Professor Wang Pei (汪沛教授), a young scholar at Hong Kong University, has recently published a new extended essay that draws on Jungian archetypes to investigate: “Hero and Father: Contrasting Leadership Styles in the USA-China Rivalry” (available here).
AMERICA JUMPS THE RAILS
Just over a year ago, at Fridayeveryday, I maintained that, “America bombs while China builds” (click here to read it).
More recently, I discussed why, “America unhinged had become a danger to the world and itself” (see this link).
In the latter article I noted how Britian’s leading global weekly, The Economist, was watchful but still upbeat about their abiding, West-is-best project after the election of President Trump for a second term, notwithstanding his chaotic agenda.
However, leaders and headlines from The Economist – and a wide range of other leading Western media outlets – soon after confirmed that this guarded optimism had evaporated (see this link.)
- “MAGAlomania – Donald Trump’s economic delusions are already hurting America”;
- “Trump’s erratic policy is harming the reputation of American assets. Like the stock market, the dollar is also suffering from falling confidence and rising confusion”;
- “Trump’s “Liberation Day” is set to whack America’s economy. A rush of new tariffs will hurt growth, raise prices and worsen inequality”;
- “JD Vance: spurned in Greenland and humiliated at home, the vice-president should resign”;
- “Trump’s Attacks on Press Freedom Are Paving the Way for Authoritarianism”; and
- “Ivy League convulsions – will we be next?”
Conversely, once leading Western media outlets shift their focus from what they consider to be globally egregious economic sins to genocide in Gaza, this, typically, is quite a different matter: “Killed or maimed 100,000 people, mostly women and children? Supplied weapons for your mates to do that?”
No problem! The Economist will not downgrade your governance marks for such inconsequential sins. If you’re a westerner, that is” (see this link).
What the majority of the world perceives
This grotesque juxtaposition remains largely acceptable across the Global West (or Western world). But that segment of the world, with around 1.4 billion people, comprises under 20% of the total world population of just over 8 billion (see here for data). The majority of the world – over 80% – locates these monstrously conflicted Western perspectives along a continuum from deeply puzzling to inexcusable.
The Western Warrior and the Eastern Father
Professor Wang’s recent essay attentively contributes to building a better historical understanding of how this entrenched, aberrant Western standpoint has evolved. Her central thesis contributes a fresh explanatory perspective on why differing broad segments of the world – and especially its two superpowers – likely have evolved in ways that have shaped pivotal leadership differences. She does not claim that her arguments are conclusive. But they are thought-provoking in that they consider foundational factors that have arguably shaped deeply influential, long-term governance perspectives in the West and the East.
The renowned Swiss psychologist, Carl Jung (1875 – 1961) maintained that the human archetypes he outlined represented “universal themes, motifs, or symbols that evoke a profound emotional response and hold deep significance across cultures and generations” and these “archetypal patterns manifest in myths, fairy tales, dreams, and even in the narratives of our everyday lives, serving as the building blocks of our collective human experience” (link here).
Professor Wang analyzes the contrasting leadership styles in the US and China by drawing extensively on Jung’s “Hero” and “Father” archetypes, which in ancient Greek culture, she explains, represented different values and principles, adding that:
This distinction is vividly illustrated in Homer’s Iliad, particularly in the iconic duel between Hector and Achilles. Hector, the tragic hero of Troy, embodies the archetype of the Father, symbolizing duty, family, and the protection of his city. In contrast, Achilles, the greatest warrior of the Greek army, represents pure strength and individual heroism. … This scene not only highlights the conflict between the archetypes of the Father and the Hero but also deeply reflects the tension in Greek culture between the duty to family and the pursuit of heroic fame.
In China, the profound influence of Confucianism has emphasized the central influence of the Father archetype “in both imperial and post-revolutionary times, where Hero-type leaders are often downplayed or viewed as tyrants”.
Wang argues that apparent Chinese Hero-exceptions to this rule, like the First (Qin) Emperor, Qin Shihuang (259-210 BC), and Mao Zedong, did not actively promote their Hero-image (Qin) or also robustly embodied the Father archetype (Mao). Thus, Mao was regularly referred to as “Grandpa Mao” in his later years (and has been similarly portrayed since his death).
Mount Rushmore, which features four gigantic, sculpted heads of past US presidents provides one striking confirmation of how the US favours the Hero-leader far more. Each of the presidents carved in stone, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, were, as Wang notes, “selected partly, if not mainly, because of their military victories”.
Large Maoist statutes notwithstanding, it is extremely difficult to imagine China ever producing such a huge, perpetual, quasi-religious veneration of multiple primary examples of military-related, heroic leaders such as one finds at Mount Rushmore.
