Email exchange stemming from ZB report on《中国不高兴》

Mail from a friend:

I wonder which is the lesser of two evils with regards to the mentality of the masses : Apathy (which the writer of this article seems to suggest is a reassurance for the world and China) or this raging nationalism. Coming from a cultural criticism perspective, I do find some comfort in the unapologetic honesty of nationalism (haven't read the book but i can sort of guess what its overall tone is like). As cultural critics carefully and definitely politically-correctly tread around issues of orientalism (then self-orientalism), eurocentricism, occidentalism and globalization , it seems there will be no ready solution for the ideological dilemna China is facing. Post-colonialism or post-revolution discourse is a fun read for intellectuals who love to second-guess, but somehow it seems like masturbation more than anything else. I speculate : China wittingly or unwittingly breeds all these different players to form her global stance - The peace-loving intellectuals, the apathetic masses, the pseudo-nationalists that do not practise what they preach, the true nationalists (minority) who guards her national pride violently and the pragmatic economic Chinese who is almost coolly level-headed and works towards their interests. Each player has its role to play and its all about balance.

Just a random thought.


My response:

Hello,

Well seriously anything that appears as a set of binaries is always deceiving to the mind, since usually a spectrum exists for any social issues. You are right in the presence of "different players", though I wouldn't dare say if they were truly 'bred' by China. But I think such dynamism is enjoyable, at least from an intellectual and socio-cultural perspective. In fact, with 'social activists with real agendas to propagate' added to the diversity you described, it is the make-up of Hong Kong society in my eyes. China is too large for such an issue to be within grasp by the mind, but certainly I think Zheng Yong Nian from our East Asian Institute is right in that this is time to spark debates once again. But this time, it will be different from arguments among intellectuals in early 20C or CCP-directed politically-charged "kou hao" of btw 1949 to 1978. In fact, my impression is that this is a big debate that has its beginnings in the early 1980s, which was eventually side-tracked and put off till today by the Tiananmen incident. And I would think the mode of discussion should also be different this time round.

As for cultural criticism you mentioned, I love your analogy of masturbation. Cultural criticism has been borrowing too much concepts from political science and sociology and turning them into monsters that neither fully describe the cultural dilemmas we face in the East, nor liberate researchers from their own intellectual cages. The paradox that is surfacing, in my opinion, is that on the one hand, many sociological and political issues (which are more 'tangible' as they truly involve how people live as individuals and in groups) end up being 'ideologicized' to the extent they become too metaphysical; but on the other hand that is how the creation of ideology is how you end up having cultural norms and identities - and such 'intangible' understanding of the Self is still important in knowing who we are and for informing policies. Back to Singapore, that is the dilemma I face when I try to conceptualize the "Chineseness" of Singaporeans and how we can eventually continue to enrich ethno-culturalism within the borders of national identity and economic pre-requisites. My opinion is that we need to recognize these issues for informing curriculum (esp post-primary CL) and other social movements like the existence of clans & associations, speak Mandarin campaigns, and ultimately the whole move towards forming a learning culture that truly involves parents and their children.

In addition, one note about "orientalism (then self-orientalism), eurocentricism, occidentalism and globalization" is that these theories are still relevant. We have NOT reached the stage when we can eliminate East-West differences, other than on the economic front (and perhaps even not totally homogeneous in this arena). Some may say that the problem now lies in that the rise of China is going to move the scale from orientalism to occidentalism, or that globalization is helping to bridge understanding. My own take is that there is still a long way to go, especially for literary and cultural theorists, because eventually the exchanges and flow of ideas are still on philosophy i.e. the 'thoughts' itself, but what we need is to increase the vocabulary for describing Chinese epistemology i.e. HOW the thoughts came about, aka the logic of Chinese thought. 张隆溪 has an impressive book known as 《道与逻各斯》, and the discussions about 'laws' and logos (movement between ideas or ideos) are insightful, but we need to extend this beyond Literature. Cultural critics, in particular, need to borrow from Zhang's and re-examine the whole basis of their discipline. Otherwise, the East-West strife can never be crossed because at any one time at least one party is still feeling 'disadvantaged' psychologically. My view is that the nationalism issue in China can partly be attributed to the lack of ability of Chinese intellectuals to produce academic fruit for export and to influence or speak to their Western counterparts on equal footing in, I emphasize, a Western setting. That is why those in China who can speak rationally cannot talk Reason either to the masses or to people beyond their cultural boundaries. All I ask for is an Immanuel Kant of the East, but I wonder if we can produce that in the age of post-modernism where all over the world we are to different extents subject to the Foucaultian nightmare of discourse and power in 'civilized' societies, including China that is trying to walk its own 'Chinese characteristics' path politically and ideologically.

Bear