© Copyright (2005)  Southeast Conference of the Association of the Association of Asian Studies.  SEC/AAS

Return to Contents, Volume XXVII, Southeast Review of Asian Studies

 

                                                SCHOLARLY NOTES

 

            Scholarly Notes is a new experimental section for this journal.  Each entry, not exceeding 2,000 words, may reflect a variety of applications. They may be mini-research articles, interim reports on research in progress, proposals for future research, or brief commentaries on any aspect of Asian life.  All readers are strongly urged to contribute to this section.

                                                     _________________

 

JAPAN’S 2002 EDUCATIONAL REFORMS: THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT

 

Lucien Ellington

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

 

The beginning of the 2002 school year marked the final stage of implementation of a number of changes in the Japanese educational system that the Ministry of Education first advocated in the late 1970s and that were incrementally phased in during subsequent decades.  Examples of reforms include the creation of American-style comprehensive high schools, elimination of Saturday classes, and, in 2002, the elimination of one third of the content of the national curriculum and the national implementation of student-centered Integrated Studies in elementary and middle schools.  Reform advocates were successful in gaining Ministry and Diet approval of these educational changes in the 1990s when Japan’s continuing economic malaise coupled with what some saw as deteriorating social conditions caused influential members of the business community and media to join in calls for change.

 

The general goal upon which the reformers agreed was that it was imperative for Japanese schools to play a role in creating a new kind of citizen who could be a self-directed, problem solver and would be better positioned to meet unanticipated future challenges.   In the past Japanese schools had, according to reform proponents, concentrated too much upon students acquiring factual content, over-emphasized entrance examinations, and treated children and young people as if they were all alike than upon tailoring the system to meet the needs of individuals.  The reformers structured the systemic changes so that they would create a new atmosphere within schools and among young people in general.  The guiding philosophy of the educational changes was yutori kyoiku or, “education that gives children room to grow.”

 

When in the mid-1990s I learned of the proposed structural changes, and more importantly, their underlying philosophy, I became quite interested in following the implementation process and the reaction of elements of Japanese society to the new direction of Japan’s schools.  Although I had studied Japanese education for twenty years, it was the obvious influence of American Progressive educational thinking upon the reformers’ conceptualization of schooling that most intrigued me. The underlying philosophy of the Japanese educational reforms was identical to Progressive rhetoric that has exerted a dominant influence on American public schools for most of the 20th Century and particularly after World War11.  By contrast, the educational philosophy that guided Japan’s public schools until 2002 was Essentialism where content, uniform standards and authoritative teachers were deemed important.  A major shift in belief and approach seemed imminent.

 

Although American public school student performance is probably influenced more by factors extraneous to educational institutions, after thirty years of work with K-12 American schools, I had become convinced of the empirical case for the connection between the Progressive de-emphasis upon traditional academic content and accentuation of  such vaguely defined approaches as” teaching for higher-order thinking” and “student centered learning,” and the failure of many American public schools to educate students to levels of basic proficiency.  By contrast, Japans schools, despite serious flaws including many identified by the reformers, were quite effective in imparting, to paraphrase Thomas Rohlen, a level of literacy, numeracy, and general knowledge to the general citizenry that usually only graduates of elite European secondary schools possessed. 

 

The educational and political ramifications of the above were fascinating to me.  In the U.S. elites not associated with the public school establishment realized decades ago that applied Progressivism was often educationally vacuous and either placed their children in private schools or exercised enough local political authority to force administrators to keep standards high in public schools populated by their off-spring.  Progressive education had been controversial from the beginning of its actual influence in U.S. educational history.  As I followed the debate upon Japanese reforms, even though the change advocates were successful, their opponents seemed as vehement in their opposition as their American counterparts.

 

I began to focus my research on Integrated Studies (IS), the one reform that to me most epitomized the new Japanese educational thinking. In IS, beginning in third grade, all elementary and middle school students are required to spend 105-110 classroom hours annually learning about subjects they and their teachers select.  There are no textbooks or tests that accompany IS.  The Ministry of Education provides only the following themes as guides for teachers and students as they plan instruction: International Understanding; Information Technology; Environment; and Social Welfare and Health.  Hundreds of schools were selected to pilot IS programs in 1999 to give the rest of the nation’s schools guidance in 2002. 

 

Although there are exceptions, in general, Japanese elementary teachers and students tend to like IS while many middle school teachers, because of the pressure to prepare students for entrance examinations, pay lip service to IS and use the time for other activities such as extra math tutoring.  Readers who are interested in this particular reform are welcome to contact me as I am continuing to follow this particular reform.

