|
|
|
May 12th, 2011
11:43 am - ...and the crowd goes wild!
I don't know that I could venture a guess as to how many students came to see my lecture (100? 200? More?). In any case, the lecture was a success. Travel advice and travel stories with a copious amount of pictorial evidence carried the day. I even managed to throw in a little bit of humor here and there. Quite a long way to come, for the boy who--in elementary school--could barely express himself to his classmates.
|
May 4th, 2011
06:45 pm - Restoration of the word 'Chauvinist'.
A word fatally re-purposed by its usage in feminism: chauvinism is due for a revamp.
When I was living in Turkey, my friends and I often saw examples of extreme patriotism (from Turks, Armenians, Cypriots, et al.) which served to hurt the Turks, Turkish neighboring countries, and any chance to solve some of Turkey's most serious foreign policy problems. We used the term 'hypernationalist' for lack of a better term. The term then came in use as we returned to our home countries in Europe or America, or traveled abroad to other countries (Israel, China, Thailand, etc.) and saw sad examples in those places, too. Little did we know that a correct term already existed. Chauvinism: This refers to extremism in patriotic or partisan sentiment. There is also a British term, jingoism that can be used to the same effect.
Following World War II, chauvinism was reviled: extremity of nationalism rightly being blamed for the conflagration that had recently consumed large portions of the world. The reaction to chauvinism brought about the creation of the United Nations, the Geneva Accords, the EU (from the predecessor organization, meant to de-nationalize European production of coal and steel), amongst many other multi-lateral institutions meant to foster greater global cooperation. New internationalist -isms (communism, capitalism, humanism, islamism, globalism) arose to capture public and political consciousness--although chauvinism remained a latent force propelling many of these purported internationalist memes.
Meanwhile, feminism captured the term chauvinism for itself. A subtle process, the process of a living, unregulated language, took place wherein feminists decried 'male chauvinism'--extreme support of masculine superiority--and gradually the 'male' adjective was dropped from common parlance until 'chauvinism' had become much more narrowly defined in the minds of the general populace. Incorrectly and unfortunately so.
If the mid-20th century wrought an internationalist backlash to extremities and obscenities of nationalism, the early 21st century is seeing a backlash against internationalism, and likewise a resurgence of nationalism and all the dangers it poses when taken to extremity. We need either need to strip the word chauvinism of its feminist baggage or we need greater awareness of the British term, jingoism. Either way, words mold ideas; thus, a word must be reforged or promoted to raise awareness of the dangers of the patriotic, partisan, or nationalist ethos when taken to extremes.
New products to be released in future by CHAUVINISM: Turkish exclusion from the EU (over Cyprus issue); Chinese genocide of the Japanese; Thai-Cambodian war; eternal violence in Israel-Palestine; Second Falkland Islands War; War of the South China Sea; Pakistani-Indian War; US-China War (i.e. World War III); and much, much more!
|
May 3rd, 2011
06:24 pm - Comrade Osama Bin Laden
I was quite interested to get a feel for the opinions of China's netizens about Osama's death. Chinasmack, as usual, obliged by providing a small sample. Some netizens celebrated the news (if not as ecstatically as the average American) or at least felt justice had been done on behalf of Al Qaeda's victims; others felt less happy.
Some fenqing (young, irritable chauvinists) have taken a liking to Bin Laden. They believe that anyone who could strike a blow against America (innocent civilians apparently included) was to be lauded. They termed him as "Comrade Osama", and lamented his death as a martyr, not of the religious jihadi variety, but of the communist war-against-bourgeoisie-imperialists variety.
It is true that a person such as Osama can be many things to many different people. He was an anti-communist freedom fighter when he fought the Soviet Russians on behalf of America. He was a wealthy elite, amongst the princelings of Saudi Arabia. He was a terrorist when he bombed US consulates, as well as the World Trade Towers in New York. He was a religious fundamentalist authority, to those who fear feminism, unrestricted fashion, or secular governance. To conservative Islamic idealists, Osama Bin Laden was an advocate of an Islamic caliphate encompassing all the Muslim peoples, bringing unequivocal religious law and religious government to them all.
And now he is to be a comrade in the socialist war against American hegemony? I do understand those who hate America or are jealous of its power: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". But this is a vast simplification that Chinese nationalists should try to further understand-- whomever is Osama's enemy, Osama is definitely not China's friend.
