The Real US Deficit With China – Knowledge
Xu Wu is an assistant professor in strategic media and public relations at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University, and the author of “Chinese Cyber Nationalism.” He writes on the Christian Science Monitor:
Americans are out of touch with today’s China. It’s a knowledge deficit that carries more weight in the long-term bilateral relationships between China and the United States than the ballooning US trade deficit with China. And as China makes a comeback on the world stage, it’s one that the US should address.
Chinese visitors to the US have shared the shock of witnessing a severe dichotomy between how much Americans seem to talk about China and yet how little they know about it. The US status as the world’s superpower, coupled with its location, warrants people this type of benign negligence.
But what about those experts who have the power to impose their perceptions of China on others? All too often China experts in the US cannot even speak the language. How can they claim to understand a culture without knowing how its people communicate?
POSTED COMMENTS: 4 Responses
[...] to China Digital Times. Posted in China. Tags: Arizona State University, China, China Digital Times, Sino-American [...]
This is the same old tired argument that western misunderstanding of China is responsible for any and all criticism of China.
Prof. Xu Wu must understand that he and the thousands of other Chinese living and working in the U.S. and other western countries are decidedly not representative of the average Chinese you are likely to meet on the streets of Beijing and Shanghai (much less those you will encounter in China’s less developed cities and countryside). While it’s true that English is widely taught, the quality of instruction is, in general, quite mediocre. In fact, the average Chinese university graduate is a poster child for the idea that “poor English” is the global language. Moreover, speak to the average high school graduate or rural villager and you will be fortunate to find anyone whose knowledge of English extends much further than “hello”.
Prof. Xu Wu’s characterization of China as a “returning power” (and rejection of “rising power”) implies that China deserves a place at the table of “great” nations simply because it was once the dominant power in east Asia. He also asserts that China has been a “united continental power” for two thousand years but fails to mention that the territory we now refer to as China has been ruled by non-Han peoples for five hundred of the last thousand years. Likewise, he also conveniently fails to mention earlier periods of disunity that sometimes lasted for hundreds of years. In short, the two thousand years of unity that Prof. Xu Wu mentions never really took place. China’s history has been as subject to contingency as the West’s.
Talking heads such as Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty are both ignorant buffoons who are paid to be provocative. Nevertheless, the recent stink over Cafferty’s comments regarding “goons and thugs”, in which the Chinese government (CCP) assumed a leading role, suggests that the Chinese still don’t understand the nature of the U.S. media and the roles that people like Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs play. I can’t tell you the number of Chinese graduate students I’ve met at universities like Harvard and Berkeley who’ve never even watched CNN (or Fox and MSNBC, for that matter) or read the NY Times who nevertheless have very strong opinions regarding recent U.S. media coverage of protests in Tibet and along the Olympic torch relay route. In fact, many of China’s best and brightest, who come to the U.S. for advanced degrees, continue to rely on the Chinese internet for news and commentary. Moreover, like all expatriate communities, they can be very insular - after years of living, studying, and working in the U.S., many have only a rudimentary understanding of U.S. society.
Finally, it’s true that most twenty-somethings in China have no idea what took place in Beijing in 1989. This is, of course, because the topic is officially taboo. In a recent Frontline documentary entitled “Tankman” (available to watch online), a group of five or six Peking University undergraduates are shown a photo of the “tankman” (i.e., the iconic photo of the unknown Chinese man who walked out in front of a PLA tank and forced it to stop). None of the students knew much about the events of 1989, much less was able to identify the photo. In short, several of China’s best and brightest, students studying at the “Harvard of China”, knew nothing about an event of central importance in the recent history of the PRC. Perhaps this ignorance shouldn’t be much of a surprise - Chinese ignorance of its recent history is as profound as U.S. ignorance. Walk into any major Chinese bookstore and ask to see their books on the anti-rightist purges of 1957, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, China’s invasion of Vietnam in 1979, or the events of 1989, and you will find almost nothing. Of course, ask to see their books on the so-called “War of Resistance Against Japan” and you will be escorted to a special corner of the store, stacked high with books on the subject.
Prof. Xu Wu’s criticism of U.S. ignorance of China is valid - we in the U.S. are profoundly ignorant of much of the rest of the world. Even so, he should understand that China’s understanding of the U.S. is far from impressive. In the future, before sitting down to write another column criticizing U.S. ignorance, he would do well to remember the Chinese saying “Wushi bu xiao bai bu”.
The following is Prof. Xu Wu’s response to my previous comment. It was sent to my personal email account and is posted here at his request:
Ma Bole,
You pointed out some legit facts, and I agree with many of your observations about the Chinese students here in the States. As a professor in strategic media and PR, I certainly know that the Chinese government has made some terrible mistakes over the past several months, some strategic, some tactical. You may want to see my interview with Reuters on this issue:
http://www.reuters.com/article/sphereNews/idUSPEK492820080429?sp=true&view=sphere
Some questions to your comments, though.
1, how interested Chinese students are about the “Tank man” even if they have the access to all the information? Not as you expected. Ask you Chinese friends here.
2, do you understand “the nature of American media”? Did you know, for one example, up until NYT revealed that Pentagon has been behind the “general-propaganda” machine, that you get the truth, the whole truth from the media? As compared to Fox, CCTV has done a lousy job for the government. And, coincidently, Fox is the “most watched TV network” in the U.S. Please, don’t tell me you don’t watch Fox, as I know you are “decidedly not representative of the average” American. I am talking about those “average Americans.”
3, as to the language skill, the word “deficit” refers not to “vacuum” nor to “black hole,” it refers to the “gap” between the two-way communication / understanding between two countries. Certainly, the lack of understanding runs both ways, just like the trade. Using your example, there are much more Chinese who know how to say “hello” (I know it is basic), than the number of Americans who know how to say “ni hao”. Not a good analogy, but I thought you misunderstood the concept “deficit” here.
4, next time when you want to buy books about the several historical events you listed, I will show you a good bookstore. Certainly, 6/4 is still a forbidden area, but not the other events you mentioned. There are sufficient publications on these topics.
5, let’s not delve into China’s history in a short op-ed piece. It takes a dissertation. The article was written prior to the Tibet event (yeah, it took that long to get published HERE in the States, if at all), and was edited, or sharpened by the Monitor. For one example, my original title is “another deficit with China.” I appreciate my editor’s hard work in editing it. However, to fit into the 800-word limit, some sentences had to be shortened, and inevitably, some meanings may be lost.
If possible, please post this response to your journal too.
Best,
Xu Wu, PhD
Assistant Professor
Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Communication
Arizona State University
I found Professor Xu Wu‘s argument on the Chinese’s knowledge of the West as compared with western knowledge of China is pertinent. Besides the promotion of English language and large number of internet users, however, I’d like to add a more popular channel that has contributed to public awareness of current affairs inside and outside China–the mass media of TV stations, tens of Central TV stations and several hundreds of local stations nationwide, easily accessible even to people living in China’s most remote areas.
I’ve been visiting China frequently for last decades and was profoundly impressed by its TV programs, of a great variety and very cosmopolitan coverage of world news and cultures, a real window to the world, thanks to the profit-driven and consumer courting free market economy. There are western copies but some of their own productions, often in form of documentary, are of truly high quality, zealously motivated to be connected to the outside world and living up to western standard. Ironically, tuning into the mainstream ideology of westernization, the Chinese view of West has been so much rosier than a fair minded westerner can possibly expect, until recent, that is.