七夜的许愿星固拉多:英语论文

Abstract: As we know, Hanfeizi is the most representative figure of the legist school. His ideas are best described in his book “Hanfeizi ”,in which he strongly advocated the importance of “law”, “means”, “force ” for an emperor to control his country. About one thousand years later, in Italy there was an politician named Machiavelli. In his famous book called “The Prince”, he adopted the same attitude with Hanfeizi towards how an emperor should rule his country. In this paper, the author tries to explore some similarities and some dissimilarities between the two great thinkers from the aspect of their background, their attitudes towards the nature and relationship of human beings and so on.

I Similarities in their backgrounds

Hanfeizi (280BC_233BC) was born in the Spring and Autumn Period in Han state. At that time Han state was the most weakest state of the seven states. Hanfeizi ,who was much influenced by his teacher Xunzi and the Taoism, saw the political corruption in his country and put forward much useful advice to carry out reform.. Unfortunately the emperor of Han would not like to adopt his ideas and let his country wither away. However the emperor of Qinshihuang admired the talent of Hanfeizi and wanted to give him a position in Qin state. Although Qinshihuang finally killed Hanfeizi owing to listening to the unfaithful advice of Lisi., he ruled his country on the principles advocated by Hanfeizi. Until that time did the divived situation come to an end and the united central right come out.

Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy at a time when the country was in political upheaval . Italy was divided between four dominant city-states, and each of these was continually at the mercy of the stronger foreign governments of Europe. Since 1434 Florence was ruled by the wealthy Medici family. Their rule was temporarily interrupted by a reform movement, begun in 1494, in which the young Machiavelli became an important diplomat. When the Medici family regained power in 1512 with the help of Spanish troops, Machiavelli was tortured and removed from public life. For the next 10 years he devoted himself to writing history, political philosophy, and even plays. He ultimately gained favor with the Medici family and was called back to public duty for the last two years of his life. Machiavelli's greatest work is The Prince, written in 1513 and published after his death in 1532. The work immediately provoked controversy and was soon condemned by Pope Clement VIII. Its main theme is that princes should retain absolute control of their territories, and they should use any means of expediency to accomplish this end, including deceit. Scholars struggle over interpreting Machiavelli's precise point. In several section Machiavelli praises Caesar Borgia, a Spanish aristocrat who became a notorious and much despised tyrant of the Romagna region of northern Italy. During Machiavelli's early years as a diplomat, he was in contact with Borgia and witnessed Borgia's rule first hand. Does Machiavelli hold up Borgia as the model prince? Some readers initially saw The Prince as a satire on absolute rulers such as Borgia, which showed the repugnance of arbitrary power (thereby implying the importance of liberty). However, this theory fell apart when, in 1810, a letter by Machiavelli was discovered in which he reveals that he wrote The Prince to endear himself to the ruling Medici family in Florence. To liberate Italy from the influence of foreign governments, Machiavelli explains that strong indigenous governments are important, even if they are absolutist.

II Similarities in their attitudes reflected in their works

1.On force

From the experience Machiavelli learned that weak countries had no diplomatic relationship with other counties. In his work he put forward that the weakest thing in the world was the power that was exaggerated. He tried to persuade the emperor to make a strong army, which would become the solid foundation of any course. While Hanfeizi held the same opinion with Machiavelli, he said that the most important task for an emperor was to develop his country in many ways such as increasing the production of agriculture, establish clear encouragement and punishment laws, have a forceful army under his control.

2. On humans nature and their relationship
Though humanists of Machiavelli's time believed that an individual had much to offer to the well being of the state, Machiavelli was quick to mock human nature. Humanists believed that "An individual only grows to maturity- both intellectually and morally- through participation' in the life of the state."
Machiavelli generally distrusted citizens, stating that "...in time of adversity, when the state is in need of it's citizens there are few to be found.” Machiavelli further went on to question the loyalty of the citizens and advised the Prince that "...because men a wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need keep your word to them."
The same to Hanfeizi. Under the influence of his teacher Xunzi, Hanfeizi adhered to the principle that human nature was bad. And his developed his ideas to the enumerated kingdom which he thought was the heaven of the earth. He believed that human beings were driven by the greed for profit. We can see some trace in his famous saying: strict mother has kind children, while kind mother has brute children.
Both of them believed that the relationship among human beings was a kind of naked interest_oriented relationship. They make use of each other, not believe in others, and would try every means to reach ones aims.

3.On the image of emperor.
In The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli presents a view of governing : state that is drastically different from that of humanists of his time. Machiavelli believes the ruling Prince should be the sole authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy, which would serve his best interests. These interests were gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. His understanding of human nature was a complete contradiction of what humanists believed and
taught. Machiavelli strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but in fact stood in the way of an effectively governed principality. Though in come cases Machiavelli's suggestions seem harsh and immoral one must remember that these views
were derived out of concern Italy's unstable political condition. If a prince can not be both feared and loved, Machiavelli suggests, it would be better for him to be feared bey the citizens within his own principality. He makes the generalization that men are, "...ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well they are yours." He characterizes men as being self centered and not willing to act in the best interest of the state,"[and when the prince] is in danger they turn against[him]." Machiavelli reinforces the prince's need to be feared by stating: Machiavelli postulates that a prince must also deceive those whoattempt to flatter him.
In choosing wise men for his government and allowing those the freedom to speak the truth to him, and then only concerning matters on which he asks their opinion, and nothing else. But he should also question them toughly and listen to what they say; then he should make
up his own mind.
Machiavelli actively promoted a secular form of politics. He laid aside the Medievalli conception "of the state as a necessary creation for humankinds spiritual, material, and social well-being." In such a state,"a ruler was justified in his exercise of political power only
if it contributed to the common good of the people he served, and the ethical side of a princes activity...ought to be based on Christian moral principles...."
Machiavelli believed a secular form of government to be a more realistic type. His views were to the benefit of the prince, in helping him maintain power rather than to serve to the well being of the citizens. Machiavelli promoted his belief by stating: The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among those who are not virtuous. Therefore,
if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must learn not to be sovirtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need.
Hanfeizi also had the same attitude .He advocated his ideas about the “law”, ”mean”, ”force”. Many emperors in the Chinese history adopted his ideas in order to rule their countries. He believed that as an emperor ,one should know the dividing line of the encouragement and punishment and use these them wisely. The emperor should learn to get rid of the opponents and use law to rule the country so that all the citizen would know what they should do and what they should not.

III Their different result

Hanfeizis ideas have led our country to the absolutism, while Machiavellis ideas became the
resources of the western democracy. Their ideas were about the same, why their result had so much difference? This was because that the feudality system lasted for almost two thousand years.While after Machiavelli there existed many philosophers in the west to discuss the validity of the absolute monarchy. They changed with the tides, while on the other hand we Chinese kept the old form and too outdated.

