Blogs and Stories
Why Many Chinese Don't Want Freedom
Wen Yin / AP Photo
Westerners wrongly assumed Chinese people were up in arms that Jackie Chan said they "need to be controlled." Richard Bernstein on why the "huge uproar" is a myth.
You might think, judging from the press reports, that the Chinese people have spent the past few days rising up en masse against the Hong Kong movie star Jackie Chan, who said in a speech on China’s Hainan Island last Saturday that he doubted freedom was the proper condition for China. To be exact, Chan said he wasn’t sure if freedom was a good thing for the Chinese people. After all, too much freedom had created “chaotic conditions” on Hong Kong and Taiwan, and that fact, the martial-arts comedian who has made more than 100 movies said, has him “beginning to feel that we Chinese people need to be controlled.”
Chan’s remarks reignited what is actually an old and fundamental question about whether Western-style freedoms are culturally specific to the West, or are universal values appropriate for everybody.
For someone as famous as Chan is (his Facebook fan page alone has almost 1.4 million members), such a sweeping and charged remark was bound to attract a lot of attention, even if it wasn’t exactly the “huge uproar” that Western wire-service reports claimed it to have generated. There were calls on Taiwan for a boycott of Chan’s movies, petitions signed by Chinese intellectuals complaining that he fails to appreciate how precious a gift freedom is, even a new Facebook group calling on Chan to be sent to North Korea, where he would experience plenty of control.
But what exactly the deeper feelings of the Chinese people were to the argument that they are too immature to have freedom is hard to say, not least because control of the press in China makes it difficult to gauge public opinion with any precision. Certainly, as the massive demonstrations of 1989 showed, there are plenty of Chinese who yearn, or who yearned 20 years ago, for greater freedom, less propaganda, more democratic participation. But the fact is there was no “huge uproar” about Chan in China itself. A lot of the online commentary—and there are plenty of bloggers in China who do issue coded criticism of the regime and get away with it—was more in support of Chan than against him. Or, as one Chinese student studying for a master's degree in New York told me in the wake of the Chan episode, “Actually, most Chinese people think they already have enough freedom.”
It’s not hard to find people who complain rather vociferously, if in private, about China’s pervasive interference in intellectual and cultural life, the control of the press, the abuse of power by the police. But China is also a society where the government’s warning that a Western-style democracy would produce “social disorder” has a good deal of credibility. China is a country of roaming bands of unemployed, of poor country people with complaints about land seizures, and of workers angry about unpaid wages. And it’s not only party leaders who worry that, without a strong hand, things could quickly get out of control—as they did, in the clear majoritarian view, in Tibet last year when there were riots in the streets and attacks on ethnic Han Chinese. Public opinion in China was clearly of the view that the unrest was due to the failure of Tibetans to appreciate all the wonderful things Chinese rule has brought to them, not the oppressiveness and violence of China’s policies.
Specifically regarding Jackie Chan, Chinese Web sites in the last few days have abounded in comments that support his point of view. Chan, one blogger said, appreciates a strong hand because he had one in his martial-arts classes when he was a boy, and that’s what made him a big star today. Other bloggers said that Hong Kong and Taiwan are indeed "chaotic,” just as Chan said they were, and they cited the arrest of ex-President Chen Shuibian on corruption charges and a recent violent confrontation in Taiwan’s legislature to support that portrayal. “I have to say that I cannot deny that the Chinese people need to be controlled,” a popular blogger named Han Han wrote at the end of the week. Han, whose blog about Chan got more than a million hits, compared China to a restaurant, which needs to have a boss to run properly and can’t if the waiters or the customers take over. He went on to say that China’s officials need to serve the people rather than the other way around, which seemed an indirect comment on the prevalence of corruption in China, but he had no fundamental quarrel with Chan.
Looked at from the historical perspective, Chan’s remarks reignited what is actually an old and fundamental question about whether Western-style freedoms are culturally specific to the West, or are universal values appropriate for everybody. We in the West tend to assume the latter, and, in my view, we are right. But it wasn’t that long ago that Lee Kuan Yew, the Singaporean strongman, stung by criticism of his country’s human-rights record and its banning of such things as gum chewing and over-the-ear hair on men, encouraged the notion of “Asian values” as opposed to Western ones, meaning that in Asia the stress is on stability and social cohesion rather than on individual liberty. That’s certainly the philosophy of the Chinese Communist party, and it also seems to be the philosophy of Jackie Chan, who has never used his celebrity to support Hong Kong’s own democracy movement or to speak out for human rights. Maybe, as some of his critics were suggesting last week, the position he took on Hainan last weekend is part of a cynical ploy on his part to curry favor with China’s authorities and get the ban on his latest film—Shinjuku Incident, which was deemed too violent for Chinese audiences—lifted. But currying favor with powerful officials is another old Chinese tradition, provoking less outrage there than it would in the West.