 

However, as I write this Scholar’s Note, the future of the Japan’s 2002 educational reforms and the viability of the philosophy behind them, is in serious political jeopardy in Japan.  Although the reforms described earlier have been implemented, the examination system, at least for those students who aspire to entire selective educational institutions, remains in place.  Throughout the 1990s and the early part of this decade, increasing numbers of anxious parents left public middle and high schools for private schools where they thought their children would be better academically served.  Meanwhile, for whatever reason, Japanese performance in mathematics and reading has declined relative to several other Western European and East Asian countries in international assessments of student academic skills.

 

 In mid-January 2005 Education, Science, and Technology Minister Nariaki Nakayama announced his intention to change what has been now labeled the so-called “cram free” education system to one that would place more importance on improving academic ability and class hours.  Although changes in Japan’s educational system, because of bureaucratic and political factors, take years to be implemented, it will be quite interesting to learn in the future what, if anything will remain of the “education to give children room to grow” movement.

A VISIT TO THE STUDY CENTRE FOR INDIAN LITERATURE IN ENGLISH AND TRANSLATION

 

Roderic L. Owen

Mary Baldwin College

 

(Editors note:  Roderic L. Owen, Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Mary Baldwin College, Virginia, recently spent a portion of a sabbatical leave in India engaged in teaching and research focused on Gandhian Ethics and Interfaith Education at Lady Doak College, Madurai, and the Madurai Gandhi Museum.)

 

Tucked away on an autonomous college campus in Madurai, South India, there is a literary-resource jewel christened with a rather “homey” sounding acronym: SCILET.  The setting is the American College of Madurai (started one-hundred and twenty-five  years ago by Yankee Congregational missionaries); and the acronym stands for “Study Centre for Indian Literature in English and Translation.”  Ironically ,  by 2005 there is nothing particularly “American” about the college (other than its historic roots and Dr. Paul Love, one of the Centre’s founders), nor is there anything  especially  “homey” or provincial about SCILET and its three  co-founders what-so-ever. These unassuming, collegial   scholar-teachers  (two of whom now serve as retired English faculty) continue to  work   as directors of  this rich and  under-utilized  resource centre (at least by non-Indian scholars); and they are obviously keenly aware not only of  developments in the diverse literatures of India but also of the various cross-currents in international literary movements and trends.  When the term “post-colonial” was bandied about, Paul Love -- with a wry smile --opined that it may be time to become post post-colonial.  His esteemed colleagues, R.P. Nair and Premila Paul studiously avoided the trendy jargon of post-modern literary criticism and instead talked with direct passion, not only about the goals, visiting guest authors, and  programmes of SCILET but also about the astonishingly diverse range of Indian authors and poets (both within India and in diaspora)  --making  specific references to  those literary works which led to the creation of SCILET in the first place.

 

            Whether labeled as “Post-colonial” or “New Literatures in English,” it is now clear that the days in which instruction and scholarly discourse in English literature narrowly understood as “British-English” have ended.  Since the early 20th century -- even within the British Isles themselves -- we’ve witnessed  the emergence of distinctive  Anglo-Welsh, Anglo-Irish and  Scottish literary voices. And, in the past quarter-century we’ve now seen other English-language  writers  emerge from across the old Commonwealth: men and women  who choose to express themselves in English but may or may not have  an affinity for the  traditional canon and  British-English cultural authority. Not only have English- language Asian poets and authors been creating a distinctive voice (different too, from American literature), but they’ve also found an eager reading public and several world–class publishers willing to promote their work.  (It is claimed, for example, that Arundhati Roy, winner of the Booker prize for her outstanding first novel,  The God of Small Things , received a huge publisher’s advance.)

 

Although by some estimates only about ten percent  of India’s citizens are active readers in English,  this alone qualifies populous  India as the second largest,  English-language “readers market” in the world;  directly stated, ten percent of  India translates into over one-hundred million readers of English. . Moreover, there are many millions more English-readers  across Pakistan, Southeast Asia, Hong Kong,  South Korea and other parts of the Asian continent who appear to be interested in reading something more  than Business Week and The Economist.   For  readers and writers in India, Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children, in particular, is often cited as a key seminal work in which  new Asian-Indian English literary conventions  and themes fully emerged -- setting a standard for others to either emulate or respond against .Clearly, the trans-global spread of English, the emergence of economic globalization on a corporate and multi-national scale, the example of new literary forms emerging from North American Asian diaspora, and the  continuing evolution of personal and cultural identity in a world in which people communicate instantly and travel extensively are among the important factors shaping the themes and forms of new English literatures across Asia and also among Asian peoples scattered across Europe, North America, and Australia & Polynesia.

 

To return to SCILET: the centre is located on the quiet, green-canopied American College campus which, in turn, is situated  in a bustling and congested  temple city: what “locals”  refer to as an overgrown  Tamil village (of over one million). Madurai is a “developing world” tropical, urban community coping with the difficult infrastructure challenges brought on my rapid growth of government and various soft industries, the rise of a prosperous (and “consuming”)  middle class,  the lingering presence of urban poverty, and (somewhat ironically)   a burgeoning tourist industry -- actively seeking to promote the city as an international destination. At times one is astonished by the jarring co-mingling of “urban suits” with cell phones and their  late-model luxury autos with a/c --  with peasant folk, dressed in a simple lungi (white cloth)  and  perched high on an ox-drawn cart loaded with sugar cane.  SCILET, too, in its own way appears to blend   a high- tech approach (with its well-designed web-site and distance services providing global access to its resources) and a decidedly low-tech, cordial air of  gracious hospitality (tea or coffee included).

 

.            In traditional terms, SCILET can be seen as a thorough, spacious, and well-organized library collection including such  clearly labeled sections as “Tamil Literature,”  “Indian Cinema,”  “The History of Indian Literature,”  “Poetry Criticism (of Indian Literature),”  “Anthologies of Indian Literature,” etc. In addition, the library includes strong sections on Women’s Studies and works written by Indian women authors; this is one of the library’s most rapidly growing collections reflecting a particular commitment to condition and activities of women across India. Their journal and periodical collection, too, is comprehensive including over seventy titles ranging from The Journal of Indian Writing in English  to The London Review of Books .

 

However, there is more going on at SCILET than a solid collection of books and periodicals: one senses a clear and passionate sense of mission from Professors Love, Nair, and Paul. Two decades ago, when they realized  that Indian Literature in English had “arrived,” they also saw  a growing public  demand and scholarly need  to translate quality literary works from India’s diverse languages ( Tamil, Urdu, Telugu, Malayalam, etc) into English,  thus making that literature available to a broader audience across India. This, too, is part of the calling of SCILET in their effort to   create positive and creative linkages between indigenous literary traditions and play a national role in establishing bi- or tri-lingual “literary cultures.”   In this context rather than fight against the pervasive encroachment of “utilitarian and business-oriented English,” perhaps there is a way to nurture, celebrate, and widely disseminate co-extant literatures while also shaping written English in dramatically new ways. This may be an especially wise -- if unstated --strategy in a nation-state which has sixteen major languages and yet, ironically, is linked nationally (and internationally) by a “colonially imported” non- indigenous language.  Perhaps a major cultural assumption lying  behind SCILET is the confident  recognition  that  Indian English need no  longer  be regarded as either a colonial British import; a necessary national, political compromise; or even as a lingua franca for  tourism and economic transactions.

 

The Centre   has been drawing scholars from across India to Madurai since its inception in 1984 (including Meena Alexander, Kamal Das, Shiv Kumar and John Oliver Perry, to name only a few) and appears fully capable of  serving the needs of both international scholars and writers as well as doctoral students and beginning faculty members in a variety of fields of study beyond literature: including Women’s Studies, Asian Studies, and History as well as other “cultural area studies.”  Indeed, faculty housed in English departments, others who draw upon world literature and are committed to interdisciplinary scholarship and teaching about South Asia (and Indian cultures and languages  in particular) may be very interested in drawing upon the services and resources of  SCILET. Although, the Centre does not offer travel grants or scholarships, their fees are very modest; they are positively anxious to assist others with a shared scholarly commitment and interest; and the Centre clearly enjoys wide respect and support from its home institution from the College Principal to the friendly and helpful staff assistants.

  

CHINA: ASTONISHING BUT TROUBLED RISING STAR
 
Daniel A. Metraux
Mary Baldwin College
 
Even though I have been teaching Chinese history at the college-level for nearly three decades and have heard about the rapid changes occurring in the “Middle Kingdom,” I was totally unprepared for the entirely modern evolution of the Chinese state when I visited Shanghai and Chengdu in March 2005.
 
               The rapidity and completeness of this change became evident when I participated in a college fair designed to recruit able Chinese students to attend an American university.  I brought a video tape to show off the beauty of Mary Baldwin College, but was unable to do so because nobody in China seemed to have a VCR.  If I had brought a DVD, there would have been no problem, but it seems that the Chinese have made a huge leap from primitive communications technology to the most modern DVD equipment, completely by-passing the VCR age.
 
