Thanks to the Alpha Asian, who posted the TED talk above in which Martin Jacques talks about the rise of China. From my own perspective as a Chinese American dude, this TED talk was among the most interesting I’ve heard. The thesis of the talk is that Americans fail to understand China for three reasons:
1. The Civilization State vs. The Nation-State
2. The Chinese Perception of Race
3. The Chinese Relationship with Government
I don’t know what the commenters on this blog think, but I highly recommend this talk.
What resonated with me especially is how he says “unity” is the most important political value for the Chinese, how the Chinese government has never been seriously threatened, and how while Americans see government as a power that needs to be contained, the Chinese view it almost as a patriarch, part of the family. I’ll have to take his word for it–almost all of the Chinese people I know are those who now live here in the States. Just living here makes one distrust government, big corporations, and all the other decision-makers that have influence in the typical American person’s life.
I’ve got fifty million other thoughts going through my head right now, but I’m going to quit before I say something that sounds crazy and disjointed. Check out this video.
That’s great stuff. I particularly liked his point about how the dominance of the West has bred a parochial mentality in comparison to the rest of the world. The US is probably the extreme of this, given that it has been the most dominant Western nation and also the nation that most views itself as the centre of the universe.
I find that the Chinese view of government and the American view of government are both very strange. My impression is that most Western countries outside the US have a view somewhere in the middle; so a fair level of cynicism of government, yet tempered with the unquestioned understanding that government is necessary and crucial to a nation.
The American paranoia about big government is really weird to an outsider. Particularly because the most paranoid tend to be conservatives, who usually have an unquestioning support for the actions of their government elsewhere in the world (numerous wars, and CIA activities in fomenting unrest in the 3rd World, for example). They don’t care about their government interfering in the lives of people outside the US, often in quite a violent manner. But when it comes to minor and necessary interference in their own lives, like taxation and regulation, they see that as anti-freedom and possibly the second coming of Stalin. Weird.
The Chinese have the sort of government that DOES actively impinge on their individual freedoms in a substantial way. Yet for the most part they accept and trust their government.
So you could argue that the Chinese have the view of government that Americans should have, and vice versa.
You should read his book, “When China Rules The World”. I enjoyed it, except for the parts where he rages about “racism” (his dark-skinned wife was–according to him–killed by racism in Hong Kong”), so i guess his angst is understandable to a point.
Pingback: Joy Luck Club Producers Consider Amy Chua/Tiger Mom Movie | bigWOWO
Interesting video. I think Jacques misses the boat a little bit by not including China’s feelings about past western colonial activities in their country. The west likes to conveneniently forget that it tried to destroy China, economically, politically, and perhaps even culturally, whereas for the Chinese the struggle against colonialism was a huge unifying factor and is probably still vivid. The desire to ensure this doesn’t happen again was (and maybe be still is) a pretty high priority for China’s policy makers.
That’s a really good point, Ben. That should probably be a bullet point by itself–that anger still exists. The East and West aren’t coming into this relationship without a history.
OR, I plan to check out that book. Thanks.
Eurasian,
You’re totally right. I think the American mentality comes from the way in which the U.S. was founded–basically it was a bunch of guys with muskets telling the Brits to stop taxing us, to stop telling us which Church to attend, and to get out. That’s why our Constitution and Bill of Rights talk about liberties so much and what government can and cannot do. Some people take the extreme view, saying that now we can’t have government providing or getting involved with healthcare, despite the fact that those who don’t have it already impose costs on those who do.
I think the Chinese are definitely in the other direction, but right now–with their economy going up every year, they probably have little reason to change course. I do hear that the college educated don’t always have jobs there; maybe that will be an impetus to change.
I have more to say about this topic…
Namely this–I was wondering that if those three bullet points influence the way in which the Chinese read literature. I’ve only read stuff in translation–hence, I’ve only read the stuff that Westerners decided to translate–but I wonder if the fact that Chinese in general trust government influences the kinds of stories that they find interesting.
I think it’s a great misunderstanding to say that Americans are paranoid of government or that Chinese exactly trust their government. Maybe if you watch too many political shows it may seem that liberals and conservatives are at great odds with each other, but the thing to remember is that often the differences are marginal. The paranoid of the government are usually more or less crazy. I’d say to place it more exacting to which group distrusts the government the most would more correctly be Libertarians rather than conservatives. They may not argue that they don’t want the government in health care, but just that they would rather not have them be in charge of being the major providers. Even though it the insurance companies may be demonized for their decisions, it may be far better to keep the government as regulators than have the government be the providers and regulators. The distrust of government should not be confused with antigovernment, and along the same lines as a person saying \you put too much sugar and cream in my coffee\ doesn’t mean he doesn’t want sugar and cream.
