(Preprint)
Abstract
This article
examines how Chinese cinema challenges the dominance of Western narrative
structures, particularly Hollywood's individualistic model. While Western
liberalism traditionally places the individual at the center of social and
cinematic narratives, Chinese films often emphasize collective agency and
interdependence. By exploring cinema as a cultural expression of different
worldviews, this study contrasts Western and Chinese narrative structures.
Drawing on
anthropological and cultural studies perspectives, the article argues that
cinematic narratives are not neutral but reflect broader geopolitical and
ideological disputes. It highlights how the international film industry
reinforces Hollywood’s normativity, marginalizing alternative storytelling
models. Additionally, it examines the systemic barriers that non-Western cinema
faces in achieving global recognition, where productions that do not align with
dominant aesthetic and ideological standards often struggle for visibility.
Ultimately,
this study calls for the recognition of diverse cinematic traditions as
legitimate expressions of cultural and social organization. It contributes to
the broader discussion on nations’ rights to define their own cultural
narratives and challenges the ongoing dominance of Western epistemological
frameworks in global media.
Introduction
Studying non-Western societies always brings us face
to face with the anthropological dilemma of the external gaze upon the other.
The imposition of analytical categories, while simultaneously attempting to
consider the native perspective, generates an impasse—especially when this “native”
is no longer an isolated group but an actor embedded in contemporary dynamics.
When analyzing entire societies, this dilemma becomes even more pronounced, as
we start from specific conceptions of the state, individuality, and social
relations—conceptions shaped both by the anthropologist’s own process of
socialization and by the theoretical framework in which they were trained.
Concepts such as progress, freedom, and democracy, as
well as a particular notion of the individual and their relationship with the
collective, have been historically constructed within the Western context.
However, due to the colonial process and cultural domination over the past
centuries, these ideas have come to be perceived as universal, often at the
cost of suppressing local conceptions. In the Chinese context, notions such as
collectivity and interdependence play a central role, influencing everything
from political organization to cultural production, including cinema.
This phenomenon is not limited to small non-Western societies. During the construction of the Republic in Brazil, intellectuals and politicians engaged in intense debates about the need to implement Western values as a
means of “modernizing” the country. Consequently,
critiques of the Brazilian population emerged, often based on a supposed racial
inferiority, under the justification that the country had not fully adhered to
the principles of liberal individualism
In China, similar debates occurred during the same
period. However, the consolidation of the Republic followed a different path,
preserving its own worldview. Regarding social structure and the role of the
individual, Michael Wood
Even when local specificities are acknowledged, they
are not always adopted as analytical frameworks when studying China.
Contemporary discourse frequently projects Western categories onto the country
as universal parameters, disregarding its internal references. Western media
and "common sense" reinforce this rigid perspective on the
relationship between individual and society, resulting in biased readings,
stereotypes, and often unfounded criticisms. Geertz
This article aims to problematize this reductionist
reading of China, analyzing it from its own frameworks of reference. To this
end, cinema will be used as a central object of study, as, according to Walter
Benjamin
Filmic production is a powerful tool for understanding
not only the narratives built around characters but also the values and
normative conceptions they express. In the Chinese context, cinema plays a
fundamental role in affirming collective identity, contesting the imposition of
foreign values, and representing internal dilemmas. These productions not only
reflect the society that created them but also actively participate in
reinforcing social, cultural, and political meanings.
However, the analysis of Chinese cinema often
encounters the obstacle of applying Western categories that disregard the
specificities of its philosophical, political, and aesthetic traditions. In
many cases, assumptions about individuality, progress, and modernity are used
as universal references, resulting in biased interpretations. To avoid such
reductionism, it is necessary to examine Chinese cinema from its own
referential frameworks, recognizing the systems of meaning that structure its
narratives and its impact on national identity construction.
