By Jennifer Haskell
The May 12 Wenchuan earthquake acted as a mirror in which China saw a reflection of itself. And for the most part, the Chinese people liked what they saw. Sure, corruption is rampant among local governments, as embodied by collapsed school buildings, but the central government seems to genuinely care about the common people, as represented by the tears of Premier Wen Jiabao. The Chinese people also saw in their fellow citizens a willingness to selflessly help others in times of distress, a quality that was not immediately evident before the disaster. In the weeks following the earthquake, people found hope in the generosity of the millions who donated, in the bravery of the volunteers and soldiers, and in the stories of heroism, of parents and teachers who sacrificed their lives.
Ten days later a story of a different nature appeared online. Fan Meizhong, a high school teacher in Dujiangyan, a hard-hit town, wrote a post on the widely popular Tianya forum detailing his experience during the earthquake. When the disaster hit, he yelled, “Earthquake!” and then immediately ran from the room, giving his students no instructions. While his school was not damaged and no students were harmed, his students had remained in their classroom; not a single one had followed their teacher out of the room. He justified his actions by saying that there is no specific legal regulation that gives instructions on how a teacher should behave in an emergency, and those who expect him to act heroically are imposing their own expectations and sense of morality. According to Fan, his belief in liberalism allows him to be selfish and value his own life first; he would only be willing to sacrifice himself in order to save his daughter and would even leave his mother to die, a direct assault on the importance Chinese tradition puts on filial piety.
Obviously, his post caused an uproar among Chinese netizens, leading to his nickname “Running Fan” or the “Running Teacher” (Fan Paopao), and even to his firing. His actions were criticized as disgraceful, and people wondered why on earth he would publicize his cowardice. Yet, Fan Meizhong's story has also elicited a debate about morality in China, and provided an opportunity to re-examine the country's collective moral values.
Like other targets of netizens' outrage before him (see: Grace Wang), criticism of Teacher Fan quickly crossed the line of common courtesy. As Si Wenhan, the pen name for a member of the Standing Committee of Dadukou District People’s Congress in Chongqing, points out, no officials at any level of government, no matter how responsible they may have been for the collapse of “tofu dregs” school buildings, have been on the receiving end of such harsh censure. This all came to a head on June 7, when Fan Meizhong and Guo Songmin, one of his critics, met in a head to head debate on Phoenix TV, during which Mr. Guo, who seemed to see himself as the upholder of morality, had a string of harsh words for Teacher Fan. He called him “shameless,” “a beast,” and “a half-breed,” and showed no concern for common courtesies of debate, often interrupting his opponent. Because of Mr. Guo's behavior, Chinese netizens have named him “Guo the Clown” (Guo Tiaotiao), indicating that he had made a fool of himself. Since the TV broadcast, they have also generally been more sympathetic to Fan Meizhong than the moralizing Guo Songmin.
As numerous commentators have pointed out, one reason we should all hesitate before lashing out at Teacher Fan is that, in truth, we are all like him. As Cao Lin pointed out in the Oriental Morning Post, Fan Meizhong had the courage to tell his story, and “Who dares assert that they do not have a part of Fan Meizhong in them? Who dares say that in the far reaches of their minds, they have never had a flash of thinking like Fan Meizhong's?” Chinese netizens and “morality police” have taken their own fantastical, idealistic notions of morality and tried to enforce them among the general population. They forget that they, like Teacher Fan, are human and have the same human flaws of hypocrisy, conceit and insecurity, all of which came out during Guo Songmin's tirade.
Yet, the controversy surrounding Fan Meizhong has provoked more than nasty insults. His story and especially his rationale for running have stimulated a debate about what common moral values we can expect others to hold. Teacher Fan used aspects of liberalism and his right to pursue the safety of his own life over saving others as justification for his actions. Shao Jian, a teacher in the Department of Chinese Language and Literature at Nanjing Xiaozhuang College, however, believes that his understanding of liberalism is flawed. While liberalism grants people certain rights, it also requires certain duties, and in leaving his students behind, Fan Meizhong abandoned his duty as a teacher.
Additionally, while the liberal market system and liberal governmental systems often presume that all individuals will act selfishly in their own interests, only extreme believers in liberalism – like Ayn Rand – actually view selfishness and lack of charity towards others as praiseworthy. Heroism and even cooperation cannot be counted on but that does not mean they are not virtuous, as a belief in liberalism is most certainly not equivalent to valuing selfishness. Because there were no regulations instructing otherwise, it can be assumed that most liberals would see Teacher Fan's behavior as lawful but definitely not admirable. Had the same situation occurred in the United States, Americans would probably harbor similar feelings of disgust towards the “Running Teacher,” (Americans craved stories of heroism after 9/11 just as Chinese did after the earthquake) though there would also likely be more questioning of why the school or education system as a whole had no regulations governing teacher and student behavior during emergencies.
Teacher Fan's run – and especially his public account of his actions – certainly challenged the status quo of traditional thinking about morality in China. But where does that leave us in constructing new ideas about public values? Li Zhongqin, a writer and former member of the Shandong Writers Association, argues that the Chinese need to stop advocating ideas of morality that correspond more closely with the morality of a sage* or the morality of a hero. It is unrealistic to expect people to put others' interests before or even on the same level as their own. The morality police who self-righteously expect others like Teacher Fan to sacrifice their own interests and even possibly their lives for others are also acting selfishly and unfairly by putting a higher value on the lives of some over others (as Li points out, Fan Meizhong's students were all in their second year of high school – almost adults – not young children). While attempting to uphold such unattainable standards of morality, the idea of citizen's morality has still not truly emerged in China; such an idea makes use of the liberal assumption of innate selfishness, yet as Li explains, from this assumption can come win-win outcomes and mutual benefit. Such a moral system would still give praise and credit to those who act heroically but would not depend upon each person to do so.
Is China ready to adopt such a citizen's idea of morality? That is not entirely clear. By invoking the word “citizen,” in addition to requiring people in China to respect individual choices of others, Li Zhongqin also implies that people should also begin to engage and question the government, as per the duty of a citizen. Instead of dwelling on Fan Meizhong's personal failings, they should worry more about systemic problems, such as the collapse of schools and the lack of regulations regarding classroom behavior in the case of disaster. The firing of Teacher Fan indicates that China might have a long way to go, but at least the conversation has begun.
*In Chinese history, the sage is looked up to as someone who embodies the highest level of morality, with Confucius being the most famous and revered. In Li Zhongqin's article, the morality of a sage is higher than that of a hero, as the sage puts others' interests first, while a hero puts others on an equal plane.
No comments:
Post a Comment