The west has generally perceived China to be a country without freedom. That’s why there’s always this talk about no human rights, police brutality, and government regulations over every little thing you do. When someone says this to a Chinese person, they would generally get a reply about how China is free and they never feel repressed.
So what gives? Is the west just stupid and know nothing about China or are the Chinese people brainwashed into believing that they are free?
I think the reason why there cannot be agreement between the two sides is because they’re talking about different types of freedoms. When the west criticizes China on this issue, they basically point to censorship, restrictions on public assembly, limited freedom of speech, and the repression of independent religious groups. However, when the Chinese people talk about the freedoms that they have, they’re thinking of how they can talk about whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, how they can go out and walk around in the streets of Beijing at night without fear of getting killed, and the ability to go out and spend their money however they want.
The Chinese people are free to do things that would not be acceptable or is against the law in America. For example, they’re free to ride a car without wearing a seat belt while in the States, that would lead to getting a ticket. Then again, in America, Cobert can go and stand next to the president and humiliate him for an hour without any consequence while someone who attempts to do that to Hu Jintao would probably get yanked off the stage after the first word and then disappear into some labor camp for the rest of his life.
And then there’s this idea that too much freedom would lead to chaos. I think it’s true at least. Chinese people would criticize America’s freedom of speech in that it allows any nutcase to say whatever lies they want. I mean when I heard Sharon Stone’s idiot statement, I would have to say that I was tempted to agree with this type of criticism. However, at the same time, foreigners in China would say that there needs to be more traffic laws and rules regulating spitting. I would also agree with this since I almost got run over by a car on my way to work today while spitting in the middle of the road.
The rationale between the restrictions of freedom is usually to protect something. Like no smoking laws in California is to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke while the Great Firewall is supposed to protect the Chinese people from inappropriate materials.
Honestly, I think the current systems in China and the United States fit their respective societies pretty well. In the States, there’s always all this talk on principals and ideas and beliefs even among the common people. It seems like there’s always some kind of moral judgement, may it be regarding physically educating one’s children or abortion. Because of that, American citizens need to be accommodated with more freedoms in thought and speech. China doesn’t quite work like that anymore, though back during the Mao Era everything was judged as either revolutionary or counter-revolutionary. In these days, people seem to care more about the physical and material things rather than the lofty ideas of Marx and Lenin so restrictions on thought doesn’t interfere quite as much in their daily lives as it would to extremely religious Americans.
Now with that said, there is a growing segment of the Chinese population who are resenting the lack of the ‘higher’ freedoms. As Chinese society continues to evolve and the people become more materially comfortable as well as educated, there would be less justification for restricting information and speech. I mean let’s say a Peking University student wants to read the BBC to make sure the reporting is fair but it’s blocked by the Great Firewall. That student would believe that he is smart enough to not get brainwashed by the west and that the censorship is illogical when applied to him. When more people in China begin to think in a similar fashion, I think the demand for such freedoms would naturally go up.
And I think the US needs to take it easy on some of their laws. I mean hell, if I don’t want to have a bike light when riding at night, that’s my own damn decision.
I like Cobert…he is so funny….
I agree with some of what you say but the bike light example’s not so great – it’s not just a personal freedom. In those cases, you also need to take into account the greater public implications if something goes wrong. Statistics show that if you don’t wear a light on your bike, you’re more likely to be hit by another larger vehicle – then you’d want an ambulance to turn up promptly, you’d want to the police to conduct an investigation and would rely on the health system to fix you up – all drawing on public funds and using up limited bureaucratic resources. I have no problem with minimizing the risk of injury by making people wear a light (or a helmet for that matter) if it saves us having to scrape you up off the street (and pay for it).
When I first arrived in Taiwan in 1973, people there said that you Americans have “too much freedom (tai duo zi you)” and at 18 years of age, I was flabbergasted with this statement as I thought that either you have freedom or you don’t and that there was no limitations or quantities that could be assigned to that term.
I have learned a lot since, but in many ways, I feel that China has a lot more freedom that the United States as the long arm of the paternalistic father knows best “for the public good” law has not intruded into people’s private lives like it does in the US. I still prefer the chaos (luan) of “too much freedom” to draconian government interventions to protect you from yourself, but then I am a libertarian Daoist philosopher with a healthy skepticism of “States” by nature and am wary of the sheer arrogance of the political “chatter” class when they view the masses (Lao Bai Xing) as so much chattel that need to be guided to making correct decisions for themselves.
The sad part of China’s limitations on political “freedom” is the prevention of civil society’s own natural organic means for taking care of things to show up and replacing it with an unrealistic and dis empowering reliance on the State/Nation whatever to take care of things.
@ Paul – Yah, I was mostly kidding about the bike light thing. I think there would be restrictions on things like guns and some drugs, people should be forced to wear seat belts and stuff…
…but sometimes the invasiveness of the ‘paternalistic father’ as Terry puts it is annoying sometimes. Like me getting stopped at customs and having my entire suitcase and bags searched for 2 hours because of some ‘random’ search. Jeez…
@ Terry – Yeah, the chaos is good sometimes but I think it also has a lot to do with cultural expectations as well as government actions. Like in China, if your kid takes a piss on the sidewalk, no one is going to say anything, but people would probably yell at you or at least give you stares in the states.
I’m struggling to see how a focus on material gain means a society has fewer principles and morals to argue about. I don’t honestly think you believe that, but in your third-to-last paragraph you claim so. If you do believe it, why?
I don’t deny that there is less demand for vigorous debate in Chinese society. Even if easy outlets existed for all manor of views, most students would have a difficult time seeing the value in exploring ideas that don’t make them more attractive to employers, and if they could they would have no means to put to use since they aren’t really policy makers in a non-representative, non-democratic government system.
But it’s a matter of “if you build it, they will come.” As it becomes more acceptable to voice opinions which are contrary to nationalist and party interests you will see many people providing those voices, and in turn, more people will be stimulated to debate. I suspect this is the process you’re envisioning in your second-to-last paragraph.
However, the difference between The US expression of freedom and China’s is not a matter of the US having more moral judgments to make or principles to argue about. It’s just that in the US public channels for debate exist and children are educated to do so in compulsory education, because they must as citizens. China has just as many principles and morals to cheer and bemoan.
I forgot to add, lets not forget there is vigorous expression in China. There is plenty. Protests, t-shirts, http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/index.php. But of course a one-sided expression of pro-China, pro-party views is not a debate.
It’s a small point, but often in discussing freedom of expression in China people don’t make a distinction.
I agree that China does feel more free than the U.S. in the Ronald Reagan “free to go flying through your windshield during a car crash” sense of the word free.
The free market in China seems much more free than anywhere else I’ve seen. It feels very close to the rational actor/perfect competition you learn about in intro economics.
You’re also generally free (in practice) to copy things — the interior design or furniture of a bar, the newest DVD release, or your neighbor’s business plan.
We Americans do like our freedom of speech though. Maybe even more than our freedom to own guns.
@ Charming – Hmm… actually I didn’t say anything about more material gain leading to fewer morals. I meant in that paragraph that in China today, people care more about material things rather than ideas. I’m not sure whether or not the two are connected.
@ wtanaka – Ah yes… the freedom to own guns… if that existed in China, there won’t be a need for population control.
Yeah, I’ll take the freedom to go where I want to go- when I want to go there- without having to explain to anyone why I am going there- and say what I want- when I want to- because I can! I don’t care about seatbelt laws- I care about human rights- about personal freedoms. To equate seat belt laws with true freedom- that is absurd!!!