Therefore, this article adopts a qualitative approach,
focusing on the interpretation of cinematic narratives and how they express
social conceptions. The study dialogues with the perspective of cultural
studies, which conceive culture as a field of meaning production and dispute
The West as a Universal Standard in Audiovisual Media and Culture
A recurring flaw in Western analyses of China is the
expectation that the country will adopt values aligned with the Western
tradition, particularly regarding the relationship between the individual and
society. In Western liberal thought, this relationship is often represented as
a conflict between the individual and collective structures perceived as
limiting freedom. This paradigm, widely disseminated in media and audiovisual
productions, tends to be projected onto China, leading to interpretations that
disregard its own conceptions of collectivity and autonomy.
Although China has elements that indicate a strong
collectivist orientation, this does not mean that the country is immune to
Western influence. On the contrary, its cultural and cinematic production
reflects tensions between internal references and external models, revealing
symbolic disputes over identity and modernity.
Chinese modernization followed a different path from
that of the West, combining economic growth with the strengthening of the
collective as a structuring principle of society. However, the increasing
global economic interdependence and recent commercial disputes have reinforced
the influence of Western values, particularly through mass culture and cinema.
Walter Benjamin
Throughout the second half of the twentieth century,
Hollywood cinema played a central role in spreading individualistic values and
constructing a global imaginary based on an idealized lifestyle—one often
disconnected from the economic and social realities of various countries,
including the United States itself. Yibo Zhang
In this context, personal heroism is frequently
portrayed as the full realization of individual desires, structuring a binary
opposition between freedom and social oppression. At the same time, Hollywood
productions have shaped the image of nations considered political adversaries,
such as the former Soviet Union and China, often depicting them as
authoritarian societies.
Films such as The Last Emperor (1987) and Seven
Years in Tibet (1997) exemplify this construction, portraying China as a
space of repression and as the absolute contrast to Western ideals of freedom.
This representation is not neutral: it stems from a specific perspective on the
"other," in which the individual—endowed with autonomy and Western
values—must always resist a tyrannical state. This narrative reinforces the
idea that freedom can only exist through the individual’s triumph over any form
of collectivity.
This narrative and aesthetic construction—including
the characterization of foreign characters and their mannerisms—reflects a
model of cultural imposition predominant in the Western film industry. While
Hollywood is a central example, this logic is also present in European
productions that depict other nations through stereotypes, often without a
solid foundation in the cultural realities they portray.
A recent example is the film Emilia Pérez,
which was criticized for representing Mexico without in-depth research into its
cultural problems and linguistic characteristics. The film’s lack of
authenticity sparked a strong reaction among Mexican audiences, leading to
massive support for the Brazilian film Ainda Estou Aqui (I’m Still Here),
which was perceived by many as a more sensitive and respectful representation
of Latin American culture. The reception of these films illustrates how
cinematic representation can be perceived as an act of symbolic appropriation,
reinforcing Western discourses about countries considered peripheral in the
global order
Western cinema, particularly Hollywood, constructs a
specific gaze upon Asian, Latin American, and African countries, often framing
them from external perspectives that do not always consider their sociocultural
specificities. This approach is not limited to narratives but is also evident
in how these contexts are represented, frequently reinforcing stereotypes or
distorting historical and cultural aspects.
While Hollywood valorizes individualism and the
opposition between the subject and the collective, Chinese cinema, on the other
hand, emphasizes the interdependence between individual and society. This
difference is not limited to themes or characters but permeates narrative
structures and conflict development. Rather than a simple opposition between
two models, it is an expression of distinct cinematic conceptions of social
organization, identity, and power.
Chinese Cinema and the Relationship Between Individual and Collective
Cinema, beyond being a form of entertainment, plays a
central role in the production and circulation of cultural values. More than
merely reflecting social reality, it interprets, selects, and re-signifies it,
influencing perceptions of identity, morality, and collective organization. In
the West, particularly in Hollywood, a narrative tradition centered on
individual protagonism predominates, in which characters face challenges they
must overcome on their own, and the plot is structured around their personal
trajectory. This narrative model is not merely an aesthetic convention; it also
expresses a specific way of conceiving the relationship between the individual
and society, historically linked to liberal thought and the valorization of
personal autonomy as an ideal of fulfillment.
In Chinese cinema, the narrative logic is different.
Another significant example of this narrative
difference is the character Hua Mulan, whose story has been
reinterpreted both in the West and in China. In Disney’s version (Mulan,
2020), there is a strong emphasis on the protagonist’s personal fulfillment,
portraying her journey as a challenge against the social restrictions
surrounding her. The narrative is structured around her quest for
self-discovery and individual affirmation, aligning with the Western heroic
logic. In contrast, in Chinese adaptations such as Mulan Joins the Army
(1939) and Mulan: Rise of a Warrior (2009), her relationship with her
family and fellow soldiers holds central importance. Her journey is not merely
an act of individual rebellion but a reflection of collective duty, in which
the concept of family extends to encompass the idea of the nation. This
construction is deeply rooted in the Confucian tradition, which emphasizes
social harmony and the interdependence between the individual and the community.
The distinction between individualism and collectivism
in cinema does not mean that Western films ignore collectivity or that Chinese
cinema neglects personal dilemmas. The key difference lies in how narratives
structure the relationship between the character and their environment. In
Hollywood cinema, even when groups are present, the figure of a central hero
almost always stands out, shaping the story around their personal journey. This
can be observed in action-police films such as Cobra (1986, dir. George
P. Cosmatos) and Beverly Hills Cop (1984, dir. Martin Brest), in which
the protagonist is often portrayed as someone who challenges rules and acts
independently to achieve “justice.” The narrative conflict is frequently
established between the hero and formal institutions that attempt to restrain
them, reinforcing the idea that individual success occurs in opposition to
collective structures. In Chinese cinema, the emphasis tends to fall on
collectivity as the driving force of the story. Films such as The Eight
Hundred (2020, dir. Guan Hu) and The Battle at Lake Changjin (2021,
dir. Chen Kaige, Tsui Hark and Dante Lam) highlight the importance of
collective action; while Ip Man (2008) also follows this structure:
although the protagonist has his own personal trajectory, his struggle is not
an isolated act but rather part of a larger context in which the defense of his
family, community, and country takes precedence over individual interests.
Thus, it is important to emphasize that the presence
of personal dilemmas in Chinese cinema does not imply an adoption of the
Western narrative model. What differentiates these productions is not whether
the characters experience internal conflicts but how these conflicts are
resolved. In Hollywood cinema, the hero’s victory generally occurs despite
social constraints, whereas in Chinese cinema, the protagonist’s transformation
happens within the collective.
Although the distinction between Western and Chinese
narratives is widely recognizable, it is essential to highlight that variations
exist within both contexts. Western cinema also produces collective narratives,
just as Chinese cinema presents works that emphasize individual dilemmas in a
way that is more aligned with the Hollywood model. However, when observing
these cinematic traditions on a broader scale, it becomes evident that these
predominant tendencies help to understand the different ways each society
represents the relationship between the individual and the collective.
Cinema, therefore, does not merely reflect the
societies that produce it but actively participates in reaffirming and
re-signifying their worldviews. In the Chinese case, the valorization of the
collective in cinematic narratives is not merely an aesthetic choice but is
rooted in a social structure consolidated over centuries, in which the
individual’s identity is defined in relation to the group. This principle,
strongly influenced by Confucianism, the concept of social harmony, and the
centrality of family, is reflected in the way films construct their
protagonists and conflicts.
Chinese Collectivism
The universalization of Western concepts is evident in
analyses that disregard local worldviews, even in a country as vast as China.
Marcel Mauss
While caution is necessary when comparing local
communities to large nation-states, it is important to recognize that even
countries with vast territorial extensions possess their own worldviews, which
permeate not only the cultural sphere but also economic and political aspects
that are often interpreted as universal. The way relationships are structured
within government institutions and daily life bears deep marks of these
cultural specificities, influencing even geopolitical decisions.
