FROM TODAY'S 2 June 2014
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST:
The case for eliminating Confucius from China's
Confucius Institutes
Kerry Brown
makes the case that China should find a new cultural figure to represent it
PUBLISHED :
Monday, 02 June, 2014, 3:25am
UPDATED :
Monday, 02 June, 2014, 3:25am
Kerry
Brown
For all the controversy surrounding the opening of
hundreds of Confucius Institutes across the world in the last decade, one
crucial factor has been overlooked: Confucius himself.
The institutes, funded partially by the Chinese
government through its Hanban organisation, have been accused of operating as
propaganda outfits. They have been criticised for being part of a sinister
global campaign by a cash-rich Communist Party to brainwash outsiders and win
the Chinese government illicit influence abroad.
But there is a less dramatic interpretation: the
proliferation shows Beijing understands the theory of soft power projection but
not its implementation and real practice.
The issue here is simple. If you wanted, as a
modern Chinese, to promote a deeper understanding and a more favourable
attitude towards your country and its culture, why choose a figure as
unattractive, remote and contentious as Confucius to represent you? Confucius
is well known, for one thing. But then, Goethe is hardly a household word in America
or the UK and yet the Germans have named their cultural outfits abroad after
him. And the British Council and Alliance Francaise carry names of no one at
all, while doing work which has been compared to that of the Confucius
Institute.
The very Communist Party now lionising Confucius
attacked and vilified him just four decades ago. Surely it would have been
better to use someone with a less difficult recent history to represent the
culture abroad.
On top of this, there is the question of the values
with which Confucius is associated: patriarchal, hierarchical, and
conservative. Why celebrate in 21st century China a figure who is linked to
these old ideas when you are also promoting your country as innovative,
outward-looking and modern?
Add to this the remoteness and elusiveness of
Confucius as a historic figure, and the problem is only compounded. In the
Analects, he comes across as stuffy and elliptical. His near contemporary
Mencius is at least clearer, if less well known. He communicates in paragraphs
rather than staccato ambiguous sentences. And as even the best scholar of
Confucius would admit, we know almost nothing about him as an individual. Why
hang a soft power campaign on a figure so historically vague?
Finally, there is the biggest issue of all. Chinese
history teems through its long and diverse course with wonderful, vivid,
inspiring figures. Many of these deserve to be better understood and known than
Confucius. Some were political figures, such as the sole female empress Wu
Zetian from the 7th century, or the great Qing figures of 300 years ago from
emperors Kangxi to Qianlong.
American scholar Patricia Ebrey has just written a
good biography of Song emperor Huizong from 1100 showing that he was a painter,
calligrapher and poet whose work still holds up today. And unlike with
Confucius, we can study works that came directly from Huizong's hands. There
was, of course, the slight matter of him being a disastrous political leader -
but for a cultural institution, should that disqualify him?
Outside the realm of politics, there are the great
Tang poets Du Fu and Li Bai. Their works speak of common human emotions and
aspirations in a way that Confucius never does. Or artists like the wonderful
Han Gan, whose portraits of horses are still so moving after more than 1,000
years.
Scientists such as Bi Sheng might be worth
considering to help illustrate the notion of a China now working on its
innovation. A figure like this would also reinforce the message that China was
a science leader long before the transformative thinkers of Europe appeared on
the scene. With such an array of inspiring figures, why on earth would China
choose a philosopher from two-and-a-half millennia ago?
I have a modest proposal to make to the Chinese
government: it should seriously consider renaming the new institutions, and
there is one truly great figure about whom everyone can agree: Sima Qian, the
father of Chinese history, who lived in 100BC, produced a body of work which is
accessible but also very modern in its concentration on the psychology of its
many subjects.
There is a link, too, with Confucius, because Qian
is the sole decent source for the biography of the philosopher - even if his
portrait of Confucius is a little unflattering.
And unlike Confucius, Qian is someone we can truly
know. The tragic story of his castration after he criticised the emperor,
combined with the fact he still continued his great work, sends a great message
for victory in the face of disaster.
As a human, a historian of genius and a cultural figure,
Qian is truly great, and someone who should be celebrated across the world
today. And Sima Qian Institutions, in view of the courage of the person they
are named after, would be much harder targets for those looking to criticise
them.
Kerry Brown is executive director of the China
Studies Centre and professor of Chinese politics at the University of Sydney
THE CASE AGAINST ANYONE REPRESENTING CHINA.
Is there a CHINA?
Has there ever been a "CHINA" in more
than name and geography?
The Han population of China is
"approximately" 92%. A figure that almost dictates the answer to
"is there one China".
Two problems:
a) The word "approximate" which is
mandatory when considering all statistics in and about China unless you have
full faith in the source.
b) The reality of the answer to the question of
"how many Provinces are there in China?"
Answer:
23 Provinces, but 34 in total.
4 Municipalities, 5 Autonomous regions (Provinces
with large [usually majority like Tibet] minority populations, 2 Special Administrative
Regions (Hong Kong and Macau).
