Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Francis Clay's avatar

"For that reason, he placed great emphasis on how China designs its institutions and sets development strategies according to its own circumstances and needs. This perspective enabled him to view China’s governance and development with relative objectivity, rather than through a U.S.-centric lens." I'd just like to pick up on this, and maybe it's the translation rather than the original. Still - let us press on.

How can this be? It seems to me that "objectivity", in Chinese, is 客觀, literally - to view as a guest, or an outsider. To place "great emphasis...according to its own circumstances and needs" is almost quintessentially subjective, that is, 主觀, to view as it you were the master or the centre. "According to its own circumstances and needs" can only mean, in this instance, the circumstances and needs as understood by the Chinese government/state/people.

In this case - an analysis of Chinese institutions and development strategies - a "US-centric lens" would be more akin to viewing as a guest. I reject the proposition that to use a US-centric lens would be subjective because Vogel is an American: if so, does a Chinese scholar who uses a US-centric lens become objective, because he is not an American and the lens is not his own? This is patently not the implication to be derived. Objectivity and subjectivity are to be reckoned with respect to the activity being studied, not the identity of the researcher.

If Vogel had, on the other hand, viewed Chinese institutions and development strategies through an objective lens, he would have needed to do so in a reflexive manner, looking not at how the Chinese government/state/people understood China's 'own circumstances and needs', but what those needs were in reality, or ought to be in reality. While subjective in its own way, perhaps, a US-centric lens might have brought him closer to the mark. Somehow, I don't think that's what Vogel did, or at least not as to warrant such praise. Maybe I am wrong!

This is the sort of fuzzy logic to the idiomatic use of the Chinese language that prevents a very clear-eyed vision of China from those on the outside, and indeed to those on the inside.

On the one hand, if you don't know any Chinese, it is quite impossible to understand China: with that proposition I agree.

On the other hand, if you are a Chinese as a second (or foreign) langauge speaker, the idiomatic which is driven into you can and often does short-cut reflexive thought. I know of American Chinese learners, born in the US, who once used 'motherland' 祖國 to refer to China: prompting the (predictable) sardonic reply from their instructor: you're born in the US! Where is your motherland?

It is the truly native speaker who has also internalised the need to be reflexive who can talk out of both sides of his mouth. But what use is such a person? He appears honest to nobody, peculiarly, perhaps, because he is: 兩面不是人.

Here endeth the musing.

Expand full comment
Rafael Silva's avatar

That's all in the past now. As are the exchanges of the 19th century.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?