In the case of China, it is essential to consider that
until 1911, the state followed an imperial structure, and its transition to a
republic did not follow the Western logic of individual emancipation in
opposition to the collective. Unlike liberal conceptions that associate the
collapse of centralized regimes with the liberation of the individual against
an oppressive system, the rupture with the Qing Empire was largely driven by
resistance to foreign domination. This process culminated in the 1949
revolution, consolidating a vision of the state that did not reject the
collective but sought to redefine it within a new national project.
This conception aligns with findings from the study Collectivism
Promotes Prosocial Justice Sensitivity: The Role of Communal Responsibility
Similarly, the article Identifying Multilevel
Factors on Student Mathematics Performance for Singapore, Korea, Finland, and
Denmark in PISA 2022: Considering Individualistic Versus Collectivistic
Cultures
The relationship between culture and education
reinforces the need to avoid generalizations when analyzing distinct societies.
In the Chinese case, understanding the centrality of the collective in social
and political organization means recognizing that political and institutional
decisions cannot be explained solely through Western frameworks but must be
analyzed within their own cultural logics.
While contemporary studies demonstrate the strong
presence of collectivism in present-day Chinese society, its roots are much
older, dating back at least 2,000 years BCE
These elements were fundamental to the consolidation
of the imperial structure, which, despite internal conflicts—such as the
Warring States period (475–221 BCE)—was always regarded as an expression of
collective strength. It was during this period that the foundations of
collectivist thought were established in philosophical schools such as Taoism
and, primarily, Confucianism, which emphasized morality, education, and social
harmony as essential for a just government and a stable daily life
However, the republican transition did not eliminate
the concept of collectivity as a pillar of social organization, highlighting
the longevity of this principle in Chinese political culture. The absence of
national cohesion following the fall of the empire, marked by political
instability and internal conflicts among rival factions, reinforced the need to
reorganize the state around a unifying project. This process culminated in the
1949 revolution, which not only consolidated a new political model but also
strengthened the role of the collective as a structuring principle of society.
The revolutionary discourse emphasized the necessity of collective mobilization
to rebuild the country after years of war and fragmentation, promoting a model
of citizenship in which the individual was deeply linked to the destiny of the
group.
The 1949 revolution marked a profound transformation
in Chinese social organization, consolidating a model in which the individual
is defined within the collective. Unlike Western revolutions, which emphasized
individual freedom, the Chinese revolution reinforced the notion of a people
united under a common identity. This principle guided not only political and
economic reforms but also the cultural sphere, where cinema came to play a
central role in constructing a national identity aligned with the new state.
Chinese cinema had already been undergoing changes
since the 1930s, with the growth of nationalist and resistance filmmaking.
However, with the founding of the People’s Republic of China, cinema ceased to
be merely a space of ideological dispute and became an active instrument of
collective mobilization. As Yingjin
This emphasis on collectivity was also reflected in
policies such as land collectivization, mass mobilization campaigns led by the
Chinese Communist Party—such as the Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) and the
Cultural Revolution (1966–1976)—and the reformulation of the education system,
which reinforced the importance of the group over the individual. However, as
Two Worldviews, Two Cinemas
The relationship between the individual and the
collective reflects a fundamental difference between two worldviews. Although
Western liberalism has become dominant on the global stage due to the economic,
political, and media influence of the West, non-Western perspectives maintain a
distinct conception of community. In the West, liberalism has shaped not only
social structures and state institutions but also the very notion of identity,
placing the individual at the center of social and political relations. In
non-Western societies, however, this centrality does not always manifest in the
way that liberal theory predicts, resulting in different forms of social
organization and collective structuring.
