This blog post examines the differences in Eastern and Western thinking styles discussed in “The Geography of Thought” and analyzes how these differences have influenced modern society’s culture and problem-solving approaches.
On October 1, 2017, a tragic incident occurred in Las Vegas, USA. A heinous crime took place where a gunman opened fire from a high-rise building into a crowd gathered to watch a concert. An automatic weapon was fired into a crowd of 20,000 people. Over 500 were injured, and more than 60 died. This incident carries meaning beyond mere numbers. Not only were the personal lives of the victims shattered, but the event also left a deep wound across American society. People could no longer feel safe even in everyday places.
Americans witnessing this worst-ever crime were horrified. While the media reported on the incident around the clock, they could not find a motive for the crime. According to the police report investigating the perpetrator, Stephen Paddock, he was a billionaire who enjoyed high-stakes gambling in Las Vegas. He also transferred approximately 100 million won to his girlfriend, Marilou Danley, before the crime. This transfer added confusion to speculations about Paddock’s intentions. It could have been a simple financial transaction, but it could also have been part of preparations for the crime.
This is where the confusion in the American media intensified. Speculation about the motive ran rampant, yet Stephen Paddock lacked any personal characteristics that would explain why he would carry out a mass shooting targeting innocent civilians. Consequently, American citizens and the media struggled to accept that an ordinary person, ‘not the type to do such a thing,’ could commit such a horrific act. This was far removed from the typical image of a criminal, shocking many. Paddock’s quiet, reclusive lifestyle made him even more unpredictable, rendering his crime particularly difficult to comprehend.
I first encountered coverage of this incident at my family home. It happened to be during the Chuseok holiday, so I had returned home after a long time. The TV was reporting on the Las Vegas mass shooting; after showing CNN’s coverage, the anchor and reporter were discussing the cause. What stood out immediately was that while American media intensively investigated Steve Paddock’s ‘personal character’ and reported him as a ‘lone wolf’, domestic media focused primarily on the issue of gun ownership in the US. This aligns with the idea that the West tends to focus on specific parts, while the East places greater importance on the whole and the context. The American media’s use of the term ‘lone wolf’ reflects a tendency to focus on an individual’s psychological traits. Conversely, Korean media viewed gun control as a societal structural issue.
While American media sought to understand the criminal motive through Stephen Paddock’s ‘personal traits’ and address issues stemming from them, domestic media identified the horrific event as a societal phenomenon arising from broader social conditions and demanded countermeasures. This difference in perspective, where the same event was reported yet perceived as entirely different, clearly highlights the divergence between American and domestic media outlets. This difference extends beyond mere interpretation of the event, influencing public reaction and policy responses. In the U.S., the incident sparked widespread discussion about individual mental health, whereas in Korea, it heightened demands for stricter gun control.
Another intriguing point, as mentioned in the book, is the reaction of the perpetrator’s father, who exhibited behavior described as ‘guardian-like.’ Watching the news together, my father remarked, “It was quiet for a while, but I knew another mass shooting would happen.” He added that as long as gun ownership remains legal in the US, such incidents will continue to occur. This, too, exemplifies the Eastern mindset of viewing the whole picture. My father’s remarks went beyond the issue of gun control in American society, offering insight into the structural problems that make such incidents inevitable.
This book aims to explain these differences in Eastern and Western thought. In ‘Eastern Taoism and Western Syllogism,’ it discusses the fundamental differences in thinking between East and West. In ‘Eastern Life of Coexistence and Western Life of Solitude,’ it explains the background behind these thought patterns: the East collectively cultivated rice farming, while the West developed livestock farming and commerce over agriculture. Furthermore, ‘The East Sees the Whole, the West Sees the Parts’ explains how these differing mindsets lead to distinct approaches in describing causality. These differences are significant because they are not merely theoretical; they are deeply rooted in actual social and cultural customs.
