Cornering Freedom in China

Yes, in C-h-i-n-e-s-e the word "context" only means the part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage (yu jing). Generally speaking, C-h-i-n-e-s-e language is a kind of very poor language. In the past, the formal literary C-h-i-n-e-s-e even prohibit using disyllable words. One character is one word. There are only 6000 C-h-i-n-e-s-e characters or so. If each character represents three concepts on average (I think this is an overestimate), there are nothing more than 18000 concepts totally. How can a language with only 18000 concepts be competent to convey any philosophy? The alleged "C-h-i-n-e-s-e philosophy" is f-ar from a philosophy. As the time went by, many C-h-i-n-e-s-e people realized the poorness of the formal literary C-h-i-n-e-s-e. But how could they do? C-h-i-n-e-s-e language is a closed and "complete" ideogram. Unlike phonetic language, C-h-i-n-e-s-e can hardly borrow a foreign word directly. What they can do was to put together two or more characters, which themselves should be independent words, in order to widen the spectrum of its concepts. This is the modern "Vernacular C-h-i-n-e-s-e". Although many C-h-i-n-e-s-e can't understand literary C-h-i-n-e-s-e now, they still retain the habit of "detaching characters". Almost all concepts of science and philosophies are disyllable or multisyllable (i.e., one word consists two or more characters). And all of these words cannot be divided into individual characters in principle. (Many of them were borrowed from Japanese kanjis. They are not "genuine" C-h-i-n-e-s-e. ) But many C-h-i-n-e-s-e still detach them. Such as "science" (ke xue, two characters) is literally "sort + ology". And quite a few C-h-i-n-e-s-e like to say, "science is the ology that is divided into many categories". But are art or literature not divided into several categories? So with this mentality, many C-h-i-n-e-s-e cannot understand a concept correctly. And for most words, there are no distinctions between nouns, verbs, and adjectives. When a word which usually serves as an adjective becomes a noun, people will think it awkward. (Such as "shi zai" usually serves as an adjective or adverb. But "reality" in philosophy is also translated into "shi zai". So when it serves as a noun, people will find it awkward. ) Many C-h-i-n-e-s-e books about philosophy (including some Ayn Rand's books) are awkward-reading. Though I hope more C-h-i-n-e-s-e people can know Ayn Rand and Objectivism, sometimes I also think Objectivism would rather not be distort by poor C-h-i-n-e-s-e language.

(Edited by femino on 1/04, 1:41am)

Post 1

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 6:16am

How, then did you "break out of the mold" ?

Post 2

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 9:33am

JJ, thank you for this great, very informative essay. I am fascinated by different cultures (and their receptivity to ideas) and this explains a great deal about the Chinese. Also, femino, thank you for fleshing out many more details about the pictographic Chinese language: it seems as if it is even -worse- as a cognitive tool than I thought. JJ and Hong, would you agree with femino on this?

Phil

Post 3

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 10:34am

- http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHEMPIRE/SUNG.HTM

Hey JJ,

I like this article and strongly relate to it. Several parts of it put a knowing smile on my face.

I have a couple of comments.

First, on the Chinese family values. What you said in the article is all very true. However, I think there is a good rationale behind these family values or tribal mentality. Historically and even now, family connections and support is critical for a person's survival and prospering in China. Parents' connections get their children to the good schools, good jobs, and well-matched spouses. Elders depend on their adult children (instead of social security as in US) to survive their golden years. In return, grandparents' help has been indispensable in raising their aldult children's own children. Here survival and prospering supercede individuality. Of course, things are changing and I expect to see more individualism grow out of the current generations of young people.

The other point is about how Chinese people value education. Chinese people�s attitude toward studying is large shaped by the merit-based ancient Chinese civil service examination system that started more than 2000 years ago and was only abandoned at the end of the Qing dynasty early 20th century. Here is a description of this system:

�During the T'ang dynasty, the civil service examination was restored. Appointments to government positions, however, went mainly to aristocrats rather than to people who passed the civil service examination�only ten percent of government officials during the T'ang were products of the civil service examination. There were two civil service examinations during the T'ang: the first involved Confucian studies and the Five Classics (which were regarded as Confucian�they were also called the "Confucian Classics"), but the second involved Taoism. The Confucian examination was greatly expanded under the Sung. Over fifty percent of government officials were recruited from the civil service examination. The examination itself was a lengthy affair. The first examination was the regional examination. The exam was closely proctored, recopied, assigned a number, and then graded. Only a very small number of candidates passed this first exam. The second exam was the metropolitan exam taken at the capital city, which was also closely proctored, recopied, assigned a number, and graded. About 15-20% of the candidates passed this second exam (around 200 per year).

The Sung exam was based entirely on the Confucian Classics. The candidates had to memorize the Five Classics (wow!), interpret passages, master their literary style, and use Confucian philosophy to interpret the Classics and construct political advice. The Taoist examination was eliminated totally. The examinations were so rigorous that the candidates that passed represented the very best minds in the country. Statistically, it would be monumentally easier for you to be admitted into Harvard University than it would be to pass the civil service exam in Sung China. Imagine the following: suppose that one half of all the federal government bureaucracy and elected officials represented the top one percent of the top one percent of our population in terms of talent, education, intelligence, and, above all, ethical training. That is what Sung government looked like.

Passing the exam required some wealth, since the poorest could not afford to spend years and years acquiring the necessary education. It also required education. Massive amounts of education. That education was focused almost entirely on Confucian thought; the importance of the civil service examination, then, led to a vitally creative revival of Confucian thought.

Wow, more than 50% of government officials were recruited from the civil service exams. No wonder there is an old Chinese saying �There are gold houses in books; there are beautiful wives in books.� And no wonder Chinese students tend to excel in exams.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/03, 11:42am)

Post 4

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 11:30am

Phil asked "JJ and Hong, would you agree with femino on this?"

I don't. Yes, there are disyllable or multisyllable (more rarely though) phrases particularly abundant in the Chinese translation of western concepts in which the meaning of the whole phrase is more than the combination of the individual character. We all know that. And the combination of several thousands characters, each may have several meanings depending on context (words before and after it), can express virtually everything.

Many Western concepts were foreign to Chinese when China just opened her door to the world about 150 years ago. But the early Chinese Western scholars did a marvelous job translating western literature, science, and philosophy. Those scholars were well versed in Latin and the Chinese translations of Western phrases mostly are based on the Latin root of the word.

Basically, I think that the fundamental values in life and human emotions are shared among all races. Valid concepts are understandable to all, no matter what language one speaks.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/03, 11:53am)

Post 5

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 11:38am

Such as "shi zai" usually serves as an adjective or adverb. But "reality" in philosophy is also translated into "shi zai". So when it serves as a noun, people will find it awkward.

This example is not right. "shi zai" as an adjective means that a person is down to earth, unpretentious, and honest. While "realty" in Chinese is "xian shi". I hope nobody is thinking that Chinese is unable to comprehend such basic concepts as "reality" or "context"? ( I disagree with JJ here, there are Chinese phrases that mean "context".)
(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/03, 12:27pm)

Post 6

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 1:44pm

Phil,

I've dabbled a little bit with beginning to learn the Chinese language and I find the verbal language to be relatively straightforward, but the written language to be quite difficult because of the lack of phonics. That said, the written language contains about 245 radicals which can be combined in different ways to form characters. Typically, westerners who are successful at learning Chinese learn how these radicals combine to form characters and deal with a language kernel that is a little less than 9 times the size of the English alphabet.

Psychological research has indicated that native and Western users of Mandarin process the written language in different ways. Native Mandarin readers use a part of their brain that is used for pictoral recognition and Westerners used the part of the brain typically used for general language related tasks.

Jim

Post 7

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 3:01pm

Thanks for this article, JJ. I am interested in seeing how free trade leads to the advancement of personal freedom in China and the context you've provided helps. I hadn't realised my engineering and finance classmates were so influenced by their parents.

Hong, leaving aside the point that it would be better to have the best people in private industry, don't you think the following was just propaganda:

The examinations were so rigorous that the candidates that passed represented the very best minds in the country. Statistically, it would be monumentally easier for you to be admitted into Harvard University than it would be to pass the civil service exam in Sung China. Imagine the following: suppose that one half of all the federal government bureaucracy and elected officials represented the top one percent of the top one percent of our population in terms of talent, education, intelligence, and, above all, ethical training. That is what Sung government looked like.

Post 8

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 7:22pm

Andrew,
Oh, it is all very true. Until very recently (30-40 years ago), the vast majority of Chinese populations are peasants. Before the Communist rule, the very little industry in China were strongly influenced by the westerners. Historically, commerce and trade were looked down upon in Chinese society, while classical scholars and government officials were the only highly respected careers. Although there is no civil service exams in Communist China, people still view various academic exams in a similar light. Of course, things are rapidly changing in China right now.

Post 9

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 9:34pm

JJ, maybe something like this would help:

If things were always the same, there would only be one context. But for each difference in reality, there is a different context. There are an infinite number of contexts, because time and distance are continuous, allowing for an infinite number of different ways reality could be. Some differences are more important than others, because they may more or less significantly impact how you should act to attain your goals.

For example, lets say you are on the phone with your friend. Your friend asks you where you are, so that he/she can come meet with you. That is one context.

Now, lets say that it wasn't your friend on the phone, instead it was your enemy. You enemy asks you where you are, so that he/she can harm you. This is another context.

You see, there can be many-many-many contexts. Each context has something different about it than another one. In each context, the best choice you can make to attain your goals may be different.

What is the best choice you can make to attain your goals? You will have to use your own mind to make your own choice. You could allow others to make the choice for you, but it's unlikely that they will know the context as well as you, nor know what your goals are as well as you. You can use your senses to gain information about reality, and your mind to figure out what causes what, what is consistent and true, what is inconsistent and false. Instead of others making your choices for you, you can look to others for advice-- to maximize your attainment of your goals.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 1/03, 9:35pm)

Post 10

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 10:06pm

femino, Phil, Hong, Andrew,

Glad you all liked it.

Phil,

My mentioning of the word "context" was not intended as an example of Chinese being a lesser language. It's just to show how a language is the result of the need to express and can shed light on cultural thinking habits. There are Chinese words that are absent in English as well. One example is "chan", which describes vulnerability(usually of kids) towards tasty treats. Language is a tool for expression and it constantly evolves. Should the need arise, new words will be created in no time.

Hong,

I definitely agree that there are historical reasons for the tribal mentality. Alas, as time evolves, "heritage" can become "baggage", and virtues vices. Problems cloaked in the glow of "virtues" are particularly hard to detect because people are often not even looking there. It takes a thinking mind to evaluate old rules in new light.

A side note on "context", there really isn't a clean translation for it. To express simple things like "context switching" or "context dropping" would take a mouthful in Chinese, and that's by breaking it down into concretes. But a new word should be created for it as Objectivism is introduced to China :)

JJ

Post 11

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 10:54pm

> A side note on "context", there really isn't a clean translation for it. To express simple things like "context switching" or "context dropping" would take a mouthful in Chinese, and that's by breaking it down into concretes. [JJ]

Is it hard to combine two pictorial "characters", like one for a picture or painting and one for the background or the horizon or surroundings of the scene, so context = background or surroundings in a picture? (Or some equivalent, since the root meaning of context in English from which the more abstract meanings arise is the circumstances surrounding an event.)

phil

Post 12

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 12:03am

Great article JJ.

Your last sentence is very interesting. The very existence of these problems gives Objectivism a chance. If we could present it as an alternative that solves these problems to those people who already accept them as problems, it could be very attractive. In fact, I could see a flier or something that looks much like this article describing these problems, and then offering the solution. Rand's fiction did that for a lot of us, showing us clearly all the different things that are wrong with the world, and how they're all related...and of course, offered the cure.

One other interesting point is that the "never air dirty laundry within the family" view of things also seems to apply to the political landscape. From my conversations with various Chinese, there's a desire to not acknowledge problems outside of the country. It's an internal matter. It's a kind of Nationalism. You can fight internally, but you must always support the State to the outside world.

Very informative essay. I hope others follow your lead.

Post 13

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 5:00pm

Language is a tool for expression and it constantly evolves. Should the need arise, new words will be created in no time.

I completely agree.

There maybe some misconceptions about pictorial characteristics of Chinese characters. Actually, Chinese language has evolved so much, most of the characters have long dissociated from any pictorial representations, though scholars may be able to trace back to their origins. There are plenty of characters and phrases (combination of characters) that aptly express abstract concepts and ideas.

As for "con-text", we say "shang xia wen" ("text before and after") to refer to context in a text! The concept is easily extended to general situations. Actually, I think a good translation for "context" is "ju ti qing kuang" ("specific situation"). Not as compact as one would like, but it is rather accurate, isn't it?

Post 14

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 10:39pm

The word "reality" when used as a philosophical term is translated into "shi zai." This is the national standard. And "realism" is translated into "shi zai lun". If it is translated into "xian shi zhu yi", it means some other thing. "Context" in C-h-i-n-e-s-e is always understood as "shang xia wen" or "yu jing". Even in the C-h-i-n-e-s-e version of Voice of Reason this word was awkwardly translated into "shang xia wen". Zhang Hong's "ju ti qing kuang" is a very excellent translation. Even I didn't find this expression before. I used to think "chu jing" or "chang he" or "bei jing" would be more appropriate. So I don't think I have "broken out of the mold" entirely. When speaking of the creation of new words, states of aff_airs are still not satisf_actory. Many now f_amiliar words in C-h-i-n-e-s-e were borrowed from Japanese about 100 years ago. I don't know Japanese. But I think quite a few of these introduced concepts more or less deviate from their original meaning. For example, the word "materialism" is "material + ism". But in its C-h-i-n-e-s-e counterpart "wei wu zhu yi" (only + material + ism), there emerges a notion "only" rootlessly. And "co=mm=un=ism" is "commune + ism". But its C-h-i-n-e-s-e counterpart "g-o-n-g c-h-a-n z-h-u y-i" literally means "produce + together + ism" (or another version of interpretation, "jointly + occupying wealth + ism"). I think that's why M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng always force people working in a big pub_lic-own f_arms. That means producing foods together. And "egoism" and "altruism" are awkwardly translated as "li ji zhu yi" (beneficial-to-self-ism) and "li ta zhu yi" (beneficial-to-others-ism) . But I think egoism does not only mean I should do things that are beneficial to myself, it also means I sees things in the perspective of myself. I think they should be translated into "zi wo zhu yi" and "ta ren zhu yi". "Zi wo zhu yi" is somewhat not awkward, but "ta ren zhu yi" would become intelligible for C-h-i-n-e-s-e people. If C-h-i-n-e-s-e still translate new words in this way, i.e., randomly widening or shrinking the meaning of words, this is actually a kind of distortion. And "li-be-rtar-ianism" still has no counterpart in C-h-i-n-e-s-e hitherto. And, by the way, C-h-i-n-e-s-e language is under the regulation of the State. If students create some new words by themselves, they will be criticized by the teachers. (One day I use the word "it" instead of "he", and I suffered this.) So I don't know who has the r-i-g-h-t to create new words.

Post 15

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 9:56am

This is a fascinating thread..thank you, JJ, Femino, and Hong.

> The very existence of these problems [individuality, honoring the self, facing problems head-on, context] gives Objectivism a chance. If we could present it as an alternative that solves these problems to those people who already accept them as problems, it could be very attractive. In fact, I could see a flier or something that looks much like this article describing these problems, and then offering the solution. [Joe]

That's a great idea. People respond to practical advice as opposed to abstract theorizing divorced from it...and fliers are cheap and more likely to be examined than a thick book. Good idea for the U.S. as well.

> "text before and after"..."specific situation" [Hong]

Actually, I find both of these helpful for thinking about context in English! (Or explaining what it means to a non-Objectivist.)
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 1/05, 9:59am)

Post 16

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 11:56am

Hi femino,
I realize that the popular vocabularies in China now are probably a bit different from 15 or 20 years ago when I was there and I was a student of science, not humanities. Also I haven't compared any Chinese translation to its original Western work closely. Several examples you cited are indeed quite off. There are issues, I believe, about the current quality of the scholarship in China. There are also issues about the Party's control as to what western ideologies are suitable for studying by Chinese scholars.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/05, 12:05pm)

Post 17

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 9:07am

Much of the development of any language consists of compounding previous elements in the language. For example, "science" is a mutation of "sci-ent-ia" which is roughly know-ing-ness. (The "n", in turn, may be related to the infix seen in such forms as "tango".)

The rapid intellectual advancement of a language is usually characterized by extensive borrowing, e.g. Latin from Greek, English from Latin. (Greek borrowed extensively, but its philosophical terms tend to be of native construction.) Borrowing, generally concrete or social, tends to be especially rapid in widely-trading cultures, and can be in conquered ones. Where you see a calque, chances are you're looking at a borrowed abstraction.

It may be that Chinese needs to undergo further development in order to express philosophical subtleties, and even basic ideas, formerly alien to it. I don't know, and if it did, it wouldn't be unique or even unusual. The process tends to be rather messy; expect confusion.

It seems to me that the people of Taiwan, threatened by China with enslavement, have more of an incentive, and a more trade-based outlook, than do the people of China. If there were any cultural or linguistic barriers, they would be revealed and overcome more easily in Taiwan.

Post 18

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 9:29am

Saw this today, and wondered at it, considering the linguistic 'context' problems mentioned here in this thread...

Cornering Freedom in China

by Daniel J. Ikenson
Daniel Ikenson is a trade-policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
What to do about China? That question is troubling U.S. policymakers, as they grapple with the implications of the Middle Kingdom's rapid economic growth. Liberals worry about China's effect on manufacturing jobs, and conservatives suspect her ambitions. Is it necessary for Americans to regard China's economic success and growing influence as a threat?
I thought about that question a lot during a recent trip to China. An impromptu encounter on the campus of Renmin University in Beijing, where I had the pleasure of interacting with some of the young people who will become China's business managers and government officials in the coming decades, helped shape my own answer.
Renmin University, also known as the People's University of China, has an enrollment of almost 19,000 and is one of China's most respected schools. It was founded in 1950 by the Communist party. The children of many Chinese officials were educated there, and three generations of Chinese leaders, Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Jiang Zemin, have paid special attention to the school's development. So I was especially surprised by what I learned.
It was about 8 P.M. on a Friday when I ventured onto Renmin's campus. In a courtyard near the school's east gate, I discovered some 200 students who were exchanging views about history, economics, politics, and culture. It was U.S. history, economics, politics, and culture that they were discussing � and they were speaking English.
I moved through the crowd, sampling the various conversations and marveling at the students' knowledge of American politics and history. As the only Westerner on the scene, I stood out.
Some students smiled and began to ask me questions. One asked where I was from and I said, "The United States, Washington, D.C." Immediately, he flashed two thumbs up and said "Very good. America is very good. America is our model."
He ushered me to an area of the courtyard that was drawing the largest crowds and asked me to evaluate his performance before climbing atop a soapbox. He smiled and began:
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."
From memory, the student recited the Gettysburg Address. The audience joined in enthusiastically for the final verse:
". . . that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
A few students then took turns delivering Lincoln's speech from the soapbox. Each time, the crowd shouted the final lines. Several students spoke about other subjects � whatever was on their minds. The audience smiled, cheered and was so obviously engaged, that it moved me deeply.
I had stumbled upon "English Corner," Renmin's version of Speakers' Corner, that eminent temple of free speech in London's Hyde Park. English Corner is a Renmin fixture every Friday night. Students from all over Beijing come to practice their English, to air their views and to learn more about the American experiment. I was thrilled and impressed and, yes, proud.
Then someone suggested that I give Lincoln's address. The crowd roared in agreement. Embarrassed, I admitted that I hadn't committed it to memory. "No problem," said a student, as he handed me a printed version. "We would really like to hear a famous American address given by a native English speaker."
I ignored the possibility that I could be arrested for subversion, and climbed the soapbox. Again, the crowd joined me in reciting Lincoln's final line.
Afterwards, several students approached me with questions about the United States. The questions were sophisticated and diverse. One asked about the conflicting visions of American government proffered by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Another asked about U.S. foreign assistance to Europe following the First World War. A young lady asked whether Hillary Clinton would be the next U.S. president.
The students also wanted to know about U.S. protectionism and the growing animus in Congress toward China. And some were curious about what U.S. students think about their country.
I didn't have answers, just my own opinions. The dialogue lasted well over three hours. Before parting company with the remaining 15 or 20 students, we exchanged e-mail addresses and I promised to tell my colleagues and friends about Renmin University, its engaging students, and its commendable institution, English Corner.
China has a long way to go to become and open and free society. The government remains in firm control. But China is changing, and there may be no better symbol of that change than Renmin University � the alma mater of China's Communist party where, today, students quote Lincoln and contemplate Jefferson.
While thinking through U.S. policy toward China, the Congress and the administration should know that a surprising number of Chinese people embrace U.S. ideals and are fond of American culture. At a time when U.S. policies are reviled around the world, that is something to celebrate and promote. It strikes me as an investment in government of the people, by the people, for the people in China.

Post 19

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 8:31pm