Ian Buruma has a nice short essay in the weekend Wall Street Journal exploring China’s long history of thought control and its enforcement of cultural orthodoxy. Buruma reminds us that China’s neurotic stance on the free flow of information – recently in the news thanks to Google’s decision to defy Chinese censors – is hardly a product of the country’s Communist legacy but rather pre-dates Marxism, which is itself a Western import. After all, there is a reason mandarin has made it into the English language as a word denoting a bureaucrat who is powerful, secretive, and reactionary.
Buruma’s essay is a short summary of stuff most folks already know, but it always bears repeating, and the broader historical context helps our understanding of China. One concept of note that Buruma explores is a comparison of 16th century Jesuit priests who “went native” when seeking to convert Chinese to Christianity versus today’s multinational corporate interests that seek to function as “Chinese companies” when doing business in China. Buruma writes:
“A very similar debate is going on today between those who believe that applying Western notions of human rights and democracy to China is counterproductive. Many a politician, businessman, or media tycoon has argued that adapting to special Chinese conditions is surely more effective if one wishes to have any influence in China. The fact that this argument is usually self-serving does not make it necessarily wrong, but so far it has certainly not been proven right. Chinese human rights have not been noticeably advanced because of foreign compromises with Chinese illiberalism.”
I came to a very similar conclusion in a recent post.
No comments:
Post a Comment