By now, just about all laowai should have heard of our “Harmonious Society“.
The first time I saw those words was about three years ago, in Chinese, written in huge font on a billboard along the road just after the Lupu Bridge in Pudong, Shanghai. At the time the sign was an anomaly, but within the last year it’s become ubiquitous.
It’s on red banners. It’s on billboards. It was a major theme in CCTV’s 2007 Chinese New Year program, probably the best indicator of its priority as a government message. It’s the name of the new high-speed trains, the “Harmony Lines å’Œè°å·â€, which started running in April. It has even jumped the party line into corporate consciousness: witness KFC’s new ad campaign, “Harmonious Family å’Œè°å®¶åºâ€ (ugh).
Facing somber issues like the rich-poor disparity, uprisings, and government corruption, the Harmonious Society is President Hu Jintao’s way of curiously both admitting and denying that China is currently unharmonious. Great effort at all levels has been put into writing the word “Harmony†everywhere, yet no clear definition, examples, or instructions about how to actually go about creating the Harmonious Society were given to me. Not until Yu Dan.
A few weeks ago, XM’s mother asked if we could help her buy a copy of TV lecturer Yu Dan’s Insights on “The Analects”, since she had heard it was a popular new explanation of the Chinese classic. Not having heard of Yu Dan until then, and I generally being confused when people speak in Nanjing-hua, we bought her Yu Dan’s Insights on “Zhuangzi” instead, since it was in piles at the bookstore (realizing our mistake, XM went back the next day and scouted out The Analects too).
I didn’t give much thought to Yu Dan or Confucius again until last week, when I learned via Danwei that a small group of scholars had publicly taken issue to Yu Dan’s outrageously popular TV appearances on the show CCTV Lecture Room, and her books.
In sum, the three apparent issues people have with Yu Dan are:
- She has compromised her scholarship (she’s a PhD and Media Studies professor at Beijing Normal University) by bending/editing Confucian thought so it applies to creating the Harmonious Society;
- She has taken this obtuse philosophy out of historic context and boiled it down into inane and sometimes misleading jianghu which is entertaining to the masses;
- Some of her explanations are just plain wrong.
As for #3, I’m not going to argue for her mistakes, since Confucius is tough and everybody makes mistakes (even though one of hers was really stupid).
However, I think her critics have missed the big picture in their other two complaints.
As for catering to the masses, first, Yu Dan is a Media Studies professor who in her spare time consults TV shows. She’s a specialist in high ratings, not the Classics. Of course she knows how to “make learning fun!” (i.e., simplifying). Second, she has even openly clarified that her shows and the books are a product of her personal reflections on The Analects—not some groundbreaking scholarly exposition. They should not be treated as the latter. Lastly, her episodes on CCTV Lecture Room were broadcast during a holiday last year, which in China means that, other than those stupid intrepid enough to travel, essentially all your average Zhou’s sitting at home watching TV while eating chicken feet were potential viewers. And they loved it.
In fact, shouldn’t that be the beauty of Yu Dan’s CCTV Lecture Room talks—they were an extremely successful step up from the lame kung-fu historical dramas American Idol impersonator competitions on these days?
And isn’t that just why she was chosen by state-run CCTV for the show—she’s smart, entertaining, and talks about how to achieve Harmony with your family and neighbors? It’s common knowledge that the government actively uses media to spread its own messages, not just filter those it doesn’t like. (I myself have, unfortunately, been on one staged TV contest, and cheered on an Indonesian friend who, despite an awful performance all around, won another. One fellow observer’s guess was that featuring Foreign Friends in these shows is to expose average Chinese to foreigners in advance of the Beijing Olympics, when they will flood the country).
But back to the government and Confucius.
What critics seem to be forgetting as they get all hot and bothered about scholarship is that the Chinese government has always, as long as there have been Classics to interpret, interpreted them to their advantage. Around 2,200 years ago, Han dynasty founder Liu Bang grudgingly accepted Confucianism to legitimize his authority, and then changed it so it better resembled his preferred philosophy, Legalism.
Further, in the 5th century Northern Wei Buddhist political patrons claimed Lao Zi and Confucius were disciples of Buddha, in order to wrangle power amongst their respective followers. In the ensuing Sui dynasty, Confucianism and Taoism were again fused with Buddhism to legitimize it. I’m going in order here, and we’ve got at least 14 more dynasties to go.
In sum, Chinese philosophy has time after time been used or abused to suit the needs of the ruling power. No one should be surprised that Confucius now teaches us how to contribute to a Harmonious Society. And to their credit, no matter how you interpret The Analects, Confucius actually does talk about harmony; don’t filial piety, friendship, loyalty, morality, and following rituals all keep people in order?
When I asked XM’s mom how she found the books, she said, “My memory’s not as good as it used to be. I enjoy what I’m reading, but I forget what I read by the next day.†Hmm. Maybe Yu Dan’s message isn’t getting through as well as the government hopes.
And just the other day on the news it was reported that the top desires of Chinese included more money, a luxury car, a villa and to win the lottery. Nobody mentioned harmony, but probably because it wasn’t a choice. Maybe using corporate advertisements as a vehicle for Harmonious Society are the better way to go after all. They won’t make any more sense, but at least we’ll know who’s behind them.
Awesome post. Sorry if this is a stupid question: who’s XM?
My reaction when hearing about this show is that it’s sad that the Chinese are still going back to Confucius to justify current political thought. I guess it’s roughly analogous to appeals to the Bible in the U.S. If that analogy holds, your point about her shows not being serious scholarship are even more clear.
Yeah, lets welcome the first bit of femininity to grace Lost Laowai. Welcome aboard Lauren.
@Chris: I assumed it was the significant other.
And good analogy in regards to the usage of the Bible in the West… I think it’s MUCH more prevalent and pervasive in the US than anything China uses to justify their idealisms.
