Contemporary Filiality and Popular Religion: An Ethnographic Study of Filiality Among Chinese University Students and their Parents

2.1 Defining Filiality

Generally speaking, definitions of filiality can be divided into two broad categories: classical definitions and contemporary definitions. This article shall first outline the former by referencing two classical texts. I will then briefly outline definitions of the concept as found in modern scholarship.

Classical filiality (as opposed to contemporary definitions of the term) and the importance of it were already abundantly clear in the teachings of Kǒngzǐ who famously wrote “Filial piety and fraternal submission! - are they not the root of all benevolent actions?”^[18] Similarly, in the Xiào Jīng (The Classic of Filial Piety) one finds that “filial piety is the root of (all) virtue, and (the stem) out of which grows (all moral) teaching.”^[19]

At its most simple level, classical filiality can be taken to mean obedience, particularly obedience towards one’s parents.^[20] Kǒngzǐ 孔子 (Confucius) reportedly stated:

Mèng Yì asked what filial piety was. The Master said, ‘It is not being disobedient.’… ‘That parents, when alive, be served according to propriety; that, when dead, they should be buried according to propriety; and that they should be sacrificed to according to propriety.’^[21]

Similarly, in the Xiào Jīng one finds:

The Master said, ‘The service which a filial son does to his parents is as follows: In his general conduct to them, he manifests the utmost reverence. In his nourishing of them, his endeavor is to give them the utmost pleasure. When they are ill, he feels the greatest anxiety. In mourning for them (dead), he exhibits every demonstration of grief. In sacrificing to them, he displays the utmost solemnity. When a son is complete in these five things, (he may be pronounced) able to serve his parents.’^[22]

Evolving out of classical filiality, one of the most common contemporary definitions of the concept is simply the moral behaviour of children towards their parents. Liáng and Zhōu, for example, situate filiality as the very core of family ethics and write that the concept refers to roles – specifically mutual obligations and responsibilities – that govern the family: the father, for example, is responsible, among other things, for raising his son, ensuring safety, education, and socialisation.^[23] These filial obligations traditionally extend beyond the grave, “with careful tending to the needs of deceased parents and earlier kin through ancestor worship seen as essential to the fates of surviving family members.”^[24] Chén therefore states that the core meaning of filiality is to respect one’s ancestors, respect one’s parents, and pass on the lineage.^[25] Indeed, it is clear that family lies at the very core of many contemporary definitions of filiality. Zhao, Kong, and Yang, for example, assert that filiality is essentially to maintain “the harmony, unity and happiness of the family.”^[26] Employing a similar line of argument, Lin and Fu also place the definition of filiality firmly within the context of the family, asserting that filiality has a crucial influence on how Chinese parents control and discipline their children, equating the concept with the Confucian dictum that “parents are always right.”^[27]

Although family is central to the concept of contemporary filiality, the concept can also be broadened to encapsulate society as a whole: children must be filial towards their parents, parents to grandparents, and grandparents to ancestors. Liáng and Zhōu write that the implementation of filiality begins with serving one’s parents and ultimately lies in realising the grand ambition of self-cultivation.^[28] They argue that filiality, when practiced properly, is far more than merely loving and obeying one’s parents, but instead constitutes achieving success in one’s career, cultivating a good reputation, and frequently giving honour to one’s parents and ancestors.^[29] Moreover, Bedford and Yeh, noting that filiality has “provided the moral underpinning for Chinese patterns of parent–child relations and socialization for millennia,”^[30] argue that the concept not only dictates family norms but also provides the social and ethical foundations for maintaining social order. Thus, contemporary filiality can be likened to the layers of an onion or, in the case of Fèi, the ripple effect of a stone being thrown into water: the entirety of society is symbolised by the water circles generated from the stone and the movement of the circles demonstrates the changing of one’s social influence.^[31]

The Research Center for Filial Piety Culture of Hubei Institute of Technology’s 2018 study of filiality concluded that the concept has three crucial components:^[32]

1. Rén 仁 (typically translated as “benevolence”).

   Rén is the root of the body, filiality is the root of rén: benevolence and filial piety are one. Therefore, to self-cultivate is to cultivate filiality.

2. Having children so that the family line can be passed down.

   Chinese people have a strong sense of the root of life, which is prominently manifested in the pursuit of filiality.

3. Inheriting the will of the father.

Children should shoulder the historical mission of making the family business prosper.

Similarly, Yeh offers a definition of contemporary filiality by holding that the aspects of filiality are integrated into a dual framework: reciprocal filiality and authoritarian filiality. He describes:

The former is the more traditional manifestation and involves repaying one’s parents out of love for them. The latter is built upon obedience and is seen as a form of control. One needs to acknowledge this dual nature.^[33]

Li and Wu also ascribe a duel framework to filiality. They hold that two components are required in filiality: “the material support and the spiritual respect.”^[34] Therefore, although the meaning of filiality and related policies pertaining to it have historically undergone multiple changes, the core of the concept lies in material support and spiritual respect.

He, on the other hand, defines filiality by comparing it to the rule of law in China. He argues that in the ethical sense, filiality and the rule of law share the same goal: namely hoping that people live a universal just life. The difference herein is that the rule of law equates to codified ethical principles whereas filiality is the manifestation of conscience: “they belong to ethical issues and moral issues respectively.”^[35]

Finally, Laidlaw et al. believe that contemporary filiality cannot be defined so simply. They write that although the concept is “often simplified as obedience to older generations and care for one’s parents, it is, however, a multidimensional concept among Chinese people.”^[36] Similarly, Lieber and Mink write that the concept is “frequently oversimplified in terms of obedience, respect, and care for one’s parents.”^[37]

2.2 Changing Face of Filiality

Many scholars have examined how filiality has evolved over time.^[38] This scholarship is tied to the broader scholarly study of cultural shifts in the Chinese society: the rise of individualism,^[39] migration and urbanisation within China that can lead to young people living economically independent lives,^[40] the continuing effects of compulsory education and rising rates of literacy,^[41] and the fall of commonly perceived traditional cultural values in favour of new “Western morals” (such as favouring the nuclear family as opposed to the extended family),^[42] all pertain to how filiality is regarded by some scholars as changing or declining. This section shall specifically examine the former: many scholars have recently argued that filiality has recently changed. Liu et al., for example, write “the strict gender roles that characterized traditional Chinese society have given way to more gender-neutral prescriptions for relationships between parents and children.”^[43] Similarly, Yang believes that the development of the market economy and social changes have led to the transformation of many traditional values, including filiality. Yang crucially asserts that this change not only occurs in young people, but also in the elderly who “lower their requirements and expectations of filial piety from their children, and reach a consensus with them.”^[44] In a similar vein, Ho and Chiang highlight the changing face of filiality by arguing that “intergenerational co-residence is no longer the only way for adult children to demonstrate filial piety…[and] it can occur at a distance when children living away from their parents retain regular contact with parents via telephone, mail and visitation.”^[45] Similarly, the Research Center for Filial Piety Culture of Hubei Institute of Technology’s 2018 study found that 78.9% of interviewees responded that serving parents in a physical sense (i.e. frequently visiting) defined filiality, whereas “love from one’s children” accounted for 31.9%, and material support a mere 8.6%.^[46] The study, along the same lines, found that 77.6% of parents believed that paying for the elderly to live in a nursing home to be deeply unfilial.^[47]

One could argue that the most prevalent way in which filiality has changed can be found in the often-identified generation gap of how different generations define filiality and the importance they grant it. Regarding the disparity between how different generations define filiality, Zhāng writes “in the eyes of parents, the basic prerequisite of ‘filiality’ is the children’s ‘presence’ […] and in the eyes of children, the basic premise of ‘filiality’ is to ensure the parents’ old-age security.”^[48] Similarly, Wang, after conducting a fieldwork study pertaining to filiality, identified a generational gap: on the one hand, the parents in Wang’s study shared a common practical concern over being supported by their children, hoping that their children would provide them with food, clothing, household necessities, and, more generally, hoped that their children would visit often and not make them unhappy by doing what they disapproved of or treating them in an unfilial manner. Moreover, the parents “were seriously concerned about their children’s lack of submission and obedience to parental authority.”^[49] On the other hand, Wang found that the younger generation aspired predominantly for independence, thus rendering parental domination and authority in deciding household matters that filiality used to dictate “a nostalgic recollection.”^[50] Zhōu and Wáng, noting common phrases such as “filiality should be repaid as soon as possible” and “the elderly cannot wait,”^[51] also draw attention to how generational difficulties pertaining to filiality can arise.