I don’t know exactly if the Chinese trust their government. I think the point of the lecture was that their view of government is different. If the government is seen as a part of the family, one will put up with a lot of the problems, but that shouldn’t be mistaken for trust. Though out history though, there have been numerous movements that struck at the legitimacy of the government. I don’t think the decision to do that comes lightly. Sure it may be corrupt and easily run rough shod over the rights of a number of people, but do you want the alternative and run the risk of what China in the early twentieth century?
Also I don’t think China’s struggle against colonialism was within the scope of the purpose of this lecture. It might be important in a general topic, just not the lecture.
@ Jman,
obviously we speak in generalities here. And I’m aware that “trust in government” and “paranoia of government” are probably not the best ways to encapsulate the mentalities I am trying to capture, but language can be a bit limiting.
Let me put it this way – I’m Australian, and I see our view of government as being similar to that of the British. If we consider that to be “the norm” (purely for argument’s sake), then Chinese, very broadly speaking, seem to have a view of their government which is far less cynical than ours, or Americans’ for that matter. Which we find strange considering the Chinese government’s authoritarian nature.
Also, still considering the Australian/British perspective as the norm for a moment, Americans have a resistance to government involvement that seems unusually extreme. Our view tends to be that government should be involved in something like healthcare, because corporations and the free market can’t be trusted to do it properly. This, in the US, is considered dangerously socialist.
Jaehwan…..
It comes down to a question of trust – it’s kind of like the parent or guardian that abused you as a child, but won’t acknowledge that it ever happened and yet can’t understand why you don’t seem to like them.
What I got (note: non-Asian or Western person speaking)
1. A Nation System of two or more systems:
Most non-western states function like this and this is possibly because before the current borders of these nations came to be, what was in place were a collection of smaller kingdoms that eventually became united either under one extremely strong pseuco-military force or a colonising invader looking to consolidate territory (as is the case with all African nations)
Thus, if you try to classify said people using the same parameters of defining identity as one would do in a country like the US–one that ironically has a serious identity problem- you will never be able to understand how and why they function. For us Nigerians, what comes across as dysfunction to western visitors is quite orderly for us. As a Nigerian woman, I have to learn how to speak, think and act in my language, in English and in the presence of my fellow men that speak neither.
So, I expect that this same kinds of complexities exist in a nation as historic and vast as China.
2. Perception of Race
I contend that “race” is a western method of classification.
I did find what he–Jacques–said about how the Chinese view race. I always assumed that it was more of an “ethnicity” thing, think like how white people call us “tribes”. Did not know about the majority Han…need to go read some more on this.
3. Government as the father
Having never respected my “father”–as my country has had one abusive and incompetent “parent” after the other–I found this part very interesting and Ben’s explanation as a bit alarming.
J-man,
Good points. As Eurasian said, we were talking in generalities. A good parallel might be to compare American bloggers with Japanese bloggers. American bloggers tend to attack government, politicians, etc. They distrust everyone. Japanese bloggers, on the other hand, tend to talk about their own personal lives or what they experience.
Good points about conservatives vs. libertarians. And yes, I think libertarians are cray cray.
I think colonialism may have been useful as kind of a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle type of thing. Westerners stir these feelings when they talk to Easterners, based on the history of colonialism.
Ben,
Good points. Also, the media plays a big role in shaping the zeitgeist. A government that abuses its people is less likely to look bad if they control the media.
Catwalq:
Good points, especially on the complexity thing. It’s probably a huge beast, and I imagine things are different in the countryside vs. the big cities. I wouldn’t be surprised if the federal Chinese government hardly touches the countryside. That would be an interesting story.
I don’t believe in the government system in the States.
I’ll never believe the system in China.
And the HK government is 100% full of shit (excuse my language, but there’s no better word for it).
Governments and politicians in general is just full of crap.
@Bryan
Relating to Chinese Literature. There’s plenty of politics involved. Namely, the novels produced by Luo Guanzhong which included Romance of the three kingdoms and Water Margin.
Pressured by the government or as a product of his own idealogies, Romance of the Three Kingdoms painted Cao as the Villan and Liu (which carried the Han royalty bloodline – bloody bloodline) as the protagonist. Being a historical novel that 70% true and 30% bullcrap, it served as a propaganda device that pleached loyalty to the King and saw them as heroes and paint anyone that want to rebel against the power as villans. A character like Lu Bu is criminally misrepresented in the book, while other the other hand, the extremely slimey Liu Bei is painted as the sensitive good guy that’s heroic and lovable. It’s amazing that a lot of people today still thinks that the novel is historical correct and takes it as a history text book. Which is still relevant to some of my commie friends today.
Guan Yu is another fascinating character. Plagued by government corruption, external pressure (from the minorities in the north who had gathered massive military power) and social unrest, they needed to ‘promote’ a figure that pleaches loyalty. So the idol ‘Guan Yu’ was born and raised to a ‘god’ status with shrines dedicated to him.