This diversity of conceptions can be observed in
different contexts. Among Indigenous societies in Brazil, for example, the
relationship between the individual and the group is expressed not only in
social organization but also in social roles, hierarchies, and specific ways of
structuring material life
In Asian countries, collectivism is widely studied as
a category of social analysis, observed in various spheres, from family
structures and governance models to business and educational dynamics. This
emphasis on the collective manifests differently within each society but often
influences cultural production, including cinema.
Western cinema, as previously discussed, follows a
narrative pattern deeply rooted in the values of its own society. One of the
most striking examples is the use of the hero’s journey, a concept analyzed by
Joseph Campbell, which structures a significant portion of Hollywood’s film
narratives. As Yibo Zhang
Tatiana de Carvalho
In Brazil, national cinema still struggles to compete
with foreign productions, especially those from the United States, which
dominate major theaters and remain in circulation for extended periods, despite
public policies aimed at fostering local productions. Additionally, Hollywood
films are integrated into a complex system of advertising and distribution that
makes fair competition in the film market virtually impossible
Streaming platforms, in turn, have expanded the
availability of diverse content but also impose specific standards that
influence how national cinema is produced. While these platforms invest in
local productions, their curatorial and recommendation strategies favor
narrative and aesthetic models aligned with the global market, directly
impacting the creative autonomy of national film industries
In China, this dynamic manifests differently. Verónica
Noelia Flores
This preference, however, does not necessarily imply a
form of nationalist fanaticism. What emerges instead is an identification with
collectivist values that, in the Chinese context, are not strictly separate
from the idea of the nation. The relationship with individualistic narratives
occurs differently from what is observed in societies where individualism is
central to the socialization process. This suggests that the reception of films
is not solely dependent on content availability but also on deeper cultural
processes that shape how different societies recognize themselves in the
stories they consume.
Chinese films, even when presenting individual
trajectories, frequently structure their narratives in ways that emphasize the
role of collectivity as the true agent of transformation. However, China is not
isolated from external influences, and the presence of other narrative forms
can be observed in studies that analyze these dynamics.
Based on the study by Dai, Lee, and Cheng
However, as discussed earlier, in cinematic terms, it
is crucial to differentiate between individual narratives and individualistic
narratives. The construction of the self as a condition for social existence
will continue to persist, as will the relationship with the collective, which
emerges from the inherently social nature of human experience. Nonetheless, to
determine whether a film carries an individualistic perspective, it is
necessary to examine how its relationship with the group is framed. More than
simply identifying the presence of a protagonist, it is essential to analyze
how the relationship between individual and collective is built within the
story—whether through the state, the village, the province, the ethnic group,
or the family—and to consider both the director’s vision and the market
mechanisms that shape film distribution and reception.
Thus, the difference between Chinese and Western
cinema cannot be reduced to a merely technical question, as both reflect
distinct worldviews. While Hollywood reinforces individualism and the
opposition between the individual and the collective as the core of conflict
resolution, Chinese cinema emphasizes collectivity as a fundamental part of
human experience. Even when tensions and contradictions arise, characters do
not necessarily reject or perceive the collective as an obstacle to resolving
the story’s central problem. Much like Indigenous cinema in Brazil
Narrative disputes in cinema are not neutral; they
reflect broader political and cultural processes. This relationship between
audiovisual media and cultural hegemony raises the question of whether nations
have the right to preserve their own worldview. As Triana & Gómez
This is not a defense of ultranationalism or market
isolationism aimed at exclusively favoring national productions. Instead, it
advocates for market regulation that ensures a multiplicity of film exhibitions
without violating local laws. The world should not be viewed as a battleground
of mutually exclusive worldviews, but rather as a space of cultural
multiplicity where different societies connect, interact, and transform each
other. However, neither can we ignore the existence of dominant forces that seek
to suppress local markets to impose their productions as hegemonic. In this
regard, the Western drive to dictate global cultural and ideological
standards—often tied to capitalist colonial legacies—cannot be overlooked.
