Misunderstanding China

Misunderstanding China Horst J. Helle Introduction: China on n the Surface of it 1. The Family as Parish Why is it so difficult for a Western person, to understand simple daily events in China? Here is one example: A young woman returns to her home village in Southern China. She proudly presents her college degree to her relatives. Her father’s oldest brother, the family head, is delighted to see the diploma. He tells the young graduate: “You make the ancestors of our family very happy, even though you are a girl!” The Western witness sees no problem in understanding that using familiar categories: Obvious discrimination against women plus ancestor worship! What China needs is a heavier dose of the Western women’s movement and more Christian missionaries! Indeed, so it seems at first sight. But then there is this way to read the uncle’s statement: When a young Chinese woman gets married, she leaves her parents and joins her husband’s family. The same is true in Japan and in Korea. Different from “the West” these societies have consistently followed the patrilineal family systems to this day. For the young women in the context of religious faith that is normal in China, leaving her family of origin when she gets married also means saying farewell to its ancestors in the beyond. Upon joining her future spouse’s clan, she is being placed under the blessing care of a new set of ancestors. Accordingly, the young person who is expected to make his ancestors happy is typically the son: He never changes ancestors throughout his whole life. The uncle’s praise then, can be read like this: Even though soon, when you get married, you will have to leave our family and our ancestors, but now, while you are still single, you make the ancestors of your father’s clan very proud of you! Thinking about this illustration opens up a wide range of tasks for comparing cultures. In this example the task needs to be tackled from the perspective of family sociology and from the sociology of religion alike (and that will be done in later chapters of the book): How would it be, if a devout Catholic woman from Northern Mexico or Southern Italy (or an Orthodox Christian in Greece) would be expected when she gets married to give up the set of saints under whose care she felt to be living during her previous life? How would it be if her parents’ saints have nothing to do with the clan she now is about to join! The very idea is absurd, because in a traditional Christian context, the saints are the same for every family. In traditional China, however, the bride needs to get to know and love her husband’s “saints”. Those are, however, 1 not merely his personal protectors in the beyond but the guardians of his kinship group! Perhaps ancestors and saints are hard to compare; maybe ancestors help families, while saints help individuals! Could it be that in the background of all this are millennia of history of culture difference that we need to learn do understand, even now, when China of course is changing too? International Relations History is usually written starting from the distant past and then gradually moving toward the present. Different insights are revealed, however, if it is done the opposite way: What happens today can be understood only on the basis of what occurred yesterday and before then. If history is written in chronological order, it can give rise to the impression that events followed each other as necessary consequences. It can be shown, however, that the actors in question had choices to make and thus carefully created the sequence of events which from a later perspective appear to have been chain of necessary cause-effect-links. One example to illustrate an alternate approach to history is the attempt to explain, why the communist movement could gain so much support from Chinese intellectuals. Why during and after World War II could Europe and America not influence Chinese thought with other ideas as much as with the teachings derived from the two Germans Marx and Engels? Their Marxism was transported east to China via Russia after having been “enhanced” there with Lenin’s influence. The low level of acceptance of European nations and their cultures in China can be linked to many influences, among those are the two so-called Opium Wars during the nineteenth century. To read and reflect on those military expeditions tends to make a Western person take the Chinese side on the issue. But that changes if more history is included in the analysis by going back step by step further into the past as follows. Centuries of confrontations with neighbouring countries have led the emperors of China and their advisors to consider other peoples as “barbarian,” meaning culturally less developed. That lower stage in evolution did not preclude the possibility that China suffered an occasional military defeat at the hands of the less civilized strangers. Military strength, however, was not interpreted as cultural superiority. This attitude prevailed also in the face of the two-fold defeat against Great Britain as the result of the two Opium Wars (1839-42 and 1856-60). These wars were fought upon the request of British merchants to support their economic activities in mainland China. Those included the sale of the life-threatening opium to wealthy Chinese, more and more of whom became addicted to it. When the Chinese government acted 2 to restrict the import of the drug, British tradesmen asked their king in London to intervene