Richard Bernstein is a writer based in New York. He was a critic and foreign correspondent for The New York Times for 24 years. His new book, The East, the West, and Sex: A History of Erotic Encounters, will be published by Alfred A. Knopf in June.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
My Sex Research Trip to Asia
Richard Bernstein is a writer based in New York. He is a former China correspondent for Time Magazine and bureau chief of the New York Times in Paris and Berlin. His new book is The East, the West, and Sex: A History of Erotic Encounters.
A Harem for Every Man
Richard Bernstein is a writer based in New York. He is a former China correspondent for Time Magazine and bureau chief of the New York Times in Paris and Berlin. His new book is The East, the West, and Sex: A History of Erotic Encounters.
The Inevitability of Barack
Richard Bernstein is a writer based in New York. He is a former China correspondent for Time Magazine and bureau chief of the New York Times in Paris and Berlin. His new book is The East, the West, and Sex: A History of Erotic Encounters.
Maybe the deeper fear is anarchy through loss of the rule of law. After a good deal of third world travel, one of the greatest indicators of development is a stable legal framework. It provides an even keel for everyone, even if it is mixed with corruption.
A fundamental change in political structure affecting millions takes decades to implement--look at the European Union: they're not even done and it's been 64 years since the end of WWII.
I don't know that Chan was saying what we in the west have interpreted. Is "control" the active use of oppression, or the continuing enforcement of laws on the books? Clearly the country is capable of change, the question asked is what is changing, why, and how?
To engage one billion people, and not collapse the way Russia has will take enormous effort and time. While at the same time, promoting employment and growth for millions in dire poverty. Even Moses spent 40 years in the desert.
As a creative talent, Mr. Chan must know that freedom is to the human spirit as breath is to the body. Free people are not told what is possible. Not knowing, they are able to reach deep inside themselves and bring invisible visions into the real world. This is the well spring of progress and prosperity for mankind. This is, I believe, the purpose of life. We each are given one brief moment in eternity to have and to hold the precious gift of life. No one has the legitimate authority to confine the light of another soul. Mr Chan's comment reminds me of those folks who, having built their dream house on a mountain top, or ocean shore, suddenly become ardent conservationists determined to put a stop to all the over building in the area! No nation is ever to immature to have a government for and by the people. Let's hope Mr. Chan has a more devious plot in mind. One where the creative genius gathers currency from the oppressors and funnels it to the freedom fighters, who use it to set China free.
The problem isn't 'western' values vs. 'eastern' values, it's a simple matter of a massive amount of people refusing to follow their own line of thinking to logical ends because they are hit over the head with this illogical (and nonsensical) false dichotomy of thinking pushed by an authoritarian government.
Up your ass, Jackie "Needs to be controlled" Chan. As a martial arts choreographer you are unparalleled, as a political and economic thinker you are worthless.
Excellent piece. A must read. When will the West recognize freedom exists within unique geographic and cultural frames?
Thank you, Mr. Bernstein.
That's good to hear. It'll relieve us of the obligation of invading China to establish democracy. I wonder if there are any other countries that we could not invade to promote democracy.
Good one dude!
We do seem to pay a lot of attention to movie stars' declarations on public issues. If we could stop paying attention to them, we might be able to enjoy them merely for what they are -- entertainers.
Bringing up Singapore is very interesting. Every Westerner who goes there (in my experience) feels Singapore is a wonderful place - but as you say, people are surprisingly controlled. The people there also seem to like their level of control, because they feel safe. But, by our standards, it is repressive. What is important about Singapore is the apparently lack of corruption at any level of government.
I think you do not give enough value to the issue of corruption. China suffers badly from corruption at many levels of government and that is probably a bigger issue for many in China. Systemic corruption affects everyday Chinese far more than lack of voting rights; it is more likely the cause of unemployment for many, homelessness, abuse by police and other "security forces", etc.
I think India is instructive. It is a democracy, but corruption is a big problem, and many people suffer in India due to it. In India, people can vote, but corruption is so systemic, that it impacts their daily life in such profound ways, that we really cannot even begin to understand. It is taxation without representation.
