Abstract
Purpose The paper debunks Peter P. Li’s assertion that Yin-Yang is superior to any other cognitive frames or logical systems for paradox research. The purpose of this paper is to alert the Chinese indigenous management researchers to the danger of Chinese exceptionalism and over-confidence. Design/methodology/approach To show that Peter P. Li’s assertion is doubtful, the authors identify the flaws in his analysis. Findings The authors find that there are three serious flaws in Peter P. Li’s analysis. First, there are four defects in the typology of cognitive frames he built in order to compare Yin-Yang with the others. Second, his understanding of dialectics in general and Hegelian dialectics in particular is flawed. And finally, without resorting to Yin-Yang, many scholars can develop theories that are equivalent to those derived from Yin-Yang. Research limitations/implications Due to the page limit, this paper only focuses on arguing that Yin-Yang is not superior to other cognitive frames or logical systems without going one step further to explain in which situations Yin-Yang are valuable and might be more suitable than others for helping us understand some research issues. Practical implications This paper implies that we should not blindly believe that the Chinese way of thinking and acting is superior to other people’s. Chinese people should be open-minded in the globalized era, not only promoting their own culture but also appreciating and learning from other cultures. Social implications The reduction of cultural exceptionalism and ethnocentrism can make cross-cultural communication and interaction smoother. Originality/value This paper is a rigorous critique on the “Yin-Yang being superior” assertion of Peter P. Li.
Highlights
With the emergence of indigenous management research in China (Barkema et al, 2015; Leung, 2012; Lewin, 2014; Li, 2012a, 2014a; Li et al, 2012; Mathews and Tan, 2015; Redding, 2017; Redding and Witt, 2015; Tsui, 2004), more and more Chinese management scholars are using the Yin-Yang philosophy in their research works (e.g. Fang, 2012; Jing and Van de Ven, 2014; Lin et al, 2015; Zhang et al, 2015). As these studies have demonstrated the usefulness of Yin-Yang for analysis and theorizing, some Chinese scholars seem to have gained increasing confidence on the uniqueness and significance of Yin-Yang for Chinese indigenous management research
We alert Chinese indigenous management researchers to the danger of Chinese exceptionalism, which may prevent one from seeing the fact that the West has many equivalent ideas to those often associated with the Chinese culture (Redding, 2017), such as Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, and harmony
Lee (2000, p. 1066, italics in origin) point out: There is a great possibility that dialectical reasoning and thinking may be culturally universal, not culturally unique to Chinese or East Asians [...] is dialectical reasoning unique to Chinese or East Asians? Is Western thinking Aristotelian? The answer to these questions may be yes and no or it depends
Summary
With the emergence of indigenous management research in China (Barkema et al, 2015; Leung, 2012; Lewin, 2014; Li, 2012a, 2014a; Li et al, 2012; Mathews and Tan, 2015; Redding, 2017; Redding and Witt, 2015; Tsui, 2004), more and more Chinese management scholars are using the Yin-Yang philosophy in their research works (e.g. Fang, 2012; Jing and Van de Ven, 2014; Lin et al, 2015; Zhang et al, 2015). Fang, 2012; Jing and Van de Ven, 2014; Lin et al, 2015; Zhang et al, 2015). As these studies have demonstrated the usefulness of Yin-Yang for analysis and theorizing, some Chinese scholars seem to have gained increasing confidence on the uniqueness and significance of Yin-Yang for Chinese indigenous management research. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