1) Osama's proposed religious government for all Muslims would doubtlessly include the Uighur homeland of Xinjiang and perhaps even the Hui of Gansu and Ningxia--in China's far western stretch. Indeed, Al Qaeda has strong links to ETIM, a Uighur organization that advocates violent insurrection by Uighurs against the Han Chinese authority.
2) Devoutly religious peoples (whether Buddhist, Muslim, or Christian) have some serious problems with how China manages religions. The communist ethos of China's ruling party is devoutly atheist. If Osama did not approve of secular governance of Muslim peoples--in countries such as Turkey, India, or Malaysia, amongst many others--how do you think he felt about a government that believes religion is worthless superstition micromanaging the religious affairs of millions of Chinese Muslims. My guess is violently unhappy.
3) Whether it be American imperialism or Chinese imperialism, both countries are guilty of interfering in the lives of Muslims. Fenqing may want to see Osama as a comrade, but Osama would see the Chinese as another threat to the cultural and religious integrity of Muslim territories.
4) China's policy of non-interference with other countries governments may also be seen as support (thus interference) when those governments do not reflect the will of the people of those countries. So, Chinese economic dealings with a variety of secular, one party dictatorships in the Muslim world are certain to be seen as unwelcome by Islamic extremists. Little different, in fact, from the government-to-government relationships that America has in the region (and which have led to America's conflict with the Muslim world).
Perhaps the farcical adulation of Chinese fenqing for an Islamic extremist is a result of incorrect, inadequate, or un-nuanced coverage of history, geography, and current events in the school curriculum and news media? However, chauvinists seldom understand hypocrisy, no matter which country they are from and regardless of efforts to educate.
For all that, the fenqing are perhaps right about one thing: there is a similarity between communist idol, Mao Zedong, and the extremist martyr, Osama Bin Laden. They both headed organizations that killed more of the very people they represented, than of the great foreign enemy they claimed to struggle against (America). That is ironic. Don't you think?
|
April 26th, 2011
01:24 am - Visa Rush
For my fiancee and I, this weekend was not a time of rest. We had an important mission to accomplish: gathering proof of our (more than) three years spent together. Photos were Photoshopped to add time stamps--although why the US visa bureaucracy would accept time-stamped photos in the age of Photoshop is beyond my understanding. Receipts for airplane tickets were ransacked in order to find the few that had both our names written out. We went and got 2 inch x 2 inch passport-sized photos taken--the girls at the photography studio tried their hand at adding a Photoshop time stamp to our digital photos as well, but did such a bad job of it that I redid their work by myself once we returned home.
Now after hours of time-stamping, cropping, and resizing in Photoshop, the evidence of our blissful life of non-marital cohabitation should be plain for even the most skeptical of bureaucrats to see. I just hope they don't notice that some of the time stamps might be placed in microscopically different positions.
One chore down. Now to prepare my upcoming lecture (looks like May 11th, evening as a tentative date and time) and a variety of more ordinary lesson plans.
|
April 21st, 2011
03:38 am - Paranoia, paranoia
One of my friends in Nanjing is an older American man--of nearly retirement age--with an amazing history. He formerly taught as a professor of Public Relations in Eastern Michigan University and Seton Hall. He worked for IBM for many years. He's done a little bit of many other things and had many successes, but never really found a place where he fits.
So he comes to China, and he loves it here. He feels needed, loved. His students adore him. He has found a family of sorts in his colleagues and the young people who look to him as a mentor--replacing the somewhat run-down family relationships back in America.
But, I worry for this fellow. At 58 years of age, or so, can he sustain a life here in China indefinitely? He has no true family here: no one to look after him when he eventually grows sick and unable to teach any longer. Worse, paranoia and agitation seem to be eating away at him. He views many of the other foreigners with suspicion (which is not entirely wrongful--there are many perverts and womanizers who sail into classrooms across China); he views himself as a defender of his unsullied Chinese paradise. He annoys the administrators of the colleges he works for by upsetting the status quo: some of the foreign experts may be perverts, lechers, and nutcases; however, the college administrations often don't seem to care how many students are defiled, as long as the institution is peaceful and the money brought by having white faces and native English speakers keeps rolling in.
So, a quandary. Here is a man who feels rejected by his homeland, accepting China wholeheartedly--both its light and dark sides. He wishes to defend his new home, but finds his attempts rejected by the very authorities who don't wish to be bothered. Will he eventually be ejected from China, or will he slip into dementia and serious problems while still living his China dream?
Likewise, he finds relationships a dilemma: Adverse to relationships which might require him to fully trust someone else, yet lonely and craving company.
Will his Chinese paradise capsize in the darker waters of senility and paranoia?
|
April 14th, 2011
10:32 am - Critique of the Critical
Of the many cultural gaps between China and the developed democracies, criticism may be the most difficult to bridge. I sometimes feel, however, that it should be among the first that we try to bridge. A conversation in which only positive strains are allowed is only half a conversation. The project of finding ways to unite humanity in solving its own worst problems is difficult enough; it simply cannot be done without criticism of human weakness and past or present mistakes.
I grew up in an atmosphere of constructive criticism. An early memory from my childhood: my mother preparing a college seminar on critical thinking for Honors students. I wondered what this "critical thinking" could be, knowing that criticism is a negative thing, but guessing--from the very interesting games my mom prepared--that critical thinking was not an exercise in negativity at all, but the path to solving problems.
When I finally reached college, I found that all of my creative projects required constructive criticism as a necessary step, allowing me to push my writing and visual art further through the (often negative) observations of others. I can say with absolute certainty that my current artistic capability improved 10-fold by accepting others' criticisms and by training myself to criticize my own work. This is the basis of evolutionary adaptation, applicable to any human endeavor just as it is to the diverse creatures that thrive in the world.
As for China, let me start with a positive: there are at least two areas of discussion in which I find diverse Chinese taking on criticism without reflexive feelings of hostility or humiliation--even when foreigners jump into the conversation!
1) The Chinese natural environment, every Chinese person I've ever discussed the matter with agrees, is in a dire state. The smell, sight, and taste of urban smog cannot be ignored. The trash strewn by the side of highways and footpaths alike cannot be ignored. The scrim of algae (reacting to pollutants in the water) that covers once-beautiful scenic lakes cannot be ignored. Most importantly, exhortation to save China's environment has come from the government itself, signalling that criticism of this problem has been sanctioned at the highest levels and can be safely discussed. Thus, unlike the many problems glossed-over by the government, this is a criticism coming from Chinese as well, rather than an isolated imposition by foreign media.
2) The education system. As I've written before, all strata of Chinese society seem to agree that the education system requires reform. Students, parents, teachers, professors, and government administrators have all discussed this with me. This is an area where all have internalized criticism of the system as it stands, yet substantive reform has not yet taken place. Given the torpid bureaucracy and the doubtlessly numerous actors who benefit from the status quo, it may be decades yet.
I'm heartened that I can actually have full debate and discussion of these aspects of Chinese society and the China experience--without my Chinese friends taking offense and decrying me as a foul, critical, laowai! Some days it seems to me that there are few other subjects where critical thinking is as encouraged.
Perhaps it's just that outsiders,foreigners, are not welcome to criticize any aspect of China. Foreign media relishes open criticism--giving praise only where it is undeniably due--with a fervor that contrasts with the tame, state-owned Chinese domestic media. I'm sure, seeing this through the eyes of the average Chinese, the contrast must be shocking. What, newspapers that don't limit themselves to 30% negative news and 70% positive news? How crude! How gauche!
That shock I can understand, given the news environment. Likewise, I can understand how many Chinese might view global criticism, outside criticism, in view of China' humiliation by various Western and Japanese industrial nations in the past few centuries. Fenqing--young Chinese chauvinists--react particularly violently. The government hardly dissuades them from taking offense, of course, and even does its part* to fan the flames (most noticeably in its recent publication, "Global Times").
*The government can hardly distance itself from what Chinese news organizations do, given the level of government ownership and control over all media within the country.
All that said, there are a few realizations that would do a lot to improve the Chinese reception of outsiders' criticism--I think.
A) The "Western" tradition is that criticism is more acceptable when shared among all groups. Americans in particular have a historic distrust of government, going back to our relationship with the British central government, and thus have a habit of criticizing government--of any ideology or nation-state. All governments, including our own, merit being lampooned, so we are highly unlikely to make an exception for China--quite the opposite, any attempt to protest such criticism will only invite more concerted criticism. Some Chinese government bodies or news organs like to declare that western media have "hurt the feelings of the Chinese people" with critical reports of China or its government. Such declarations are destined to backfire.
