My wife and I have recently begun acting as liaisons for foreign students studying at Emory University, and last weekend we had our newest student over for a dinner party. Most of the students in this program are older and already have doctorates but are pursuing post-doc studies in a certain very specific area. Our student, who I will call “Jin” for privacy—and in admittedly annoying fashion will refrain from using pronouns for Jin in order to shield gender references throughout this blog post—was no exception, already having an advanced biology degree and pursuing advanced disease-related research at Emory.
First, I have to say that Jin reinforced the notion that I have held for a long time that if all the myriad people in the world could simply meet face-to-face, we would not have the kinds of catastrophic conflicts that exist today. Putting a face to “China” makes invective ring hollow. Jin was a very nice, polite, and possessed an extremely refined culinary palate (as anyone who praises the results of my food preparation will be identified in this blog). However, when we discussed politics and the differences between our two countries, the failures of Jin’s education and the extent to which Chinese orthodoxy reigns were clear.
Let’s just take three examples. First, one of the company assembled that evening mentioned Tibet and what Jin thought about the independence movement there. Jin seemed genuinely surprised about the topic and pointed out that the people of Tibet love Chinese control and involvement because of all the “free healthcare and services” the government provides. Jin also seemed to consider the Dalai Lama a radical crazy person, though we did not delve too much into that issue.
Second, we briefly discussed free speech and voting rights. Jin told us that Jin did not care for either McCain or Obama. Jin was also very happy and “glad” that Jin did not have to “worry” about voting. A committee chose the next leader of the country—or as Jin put it, Mao Zedung chose Deng Xiaoping, Deng Xiaoping chose Jiang Zemin, and Jiang Zemin chose the current leader, Hu Jintao. Jin considered it a burden that we here in America must vote.
Finally, Jin’s view of the protests and subsequent massacre at Tienamen Square in 1989 were that they were necessary to prevent disorder and the destruction of the country—though it was “sad.”
These beliefs were genuine. There was also no reason for Jin to worry about compatriots informing on Jin, because none were there, so there was no peer pressure from Jin’s countrymen.
I do not think I need to say much about the apparent efficacy of Chinese propaganda. Clearly, the party line is well thought out and calculated to present rationality for each abuse of human rights or power mongering. The thing that struck me so strongly was Jin’s disinterest and almost boredom in critically examining the government, its motives, and societal issues in general. They were mere facts, and uncomplicated ones at that.
I believe that this is not only due to the power of the Chinese government to tamp down such behavior, but also due to the Chinese government’s emphasis on a highly technical education. From an early age, Chinese children are pushed to learn science and mathematics and only exposed to humanities/liberal arts in a very factual sense (i.e., this happened, then this happened, etc.). The result of such an education is the devaluation of self-examination, philosophy, government, economics, and other soft sciences. The genius of such an education from the government’s point of view is that propaganda becomes inculcated and self-acting. The government need not work so hard to persuade what its people already are predisposed to. This is exemplified in the product, Jin.
Now, obviously, there are other factors at play. The traditional view of the clash between Western and Eastern cultures centers around individual rights versus collective rights. The recent (in historical terms, which can span centuries) Chinese government’s propaganda surely pales in comparison to the development of a certain cultural attitude developed over millenia.
I occasionally see examples of similar behavior among certain graduates of purely technical institutions in this country. Viz., a lack of social context due to a lack of education about non-technical fields of study. But that is a blog post for another time...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
A few things came to mind reading your post, and by a "few things" I mean a few criticisms, of course, this being a blog. ;)
Although it is fair to critically observe the distortions of Chinese ideology, it would be well to remember also that one's own ideology inevitably clouds one's vision. Jin is right that the people of Tibet have enjoyed substantial economic benefits from Chinese development efforts; that the Dalai Lama is an exiled monarch of a traditionally authoritarian medieval state who resists its modernization (and who probably seems to her an unlikely hero of American liberals who supposedly champion democracy and popular causes); that voting for Blue versus Red may make as little difference to the fundamental structure of the pervasively corporate American capitalist system as it would to the fundamental structure of the pervasively authoritarian Chinese (emerging) capitalist system; and finally Jin is right that the Tiananmen Square dissidents might have set off a catastrophic civil war far worse than whatever troubles the current regime creates for the people. (Recall what happened in Iraq, what is about to happen, probably.) Just as Jin trusts Jin's biases and information sources, so you trust yours.
I also thought some of your darker hints as to the sinister nature of the typical Chinese educational emphasis on science and technology was another signal of your own ideological bias, though more in its paranoid tone - one I have noticed more and more in the media of late - as American power wanes. What is going on here is a clash of ideologies, not a clash between those who know the truth (Us), and those who don't (Them).
All in all, it seems to me that more humility is due, which is the true fruit of a deep and wide-ranging education.
