Bruce Lee and the conflict between individual interest and societal good

By Thomas Lee
Editorial Director of “We Are Bruce Lee”

The other day, I turned on the television and saw “Crazy Rich Asians.”

It was a pivotal scene in the movie. Rachel, the film’s protagonist, confronts Eleanor, the mother of her boyfriend, Nick. Eleanor heads one of the richest families in Asia and disapproves of her son’s relationship with Rachel, an ordinary middle class American. 

Rachel: You didn't like me the second I got here. Why is that? 

Eleanor: There is a Hokkien phrase ‘kaki lang.’ It means: our own kind of people, and you’re not our own kind. 

Rachel: Because I’m not rich? Because I didn't go to a British boarding school, or wasn’t born into a wealthy family? 

Eleanor: You’re a foreigner. American — and all Americans think about is their own happiness. 

Rachel: Don’t you want Nick to be happy? 

Eleanor: It’s an illusion. We understand how to build things that last. Something you know nothing about. 

The exchange demonstrates a classic distinction between American and Asian culture. Whereas Americans tend to focus on individual happiness (the Declaration of Independence specifically mentions “the pursuit of happiness” as an unalienable right), Asians, particularly the Chinese, emphasize the collective good and social harmony. 

This clash between individual and society perhaps best explains the strengths and weaknesses of the United States and China and why the two countries see each other as adversaries.

The United States owes its meteoric rise as the world’s top power in large part to the work ethic and ingenuity of individual entrepreneurs and pioneers: think Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Neil Armstrong, Steve Jobs, etc. 

At the same time, America struggles with the idea of collective good, conflating such terms with socialism or communism. We can’t even wear masks to stop the spread of a deadly disease. To the rest of the world, Americans can seem selfish and greedy. 

By contrast, China has been able to grow into a stable, global power in a short period of time because it effectively harnesses the energy of a billion people toward its international ambitions. 

Unfortunately, those accomplishments come at the expense of individual rights and freedoms. China is an authoritarian country, plain and simple. It ruthlessly crushes dissent. 

So where did Bruce Lee, the child of both American and Chinese culture, stand on this debate between individual happiness and collective good as represented by Rachel/United States and Eleanor/China?  

Image: Bruce Lee Enterprise

Lee extensively studied philosophy and wrote a great deal about it. Surprisingly, he doesn’t mention happiness a whole lot, if at all.

Take a close look at his writings though and you will see that Lee, like most things in his life, fused a lot of different ideas into something that worked for him. 

In many ways, Lee was fiercely individualistic. He had great ambitions and self-confidence to realize those ambitions.

“I feel this great force, this untapped power, this dynamic something within me,” Lee wrote. “This feeling defies description, and [there is] no experience with which this feeling may be compared. It is something like strong emotion mixed with faith but a lot stronger.”

He greatly admired the entrepreneurial spirit that drove Americans.

“In every industry, in every profession, ideas are what America is looking for,” Lee wrote. “Ideas have made America what she is and one good idea will make a man what he wants to be.”

“The autonomous individual, striving to realize himself and prove his worth, has created all that is great in literature, art, music, science, and technology,” he also wrote. 

At the same time, Lee wasn't particularly interested in money and material goods. He eschewed competition and zero sum thinking. He did not like the idea of winners and losers. In fact, Lee preached about qualities that brought people together versus things that separated us.

“My reason in doing (kung fu) is not the sole objective of making money,” Lee wrote. “The motives are many and among them are: I like to let the world know about the greatness of this Chinese art. I enjoy teaching and helping people.”

But Lee was hardly a socialist. He believed that humans had a moral duty to individually express themselves and create things.

“Art after all is a means of ‘acquiring’ personal liberty,” Lee wrote. “Remember art ‘LIVES’ where absolute freedom is.”

So I propose that Lee reconciled West and East, between individual and society, in the following way: that in order for society to achieve peace and prosperity, humans need to fulfill their individual potential. They need to intensely focus on themselves in order to achieve the collective good.

Lee certainly lived his life by this creed. By being the best possible version of himself, he was able to give the world a positive legacy that continues to influence and inspire us.

Or as Eleanor from “Crazy Rich Asians” puts it: things that were built to last.