In his book The Geography of Thought, Richard E. Nisbett outlines some of the fundamental differences in the ways Easterners and Westerners think. He says one of the key differences is that Westerners tend to think of things in terms of objects and their properties. Easterners view things in relational terms. Thus Easterners are well-equipped to understand how we are affected by our environment or to seek harmony in two forces that seem to be opposed. Westerners are very good at categorizing and dealing with abstract concepts, but we don’t naturally understand interdependencies between things very well.

He also points out the differences that manifest themselves in the way we deal with conflicts. The Western justice system is very categorical and clear-cut. Two opposing parties present their case; one is judged right and the other wrong. This method is seen as harsh and inflexible to Easterners. How foolish to think that one side is completely right and the other completely wrong! The Chinese justice stresses the value of resolution. The two parties bring their dispute to an arbitrator who decides the best compromise to make between the two opposites. Only when harmony has been achieved can justice be served.

Nisbett spends time wondering what the effects will be of these two ways of thought being brought in contact with each other. He rejects the idea that they will remain separate and polarized as well as the idea that one of them will dominate. Instead he proposes that each culture will absorb the best part of the other, and both will prosper from their newly widened worldview. He cites many instances of Easterners adapting to Western thought patters, especially in crucial areas like education. Also mentioned are examples of Westerners taking up Eastern practices such as yoga, tai chi, and Buddhism.

This is a nice thought. It would be great if both cultures could better themselves in such a fashion. However, I believe it contradicts what Nisbett has put forth earlier in his work. Nisbett describes how the Eastern method is to find a ‘middle path’ between two opposite ways, while Westerners try to find which of the ways is best and pick it.

With that in mind, perhaps a different outcome should be expected when these two systems are brought into contact with each other. First of all, what Nisbett suggested about Eastern cultures adopting Western values is hard to argue with. It’s pretty self-evident if you just take a look. Not only on superficial ‘coke and MTV’ levels either; it’s not uncommon to see debate being focused on in Eastern schools. That would have been unheard of without Western influence. Easterners are serious about looking for a middle way. They see the two extremes of East/West, and they try to meld the two, bringing out each one’s good as much as possible. They seek a resolution between two opposing forces.

However, the other side of Nesbitt’s conclusion is less convincing. True to Western thought, it seems we have little consideration for melding these two mindsets. Chalk it up to that world-famous American arrogance or simply a lack of exposure, but I have failed to see much evidence of Westerners adopting Eastern ideas. The examples Nesbitt gives are either trendy (wearing clothing sporting Chinese characters), superficial (taking martial arts without understanding the underlying philosophy), or so extreme that they no longer constitute a blending of ways but an acceptance of one with a rejection of the other (Westerners going to Buddhist monasteries in the Appalachians). Westerners rarely seek the Tao.

That said, The Geography of Thought is utterly brilliant. I’d recommend it to any person who plans on interaction between east and west. Well, any Westerner, that is. Easterners seem to be doing pretty well at that without a handbook on the subject. =D