B) With great power comes greater outside criticism. Example: Countries such as Eritrea or Equitorial Guinea have much more dictatorial, corrupt governments than China's, but come in for far less criticism in international fora. Why? Because most people are not likely to be concerned about such geographic, economic non-entities. Conversely, developed democracies such as the US, France, or Japan come in for quite a lot of criticism despite having high standards of living, many personal freedoms, responsive governance, and most other attributes widely considered desirable. So perhaps we could see criticism of a country, China for example, as a sign that people around the world actually care about it.
"China, you are important to us; now, why did you go to the KFC to eat junk food and hang out with your boyfriend instead of studying for your college entrance exam?"
C) A well-known dictum says, "problems cannot be solved until they have been accepted and faced". An alcoholic or other addict will never beat their addiction until they have admitted that they have an addiction. Likewise, when an outsider looks in on the situation in China--a situation where numerous problems may be discussed privately, but are commonly not allowed to appear in public fora--they see a lop-sided societal conversation where many important points (mostly criticisms) go unsaid. This is a vacuum that then draws the confident, criticism-comfortable outsider to express whatever he/she feels has not been said. This, then, may result in the impression that foreigners are far more critical of China than Chinese are, or that foreigners are negative by their nature.
|
April 11th, 2011
02:13 am - Aggression against an Artist
Ai Weiwei is quickly becoming the newest focal point in the war between the CCP and advocates of free speech for the Chinese people. Frankly, the actions of the government--destroying his art studio in Shanghai then shanghaiing him from a plane flight and drumming up fake accusations--have done more damage to their credibility as responsible leaders than his explorations of official malfeasance could have ever done.
The newest accusation is the funniest by far: Ai Weiwei has now been accused of plagiarism of a performance art piece, wherein he flew ordinary Chinese to an art exhibition in Germany as "living pieces of art". The idea, apparently, was "stolen" from an art professor teaching in Xi'an. I'm not entirely sure if this is a complaint directed against him by the government, or whether someone sees this as an opportunity to attack a public figure while he is vulnerable.
As an artist myself, I have several important questions about this accusation:
1) Can minimalist performance art be copyrighted? Performance, by its nature, is changed by its location and time. Small changes in performance make a big difference to the resulting piece of art.
2) Did this Xi'an art professor actually enact his art idea? Or did he just talk about the idea as an abstract?
3) Did this Xi'an art professor fly ordinary Chinese to an international art exhibition? Did he just invite ordinary Chinese to a domestic art exhibition as "living pieces of art"? This is a very important difference in the conception of the performance: different audience can, in this case, change the meaning of the art completely. I could write an entire essay on the possible differences, as could any other decent artist, writer, or philosopher.
Regardless, I think we can gain at least one valuable thing from this fiasco: aggression by the Chinese government against an acclaimed artist who has also stood up for the rights of the common people--victims of the Wenchuan Earthquake, for example--can also be seen as an act of performance art. A useful and interesting performance that reveals nothing but the weaknesses of the powerful.
I call this work of art, "Grasping at Straws, 2011".
The Chinese government has no legitimate complaint against Ai Weiwei, thus they begin the process of slander. It would not be acceptable, after all, for anyone critical of their policies and government process to be seen as a true defender of China.
And yes, I am angry about this. If government (any government) attacks one artist for his or her art, it attacks us all.
|
April 8th, 2011
01:03 am - Lecture coming up....
I ran into a colleague from my university last weekend. One thing led to another --> I will be giving a lecture to several hundred students (she said as many as 400!) on a subject such as American university life or world travel. More information as it becomes available.
|
12:06 am - Harmonious Village / Pleasantville
Conservatives, whether of the Chinese Communist or American Republican variations, can be strikingly alike. When I assigned my class to watch the film, Pleasantville, (as homework, what a kind teacher I am) I was not struck by the film's portrayal of a mythical, white, 1950's utopia which American conservatives work so hard to return the country to. This much is as obvious as a toucan's nose.
I was, rather, struck by how closely this utopia seems to resemble the "harmonious society" which Hu Jintao has proclaimed as the Chinese Communist Party's goal to work towards: a world that works like clockwork, where the privileges of the powerful are unquestioned (patriarchs in either case), where sex is not acknowledged or even existent, where disaster (represented as fire or rain in the film; as milk adulteration or hit-and-run incidents in China) cannot impede upon man's utopia. Hu Jintao's "harmonious society" does not, as in the film, represent a humanly attainable ideal. This sort of harmony represents an ideal that if achieved would destroy the very humanity it sought to preserve.
Perhaps it is hyperbole to conflate an aspiration for harmony with a static, undead society. Certainly there is nothing wrong with hoping for harmony. Perhaps harmony is a virtue to work towards, but never entirely achieve. The journey, not the destination, is the valuable attainment. Right?
I wonder. Like in the film, China's harmony is less a harmony where all parties (both powerful and vulnerable) make concessions to the whole, and more a harmony where the powerful set the tune--however dissonant others may find that may be--and snuff out any divergent melodies. This is not a Confucian harmony, where great power begets great responsibility (yes, Confucius came up with that one before Uncle Ben). According to historians, no emperor of China has ever conceded fully to Confucian harmony. Likewise, The One Party--like the One Ring--concedes to no one. Thus, a harmony of complexities becomes impossible. Thus, Hu Jintao's harmonious future seems more and more like Pleasantville's: an empty paradise from empty platitudes.
One last thought the movie gave me: Color, like sex or rain, is a irresistible natural phenomenon. Color will come.
|
April 1st, 2011
01:47 am - Universal Values
A topic that has come up again and again in Sinophile discussions is the question of whether China is an exceptional case (note: Americans also like to see themselves as exceptional, exempt from international norms), or whether the Chinese people also ascribe to "universal values". There are important questions to ask: Are "universal values" as established in such documents as the UN Declaration of Human Rights truly universal--or merely Western? Do these universal values gel with the values that Chinese civilization aspires to? If human vices are--seemingly--universal, shouldn't human aspirations be as well?
For those who would like a wall of text that I did not produce, now turn to the China Media Project (run out of Hong Kong University), which has provided a truly beautiful comparison of two views, both from authentic mainland Chinese, on this subject:
http://cmp.hku.hk/2011/03/29/11205/
The first, clearly, is the view which the Chinese government wants promoted: that the China Model is exceptional due to China's exceptional circumstances as a continuous civilization-state; this view is that Chinese exceptionalism (also known as "_______ with Chinese Characteristics") can explain away all of the China's policy differences and frictions with the developed democratic countries of the world.
The government makes its arguments well. They should do: they've got numerous academics in numerous government think tanks whose full-time job is to come up with fig leaves for controversial government policies and practices. Their strongest point is that economic rights are human rights, too. China has indeed made a U-turn on economic rights, so I can understand why they wish to focus on the importance of Deng Xiaoping's policy reversal which has raised millions of Chinese citizens from utter poverty. I wonder, however, if the government understands that their greatest contribution to this has been their inaction (the Chinese philosophy of "wuwei", action of inaction), allowing private enterprise to bloom, rather than their actions--continuing support for numerous government monopolies in the form of easy loans from state banks, preferential policy, and preferential policing--which so often have the effect of squelching private innovation and enterprise.
The greatest error the authoritarian apologists have made in this project is in trying to suggest that this is simply a tug of war between "The West" and the rest (or maybe just that exceptional case, China). Are there not Chinese who ascribe to different points of view from those sanctioned/funded by their government? My own five year stint in China suggest that there are many:
Many who do not accept zealous state paternalism (much less authoritarianism) as an essential "Chinese characteristic"; many who do not accept a shackled and uniformly state-sponsored press as an essential "Chinese characteristic"; many who do not agree that a one-party government without checks and balances on its powers or accountability for its responsibilities is an essential "Chinese characteristic". It may be very hard to argue about what Chinese exceptionalism even means when the Chinese people as a whole have not been able to engage in a national conversation about which Chinese characteristics are essential to preserve as well as which Chinese characteristics are actually Chinese characteristics rather than common characteristics of most pre-industrial, pre-literate, pre-modern states.
Let me end with this: it is not a bad thing to discuss our assumptions about what constitutes "universal values". We must value the input of voices from developing countries which may be skeptical. Can the conversation have truly begun, however, when the greater diversity of views from countries like China has been suppressed? The powerful, of course, prefer to hide behind the excuse of exceptional national characteristics and circumstances whenever they have done ill--and that applies equally to how America and China have each used their "exceptionalism".
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
llothe's journal