In the wake of the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, this article analyzes the differences in mindsets between the West and East, how these differences have been shaped, and how they impact modern society. It explores how factors such as cultural background, climate, and topography in the East and West have shaped the mindset of each culture, and discusses the resulting social phenomena and differences in public reaction.
On October 1, 2017, an unfortunate event occurred in Las Vegas, USA. A heinous crime occurred when a gunman opened fire from a skyscraper amidst a crowd of people gathered to watch a concert. An automated gunman opened fire on a crowd of 20,000 people. More than 500 people were injured and more than 60 were killed. This event is about more than just numbers. Not only were the victims’ personal lives shattered, but it left a deep scar on American society as a whole. People no longer feel safe, even in everyday places.
People on the ground in the U.S. were stunned by the worst crime in history. The media covered the incident around the clock, but they couldn’t find a motive for the crime. According to police reports, the killer, Stephen Paddock, was a multi-billionaire who gambled heavily in Las Vegas. He also wired over 100 million won to his girlfriend, Marilu Danley, before the crime. The fact that he made this transfer adds to the confusion about Paddock’s intentions. It could have been a simple monetary transaction, but it could also have been a preparation for the crime.
This is where the confusion in the U.S. media increased. Speculation ran rampant about the motive, but Steven Paddock did not possess any personal characteristics that would explain his shooting spree against innocent civilians. The American public and media were unable to come to terms with the idea that an “unlikely” person could have committed such a horrific act. This shocked many people because it was so far from the stereotypical image of a criminal. Paddock’s quiet and reclusive lifestyle made him even more unpredictable, making his crimes particularly difficult to understand.
I first heard about the case back home. It happened to be during the Thanksgiving holiday, and I hadn’t been home in a while. The TV was reporting on the Las Vegas massacre, and after showing CNN’s coverage, the anchor and reporter were discussing the causes. What became clear was that the media in the United States focused on the “personal character” of Steve Paddock and reported that he was a “lone wolf,” while the media in Korea focused on the problem of gun ownership in the United States. This is consistent with the idea that the West focuses on the parts, while the East looks at the whole and the context, as shown in the map. The American media’s use of the term “lone wolf” reflects their tendency to focus on individual psychological characteristics. The Korean media, on the other hand, looked at gun control as a structural social issue.
While the U.S. media somehow tried to identify the motive for the crime through Stephen Paddock’s “personal traits” and tried to solve the problem, the media in Korea identified the social phenomenon that led to such a horrific event and demanded measures against it. I think this shows the difference between the media in the U.S. and Korea, who report the same event and think of it as if they have seen different events. This difference is not just a difference in interpretation of the event, but also affects the public’s reaction to the event and the policy response. In the U.S., the incident sparked a discussion about individual mental health, while in South Korea, it emphasized the need for gun control.
Also interesting is the reaction of the author’s own father, who, as mentioned in the book, acted with “guardianship”. He was watching the news with me and said, “Just when I thought it was quiet, there was another shooting.” He went on to say that as long as gun ownership is legalized in the U.S., it will continue to happen. This is another example of the holistic thinking of the East. My father’s remarks went beyond the issue of gun control in American society to insight into the structural problems that lead to the repetition of such incidents.
This book attempts to explain the differences between the Eastern and Western ways of thinking. In “The Tao of the East” and “The Threefold Logic of the West,” the author discusses the fundamental differences between the Eastern and Western ways of thinking, and in “Living Together in the East and Living Alone in the West,” the author explains how these ways of thinking were created: the East collectively farmed rice, while the West developed dairy farming and commerce rather than agriculture. In addition, “The East Sees the Whole and the West Sees the Parts” explains how the East and the West differ in their explanations of cause and effect due to the aforementioned differences in mindset. These differences are not only theoretical, but also deeply rooted in social and cultural practices.
The next section, “Eastern Situationism and Western Natureism,” is also very much in the same vein and describes the differences between East and West. This was a new topic for me, as I had never heard of the East seeing the world through verbs and the West seeing the world through nouns. I’ve never been very interested in social psychology, so it’s a shame that I didn’t think about this topic until long after the book came out. The West focuses on categorizing the world through precise nouns, while the East focuses on how a single noun, such as “I,” behaves as a verb that performs multiple actions. This difference is reflected in the structure of language, which also affects the way we communicate in the East and West. This was the most novel and interesting part of the book.
Next, the book describes the difference between the West’s emphasis on logic and the East’s emphasis on experience. In contrast to the West, which has emphasized the importance of logic in its debates and political systems since the Greeks, the East believes that reality is a complex system of many things and that it is important to understand and experience it in this way. This way of thinking is reflected in philosophy, art, and everyday problem-solving, creating a distinct difference between East and West.
The next chapter is devoted to the origins of the differences between Eastern and Western mindsets. I personally felt that it was not enough to briefly explain the differences in the origins, because the difference between the Eastern and Western mindsets is only a result, and the process and cause of the difference may have better explanatory power, but I felt that the explanation from an anthropological perspective was lacking due to the limitations of psychology. The cultural differences explained in this book are only surface phenomena, and it is difficult to fully understand these differences without digging deeper into their origins.
The final chapter, “Who’s Right, East or West?”, discusses whether the differences between East and West will narrow or remain in the future. This chapter seemed a bit cowardly in a way. While the author’s opinion that the differences between East and West will gradually narrow is a valid one, it comes across as a “good enough for both” conclusion as it deals with a topic that requires careful value judgment. This is just a personal opinion, but I wonder if I was trying to be too cautious and value-neutral to avoid criticism from both the East and West. Such a neutral stance is sometimes necessary, but I think we need to take a clearer stance on real issues.
Of course, conducting research with a value-neutral view is one of the basic skills that a researcher should have, but I think it is necessary to approach problems with a certain direction in order to study phenomena and connect them to the solution of real-world problems. Therefore, even in this comparison of Eastern and Western cultures, it may sound uncomfortable to some to argue that the current situation in the East is such that it is necessary to modify these cultures and continue to maintain their strengths, but it is an indispensable part of the development of society, so I am left with many regrets that it would have been better to make arguments based on good research. The cultural differences discussed in this book are not just differences, but factors that directly affect the development and future of each society, and I think it is important to actively discuss these differences and seek necessary changes.
While it is true that all existing cultures have developed close to their own optimal way of doing things, it is also true that they have been distorted or left as unnecessary remnants over time. An example of this is the oppression of women in Islam. Under Islam, women are treated as the property of the male head of the household (Confucianism in the East is not far behind in this regard, with remnants of patriarchy) and are oppressed both socially and sexually. The most shocking part is that those who sacrifice in jihad (their word) for Allah go to their version of heaven and receive 22 virgins as a gift (it’s actually written in the Koran, the actual Islamic doctrine). This is why the far-right Islamic terrorist organization IS is willing to use inhumane methods, such as suicide bombings, to force even teenagers to sacrifice for Allah. It also treats women as mere sex objects and has been documented slaughtering civilians who oppose it, imprisoning, sexually assaulting, or raping women. While these brutal acts are wrapped up in the name of their culture, they are grave crimes that undermine universal human values. They are so dehumanizing and inhumane that we cannot even call them cultures.
These are very extreme examples, but within each of these cultures there are things that are unacceptable or should not be, that are maintained or even reinforced under the mere protection of culture. Therefore, in a book that contains scientific and important material about each of these cultures, I think that a more pointed look at each culture would have been more convincing than any other criticism. Therefore, I wish that the author had taken some risks to point out what needs to be changed in the Western and Eastern ways of thinking. I wonder if missing out on the improvements that can be found through criticism has somehow robbed both East and West of the opportunity to develop.
This is not the only regret I had while reading this book. I think it is not only the lack of social criticism, but also the lack of real-world application. It is not only the lack of social criticism, but also the lack of real-world application. I think it’s because we’ve been so academically focused that we’ve lost interest in our own reality, for example. Many organizational psychologists study not only theory but also how to change the culture of an organization. This is one of the areas of study not only of organizational psychologists but also of many management scholars, who try to develop good theories by applying them to reality. Those who study organizational and corporate culture study how it is formed, how it develops, and how it dies. They propose various methods for how to change the culture of a company, which begins with the creation of the company, changes with the changes of the company, and needs to be improved through specific events or situations. They argue that only companies with cultures that are adapted to the resources they have and the situations they face will survive. Their theories and predictions may not always be correct, but the fact that they have made a scientific effort to improve reality is worthwhile. Beyond their theoretical value, these studies have actually helped companies and organizations become more efficient, which has been crucial to the long-term success of many companies.
I believe that the study of any subject is valuable not only for its academic value, but also for its ability to change and improve the human world. In this book, I found a lot of “here’s how it is” but not a lot of “here’s what to do about it”. It would have been nice to see a more practical application of the highly valuable academic research, but I personally felt that this was not done. I was impressed with the academic depth and insight of the book, but I think the lack of concrete applications and suggestions for action in the real world was a limitation of the book.
Another problem is that the book is too psychologized and narrowly focused. Of course, it is true that the author is a psychologist and that his research focused on the differences between Eastern and Western mindsets. However, the origins of these differences are so poorly explained that I wonder if the author could have expanded his horizons by collaborating with anthropologists and historians. The book only briefly explains that in Greece, the development of commerce and the need to persuade others led to the development of the three-stage argument, and in China, the development of collective community thinking due to the need for a lot of labor due to the focus on paddy farming. However, it would have been nice to see a more anthropological explanation of these differences. Of course, this adds a lot more to consider, but it would have made the book more complete.
For example, a comparison between the Mediterranean climate and the climate of East Asia would have been a better and more convincing explanation. In the Mediterranean, the weather is mild, but the rainfall is not enough to support paddy farming, so commodity crops such as olives began to be cultivated much earlier than in the East, which led to the development of commerce and trade. In contrast, East Asia had enough rainfall to support paddy farming, which led to the development of rice farming. In addition, not only the climate, but also the topography had a significant impact on creating the differences between East and West. Greece, the starting point of Western culture, was a mountainous country that could not grow large-scale crops such as rice or wheat on a large scale, so commercial crops were cultivated. At the same time, trade routes were also actively developed by pioneering sea routes to avoid mountainous areas. In contrast, East Asia had more flat areas than the West, which led to paddy farming, and trade was mainly conducted overland except in special cases such as Japan. A comparative analysis of climate and topography would have provided a much more convincing explanation and perspective.
Personally, I have an evolutionary psychology perspective, and I believe that many variables, such as climate and terrain, led to the differences in cultures between the East and the West, and that the ways of survival that suited their circumstances eventually became their cultures. Therefore, I would like to comment on the title of this book. “Instead of dividing the East and West by mindset, I believe that the East and West, that is, their living conditions and ways of life, created cultures that were most optimized for survival, and that culture led to the difference in mindset. Asking this question may provide a new perspective on understanding the East-West mindset.
