1

Duì bu qĭ seems to be the hardest word1 By Sala Sihombing

Forms of apology may exist within all cultures but not perhaps with the same meanings.

This paper aims to explore some of the orthodoxies surrounding Chinese cultural norms

and how they impact concepts of apology and forgiveness. Are the orthodox beliefs

about culture consistent with the manner in which apology is experienced by Chinese

people?

Apologies are described as ‘speech acts’:

[T]hrough which an individual splits himself into two parts, the part that is guilty of an offense and the part that disassociates itself from the delict and affirms a belief in the offended rule.2

Whilst this is an apt description of an apology where the offender accepts that he has

breached a social norm and accepted responsibility, there are other types of apology. For

example, it is possible for an apology to acknowledge that the victim is offended or to

empathise with the victim without acknowledging responsibility, alternatively an apology

can also be based on the need for social harmony without any expression of remorse3.

All of these can be valid in specific circumstances and it is important to acknowledge the

wide array of possible apology formulas, which are available to an offender. Within

Putonghua there are six levels of apology, which represent the subtlety of expressing an

informal sorry (duì bu qĭ); an expression of regret (bào qiàn); apologizing whilst

                                                                                                               1 Duì bu qĭ (informal) Putonghua for sorry. With apologies to Sir Elton John for the title. 2 Erving Goffman, Relations in public: microstudies of the public order, 113 (1st 1971) 3 Professor Peter Robinson, Fall Semester Lectures, Straus Institute, Pepperdine University, 2011.  

2

accepting responsibility (péi li), up to apologizing with full admission of error and

requesting punishment (qĭng zui)4.

Since Hofstede’s work it has been widely accepted that Chinese culture as exemplified by

citizens of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is collectivistic in nature5 i.e. the needs

of society are more important than those of the individual, and that this preference is

based on Confucian and Buddhist principles6. These beliefs include a high regard for

qualities such as benevolence, tolerance and kindness in connection with forgiveness7.

As a collective society, individuals consider themselves to be part of one or more closely

linked groups (e.g. family, co-workers, etc.) and they are ‘willing to give priority to the

goals of these collectives over their own personal goals’8. Lazare comments that within

Chinese culture ‘reestablishing social harmony is often the major function of apologies’

thus perhaps suggesting that within more individualistic societies apologies are driven

more by internal reasons e.g. guilt9.

The concept of face i.e. a sense of social self-worth, is also deemed to be significant in

Chinese culture10. Face-negotiation theory argues that: (a) people in all cultures try to

maintain face when communicating with others; (b) face becomes a heightened issue in

conflict situations; (c) culture, personality and situation will affect whether a person

                                                                                                               4 Hang Zhang, Culture and apology: The Hainan Island incident, Vol. 20 No. 3 World Englishes 383, 384 (2001). 5 Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences, 225 (2d ed. 2001). 6 Hong Fu et al., Personality correlates of the disposition towards interpersonal forgiveness: a Chinese perspective, Vol.

39 No. 4 International Journal of Psychology 305, 307 (Aug. 2008). 7 Id. at 313.  8 John G. Oetzel et al., Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: a cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation

theory, Volume 30 Communication Research 599, 602 (Dec. 2003). 9 Aaron Lazare, On Apology, 158 (1st ed. 2005). 10 Stella Ting-Toomey et al., Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated face negotiation theory, Vol. 22

No. 2 Int. J. Intercultural Rel. 187, 187 (1998).  

3

focuses on negative face or positive face; and (d) face concerns will influence actions11.

Negative face indicates a concern for autonomy and positive face indicates a concern for

acceptance12. Although face is a concept frequently raised in connection with Chinese

and Asian culture, I would argue that face is important to all people. Most people are at

least interested in how others perceive them.

According to Hui and Bond, face in Chinese culture ‘relates to significant others and not

to unspecified other people’13. There is a significant amount of literature about the impact

of the distinction between in-groups and out-groups. Typically in collectivist cultures, in-

groups include family, friends and out-groups consist of strangers whose interests are not

relevant to the individual14. Therefore, the Chinese should be less likely to apologise to

out-groups as there is no relational aspect.