Just want to add that Romance of the 3 Kingdoms was written in the Ming Dynasty and the Raise of Guan in Song, which were both Dynasties with Han Kings.
just going to de-lurk on this one comment, because I can’t stand these Chinahands who think they know everything about Asians simply because they lived there for a short stint.
what a boatload of chinkology is this? I’m really disappointed in this TED talk episode; they normally have pretty balanced and rational speakers.
the chinahand has it right on some points regarding the production center of of the world is shifting back to East Asia once again, simply because 1/3 of the world lives there. and the past 200 years (and more) were dominated by Western hubris and colonialism.
what’s not cool is Martin Jacques trying to paint the entirety of China and Chinese people as some monolithic horde. within that Han ethnicity are many, many views and opinions and like his talk hinted at: was never truly unified.
N’s example of THREE KINGDOMS is a superlative example of fragmentation. and don’t forget WATER MARGIN (OUTLAWS OF THE MARSH) where it’s all about anti-government corruption.
even in today’s China there are tens of thousands of protests every year over land grabs by corrupt officials, and don’t forget the Nobel Peace Prize winner and all the dissidents.
in short, China is a diverse society like all others and not some occidental reified yellow peril horde out to conquer the world.
N,
Thanks for the info about Three Kingdoms. I’ve been meaning to check it out. I actually think I have it.
Are there any good modern novels (in translation of course!) that you would recommend? I’m curious how modern people think–especially given that the civilization is the same, the nation-state totally different.
I wonder too if there’s a big difference from stuff out of Taiwan and HK. I imagine it must be totally different.
@CrazyMMer
Lol, The bandits in Water Margin actually all decided to work for the government (despite all the ill treatment towards them, they still chose to be ‘loyal’) in the later chapters. Because those chapters are so BS that those chapters are edited out in the modern prints by popular demand.
I think N summed up the sentiments of a significant number of people in the US, the politicians are full of crap. If you have a hard time trusting corporations, why would government end up without fault? So the usual solution would be to keep up a system of checks and balances. There is even a check and balance for whatever one’s own wild ideas are.
It is not the case that conservatives or libertarians refuse to have government take part in health care. State and federal governments do regulate health care. Also a significant portion of health care comes from the government like the Medicare/Medicaid programs and the Veteran’s Administration. Funds go into the National Institute for Health and CDC. Most never put that into question.
The larger point is that you do have to try to become aware of your biases and prejudices when dealing with someone else. Then try to deal with them with an understanding of how they see themselves on their terms. If you are in a dominate position in a given situation, you really don’t have to do that. Even if you may be the weaker party, if you can remain insular you do have a dominate position in that insularity. Also with respect to Western nations, even though they may all get lumped together, the US does have many differences.
I think as far as feelings of colonialization, I do feel it is an important topic. The problem is it really deserves its own lecture. If you speaking about China, China may have many similarities with other places, but it is a unique case with its own unique considerations.
I think one other point about how US has a distrust of government, but at the same time the government will interfere with people’s lives in other nations. It is a very complex issue. The US has always had the mindset of not wanting a large standing army, which may seem odd. I would also say this is why gun rights was in the Bill of Rights and is current topic. While other countries had to worry about being invaded, the US receives a lot of protection from the two oceans. It doesn’t have to worry about needing protection provided by a large standing army. It also allowed for another tendency which was to remain isolated.
Even though the sentiment still exist, post World War II changed a lot of things. Nuclear war began to become a major threat. With a number of other countries weak, could fill a vacuum. A conflict of interest also came with trade.
Communism also took the forefront as a major threat. The US built up insularly, individualistly and idealistly. China might have been build on a Han identity, the US a nation of immigrants had to look towards ideas. Now an idea such as communism wasn’t exactly going to be something that a significant number of people wanted, and that became a major worldwide phenomenon.
The US broke out of a number of its tendencies, even if it still retained the sentiment. Many in the US may fancy themselves hoping to bring democracy and prosperity to others. At time others may take a more “realistic” approach and be happy to keep stability. It has succeeded and failed in various ways. But many are happy to remain insular, and not know about problems. Many would rather not know or have to worry about a war. Few would be happy having to say, we have to do what we have to do to keep things going. Perhaps the heavy handness of the Chinese government may be better tolorated after the fall of the Dynasty, colonialism, the War Lord Era, and Japanese invasion.
I managed to browse through this book when it came out. What I didn’t like was the way the author portrayed Chinese culture as some kind of monolithic, uniform entity.
That struck me as some weird form of orientalisation and exotification. I wanted to tell him that during his book reading but decided against it because well… I wouldn’t have been diplomatic, and I also had not read his book yet completely anyway, and I don’t want to nitpick on minor points while missing the entirety of his message, which may be critically important.
I hadn’t heard about his wife’s death in Hong Kong of course so I suppose I’m glad I didn’t confront him. That was a horrible thing to go through. 🙁
Pingback: Martin Jacques: Understanding the Rise of China | zhangying1217