Liáng and Zhōu take a somewhat modest approach to contemporary expressions of filiality, arguing that children (particularly sons and fathers) have a much more harmonious relationship built upon democratic foundations but the father still, nevertheless, predominantly has control over his son’s decisions and life in general.^[52] Chén also follows this line, arguing that due to the influence of Western values, children’s personal wishes are more respected today and they enjoy greater autonomy. More specifically, this relationship is today built on “equality and mutual respect, and uses democracy, consultation, and dialogue.”^[53]

2.3 Decline of Filiality

Many scholars argue that filiality is, and has for a long time been, in decline. Newendorp writes that as “the social and cultural discourses around longstanding Confucian ideals of filial duty and family reciprocity in contemporary China are reconfigured, many Chinese seniors today find that they can rely on neither state nor family for support.”^[54] Ho and Chiang in their study of contemporary attitudes towards filiality found that “some respondents feel that a weakening of filial piety values in their children is perhaps inevitable.”^[55] Similarly, Huáng’s investigation into the educational values of parents and children in China found that 70.6% of mothers and 69.4% of fathers considered obeying one’s parents as unimportant.^[56] It should be noted that, as with the aforementioned studies that argue that filiality is changing, this scholarly trend is tied to broader studies of recent cultural shifts in Chinese society.

One of the main reasons presented for the identified decline of filiality is the increasing modernity of China. Indeed, the concept of filiality is often regarded as somewhat dated: in Liu’s transnational history of three generations of a Chinese family from the late nineteenth century to the 1970s, one finds a letter that states: “But, mother, why do you want my brother to marry now? It is already the twentieth century. We don’t follow the old idea of filial piety.”^[57] Lǐ situates this decline within the broader decline of Confucian ethics as a whole, arguing that the changes brought about by China becoming increasingly modern have led to the diminishing value of Confucianism that has ceased to be the dominant force in society.^[58] Some scholars such as Laidlaw et al.^[59] and Sung^[60] tie modernisation to the related processes of industrialisation and migration as reasons for the continued fall of filiality. Indeed, the process of moving to another city or province has been regarded as an assault on the value of filiality. Li and Wu argue that with modern economic development and social mobility, it is no longer sustainable for children to perpetually stay with their parents. Therefore, although children might continue to support their parents in a material sense, they “cannot fulfil the respect component of filial piety by remaining companions for their parents and caring for them…[which therefore] highlights a lack of support and respect in the traditional filial piety culture.”^[61]

Somewhat linked to the process of modernisation, shifting values is another common reason cited for the identified decrease in filiality. Liáng and Zhōu, for example, argue that individualistic values are the single greatest threat to filiality today and the main reason why the concept has diminishing value.^[62] They also emphasise the family tension that can come about due to filiality: “since filiality emphasises the son’s absolute obedience to his father, it will inevitably lead to conflict and estrangement.”^[63] Wang et al. offer a similar conclusion: after analysing questionnaire data pertaining to contemporary college students’ inheritance of traditional morality and filiality culture from the aspects of society, school, and family, they conclude that university students place low importance on filiality but grant comparatively high importance to perceived modern values.^[64] Western influence is a related reason for the supposed decline of filiality. Hwang, for example, writes “prevalence of filial piety and its accompanying authoritarian moralism in Chinese societies has diminished as a consequence of modernization and exposure to Western influences.”^[65]

Wang offers a wholly different perspective, arguing that filiality is not, contrary to popular belief, under direct attack in (post)socialist reforms or ideological discourse. Instead, the state “has reinforced, through official media, the renewed individual civil (and family) obligation to take care of elderly parents, and promoted the ‘socialist family virtues’ of respecting, supporting, and caring for the elderly.”^[66] Du also seeks to argue against the notion that filiality is declining, claiming that the proportion of older people who perceive their children to be filial increased between 2000 and 2010.^[67] Similarly, Hé argues that it is specifically the political function – namely the notion of an official/public servant/emperor/president taking on the role of a fùmǔguān 父母官 (“parental official”) – of filiality that has declined and the concept is still a crucial moral value.