As a result of all of these observations, the general theory is that as a result of these

tendencies Chinese people are more likely to apologize in order to maintain social

harmony even if their personal inclination is against apologizing15. As a corollary of the

out-group distinction, the Chinese may be less inclined to apologize to out-group

members, given that there is no need to maintain a harmonious relationship with these

people16.

                                                                                                               11 Oetzel et al., supra note 8, at 600.  12 Hee Sun Park and Xioawen Guan, Culture, positive and negative face threats, and apology intentions, Vol. 28

Journal of Language and Social Psychology 244, 245 (2009). 13 Victoria Ka-Ying Hui and Michael Harris Bond, Target’s face loss, motivations, and forgiveness following relational

transgression: comparing Chinese and US cultures, Vol. 26 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 123, 127 (Jul. 2009).

14 Hee Sun Park et al., The effects of national culture and face concerns on intention to apologize: a comparison of the USA and China, Vol. 35 No. 3 Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 183, 186 (2006).

15 John G. Oetzel, The effects of self-construals and ethnicity on self reported conflict styles, Vol. 11 No. 2 Communication Reports 133, 135 (Summer 1998).

16 Hee Sun Park et al., supra note 13, at 186.

4

However, the apology culture of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) needs to be

considered both in the light of philosophical influences but also the fact that for the last

60 years it has been a communist state. According to Lu and Miethe, whilst a collectivist

society will emphasize social harmony between people, a socialist system will emphasize

the ‘maintenance of state and individual relations’17. Potentially a system such as the

communist one which emphasizes the state as the focus for loyalty is one in which social

bonds decrease and the use of the social harmony apology may decline.

Further, according to Lu and Miethe, ‘economic reforms introduced the Western

individualist value system that seriously challenged the traditional communitarian values

and culture belief systems in China’, they go so far as to suggest that these changes have

transformed ‘the Chinese citizen from a contextual actor to a self-serving individual

actor’18. As evidence of this trend of increasing individualistic values, they point to the

fact that civil disputes have tripled between 1988 and 2000, and suits brought against

organs of the state has increased tenfold19. This argues that rather than following a blind

submission to social harmony, the Chinese public is increasingly willing to engage in

direct conflict in the event of a dispute.

It will be fascinating to see how the conflicting demands of loyalty to state and increasing

individualism will change the cultural norms within Chinese society. In particular, how

these changes will affect the role of apology in helping to resolve conflict seems to be in

a state of flux.

                                                                                                               17 Hong Lu and Terance D. Miethe, Confessions and criminal case disposition in China, 37 Law & Soc’y Rev. 549, 573

(Sept. 2003). 18 Id. at 551. 19 Id. at 551.

5

A few recent historical examples reveal more aspects about the Chinese view of apology.

In particular it is interesting to consider whether there are differences when looking at

situations where the Chinese government was asked for apologies and where apologies

were demanded by the Chinese government.

In May 2008, a magnitude 7.9 earthquake struck Sichuan Province in China and killed at

least 70,000 people20. Of those killed over 10,000 were schoolchildren who died in their

schools as classrooms and dormitories21. In the days following the tragedy, reports

started surfacing that many schools had been poorly constructed due to corruption and

that this was the key reason why so many children died22. The tragedy was heightened

due to China’s one child policy, which meant that for many parents they lost their only

child. The parents of 58 children filed a petition with the courts in December 2008

demanding an apology and compensation from the local government23.

The traditional values of Chinese culture would seem to indicate that the government

should have sought to meet the demands of these parents and offered an apology. The

concern for social harmony and the collectivist nature of the society should have

prompted at the very least a social harmony apology. However, there are reasons why

the Chinese government may not have wanted to apologize.

