Samuel P Huntington wrote that after the end of the Cold War "the great divisions among humankind...will be cultural." He went on to put most of his emphasis on the struggle between the West and Islam. Nearly a decade later, after 9/11 awakened Americans to the clear and present danger that terrorism posed, the Economist hailed Huntington's words as prescient, saying his theories were "cruel and sweeping, but nonetheless accurate."
The "Islam" that carried out the attacks on September 11 was a form of religion as perverse and distant from its true precepts as the form of Christianity that engaged in the crusades. The only difference is that the crusades represented the majority opinion of Christendom, while bin Laden is not a spokesman for the Muslim world. When writing about any culture (even your own), as I am doing with this blog, it is always important to avoid making cruel and sweeping generalizations. (Chinese do it to us too.)
Here I am reminded of a blog entry written by a friend of a friend on his trip to China. In it he mentions an encounter with waitresses who covered their mouths while they laughed (full entry). He said that they were "physically acting out saving face." Face is indeed a unique concept of importance in China that makes it different from ideas like honor or respect, but nonetheless, what was going on here was not 'saving face.'
The Chinese have a saying "Don't show your teeth when you laugh" (笑不露齿). To many Chinese, a woman baring her teeth when she laughs is uneducated and being impolite. While this is clearly not an American practice, it has nothing to do with face and by imagining it to be so one exhibits an ignorance both of the practice of mouth covering（捂嘴）and face, which should not be used as a blanket answer for everything the foreigner does not understand. I don't know how many foreigners have told me that they were given wrong directions because the Chinese person didn't want to lose face by saying they didn't know the way.
I am afraid that in the course of this blog, I will be guilty of generalizations (although hopefully note as grotesque as Huntington's), and in those cases, I hope you (尤其是我的中国网友）will correct me. The true Twenty-first Century conflict is a "clash of definitions," as Edward Said called it. I hope that this blog can add to the definition of "China" without creating more misunderstanding (although as an American, Said would say that I am incapable of defining an Eastern culture).
With that in mind, take my comments on China with a grain of salt, and when I mess up, just laugh and set me straight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In your third consecutive post, you have mentioned that you will make mistakes and should be corrected. Thevy, this is a blog. Its not your daily column in the Post. Say whatever the hell you want. Only apologize if your error is egregious. Concern yourself more with saying your piece, not how you say it. When its time to write the book, trust me, I will edit the blog entries for it.
ReplyDeleteBaring teeth, not bearing.
ReplyDeleteDitto on Santo's comment. No need to be so apologetic--I think we're all aware that this is a blog, not a Jonathan Spence book, and most of us should know by now not to take you too seriously :)
Also, you could've scooped the NYTimes! See article on grass mud horse: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/world/asia/12beast.html?hp
I think I first saw this when Matt Schrader posted the link, but I had no idea what it was at the time. Do you know anything else about it?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200904/chinese-innovation
ReplyDeleteI assume you'll come across this at some point in your day, but just in case, new giant Fallows article. As a side note, it's always interesting for me to compare the style and content of Osnos/Fallows. I feel like you can tell a lot about their relationships with Chinese people through what they write. And I really have to say, even though I think Evan has more initial China knowledge with which to approach a story, it never seems to hinder Fallows' reporting.