Karla Marx:
I will freely admit to having a perspective, but I think that perhaps your own Marxian prejudices are coloring your perception of my comments. I had no desire to expand my blog into an intensive review of the situation in Tibet, the value of representative democracy versus totalitarianism, or whether tanks running over peaceful protestors in Tiananmen Square was an appropriate or just response by the Chinese government in 1989. (However, I think that I could debate Jin’s points on those issues—or your arguments, if you care to act as Jin’s surrogate—quite successfully.) Nor was the purpose of my blog to invoke the virtues of Western culture versus Chinese or Eastern culture. In fact, I was careful to note that it was the “traditional view”—not my view—that East versus West was a struggle over individual versus collective rights. Obviously, I could not do all of that in a single blog post! The main point of the post was to point out what appears to be a myopic focus of the education system in China on technical studies and the effect of doing so. Actually, the narrowing of education in the U.S. and abandonment of the humanities, soft sciences, and the arts resulting in a strange mixture of great specialty in a single field but blatant ignorance in many others has been of interest and concern to me for some time and is deserving of more than a simple blog entry.
Your comment does bring up another point, though, one that I make in my initial post for this blog. While I agree with you that other’s opinions should be respected and carefully weighed, just because one has an opinion does not mean that it is of equal value to another’s. I think I would trust a doctor’s opinion of the pain in my knee over a baker’s. Similarly, it is deceptive to give equal time to a kooky or uneducated point of view—e.g., Ann Coulter given equal time with a “liberal.” The quality of an opinion is determined by (1) the facts that the person making the opinion has used to compose it, and (2) the person’s ability to process information in an analytical way, given his or her education and ability to reference the facts to others (i.e., “connect the dots”). Hence, I agree with you that while it behooves us to be humble, we should not be timid. Knowledge may be imperfect, but we must make a judgment and act on it at a certain point.
I did not intend to debate those specific issues, either, raising them only in adumbration so as to point out that they are contentious, and that an American may not know more (as many of us assume) than a poor, benighted Chinese about them, particularly when that Chinese is speaking in an alien language in a foreign country at the home of hosts who are advocates of a hostile point of view. Certainly Jin might have difficulty rejoining a debating image like tanks running over students, after observing only that the suppression of the dissidents was necessary, not the means or level of force applied, and so Jin might be tempted to counter with 100,000s of dead Iraqis, the slaughter and genocide of Native American peoples, or the vastly black and brown population incarcerated in America today, or how waterboarding isn't really torture, huh? Or how about: how many Chinese indigent laborers died in slavery conditions building the railroads in the American west? Was that necessary?
The only thing I know, and the gist of my comment, is simply that I don't know. In this I follow Socrates, and like him, I am magnetically drawn to those who do know, so that I might perhaps discover what it is that they have learned that I am somehow missing. No luck so far. :)
Chinese saying, "Kill one educate a hundred" ...More to follow
Well, I suppose it all starts with epistemology (the study of "knowing"), if you're going to break it down to basics. But, like I said, at some point, you've got to go with what knowledge you have accummulated and take a stand. Of course... you've got actually make the effort to find out the facts. A lot of errors are made through laziness.
The education to which D. Wright referred is not limited to China alone. The Russians are also slowly emerging from their own flawed educational system - fine for hard sciences, horridly biased in the social sciences. The Soviet state attributed many famous quotes to Lenin he did not say, as well as attributing the invention of nearly every modern convenience to a Russian or Soviet inventor (TV, radio, airplane, internal combustion engine, etc, etc). This is not a matter of perspective - though that is also important to keep in mind when evaluating the statements of someone from another culture - but there are times when things are simply wrong.
Another poster brought up waterboarding - something to remember here, is we are DEBATING the issue - something not possible in Jin's China. Modern China is - for whatever whitewash has recently been place over its image - a place where waterboarding is only a mild form of torture and executions are carried out the day of the sentence is passed - no appeals, no retrials. A simple bullet to the head.
Relativistically comparing flaws within the United States is the rhetorical and debating equivalent of comparing an opponent to the Nazis... it make no point other than to say "we've done bad stuff too." But there is a difference in the US - we have the freedom to freely debate the issue at hand, and attempt to remedy the problem. As someone who has traveled extensively throughout the world, I can attest this is a rare freedom indeed. The lack of debate about similar issues in other countries does not mean the same issues - or worse - are not present. It may simply mean it is not a subject that is printable.
I will close with a quote from Winston Churchill - "Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the others."
Morris' quote from Churchill regarding democracy raised a faint tinkling bell in my mind about what Plato thought about democracy. I checked it out, and, for your information, here is Plato's view, expressed in a brief quotation from the Republic, on democracy:
"Democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike."
Plato also railed against the fact that in a democracy, any uneducated fool can be elected to a position of power (Tom Delay, of exterminator fame, comes to mind). His ideal form of government was rule by an elite, with a benevolent philosopher-king at the head.
Post a Comment