This process of adaptation raises important questions
about which elements are included or omitted in narratives. Even in productions
such as I’m Still Here (2024), directed by Walter Salles and addressing
Brazil’s military dictatorship, significant omissions occur. At no point does
the film mention that the dictatorship was financed by the U.S. government.
This omission prompts reflection: if this information had been included—even
indirectly—would the film have been nominated for an Oscar? Would actress Fernanda
Torres have received such extensive international recognition?
Thus, the discussion surrounding Chinese cinema and
its unique representation of the world extends beyond China itself, applying to
any society that possesses a cultural expression distinct from the Western
model—especially when it involves political, national, or historically
sensitive themes. The forced universalization of Western thought not only
distorts analysis but also limits the potential for a deeper and more genuine
global debate. This process echoes a 19th-century logic, dividing the world into
“advanced” countries—those that adopt liberal principles as the foundation of
their institutions and socialization processes—and “backward” nations, or, in
contemporary discourse, those labeled as authoritarian simply for having
different political structures.
Therefore, China is not an anomaly in global history
but rather a legitimate alternative within the diverse array of social
organizations that exist in the world—just like any other society, whether a
small Indigenous village or a large nation-state. Recognizing this does not
mean endorsing or rejecting specific political systems, geopolitical decisions,
or cultural affinities. Nor is it about defending or attacking a model based on
ideological preferences. Rather, it is about acknowledging that China has the
right to exist on its own terms, just like any other people. It has the right
to seek its own solutions to its internal contradictions without being
constantly judged by an external standard that will inevitably never see it as
adequate—simply because the “evaluators” are not Chinese, do not live in China,
and have not been socialized within that context.
Final Considerations
If there is one thing we can learn from Chinese
cinema, it is that there are multiple ways to tell a story—just as there are
various ways for a society to organize itself. Chinese cinema demonstrates that
the figure of the hero is not the only possible narrative structure and that
viewing the collective as a hostile element, as suggested by many theories on
the relationship between the individual and society, is neither an absolute nor
immutable truth.
Most social theories were constructed within specific
contexts of dominant countries, during periods when these nations still held
significant power in defining what was considered right or wrong in terms of
social structuring. These same countries also established parameters for
democracy, freedom, and progress, consolidating a vision that, even when not
directly formulated in the West, was often inspired by their studies of peoples
classified as “primitive”—as seen in much of the anthropological production of
the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Times have changed, and this dichotomous
perspective—an inheritance of 19th-century colonial thought—no longer holds the
same strength. Cultural diversity, often celebrated as a value, must, above
all, be treated as a right to exist on its own terms. Just as Indigenous and
quilombola peoples in Brazil today produce films and achieve academic degrees
in various fields of knowledge, nations historically considered peripheral have
begun to play an active role in global geopolitics. Blocs such as the BRICS emerge
not only as economic initiatives but as a movement reaffirming the right to
self-determination.
The real challenge for Western scholars and cultural
critics is not simply to “accept” or “reject” China—or any other society that
does not fit within their frameworks—but to understand that their perspective
is just one among many. The world has always been much larger and more complex
than the one that, in the 15th and 16th centuries, Europe regarded as “the
world.” Analytical categories that make sense within a specific reality cannot
be indiscriminately applied to other social contexts. Recognizing this right to
symbolic existence does not mean merely accepting the existence of different
social models; it means acknowledging that no society can be evaluated solely
through the frameworks of another, especially when those frameworks have
historically been used as instruments of domination. Accepting this diversity
of perspectives does not mean renouncing critique, but rather recognizing that
critique is only valid when it stems from a genuine effort to understand—rather
than from the imposition of a single model as a universal standard of judgment.
References
B
[1] Morgado argues
that the first Indigenous films either denounced specific situations or sought
to emphasize their distinction from what he called the “national society”—the
non-Indigenous population. They did so by highlighting their cultural
practices, not as a form of rejection or confrontation, but as an act of
affirmation.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário