Search

This chapter discusses various factors germane to the development of civility. It deals first with differences between Taiwan and China relevant to Taiwan's having become a civil society and China's greater difficulties in doing so: differences in area, population, population composition, and integration; Taiwan's economic development beginning thirty years earlier and also being uninterrupted by internal factors; Taiwan's greater income and wealth equality; differences in social unity and in governance, especially elections in Taiwan and the KMT government's non-interference with the existing social organization; and the differential levels of trust in the two societies. It next assesses, in light of the information in previous chapters, the set of conditions listed in Chapter Two as likely either to facilitate or hinder civil development. It finishes by examining the links between civility and post-industrial values, becoming a 'society for itself,' and democracy.

The notion of civility originated in Europe as feudalism gave way to the Enlightenment as a way to civilize the behavior of the lesser lords and knights at court, later spreading to the rising bourgeoisie and to other commoners. It was also encouraged by the Church. It has been taken up by political philosophers who see it as implying that all in society are one’s consociates and as being crucial for democracy and citizenship. A public sphere is necessary for its existence, which can be facilitated or hindered by social factors. There was no Chinese tradition of civility embodied in Confucianism, the ceremonial ritual behavior demanded being deferential, between those of unequal statuses, not based on the equality of all as fellow human beings. A community compact institution began in the Ming to teach Confucian behavior to the masses but it was a failure. The notion of public weal or behavior consistent with civility was almost completely absent in dynastic China on the part of either the government or the general public.

This chapter argues that comparing Taiwan and China as a way to understand what conditions are necessary for a society to develop civility yields valid results. They share a cultural heritage, were under the same government until 1895 and were governed by similarly authoritarian governments for much of the period since up to 1990. It refutes the erstwhile claim that Taiwan was tainted by its period as a Japanese colony and therefore not really Chinese. It then recounts the various campaigns employed by the Kuomintang government in China from the 1920s to 1949 and in Taiwan from 1945 to 2000 and by the Chinese Communist Party from 1949 to the present in China, especially since Reform and Opening Up. It then shows, through an examination of moral education textbooks from each, that despite the paroxysms in China under Mao, they have very similar ideas about what constitutes civility.

A 1963 op-ed piece in the ruling party newspaper by an American graduate student listing incivilities and breaches of public morality became a call to develop civility in Taiwan that almost immediately spurred the formation by two university students of the China Youth Self-Awareness Movement. It was active for several years, recruiting youths to encourage civil behavior in society, but it was disbanded in 1969 when one of its leaders was arrested for rebellion. This chapter defines and operationalizes civility as it is perceived in Taiwan and China and how it will be applied in this book and enumerates the behaviors regarded as uncivil, noting also that, after Taiwan began its democratization process, its level of civility manifestly increased. It also explains the methodology and sources of information used in the study and outlines the chapters.

This chapter explores the level of civil and uncivil behavior in China with examinations of tourist’s conduct, road behavior, how people treat strangers, conceptions of and attitudes toward disturbing others, treatment of public space and public goods, observance of rules and laws, acts of charity, compassion toward and consideration of others, and egregious actions of the rich, the powerful, and the privilege. Chinese tourists are notorious for their boorishness and breaches of propriety and are a cause of shame and consternation at home; other causes of shame are the treatment of strangers in distress such as the Little Yueyue incident and attempts to extort money from Good Samaritans, the defining case being that of Peng Yu. Driver behavior is influenced by China being at a very young stage of mass car ownership as well as by notions of loss of face and the desire to be first, and behavior toward others by the dichotomizing of society into those with whom one is familiar and strangers and the lack of concern with the latter, though response to disasters is impressive. Civility is hindered by a strong sense of the self, wealth and status inequality, and a casual attitude toward laws and rules.

How does civility, defined as considerate treat of others, including strangers, and of the public space, develop in a society? This book aims to answer this question by comparing the processes and outcomes to date of efforts to develop civility in China and Taiwan, two societies that. It first examines the origins and development of civility in Europe questions and whether there was a comparable concept in dynastic China. It follows with arguments for the comparability of China and Taiwan on the basis of their shared cultural heritage, including a conceptual basis for and a history of incivility, authoritarian governance for most of the period since the seventeenth century when the Qing first controlled Taiwan, and top-down civilizing campaigns by the governments of each. It then examines the levels of civility first in China then in Taiwan and examines how Taiwan evolved from an uncivil society composed of myriad small, inward-looking communities, a society in itself, to a very civil society unified by civic nationalism, a society for itself. The concluding chapter examines differences between Taiwan and China that shed light on why the latter has been less successful in developing civility than the former and compares the development of civility with that of democracy, arguing that self-expression values are a prerequisite for both.

How people live under different economic systems is always of enormous interest, although comparison is handicapped in practice by the presence of other, non-systemic differences, such as culture and the level of economic development. Significant comparisons of living standards in the market-orientated Taiwan and the plan-orientated mainland portions of China, where the inherited culture is similar, have been precluded by the wide disparities in size, urban-rural mix, and level of development. Yet an interesting, and perhaps useful comparison can be made between Taiwan and a counterpart region within the People's Republic, such as Shanghai.