Notes on "When China Rules the World", by Martin Jacques
Points out four characteristics of China that have and continue to differentiate it from the west: its place as a "civilization state" not a nation state, its ideological approach to race (92% of the Chinese are Han Chinese), its tributary history and its long unity. He suggests that as a result of these factors (as well as others) it is possible that the world will not continue to move towards a "western" world view (economically, socially and culturally) but rather something else entirely. The question Jacques raises is will China accept the current international system, largely dominated by the US (Japan, England and Germany) or will it do something different? He adds that the openness of the US international system (rather than a coercive system) make it much easier for states to join rather than resist.
Modernity's rise in the 19th century through today has largely been associated with the West. Jacques argues that East Asia is now in the process of "prising that apart". Not sure what is meant by "prising?" Does he simply mean dismantling? Changing?
The domination of the business and industrial classes and their eventual inclusion in government in Britain and Western Europe at the expense of the lower classes differentiated China from the West as the industrial revolution exploded. Jacques argues that China had the ability to do what England did but was not oriented towards Capitalism as its highest goal.
If this is true, is this an argument for a more "free market" approach to success because it is this drive that propels economies into development? IN 1950, the US economy was over 27% of world GDP, more than all of Western Europe together. The US had even fewer barriers to industrialization and individualism and capitalism than did Europe.
Europe's journey to modernity took a particular path starting with relatively limited outside threat, colonialism, the preponderance of industrialization (over 50% of the employment was industrial in 1909--the highest rate in any country ever), relatively slow growth, inter continent conflict and individualism. China's route to modernity was quite different.
Britain's rhetoric of free trade was less about trading without barriers then it was about preventing anyone outside of Britain or its colonies to usurp her profits.
Jacques marks a division between cultures marked by shame (like Japan) and cultures marked by guilt (like the US). Those marked by shame requires viewing oneself as seen by others while those marked by guilt stem from the notion of original sin and the belief that at heart we are sinful. Guilt feelings are overcome through apologies and/or reparation while shame is much more difficult to overcome. Suicide is a noble response to shame but a selfish response to guilt. In Japan, society marks two major types of obligation: giri, which is a finite obligation; and gimu which is a life long obligation like that one owes to parents. If you do not meet your obligations in Japan, shame is the consequence.
It seems like population pressures up into the industrial revolution played a large role in almost all societies. The population would grow until the environment would no longer sustain them, starvation would occur, populations would decrease and settle into an equilibrium, then rising prosperity would occur and with it more children and the cycle would repeat. In areas that could (periodically) sustain large populations like China, Great Britain, Ireland, the consequence of this ebb and flow was starvation because there were too many people to just move on and find another place to get food (other people were already there), but in the southwest, this seems to be what happened. When the people were no longer able to sustain their population, they moved because the country was huge and there were relatively few people anywhere. Plus the groups in Chaco or Mesa Verde were never large enough to be a threat. It seems ironic that when population pressures were the most perilous, people would have so many children and when population pressures have come under some control today, we have many fewer. The evolutionary drive to have children must be enormous (reminds me of the book Children of Men, PD James--in this book the ability to have children disappears. No one can have them and it shows what happens to society without the hope of the future. It makes you think that it's not only evolution that powers childbirth but also having meaning in life. . . Of course prior to the industrial revolution children weren't for meaning, they were for survival--you needed them to work the fields etc. But perhaps even then they were also for meaning).
In China, the state mandates morality--there really is no church. The ruler rules at the behest of "heaven" but not in the Christian sense. There isn't a god up there ruling things but a moral imperative. If the ruler is losing his moral imperative, he can no longer rule. In the West, morality was tied up with the church and, in many cases, rulers ruled because of their birth and because of the church's say so, so, in a way, they represented the church morality. When you look at China and the consequences of the state mandating morality, it seems like it's a good idea if the state is not in the business of telling people how they should live or act except within the broad parameters of the law. We need not only competing parties but also competing moralities in order to keep anyone group from dictating the "right" thing to everyone else.
Modernity's rise in the 19th century through today has largely been associated with the West. Jacques argues that East Asia is now in the process of "prising that apart". Not sure what is meant by "prising?" Does he simply mean dismantling? Changing?
The domination of the business and industrial classes and their eventual inclusion in government in Britain and Western Europe at the expense of the lower classes differentiated China from the West as the industrial revolution exploded. Jacques argues that China had the ability to do what England did but was not oriented towards Capitalism as its highest goal.
If this is true, is this an argument for a more "free market" approach to success because it is this drive that propels economies into development? IN 1950, the US economy was over 27% of world GDP, more than all of Western Europe together. The US had even fewer barriers to industrialization and individualism and capitalism than did Europe.
Europe's journey to modernity took a particular path starting with relatively limited outside threat, colonialism, the preponderance of industrialization (over 50% of the employment was industrial in 1909--the highest rate in any country ever), relatively slow growth, inter continent conflict and individualism. China's route to modernity was quite different.
Britain's rhetoric of free trade was less about trading without barriers then it was about preventing anyone outside of Britain or its colonies to usurp her profits.
Jacques marks a division between cultures marked by shame (like Japan) and cultures marked by guilt (like the US). Those marked by shame requires viewing oneself as seen by others while those marked by guilt stem from the notion of original sin and the belief that at heart we are sinful. Guilt feelings are overcome through apologies and/or reparation while shame is much more difficult to overcome. Suicide is a noble response to shame but a selfish response to guilt. In Japan, society marks two major types of obligation: giri, which is a finite obligation; and gimu which is a life long obligation like that one owes to parents. If you do not meet your obligations in Japan, shame is the consequence.
It seems like population pressures up into the industrial revolution played a large role in almost all societies. The population would grow until the environment would no longer sustain them, starvation would occur, populations would decrease and settle into an equilibrium, then rising prosperity would occur and with it more children and the cycle would repeat. In areas that could (periodically) sustain large populations like China, Great Britain, Ireland, the consequence of this ebb and flow was starvation because there were too many people to just move on and find another place to get food (other people were already there), but in the southwest, this seems to be what happened. When the people were no longer able to sustain their population, they moved because the country was huge and there were relatively few people anywhere. Plus the groups in Chaco or Mesa Verde were never large enough to be a threat. It seems ironic that when population pressures were the most perilous, people would have so many children and when population pressures have come under some control today, we have many fewer. The evolutionary drive to have children must be enormous (reminds me of the book Children of Men, PD James--in this book the ability to have children disappears. No one can have them and it shows what happens to society without the hope of the future. It makes you think that it's not only evolution that powers childbirth but also having meaning in life. . . Of course prior to the industrial revolution children weren't for meaning, they were for survival--you needed them to work the fields etc. But perhaps even then they were also for meaning).
In China, the state mandates morality--there really is no church. The ruler rules at the behest of "heaven" but not in the Christian sense. There isn't a god up there ruling things but a moral imperative. If the ruler is losing his moral imperative, he can no longer rule. In the West, morality was tied up with the church and, in many cases, rulers ruled because of their birth and because of the church's say so, so, in a way, they represented the church morality. When you look at China and the consequences of the state mandating morality, it seems like it's a good idea if the state is not in the business of telling people how they should live or act except within the broad parameters of the law. We need not only competing parties but also competing moralities in order to keep anyone group from dictating the "right" thing to everyone else.
Comments
Post a Comment