Potentially the Chinese government were unwilling to accept responsibility as corruption

in construction projects is not confined to Sichuan and an apology may have set an

                                                                                                               20 13 May 2008 New York Times Powerful Quake Ravages China, Killing Thousands

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/world/asia/13china.html?pagewanted=all) 21 6 May 2009 New York Times, Sichuan Earthquake

(http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/science/topics/earthquakes/sichuan_province_china/index.html) 22 Id.  23 Facts and Details website – Sichuan earthquake

(http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=407&catid=10&subcatid=65)

6

inconvenient precedent. Alternatively, it is possible that the Chinese government did not

identify the grieving parents of Sichuan province as their in-group. In this sense the lack

of an apology accords with the academic literature. The nature of the state i.e.

communism, could be another factor as to whether the Chinese government felt an

apology was required. In communism the focus is on the responsibility of the individual

to the state, therefore it is understandable that the government would see no need to

apologize to citizens. But in this case was the high profile nature of the case as there was

significant coverage in world media on the Sichuan earthquake and the corruption

charges regarding the school construction.

By contrast, in September 2011, the Mayor of Changchun, Cui Jie apologized several

times in public for the failure to prevent a death in a forced demolition24. The city had

demolished a building and the falling debris had killed a local resident25. In this case an

apology was made by Mayor Cui to the people of Changchun. Perhaps an apology was

possible as the incident was a relatively low profile local matter. Unlike the Sichuan

earthquake there had been no international attention on the fatalities arising from forced

demolitions in Chinese towns. According to press coverage the apology was welcomed

by local residents and was interpreted as meaning that the government both

acknowledged the errors and intended to remedy them in future26.

                                                                                                               24 China.org.cn, Mayor sorry for demolition death, 29 September 2011 (http://www.china.org.cn/china/2011-

09/29/content_23516980.htm)  25 Id.  26 Id.  

7

In April 2001, an American surveillance plane and a Chinese jet fighter collided above

the South China Sea27. The American plane was able to make a safe landing on Hainan

Island whereas the Chinese jet crashed and the pilot was presumed dead28. The Chinese

government demanded an apology from the American government. The American

government was concerned to recover the crew and the spy plane as quickly as possible

and this was a key factor in their approach to the Chinese government29.

According to Gries and Peng, the Chinese attitude was that an apology was needed to

restore Sino-American relations as the pilot was dead as a consequence of American

actions30. This could be interpreted as a need for harmony between nations and therefore

the apology can be viewed as necessary to redress the balance. Due to the holding of the

crew and the plane, the requirement for an apology was painted as a political tactic,

however, there was genuine anger amongst the public over the death of the pilot and polls

in China showed that the majority of the Chinese people thought that the US should

apologize31.

This situation was exacerbated by the earlier incident of the Belgrade bombing in May

1999, when the US bombed the Chinese embassy32. The US claimed that the bombing

was unintentional and was caused by the use of outdated maps, whereas the Chinese

media and public were quick to interpret the bombing as a direct attack on China33. Gries

                                                                                                               27 Peter Hays Gries and Kaiping Peng, Culture Clash? Apologies East and West, Journal of Contemporary China Vol.

11 No. 30, 173, 173 (2002) 28 Gries, supra note 27, at 173. 29 Lazare, supra note 9, at 216. 30 Gries, supra note 27, at 176. 31 Hang Zhang, supra note 4, at 384. 32 Peter Hays Gries, Tears of rage: Chinese nationalist reactions to the Belgrade Embassy bombing, The China Journal,

No. 46, 25 (Jul. 2001).  33 Id. at 25.

8

suggests that the Chinese reaction and demand for an apology was caused in part by

outgroup attribution bias i.e. we give our ingroup the benefit of the doubt whereas we

view with suspicion the acts of outsiders34.

In fact the Hainan Island incident led to protracted negotiations over the form of the

apology that would be given by the US. Field suggests that within high context cultures

(e.g. Chinese culture) the form of the apology may be more important than the

authenticity of the apology35. High-context cultures typically have unwritten rules which

outsiders are expected to impliedly understand and abide by36. It is clear that the Chinese

government felt that the giving of an apology had value. According to Lazare, the

Chinese would have preferred for the eventual apology to be issued by a more senior

official than the ambassador37.

In the end, 11 days of negotiation resulted in a letter being presented to the Chinese

government in which the US expressed ‘regret’ over the incident and noted that ‘we are

very sorry for [the pilot’s family’s] loss’38 . The apology would not qualify as a

remorseful apology as there was no expression of responsibility and appears to be closer

to the model for empathetic apologies. As the content of the letter had to be translated for

the Chinese public from English into Putonghua, the Chinese media had an opportunity to

increase the level of apology given by the US government39.

                                                                                                               34 Gries, supra note 32, at 31. 35 Patrick Field, 22 Sept 2008 CBI podcast 36 Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture,108 (2d ed. 1989). 37 Lazare, supra note 9, at 216. 38 Zhang, supra note 4 at 385. 39 Id. at 390.

9

It is also possible to analyze the need for a specific level of apology as part of face-

negotiation theory, i.e. the Chinese government had lost face as a result of the incident

and therefore needed to receive an apology. However, according to Zhang, both the

English version of the letter and the subsequent Putonghua translation were ‘highly

ideologically invested, intended to save face and justify their course of actions’40. This

suggests that both China and the US had face concerns, which were impacting their

decisions. As the letter seemed to conclude the apology negotiations, it appears that the

letter met the needs of the Chinese government in terms of what they expected to see

from an apology.

On an individual level, Han and Cai found that the Chinese and US American subjects

treated apology in the same way and they suggest that ‘the relational concern associated

with this type of speech acts is shared across cultures’41. This appears to contradict

expectations based on the view of Chinese society as collectivist in nature.

Further, Han and Cai were surprised by the results of their study which showed that

Chinese subjects were more concerned about negative face than US American subjects,

thus challenging the orthodox view that as a collectivist culture the Chinese would be

more focused on positive face concerns i.e. the way in which you are perceived by other42.

This can be seen as confirming the changing nature of Chinese society in that without the

collectivist focus on social harmony, it is open to individuals to consider their own

autonomy and to be concerned about this being restricted.

                                                                                                               40 Zhang, supra note 4, at 389. 41 Bing Han and Deborah A. Cai, Face goals in apology, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 20:1, 101, 117

(2010) 42 Id. at 118.

10

Oetzel argues that cultural factors such as collectivism are ‘not useful predictors of

individual behaviors’ and instead seeks to rely on self-construal (i.e. an individual’s view

of themselves) as a better predictor43. In Oetzel’s view, self-construal relates to how an

individual views themselves i.e. independent self-construal is correlated with

individualist cultures and interdependent self-construal is correlated with collectivist

cultures44.

Perhaps even Han and Cai’s results are subject to change as Chinese society becomes

increasingly individualistic, one could expect to see Chinese people shifting to an

independent self-construal. If this occurs what is the future for apology in China? If

China becomes more individualistic and individuals increase their sense of independent

self-construal, whilst the traditional social bonds decrease in importance it is likely that

the social views on apology become more akin to American values. For example, Zhang

highlights comments from a Chinese student in America who observed that Americans

are willing to apologize when not necessary but are reluctant to apologize when it is

necessary45.

As Han and Cai suggest it is time to ‘rethink perpetuated assumptions about

individualism, collectivism, culture and face concerns’46. Based on the findings of Lu and

Miethe the economic reforms of the 1980s have altered the Chinese consciousness from a

collectivist focus to an increasingly individualistic society 47 . Although there are

differences between cultural norms regarding apology there are also similarities. In the

                                                                                                               43 Oetzel, supra note 14, at 134.  44 Oetzel, supra note 14, at 135. 45 Zhang, supra note 4, at 387.  46 Bing Han and Deborah A. Cai, supra note 38 at 118. 47 Hong Lu and Terance D. Miethe, supra note 16 at 567.

11

end, perhaps what is most important is to be informed by cultural norms but also to

consider each person as an individual and each offence within its own specific context.