What are the most important culture differences an
As we all know, different countries have different cultures. 'Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another.' (Hofstede, 1991)
It is inevitable that the cultural difference has impact on business. For example, when a company having meeting, the word "table" in American English that means to put something on the agenda. But in British English it means to put something off the agenda. This example indicated how the culture affects the business.
There are four cultural dimensions that were defined in Hofstede's research: Power distance, Uncertainty avoidance, Individualism, Masculinity, and recently Hofstede add one more: long-term-short-term orientation.
What I think the most significant influence in cultural difference is the power distance. (Hoecklin,1995:28)"It would condition the extent to which employees accept that their boss has more power than they have and the extent to which they accept that their boss's opinions and decisions are right because he or she is the boss." I considered it as how much subordinates can consent or dissent with bosses or managers. It is the distance between a manager and subordinate. Among most oriental corporate cultures, there is hierarchism, greater centralization, sometimes called 'power-oriented culture', due to the historical reasons. That is a high power distance culture that mangers make the decision and superiors appeal to be entitled more privileges. Their decision always close supervision positively evaluated by subordinates. In this situation, it is not be regarded if a subordinates have a disagreement with their managers, especially in Malaysia, Japan, China, India.
In the oriental, power distance is also associated with 'the family culture' (Trompernaars, 1993:139). In this kind of corporate culture the manager is like the "caring father" who knows better than his subordinates what should be done and what is suitable for them. The subordinates always esteem the managers. Because of the managers age and experience. That is usually how employees get their promotion. There are both positive and negative parts in the family cultures. I feel it is an easy managing system. But sometime it is hard to get young creative employees work well cause of the hierarchy. As Tropmenaars (1993: 142) told us "family culture at their least effective drain the energies and loyalties of subordinates to buoy up the leader." So in family culture, the power distance can be viewed as the subordinates respect the superiors.
That is the corporate culture in orient. Let us take a look at the western way. It is not a whole converse phenomenon. There is 'the Eiffel Tower culture' (Trompernaars, 1997:166) in the international management. About the Eiffel tower Trompenaars (1993: 148) told us " Its hierarchy is very different from that of the family. Each higher level has a clear and demonstrable function of holding together the level beneath it." German, Austrian have the characteristic of the Eiffel Tower Culture, which is a low power distance. In the lower power dis tance, (Hoecklin, 1995:31) 'higher-educated employees hold much less authoritarian values than lower-educated ones.' The obedience showed from the subordinates to the superiors is not as much as the oriental way. The leadership can be called as hierarchy and consensus. Employee can have different opinion with his/her boss. And when he/she got different ideas, he/she can go all the way up to the boss and discuss the problem. This is a good thing usually company may explore all the potentials of its employees, because sometime the subordinates may have the better&nb sp;idea of the business.
I think because of the different realization of power distance, people behave completely different in business. So conflict and misunderstanding must be emerged when two or more intercultures meet up. Under this situation, the international managers must pay attention to the clashes and be aware of. How to work the subordinates together efficiently and more cooperatively is important too.
And then there is also a large discrepancy on the uncertainty avoidance. (Hoecklin, 1995:31) defined 'Uncertainty avoidance is the lack of tolerance for ambiguity and the need for formal rules.' That means people trying to setup rules to face to the uncertainty. There is high uncertainty avoidance in most oriental countries such as Japan, China. In these countries, people prefer a stable job. They feel safe and prideful when they keep working hard at the one place. Under this circumstance, an excellent manager should keep his employee away from unpredictable ;risk. And the employee would like to be worked within groups rather than independently cause of the less risk-taking. But in most western countries, there is low uncertainty avoidance showed, whereas high job mobility occurs in those countries such as USA, Denmark, Singapore. The western people think that when they change their jobs, they can get more experience cause they like challenge. I believe that the divergence of the uncertainty avoidance is from different basic social ideology. A competent manager should pay attention on the rules setting between different uncer tainty avoidance. The misreading of that may affect the initiative and the aspiration of the subordinates.
The third dimension Hofstede indicated is the individualism. It is a concern for yourself as an individual as opposed to concern for the group. The priority of self-concern or group-concern varies from different cultures. For example, most western employees like to work with their own plan for defending their interest. That is a high individualism. Because of the different attitude to work, 'the incubator culture' (Trompernaars, 1997:175) arises when cross-cultural individuals work together as a group. Trompenaars (1993: 158) told us "the incubator is both personal and&nbs p;egalitarian." People do not cooperate at all. They just simply work in their own ways, follow their own rules, and achieve their own objective. They do not like to be interfered by others. It is good for a company to gather as much ideas as they can when starting a new program. But how to manage these individuals to reach the group goal should be the awareness for managers. I think who is good at this should be good at grouping, troubleshooting, and coordinating skills.
Finally Hofsted pointed out the masculinity. That is about the sexual inequality. According to Hofstede's definitions, masculine societies define gender roles more rigidly than feminine societies. In business, managers should take a big concern of the treatment to different sex under different cultural influence. In today's world, because of the masculine value and point of view, males take most senior managing positions. But a experienced manager suppose knew that it is harmonious that men work with women since women sometimes are more sensitive. Therefore, how to balance ;the masculinity/femininity from different culture and background in order to maximize the team power is worth considering by managers.
The above four dimensions illuminated the most important cultural differences that affect on business. International managers should be able to aware not only the cultural difference but also the intercultural communication.
Gudykunst and Kim (1992:13-14) classify intercultural communication as 'a transactional, symbolic process involving the attribution of meaning between people from different cultures'. Different nations use different languages, so there will be loss or misunderstanding during interpreting. And in some culture, people use implicit words more than others, like China. Thus, the non-verbal communication is important, especially the scenic communication. It includes gestures, body language, eye contacting. The more scenic part in communication, the harder for people to transmit and receive information. Anoth er part is the concept of time. From that, punctuality is the same but reflects different reality. We all know time is money. But when there is a conference, the German usually presents 5 minutes before the start. Spanish will be late for 15 minutes. But in their mind they are both on time. That is something that managers should understand. In my mind, there is another aspect of time, called 'the use of time'. The American and Northern European have a linear time concept. These societies are referred to as Time-Bound societies. Southern Eu ropeans and Arabs regard time in a linear way but more things they can do or handle at the same time. That can be called 'multi-active time'. And then there is the Asian view of time, cyclical time. Asian thinks time will come around again when it pass away, also the opportunities and risks. Besides the above three aspects of communications, there left the space. It is a big concern of in intercultural communications. When you have a conversation with a foreign business partner, the space between you and him are referred to the personal&nb sp;boundary of every culture. Ignorance of space can be lead to real bad impression from other side.
The last but not the least, I would like to talk something about the cross-culture negotiation I researched. Negotiation is a course that at least two groups of people trying to reach an agreement with the others for their own benefit. There are two things in negotiation: the topic and the course. During cross-culture negotiation, the course is the crucial obstruction. Different negotiation ways are produced by different cultures. Under this circumstance, there is a classic standpoint of procedures: exploring with no objective, task oriented, persuading period, and sign contract. International managers should be aware of every procedure. And during each procedure, the strategy, technique, substance, time, sequence and the focal point are different.
In this essay, I wrote about the cultural differences. There are four dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism and masculinity. After that, I talked about the intercultural communication, which contains language, non-verbal communication, time and space concept. The conclusion is different cultures do cause problems in business. We cannot change or solve the cultural difference. To avoid misunderstanding, clashes, and bias, the international managers should realize and understand the different cultures, adapt themselves to fit into the business environment in order to get the& nbsp;best achievement in business.

Bibliography

Gudykunst, W. B. & Kim Y. Y. (1992). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.

Hoecklin L. (1995). Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantage. Essex: Addison-Wesley

Hofstede G. (2001). Culture's Consequence. London: Sage Publications.

Trompenaars F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: The Economist Books.

Trompenaars F. and Hampden-Turner C. (1997). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey