Most Americans, only marginally less ethnocentric today than twenty years ago, have a simplistic, nuance-free view of China and the Chinese people. Although apprehensive about the rise of an economic juggernaut and its impact on the American way of life, their view of the Middle Kingdom remains locked post-Tiananmen imagery. My own twin brother - by American standards, an educated, intellectually-curious guy -- still perceives China as "dusty," "robotic," "grey" and ultra-conformist.
The Chinese, on the other hand, are fascinated by America, often perplexed by our society's inherent contradictions. The United States is free and unfair, creative and fashion-challenged (some describe blue button-down shirts and khaki pants as our "uniform"), sporty (NBA rules!) and grossly overweight, individualistic and self-deluded (they love to laugh at narcissistic, talent-free American Idol contestants). They are amazed a nation of 300 million self-starters does not come apart at the seams.
Deep Ambivalence
Actually, the Chinese are more than perplexed by America; they are deeply ambivalent. On a personal level, they admire - are even intoxicated by - U.S.-style individualism. At the same time, they regard it as "dangerous," both personally and as a national competitive advantage.
In 1999, when America bombed the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, the nation erupted with rage, but it was the fury of betrayal, disorientation and stunned rejection. No one chanted, "America is evil." Instead, there were tears of disillusionment. The United States, then widely perceived as a land of endless opportunity and noble ideals, was exposed as "just another country" in which the "powerful protect their interests at all cost." I had been in the PRC for a year, always greeted with openness, curiosity and warm facial expressions. When the news of my country's misdeed swept the airwaves, the lights went out. No one's eyes met mine. They wondered whether I, too, was a fraud, a commercial hack intent on profiting from the Mainland at the expense of the Mainland. After a week, however, tempers cooled but a scar of regretful suspicion has since marred the cultural landscape.
Deep Affection
Evidence of deep affection - and inspiration by - the American way of life is everywhere. Illegal DVDs of American movies and television shows sell like hotcakes. Archetypal TV fare -- "Friends, "Prison Break," "Sex in the City," "Desperate Housewives" and, more recently, "The Big Bang Theory" -- celebrate a quintessentially American fusion of community and individual idiosyncrasy. They are beloved, downloaded as soon as new episodes air in the States. The election President Obama, a black man with no dynastic credentials, is regarded with awe, a tribute to genuine egalitarianism. Apple-mania is sweeping the nation, at least in first-tier cities. Every Mainland conglomerate wants to become "GE of China." Furthermore, our "capitalistic heroes," from Bill Gates to Warren Buffet, are role models of the highest order, respected for personal vision and achieving master-of-the-universe status. Amongst denizens of rural China, less worldly than their cousins in glittering coastal capitals, America is not only esteemed for its "freedom"; it is also described transcendentally as "a land of dreams" and "golden horizon."
American Individualism and Me. China's admiration of the American can-do spirit springs, ironically, from its Confucian heritage. Their value system is a quixotic combination of regimentation and ambition. Regarding the former, the individual is not considered the basic building block of productivity. This has always been, and continues to be, the clan. Human "rights" are either a theoretical abstraction or, even in good times, luxuries to be sacrificed on the Altar of Pragmatism. But Confucianism has always espoused social mobility. By mastering convention, Chinese have been able to, at least hypothetically, climb the hierarchy, the shape and structure of which is socially mandated. (Today, the acquisition of wealth defines the ultimate definition of success, not as a "right" but, rather, the most valuable contribution to China's rise as an economic superpower.)
Yes, in China, Confucian egos are huge so American-style self-expression is all the rage. Brands that celebrate "me" - from Nike's "Just Do It" spirit to Apple's "Think Different" rallying cry - are embraced, particularly by the young urban elite. American universities, manufacturers of Golden Tickets of success, have lost none of their appeal. T-shirts sporting the latest hip hop slang are all the rage and pop cultural divas who bow to no one -- Lady Gaga, Beyonce, Madonna and, in perpetuity, Michael Jackson - are revered are modern-day Gods of Self-Actualization. Sporting figures such as brash Kobe Bryant and even turncoat LeBron James are idolized infinitely more than their Chinese brethren. Yao Ming, for example, once revered for his on-court exploits is now referred to as "Boss Yao," a respectful but emotionally disengaged acknowledgment that the star-cum-businessman been folded back into the system.
Tempting but Forbidden. On the other hand, American icons, while adored, are rarely emulated. Rebellion - i.e., challenging the system -- is a red line few dare cross. Tattoos are always discreetly placed on the ankle or shoulder. Dye jobs are never over the top, with colors ranging from red to blond and sometimes Japan-cool grey. Women flaunting sexuality, in dress or attitude, are never taken home to mom and dad. Even the most opinionated employees rarely muster enough courage to overtly challenge the boss. American individualism is, in short, forbidden fruit, dangerously tempting. Taking a bite is tantamount to a one-way ticket to the Land of Outcasts.
The Chinese remain intoxicated by the allure of genuine American self-expression but frustrated by its ultimate impossibility. As a result, attitudes towards our nation, and its character, are mixed, sometimes dreamy-eyed and sometimes derisive. Many snicker at our naïveté; others scoff at our braggadocio. George W. Bush was often compared to a chimpanzee.
National Insecurity, National Suspicion
Chinese ambivalence towards the United States will only grow as the former assumes its rightful place as a modern superpower, Herculean in ambition but still brittle, politically and economically. As China confronts the challenges of sustainable growth, more people in the Middle Kingdom grasp the link - intellectually, at least -- between American freedoms and its innovative spirit, between the right to challenge convention and high industrial productivity. Specifically, American freedom is underpinned by impartial institutions that protect individual interests. From an independent judiciary and wide availability of credit to self-correcting representative elections and a robust constitution framework structured around checks and balances, the United States is a society balanced by rule of law. We are crazy kids bouncing around rubber rooms with padded walls. The Chinese tip-toe through a crystal palace, always in danger of shattering. They nervously abide by an intricate code of mutual obligations that keeps society from unraveling.
Chinese Cycles vs. American Reinvention. Instinctively and intellectually, China knows limits on self-expression manifest themselves at the national level. It knows double digit growth will not be sustainable if some sort of political reform - institutional responsiveness to society's fault lines - is not implemented within the next ten years. It knows its stock exchanges are closer to Macanese gambling parlors than temples of efficient capital allocation. It knows its courts are subordinate to the Party's, not the People's, interests. It knows the roadmap needs to be redrawn. Institutions require modernization.
But how? No leader has articulated a clear path forward, and this is scary. America, and the political and economic systems that underpin it, is a mirage, not a destination. Vast cultural chasms exist between the United States and China. The American "model," rooted in civil liberties, born of Greek rationalism and monotheistic self-determination, provides no blueprint for the future.
Yet the subject of political reform is largely taboo, except in the pages of rarefied intellectual journals. Fortunately, the China people have faith in the wisdom of their central government leaders, confidence in their ability to "cross the river by feeling the stones," belief that that empowered leaders will - somehow, someway - outline a series of incremental reforms that transform the PRC into a modern state. Unfortunately, however, faith is beginning to wear thin; uncertainty expresses itself as anxiety on the most personal level. Real estate prices are sky-rocketing, more than twenty times per capita income. The supply of well-paying entry-level jobs remains vastly smaller than the number of new college graduates. China's Balkanized industrial chain is unable to ensure the safety of dairy and toy products. And provincial level corruption of officialdom is now endemic, self-evident. In short, life is increasingly stressful. More and more wonder how they will make ends meet for their families. The Chinese are optimistic in the adaptive strength of the people and nation. But their optimism is not absolute.
In this context, American resilience is a source of fear. True, our recent economic setbacks and political immobilization has released a tidal wave of Schadenfreude. However, in their hearts, they believe our system, built to last, is superior to theirs. As one client, an employee of a large state-owned enterprise, said to me, "America was born to be reborn. We exist in a cycle, one destined to repeat itself every few hundred years. "
America the Hegemon? The United State's capacity for reinvention is threatening, all the more so because, in Han eyes, the powerful - lao da -- are bent on maintaining their advantage at the expense of the weak. And the people, while celebrating their nation's rise to the world's second largest economy, are clear-eyed about challenges. "China has a large population, a weak economic foundation, relatively few resources and a large poverty population, which remains our basic situation," Ma Jiantang, head of China's statistics bureau, said in January. "Therefore, while we take note of our expanding size of economy and enhancing economic strength, we should also have a sober understanding that China remains a developing nation."
Given an acute aware of their system's limitations, the Chinese are hypersensitive to any perceived assault on China's sovereignty. Nationalistic prickliness abounds. When economic mandarins allowed the renminbi to rise against the dollar, cyberspace released a chorus of disgust. When a Chinese pilot was accidentally killed during the 2001 Hainan spy plane incident, most saw an American hegemonic plot to contain China. When the world protested the government's heavy-handed suppression of minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang, the nation was unified in protest, piqued by outside interference in "internal" affairs. U.S. perennial weapons sales to Taiwan distresses ordinary Chinese at the deepest level; they represent a direct assault on national cohesion, the ultimate safeguard against chaos, the Maginot line protecting the Middle Kingdom from disintegration.
