These thoughts come after reading something on Brendan O’Kane’s Chinese blog: this was a post from two months ago, but I just read it now, including the comments. The post contains a video from the Onion, which we all know is satirical up the wazoo, a point which Brendan mentions at the end of the post but which, judging from the ire he and the post aroused, has largely fallen on deaf ears. I thought the last comment on the post was the most interesting, it certainly was among the least flaming and more considered comments on the post, though that’s not really saying much. I think it reveals some interesting things about how the Chinese view westerners and vice versa. Here’s the second paragraph of that comment:

另外，我想对Brendan说的是（反正你看得懂中文，我就不写英语了）：你是一个很有个性、很有想法的人，但是对于中国的很多事情，尤其是政治上的，你还不了解，或者一知半解，或者是站在西方的角度看问题，当然这也无可厚非，你本来就是西方人嘛~并且，博主应该还很年轻吧，年轻人看问题总是比较不自觉地在观点中带入自己的情绪。
但是，在中国那么久，不知道你了不了解中国文化中有一种换位思考的传统？每个人都应该学会从不同角度看问题，许多中国人也是这样做的，所以很能够理解西方人、西方媒体为什么会产生对中国一些事情的看法。可惜这并不能带来同样的“回报”，因为我十分地惊讶于许多西方人的固执，我想这种固执也许源于西方的“个人主义”传统吧。

Here the commenter states that B. has a lot of personality and his own way of thinking, but that there are still many things that he doesn’t understand, especially China’s politics. B. is described as having only a dim or partial understanding (一知半解), or perhaps worse yet, a Western perspective on Chinese politics. The commenter, lizzy, says that this is to be expected, given that B. is a westerner.

Perhaps “lizzy” intend this, but the remarks comes off as a bit patronizing. But consider the next remark:

在中国那么久，不知道你了不了解中国文化中有一种换位思考的传统？每个人都应该学会从不同角度看问题，许多中国人也是这样做的，所以很能够理解西方人、西方媒体为什么会产生对中国一些事情的看法。可惜这并不能带来同样的“回报”，因为我十分地惊讶于许多西方人的固执，我想这种固执也许源于西方的“个人主义”传统吧。

In this remark, lizzy states that in China there is a tradition of “considering the views from other people”. No shit? Not just a habit that perhaps a learned few have, but rather, a tradition–the word used is 传统, so you have to assume that’s what is meant. Lizzy then goes on to say that this is what allows Chinese people to understand the west, despite certain views that the West has of China. Then lizzy says that he/she is startled by the “stubbornness” of certain Westerners, but that must be somehow related to their tradition of “individualism”.

First of all, when it comes “to understanding things from the perspective of others,” I have to be skeptical about that. Where is that tradition when there are traffic accidents and fights? Where is that tradition when people are selling toxic milk that gets fed to small children? I don’t think that most mainland Chinese understand how Taiwanese and HOng Kong people feel about the PRC. There are tons of examples. I’m not saying that the Chinese are horrible, but to talk so speciously about this tradition, I think, is a problem.

And it’s funny that the Westerners get painted as these stubborn types that won’t budge an inch on their opinions and perspectives… while the Chinese are, by contrast, somehow quite flexible in their thoughts and opinions. I think it ought to be quite obvious that there are plenty of Chinese who are as dogged in their beliefs as anyone, and there is still the fact that relatively few Chinese people that really understand the West. It’s common to hear Chinese who traveled and study abroad say things about Western countries in bafflement…which is surprising because you’d think they’d “get” westerners more having lived there for awhile, but that’s not always the case.

I would also argue, as I have before, that if the Western media has bad opinions of China, the Chinese might also be partly to blame for it: their government isn’t exactly cutting-edge on the PR front, and furthermore, they do place some restrictions on foreign journalists, which is fine, I am not arguing for complete laissez-faire, but they don’t seem to recognize that this is tradition in which Western journalism operates, or aspires to operate, and any trammels to the gathering and dissemination of information may have negative effects on what does, ultimately, make it out there.

