How China thinks

We know a lot about the Chinese economy - but how do the Chinese think? What do they discuss? Are they all Maoist automatons, or is there a lively debate occurring which Western observors are barely aware of? Veteran think tanker Mark Leonard favours the latter view, which he puts forward at some length in his new book, What does China think?

This is also the lead story in the March 2008 issue of Prospect magazine. Leonard makes some inteersting points in his cover piece, China's new intelligentsia. He documents the shift away from Deng's 'growth at any price' approach, as 'new left' views gain ground. Here are some excerpts from the article:

I had imagined that China's intellectual life consisted of a few unbending ideologues in the back rooms of the Communist party or the country's top universities. Instead, I stumbled on a hidden world of intellectuals, think-tankers and activists, all engaged in intense debate about the future of their country. I soon realised that it would take more than a few visits to Beijing and Shanghai to grasp the scale and ambition of China's internal debates. Even on that first trip my mind was made up—I wanted to devote the next few years of my life to understanding the living history that was unfolding before me.

Over a three-year period, I have spoken with dozens of Chinese thinkers, watching their views develop in line with the breathtaking changes in their country. Some were party members; others were outside the party and suffering from a more awkward relationship with the authorities. Yet to some degree, they are all insiders. They have chosen to live and work in mainland China, and thus to cope with the often capricious demands of the one-party state.

We are used to China's growing influence on the world economy—but could it also reshape our ideas about politics and power? This story of China's intellectual awakening is less well documented. We closely follow the twists and turns in America's intellectual life, but how many of us can name a contemporary Chinese writer or thinker? Inside China—in party forums, but also in universities, in semi-independent think tanks, in journals and on the internet—debate rages about the direction of the country: "new left" economists argue with the "new right" about inequality; political theorists argue about the relative importance of elections and the rule of law; and in the foreign policy realm, China's neocons argue with liberal internationalists about grand strategy. Chinese thinkers are trying to reconcile competing goals, exploring how they can enjoy the benefits of global markets while protecting China from the creative destruction they could unleash in its political and economic system. Some others are trying to challenge the flat world of US globalisation with a "walled world" Chinese version.

Paradoxically, the power of the Chinese intellectual is amplified by China's repressive political system, where there are no opposition parties, no independent trade unions, no public disagreements between politicians and a media that exists to underpin social control rather than promote political accountability. Intellectual debate in this world can become a surrogate for politics—if only because it is more personal, aggressive and emotive than anything that formal politics can muster. While it is true there is no free discussion about ending the Communist party's rule, independence for Tibet or the events of Tiananmen Square, there is a relatively open debate in leading newspapers and academic journals about China's economic model, how to clean up corruption or deal with foreign policy issues like Japan or North Korea.

Although the internet is heavily policed, debate is freer here than in the printed word (although one of the most free-thinking bloggers, Hu Jia, was recently arrested). And behind closed doors, academics and thinkers will often talk freely about even the most sensitive topics, such as political reform.

The Chinese like to argue about whether it is the intellectuals that influence decision-makers, or whether groups of decision-makers use pet intellectuals as informal mouthpieces to advance their own views. Either way, these debates have become part of the political process, and are used to put ideas in play and expand the options available to Chinese decision-makers. Intellectuals are, for example, regularly asked to brief the politburo in "study sessions"; they prepare reports that feed into the party's five-year plans; and they advise on the government's white papers.

So is the Chinese intelligentsia becoming increasingly open and western? Many of the concepts it argues over—including, of course, communism itself—are western imports. And a more independent-minded, western style of discourse may be emerging as a result of the 1m students who have studied outside China—many in the west—since 1978; fewer than half have returned, but that number is rising.

However, one should not forget that the formation of an "intellectual" in China remains very different from in the west. Education is still focused on practical contributions to national life, and despite a big expansion of higher education (around 20 per cent of 18-30 year olds now enrol at university), teaching methods rely heavily on rote learning. Moreover, all of these people will be closely monitored for political dissent, with "political education" classes still compulsory...

And there's plenty more in his piece. Fascinating.

Comments

[spencer]

Thanks for this interesting article.

[Angry African]

My problem is with the Olympics and China. The Olympic Committee should be consistent with how they implement and execute their decisions on who gets the Olympics. If China is okay – should Zimbabwe get it next? It will be consistent with what they call “the Olympic” values. Or maybe we should have a closer look at their values – if we can find it. More on this in my blog at

[Mita]

Do we really know how we Americans think? So how can we know how China thinks? Our thinking has become so discursive, confused, scattered, superficial and polarized that may be it is time to sit quiet and not talk so much. Just a thought!

[Louis Cheung]

Thanks very much for the interesting article. I live in Hong Kong, and probably an "outsider" of China in a certain sense. It is hard to know what the policy makers in China think. But then, I don't really know what the policy makers in Hong Kong think about too.

[fdf]

包茎手術や男性の悩み相談なら大阪梅田中央クリニックへお任せ。大阪梅田中央クリニックなら技術も料金も安心、納得して男の「悩み」を解決できます包茎手術

[Octavian]

What you'll really have to look for, in my opinion, is how the Olympics go in 2008. China has been waiting for this moment to show their "modernity" to the world. Its success or failure will provide clues to the future of the mainland and CCCP rule.

[David Heigham]

Mark Leonard's reporting of Communist Chima's intellectual life sounds awfully like the most productive periods in the intellectual life of Imperial China. In which case we can expect much of the currently important argument to be in disguised, allusive form. Even if we learn to read Chinese fluently, we will need to also pick up a good deal of cultural background to understand what is going on.

[Gabriel]

Post! Post! Post!

[seguro auto]

China's award to host the Olympic games was a political test set by the west to see if China would become more democratic and if China did not the countries leaders would be humiliated in front of the whole world ending their rapid growth.
There is no way China can carry on the course it is heading unless they (the people) are allowed proper freedom and the west knows that China's wealth depends upon it's foreign trade which will be hit massively if by the summer they are not democratic and visibly so.
This is why I think handing China the Olympics is a good idea as they either change for the better or be utterly exposed and ruined.

[Professor Bill Rao (Sydney)]

I am new to these pages but found that New Economist is an excellent forum. I didn’t read any books by Mark, but will do so soon. He seems to be a promising essay writer.

There is a big difference between the thinking foundations (?) of the mainstream European thinkers and in the rest of the world. This difference is not white and black. There are many gray categories depending on how close some are to the aforesaid “Mainstream European Thinking Foundations (MSETF)”. There is nothing European about this concept—it is universal. By that I mean the non-Europeans can think excellently provided they digest the essence of MSETF.

What is this MSETF? It is simply their (European) theory of knowledge (epistemology) based on reasoning and thinking about the abstracts to make societies and individuals to progress by solving their problems (which are often abstract) rationally without invoking the supernatural. The great philosopher Popper often said that all life is solving problems.

It is this type of theory of knowledge that doesn’t exist in the Orient, including Japan, and also in many parts of the rest of the world. That is, there is no theory of knowledge in these societies comparable to MSETF. While the European philosophers have addressed and thinking about “the relationship between man and the state” since two thousand years, many in the Orient still think about “the relationship between man and GOD” .even now. I am reminded of the frequent trips by several university professors, scientists and politicians etc (in India) to a popular GURU (see GURU BUSTERS of Channel 4 (?) documentary) to seek salvation and solutions to their problems. Also in India (and the Orient) there are many who believe in astrology (and luck) to solve their problems.

This doesn’t mean there are no thinking people (and philosophers) in these countries. We come across many Indian, Japanese and Chinese etc doctors, engineers, scientists and car mechanics who are top class. They can solve problems which are physically tangible. But I have doubts on their ability to grapple with the abstract and speculative issues/problems.

Again, it doesn’t mean that they cannot learn MSETF quickly. They can. However, they are (by and large) not aware of what is there (useful) to learn from the Western and the mainstream European way of thinking to solve problems. I am reminded of a great Indian philosopher (he was at Oxford) who became a great defense advocate of the Indian philosophy instead of exploring what we can learn (that is useful) from the European philosophers, especially from their theory of knowledge. I said once (in one of my essays) that we (Indians) only learnt (from the West) how to eat Idlieies, Dosa and Samosas with a fork and spoon instead of their way of thinking and problem solving. Once again I am aware of an Indian writer who used to wear a tie and a tweed jacket in Calcutta and roam the streets in the midday humid weather!

Can we (Orientals) think? Yes, we can. But it needs a rational and logical framework. Not the literary style of romantic philosophical approach.

Western thinkers, who praise everything in the Orient, are also oblivious to this missing foundation. Academics in many Western universities think that the problem with the students from the Orient is that they cannot speak and write well in English.

I suspect that Mark might have also missed to notice the missing link MSETF.

BR

[Hank Jestor]

Professor,
I think Joseph Campbell's writing on the Occidental and Oriental belief systems drive the underlying differences. I feel the issue can be better categorized as problem solving approaches that underly philosophical beliefs. The western occidental approach is a change the world to fit to my way versus a more passive patient approach associated with the oriental beliefs.