The subsequent section, ‘The Eastern Approach to Situations and the Western Approach to Nature,’ similarly describes differences between East and West within a larger context. The idea that ‘the East views the world through verbs, while the West views it through nouns’ was novel to me, making it a refreshing topic. Having little prior interest in social psychology, I regretfully only encountered this book long after its release, having never previously considered this topic. While the West focuses on classifying the world through precise nouns, the East views a single noun—such as ‘I’—as a verb capable of multiple actions, emphasizing how one behaves. This difference is reflected in linguistic structure and influences communication styles between East and West. This was the most novel and fascinating part of the book.
Next, the book describes the difference between ‘the West, which values logic, and the East, which values experience’. Compared to the West, where the importance of logic has been emphasized since the Greek era of debate and political systems, the East believes that understanding and experiencing reality—which functions as a complex, multifaceted system—is crucial. This mindset is reflected in philosophy, art, and everyday problem-solving, creating distinct differences between East and West.
The next chapter describes ‘the origins of the differences in Eastern and Western ways of thinking’. Personally, I found it quite disappointing that the differences based on origin were only briefly explained. This felt insufficient because, while the differences in Eastern and Western ways of thinking are ultimately results, the processes and causes that led to these differences could offer a more compelling explanation. However, the book seemed limited by its focus on psychology, leaving me feeling that explanations from an anthropological perspective were lacking. The cultural differences explained in this book are merely superficial phenomena, and it leaves a sense of regret that without delving deeper into their origins, it is difficult to fully understand these differences.
The final chapter, “Who is Right, the East or the West?”, discusses whether the differences between East and West will narrow in the future or persist. Reading this chapter, I couldn’t help but feel it seemed somewhat cowardly. While the author’s view that differences will gradually diminish seems reasonable, given the inherently sensitive nature of value judgments, this conclusion came across as a “both are fine, so it’s settled” kind of resolution. This is merely my personal opinion, but I couldn’t help but feel the author was overly cautious, trying to avoid criticism from both East and West by presenting only a value-neutral perspective. While such neutrality is sometimes necessary, I believe a clearer stance is needed when addressing real-world issues.
Of course, maintaining a value-neutral perspective is fundamental to research. However, when studying phenomena related to real-world problems and connecting this research to solving those problems, I think it’s necessary to approach the issues with some directionality. Therefore, even when comparing Eastern and Western cultures, while it might sound uncomfortable to some, asserting what the current situation in the East is, why this culture needs revision, and what strengths should be maintained is an indispensable part of societal development. I deeply regret that the book didn’t express such arguments based on this excellent research. The various cultural differences discussed in this book are not mere differences but factors directly impacting each society’s development and future. I believe it is crucial to actively discuss these differences and seek necessary changes.
While it is true that all existing cultures have developed in ways close to their own optimized forms, it is also an undeniable fact that some have become distorted or, over time, left behind as unnecessary remnants. For example, the oppression of women in Islamic societies is a prime example. Under Islamic religion, women are treated as the property of the male head of the household (it is also true that Eastern Confucian culture has only recently moved away from male supremacy and female subordination, and remnants of this still remain). They are oppressed both socially and sexually. The most shocking aspect is the belief that those who sacrifice themselves in jihad (their term) for Allah will go to the paradise they describe and receive 22 virgins as a gift (this is actually written in the Quran, the Islamic scripture). Because of this, the ultra-extremist Islamic terrorist group ISIS does not hesitate to use inhumane methods like suicide bombings and even forces teenagers to sacrifice themselves for Allah. Furthermore, treating women as mere sexual objects has led to revelations of IS massacring civilians opposing them, imprisoning women among them, and subjecting them to sexual assault or gang rape. These brutal acts are packaged under the guise of their culture, yet they constitute grave crimes that undermine universal human values. They are acts so inhuman and anti-humanitarian that they cannot even be called a culture.
