance of telecommunications technology resulting in time-space compression, the importance of English as a gateway into the global third culture has grown exponentially. At the same time the language itself has become more accessible. More than 25 years ago David Crystal (1985) noted, with some frustration, the shortage of information on the number of English speakers in China. Today there is still not enough clear statistical data on this important subject. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that far more members of the Chinese cultural group speak English than at any other time in history. China has also expanded its use of English in education, resulting in more people learning the language at a younger age (Hu, 2005). While it is difficult to assess what percentage of the population speaks English and how much this percentage will rise in the near future, the fact is that the Chinese cultural group
Loubere/Is China Conforming to a Westernized Global Culture? 77

is quickly becoming adept in English, pointing to further contact with the global third culture. However, it is important to remember that language assimilation is defined as both language ability and loss of mother tongue (Waters and Jimnez, 2005, p. 108). While the Chinese cultural group is certainly improving its English language ability, there is no evidence that the group is losing command of the Chinese language. Therefore, the Chinese cultural groups current level of language assimilation falls under the category of acculturation with a possibility for assimilation in the future. Governmental Policy The two types of governmental policy that have the largest effect on assimilation are immigration policies and unequal rights or forced assimilation policies. In our global nation-state we cannot look at immigration policy, as all the cultural groups already occupy the world, so instead we will focus on the unequal rights or forced assimilation policies. Indonesias half-century of forced assimilation and unequal rights policies for their ethnic-Chinese population is a good example of the ineffectiveness of such policies. The Indonesian government attempted to force the ethnic-Chinese population to assimilate into the majority culture by requiring them to change their names and eliminating the three pillars of ethnic-Chinese society: Chinese schools, Chinese organizations and Chinese media (Lembong, 2008). However, instead of achieving the goal of assimilation, these policies reinforced the differences between the Chinese and Indonesian cultures creating more tension between the two groups (Zhang, 1999). The most recent example of this ethnic conflict was the anti-Chinese violence that erupted across Indonesia in 1998 (Lembong, 2008). As previously noted, acculturation depends on the minority cultures acceptance of the majority, whereas assimilation depends on the majority cultures acceptance of the minority (Gans, 1997). If Alastair Iain Johnstons (2003) depiction of China as a status-quo power willing to play by the international rules is true, then it would seem that the Chinese cultural group is willingly undergoing the acculturation necessary to participate in the global third culture. For example, following its entry into the WTO China has generally supported the international norm of free trade, drastically reducing mean tariff rates from over 40% in 1992 to less than 20% in 1997 (Johnston, 2003). However, is the Chinese cultural group accepted by the core cultural institutions of the global third culture? When put on a global scale, forced assimilation and unequal rights policies can be seen in terms of engagement or containment policies carried out by nation-states and organizations in the international arena. In this way G. John Ikenberrys (2008) piece The Rise of China and the Future of the West, which argues that the United States must strengthen the Western order and make it easier for China to participate, is not only a call for more engagement of China through international institutions, but also an impassioned plea to grant the Chinese cultural group equal rights in the global nation-state, facilitating its assimilation into the Western cultural group. So is the Western majority accepting the Chinese minority into the core social, political and cultural institutions of the global third culture? Over the last two global generations China has not only more than doubled its membership in international institutions, but it has also increased its participation (Johnston, 2003).
www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