Finally, several Chinese scholars have recently responded to the common identification that filiality is declining in importance by calling for an increase in filiality education. Lín, for example, believes that filiality needs to be utilised as a society as means of dealing with the modern problems of society: “it should start from the individual, go beyond the scope of the traditional family, and enter the field of social responsibility, manifested as a full sense of social trust.”^[68] Li, on the other hand, has a far less grand vision for filiality, arguing that contemporary filiality should simply focus on being kind to one’s parents.^[69] Lei and Zhang take the case of Xinliangdi village to propose how other localities can implement filiality initiatives:

The village creates an atmosphere of filiality by taking the following measures: establishing a filiality fund, establishing assisted living ‘happy homes’ for the elderly, organising a ‘filiality banquet’, and regularly implementing various voluntary services.^[70]

7.1 Parents and Filiality

It should be acknowledged that absolutely all (58 of 58) of the parents self-identified as irreligious. Moreover, all 58 believed filiality to be an irreligious concept. Mr Fāng, for example, told me: “Filiality has nothing to do with religion. It is about family, respect, and there is nothing superstitious about it.” Mrs Lǐ similarly explained: “Filiality and religion are not the same. Filiality makes me think of children respecting their parents while religion makes me think of gods and superstition. They are totally different.”

Although I intend to explain how filiality as conceived by these parents is very much tied to religion, the very fact that they themselves regard the concept as irreligious cannot be understated. I do not seek to claim that their view is wrong as their very conception of religion was different from my own. Mrs Nà. For example, when I asked her what religion is, began listing various organised religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. I, nevertheless, would argue that all 58 parents fully adhered to popular religion. Each home had some form of a shrine (that ranged from a table in the dining room in the smallest case to an entire room in the largest case) and all 58 parents spoke of the importance of these shrines. Crucially, it was herein that I observed not only religious practice, but also filiality operating at the very heart of the practice. When I asked Mr Fēng why he offered an apple to his late parents every Monday before work, he told me “It is my duty. I have to be a filial son.” It was at this point that his wife gleefully interjected and told me that a few years ago, Mr Fēng had asked her to do this for him:

I told him he was being foolish! I told him that this was bad filiality! But he would not listen to me. So I was a good filial wife [she playfully hit him at this point] and I offered the apple for you. I did this for around two months and the whole time, this stupid old fool could not stop sneezing! It took him ages to realise that it was his own parents punishing him for not being filial!

Mr Fēng was noticeably embarrassed by this story but nevertheless told me: “An apple a day keeps the doctor away [he said this part in English]. I did not know that my parents knew this phrase!”

Herein, one finds a blatant example of belief not only in ancestors, but also ancestors having very real power. Moreover, filiality was at the very heart of Mr Fēng’s duty of offering an apple, as well as the subsequent punishment that came from his delegation of this duty to his wife.

A somewhat similar instance was observed in the case of Mr Zhāng who told me that he had inherited the family business from his father who, in turn, had inherited it from his father. Mr Zhāng explained that Covid-19 had damaged the family business and in 2022, he was worried that he might lose it. During the Qīngmíng (清明) Festival,^[100] he decided to skip visiting his grandfather’s tomb in favour of working. This was against the advice of his own father. He described his problem thus:

This was a very hard time for me. I know that my father was unhappy with my decision so I suppose you could say that I was not being filial. My argument was that I was worried that I would lose the business and then this would make me unfilial.

He then explained that after the festival, things very suddenly went from bad to worse with the business: “I did not know what to do. When I spoke to my father about it, he gave me absolutely no work advice but simply told me that I need to go and apologise to my grandfather.” Mr Zhāng explained that he took his father’s advice and presented an offering at his grandfather’s grave: “I even asked grandfather for help with saving the business.” Afterwards, Mr Zhāng’s family business reportedly recovered. Mr Zhāng told me his own explanation:

I suppose I was being foolish. Grandfather was the one who founded the business so I should have just asked him for help in the first place. When I think about it now, missing the Qīngmíng Festival was very careless of me.

When I asked him to relate this story to filiality, Mr Zhāng explained:

Filiality is the most important thing. This whole problem started because I failed to be a good filial son. It was my carelessness that led to the business failing and it was my stupidity that led to grandfather punishing me.

Thus, one finds another example, with filiality at the centre, of belief in ancestors.

The role of filiality in popular religion could also be observed in the relationship the parents had with their own children. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of parents used terms such as obedience and respect when referring to filiality and their children. What was interesting was that, when pressed, the parents would eventually relate the practice of filiality to the family ancestors. Mrs Rèn explained: “Filiality is what connects us all. Our son is filial to us, and we are filial to our ancestors.”

When asked for examples how they thought their children should be filial, many answers, unsurprisingly, related to education and career success, but the most common related to presence. Once again, when pressed, this could eventually be traced to ancestral belief. Mr Máo related to me how it was his son who was the one who usually printed off money to offer to ancestors during Spring Festival^[101] but Covid-19 had meant that during his first year of university, he was unable to return home: “I found this even more difficult than I thought I would. Of course I didn’t mind making the money myself but it made me realise how important it is for everyone to be together on these special occasions.” When asked to elaborate about “everyone,” he explained: “These occasions are special because we know that everyone can be together. Sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers sisters, grandparents, ancestors, everyone.” Once again, one finds a casual instance of the normalisation of the presence of ancestors.

Finally, it is worth noting that an obvious way that filiality has changed is in the way that daughters are perceived by parents. I was very surprised to find that aside from seven fathers and six mothers who believed that it was their daughter’s filial duty to marry into another family, the remaining eight fathers and nine mothers with daughters expected their daughters to tend to them in death. Indeed, in contrast to Johnson who argues that sons as opposed to daughters are more likely to participate (and be encouraged to participate) in rites pertaining to the commemoration of ancestors above the level of the household (e.g. the Qīngmíng Festival),^[102] I found that the majority of parents in this study held a very different view. Mrs Hú, for example, told me:

Things have definitely changed from when I was a child. I was expected to carry out my filial duty by leaving my old family and marrying into a new one. Who knows? Maybe it is because of the One Child Policy. Maybe it is just modern. It doesn’t matter. I don’t think that people really think that sons are preferable. The way I see it and the way that we have taught our daughter is that she can do everything that a boy can. Jobs, education, and filiality. Therefore, when I die, I expect my daughter to take care of me.

Mr Liáng, on the other hand, came to the same conclusion but only did so because of the influence of his daughter:

To be honest, while she was little, I always just assumed that she would one day get married and leave the family. I was very surprised when she one day told me that she wanted to look after me and her mum in old age and eventually death. I was very happy!

Regardless of whether the change came from the younger or older generation, the results are still clear: many parents believed that their daughters could fulfil filial duties that would have, in the past, fallen to only sons.

7.2 Students and Filiality

As with their parents, all 30 students reported irreligiosity and regarded filiality as a secular concept. However, unlike their parents, there was a noticeable sense of nuance in many of the student’s responses. Lǐ Nà (female, second-year undergraduate), for example, demonstrated a surprising degree of political reflection, told me: “If filiality had anything to do with religion, do you really think the government would encourage us to be good filial children?” When asked what filiality is, they also, for the most part, like their parents, utilised terms such as “respect.” However, many (24) took fault with the term “obedience. Chén Xiào told me: “If filiality means obeying the will of your parents then I don’t think that it is important or even feasible. If filiality means respect then I think this is very very important.”

Although I eventually found that all 30 students regarded filiality as crucially important in their lives, this was not necessarily apparent at the beginning of the conversations. Similarly, on the surface level, it seemed as though the majority of the students placed less importance on the religious component (i.e. pertaining to ancestor commemoration) of filiality. One could argue that the student’s position in the filial line was crucial to how they perceived their ancestors. Rèn Xiào (female, second-year undergraduate) somewhat bluntly told me:

Why would I care about what my ancestors want when I know that my parents are looking after them? I know it’s important to be there to sweep the tombs but I also think it’s not really my duty. All my life my parents have told me that I need to do well at school and would say things like ‘this will make grandpa and grandma really happy’ whenever I did well.

Similarly, Kāng Wěi (male, first-year undergraduate) told me:

I know that because I am always reluctant to join in with ancestor commemoration, my parents are worried that I won’t look after them when they die. Of course I am going to look after them. I just don’t understand why they think I also need to be there when they commemorate my great grandparents when they are already doing it themselves. I don’t have anything to contribute so I don’t see the point.

Yǔ Yān (male, second-year undergraduate), in a similar vein, made light of the matter:

I certainly don’t care [about ancestor commemoration] now but I wouldn’t be surprised if you met me in 20 years and I told you ‘My children are so unfilial! Why don’t they show more respect to our ancestors?’