militarily. Reflecting upon this phase in history tends to place the modern Western observer on the side Chinese side in the argument. Having defeated China militarily the Western powers could impose humiliating conditions in their peace negotiations. Prior to those post-war contacts, British and French soldiers marched into Peking. They looted and destroyed the Summer Palace of the emperor. Those events are sometimes presented to a European visitor in the present. Typically, he or she is then confronted with the question of what they think of such behavior, the implication being, that the barbarian quality of how foreigners conduct themselves on Chinese soil can hardly be denied. Against this historical background China was forced to allow foreign powers to install independent enclaves, primarily in important trade regions like Shanghai and Hong Kong. In addition, Christian missionaries were given the right to settle anywhere they wanted in China1 (Poerner 2011, p. 169). To be admitted doing their religious work under such political condition was to burden Christian missions with an atmosphere of foreign intervention by military force that may take centuries to overcome. In summary then, between 1840 and 1860 the ethical balance of foreign politics seemed to have clearly tipped in the direction of China as the innocent victim of rampant European colonialism. But the moral judgment shifts again if one goes back half a century further in history. British merchants had traded with China during the 18th century, but the official policy imposed by the emperor limited in- and export activities to the port of Quangzhou. (Then – and frequently even now – referred to by Europeans as Canton or Kanton. That name was derived from the name of the province Quangdong surrounding the city of Quangzhou.) In 1793 a large British vessel carried an official royal delegation to China in the hope to establish diplomatic relationships between King George III of England and Emperor Qianlong in Peking (Beijing). It is known as the Macartney Embassy, also called the Macartney Mission, after the name of the person in charge, George Macartney. He was instructed in London to present to the emperor the wish of Great Britain to increase trade with China and accordingly 1) to have some of the restrictions lifted which had been imposed on foreign trade, 2) to allow Great Britain to maintain a permanent embassy in the Emperor’s capital Peking (Beijing), 3) to permit Great Britain “to use a small unfortified island near Chusan (Zhoushan) for the residence of British traders, storage of goods, and outfitting of ships”2, and finally 1 2 Michael Poerner, Chinesisch in der Fremde. Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann 2011. Wikipedia, entry Macartney Mission. 3 4) to reduce tariffs on merchandise traded in Canton (Quangzhou). The journey undertaken with these goals in mind lasted from 1792 until 1794 and cannot be judged as anything but morally of the highest standards and diplomatically fair and openminded on the part of King George III and of Great Britain. The mission pretended to come for the purpose of congratulating the emperor on his 80th birthday. However, this minor lack of sincerely – if that is indeed what it was – cannot be regarded as serious. The whole undertaking failed, however, due to the conviction on the Chinese side, that China was far superior in every respect to foreigners in general and to Great Britain and its King George III in particular. The attitude of the emperor and his advisors cannot be documented in any better way than by the letter which Emperor Qianlong (1711-1799, ruled 1735-1796) wrote to King George III. In spite of the considerable length of the letter it is included here in full because of its importance, in the hope that the following translation is accurate): You, O King, from afar have yearned after the blessings of our civilization, and in your eagerness to come into touch with our converting influence have sent an Embassy across the sea bearing a memorial [memorandum]. I have already taken note of your respectful spirit of submission, have treated your mission with extreme favor and loaded it with gifts, besides issuing a mandate to you, O King, and honoring you at the bestowal of valuable presents. Thus has my indulgence been manifested. Yesterday your ambassador petitioned my Ministers to memorialize me regarding your trade with China, but his proposal is not consistent with our dynastic usage and cannot be entertained. Hitherto, all European nations, including your own country's barbarian merchants, have carried on their trade with our Celestial Empire at Canton. Such has been the procedure for many years, although our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders. There was therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce. But as the tea, silk and porcelain which the Celestial Empire produces, are absolute necessities to European nations and to yourselves, we have permitted, as a signal mark of favor, that foreign hongs [groups of merchants] should be established at Canton, so that your wants might be supplied, and your country thus participate in our beneficence. But your ambassador has now put forward new requests which completely fail to recognize the Throne's principle to "treat strangers from afar with indulgence," and to exercise a pacifying control over barbarian tribes, the world over. Moreover, our dynasty, swaying the myriad races of the globe, extends the same benevolence