While this is an extreme example, within every culture, elements that are unacceptable or should never be tolerated today are maintained or even reinforced under the simple protection of being labeled “culture.” Therefore, I believe that if this book, which deals with scientific and important data about various cultures, had offered a sharper critique of each culture, it would have held more persuasive power than any other criticism. Thus, I am left with considerable regret that the author, even at some risk, did not articulate points needing correction in both Western and Eastern ways of thinking. By missing improvement opportunities found through criticism, has it not, in a way, deprived both East and West of a chance for development?
This book’s shortcomings extend beyond this. Beyond lacking sufficient social critique, its failure to address real-world application is a significant deficiency. It failed to translate academically valuable research into practical implementation. Perhaps it delved too deeply into the purely academic, losing sight of our reality. Consider this example. Many organizational psychologists research not only theory but also methods for changing organizational culture. This is one area studied not only by organizational psychologists but also by many management scholars, aiming to foster development by constructing sound theories and applying them to reality. Among them, those researching organizations and corporate culture study how organizational and corporate cultures are formed, how they unfold, and how they eventually fade away. They propose various methods for changing corporate culture when it needs improvement, alongside the company’s evolution or specific events. They argue that only companies possessing a culture suited to their resources and circumstances can survive. While their theories and predictions don’t always hold true, their scientific efforts to improve reality are valuable in themselves. These studies have contributed beyond mere theoretical value, actually enhancing the efficiency of companies and organizations, playing a crucial role in enabling many businesses to achieve long-term success.
Thus, while research on any subject holds value in itself as an academic pursuit, I believe it gains even greater significance when it transforms and advances human society. Reading this book, I gained considerable insight into “the current state of affairs,” but I couldn’t find much on “what to do about it.” Given the high academic value of the research conducted, it would have been even better if it had connected more to practical applications; personally, I found it quite disappointing that it didn’t. The book’s academic depth and insight were certainly impressive, but its lack of concrete suggestions for real-world application and practice became a limitation.
Another issue is that it became too fixated on a psychological perspective, leading to narrow interpretations. Of course, the author is a psychologist, and the focus was indeed on the differences in Eastern and Western thought patterns themselves. However, the explanations regarding these origins were far too sparse. I often found myself wondering how much broader the perspective might have been if the author had collaborated with anthropologists or historians. The book merely briefly states that in Greece, commerce developed, creating a need to persuade others, thus leading to the development of syllogistic reasoning. In China, the focus was on rice farming, requiring significant labor, which fostered the development of collective community thinking. However, I feel it would have been better if these differences had been explained with a bit more anthropological depth. While it’s true that this would have required considering many more factors, such explanations would have made for a more complete book.
For instance, comparing the climates of the Mediterranean and East Asia would have provided a better explanation and greater persuasiveness. In the Mediterranean, while the climate was mild, rainfall was insufficient for rice paddy farming. Consequently, cash crops like olives began cultivation much earlier than in the East, leading to the development of commerce and flourishing trade. Conversely, in East Asia, rainfall was sufficient for rice paddy farming, allowing it to develop extensively. Furthermore, not only climate but also topography played a significant role in shaping the differences between Eastern and Western cultures. Greece, considered the starting point of Western culture, is a mountainous region where large-scale cultivation of crops like rice or wheat was impossible, leading to the cultivation of commercial crops. Simultaneously, trade routes were actively developed by avoiding the mountainous terrain and establishing sea routes. Conversely, East Asia had more flat terrain compared to the West, leading to the development of paddy farming. Trade primarily occurred via land routes, except for special cases like Japan. Thus, simply comparing and analyzing climate and topography could provide far more compelling causes and perspectives.
Personally, I hold an evolutionary psychological perspective and believe that various variables, such as the climate and topography mentioned earlier, brought about the cultural differences between East and West. The survival methods suited to their respective environments ultimately became their cultures. Therefore, I would like to say this about the title of this book: “Is it a map made by thought, or thought made by the map?” Rather than dividing East and West by mindset, perhaps it is that East and West—that is, their respective living environments and ways of life—led them to create cultures most optimized for survival, and that these cultures then brought about such differences in mindset? Posing this question could offer a new perspective for understanding Eastern and Western ways of thinking.