In fact, China has, for countless centuries, consistently revered fatherly sage-kings as epitomizing the ideal paramount leader, rather than successful warrior-hero-leaders. This, Wang explains, is because, “in the Confucian tradition, the archetype of the Father far surpasses that of the Hero, a reflection of Confucianism’s deep longing for a loving and virtuous father figure”.
Professor Wang also observes how both archetypes embody positive and negative aspects.
Thus, able, resolute Hero-leaders can deliver astute, critically important decisiveness but they also are prone to, “an obsessive need for public and media attention, even at the cost of resorting to vulgar rhetoric to please the masses, and finally achievement addiction: a relentless pursuit of accomplishments through risky endeavors, such as hastily launching wars or implementing radical economic policies.” Negative aspects of the Father archetype are outlined below.
The Confucian Father archetype
Confucian statecraft did not embody Western democratic elements but, rather, emphasized a hierarchical, merit-and performance-based governing tradition. Thus, competitive exams to recruit scholar-officials to run the Chinese imperial system date back more than a thousand years to the Song Dynasty. And they were founded on principles established more than 2000 years ago during the Han Dynasty (see this link on the examination system).
Moreover, according to New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, by the 4th century BC, China was divided into four ranked (in this order) classes:
The scholar elite;
The landowners and farmers;
The craftsman and artisans; and
The merchants (or businessmen) and tradesmen (see here.)
Note how “warriors” do not appear on the list above (as they certainly would on any such list from Ancient Greece or the Roman Empire).
China has not, of course, been a placid land free of warfare for millennia. Dynasties have been displaced using military might regularly over the last several thousand years. In the modern era China has endured an horrific Japanese invasion, a terrible Civil War and the violent upheaval of the Cultural Revolution. But these brutal experiences have emerged within China rather than as a consequence of heroic-crusading external adventures.
The best Father-leaders in Chinese history, according to Professor Wang, “were not only virtuous rulers capable of wisely governing the state but also loving fathers who cared for the welfare of the people.” Still, Wang adds: “This tradition has shaped the image of rulers as the great patriarchs of the nation and has reinforced the relationship between authority and obedience, providing rich cultural soil for the Father archetype in the political sphere.” This in turn can lead to: strict rules and excessive control, plus dogmatism, formalism and authoritarianism. And just as Hero-leaders regularly want to cling to power to retain their place in the limelight, Father-leaders may be reluctant to retire because:
These leaders perceive themselves as playing an indispensable role in the governance of the country. They also formulate long-term development plans for the nation and believe that their absence from their posts could adversely impact the stability and progress of the country. Consequently, they frequently extend their tenure and continue to exert influence over state affairs even if they formally retire.
Lee Kuan Yew, the (Chinese) founding father of modern Singapore, fits this profile particularly well. He exercised continuous, significant political power in Singapore for over 50 years as: Prime Minister from 1959 – 1990; Senior Minister 1990 – 2004 and Minister Mentor 2004 – 2011.
As it happens, the leading Singaporean international commentator, Kishore Mahbubani, credibly explained, in 2015: “Why Singapore is the World’s Most Successful Society” (link here).
The governing philosophy of Lee Kuan Yew had its roots in Confucian statecraft thinking. As Professor Wang argues, this is also where the governing approach of today’s Chinese leadership in Beijing is pivotally sourced.
Conclusion
Several Polish scholars, writing in 2008, explained that:
“The Western tradition glorified war and conquest and warriors constituted their ruling elite, whereas the Confucian tradition that shaped Chinese civilization detested violence and raised scholar-officials to the rank of the ruling elite” (link here).
Earlier this year, in an article entitled, “The lawless West,” I argued that:
Western civilization empowered modern development by forging the best ever method of generalized, rational, scientific analysis (during the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment) following which it exported this understanding around the world. By this means, Western understanding fostered long-term fundamental improvements in education, healthcare, manufacturing, infrastructure, architecture, science, technology and institution building, globally.
However, Western civilization also gave the world long-distance, voracious, colonial-imperialism, combined with war-based resolution of intense geopolitical contestation, on a scale never-before imagined. In fact, centuries of post Roman Empire war-mongering across Europe acted as a primary stimulus for advancing modern thinking both generally (see above) and, particularly, to improve fighting prowess.
Alongside all the real human advancement in particular areas, the rank side of energetic Western globalized development proved to be uncommonly ugly. It included massive levels of Western organized trans-continental slavery and exceptionally predatory forms of colonialism.
Now Professor Wang has outlined a fresh way to understand: (1) how this profound millennial divergence in basic political theory has evolved; and (2) how that divergence continues to shape pivotal differences in the leadership of America and China during a time of major geopolitical transformation.
Richard Cullen is an adjunct law professor at the University of Hong Kong and a popular writer on current affairs.
To see a list of articles he has written for this outlet, click this phrase.
Montage at the top includes elements from Xinhua and AFP news reports