               I am told that one may find plenty of impoverished and less developed areas across rural and small-town China, but there is very little of this in evidence both in 
Shanghai and in Chengdu, a huge city in SW China and capital of Szechuan Province.
There are a few historic districts left in Shanghai including the famous bundt left over
from the colonial era, but virtually everything else has been ripped down in favor of row
upon row of public housing projects and over 3100 skyscrapers with many more being built every year.  Chengdu, a city of ten million, had fewer skyscrapers, but there were many shimmering glass towers, new apartment blocks, and very little of anything old except a sprawling Buddhist temple full of very devout Sunday worshippers.  Both cities have exquisite ultra-modern airports that would make the American traveler stare in utter
astonishment.  Department stores in both cities are amazing 
 
               My views of streets in southern China a decade or more ago rendered an abundance of bicycles and motor bikes, but there were only a small handful of bikes and motorcycles and an abundance of cars, most of then shiny and new, driving haphazardly all over the place in Shanghai.  There were far more bikes and motorcycles in Chengdu, but the streets were clogged with midday automobile traffic.
 
               China has become the manufacturing engine for the entire world and is already beginning to reap some of the benefits of this success, but there is a heavy price to pay.
There is clearly a rapidly growing gap between rich and poor which belies the egalitarian
goals of the Maoist revolution.   Even more noticeable is the awful pollution.  It was
supposed to be a sunny spring day when I visited Chengdu and a few beams of sunlight did filter through the dark smog hiding the blue sky, but when I looked up at the sun, all I
could see was a small orange ball obscured in clouds of filthy air.  I am told that walking though Chengdu on any given day is like smoking two packs of cigarettes which
must cause health problems with the majority of people who seem to smoke heavily there.
Pollution in Shanghai was even worse!
 
               I was amazed at the high educational level of the 40 young women I interviewed in Shanghai and Chengdu on behalf of my college.  Of course, it was a self-selected group representing the cream of modern Chinese society, but each student was fluent in English (so much better than any of the hundreds of Japanese students I have interviewed over the years) and far more aware of world politics than most if not all my American college students.  Many had traveled or studied abroad, mainly in Europe.  Interestingly, when I asked them which modern (now dead) Chinese leader they admired the most (Mao, Chou En-lai, Deng Xiao-ping, Chiang Kai-shek, and Sun-Yat-sen), the landslide winner was Chou followed by Deng, Mao and a virtual tie between Sun and Chiang. They all agreed that Taiwan is an integral part of China, but they had no problem with the current Taiwanese regime staying in power as long as it too acknowledged that it was ultimately a part of greater China.
 
               The only political poster I saw anywhere was in a small picture shop in Shanghai where I was greeted with a huge smiling face of John Kerry.  When I told the proprietor that I had voted for Kerry and have a strong dislike for Bush, he said most of his friends felt the same way.  We shook hands and parted smiling.  The students also expressed distaste for Bush and recent acts of the US government, but also expressed deep admiration for the US and its people and said that they were most anxious to live and study there.  I was told that one has virtually complete economic freedom in China and that anybody could freely express political opinions as long as one did not criticize the Chinese government and its leaders in an open loud manner.  It was correctly pointed out that Shanghai voters select municipal council members through heavily contested elections.
 
               Where is China going as a world power?  It rather reminds me of Germany in the years before World War I when it was the new power boy on the block and blundered around challenging the established world order.  China’s ultimate destiny is uncertain, but it will without doubt become a major economic and military power in the very near future.
 
               Over the centuries tens of thousands of foreign merchants have come to China to sell their wares by trying to penetrate the China market and it caused me to smile to realize that I was now a part of this old tradition.  But unlike the past when few Chinese wanted or could afford foreign goods, many Chinese actually want and can afford the product I was selling—an American education.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEO-LEFTIST THEORY, NEO-LIBERALIST THEORY AND NEO-AUTHORITARIAN THEORY:  A DEBATE IN THE NATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE ACADEMY OF CHINA

 

 

Zhiyuan Chen

Appalachian State University

 

I.                   Introduction

In the last 15 years or so, researchers in the social sciences in China, including those in sociology, political science, Marxism studies, economics, law, and anthropology, have been involved in a multidisciplinary debate regarding the present status and the future of China. This kind of debate regarding the political system, and socio-political and socio-economic structures of China has never happened since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, because under the power of the Communist Party of China, above all during Mao Zedong’s era, any discussion about the political system of China beyond the principles set by the ruling party and Mao, was totally prohibited, and was considered counterrevolutionary or reactionary.

 

Even though there are some complaints regarding the way the Chinese government and the Department of Propaganda of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party controls, criticizes, and somehow manipulates the mass-media to interfere in this nationwide discussion, it still constitutes the first open, and the most liberal political debate without strict restriction, obvious political persecution, and direct disciplinary punishment from the Communist Party and the Central Government since 1949 when the People’s Republic of China was founded.

 

It is true that Deng Xiaoping and his followers initiated the so-called “Open Door Policy,” which consists mainly of an anti-socialist or capitalist economy with more free market devices, more polarized economic planning, and decentralized administration in local business and governing.  Deng Xiaoping was very happy to give himself the title of “General Designer” of a “New Socialist System” because of his contributions in that regard. However, in China there has not been a serious and systematic designing about this type of so-called “Socialist Political System with Chinese Character” at all in all the existing socialist theories from Marx, Lenin, Stalin to Mao. It is still totally unclear what this political-economical system means, and what is the theoretical and practical foundation of this system; for example, there is no clear explanation about what is the socialist nature of this political mechanism, and what these Chinese characteristics exactly consist of. Most researchers in social sciences in China, up until today, still follow the traditional pragmatic methodology indicated by Zhao Ziyang’s famous saying: “Crossing the river by touching the rocks under the water.[1]” Up till the present time, the top political leaders have launched a series of political guidelines such as Deng Xiaoping’s “Four Principles”[2], and Jiang Zemin’s “Three Representations”[3], which sound more like political slogans than like political principles, and none of the newly arising political leaders after Mao and their theoretical and pragmatic supporters deeply studied this topic related to the future of China from a solid theoretical foundation.

 

 In a practical sense, it seems to me that China is facing a political dilemma and the challenge of serious policy decisions among several possible choices for its socio-political future. We do not know what is exactly going on with the people who have the decision-making power at the top of Communist Party and Central Government. We have little credible information about the theoretical debates among the top leaders of the Communist Party and their intellectual supporters, besides a series of discussions regarding some practical, pragmatic, and concrete political procedures.

 

 On one hand, China has had the fast growing economy in the world since the 1980’s, and on the other hand, profound social problems have been arising, which may shake the present political power of China. Both Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao tried to call the attention of this dangerous situation to the members of Communist Party in public. Facing this reality, many researchers in social sciences and humanities, and university professors of China stared to think and debate about the future of China. The nature of this debate is both political and academic. It is academic because it touches wide range of topics of social sciences such as sociology, political science, economics, anthropology, environmental science, and cultural studies; and it has a political nature, because it is directly related to the justification of the present political and economic system created by Deng Xiaoping since early 1980’s.

 

What is the main negative socio-economic and socio-political reality of China that motivates Chinese intellectuals to start this debate about the future of China? The following are the major problems existing in the present situation:

 

1.                  Extreme polarization of wealth distribution in Chinese society

 

According to research by the Institute of Sociology of the National Social Science Academy of China, there are 236,000 millionaires in China. They are Chinese richest people, which constitute only 0.002% of the total population, although China’s per capital gross national income is only $890. Most of the richest 1% people in China are directly related to the political power (political leaders, governmental officials, and their relatives). These wealth individuals how have direct or indirect connections with political power, may abuse of this power to become rich. The richest 5% control more than 60% of the nation’s private property and wealth. The richest 20% occupy 42.4% of the GNP, and the 20% of people with the lowest income occupy only 6.5% of the GNP. The income differential between the top 20% and the 20% poorest is 8:1. This number is much higher than that of any developed country in the world. According to governmental statistics, 40 million people still do not have decent housing and enough food. Other official statistics show that 70 million people’s annual income is below 1000 yuan (around US$120), and 5 million people’s annual income is below 500 yuan (around US$60), and there are 270,000,000 unemployed or underemployed persons in the country.

 

2.                  Cultural and spiritual emptiness

 

Under recent extreme materialism, ideological emptiness, “cultural businesszation”, and money-hungry fanaticism, Chinese traditional culture along with its arts, customs, ethics, morality, and social foundation is being destroyed; few Chinese people, above all the young ones, remember or know Chinese traditional philosophy, moral principles and thoughts. Qigong, taiji, martial arts, and other well-known Chinese cultural manifestations are becoming decorative exercises, magic curative instruments, deceptive meditations, and self-defense techniques for tourist proposes and interests. Modern China is entering into spiritually empty age under this “money culture” fanaticism.

 

3.      Corruption

 

The corruption in the Chinese government and Communist Party has reached the level some of the most corrupt Latin American and African countries. Money and power have made governmental officials of the new generation at all levels crazy. No matter how strict the punishment, public officials are competing with each other to plunder public wealth and “rape” the common people. Amazingly, surveys show that some 90% of the population believe that public officials are venal. Smuggling, money laundering, transferring governmental money into personal account, bribes taking, illegal commissions from private companies, illegal activities in the stock market, etc. are part of everyday “business” for many public officials. Annually corruption causes a 13-16% loss to the total national GDP.