The Central Government of China would be quick to
add a 24th "entity": Taiwan.
Think of the "is there a China" question
in the context of these divisions.
One suggested uniting factor is Mandarin, the
language taught in all Chinese schools. This permits a universal language.
Chinese in all parts of the country can speak with each other.
But does that make a nation?
More than India certainly where there is no common
language and where 447 languages separate Indians. (14 additional former
languages are now extinct.)
But beneath the Mandarin umbrella in China there
are many Chinas:
Traditional Chinese
classification lists seven groups, comprising:
|
|
(Jiangxinese)
|
|
|
(Mandarin or Beifanghua)
|
|
|
(Hakka)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Hunanese)
|
|
|
|
OK, 7 groups, but then take just one small part of
China, called Gan (in green). There are 9 dialects:
|
|
洞口话
|
洞口話
|
|
|
怀宁话
|
懷寧話
|
|
|
抚州话
|
撫州話
|
|
|
吉安话
|
吉安話
|
|
|
耒阳话
|
耒陽話
|
|
|
南昌话
|
南昌話
|
|
|
咸宁话
|
鹹寧話
|
|
|
宜春话
|
宜春話
|
|
|
鹰潭话
|
鷹潭話
|
Depending on who is counting (we're back to
"approximate") there are 200 dialects in China. These are not dying dialects;
they are active, alive and well.
My decade of teaching in China began with the first
of a series of festivals when I was introduced to the way many freshmen in
college congregate and get to know each other: By Province.
During the annual Lantern Festival when candles are
strung under balloons and sent aloft and candles inside paper containers are
floated on water, I wandered among the groups of students gathered in their
Provincial circles large and small.
Their common language was their Provincial dialect
not the Mandarin they all knew.
Their food preferences were their Provincial
cuisine.
Their mantra was: "My province has the most
beautiful women in China" (said with a smile.)
The men may have been the handsomest but that was
an afterthought.
These were not competitive circles. The most
beautiful or handsomest or finest food were not aggressive assertions, they
were rather the definitions of who they were and where they came from. But
beneath that surface there were the cultural differences.
I had Haka students in my classes. They are a niche
minority with a strong culture. An educated eye can spot someone who is Haka, a
trained ear hears Haka when it is spoken distinct from other Provincial
dialects that may be modifications of Mandarin.
In the area where I lived (Shantou about 300
kilometers up the South China Coast from Hong Kong) Chauzhou is the local
language. It is an ancient Chinese language that has legitimate claim to being
a "foreign" language.
The first time I went downtown with a group of
Mandarin speaking students, we went into a local shop where the shopkeepers and
their customers were speaking Chauzhou. My students who were my living
dictionaries prepared to translate for me. They looked at me with somewhat
pained expressions: "We have no idea what they are saying". So
Chauzhou is more than a dialect. Linguists have categories to separate these
arcane differences. What it means on the ground is that Chauzhou people have a
private language that permits them to escape the earshot of other Chinese and
maintain their differences.
It also explains the strength of the local culture
that has often been at odds with the parade of authorities from ancient China
to modern China.
It also explains why you will find Chauzhou people
all over the world. They live by the sea, they live from the sea, their pirates
benefitted from the sea, and the world has been their oyster for centuries, nay
millennia.
The Chauzhou are Chinese. But while the challenge
was never put to Chauzhou in recent times I often wondered which of their
"nationalities" would take precedence if they had to choose been
China and Chauzhou.
In the China of 2014 much is made of the universal
problem of the wealth gap between rich and poor, the growth of the Middle Class
in China, and the impact of the new Chinese dollar billionaire class.
Less is written and spoken of the rural-urban
differences in China. This is where culture comes in.
I asked my Chinese girlfriend once whether I would
ever meet her father and mother. She comes from a lower middle class small town
family. Her father is a migrant worker. Her brother being the male child was
the first to get a University education. He became a schoolteacher, married and
has the classic one-child (male) family.
My girlfriend went through mandatory Middle School
education and was then on her own. No money for high school and beyond,
neglecting the fact that she is her brother's equal, if not superior, in
intellectual potential.
"Will I ever meet your father”?
"If you ever met my father he would kill
me."
That is traditional China speaking.
(Disclosure: We are decades apart in age and
that barrier alone would have challenged many cultures.)
Outside China you may say the same general spirit
can apply. A traditional Jewish family is not overjoyed when a child marries
into a Roman Catholic family, much less a Muslim family. Mormons take on risk
marrying outside their faith and on and on.
But the "kill" part of my girlfriend's
reaction was not entirely in jest. Foreigners; i.e. non-Chinese, are not on in
most traditional Chinese families. Sure it is changing among some of the Middle
Class and the rich.
One of my students married a U.S. Marine Corps
pilot she met in grad school, "coup de foudre" (love at first sight
as the French say). Their US civil wedding preceded a traditional Chinese
wedding with both families sharing the joy.
Yes there are changes, but they are still the
exceptions, far behind the cross-cultural unions of North America and the
European Union, where traditional national walls have crumbled to create the
opportunity for individuals to transcend their restrictive cultures.
That restive culture is still a part of the many
Chinas. And it is not limited to the rural-urban split. I wrote previously of
the male dominated culture of the Chinese Communist Party. The reverence for
the male child in China transcends other considerations and still dominates the
hopes of Chinese couples.
Surveys consistently show the same bias in many
other countries too. But there is a growing body of childbearing age in the
developed world that answer: "we I/we don't care", or "I'd
prefer a daughter/daughters". (Disclosure: I did prefer girls and would
again).
None of this begins to address the differences
among the "other" Chinese, the minorities.
Back to "approximately".
Officially there are 55 different minorities in
China. Their Chinese schooling may be in Mandarin, but their "native"
language is much more than a dialect. Their cultures are decidedly different
from "Chinese" culture (and Confucius has no role in most of their
cultures, but then neither do any of China's ancient royalty.)
Significant minorities?
8.5% of the Chinese population or about 280-million
people, (more than 80% of the population of the USA).
(The title and thesis of the book that is needed =
SIZE MATTERS in China.)
The question of "Who should represent
China" in Ms Brown's op ed in the South China Morning Post applies, as
does my retort: "Should anyone represent China"?
Look at the question another way, and Ms Brown
implies as much but still believes there is a better representation than
Confucius.
Today's China may be an accumulation of its 3-5000
years of history. How many countries and cultures can trace their origins that
far back and show the significance that China represents today? Yes the Greeks,
the Egyptians, the Persians and some of the tribes of Latin America have long
histories, but the links today are more in museums than in daily life.
And China today too can be seen in the same light.
Today's young Chinese have little if anything in common with their ancestors.
The country has grown so rapidly in the last 50 years, a growth that continues
to accelerate, that there are more than generational gaps between
grandparents-parents and children.
The family in China remains what it has always been
Tradition. Family is the core of Chinese culture. The world's largest annual
migration of Chinese going home to celebrate the Chinese New Year with family
is the physical manifestation of ancient tradition.
But once home the differences are evident. The love
of family is a given, as if it were a law, but the underlying gaps have moved
beyond the generational gaps that are worldwide. Grandparents and parents who
experienced the Cultural Revolution and periods of famine that cost the lives
of 40-million - "approximate" - Chinese. Grandparents and parents
whose marriages were often selected by their families or the Maoist era of the
The Party. Grandparents and parents who had no restrictions on the size of
their families, but whose life expectancy may have been as little as 35-40
years. They are survivors of a time that anyone who has not lived it cannot
understand beyond the facts in a book. Grandparents and parents whose education
was limited, sometimes non-existent, whose illiteracy rates were 80% plus.
China's population today has universal education
through Middle School and literacy stands at 95%. That is not an approximation.
It is one of the few statistics that does not seem to be questioned.
(The equivalent US figure is debatable at best. At
least 23% of the US population is not functionally literate. Absolute
illiteracy adds another 15%. But if "approximate" characterizes
Chinese statistics, "debatable" characterizes these US literacy
statistics.)
Turn the page to the "new" Chinese,
anyone born after 1979 when the current economic miracle was born. The new
Chinese have known what every economist would have said was impossible: 35
years of economic growth between 7.5-10+%. Every year better than the year
before. Enough food for China to become an exporter of food. 200-400 million
people (there goes another "approximate" - a big one) people lifted
out of poverty. The number may be approximate, but the fact is indisputable:
the largest economic migration out of poverty in human history.
And yet these generations of Chinese are still
clustered in the family as they always were. It is not even the analog to the
digital generation analogy that works outside China in developed countries. It
is the story of the disconnected and the totally connected. The no phone to the
smartphone generation gap. Insular isolated China to globalized China. Below
the Party political male dominated culture lays the increasingly female
educated culture (where have the men gone despite the fact that there are still
more men than women in China?) More professional and career women (as is true
in other countries as well.) These are educational, and cultural realities that
60-80year olds who come from experiences that are akin to coming from another
planet can navigate with difficulty or not at all.
There is a new China almost every day, an
innovative and growing China that strains the young generation to keep up, and
keep abreast of wave after wave of change. The older Chinese were left behind
some time ago and continue to recede.
Remember the question?
Who should represent China?
No one is the answer I suggest.
The old IBM motto might be worth considering Think Ahead.
Confucius would be bewildered at best in today's
China. As Ms Brown points out, much of what we wrote, obtuse as it was, is
outdated; and worse: irrelevant. His view of women is abhorrent.
And why is a symbol or representative
necessary?
My argument comes full circle.
Given the many Chinas I describe, which one is
"the China" that will be represented?
Who will represent the individual Chinese when there is not a collective
Chinese?
