Master sage Confucius
"
Egao," the culture of parody that exploded on the Chinese-language Internet last year, is irreverent mockery of mainstream society and traditional culture. "Soft power" is the philosophy currently in vogue in some intellectual circles that a country can exert international influence without employing economic or military measures. What happens when these two buzzwords meet?
On Monday, Ta Kung Pao, a Beijing-funded newspaper in Hong Kong, printed an opinion piece examined how "academic egao" harms China's desire to influence international affairs through soft power. Going by the name Tang Yu, the author of "The worrisome consequences of egao on Chinese culture" suggests that historical revisionism and opportunistic repudiation of traditional Chinese culture is an unwelcome trend that may have serious ramifications on the international stage.
Tang begins by mentioning the respect accorded to Confucius overseas, from a marble statue of the sage erected in Berlin to the joint declaration by nobel laureates in 1988 that humankind's salvation rests in the wisdom of Confucius. He continues:
Chinese culture, as exemplified by the teachings of Confucius, has had a great and wide-ranging influence overseas. In China, however, some experts and scholars engage in wanton egao.
Not long ago, a professor with a Chinese department published a book that called Confucius an idealistic "stray dog" who is unable to find a spiritual home in the modern world. Prior to this, the emblem of the Chinese people for millennia, the dragon, was called an "evil totem" and an "ugly totem" by scholars, who said that the appearance of the dragon was so fearsome and overbearing that it affected China's international image and ought to be torn down and replaced. There were other scholars who called Tang Seng hypocritical, Zhuge Liang a traitor, Yue Fei a treacherous official, Qin Kuai an honest official, Liu Bei unrighteous, and Guan Yu a lecher. Anyone or anything in Chinese history that was good, wise, industrious, or kind was toppled. Beauty was made ugly and red was called black, and their language made full use of insults and attacks. Their actions far exceeded anything in the Cultural Revolution.
The majority of those "smearing" Chinese history and historical figures are distinguished scholars and professors. They have read sacred texts and they collect an official's salary from the state, so why do they smear history and famous historical individuals? China's economy has grown swiftly following the reforms in the 1980s; wealth is continuously being concentrated in the hands of a minority, celebrities indulge themselves, and money penetrates all aspects of society, causing volatility in intellectual and academic worlds. This transformation of society and the economy assaults the ethical baseline of some scholars and leads some people to feel that true scholarship cannot find widespread fame in today's world. Only by overturning history, or even maliciously parodying history and smearing the names of historical individuals, can you achieve instant fame. In the information society and the complicated international environment, it gives them an abnormal chance for "fame."
Someone once asked, "What is it about China that scares America?" The answer he received: "Chinese culture." Outstanding historical culture, including historical individuals, is the "soft power" of a country. This type of power has an ability that far exceeds the power of the economy or the military. Developing for thousands of years into today's 1.3 billion people, Chinese civilization has relied on its strengths toward cohesion, affinity, and vitality. Chinese culture gives the world the precious wealth of humanity. If our scholars do not wish to gild the faces of our ancestors, then at least they should not smear them. By smearing their ancestors for personal profit or a taste of empty fame, Chinese intellectuals have forfeited their basic moral values, and to a large extent have harmed the "soft power" of the country.
As the Chinese economy has speedily developed, the western media has become congested with the "China threat theory." Any small event that happens in China is hyped up, exaggerated, distorted, and demonized by media beyond the borders. There are many reports on events in China in the western press today, but there is little content that is truly positive. Why? One major reason is that the west does not understand China and does not understand Chinese culture. Under these circumstances, when we smear our own great individuals and outstanding culture, we are assisting the western demonization of China by providing raw materials. Our own scholars are doing what the west spends money to do with little success. So how can we complain that the west does not understand China or ask that it stop demonizing China? What else can we bring to the table of international exchange to help foreigners understand China?
Tang concludes by quoting Nakasone Yasuhiro to the effect that the soul of a people is its culture. He points out that Japanese animation and Korean soaps are popular throughout Asia (but surely there's anime that mocks traditional culture), and contrasts that with the limited appeal of historical revisionism. Finally: "Egao is a crime against the motherland's culture and a crime against world culture."
While academic egao may or may not be a crime against culture, Tang's argument that it is detrimental to "soft power" is pretty tenuous. In an address about cultural exchange presented last year, essayist Yu Qiu suggested that Confucianism isn't the part of Chinese culture that grabs people's attention:
Internationally, few people are mesmerized by Confucianism, the art of war, kung-fu, face-changing, political machinations, or Tang costumes. Chinese culture must find a new linchpin to flourish in the modern world - neither an economic strong point nor a geographic one, but rather a strong point of culture itself.
Smearing the reputations of dead heroes might cause some domestic discomfort, but when was the last time a "China threat" booster cited the work of a revisionist historian to bolster an anti-China argument?
Links and Sources