78

Both of these facts point to increased acceptance of the Chinese cultural group by the core cultural institutions of the global third culture and the possibility for future structural assimilation. Economic Situation Economic status is perhaps the most important of our four factors in that social and economic mobility provide a motivation for assimilation (Alba & Nee, 1997). Indonesia and the United States again provide good contrasting examples. During the early twentieth century the ethnic-Chinese in the United States held a lower economic position than the majority Anglo/WASP cultural group, thus they had an incentive to assimilate into the majority in order to achieve a higher economic status. In the United States today, a structurally assimilated ethnic-Chinese population has almost achieved economic parity with the majority group (Alba & Nee, 1997). Ethnic-Chinese Indonesians on the other hand, despite accounting for only 3% of the population, control 75% of the countrys capital (Zhang, 1999). This situation, combined with the forced assimilation and unequal rights policies discussed earlier, has not provided a good incentive for the minority ethnic-Chinese to assimilate into the majority cultural group. This is because most of the economic opportunities exist within the minority group. At the same time, it is difficult for members of the Chinese minority to gain the acceptance needed to undergo structural assimilation. In our global nation-state the Chinese cultural groups economic power is growing. However, as Ikenberry (2008) pointed out, despite unbelievably rapid economic growth over the last global generation and Chinas emergence as the worlds second largest economy, the Chinese cultural group has nowhere close to the economic power of the combined Western cultural group. While China may overtake the United States as the worlds largest economy, the Chinese economy will be much smaller than the combined economies of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development far into the future (Ikenberry, 2008, p. 6). Therefore, as long as China remains economically subordinate to the West, we should expect to see continuous assimilation driven by the promise of an improved economic status. Discussion So how can we answer the question of whether China is being assimilated into a Westernized global third culture? Two out of our four factors point to a possible high level of Chinese assimilation, with language and population providing obstacles. There can be no doubt that the Chinese cultural group has adopted many of the practices and behaviors of the global third culture, such as English language acquisition and participation in international organizations. However, this kind of cultural adoption would fall under the category of acculturation, with the possibility for future structural assimilation. In order for structural assimilation to occur, China would need to be unequivocally accepted into all of the core cultural institutions of the Western dominated global third culture, China would need to come close to economic parity with the West in terms of per capita GDP and, most importantly, Chinese culture would have to become symbolic and expressed in terms of the overarching global third culture. None of these things seem likely to happen anytime in the near future.
Loubere/Is China Conforming to a Westernized Global Culture? 79

Another aspect to consider is that Chinas current level of acculturation has taken an unusually long time to achieve. Gans (1997) posited that acculturation can happen in the first generation after contact and assimilation usually takes place after the third generation. We are presently in the midst of our fifth global generation, yet on Parks (1950) race relation cycle it seems that we are only between competition and accommodation. While there is evidence that the assimilation process is occurring, it appears to be taking a long bumpy road. Maybe this process will speed up due to our current time-space compression, or maybe acculturation is simply the end of this global race relations cycle. Either way, more research is needed to determine if the Chinese cultural groups current state of acculturation is due to particular aspects of the Chinese situation (e.g. a large concentrated population) or is due to undetermined factors which operate at the international system level. We must also consider the two concepts of incorporation and amalgamation with regards to the global third culture. Assimilation theory is often used to describe the one-way process of incorporation. However, in reality the global third culture, while heavily influenced by the Western cultural group, is not, in and of itself, Western culture, but an amalgamated culture within which the Chinese cultural group holds a cultural market share. Much like Nyes (2001) description of soft power, Chinas cultural market share is growing along with its economy, begging the question; will China assimilate into the Western cultural group, or will it take the largest slice of the cultural market share pie? Future research should adapt assimilation theory to better fit the process of amalgamation as it occurs on a global scale. Conclusion This paper has attempted to adapt assimilation theory, which has traditionally been employed on the nation-state level of analysis, for use on the international system level of analysis in order to assess the extent to which China is assimilating into the global third culture. According to the analysis of the four core factors discussed in this paper, the Chinese cultural group has achieved some degree of acculturation. However, this acculturation has not come quickly, and although there is evidence that the process of assimilation is occurring, structural assimilation of the Chinese cultural group into the Western dominated global third culture is a long way off. Ultimately, one must realize that assimilation is a natural process that cannot be forced. If the Western cultural group accepts a larger Chinese cultural market share then there is a good chance that China will assimilate, not into Western culture, but into an amalgamated global third culture of which the Chinese cultural group will hold a significant stake. This does not mean that pluralism will end, the entire world will homogenize and Chinese culture will be lost. What it means is that cultural groups worldwide will retain a symbolic designer culture (Maureen Dowd, cited in Gans, 1992, p. 45) that is subordinate to the overarching amalgamated global third culture. A possible future unified by a peaceful global nation-state with an overarching global culture can be found in Horace Kallens (1924) hope for America nearly 100 years ago. The outlines of a possible great and truly democratic commonwealth become discernible. Its form would be that of the federal republic; its substance a democracy of nationalities, cooperating voluntarily and autonomously through
www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

80

common institutions in the enterprise of self-realization through the perfection of men according to their kind (p. 124).

Loubere/Is China Conforming to a Westernized Global Culture?

81

References Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration. International Migration Review, 31(4), 826-874. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Albert, M. (2007). Globalization Theory: Yesterdays Fad or More Lively than Ever? International Political Sociology, 1, 165-182. Badie, B. (2000). The Imported State: The Westernization of the Political Order. (C. Royal, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1992). Boudreaux, D. J. (2008). Globalization. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.CIA. (2010). The World Factbook 2010. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ Crystal, D. (1985). How Many Millions? The Statistics of English Today. English Today, 1, 7-9. Daniels, R. (1988). Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States since 1850. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Dawis, A. (2009). The Chinese of Indonesia and Their Search for Identity: The Relationship Between Collective Memory and the Media. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press. Fairbank, J. K., & Goldman, M. (2006). China: A New History (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Featherstone, M. (1990). Global Culture: An Introduction. Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 1-14. Flusty, S. (2004). De-Coca-Colonization: Making the Globe from the Inside Out. New York, NY: Routledge. Gans, H. J. (1992). Ethnic Invention and Acculturation, a Bumpy-Line Approach. Journal of American Ethnic History, 12(1), 42-52. Gans, H. J. (1997). Toward a Reconciliation of Assimilation and Pluralism: The Interplay of Acculturation and Ethnic Retention. International Migration Review, 31(4), 875-92. Gordon, M. M. (1961). Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality. Daedalus, 90(2), 263-285. Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press. Greig, J. M. (2002). The End of Geography?: Globalization, Communications, and Culture in the International System. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(2), 225-243. Harvey, D. (1990). The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of the Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Horowitz, D. L. (1975). Ethnic Identity. In N. Glazer & D. P. Moynihan (Eds.), Ethnicity: Theory and Experience (pp. 111-140). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hu, G. (2005). English Language Education in China: Policies, Progress, and Problems. Language Policy, 4(1), 5-24. Ikenberry, J. G. (2008). The Rise of China and the Future of the West: Can the Liberal System Survive? Foreign Affairs, 1-7. Ji, K. (2010, July 28). Distribution of the Overseas Chinese Population. Retrieved from http://www.library.ohiou.edu/subjects/shao/ch_databases_popdis.html

82

www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

Johnston, A. I. (2003). Is China a Status Quo Power? International Security, 27(4), 556.Kallen, H. M. (1924). Culture and Democracy in the United States. NY: Boni and Liveright. Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (1995). The Promise of Institutionalist Theory.International Security, 20(1), 39-51. Leiberson, S. (1961). A Societal Theory of Race and Ethnic Relations. American Sociological Review, 26(6), 902-910. Lembong, E. (2008). Indonesian Government Policies and the Ethnic Chinese: Some Recent Developments. In L. Suryadinata (Ed.), Ethnic Chinese in Contemporary Indonesia (pp. 48-56). Singapore: ISEAS Publications. Li Jinming 1990 Liu, H. (2006). Introduction. In H. Liu (Ed.), The Chinese Overseas, Volume 1 (pp. 3439). Oxen, UK: Routledge. Lutz, W., & Sanderson, W. C. (2004). Introduction. In W. Lutz, W. C. Sanderson, & S. Scherbov (Eds.), The End of World Population Growth in the 21st Century: New Challenges for Human Capital Formation & Sustainable Development (pp. 1-16). London, UK: Earthscan. McNeill, W. H. (2006). Transatlantic History in World Perspective. In S. G. Reinhardt, & D. Reinhartz (Eds.), Transatlantic History (pp. 3-18). Arlington: the University of Texas at Arlington. Mehmet, O. (1999). Westernizing the Third World: The Eurocentricity of Economic Development Theories (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Morawska, E. (1994). In Defense of the Assimilation Model. Journal of American Ethnic History, 13(2), 76-87. Nye, Jr., J. S. (2001). Soft Power and Conflict Management in the Information Age. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. R. Aall (Eds.), Turbulent Peace: the Challenges of Managing International Conflict (pp. 353-63). Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press. Osborn, R. (2006). Civilization: A New History of the Western World. New York, NY: Pegasus. Park, R. E. (1950). Race and Culture. Glencoe: The Free Press. Smith, A.D. (1990). Towards a Global Culture? Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 171-191. Von Laue, T. H. (1989). The World Revolution of Westernization: the Twentieth Century in Global Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Wang, L.L. (1991). Roots and Changing Identity of the Chinese in the United States. Daedalus, 120(2), 181-206. Waters, M. C., & Jimnez, T. R. (2005). Assessing Immigrant Assimilation: New Empirical and Theoretical Challenges. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 105-125. Wen Guangyi 1985 Wendt, A. (2003). Why a World State is Inevitable. European Journal of International Relations, 9(4), 491-542. Wong, M. G. (1989). A Look at Intermarriage Among the Chinese in the United States in 1980. Sociological Perspectives, 32(1), 87-107. Zhang Yuan 1999 5 10-17

Loubere/Is China Conforming to a Westernized Global Culture?

83

Copyright of Graduate Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies is the property of University of Auckland and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.