Frustrated Ambition, Nationalistic Repression. More subtly, attacks on national potential also threaten confidence in "my own greatness." Chinese ego repression ensures that individual identities are linked to national pride, exacerbating the impact of American condescension, real or imagined. All strands of Chinese culture - Confucianism, Legalism, and Daoism - deemphasizes the individual. Yet both Confucianism and Deng Xiao Ping's "to get rich is glorious" mandate put a premium on (state-endorsed) achievement. The vast majority of Chinese, particularly younger and wealthier ones, are caught between two mutually-exclusive goals: standing out and fitting in. Chinese ambition is restrained by convention. Individual identities are smothered, burdened by layers of suppressed expression. Brand China - i.e., nationalism -- is seized en masse as the ultimate identity surrogate. The success of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and increasing deference paid to China in the diplomatic arena, assuages, but does not eliminate, trenchant vulnerability.
Twenty-First Century Harmony?
Is all lost? Will China's love-hate relationship with America result in perpetual conflict, an engrained win-lose approach to 21st century affairs? I don't think so.
First, the Chinese, despite their insecurities, are eminently pragmatic. They realize our economies are inextricably intertwined. They know they are dependent on the American market and will remain so even after the remninbi's inevitable appreciation. Furthermore, China, fiercely self-protective, paradoxically relies on Uncle Sam's military might to maintain order in today's multi-polar world.
Second, the vast majority of Americans are not "anti-China." In our hearts, there remains a reservoir of admiration for the scale of Chinese ambition, not to mention respect for citizens' individual drive. Our fascination with all things Han, emerging only now, is reflected by 100,000 young Americans who will study on the Mainland over the next few years.
China, a country that has been both intoxicated and repelled by America for over one hundred years, knows we have no choice but to build win-win platforms. For the sake of its children, and assuming implementation of a crash-resistant growth "paradigm," China will continue to nervously embrace the United States as parallel universe of double-edged desire.
I urge that it is not. To most Americans, China represented 20 years of good -- good prices on reasonably good quality goods that kept inflation at close to zero, good source of cheap funds that kept America interest rates at historic lows, good market for American exports that grew at substantial double digit rates (have you looked at the "growth" of American exports to places like Korea, Japan, or Europe?). As a result, America enjoyed almost 20 years of unprecedented prosperity - asset prices were going steadily higher, unemployment was never a real problem, everyone had money to spend and most Americans were genuinely getting richer, and life was GOOD - largely thanks to the largesse of the Chinese folks. And that was for 20 years!
If America truly block the affordable Chinese goods, first inflation would go through the roof and all Americans, especially the poorer half of the nation, would be so much poorer with a lower standard of living. 75% of American retail would go belly up but for the affordable China made goods driving consumption.
BTW, today exports to America is only about 25% of all Chinese exports. It would hurt, but it would hardly cause a falling apart.
Put that in perspective. The average Chinese does not really know how many are executed each year in China. They do hear high estimates of 5,000 a year from the likes of HRW. But they know that each and every one of those executed went through due process, and had exhausted their appeals before they were shot - in other words they were guilty of capital crimes and deserved to die. Most Chinese accept the fact that capital punishment is effective deterrence.
But the average Chinese also know, yet could not understand, why a rich and resourceful country like America would allow 25,000 of their own, MOST OF WHICH were never tried and presumably innocent, be executed each and every year.
There indeed is a difference in the systems.
http://www.reverbnation.com/notofthisearth
Let's see how Chinese citizens behave two generations from now.
But I think "Dangerous love " is too big word though serves as good eye catcher. And I dont think Chinese hate US. We are competitors, not lover or hater.
Irresponsibility is not freedom.
It is the difference in outlook that will determine the trajectory of the nations. Hardly ANY Chinese that I have talked to is truly impressed with the "American System."
It has long been harped that Americans are more innovative. Is that really true, or is that hype? Nearly half of the great entreprenurial companies are created by first generation immigrants (Intel, Google, Yahoo, etc.).
Yes, many Chinese still seek to come to the U.S. gladly, but overall mostly because it is much easier to compete in the U.S., given the competition.
There are LOTS that China can learn from America. Some of them positive (those you try to emulate) and some negative (obviously those you avoid). China has close to more than 100 million blogs online by last count, and daily tens of millions of posts are directed to how to improve the nation and its people's lives. And then the Chinese read the WSJ, CNN, FOX, and even many of the comments on this site and the NYT, and it is like "IS THAT HOW THE YANKS TRULY THINK OF US??!!"
Perhaps my posts are just a reminder that perhaps courtesy and reasonableness and understanding should go BOTH WAYS.
In practice, the fewer the number of viable parties, the stronger the economy. America is already in the best position, having only 2 (many say only 1 as the two are the same) viable parties. Yet there is simply no match where responsiveness to people's needs are concerned. Look at how the two nations responded to natural disasters and the differences are stark.
In China, if there were the equivalent of the American Banksters, you can bet your tushes that most of the fraudsters will get it between their eyes, instead of $14 Trillion in money that the people do not have, and another year of record bonuses.
The clear superiority of the system will become even more evident as the new century progresses.
A totalitarian government, by its basic structure, is not "adaptable and responsive to the needs of the people." China's government has made its SOEs, local governments, and relatively small affluent class extremely rich. The rest of its policies, ranging from its stifling of uprisings in East Turkestan, Tibet, and Hong Kong, to its long-term degradation of the environment, can hardly be deemed to be in the common good. Most observers do not understand that, for example, the environmental issue in particular will diminish life expectancy and productivity.
Your vast generalization that fewer parties make for a stronger economy, and that China's CCP has been more responsive to its populace than any other party, is vacuous. Countries such as Germany, the UK, and the US grew into economic powerhouses despite political turnovers and parliamentarian quagmires. In the long run, policy disputes are transient; geopolitics are forever. No one policy made the US into a hegemon. Rather its location, its demographics, and the robust, durable structure of its civic institutions/government did. This is exactly what regimes like China do not have.
You seem unaware that you are recycling an argument from the 1950s. The Warsaw Pact countries were once seen as more "efficient" than their NATO counterparts, able to "amplify what works, and discard what does not" without having to worry about popular opinion. No one paused to realize that such regimes can just as easily do wrong as right.
One person's "stifling" is a whole country's (1.3 Billion) stability.
". . . deminish life expectancy and productivity"?? What are the facts? America, with its medical technology "30 years more advanced than that in China" - has a life expectancy equal to that of CUBA, a nation the hegemon long kept under its thumb.
Have you compared the productivity gains of China vs. America lately?
The biggest mistake you have made so far is that SWCC ignores popular opinion. Smart RESPONSIVE means going with what the people want, and yet as guided by generations of capable and dedicated leaders. In that regard China remains the MOST RESPONSIVE in the world today.
Compare the pervasiveness and the dollar amount of corruption in America and in China, and you'd be surprised (though I am not) - it is the biggest reason that America has 2% growth vs. the 10% of China. Banksters' fraud caused the loss of 8 million American jobs. Yet you do not even see a SINGLE such fraudsters criminally prosecuted. Instead they are given more trillions to soothe their nerves, and thus can pay themselves RECORD BONUSES two years in a row, even as the average American suffer deep pain. Gains are private, losses are socialized - the true stripes of a kleptocracy.
It is indeed the system that makes the difference.
That alone is an enviable element of your system. Except one point: members of your country's political elite or their children are "investors" in important Chinese businesses. How many of those elites also were awarded between their eyes? Oh, you think it's just the lowly manager or "CEO" who unilaterally decides to "cut corners"? No-no-no, Americans have learned major investors have a big say in how a business does business.
Sometimes it's very indirect: Warren Buffett has invest millions in a Chinese battery company. Is it because they have a great product? No, it's because they don't hire workers with homes and families. They house their workers in dormitories and feed them in messhalls. Here in the US, such facilities are known as "slave quarters."
Yet each country has its own set of laws on what is legal and what is not. What the banksters did was truly criminal in more than one sense of the word. What the Beltway pols did for the banksters after the 8 million job loss is even worse.
Economic predictions and forecasts often fail to consider social or political factors. The USSR could easily have overtaken the US due to a larger population and unparalleled resources, but it never increased efficiency, per capita income, life expectancy, or rule of law to levels that could sustain a massive economy. Likewise, Japan's demographic decline and the vagaries of its banking system kept it from assuming what seemed to be a preordained spot as the world's economic hegemon.
It is true that China has been an economic heavyweight in the past. For many centuries, its output was roughly equivalent to that of India, and between them, they accounted for about half of global GDP. But the enormous shift from subsistence agriculture to industrial production, the wholesale renaissance of Europe, and the rise of continental-sized nations like Russia/USSR and the US have...changed the equation irrevocably. While China may continue to grow, the world simply will never again conform to the pre-industrial paradigm. This is a good thing, for the welfare of individual citizens and for the distribution of global wealth.
If you look In history, United India doesn't exist and it took the British to unite it. Therefore, your words that for many centuries the output of a united China is roughly equivalent to that of a dispersed India is naturally very false.
You are flat-out wrong about united India. The Gupta Empire, the Mughal Empire, and the Maurya Empire were just a few of the regimes that brought much of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh together. The British consolidation is in fact a near-duplicate of the Maurya's farthest extent. By contrast, "China" existed for centuries in a much smaller form than the current PRC. Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, and Manchuria came in and out of Chinese control. Without the fear of forceful control, Tibet, East Turkestan, and Hong Kong would actually secede from present-day China. I won't even get into Taiwan. The idea of "China" is much more fluid than the idea of "India."
I have seen too much ignorant comments about China and her people here,Chinese know much more about U.S. than you think,but sadly most American apparently know little about China .
I appreciate this article.