Clampdown on human rights lawyers in China

[David]

Terrible news from China:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/21/human-rights-lawyers-china-missing-clampdown

Liberalisation can't come a moment too soon.

[think positive]

How far away is it?

Gees how is this possible in this day and age?
How can people stand by and let the government torture its own people for trying to improve human rights?

Truly scary shit, that's a lot of people to just disappear

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/china-human-rights-crackdown-petition-barack-obama-us-xi-jinping

[pietillidie]

Yes, scary stuff. Look, the reality is very much uglier from the outside, I can guarantee you as much. I can only point you to the Asian Tigers at the same stage of development: They were brutal police states at best, and much worse in some cases. Little good that does for those in prison, of course.

Part of the problem you're seeing is genuinely worrisome, and part of it is the natural process of transition which looks shocking from the outside in. Separating the two is not easy, because the old familial feudalism plays out as a cronyistic police state in early development regardless, I suspect.

The world needs massive effort to engage China, and to encourage Chinese folk to engage the world. I would move there myself to contribute if I had my way, but family duties call for now. Anyhow, it's time for some of you younger folk to take up the challenge and get out there and understand the world from the inside out.

I can't do this stuff alone, you know

[David]

While I accept the argument that you can't judge, say, corruption in a developing country as you can in a developed country, it does strike me sometimes that you almost treat Chinese atrocities as being part of some kind of organic process - i.e. "yes, it's appalling, but it's like a lion killing an antelope in a nature documentary".

Being a determinist, I'm happy to get on board with that. But why not apply the same principle to, say, the US or Australia? The anger you express over decisions made by individual leaders in the Western world seems mostly absent when the topic of China comes up.

I can see how the Chinese story is one of gradual progress away from poverty and oppression, whereas Australia's current trajectory is regressive. But isn't this crackdown itself a huge step backwards? At what point do you start making moral judgements?

[pietillidie]

^I don't know. As I say, it's hard to assess; I'm only cautioning about the complexity as I've experienced it first hand.

Certainly, I think one key is that many of these things can only be remedied from the inside out, much like Iraq. Facts only have meaning in the context of lived experience sometimes, both due to intimate knowledge on the one hand, and the right of self-determination.

This is the eternal dilemma, of course, but don't forget we've been brainwashed by horrific imperialism growing up, so our sense of objectivity is massively illusory.

Anyhow, that's why I called for young people like yourself to contribute by getting in amongst it and finding out first hand as I did at the ripe old age of 28!

[David]

But you're not on the inside of the US, or Continental Europe, yet freely wax lyrical on the moral bankruptcy of the ECB. Why?

[pietillidie]

^Because I live in Europe. Because I was born in a Western colony. Because I have endless piles of factual information. Because I can read the language the materials are published in. Because I grew up in a Greek community in Oakleigh. because I have spent years teaching myself economics. Because the difference between Australians and Germans is very minor.

Terrible analogy! You have about 1/80th of the information on China than you do on Europe. Believe me: We (you or I) wouldn't know up from down about China.

The gap is massive, David. And on top of that, you still need the field knowledge too (whether be a knowledge of economics, economic development, Confucian cultural difference, or what have you).

But I did still say "I don't know". BTW, I didn't even vote in the election here because I thought I didn't have enough information or enough local right to do so.

[David]

Are the differences between Westerners and Chinese people so vast? Is there a fundamental difference between one form of government corruption and another? Does power really speak a language? And is the 'disappearing' of a family member less traumatising if you speak Mandarin?

I understand a lot of what you are arguing here, from the veil of ignorance that separates us from disparate cultures to the effect of economic development on liberalism. But I still can't shake the feeling you're exercising a double standard here.

[pietillidie]

Vastly different! It's not difference in terms of a check box of facts; it's about fundamentally viewing the world differently, and being exposed to very different sets of phenomena in daily life.

Of course violence is no less distressing for those individuals, no; but what that violence implies at scale for China as a mass entity, or for you as an observer or distinct actor at distance, is the issue.

Me commenting on Europe is a double standard in the sense that I know more about Australia than Europe and you know more about Australia than China; it's certainly more likely to be a lower-quality comment, agreed. But, having been to Germany twice now, I can confirm it's not that different! Having talked to Germans intimately over the years I can tell you they're not thinking much differently to you and I if at all; but having been to China several times I can tell you it's mind bogglingly different! (Japan is much more familiar due to its level of economic development).

More importantly, I was discussing well-published economic facts in an area I have studied for years now, not secret police activities behind the iron curtain!

As I say, I would have 1/80th the information on China than I do Europe. That's being generous!

On China, you really need to study economic development to understand what China is going through theoretically. That was a major area in my BA, but even then I am very uncomfortable saying much at all about China.

FYI, familial culture is always more corrupt when it gets rolled into industrialisation. If you study development economics, you will review case after case on it. Ironically, that is partly why Southern Europe is misunderstood by the much more individualistic Northern Europe still: Familial morality clashes with public and state morality. South Korea still has the same problem: People literally don't see nepotism or bribery as you and I see it. E.g., mothers are considered careless and unloving for not bribing teachers, believe it or not!

From a thousand yards, it looks like corruption. But when you have responsibility for your brother under Confucian culture, and he needs a job and you have to pay for your nephew's schooling and your parent's retirement, it feels different. As the welfare state rises, things start to change.

But, even then, do you see me pontificating on different countries around the globe, despite having traveled, and having studied geography and religion formally? I'm always the one cautioning against judgement and intervention! As I say, I never even voted in the UK election; on the other hand, I would feel much more comfortable voting in a Korean election.

But I was just cautioning on China. I wasn't disputing any facts as presented, not that there were many

[Pies4shaw]

All's well in the best of all possible worlds.

[think positive]

[pietillidie]

Which bit are you agreeing with? That worlds and cultures you know nothing about ought to be knowable through Wikipedia, or ought to meet your usual expectations regardless of their historical and economic status?

David's just frustrated because he's trapped in the Melbourne suburbs

By geez I'd love to send the both of you to live in a medium-sized city in central China for a few years and then ask you what you reckon!

"I'm sorry, PTID, you were right: It's much more complicated than we thought and we really did know stuff all! Apart from the bad air, I've had food poisoning six times now, and had to send gifts to teachers to stop them beating the kids! But some of the people are so lovely and helpful! And the kids there are incredibly disciplined and so sweet. Eww, but the drunk men and their leering! Oh, and when you work out where to eat, the food is amazing. And the treatment of women is scary. And there's just no concept of confidentiality; the doctor told my boss everything! Oh, and the mothers believe such ridiculous myths and then teach them to their kids! And no one cleans public areas, and people spit everywhere! And the government is still scary, although the local police box always looks out for us. And one man at immigration was really helpful. And I really love going out for work dinners and singing in karaoke rooms with the team. But the saunas and girly bars afterwards? No thanks."

I'm telling you, just like me, you two know ten parts of eff all about the boundaries of everyday life and what can and can't get done in China.

But, like it or not, feel frustrated by it or not, you haven't had the often harsh and very challenging decade-plus of first-hand experience to realise how little we all know about these things.

To reiterate: I'm not telling you I know about China; I'm telling you none of us knows stuff all about China! The reason that is hard to accept is because we grow up brainwashed into thinking we have a grasp on the world and can control it with the simple bits and pieces we know. In psychology, this is called the omniscience delusion: We all have it, and me more than most!

[David]

But hang on, I'm not putting myself forward as an expert on China or Chinese culture. I was simply pointing out what I saw as a hesitation on your part to criticise the Chinese government for its aggressive attack on human rights.

What does "I just don't have enough information" have to do with any of that? Are you suggesting that these policies might somehow seem less odious if we just learned enough about the complex web of cultural norms, beliefs, history and socioeconomic conditions throughout China? If so, why not apply the same principles to, say, the United States? Despite our shared culture and language, I still don't know a lot about that country, really – should I hold fire knowing that, after living there for ten years, the Republican Party might seem a more reasonable and defensible phenomenon?

It really does seem like you treat Western political corruption/violence as primarily caused by immoral individuals, while treating its Chinese counterpart as the result of some kind of organic process. I just don't see much middle ground, and I find that odd.

[pietillidie]

You're approaching this as if you've managed to isolate complex systems of behaviours and now have samples of them in vials ready to be tested. That's a rural 18th-century view which has been mercifully been replaced by much a more realistic poststructuralist conception. And yes, when dealing with complex systems, poststructuralism happens to be the practical, sane voice in the room.

In our context, Abbott's behaviour is odious and we have his and our own cultural norms and arguments to prove it. But things going on in China are not so easily assessed, including things we might naturally find repugnant.

Bear with me.

You have to interpret even what powerful folk are doing in context, and then assess how their behaviour is perceived by the greater populous; the brains of China's leaders aren't stored in labs in Canberra while their bodies wander about the halls of Beijing!

I'm not agreeing with authoritarian behaviour in our context; god knows I hate even the slightest whiff of it. That's not what is at issue, though; the issue is how the contextual system perceives that behaviour and what it wants to do about it—and indeed can do about it—given the conceptual resources and inherited structures at its disposal.

The poststructuralists worked this out long ago: Every system of power contains within it the seeds of its own demise. And that, of course, has its roots in Marxian theory: Which particular internal contradictions are naturally likely to bring this particular power system undone? In Marx's case, the power system was capitalism, and the contradictions were crises of capital over-accumulation. However, Marx, in turn, got the idea from Hegel who framed it conceptually: Every thesis has an antithesis which can be used against it, with new syntheses eventually arising and themselves becoming dominant.

In practical terms, we might ask questions like: How are China's leaders contradicting the Confucian cultural ethos as exists in contemporary China? In what way, specifically, is this behaviour considered "bad" by the average citizen of China? And when I say "average citizen", I'm clearly not talking about some bloke who did high school, university, an MA and a PhD in the US and claims to talk for the entire nation! And, more importantly, I'm also not talking about the views of visionary dissidents who might also be nowhere near the centre of cultural norms.

The answers are probably nothing like we'd expect, and are unlikely to have the same priorities, weightings, strategies, and so on, as our own answers.

Thus, when you and I criticise Tony Abbott's war on renewables, it's on the basis of things such as our culture weighting scientific consensus and the well-established, Western legal definitions of liability and negligence heavily; or on the basis of the general realisation that fossil fuels are much more expensive than claimed because they externalise massive costs; or on the basis of broken electoral promises such as Abbott going back on everything he said about "direct action", as Tannin pointed out.

In contrast, in China, science might be a much lesser authority for reasons of history and education levels across the population, so a scientific critique might hold little weight except in narrow circles. The externalities argument, on the other hand, might be a much better cultural fit in China than in Australia. However, when you're poor the notion of externalities probably loses all traction because you're focused on immediate survival. And god knows how breaking a political "promise" is assessed and perceived in other cultures.

Or, in the context of dissidence and state oppression, we know in Confucian systems it is seen as the duty of the citizen to support the state and the leader, with the brutal punishment of deviance widely accepted (see the early development of the Asian Tigers as examples, and the ongoing attitudes of many older-generation Koreans, say).

I'm not saying that's exactly what is going on in China—as I say I don't know enough about the country—but I am giving examples of the kinds of differences one would not be surprised to find.

As discussed in the past, the obvious example of well-intentioned, bumbling folk getting this kind of thing wrong is the trite imposition of individual notions of "free speech" on Confucian culture. In Confucian cultures, there is no freaking 18th-century rural individualist philosophical heritage that everyone is brainwashed into from birth which grants a notion of "free speech" pre-eminent value! On the contrary, having the authority to speak according to the relevant norms of "authority" trumps that idea, as it does in many, many cultures.

Given those kinds of fundamental differences, you need to very carefully consider the following: (a) your critique of the powers that be and their behaviour relative to the way leaders generally behave, can behave, and the average citizen expects them to behave within China; (b) your notion of what constitutes a valid critique of the government relative to that which exists in the minds of the average citizen within China; and (c) your idea as to what constitutes an acceptable course of dissidence and political action relative to that which exists in the minds of the average citizen within China.

There will most certainly be a valid and effective critique, or multiple valid and effective critiques, as the poststructuralists argue there always is; I'm just saying I don't think you and I know what they look like, and that we are unlikely to access them without great effort.

Also, it's very, very easy to critique isolated concepts in our minds, especially when you're not the one who's going to be tortured, and whose family is going to be driven into extreme poverty as social outcasts. Do you have a right as an outsider to make those calls for others? Do local people even have a right to make those calls for their children? Or, in a familial society, do you have a right to bring that shame and suffering on your extended family?

I'm telling you, the gap between decontextualised behaviours, and lived contextualised experience, is ridiculously massive.

On the other hand, I know exactly the sort of critique and campaign I would use within the context of contemporary Korean culture to bring down the current conservative Korean government whom I despise every bit as much as Abbott

Making me the fall guy for that overwhelming cultural and subjective complexity doesn't get any of us closer to speaking on the matter with grounded insight! There are ways of trying to grapple with this stuff, but there are no pain-free shortcuts to having authority over the cultural and subjective lives of others. And maybe that's a very fortunate thing, lest we treat others as inanimate pieces on game boards in our minds, and they return the favour! That, of course, is exactly what Western imperialism has always done, and why poststructuralism sought a break with Marxian theory which it sees as just another decontextualised "grand narrative" about the lives of others.

[Mugwump]

^ptid, that was a high quality and interesting post, which deserves some agreement. My question is whether the only legitimate critique of, say, the Aztecs, could come from within Aztec society, as someone watched with strange disquiet the beating heart in the priest's hand at the top of the pyramid ?

Equally, applying the standard that you have, does that not legitimise the fierce determination of the Germans not to allow the ECB to effectively print money in aid of Greece, given the gotterdammerung that followed the hyperinflation of 1923 ? You seemed to have few scruples about savaging that as racism.

The trouble is, I think it is evident that there are enduring and universal human values and rights, though cultures may express these in different forms and find their own path to them: these are often the subject of folk tales, and they include the right to scrutinise the powerful and hold them up to critique, and for the vulnerable individual to have some recourse against the might of the state. As best I can judge from my limited direct interactions with Chinese culture, that is as pertinent to the Chinese as it is to Australians, though they may assert it with less confidence.

Your point, I think, is that we should not prescribe or judge precisely how it should be expressed - but surely the oppression of those very people within China who advocate for those rights is to be deprecated.