towards all. Your England is not the only nation trading at Canton. If other nations, following your bad example, wrongfully importune my ear with further impossible requests, how will it be possible for me to treat them with easy indulgence? Nevertheless, I do not forget the lonely remoteness of your island, cut off from the world by intervening wastes of sea, nor do I overlook 4 your excusable ignorance of the usages of our Celestial Empire. I have consequently commanded my Ministers to enlighten your ambassador on the subject and have ordered the departure of the mission. But I have doubts that, after your Envoy's return he may fail to acquaint you with my view in detail or that he may be lacking in lucidity, so that I shall now proceed ... to issue my mandate on each question separately. In this way you will, I trust, comprehend my meaning.... Your request for a small island near Chusan [a group of islands in the East China Sea at the entrance to Hangchow Bay], where your merchants may reside and goods be warehoused, arises from your desire to develop trade. As there are neither foreign hongs nor interpreters in or near Chusan, where none of your ships have ever called, such an island would be utterly useless for your purposes. Every inch of the territory of our Empire is marked on the map and the strictest vigilance is exercised over it all: even tiny islets and far-lying sandbanks are clearly defined as part of the provinces to which they belong. Consider, moreover, that England is not the only barbarian land which wishes to establish ... trade with our Empire: supposing that other nations were all to imitate your evil example and beseech me to present them each and all with a site for trading purposes, how could I possibly comply? This also is a flagrant infringement of the usage of my Empire and cannot possibly be entertained. The next request, for a small site in the vicinity of Canton city, where your barbarian merchants may lodge or, alternatively, that there be no longer any restrictions over their movements at Aomen [a city some 45 miles to the south of Canton, at the lower end of the Pearl (Zhu) River delta] has arisen from the following causes. Hitherto, the barbarian merchants of Europe have had a definite locality assigned to them at Aomen for residence and trade, and have been forbidden to encroach an inch beyond the limits assigned to that locality. . .. If these restrictions were withdrawn, friction would inevitably occur between the Chinese and your barbarian subjects, and the results would militate against the benevolent regard that I feel towards you. From every point of view, therefore, it is best that the regulations now in force should continue unchanged.... Regarding your nation's worship of the Lord of Heaven, it is the same religion as that of other European nations. Ever since the beginning of history, sage Emperors and wise rulers have bestowed on China a moral system and inculcated a code, which from time immemorial has been religiously observed by the myriads of my subjects. There has been no hankering after heterodox doctrines. Even the European (Christian) officials in my capital are forbidden to hold intercourse with Chinese subjects; they are restricted within the limits of their appointed residences and may not go about propagating their religion. The distinction between Chinese and barbarian is most strict, and your ambassador's request that barbarians shall be given full liberty to disseminate their religion is utterly unreasonable. 5 It may be, O King that the above proposals have been wantonly made by your ambassador on his own responsibility, or peradventure you yourself are ignorant of our dynastic regulations and had no intention of transgressing them when you expressed these wild ideas and hopes.... If, after the receipt of this explicit decree, you lightly give ear to the representations of your subordinates and allow your barbarian merchants to proceed to Chêkiang and Tientsin [two Chinese port cities], with the object of landing and trading there, the ordinances of my Celestial Empire are strict in the extreme, and the local officials, both civil and military, are bound reverently to obey the law of the land. Should your vessels touch the shore, your merchants will assuredly never be permitted to land or to reside there but will be subject to instant expulsion. In that event your barbarian merchants will have had a long journey for nothing. Do not say that you were not warned in due time! Tremblingly obey and show no negligence! A special mandate! Obviously and consistently the text of the emperor’s letter treats the king of Great Britain as his subject, demanding full and unlimited obedience to the emperor of China, who considers himself the ruler of the world. Thus, the stage was set for European diplomats to be replaced in England as elsewhere by military strategists. Thus, the two Opium Wars were implicitly prepared by the condescending tone of Emperor Qianlong’s letter to George III. In 1840 the British took Chusan (Zhoushan) by force, having asked for it in a diplomatic but futile way as item no. 3 on the agenda of the Macartney Mission in Beijing in 1793. In 1841 Zhousan was returned in exchange for Hong Kong which at that time was merely a fisher village. The questions may arise: Did this imperial document addressed to the King of Great Britain justify the Opium Wars from a Western perspective? It may have led up to those, which does not mean that it “justified” them. How could the emperor consider the European nations barbarian and even call them by that name? Consider what happened in Europe at the time of the Macartney Mission in 1792: England, September 1st : George Macartney, 1st Earl Macartney sails from Portsmouth in HMS Lion as the first official envoy from the Kingdom of Great Britain to China. France, September 2nd : During what becomes known as the September Massacres of the French Revolution, rampaging mobs slaughter three Roman Catholic bishops and more than 200 priests3. We do not know how soon the emperor was informed about the invention of the guillotine in France and about the other details of the French Revolution. In view of such European occurrences, he may not have found much reason to ask himself or his advisors, how appropriate it still was to consider peoples outside China as barbarian. 3 Wikipedia, Entry „1792“ 6 3. Behavior in the “Public Sphere” Back to our initial problem of understanding daily routines in China and taking account of what is considered normal: Here is a different illustration that may seem rather banal at the surface of it: Whoever goes shopping in a department store or mall in mainland China will notice that in shops for ladies’ underwear and braziers the models are pretty women from the West, not from China. They are typically blue eyed and blond but certainly not Asian looking. Why is that so? What if in an underwear store in Norway the models would all be oriental women? Or if somewhere in Texas the models would all be African American? As is immediately obvious: These comparisons do not work well because China is different. Why is China different? How can China and “the West” be compared? Is such comparison a meaningful attempt or one without a chance of any tangible result? Are the differences based on conditions that separate the two cultures due to timeless principles or do they point to different phases in a shared process of development? What are we comparing? China? What is China? A huge population spread over a vast territory with numerous cultural and language traditions in the past, and in the present with the largest number of humans who were ever ruled by one common government. And what do we mean by “the West”. Sweden or Southern Italy, Canada, California, or Mexico? It takes courage to generalize when faced with these distinctions. And yet, there is a legitimate reason to ask: Why is China different from “the West”? One problem in the encounters between Chinese and Westerners is of course language, the uniquely complicated Chinese writing, totally inaccessible to most Westerners even if they are well educated by the standards of their countries of origin. But more fundamental even than that are the different path taken by cultural evolution in the distant past. In China the extended family remains the center as it has always been. As we have seen above, with certain reservations the ancestors are the equivalents of Western “saints” who watch over their Chinese descendants from the beyond. Confucius teaches how fathers and sons, husbands and wives, must treat each other. To this end, the culture of China developed rituals comparable to Western religious services that must be observed in family contexts like a liturgy in a Western church. One of the severe mistakes a Western visitor can make when invited to a Chinese dinner is to rush finding a seat. The host or someone close to him will assign him or her the proper place according to rank and propriety. This formality and in general, the ritualization of private life is hard for many Westerners to visualize. It even includes the most intimate sphere and 7 transforms the conduct of family life ideally into a private liturgy, not only according to the erotic aspects of Daoism. That is the reason, why a Chinese girl cannot pose for an advertisement in which she displays underwear! It would destroy her dignity as future performer of a sacred ritual when she gets married. Her erotic appearance as wife and future mother is utterly private; it cannot be published for commercial use. Admittedly the same is true in conservative Western contexts. There is a tradition of responsibility toward a public realm referred to in Western education: A mother in Europe or America may try to better her pre-schooler during his or her unruly age by repeating two admonitions: If you were to behave like this outside our home, what would people think of you? And: Just think of what the result would be if everybody were to do that? To the Chinese family, however, the people outside the home – the Western mother’s public “everybody” – does not matter much. The people beyond the confinements of our residence are “none of our business” because they are neither relatives nor friends. If we are Chinese, we help our kin and close contemporaries and try hard to please our ancestors, and otherwise we politely ignore strangers and stay out of trouble, and that is it. This is admittedly a gross simplification. Yet, unless we simplify things here somewhat, we Westerners cannot possibly begin to understand even the Chinese close to us! In the pages that follow an attempt will be made without making our argument too simplistic, to find answers to the question why China is different. ((This outline for a possible introduction to my book on China was never published: Too personal! However, it shows my continued interest in avoiding misunderstandings between cultures!)) München, Germany, Febr. 3rd 2023 Horst J. Helle 8