迷信 Superstition

All countries have superstitions, I just happen to find China's more interesting, not just because I live here but also because they tend to use language in interesting ways (with the exception of the superstitions or 谣言 – rumors as the government has called them – about ways in which the earthquake should be been prevented). For example, the number 4 is bad because it sounds like death, while 8 is good because it sounds like becoming rich. You should never split a pair (分梨) because you don't want to split up (分离) – they also sound the same).

As I said, the number 8 is good. In fact, its auspiciousness is so ingrained in Chinese thinking that the non-religious, anti-superstition Communist government planned the beginning of the Olympics for 8/8/2008 at 8pm. Though now people are beginning to doubt the traditional thinking that 8 is lucky. Note the following dates:

1/25 snowstorm

3/14 Lhasa riots

5/12 Sichuan earthquake

If you add up the digits in each date, they each add up to 8. I usually stack this stuff up to coincidence (and as noted in a blog entry I read today, the Shandong train crash doesn't fit this pattern), though it still does make you wonder.

I'm not superstitious. Most of the time. As a die-hard sports fan though, one always believes that things one does ruin opportunities for their favorite teams. Additionally, when I was told that in your 本命年 – every 12 years or the year that is associated with the same animal of the Chinese zodiac as the year you were born in – you are supposed to wear red every day, I bought a red bracelet that I have worn ever since. I don't believe in anything, so why not “believe” in this? One day a few weeks back, I was having a really bad, annoying day. About halfway through said annoyingness, I looked down at my wrist and realized that I had forgotten to put on my red bracelet after taking a shower. Let's just say I've been extra careful to make sure i'm wearing it ever since.

灾难与奇迹 Disasters and Miracles

A lot has happened since I last posted, especially in regards to China vis-a-vis the international system (which, if you know me, you know that I might care about this topic...just a little). First there were riots in Tibet, then the mess that was the international leg of the Olympic torch relay, and then a disastrous earthquake in Sichuan. I've had a lot to say about all of this but had difficulty putting it into writing.

In China, as the rescue efforts progressed, the press and the people were constantly looking for miracles - inspiring stories that could provide a glimmer of hope in an otherwise depressing situation. People who lived for over 100 hours buried under rubble; teachers who died saving their students; young children who carried their younger siblings to safety after losing both parents. The stories go on and on. The West is also searching for its own miracle within this disaster - a freer China. In the free reporting allowed on the earthquake and the government's relief efforts, the Western media sees a glimmer of hope of happy, democratic, free days to come. (For one example of this view, see Nicholas Kristof's recent op-ed in the Nytimes that compares China today to Taiwan in the 1980s).

Before I address this topic, I first want to say that I have found the Chinese government's and the Chinese people's response to the earthquake nothing short of impressive. The government certainly learned from its past mistakes as well as the mistakes of other countries (see not only Myanmar but also Katrina, Hurricane). And if I were Chinese, I would be full of praise for Wen Jiabao right now too. Was jumping on a plane less than 2 hours after the disaster somewhat politically motivated? Yes. Does "Grandpa Wen" seem to genuinely care about the people? Also, yes - especially compared to his boss, Hu Jintao, and certainly compared to President Bush. I'm not Chinese, and I still felt incredibly moved by his compassion. And the decision to - eventually - permit open reporting on the disaster relief was also impressive. I believe that it was somewhat politically motivated and also somewhat beyond the control of the government, but it certainly worked to increase Chinese confidence in their own government as well as Western confidence in China. (As one of my students said, "For the first time, I actually like the government.")

Still, I think the Western media is overreacting for a few reasons. The first is obvious - the media loves to sensationalize. Sensationalism sells. Additionally, as much as the Western media loves to criticize China, they also love to find that glimmer of hope that change is on the way. The second reason is that I don't find the earthquake response as such a huge departure from the norm. No one would characterize the Chinese media as anywhere near free, but there's a lot that goes on online and even in print (see: Southern Weekend) that challenges the boundaries that traditionally confine the Chinese press. For example, the fact that Chang Ping was even allowed to publish his controversial article says something (long story short, Chang Ping, as a deputy editor, wrote an editorial calling for a freer press as well as a re-thinking of Han relations with minorities, which caused him to be branded a traitor and eventually demoted). So in many ways, I see the open reporting on the earthquake as more a part of China's current trajectory than a sudden, random anomaly.

The final reason is that the open reporting was part politically motivated and part unavoidable (this seems to contradict my last statement but let me continue...). The media has pushed the envelope before (see: nailhouse, 2007), but in most circumstances, the government puts the lid on open reporting. However, this time the government realized that not only would it be next to impossible to stop the open reporting on the disaster but that it would work in their own interests (at least the interests of the central government...) to allow it to continue.

So, although I think the Western media is overreacting and drawing somewhat far-fetched conclusions, I still remain hopeful myself. My firm belief that while this was a sudden bout of extreme openness but that it also fits into the general trajectory towards more media freedom actually makes me more optimistic than those who are hoping for sudden change. After all, gradual reform tends to work better than glasnost.