Why Philip Pan's Book Really Matters
Out of Mao's Shadow is a must read. Not for Human Rights Watchers and Congressional hawks who make a career out of hectoring China. But instead for those of us who have lived, worked, and studied in the Middle Kingdom, and have come away from that experience with a far more complicated relationship with the place.
Here's the rub: it's hard not to get the sense sometimes that a huge portion of the Chinese population tacitly accepts the current mode of governance. How else can you explain the recent Pew Global Attitudes Poll that indicated that more than eight-in-ten Chinese are satisfied with their country's overall direction? It would be a grave mistake to simply explain this away as a result of a veil of ignorance blanketing the Chinese people; Philip's book could easily have been a profile of ten ordinary Chinese whose lives, and those of their families, have improved enormously over the past thirty years--through honest means, hard work, and ingenuity.
Americans like to point out that there are still many Chinese who long for life in the United States, some even risking death to achieve it. But there are two points worth noting here.
First, this is increasingly less true. Many high school students still dream of attending Princeton, but mostly because it will provide them with the best possible job upon their return to China, not because they view it as a gateway to life in the United States. More and more top students are also choosing to stay home and attend college in China, seeking the relationships and in-country experience necessary to succeed.
Second, it is important to be clear about what many Chinese are talking about when they say they want to live like Americans. Without a doubt, most would prefer a freer press and more formalized legal system. But the United States--first and foremost--represents wealth and economic opportunity; three-car garages, not the right to organize unions and stage protests. Furthermore, there are unseemly aspects of American society that scare the heck out of most Chinese.
Consider the tradeoff between order/stability and freedom/liberty. As compared to China, the problems of violent crime and drug abuse in America are astronomical. Last night I had dinner with a handful of first-year students at Wharton business school in Philadelphia. They were lamenting about the fact that it was unsafe to ride the subway after 6pm; about how--even during the day--there were areas only blocks from their apartments where it would be dangerous to set foot. They debated about the difference between pepper spray and mace, wondering if either were available for purchase online.
Contrast that with the fact that anyone, of any age or sex, at any time of day, can safely walk through any neighborhood of Beijing. Ask yourself what is more important: the right to cast a ballot every four years for your president or the right to walk down the street without fear of being violently assaulted? If you chose the former, you can rest assured that there are many people in parts of Philadelphia and Los Angeles--not to mention the favelas in Rio de Janeiro or the shantytowns of Johannesburg--who might disagree with you.
In the eyes of many Chinese, individualism has its limits. In the wake of the remarkable countrywide mobilization that occurred after the Wenchuan earthquake, Chinese commentators were quick to contrast China's collectivist response with the almost Darwinian turn-a-blind-eye reaction of Americans to Hurricane Katrina. For many, it was the best of Chinese collectivism versus the worst of American individualism.
But at the end of the day, I think Philip's book is most important because it brings us back to the individuals, and reminds us that for all the collective success of modern China, we cannot be dulled into shrugging our shoulders at injustice. It is vitally important that we more deeply understand non-Western values that place 'society' above 'the individual.' But that does not mean we should accept them. In fact, in my opinion we should not.
I am encouraging my friends in China to read this book, as a reminder that no matter how high China's annual GDP growth, no matter how resilient the Community Party's rule, the stories of those fighting for freedom are always worth telling.
Here's an experiment in live commenting.
11:01 am. I just read:
Wow, ya think? Tacitly means that their acceptance is unspoken. So, anyone who goes to work on a daily basis and is not openly opposing the regime tacitly accepts the current mode of government. Not a good start. Contender for least insightful sentence of the day.
11:05 am. Ely writes:
That's fine, but when Chinese citizens don't understand why the Olympic torch is protested in Paris; don't understand why we think they were wrong in Tibet; and thinks that the world loves them, they are definitely ignorant. More like a blanket of ignorance than a veil.
11:11 am. Ely asks us to
I'm throwing the bullshit flag here. I don't know much about Philadelphia, but I bet most of the students were white. And I bet those areas "only blocks from their apartments" have a bunch of black people. The fact that they were looking for pepper spray online helps to prove my point. These people are clearly idiots as pepper spray is commonly available at sporting goods stores. (Or it was back before I decided to stop being frightened by the world.) Are they so afraid of their surroundings that they can't even go out to get their pepper spray?
What's really stupid here is that there isn't really any tradeoff. You're making this up such that somehow you can't have free elections and effective criminal control. That's just ridiculous. Does anyone have real criminal statistics for Beijing? Or do we just have official Communist Party Approved statistics?
If they actually have lower crime rates, it's not because people don't vote, it's because the country continues to violate legal norms with regard to criminal procedure and due process. If you ask all those people in Philly and LA whether they would rather walk down the street with the fear of being violently assaulted by a criminal or walk down the street with the fear of being arrested by the state, tried without a lawyer and without the presumption of innocence, and then imprisoned without recourse, I bet those people who are willing to give up their vote would reconsider the bargain.
11:17 am. Ely talks of American individualism:
Fine, but that's just Chinese nationalism at work, and it's completely false for multiple reasons. The first reason is that FEMA's response to Katrina is a result of the Bush Administration's hatred of government and intentional mismanagement. It has nothing to do with individualism--it has everything to do with administrative failure. After all, just look at James Lee Witt's FEMA--it was a completely different organization, and just a year before Bush was elected.
Second, there is nothing in China's "collectivism" that is incompatible with human rights and liberal democracy. This is evidenced quite simply by South Korea and Taiwan--two countries that share China's "Confucian" culture but still live up to their obligations. So, don't give me this crap about China's collectivism.
Third, it's false because it is human nature to run towards a disaster. I know that sounds crazy, but human beings help out. It's just one of those things that we do. One of my favorite examples is this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_M7FjjBA5I
Watch it and you'll see that even the teenage girls playing soccer in the background go running towards the plane crash to help out. Is that an example of American individualism? Did everyone just decide that it was the pilot's problem and fuck him? No, of course not.
So, it rather appears that the Chinese are--wait for it--ignorant about the US.
11:20 am. Let's wrap this up:
This just feels like a cop out to me.
August 22, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
August 22, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink