The Chinese-style “collectivism” in the last middle century had a gradual decomposition and reduction for the individual and respect for individuals, and initially established the personal rights protection system before the turning point of the century. After that, “we”-this high-frequency word used in the era of the planned economy had been replaced by a more general word “I”. I would like to say “I”, and that’s why I appreciated the other “I”. With no establishment of “I”, and no cooperation of countless “I”, “we” must be empty、fragile、hollow and even insubstantial.
However, it was “others” that bridged “I” and “we”. Because of “others” “I” became “I” and “we” became “we” because of “others” too. When “we” over-emphasized and magnified “I”, and abandoned “others”, “I” would be left alone in a state of beleaguerment with no backing up. Under more circumstances, the concept of “others” in our traditional habits was only a memorial tablet dedicated in name. We had an idiom of "beggar-thy-neighbor" as a proof; and the adage of “mind one’s own business” was also our evidence. Even when it was at the peak of the ideal education of collectivism, “others” not only failed to become our people’s awareness, but also meant an informer, betrayed, alien, dangerous, and estranging and so on. The culture of collectivism under this system finally led to the severe consequence that “others equal hell”. People became afraid of hearing from and staying with “others”. Perhaps it was because of the fear toward “others”, “we” collapsed after “Cultural Revolution”. “Others” had to withdraw from the public attention, sinking into a dispensable and an empty word, and a vague region of civic virtue while “I” was still roaring up.
