hommage to chinfluenza

It seems to be a commonplace that the contemporary stereotypes about China and the West were for the most part formed IN or BY the west. The earliest possible "contamination" with cultural misunderstanding that was accordingly transmitted through regular writings (thus resulting in a steady production of texts all veering toward similar stereotypes) would therefore have been caused by the early European missionary presence in China, i.e. the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries. Anyone less sinological, but familiar with rococo splendour, will automatically think of the many and varied artifacts inspired by the so-called "chinoiserie" popular in (mainly) upper-class to royal households from the late 17th through the 18th centuries. But are the stereotypes therein embodied (i.e. men with queerly placed triangular beards in lavish oriental robes, sublime almond-eyed feminine beauties lounging in delicately arranged garden scenery, the odd exotic bird and flower included, etc...) really the same that we know today?

Let us for a moment take a virtual trip through your average book-chainstore (Borders, German Hugendubel, Wordsworth, whatever comes to mind...) and see what we can find. Ah, the esoteric section...notice anything? "36 Strategems for Managers", "Day-to-Day Daoism for Dummies", "The Spiritual Wisdom of the East", "Lullabies by Lao-tzu", "Chinese Wisdom for Window Cleaners", "Your Personal Confucian Calendar", "Kick it with Kongzi"...all those wise words for adherents to oriental truisms? Where the hell did all THAT come from? If the Jesuits had thought the Chinese were "wise" (as opposed to educated and literate, which they undoubtedly knew they were), wouldn't they have sold us that image centuries ago? But Laozi, Kongzi, Mozi, Sunzi...all those "zi" of the new age, they must have come from somewhere other than Jesuit texts...because the Jesuits may have thought they knew enough about China to run a mission, but they actually had near to no clue about the intricacies of Chinese traditional belief systems. So who dunnit?

Today I was leafing through Wm. Th. De Bary's highly recommendable Sources of Chinese Tradition, vol. 2 (2nd edition, New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2000), chapter 33 "The New Culture Movement" by Wing-Tsit Chan. A part of the New Culture Movement during the Republican era, as I was told, consisted of debates concerning the controversy over Chinese and Western Cultures. These debates apparently originated with a disillusioned Liang Qichao 梁啟超 returning home from a trip to war-stricken and technologically crazed post-WWI-Europe, whose travel reports basically stated that Europe was culturally bankrupt, as well as morally corrupt and desolate (was he right, or what?!). Several prominent intellectuals of the time took part in the ensuing war of wor(l)ds, among which two struck me as particularly symptomatic of painful cultural clichés: Liang Shuming 梁漱溟 and our old friend Dr. Hu Shi.

In Liang Shuming's "Chinese Civilization vis-à-vis Eastern and Western Philosophies" (東西文化及期哲學) of 1922, we read the following passage:

...The fundamental spirit of Chinese culture is the harmony and moderation of ideas and desires, whereas that of Indian civilization is to go backward in ideas and desires [and that of the West is to go forward]...

Furthermore,

Let us compare Western culture with Chinese culture. First, there is the conquest of nature on the material side of Western culture - this China has none of. Second, there is the scientific method on the intellectual side of Western culture - this also China has none of. And third, there is democracy on the social side of Western culture - this too, China has none of...

And then, speaking about the major differences in Chinese and Western philosophies (originating in static concepts vs. the "nontranquil" essence of change),

Human life is the reality of a great current. It naturally tends toward the most suitable and the most satisfactory. It responds to things as they come. This is change. It spontaneaously arrives at centrality, harmony and synthesis. Hence its response is always right. This is the reason why the Confucian school said, "What Heaven has conferred is what we call human nature. To fulfil the law of human nature is what we call the Way."

Sounds like straight out of "Confucianist Obama - Aphorisms for Every Day" or something, doesn't it? Sadly, Hu Shi's response to this was not any less devoid of simplistic clichés:

...The most outstanding characteristic of Eastern civilization is to know contentment, whereas that of Western civilization is not to know contentment. Contented Easterners are satisfied with their simple life and therefore do not seek to increase their material enjoyment. They are satisfied with ignorance and "not understanding and not knowing" (Book of Odes, Da ya, Wen wang 7) and therefore have devoted no attention to the discovery of truth and the invention of techniques and machinery. They are satisfied with their present lot and environment and therefore do not want to conquer nature, but merely [to] be at home with nature and at peace with their lot. They do not want to change systems, but rather to mind their own business. They do not want a revolution, but rather to remain obedient subjects.

And all that coming from Hu Shi, the ole' charmer...if this isn't pure Edward Said, I don't know what is. And if this isn't more of an origin of self-help books from the Asian-Wisdom section of your average Borders, then please enlighten me otherwise. It seems that East-West clichés and stereotypes have a much more compound nature and source than eurocentric studies have so far presumed. I suppose the average answer to my hypothesis would be that most of these debaters were at least influenced by Western training, and thus had perhaps merely imbibed these sadly linear and dualistic images floating around in their respective foreign environments. Maybe, maybe not. Chicken and egg situation, I guess. More clichés, anyone?