The differences between Australia and China families Essay

When we talk about family, there should be a house where parents and children can live together, with extended family link with grandparents, uncles, aunts and so on. Although the notions of family may be the same, there still are a lot of diversities between different countries’ family life. A comparison of family life in Australia and China from governmental, cultural and social aspects will be given in the following essay.

First of all, the biggest difference between the two countries’ family life resulted from the national characteristic policies, which lead to the essential difference in family structures.

As we all know, Chinese government formulated family planning policy to slow down the population increase, so most Chinese families only have one own child. But in Australia, the government encourage parents to procreate, according to the fertility policy, about $4,133 Baby Bonus will be paid to families following the birth or adoption of a baby. Usually, the Australian families have two or more children.

So from the very beginning, the family members of the two countries are different.

Secondly, the spirits and cultures of the two countries are totally different, these cause the Chineses and the Australians use dissimilar ways to deal with family events. An obvious diversity which can illuminate this is in China it is common that three generations live together(grandparents, parents and children), but in Australia it is hardly to see that. Since the Chinese culture is based on Confucianism, which requires people to show respects to the elderly, leaving the old people live alone will be considered to be unsuitable and condemned by society.

While people in Australia are more affected by the “freedom” “independence” spirits, they are more thirsting for privacy space. People dream for a independent house with a big yard which can keep them away from the crowds, they can not go well if live closely. So grandparents live apart from their children, and the links between family members are not so clear as Chinese people.

Also, as a result of cultural variances, the statuses of Chinese children and parents differ from the Australia’s. Since in Confucianism, the elderly are more experienced and sagacious, their words will be more valued. So in traditional Chinese families, parents are the authority of home, children need to show absolutely respects to the elderships, they are more expected to obey than to resist. In contrast, the Australia parents will put the children on an equal position. They talk to them as friends instead of in a commanding tone and they will apologize to children for their mistakes, which would be very hard for the Chinese parents to do so.

In a word, the diverse national conditions create varies family lives. China is a typical Asian country, Australia is affected a lot by the western countries, so from the differences in their family lives we can see the differences between the eastern and western cultures. It is hardly to say which country’s family life is better, both of them have their own characteristics, only the one fits its own needs is the best.

References

Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management, (trans. C. Storrs). London,Pitman.

Lamond D (2003). Henry Mintzberg vs Henri Fayol: of lightouses, cubists and the emperor’s new clothes. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, p.5.

Lamond D (2004). A matter of style: reconciling Henri and Henry. Management Decision, 42, 1/2, p. 330.

Micheal, J, F (2000) Fayol stands the test of the time. Journal of Management History, Vol.6, No.8, p.345-360.

Pavett, C. M., Law, A. W. (1982). Management roles, skills and effective performances. Academy of Management Proceeding, p.95-99.

Robbins, S, Bergman, R, Stagg, I & Coulter, M. (2006) Management, Australia,PearsonWren, D.A., Bedeian, A. G. & Breeze, J.D. (2002). The foundations of Henri Fayol’s administrative theory. Management Design, 40/9, p. 906-918.

Weick, K. E. (1974). The nature of managerial work. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.19, Iss.1, p.111-118.