Complexities Underlying Hy Sinh: “Everyday Sacrifice and Language Socialization in Vietnam, The Power of a Respect Particle” By Meray Shohet

            In the opening passages of “Everyday Sacrifice and Language Socialization in Vietnam: The Power of a Respect Particle”, Merav Shohet introduces the reader to two common notions of sacrifice and moral conduct in Vietnamese society: filial piety and a concept known as hy sinh, which Shohet translates as “sacrifice”. She connects the teachings by noting how “both hy sinh and filial piety involve both moral conduct (i.e., discrete acts) and cognitive-emotional states (i.e., dispositions)”, but distinguishes them by stating that “whereas filial piety emphasizes upward-directed respect and nurturance by children to their parents, hy sinh more explicitly involves … asymmetrical reciprocity” (204). The application of hy sinh is not strictly reserved for one’s kin nor does it necessarily imply dramatic forms of sacrifice (like dying for another). Through its inclusivity of subjects and approaches, the notion of hy sinh promotes a communal mindset over an individualistic one. Taught in a top-down model since infancy, these concepts become ingrained within children through constant prompting, correcting, and scaffolding with utmost precision. Failure to comply or demonstrate linguistic and corporeal competence from the child may damage the face of the parent for not properly teaching their child the appropriate customs.

            To demonstrate these notions in action, Shohet recounts the interactions between Em, a young child around 1 year old, and her mother when it comes to greeting and bidding her social superiors farewell through bowing and the particle ạ, and later juxtaposes it to the ritualistic bow (kowtow) that Grandma performs when addressing the altar of ancestors. The first recollection occurs when Em is 13 months old, directed at our narrator. After being prompted to perform/give respect and completing her task, Em receives little acknowledge or praise and is reprimanded for lifting her shirt to expose her belly, which was deemed improper. The second installment occurs 4 months later when Mom prompts Em to bid their neighbors farewell (which involves the same particle ạ from before). Shohet denotes how all the adults (not just Mom) helped to prompt Em, who nearly falls later from bowing too low. Although Em does not ultimately complete the task to Mom’s satisfaction, Mom yields after several attempts and concludes the ritual. In this instance, the mother’s hy sinh endures some of Em’s social burden as she relieves Em from her duty. To further explain why Mom was not satisfied with Em’s exaggerated bowing, we can refer to the kowtow that Grandma offered to their ancestors before the altar, which are usually reserved for special instances of giving respect (namely to spirits and ancestors).

            Despite initially explaining the complexities between filial piety and hy sinh, the examples that follow fail to capture and highlight how the two differ since it primarily focuses on the interactions between Em and her mother. For a reader who’s unfamiliar with one or both terms, Em’s compliance and attempts to satisfy her mother’s wishes could fall into either category since it could be interpreted as respecting her mother’s wishes – resembling closer to filial piety than hy sinh. But at the same time, it can be denoted (as the author did) as hy sinh since the act is directed towards members outside of her family. Although Shohet does include a few recounts from cadres about hy sinh during wartimes, they are quick and few. I propose that describing a mealtime, from the setup to cleanup, may provide a deeper insight into how filial piety and hy sinh incorporate themselves in the smallest notions. For example, children often are tasked with setting the table and inviting everyone to eat, a sign of respect towards their “social superiors.” Parents often forgo the best tasting portions of the dish for their children to enjoy, a form of hy sinh, often making the excuse that they’ve “already eaten enough” or “don’t enjoy that particular portion” of the meal. In this way, we see both social superiors and inferiors exchanging actions of respect without expecting something in return. But as Vietnamese culture would have it, the debt is usually paid beforehand.

Questions:

1. If Shohet had decided to focus on the stories from the cadres or a child that’s older than Em was (for example, a 6-year-old child), could she make the same claims about filial piety and/or hy sinh? How might her approach change?

1. Vietnam has seen rapid urbanization and globalization in the past decade, especially in city hubs like Ho Chi Minh City. Given this, how might that affect (or not affect) the prevalence of hy sinh amongst the newer generation?

Quotes:

1. “This analytic lens in turn suggests how the local understanding of hy sinh as a cultural virtue indexical of roles and relationships that emphasize showing respect to one’s sociocultural inferiors is metonymically enacted in a routine interaction.” – pg. 209

1. Although by adulthood persons are expected to know and “naturally” act in appropriate ways, I was told that, early in life, children “chưa biết gì hết” [do not yet know anything]. – pg. 205