China News Service, Taiyuan, October 3. Question: How does Guan Gong's "loyalty" dialogue with the spirit of Western chivalry?
——Exclusive interview with Guy Salvatore Alitto, a famous sinologist and Wutong Sinology Chair Professor at Beijing Language and Culture University
Author Qi Yang Gao Xiaoqi
Guan Gong culture spread to North America with Chinese immigrants and continues in Chinese communities, religious networks and popular culture. How to open up a space for dialogue between the core values of Guan Gong culture such as loyalty, righteousness, benevolence, courage, and trustworthiness, and Western ethical traditions such as chivalry and contract spirit? How to promote cross-cultural ethical consensus through specific stories? Recently, Guy Salvatore Alitto, a well-known sinologist and Wutong Sinology Chair Professor at Beijing Language and Culture University, accepted an exclusive interview with China News Service's "East-West Question" to analyze the spread and mutual interpretation of Guan Gong culture in North America and its implications for mutual learning among civilizations.
The interview transcript is summarized as follows:
Reporter from China News Service: In the process of the spread of Guan Gong culture in North America through Chinese communities, religious networks, and popular culture, how do its core values (loyalty, righteousness, benevolence, courage, and trustworthiness) create dialogue and mutual interpretation with concepts such as the spirit of contract and chivalry in Western culture? What implications does this kind of cross-cultural adaptation have for mutual learning among civilizations?
Ai Kai: The story of Guan Gong’s character is no stranger to North Americans. Loyalty, righteousness, benevolence, courage, and trustworthiness all have similar correspondences in traditional Western values, especially the sense of honor and noble personality advocated by chivalry, including bravery, loyalty, and generosity. This consensus provides a path for understanding the connection between Chinese and Western ethical concepts.
In daily English, we can also use the terms "decency" and "graciousness" to help us understand these qualities: keeping your word, being considerate of others, and being generous to others. These statements help illustrate how admirable character manifests itself in everyday life.
In my opinion, mutual learning among civilizations can discover familiar moral pursuits in unfamiliar cultural forms. Western ideals of noble behavior help people get closer to Guan Gong; Guan Gong's stories can also make the virtues they originally identify with become vivid and concrete. This is also consistent with my consistent view: Confucian ethics can contribute to the formation of a common moral understanding between different cultures. While we are establishing these connections, we should also preserve the Chinese stories and historical experiences that give Guan Gong culture unique and rich connotations.
Reporter from China News Service: Mainstream American society’s understanding of Guan Gong’s image mostly comes from film and television adaptations and commercial symbols (such as Guan Gong statues and cultural and creative products). Is there a phenomenon of cultural misunderstanding or image simplification? How to balance the "original flavor" of Guan Gong culture and the "localized understanding" of overseas audiences in cross-cultural communication?
Ai Kai: Let’s make a distinction first: incomplete understanding and wrong understanding are not the same thing. At the same time, in the absence of specific audience surveys, it is not appropriate for us to summarize how mainstream American society understands Guan Gong based on just a few film and television works or some products. A more meaningful question is: What aspects of Guan Gong do these communication methods present? What aspects have been missed?
For example, some English introductions refer to Guan Gong as "God of War", that is, "God of War". A Japanese portrait of Guan Yu collected by the Metropolitan Museum of Art uses the title "Chinese God of War" in its English title. This title has its basis, but it is not enough to cover all the cultural significance of Guan Gong. If the audience only pays attention to his long sword, majesty and fighting ability, but does not understand the loyalty and integrity he represents, it is easy to remember only the external image of the character and ignore the reasons why people respect him. In my opinion, understanding Guan Gong as a figure who simply advocates force will cause obvious deviations.
As for "original flavor", I think it also needs to be understood from a historical perspective. In actual communication, first of all, the source must be explained so that the audience knows which plots come from historical records and which come from novels, operas, and religious legends. Respecting tradition also includes respecting the richness and changes of tradition itself. Secondly, the character’s moral choices should be illustrated through specific stories: To whom did he make a promise? Why keep it? What price has been paid for this? This kind of narrative makes it easier for overseas audiences to understand the weight of these virtues than repeatedly listing the words "loyalty, righteousness, benevolence, courage, and trustworthiness." I hope that overseas audiences will eventually feel that Guan Gong is amiable and respectable, and can also understand why he has existed in the spiritual life of the Chinese people for a long time in such a unique way.
