The false dichotomy of Chinese characteristics vs. westernization

In recent years, "westernization" is still a fairly sensitive word. Take for a small example, my undergraduate student's senior thesis evoked strong reactions from some teachers at the thesis committee, especially from an elder teacher, because his thesis had endorsed a view of wholesale westernization. In my view, although the standpoint of this student's thesis can still be discussed, his paper organization was quite logical and with sufficient reasoning; it should be said that among undergraduates it is already very rare. Yet, only because his viewpoint was considered to have "political problems," his paper was not approved. This student was able to graduate only after he handed in a different thesis paper.

If "wholesale westernization" is regarded as at one end of a spectrum, the other end seems to be "Chinese characteristics." Unlike the always-low status of the word "westernization," we often use "Chinese characteristics" with a sense of righteous. In various fields over these years it has always been our mostly stressed word. In big issues such as national policy, we have "building socialism with Chinese characteristics;" in small things such as academic research, we have "building theories with Chinese characteristics." Stressing "national characteristics" is not only politically correct, but also in practice seems to be on par with attaching importance to national conditions and appears to have greater legitimacy.

Nonetheless, it is actually quite inappropriate to put "national characteristics" and "westernization" against each other. "National characteristics" cannot exclude "westernization." For instance, Buddhism has always been viewed as one of our country's traditional cultures, but it is a typical result of "westernization;" Marxism adhered by the Chinese Communist Party is also a completely "westernization" product.  At the same time, "westernization" also cannot exclude "national characteristics." Ideas such as human rights, democracy, and freedom assume different connotations after they are introduced to China from the West. Originating from the Western political system, election culture in China also has developed its own "characteristics."

Thus, clearly "westernization vs. national characteristics" is actually a false proposition. Wholesale westernization in reality is impossible to take place. Even countries such as Japan that ever made wholesale westernization a national policy eventually also have retained very rich traditional cultures, and Japan's political system also demonstrates many characteristics distinct from the West's. Similarly, "national characteristics" with a premise to reject "westernization" completely is also unworkable, since it is the same as to put oneself out of the modern civilization. In reality, it is also impossible to stop and be complacent with oneself in front of the globalization waves. The most typical case is that under slogan of "building socialism with Chinese characteristics" China ultimately adopted market economy. This is the wise result of not to reject and impossible to reject "westernization."

In view of such, it is better to say that those who advocate wholesale westernization are illusionary, than radical; those who advocate complete rejection of "westernization" and stress "national characteristics" are nearsighted, than conservative. Their common error is that they neglect the history and reality whereby human civilizations learn from each other and develop together; they overlook that a country can only maintain its powerful truth thorough opening up. A fully self-confident nation will absolutely not reject other nations' outstanding civilization achievements. A country persisting on opening up does not have a clear-cut boundary between "national characteristics" and "westernization." If such a boundary is being forcefully drawn, the country and nation might become rigid and risk stagnation. During Chinese history, the most powerful periods such as Han and Tang Dynasties were also the periods that were most open and absorbed most outside cultures, while the most backward periods began with Ming and Qing Dynasties' closed-door policies that disdained outside advanced technology and culture but eventually suffered a heavy lesson in modern times.

In the end, whether "national characteristics" or "westernization," they are just a tool. The ultimate objectives are the well-being of people's life, progress of social development, and strength of national power. As long as they are beneficial to these objectives, be they "national characteristics" or "westernization," it is not a big deal. To ignore these eventual objectives and focus on talking about "national characteristics" or "westernization" is to commit the error of putting the cart before the horse.    

Note: the Chinese article was published at China Election 走出“特色VS.西化”思维的误区; the author also has a blog here.

In recent years, "westernization" is still a fairly sensitive word. Take for a small example, my undergraduate student's senior thesis evoked strong reactions from some teachers at the thesis committee, especially from an elder teacher, because his thesis had endorsed a view of wholesale westernization. In my view, although the standpoint of this student's thesis can still be discussed, his paper organization was quite logical and with sufficient reasoning; it should be said that among undergraduates it is already very rare. Yet, only because his viewpoint was considered to have "political problems," his paper was not approved. This student was able to graduate only after he handed in a different thesis paper.

If "wholesale westernization" is regarded as at one end of a spectrum, the other end seems to be "Chinese characteristics." Unlike the always-low status of the word "westernization," we often use "Chinese characteristics" with a sense of righteous. In various fields over these years it has always been our mostly stressed word. In big issues such as national policy, we have "building socialism with Chinese characteristics;" in small things such as academic research, we have "building theories with Chinese characteristics." Stressing "national characteristics" is not only politically correct, but also in practice seems to be on par with attaching importance to national conditions and appears to have greater legitimacy.

Nonetheless, it is actually quite inappropriate to put "national characteristics" and "westernization" against each other. "National characteristics" cannot exclude "westernization." For instance, Buddhism has always been viewed as one of our country's traditional cultures, but it is a typical result of "westernization;" Marxism adhered by the Chinese Communist Party is also a completely "westernization" product.  At the same time, "westernization" also cannot exclude "national characteristics." Ideas such as human rights, democracy, and freedom assume different connotations after they are introduced to China from the West. Originating from the Western political system, election culture in China also has developed its own "characteristics."

Thus, clearly "westernization vs. national characteristics" is actually a false proposition. Wholesale westernization in reality is impossible to take place. Even countries such as Japan that ever made wholesale westernization a national policy eventually also have retained very rich traditional cultures, and Japan's political system also demonstrates many characteristics distinct from the West's. Similarly, "national characteristics" with a premise to reject "westernization" completely is also unworkable, since it is the same as to put oneself out of the modern civilization. In reality, it is also impossible to stop and be complacent with oneself in front of the globalization waves. The most typical case is that under slogan of "building socialism with Chinese characteristics" China ultimately adopted market economy. This is the wise result of not to reject and impossible to reject "westernization."

In view of such, it is better to say that those who advocate wholesale westernization are illusionary, than radical; those who advocate complete rejection of "westernization" and stress "national characteristics" are nearsighted, than conservative. Their common error is that they neglect the history and reality whereby human civilizations learn from each other and develop together; they overlook that a country can only maintain its powerful truth thorough opening up. A fully self-confident nation will absolutely not reject other nations' outstanding civilization achievements. A country persisting on opening up does not have a clear-cut boundary between "national characteristics" and "westernization." If such a boundary is being forcefully drawn, the country and nation might become rigid and risk stagnation. During Chinese history, the most powerful periods such as Han and Tang Dynasties were also the periods that were most open and absorbed most outside cultures, while the most backward periods began with Ming and Qing Dynasties' closed-door policies that disdained outside advanced technology and culture but eventually suffered a heavy lesson in modern times.

In the end, whether "national characteristics" or "westernization," they are just a tool. The ultimate objectives are the well-being of people's life, progress of social development, and strength of national power. As long as they are beneficial to these objectives, be they "national characteristics" or "westernization," it is not a big deal. To ignore these eventual objectives and focus on talking about "national characteristics" or "westernization" is to commit the error of putting the cart before the horse.    

Note: the Chinese article was published at China Election 走出“特色VS.西化”思维的误区; the author also has a blog here.

Comments

[thesis paper]

Wonderful article, thanks for putting this together! "This is obviously one great post. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided here. Keep it up!"