Hong Kong and Taiwan also represent a different kind of corruption, which is what I think Chan was referring to. Money is the "rule of law" in both places (as well as to some degree Shanghai and Shenzhen). For the middle and upper class, that works to their favor. To the poor, that "capitalistic corruption" keeps them very suppressed and powerless.
China isn't the only "controlled" society. In my early twenties, I visited Switzerland, and was bewildered by the social control (and secret police, who roamed the streets). Of course, my view was coloured by the fact that the self-same police detained me for 24 hours under "suspicion of being a terrorist". At the time, the Swiss were looking for Bader Meinhoff infiltrators, and my physical appearance fit their "profile". After many hours of interrogation, they finally DID release me, and I swore NEVER to again visit the "friendly western democracy" of Switzerland!!!
Good thing you were a terrorist suspect in Switzerland, otherwise you may still be living in a black site...
it's a complicated mix of history, values, and the newfound economic opportunity and comparative stability after decades of hardship and strife... while it's nice to have champions of democracy in the world, the west's approach of getting up in arms and going off with criticism is nothing but ineffective and ends up alienating the chinese PEOPLE. not only does it paint themselves as the ultimate hypocrites as their systems are flawed with injustice as well and their governments find the chinese fine enough to trade with, the west appears again to be pointing down at the developing world, telling them what's right and what's wrong... and that does nothing but stir up anger. it's a complicated situation, and it needs time...
See that? Taiwan arrests their former leader on corruption charges. If we are becoming a banana republic, then George Bush took us here.
Richard,
Thanks for the thoughtful article. Much to digest here. Let me just share a few of my thoughts. First, the furor over Chan's words in Taiwan has less to do with the question of compatibility and more to do with the fact that Chan characterized the democratic process in Taiwan as being "chaotic." The response would have been very different if Chan had confined his example to China. Second, if the question of freedom and individual rights in the Chinese context is placed in its proper historical framework, the narrative would have to go back to the 1910s. The question u raised-- is freedom considered a universal value among the Chinese-- is complicated. A facile answer would be: it depends. If ur a politician or a warlord circa 1920, ur answer would likely be no. If ur an intellectual, the answer would be yes. The famous May Fourth Movement, for instance, had a good deal of the European Enlightenment. Kant and Rousseau were big. So were the English Romantic poets. Both Mao and Deng Xiaoping were influenced but they practiced real poltics, a native brand of communism. Third, the student u quote may indeed represent the younger generation. The response also points to something else: the preference for the possibility of social or economic mobility rather than the democratic process itself. If freedom is defined in the abstract, I would say most Chinese would agree with the student. If defined in terms of social and economic mobility, my guess would be that the response would be quite different, especially among peasants and displaced migrants. The caveat, of course, is that compared to the years between 1949-1980, most Chinese would consider this era a golden age.
pauldeman, the point is that many (but not all) young Chinese felt the rising tide of the economy over the last few years, and enjoyed the higher standard of living, better choice of what they will do and where they will live, and "freedoms" that a more capitalistic society enjoys, even if it was not a true capitalistic society. However, the underclass has suffered far more in this process. As I mentioned above, the impact of corruption has made that spread worse.
I think many Chinese fear a true capitalistic/democratic society for reasons similar to the Russians: fear of being the desperate poor. Much of this is because they have been told of the horrors of the very poor in the US and elsewhere in the West, but some of it is simply seeing what has happened to some in their transitional society. Worse, the strong anger over corruption and its impact on keeping many down (and allowing some to be outrageously rich) has had its impact.
One guy in China described it to me as being the same as when you rescue someone who has been stranded at sea with little food and water: if you give them unlimited food and water all at once, they will vomit it all back up. You need to ease people into it.
It's important to remember the simple fact that Americans have an entirely different view of the word "freedom". It may sound like semantics, but it makes a difference. I remember a quote from a Russian boxer who once described the U.S. as "A giant prison with lots of food."
There are plenty of countries where individuals have greater freedoms than then U.S., but many of those countries are also very lawless and corrupt. Maintaining safety and freedom is a fine balancing act.
This user is no longer registered.
The Singapore comparison breaks down when you realize that Singapore has no geographical imperialist agenda as in Tibet. Ethnic tension is foreign to Singapore. Plus, Singapore's government itself may be less corrupt, but the country is a notorious haven for corrupt officials from e.g. Indonesia.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.