George Carlin's China Tour

Recent Chronicle articles have noted that the Chinese government continues to advance a campaign designed to discourage dissent on campus.  In 2013 it was reported that the CCP issued a directive banning seven topics from discussion in Chinese classrooms.

Seven Taboo Topics: Free press, mistakes of the CCP, judicial independence, universal values, economic neoliberalism, wealth accumulated by Chinese leaders, civil society.

This year the Chinese Ministry of Education criticized the use of non-Chinese textbooks that promote ‘Western values,’ in Chinese classrooms.  Most recently, a draft version of a potential new law appears to promise ‘death by paperwork’ to any non-Chinese university or scholar interested in collaborating with Chinese counterparts.

In the Chronicle the usual comments play out in the expected way:  some note that we have never been able to trust the Chinese, some compare these events in China to efforts to squelch faculty voices on US campuses or to purge US textbooks of references to evolution or political correctness on campus, with the expected responses. 

Here is the first comment, for instance, that I saw to the Chronicle article about the new draft law, referring to recent efforts in the House to discourage free speech by altering NSF funding standards:

“I hope the House Science Committee or Senator Coburn doesn't see this article.  It might give them new ideas to restrict not only research, but teaching, in certain areas they don't like.”

As a life-long China watcher I have seen this back and forth many times before.  It is all too predictable in both its passion and its misdirection.  Jeffrey Lehman, an administrator at the NYU Shanghai campus, made a comment that struck me as rising above the din and making good sense. 

"In my own experience, there is an ongoing push-pull in China between those authorities who worry that speech will be destabilizing and those who worry that speech restrictions will be destabilizing," Mr. Lehman said in an e-mail to The Chronicle. "The fruit of that push-pull tends to be a tapestry of standards applying in different contexts." 

Describing Chinese politics as a push-pull in this way does not erase the fact that many are genuinely concerned that recent government moves foreshadow a return to a time, not that long ago, when there were zero zones of freedom for individuals in China.  It is a more sober and realistic view of Chinese elites struggling with each other.

We routinely describe American politics as a dynamic horse-race, a game of thrones, a house of cards, an interest group struggle.  Doing so does not prevent us from seeing power and privilege at work; it reveals both.  

It is when we are intellectually sloppy and use phrases like ‘the media’ or ‘the government’ as if our information or political systems were monolithic that we erase our capacity to see and analyze power.  We should avoid making that mistake when we analyze Chinese politics as well.

As the article today noted, ‘China is not a monolith.’  This is an important insight.  It is easier to see its importance when we use a comparative lens, as suggested here.

It is also interesting to note that the Chinese regime chose, in this case, to float a trial balloon.  It appears that the CCP issued a directive in meetings that has not been formally published in order to see how it plays out. 

This allows them to selectively ‘enforce’ the ‘rule’ to avoid damaging relationships or institutions they value, while also sending a chill through both the party and university communities that is likely to result in pre-emptive self-censorship.

Is this clumsy or savvy? Perhaps both.  Is this in any way like the common pattern at home of elites ‘leaking’ information to both gauge reaction and signal potential future directions for regulatory or policy making decisions in the hope that the signal might impact behavior?  Just a thought. 

It is easy for us to immediately see how different China is from the US and Chinese politics from American politics.  Seeing these differences is instructive.  Seeing the ways we might also be similar or the same is equally instructive.  And, of course, a topic with much room for productive disagreement and debate.

One final note: when we translate from one culture and language to another, it is not unusual for what might appear hidden or subtle in one language to sound clumsy and humorous in another. 

In this case, when the Chinese Minister of Education warned about ‘Western values’ and increased controls of the internet, s/he added this: “Never allow teachers to grumble and vent in the classroom, passing on their unhealthy emotions to students.”  Funny.  Revealing.