Here’s another interesting paragraph:

另外，我感觉博主是不是被太多人捧得有些沾沾自喜了呢？中文好不代表对中国的国情有一个清晰的认知，虽然，博主相较于其他外国人，对中国算是了解得比较深了，但是注意哦，你的参照者也只是其他一般的外国人，事实上，你对中国的了解还是很肤浅的，希望你以后能够从不同角度角度，更全面地看待一些问题，相信你的结论会有所不同。

In this part, lizzy says that perhaps B. is too full of himself, because being good at Chinese is not equivalent to understanding China. Lizzy says that B. might have a deeper understanding of China vis-a-vis other foreigners, who are completely ignorant, but that his understanding of China overall is still quite superficial. He/she hopes that B. will continue to round out his knowledge of China, and believes that as a result he will reach different conclusions.

I think this section is perhaps the one that got to me the most: because through this and the multitude of similar debates on blogs everywhere, one is inexorably led to the 64 thousand dollar question, which is: what constitutes a real understanding of China. Do the western reporters get China? Do the seasoned old China hands get it? Do only people proficient in Chinese get it?

This seems to be indicative of a certain way of thinking that Chinese people have: They would no say the things they do if they understood us more, or better. That is, if they could cut past the distorted mind clutter of the western media and somehow see the unvarnished truth, from the ground, from the grassroots level, then they wouldn’t say those horrible things about us. They wouldn’t criticize our human rights or go on and on about Tibet and Taiwan.

That is the assumption that most Chinese people make.
And I think that assumption is wrong.

I am all for quality journalism, and I decry the sound-byte driven, unsophisticated drivel that often passes for journalism in the Western world. But I find it patronizing if Chinese people think that somehow a more rounded understanding would change certain conclusions we have. Sure, it can modify our outlooks, as new information can–but the problem is, and this is a general one in political psychology, is that what, if anything, can alter first principles? If you first principles are for freedom of speech and human rights, or that political civil rights are as important as economic rights and the right to be free of want, then what amount of information about China, what kind of well-rounded knowledge is going to change my conclusions about China?

The best that one can hope for is that the effects of actions based on ignorance is mitigated by knowledge and information. That is, you don’t do stupid things and say rash things because of your ignorance. Perhaps I only have a superficial view of China myself, but having lived or traveled in China often, since I was three years old, and being fluent in the language doesn’t change my fundamental views. It means only that I tend not to be make arrogant statements about how inscrutable is the way Chinese way of acting and thinking. There are things I “get” more because I have more of a window into their mentalities and cultures that most foreigners. But it doesn’t change what I believe. Maybe I understand the half of Americans that voted for George Bush II, but I won’t forgive them. There is still a line in the sand.

I am reminded of these two Chinese idioms (or phrases, at least): 设身处地 and 感同身受.

Who knows, they just might be the linguistic artifacts of that hallowed Chinese tradition of “looking at things from the perspective of others“ and trying to understand how they feel about things. I certainly think these are ideals–ideals of compassion, really–that every human being ought to try to live up to. But as I said before, there are limits. There are epistemological limits, and there are ethical limits. It doesn’t matter how much you know about China–you will still, in the end, be relying on your particular value system and your personal inclinations to make your judgments about China. Some people are, by nature, more sympathetic and forgiving, while others are more analytical, critical, and unforgiving. And thus an ignorant but sympathetic person would probably say more “China-friendly” things than a critical and educated person. In other words, this is where knowledge and ethics in some sense, part ways.

If anything, my knowledge of China has made me less sympathetic to China than before. The more I read, whether its on blogs or BBS’s or newspapers, the more I tend to get in a funk about what China is and what it can or cannot become. I admit that my reading might be selective and that everything I see is tainted by my overwhelming pessimism. In the end, the whole thing turns me off. I would rather not have my soul tainted by either being a typical “Westerner” or a Chinese. Given my druthers I would find a third cultural identity. Blog comments like this only reinforce that view. I just don’t want to be part of this conversation, even though in some sense, I am uniquely suited to be part of the dialogue. But I don’t see the value in cleaning up somebody else’s mess, and that’s what it feels like. A big f*cking thorny mess, a Wittgensteinian language game from hell that goes and on and on, nonstop pseudo-intellectual yammering.

If there is anything left to teach the six billion clever apes on this planet, it would have to be the value of silence. Create the clearing, and in it you just might find an understanding of things worth having.

, , , , , , ,