<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On the multiplicity of individuals in China</title>
	<atom:link href="http://transpacifica.net/2008/08/13/on-the-multiplicity-of-individuals-in-china/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://transpacifica.net/2008/08/13/on-the-multiplicity-of-individuals-in-china/</link>
	<description>News, commentary, and resources on the transpacific world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:50:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: D.</title>
		<link>http://transpacifica.net/2008/08/13/on-the-multiplicity-of-individuals-in-china/comment-page-1/#comment-16075</link>
		<dc:creator>D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:53:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transpacifica.net/?p=368#comment-16075</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the article.  I&#039;ve always been suspicious of how Western scholars parse the supposed individualism-collectivism divide, as if whole masses of people could be split into a simple duality.  I feel it&#039;s just one group trying to define another culture by defining it against their own culture- or what they believe it to be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the article.  I&#8217;ve always been suspicious of how Western scholars parse the supposed individualism-collectivism divide, as if whole masses of people could be split into a simple duality.  I feel it&#8217;s just one group trying to define another culture by defining it against their own culture- or what they believe it to be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