 

4.      Shortage of energy and natural resources

 

The abuse and shortage of natural resources such as clean water, minerals such as iron and copper, petroleum, electricity, and other energy sources is becoming the biggest challenge to national economic growth. 

 

 

 

 

5.      Environment damage

 

The lack of environmental consciousness in economic planning will damage economic growth in the long term. According to the Director of the National Environmental Protection Department of China, China loses annually 8% of its GDP because of pollution. Agricultural production has begun to be insufficient for national consumption in the last few years because of massive construction projects, and the abuse of land.

 

6.      Social stability

 

Poverty, violation of human rights, spiritual emptiness, unequal wealth distribution, and the high rate unemployment have brought about profound social problems, which have resulted in a high rate of suicide, criminal activity, broken marriage, etc. The suicide rate in China reached the highest recorded level in the history; approximately 287,000 persons per year, i.e., 786 persons per day. They choose to end their lives, many as a result of personal and social trauma they have experimented in the “new” China. This number does not include two million people per year who attempt suicide, but do not succeed. In 2001, there were 351,966 criminal cases, and in 2003, the total number of the criminal cases reached 4,394,000. This number is much higher than that of any previous year in the People’s Republic of China’s history.

 

7.      Social benefits

 

Together with the abolishing of the old socialist social benefit system, social benefits including health care, retirement, maternal and child hygiene programs, labor protection, and the protection of disabled people, have been disappearing or much diminished from the 1980’s, except for a small group of high ranking Party leaders, and military and governmental officers. Government at different levels, and state owned companies are presents 6,000,000,000 yuan in debt to the retired.

 

8.      Education for the rich

 

Public education has been becoming elitist and capitalized. Basic public education is now not affordable for the very poor, above all for those living in underdeveloped rural areas. Higher education is becoming impossible for young people coming from low-income families.

 

The above eight points only partially cover existing problems in China, which may put the Chinese economy and social stability in danger, both in the short and long run.

 

In current Chinese debate regarding the future of the People’s Republic, there are three main approaches: Neo-leftist, authority, Neo-literalist, and neo-authoritarian theory, as the main curative instruments for solution.

 

II.                Neo-leftist Theory

 

The Neo-leftist Theory is mainly based on Marxist Theory, and its representatives are Guyan Chen, Zhiyuan Cue, Shaoguang Wang, Yang Gan, Hui Wang, Guangtian Zhang, Hui Wang, and others. The main theoretical points of neo-leftist theory include the following:

 

1.       Having become deeply involved into the globalization process, China also consciously or unconsciously entered into the dangerous process of global capitalism.

2.       By introducing the Western market system, Chinese society is suffering from “West Syndrome” or “Market Syndrome”. Western life-ways, Western culture, Western goods, Western customs, rock-and-roll, Coca-Cola, hamburgers… are invading China, and changing the Chinese cultural tradition and way of life. Chinese traditional culture is giving its dominant place to modern culture, which is a synonym for Westernized culture.

3.       The capitalist market system has caused a technological and industrial revolution to Chinese modern society. However, under the current economic system, production for the common people is no longer the goal of economic development, but rather profit for a small group of people who posses the economic power and capital.

4.       Capitalization of the economy also has brought nuclear energy competition, potential nuclear war, exhaustion of natural resources, and environmental destruction on the one hand, and a mafia-style economy, unemployment, poverty, future unpredictable periodical depression, and the sacrifice of the basic interests and surviving right of the poorer people on the other hand. The present extreme problems of social injustice are due to this process of economic capitalization and adoption of the market system.

5.       The “barbarous” capitalist system is bringing all kinds of corruptions to China again. The corruption of the Communist Party and governmental agencies at all levels is inevitable under the current economic system, no matter what disciplinary procedures and legal punishments the central government and the Central Committee of the Communist Party have applied or want to apply.

6.       The current extreme polarization between rich and poor, the unequal distribution of social wealth, massive abuse of political power, and all other problems, have been caused by the over-marketization of the Chinese economy. This over-marketization definitely will damage the Chinese economy in the long run, and will result in the final destruction of the Chinese economy.

7.       International, multinational and transnational capitalist corporations are controlling China’s economy, and invading the national interests of China and the Chinese people. The internationalization and globalization of the Chinese economy will only satisfy the interests of foreign capitals and international capitalism. China is a victim of neo-colonialism in the modern era.

8.      Modern cultural decadence is also the result of the marketization of the arts and cultural creativity. Some neo-leftists even advocate for a similar artistic works similar to that of the artistic creation during Mao’s age and even during the Cultural Revolution period.

 

The supporters of neo-leftist theory suggest that the Chinese Government and the Communist Party should boycott the massive entry of foreign business and cultural westernization. They also want those making decisions to take measures to control the “Western disease” and to stop the process of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

 

As far as the future of China is concerned, the leftist socio-scientists are mainly divided into two sub-groups: one is named the “Looking Forwards Faction”, and the other is named the “Looking Back Faction”. The former argues that the most important thing to do now is resolve or surpass the current socialism-capitalism dualism, and try to find a new socio-political-economical system viable for present situation in China; and the latter proposes that the Chinese government and Communist Party should readopt some of the reasonable elements of the socio-political and socio-economical systems of Mao Zedong’s era. In other words, the former chooses to create a new socio-political model, and the latter prefers to retain the “traditional” socialist socio-political model.

 

The neo-leftists have their own academic journals entitled “Reading” (Du Shu) and “The End of the World” (Tianya), both were started the publication in 1990.

 

III.             Neo-Liberalist Theory

 

Neo-liberalism is not a new term for Western scholars in social sciences. Its theoretical foundation has been based on the neo-liberalism of United States and the other Western countries, although there are some differences between the Western neo-liberalism and Chinese neo-liberalism. The most famous followers of this school are Qinlian He, Weishi Yuan, Junning Liu, and Jiantao Ren. Their most important theoretical points are as follow:

 

1.       Capitalism is the most advanced economic-political system in modern society. The capitalist mode of production is the most advanced and rational mode of production for mankind in human history. The United States is the most powerful and democratic country in the world. Therefore, America of today is China’s future[4].

2.       China has entered again[5] into the beginning stage or restarting point of capitalization in the post-socialist or post-Mao age.  Like any capitalist country during the material accumulation stage, cruel exploitation, tremendous social injustice, inequality, corruption, and wealth polarization are inevitable. These problems are only transitory. With the maturing of Chinese capitalism and the Chinese social structure and political-legal structure in the future, these phenomena will disappear little by little.

3.        Different from highly industrial capitalist countries that have become post-modern societies, China has not yet even entered into the capitalist society yet. On the other hand, China has taken the first step into globalization. Therefore, any attempt to stop this process of globalization and capitalization of Chinese enterprises will harm the progress of Chinese society and its modernization. Those who want to stop these socio-economic and political changes represent the voice of the old political system and traditional ideology during Mao’s Age. Therefore, they are anti-progressive.

4.       The contemporary “China disease” does not come from a market system and capitalist economy, but does come from the discrepancy between advanced and modern capitalist market systems and China’s out-of-date, old-fashioned political system and its traditional socialist power mechanism.

5.       Corruption and the lack of justice in social material distribution are due to the centralization of political power, the lack of a controlling and restricting mechanism, and the lack of multilateral social supervision. The lack of a free press is seen as another large obstacle to social progress. Only Western democracy is able to restrict corruption. The current political power structure is incapable of solving these problems. Centralized power centralization, a one party system, and monopoly in administration have directly resulted in corruption and social injustice.

6.       The modernization, political democratization, and political reform of the current political systems constitute the only key to the solution of all the existing problems in China. 

7.       Liberals stand for the creation of a more liberal atmosphere in cultural activities and artistic creation. They also want the government and the Communist Party to give more freedom to journalists and the media.

 

To conclude, we may say that the key concern of the neo-liberals consists of a political reform of China towards a more democratic society. For them, social, political, economic, and cultural problems will be solved, if and only if China follows the modern capitalist model.

 

 

IV.              Neo-authority Theory

 

Neo-authoritarian Theory constitutes the theoretical basis of justification for the current politics of the Chinese central government. The main points of this theory are as follows:

 

1.       China has had more than two thousands years of Asian feudalist tradition. Asian feudalism was politically characterized as power centralization, authority, and “democracy” for, and by, the minority[6]. Common Chinese still believe in the legitimacy of centralized power and in a group of people who represent the social, intellectual and political elite, and generally do not believe in the effusiveness of Western style democracy, i.e., the “democracy of the so-called majority”.

2.       Common Chinese people lack the Western tradition of democratic procedures, and most receive little education. The vast majority of Chinese people are traditional peasants or red necks. Therefore, Chinese people at the bottom of the society do not believe in, nor are not accustomed to, democracy for the majority.

3.        Westernized democratic reform will not enhance the stability of China, and may even cause political instability, riots, and economic chaos.

4.       Since the end of the nineteenth century, and indeed for much of its five thousand year history, China has suffered from civil wars, political crisis, unrest, natural disasters, social disturbances, and political. Nowadays, socio-political stability is the key for the economic development of China, and the social prosperity of the Chinese people. The Chinese people must take advantage of this comparatively peaceful and stable period in its history, and build its national defense and economic power as quickly as possible.

5.       In the present situation, the Communist Party is the only political power that is able to lead the Chinese people towards the goal of modernization, and any kind of political and social reforms should be under the leadership of the Communist Party. China’s future depends on internal reforms. This means that any type of reform should not come from external forces, but rather the Communist Party itself.

6.       At present, the only mandate for social and economic development is Deng Xiaoping’s Open-Door Policy, and only by following the principles set out by Deng Xiaoping, will there be development in the economy, prosperity, and stability in social life.

7.       The “one hundred flowers blooming[7]” cultural environment today is more vibrant and free than in any other period of the People’s Republic of China under the leadership of the Communist Party. Intellectuals and artists enjoy more freedom than at any time before.

8.       Neo-liberalism, in serving the interests of Neo-imperialism, was created to cater to the needs of the international monopolized bourgeois class in order to expand its tentacles to every corner of the world. It represents the main current of Western ideology, and guides the neo-colonization process in Third World countries, and peaceful evolution of socialist countries towards capitalism.

 

Although there is no open criticism against Neo-leftist Theory from the government and Party authorities, Neo-authority Theory supporters have not shown any sympathy for Neo-leftist Theory at all. 

 

V.                 Conclusion

 

Because of the serious social problems and political confrontations caused by the fast economic development, capitalization, and marketization, Chinese intellectuals in general, and social scientists and human scientists in particular have been involved in a massive debate regarding the socio-political future of China. 

 

According to our analysis, the Neo-authoritarian Theory mainly represents the official viewpoint and interest of those who are in political and economical power at present in China. In general, they represent the voice of members of the Communist Party who have political power at different levels of the Communist Party, and in governmental institutions at all levels, managers and technicians of top level of state owned enterprises, and owners of large and middle size businesses and private enterprises. Actually, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, as well as Zhao Ziyang together with their supporters and followers all supported this theory, in spite of minor differences.

 

New-Liberalist Theory represents the interest of only a small number of professionals, managers, and technicians who serve in foreign businesses in China, some university professors in the social sciences and humanities, and a number of liberal artists and writers. In Western society these would be considered members of middle class, which, according to Chinese academics in the social sciences, does not yet exist as a significant political force in China. Those who strongly support Neo-liberalism have been dubbed “public intellectuals” and their representatives and followers by the mass media.

 

The Neo-leftists reflect the voices coming from the bottom of Chinese society, above all the people in poor economic condition, and the people who live in underdeveloped areas in China. According to the Neo-leftist perspective, the deep involvement of China in the globalization process will only exacerbate corruption, cultural Westernization, social-class polarization, and end up creating a society with profound social problems like before the Chinese Revolution in 1949. Mostly those who represent or stand on Neo-leftism are mostly social science researchers; most of them are Communist members. Some of the followers of this theory are writers, professionals, and social movement leaders and its activists. Nowadays, they some-how dominate the Chinese National Academy of Social Sciences.

 

Besides the Neo-authority Theory, which is rooted on the present political power, the other two theories also have received supports from some political leaders of the Communist Party. For example, the previous Secretary of Communist Party in the Guangdong Province Zhongyi Ren recently published an article to support somehow the Neo-liberalist Theory, and several old Communist Party leaders also expressed their sympathy with the Neo-leftist Theory.

 

Recently a series of strong critics have risen within the Communist Party and the National Social Sciences Academy against the Neo-liberalist Theory. Nevertheless, it is interesting for American professors and academics in social sciences and in China studies to observe this debate about the future of the political system of China.

            

 
 

 

 


[1] This is a popular saying in China. When one crosses a river without a bridge, and the water is not very deep in some parts, one may touch the rocks in the water in order to know what is the next step one should take. This saying means that without a previously designed plan, one jut watch each step carefully to find a pathway to reach a goal.

[2] The four principles are: persisting in Marxism, Leninism, and Mao Zedong’s thoughts; Persisting in socialist system; Persisting in economic reform and open door policy; and persisting in fighting against spiritual pollution.

[3] The “Three Representations” are: representing the most advanced productive forces, the most advanced culture, and the major interest of the absolute majority of Chinese people.

[4] In the early 1950’s, the slogan of China was: The “Soviet Union of today is our future.”

[5] China had entered into the capitalization of the society before 1949 when People’s Republic of China was founded.

[6] I use this term in order to differentiate between democracy for the majority after Western bourgeois revolutions, and the “democratic” process within the ruling power in the history of China.

[7] “one hundred flowers blooming” was a political slogan of Mao Zedong, and it means the cultural prosperity of China.