Root‑Cause Analysis of Chinese Culture: Why “Greed, Cowardice, and Indifference” Are Symptoms, Not the Disease
In 1920, British philosopher Bertrand Russell arrived in China to great fanfare, only to leave behind a controversial diagnosis in his book The Problem of China: three “fatal flaws” in Chinese national character—greed, cowardice, and indifference. These labels are often quoted as if they describe intrinsic traits of Chinese people. Yet when read through root‑cause analysis, they look less like permanent cultural defects and more like symptoms of deeper structural and historical conditions.
This article unpacks Russell’s three charges as surface symptoms and traces their root causes in Chinese political, economic, and social history.
1. Symptom: “Greed” — What Russell saw
Russell described Chinese “greed” not just as love of money, but as a survival‑driven anxietythat erodes trust and contract‑like behavior. He observed that people would break promises, cheat, or exploit others for small gains, especially in dealings with outsiders or the state.
He also noted that even educated elites often prioritized family or clan interests over public good, and that corruption among officials—such as taking kickbacks at the expense of national interest—reflected a short‑term, opportunistic mindset.
Root cause of “greed”
Russell himself pointed toward the underlying environment that breeds such behavior:
Chronic insecurity and scarcity
For much of China’s history, war, famine, and political instability made life precarious. In such conditions, hoarding, opportunism, and “grab what you can” become rational survival strategies, not mere moral failure.Weak rule of law and strong rent‑seeking
Under long‑standing autocratic rule, formal rules were often arbitrary, and real power lay in personal connections and bribes. The saying “有錢能使鬼推磨” (“money can make even devils push the millstone”) reflects a belief that money and connections, not law, determine outcomes.Family‑centric moral universe
Confucian ethics traditionally emphasize family and clan loyalty over abstract civic duty. When public institutions are weak or corrupt, people naturally fall back on kin networks, turning “greed” into a form of defensive solidarity—protecting one’s own circle at the expense of strangers.
In this light, “greed” is a symptom of institutional failure and existential insecurity, not a fixed cultural essence.
2. Symptom: “Cowardice” — What Russell saw
Russell’s second charge, “cowardice,” did not refer to battlefield courage, but to political and moral passivity in the face of injustice. He observed that ordinary people often endured oppression silently, afraid to challenge authority or to defend victims, even when they inwardly disapproved.
This resonates with the “onlooker” figure in Lu Xun’s writings: crowds who watch executions with curiosity or amusement, embodying a kind of collective numbness.
Root cause of “cowardice”
Russell linked this passivity to the long shadow of autocracy:
Centuries of centralized, top‑down rule
Under imperial and later authoritarian systems, the state monopolized violence and political initiative. Citizens learned that speaking up was dangerous, while obedience was safer. This created a culture of deference rather than civic agency.Lack of civic institutions and rights
Without independent courts, free press, or effective channels for protest, people had little reason to believe that action could change anything. The result is a rationalized apathy: “Why risk my life for a system that won’t change?”Fear of collective punishment
In tightly controlled societies, dissent is often punished not only the individual but also their family or community. This amplifies risk and makes silence a rational strategy, even for those who feel moral outrage.
Thus, “cowardice” is better understood as adaptive caution under repression, not a congenital lack of courage.
3. Symptom: “Indifference” — What Russell saw
The third charge, “indifference,” struck Russell most deeply. He described scenes in which people laughed at exhausted coolies or ignored suffering strangers, while showing intense warmth only within their own circles.
This “circle‑centric” compassion—strong for family and friends, weak for strangers—creates a society where public morality seems thin and social trust low.
Root cause of “indifference”
Russell noted that poverty and hardship limit people’s capacity for empathy, but he also highlighted structural factors:
Exhaustion and material deprivation
When people struggle to meet basic needs, emotional bandwidth for others shrinks. Compassion becomes a luxury, and “self‑preservation” a default.Confucian “inner‑circle” ethics
Traditional Confucian morality emphasizes graded love: stronger obligations to kin and close associates, weaker to distant others. In the absence of strong civic or universal‑rights norms, this easily hardens into a dual morality: warm inside the circle, cold outside.Weak public institutions and impersonal trust
Where institutions are unreliable or corrupt, people learn not to trust strangers or abstract systems. Instead, they rely on personal networks, which reinforces the “us vs them” divide and reduces concern for the broader community.
“Indifference” is therefore a cultural adaptation to weak institutions and limited resources, not a sign that Chinese people are inherently heartless.
4. How the three symptoms interact
Russell’s three “flaws” are not independent; they form a self‑reinforcing system:
Greed erodes trust and strengthens corruption.
Cowardice allows injustice and corruption to persist.
Indifference weakens collective action and public morality.
Together, they create a feedback loop: weak institutions → insecurity → opportunism and fear → further erosion of institutions.
Russell himself did not treat these traits as permanent. He argued that Chinese people were highly intelligent and capable of great progress if they could combine their own traditions with Western scientific rationality and stronger civic institutions.
5. What this means for Chinese culture today
Russell’s diagnosis remains useful today, but as a diagnostic tool, not a verdict:
Symptoms can change when root causes change.
Economic development, education, and institutional reforms can reduce scarcity, strengthen the rule of law, and foster civic participation.Culture is not destiny.
The same Confucian emphasis on family loyalty that once reinforced “greed” and “indifference” can, in a different institutional setting, become a source of social cohesion and mutual aid.
In short, “greed, cowardice, and indifference” are not the core of Chinese culture; they are cultural symptoms produced by historical insecurity, autocratic rule, and weak civic institutions. Address the root causes, and the symptoms can gradually soften.
發表文章