I think that your post, in part, goes to prove that it is not the “Communist” style of govt that most people disapprove of, but rather the Imperial style of political life that the Chinese cannot break with that most westerners cannot get past.
I think we as westerners often confuse the two, but the current state of affairs has more in common with Qing politics that that of the USSR.
Red banners, reinterpreting the classics, banned martial exercises, controlled media, and one party ideology are all gifts handed down from one dynasty to the next. This is simply the current form of Chinese imperial rule.
I would bet that if we were around in another 400 years there would be a new dynasty with a new set of values that would use the same methods that have always been used since the Qin.
After all, are not the two most compared people in Chinese history Mao and Qin Shi Huang? We talked about recycling a post or two back, it seems to me that the govt is the biggest recycling ayi in history, from political tactics to architecture not much change.
I think China will be much cooler when Mencius comes back into vogue.
My question is in the past farmers were not really taught Confucianism snd therefore it was never dumbed down. Historically Confucianism and the Classics were reserved for the learned, much like how the west controlled higher learning until the 19th century. Do you think that this Yu Dan is successful in part because she is educating a nation that is at least 60% peasant and as you said more interested in material gain?
Seems to me that if they got a real scholar on there, nobody would watch. They prefer the watered down imperial soaps, super-girls, and dancing foreign monkeys. Dashan is the Monkey King.
All, thanks for the interesting discussion.
@Sean: Ha, I agree, Mencian government would be the best! As for your question about Confucianism, Yu Dan and the masses, I can’t say I know it’s the first time they’ve got Confucius Lite. Based on my feeling about Chinese peasantry, not real research, though, it seems they have a couple of Confucian ideas ingrained: societal hierarchy (wife to husband, son to father, citizen to government, etc.) and the importance of education. Now, I don’t know how those ideas would spread if not through education, but seeing as Confucianism is associated with feudalism, I’d guess that his ideas were really helpful in governing people, and that it somehow got promoted thru feudal governments. I have had lots more contact with Chinese city people than country people, and they have all memorized bits of the classical Chinese from _The Analects_; I can only assume that today in the countryside children would do the same even at the lowest level of school, seeing as that 1) education is standardized, and 2) rote memorization of philosophy they can’t possibly understand starts that early.
As for why Yu Dan struck a chord and sold 3 million books in half a year, perhaps it has to do with the discontent that is the reason for all the “Harmonious Society” propoganda. Average Chinese people really do need help with their lives: they have pressure to build material wealth without the skills or mindset to achieve it in China’s new capitalist economy. They need to make sense of things. Even before Yu Dan, Christianity has taken off across villages. To me, that’s another sign that people are looking for answers.
And, since this comment isn’t long enough, I am going to have to refute the Da Shan comment. I made fun of him for years, too, until just a few days ago he was on a comedy about the Japanese in Manchuria during WWII. He was an American pilot who parachuted down to secretly help the locals fight the Japanese. I have to admit, I really liked him! Maybe it was because the whole joke was that he couldn’t speak Chinese. He kept trying to say, “Wo Meiguoren”, and they heard it as, “Wo mai4 guo ren” (I have sold people).
Regimes clothe themselves with words of their own choosing. In many cases they are objectively reflective of the regime, at times not.
It seems a tenable point that most regimes founded by reasonable people aim for some sort of higher ideal. And if they don’t they should. Often this ideal is missed or corrupted, and then (Mr Lenin) “what is to be done”? The USSR and China were founded on a higher ideal that was never achievable, because the route they followed was flawed. Aiming for liberty via unadulterated socialism does not work. And when it failed in these two regimes, the terminology of the aims and ends was used to clothe the hideous mess that ensued. You may recall the “democracy” the USSR enjoyed.
Where did this leave the Chinese leaders?
They realized before the Soviets that any real success for their county, and probably their own hides, depended on obtaining economic growth. But socialism and the planned economy this entails could not deliver this growth. Therefore a laissez-faire approach was required. But this necessitates freedom and liberty in the economic sphere, which is difficult to obtain without general freedom and liberty.
On deciding that that economic freedom must be allowed (to a degree), a higher aim was required to legitimize the regime’s existence and policy to itself, its people and the world.
The natural aim for Zhou Blow or you and me might be liberty via democracy. But this it seems is not on the menu. Some other exotic dishes have been offered: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics; The Three Represents. My own feeling is that The Harmonious Society is more of the same. A struggle to define a political philosophy.
I hope this doesn’t sound too obvious. Interested to hear Da Shan’s point of view.
Jonas, I think you nailed it.
There’s a great post that overlaps this topic somewhat on Gene Expression: Confucianism & China
Hey Lauren!
You’re blog articles are wonderful. I see that China has become your home. I will be studying there, in Nanjing, come Spring 2008.
I’d love to learn more from you about life in China and would love to keep in contact and even meet up.
What do you say?
Rochelle the Buttafli
Pingback: ArseneL︱Able was I ere I saw Elba
Pingback: 空æ¯äº¦å¸¸æŒ » Blog Archive » å’Œè°ç¤¾ä¼šä¹‹äºŽä¸¹ç‰ˆ
Pingback: Asian History Carnival #14 (Straight Outta Beijing…)
It has even jumped the party line into corporate consciousness: witness KFC’s new ad campaign, “Harmonious Family å’Œè°å®¶åºâ€ (ugh).
lauren, what do you mean?
Xu, I mean that even though the government came up with the phrase “Harmonious Society”, its usage has been adopted outside of politics.
Hey,Lauren!
I’m Chinese.Recently, I accidentally found your article for my thesis related the harmonious society.I want to use part of it.Do you agree with it? Maybe we can make a friend to Communicate ideas,can you use Chinese?