China News Service Reporter: As the spiritual bond of overseas Chinese communities, what role does Guan Gong belief play in promoting the cultural integration of different ethnic groups (such as Chinese, Latinos, and Europeans)? In what aspects are the possibilities and limitations of its ‘cross-ethnic resonance’ reflected?
Ai Kai: In some overseas Chinese communities, Guan Gong belief plays a role in maintaining historical memory, moral identity and mutual help relationships. I am an Italian-American and my grandparents immigrated to the United States. I grew up in an environment with close exchanges with relatives and fellow villagers. This kind of family background makes it easy for me to understand why immigrants cherish traditions that can maintain a sense of belonging. When people are in a foreign land, they need to make a living, and they also need to know where they come from and who they are supporting each other.
This spiritual connection is often intertwined with concrete social life. For example, the Five Saints Palace in San Jose, dedicated to gods such as Guan Gong, historically also served as community activities, children's education, and accommodation for travelers. In such a place, faith, cultural heritage and daily mutual aid support each other. When these places are open to the surrounding community, they can become places where people from different cultural backgrounds come into contact with each other. Exhibitions, lectures, and workshops for the public at the Guandi Temple in Mendocino, California, demonstrate that Guan Gong culture can enter broader community life through festivals, education, and local cultural heritage.
This resonance also has its limits. Language, historical knowledge and ritual practices will affect how people understand this tradition. The original religious beliefs may also make some people willing to visit and communicate, but not willing to participate in worship. Even if they belong to the same ethnic group, people's attitudes are not exactly the same. Another question is whether loyalty and mutual assistance within the community can be further reflected in fairness and kindness to people outside the community. If "loyalty" only means taking care of one's own people, then its scope for wider acceptance will be limited. Therefore, I prefer to focus on whether people from different backgrounds can build lasting relationships: preserve local history together, participate in community service together, and trust each other in daily interactions.
Reporter from China News Service: Is there room for complementarity between the ethical core of "loyalty" in Guan Gong culture and the value orientation of "individualism" and "community responsibility" in American culture? Can this complementarity provide a reference for the construction of contemporary cross-cultural ethical consensus?
Ai Kai: Complementary space exists. However, we must first clarify a few concepts. Individualism has different meanings: it can emphasize individual dignity, autonomous choice, and independent judgment, and these values do not in themselves exclude responsibility for others. There is a deep American tradition of voluntary association and public service. At the same time, I believe that in explaining "loyalty" today, we must seriously discuss how to use "righteousness" to measure the legitimacy of "loyalty". Being responsible to a friend cannot be a reason to cover up a friend's mistakes; being responsible to a group cannot exempt oneself from the responsibility of distinguishing right from wrong. There are already such ideological resources within the Confucian tradition.
When I was studying anti-modernization trends around the world, I also discussed a common situation: people cherish freedom, equality, and personal liberation, but at the same time they are attached to family, community, and stable and close interpersonal relationships, which may provide support but also conflict. In this context, the "loyalty" in Guan Gong's culture reminds us: a person's character is also reflected in whether he can take his commitments seriously and whether he can still persist when taking responsibility requires paying a price. A person with an independent personality can choose to be loyal to friends, fulfill obligations, and safeguard legitimate causes based on his own judgment. Such loyalty and personal autonomy can support each other. When I discussed "filial piety" in "Continuous Context: Chinese Civilization Course at the University of Chicago", I also emphasized the importance of moral choices: the ethical significance of adult children taking care of their elderly parents is also reflected in their conscious responsibility.
For cross-cultural ethical consensus, we can start with specific and feasible requirements: be honest and trustworthy, fulfill responsibilities conscientiously, help people in difficulty, treat people with different backgrounds fairly, and respect morally different opinions. Different people may identify with these common requirements from different religious or ideological traditions. However, identifying with a few virtue names is only a starting point; there is also a discussion of how they are implemented in conflicts of interest. What I look forward to is an ethical life that not only encourages people to adhere to their personal conscience, but also effectively assumes common responsibilities.