Herein, one finds a generational difference. Although all 30 of the students accepted that commemorating ancestors was important, only 11 believed that it was something that directly concerned them in the here and now. Moreover, whereas all parents found it easy to relate filiality to ancestor commemoration, this was less so the case for the students. Indeed, although all 30 accepted that ancestor commemoration was important, 24 also claimed that this was not a subject that they thought about often. I would therefore argue that, contrary to the popular notion that younger generations increasingly demonstrate “a lack of support and respect in the traditional filial piety culture,”^[103] the students of this study very much do place enormous importance on filiality but believe that they have their own specific role to play. In a particularly revealing interview, Ōu Tíngtíng (female, second-year student) told me about how she had been struggling with moving away from home and beginning university life in her first year as an undergraduate. She told me that she had confided in her mother who told her in response that she would give an offering so that the ancestors would watch over her and give her the help that she needed. Ōu Tíngtíng stated: “I immediately felt better. It was so comforting knowing that I was being protected.” What was particularly interesting about this case was Ōu Tíngtíng’s response to my question of why she had not asked her ancestors herself:

I didn’t even think of that. I wouldn’t even know how to do it in the right way. That’s the kind of thing that mum is in charge of. I guess this will change if I ever have children or when my parents can’t do it anymore.

The belief in ancestors was clear and there was a distinct presence of defined family roles.

The parents of this study were quick to assign importance to locality: it was vital to visit one’s hometown to commemorate because the physical location of, for example, a family tomb, was crucial. In contrast, not only did many of the students (22 of 30) believe that it was not necessary for them to physically be present to be filial, but a surprising number (16 out of 30) thought that location was not important in general. Zhèng Lǐ (female, third-year student) firmly told me:

When it comes to this matter I don’t really care what my parents have to say. When they die, of course I will do everything I need to. I will make a shrine and give them food. But this shrine will be where I want it to be. If I want to live in Shanghai then this is where I will commemorate. If I want to live in the US then this is where I will commemorate. My shrine will come with me and if my parents want to be commemorated then they will come too. I am not going to go back to our village every single year. What’s the point?

This has apparently been a major point of contention between Zhèng Lǐ and her parents. Her mother, Mrs Lǐ, although noticeably upset that her daughter did not want to conform to filiality in the “right” way, was nonetheless convinced that: “She will eventually understand. She is still young and has not yet felt the true weight of filiality.” Sòng Yǔ (female, third-year undergraduate) also disagreed with the importance of location albeit for a slightly different reason:

My parents keep telling me that I need to come home more often. They even keep using my grandpa as an excuse. He died three years ago and obviously we still visit his grave all the time. But I’ve skipped the last few times because I know grandpa. I know that he doesn’t mind whether or not I am there at his grave. He only cares that I do well at university. He also probably cares that I eventually have children.

In the most extreme cases, this generational difference noticeably led to family conflict. A very heated Máo Hónghán (male, third-year student) explained:

Throughout my entire childhood, my patents did nothing but talk about filiality, telling me that I need to do well at school. Well I did do well at school and now I am at university. But suddenly now I’m a bad son because I don’t visit enough and I missed Spring Festival. My parents kept asking me ‘who will make the money for our ancestors if you don’t come?’ Well I didn’t come and I guess the ancestors must have been happy enough with dad printing the money. So why is this still a problem?

Similarly (albeit less angry), Gé Shū (male, second-year student) gave me a wry look when he asked me: “Do you really think that my great grandfather cares whether or not I actually visit his grave or give him some incense?” However, what is interesting is that despite what initially seemed to me to be religious scepticism was in fact just a new perspective. Gé Shū still very much believed that his great-grandfather was a real presence that could impact his life: “My great grandfather was a head master. I therefore offered incense to him all the time while I was studying for the Gāokǎo.”^[104]

Another generational difference could be found in life priorities. Whereas 51 parents explicitly told me that they wanted their daughter or son to eventually take over the family business and/or family home, only six of the students shared this view. Wú Wěi (male, second-year student) told me:

I know my parents think that it is my filial duty to take over the family business when I graduate but I simply don’t want to. I have found my own path in life and I think I am still able to be a good son even if I don’t do exactly what they want me to.

This was likewise the case with the matter of children: whereas 55 parents expressed the wish for their daughter or son to continue the family line by having children, only three students held this view.

Therefore, although one very much finds a generational difference between how parents and their children perceive filiality and their filial duties, the belief itself is constant. The students, like their parents, believed that filiality was important and that the filial duty of ancestor commemoration was important. The difference lies in the how and the priorities.