China has changed dramatically since the mid-1980s. It's not just the increase in freeways, billboards and skyscrapers that disorientates long-time visitors. Even a visit to a bookstore can shock anyone who came to know China decades ago, when it seemed inconceivable that works by non-Marxist theorists would ever outnumber those by Marxists. A theater company has even been allowed to stage Animal Farm, George Orwell's anti-authoritarian allegory, once known to socialist-bloc readers only via underground editions.
The changes run deeper, of course. In the 1980s, there were no beggars on city streets, and the main social cleavage divided the small number of politically well-connected people, who enjoyed a privileged lifestyle, from everyone else. Now, there are both beggars and a burgeoning middle class. It used to be difficult to find anything to do on a Saturday night in Shanghai. Now, Time magazine calls the city the "most happening" place on earth.
While preparing for my first trip to China 20 years ago, George Orwell's dark masterpiece, 1984, seemed a useful lens through which to view this "people's republic." Control in China was not nearly rigid enough to be the embodiment of an all-embracing, authoritarian Big Brother state, but there were parallels, from the disparagement of many forms of "bourgeois" enjoyment and entertainment to periodic propaganda campaigns insisting that two plus two equaled five.
Still, despite all the changes, when foreign commentators nowadays want to spice up a China piece with a literary allusion, Orwell remains the seasoning of choice. Big Brother is invoked in stories about Internet censorship. When the authorities issue a White Paper on human rights, references are made to Newspeak.
But is this really the best lens through which to see China now? It is worth considering if Aldous Huxley, who taught Orwell at school and who wrote another great and portentous piece of political fiction, Brave New World, has a more relevant perspective.
Huxley's masterpiece, which had more to say about materialism, mood-control, mass-distraction and social fragmentation than Orwell's, offers a new kind of insight into what is really happening in 21st century China.
With its bliss-inducing drug "soma" and sensuous entertainments known as "feelies," which provided the sort of engrossing distraction now offered by video games and iPods, Brave New World's perspective adds a new dimension to understanding the durability of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a protean ruling party.
Of course, Newspeak is alive and well in many places, and there are certainly Orwellian echoes in the authorities' pronouncements and actions. But Orwell's critique doesn't help in explaining the CCP's surprising ability to retain power long after the demise of most of the socialist bloc, even in the face of widespread protests, including an estimated 74,000 separate incidents across China in 2004 alone.
After reading 1984 in 1949, the year of the founding of the People's Republic of China, Huxley sent his former pupil a letter praising the novel. He noted the emphasis that it put on rule via "boot-on-the-face" techniques and a puritanical distaste for pleasure.
But wasn't it more likely, Huxley mused, that future ruling elites would strive to keep the governed in line by distracting them with sexual allurement, entertainment and other forms of pleasure, a la Brave New World? In many ways, today's Chinese consumer culture is precisely the kind of palliative that Huxley described.
Another of Brave New World's strategies for control was to maximize divisions among the populace. Whereas the main distinction in 1984 is between rulers and ruled, in Brave New World, people are divided into different social orders defined by disparate tastes and lifestyles. The same could be said of China today, where the gaps between rich and poor, urban and rural populations, and coastal and inland culture are so great that it is much harder than before for people from varied walks of life to feel that they share common plights and goals.
Of course, no single novel provides a perfect lens through which to view a society. Sometimes, such as when violence was recently used to quell southern Chinese peasants protesting official land grabs, the CCP still showed its willingness to use "boot-on-the-face" suppression. Still, there have been more moments lately that favor Huxley's vision of political order over that of Orwell.
During my first post-1989 trip to China, a bartender introduced me to a phrase that perfectly characterized the new official mood: "Meiyou yundong, shenme dou keyi" (As long as there are no political movements, anything goes).
Orwell's Big Brother would not have been amused by this remark. But a member of Brave New World's ruling elite would have taken it in stride.
Jeffrey Wasserstrom teaches at Indiana University, where he is director of the East Asian Studies Center, and at the University of California, Irvine.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS