Someone commented that sanctions wouldn’t work on China because sanctions were too harsh, and that the US should treat China as a parent does a child, educating them and encouraging them toward US goals so that sanctions were unnecessary.
I pointed out that China and the US do not remotely have a paternal relationship and a culturally American call to China would not elicit a culturally American response from China because of how different the cultures are.
Got banned for “Orientalism”.
Regarding your second paragraph, face is one of the things that leads people into accidentally engaging in orientalism. First, because it’s an arrangement of social forces grouped together and given a name rather than some unique only to them psychological trait. Secondly because giving it too much weight ignores that their diplomats are perfectly capable of setting aside their cultural norms to have discussions just like we’re able to.
These are two of the largest and most powerful countries on earth; their interactions aren’t mediated by the dynamics of office politics.
I imagined the concept holding weight for their diplomats like American Exceptionalism does for the US’s. Neither are a monolith, but you can assume that the idea is common.
Not entirely comparable scopes of concept. Both countries diplomats have their own personal standing and career aspirations that factor into how they handle the specifics of negotiations, and both nations have their own agendas, narratives and objectives they pursue.
My point is not that it doesn’t exist or have influence over how diplomats interact, but rather that both parties have diplomats of roughly comparable skill and skill set, with comparable personal desires influenced by the specifics of their culture (standing and pride versus face), and both parties can represent their national interests guided by principles like American exceptionalim and the Chinese notion of being central to the world stage.