RSS

Wed, Aug 27th 2008, 00:00

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (207)

Qi Li argues that the West neglects the perspectives of China and other nations. It is ironic that Chinese thinkers ignore perspective found in their own tradition that enriched the Enlightenment and strengthened Western democratic traditions. There exists in China a presumption of dichotomy between personal fulfillment and group interdependence that regards personal fulfillment as anti-social, just as group interdependence is devalued in the West. The presumption of both groups is that personal fulfillment is antithetical to responsibility to the group. In this sense, the West has much more to learn from Chinese and other cultures.

The West has been learning from Chinese and related East Asian cultures, and Indian and other cultures as well. Some changes have come through in relatively obvious ways, e.g., the well publicized teaching of Zen methodology, the Eastern martial arts, etc. Some other developments have occurred in such a way that it has so far been impossible to determine whether they are cases of convergent evolution of philosophies of life, or whether they are instances of a kind of silent cultural osmosis.

A very important instance, and one that is pertinent to aspects of their tradition to which the Chinese have apparently disattended, lies in the basic understanding of human nature behind the psychotherapy of the Karl Menninger. His understanding of psychological dysfunction, anti-social behavior, and the proper social and educational methods to prevent and cure problems are entirely in line with the educational theory and psychological insights of the Chinese philosopher Meng Ke (known in the West in his Latinized name, Mencius). These recommendations are opposed by authoritarian strains of both American and Chinese public planners and officials.

A related insight, to which Western authoritarian politicians are perhaps deliberately blind, is that found in the most ancient of Chinese documents pertaining to political philosophy. This early religious and philosophical account establishes two ideas that have permeated Chinese culture down to the present.

One principle is that Heaven most highly values the welfare of the common people, and establishes as the duty of rulers that they must be responsive to the needs of the people. (Failure to respond to the needs of the people will lead to the termination of the offending dynasty.) Voting is not involved, but what we today would call human rights are paramount.

The other principle consists of two important parts: (One) All human motivations are provided by Heaven (or, we might today say, by evolution) for the sake of the well being of human beings. As Karl Menninger pointed out, even aggression is good providing only that it is properly guided and appropriately used. (Two) Human motivations when not properly given vent and properly channeled will erupt at unexpected times and in generally destructive or at least unproductive directions.

The traditional (and hopefully dwindling) Western tradition has been to specify desired outcomes, give no thoughtful provision to individuals to achieve these outcomes, but to reward success and punish failure. Our growing prison populations show the futility of this approach. The Chinese approach, particularly since the coming to power of the Chinese Communist Party, has likewise been to use authoritarian and even draconian measure to achieve social control. There have been some improvements since the termination of the "Great Cultural Revolution," but authoritarian controls are still at the center of official policies.

The assertions of Qi Li about "human rights and Tibet" are as circumscribed in view as the similar assertions by authoritarian voices in the Bush administration and the think tanks that support them that human rights are, by law, only to be provided to U.S. citizens. The words that begin "All men are created equal," are apparently viewed as extending only to U.S. national borders. The ancient and yet current fundamental Chinese principle is likewise that Heaven expects the responsible treatment of all human beings, and that means that the human needs of Tibetans should not be infringed by their Chinese rulers.

I wonder whether the writer may not share the view expressed by some American public figures during the Vietnam War period -- that life is cheap in East Asia, that people in those countries do not want the same freedoms cherished by citizens of Western countries. And that facile claim reminds me of an unintentional confluence of two items in (I think it was) the New York Times. Above was a picture of a boy supporting holding himself up to look into the bed of a pickup truck wherein lay the dead body of his sister. Underneath was the headline for another article something like "Vietnam People Inured to the Travails of War."

Human instinct is to react against limitations of any kind on their freedom of action. The instinct can be observed soon after birth. Expression of the antagonism aroused can be suppressed by threats and punishments, but it will still be there.

If there is to be a useful dialog, it should center around questions of how to achieve good social order without damaging individuals in the process, how to let all humans thrive and achieve self fulfillment. Saying, "In our culture it is all right to...." will not be productive.