Final paper for the course AH5005.001 Radical Philosophy Seminar: Maxine Greene, Spring 2009. (course instructor: John Baldacchino)
The speech Jackie Chan gave recently in a business forum held in the Hainan province of China sparked uproar in the Chinese speaking society[1]. It immediate became the central attraction of the media. The following is an extract from one of the news releases:
“(Jackie Chan), the 55-year-old star of the "Rush Hour" action comedies caused a huge uproar after he told a business forum[2] on Saturday that it may not be good for authoritarian China to become a free society."I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said Saturday, adding freedoms in his native Hong Kong and Taiwan made those societies "chaotic." Taiwan, which split from China in 1949, is democratic and Hong Kong, a former British colony now ruled by China, enjoys some free elections. "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want," he said. "Sure, we've got 5,000 years of history, but our new country has just been around for 60 years and the reforms for 30 years. It's hard to compare us with other countries," Chan said, referring to China's communist rule and capitalist-style reforms under the communist regime. "But I feel that in the 10 years after Hong Kong's return to Chinese rule, I can gradually see, I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan continued. Hong Kong and Taiwanese legislators lashed out at the comments, with some accusing Chan of insulting the Chinese race.” (The Washington Times)[3]
What was not included in most of the reports was that Chan elaborated his point with the ban of chewing gum in Singapore as the realization of a better society with straight enforcement of rules and regulations. He also pointed out that there are enormous immoral deeds occurring within Mainland China today that need to be put into justice. Chan believes that Chinese people should be governed (a more appropriate translation than the term “controlled” used in the above article), as freedom of speech, of culture, and of human right are now being abused in Chinese society. He, however, is optimistic about an open and better China in the future under the current communist government.
The issue was later termed as the “Jackie Chan Incident” by the media, politicians, scholars and netizens from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. In response to Chan’s speech about Taiwan is politically chaotic, the mayor of Taichung city also friend of Chan told the Taiwanese media, “… Firstly, we should listen to what Chan has to say with an open mind and determine if it is right or wrong and whether any improvement is needed on our part. Secondly, to recognize if what Chan said is slandering, if yes, then we will definitely pursue the matter further. …”[4] Of course, some legislators from Hong Kong and Taiwan said otherwise. The authority from Mainland, on the other hand, shows no response to the issue, thus far. Chan refused to further explain himself; his entourage, however, expressed Chan’s speech was interpreted out of context.
Regardless the motif behind Chan’s speech, the “Jackie Chan Incident” actually opened up the Pandora Box of Chinese society. Many seek this as a chance to make themselves heard by calling for a boycott of Chan’s up coming concert in Beijing and his new featuring film Shinjuku Incident; to strip Chan’s role as ambassador of the Deaf Olympic Games to be held in Taipei this year; to remove his role as Hong Kong’s tourism ambassador and the list goes on. Indeed, all backlashes against Chan are nothing of meaningless yells of nonsensical. However, they, at the same time, exposed people’s ignorance to critical thinking and the important of contextualizing the issue. Chan’s concern of the constant rising desecration of ethical and moral norms, the general ignorant to the essence of democracy and freedom within the Chinese society was somehow lost in translation through the lenses and reinterpretation of the media. The terms freedom, democracy, and Chinese Communist Government became forever contradictive triplet that trickle impulsive and mindless responses. The term govern is instantly implicated with negative denotation, as absence of freedom.
In response to the uproar stirred up by the Jackie Chan Incident, some Chinese commented that Chan, as a celebrity figure, should not be making political statement; some said he picked a wrong place on earth to express his view; some pointed out that he was just being himself, saying things without considering its consequences[5]. Nonetheless, Chan’s view of Chinese people should not be indulged with freedom and ought to be governed by rules and regulations (otherwise the society will turn into chaos) is in itself problematic. Firstly, his obscured application of the word freedom discredited his view to a discursive argument. Chan commented on the social dilemma in Mainland China and at the same time making a sweeping remark that both Taiwan and Hong Kong are also very chaotic. When was asked at the end of the business forum what did he meant by both Hong Kong and Taiwan are chaotic, Chan responded that he was referring to the political situation in both places. Apparently he was making a comment on freedom of a two different affairs: social dilemma on one hand and political democracy on the other. Secondly, his opinion of people needs to be governed subjected human being to rules and regulations. Undeniably a society without rules and regulations would have a high risk of falling into chaos if this society exists at all; however, the implementation of rules and regulations does not mean lack of freedom and should not be perceived as suppression and alienation, as most of his backlashers alleged. Rules and regulations can be common codes of conduct that every member of the society follows with mutual consent. As Greene (1988) stated, “Human beings, unlike the cattle, must choose what they will do and be. We are not governed by our instincts or totally dominated by our keepers. Rather, we are free, and our freedom puts us under an imperative of decision and action. (p. 46)” To majority of the people, Chan’s speech insinuated his eager to illuminate the shepherd then voicing his concerns about the social dilemma in China today.
The question is why a comment by Jackie Chan, a sole movie celebrity, could cause uproar in the Chinese speaking society? Chan’s social status actually transcended his role as a celebrity. He is well respected by the Chinese society and is always being treated as the big/elder brother Chan. In Chinese patriarchal system, elder brother plays a role as the father among the siblings and as the head of the family during the absent of the father. He inherited an unchallengeable authority second to the father within the family. Chan, who said “Chinese need to be governed,” was in fact being interpreted as a gesture to please the father, i.e. the leaders of the Chinese government, in the expenses of the freedom of the younger siblings. Foreseeing the lost of freedom that they have not bestowed, some younger siblings realized the need to voice their unpleasantness and attempt to sabotage the elder brother; to make their voice heard within as well as outside the family.
Nonetheless, the incident unveiled a general misconception of freedom among majority of the Chinese people, including Jackie Chan himself. For Chan to say, “Chinese has too much freedom and this cause social chaos.” can be interpreted as Chinese people know less about freedom and their wrong doings had indeed stained the chastity of freedom and therefore they have to be governed, as Chan manifested; or it can be Chan himself knows less about freedom and the motif of his speech is questionable. Perhaps, freedom is perceived by Chan as a mandated consent given by the father but could be taken away if infringement occurs. Chinese people today are like children who cross the line therefore are deserved to be grounded. Chan’s manifestation of mandated freedom can be perceived as a form of slavery as indicated by Greene (1988),
“Freedom of mind and the opportunity to realize certain potentialities are conceivable under slavery. Within predetermined limits, enslaved persons have been known to believe they can exert their wills and achieve much of what they desire. It may even be that they can do so much of what they choose to do within these limits that they do not perceive them as obstacles.” (p. 65)
It is a mental instead of physical enslavement. Chan, however, does not see this as enslavement but an appropriate procedure in fostering a harmonious society. There always needed someone to ensure the smooth running of daily affairs and the government, being the one who govern, has the rightful mandate for it. What Chan proposed was social harmony overrules individual freedom, a Chinese heritage of the Confucianism thought. His notion of govern, as he sees it, is a positive control (with instrumental reasoning) for the betterment of the people. Individual freedom is therefore should be given circumstantially. As one of the Chinese celebrities who stood up to condemn the Tiananmen Square Incident of 1989 two decades ago, Chan is now being condemned of betraying his stand for a democratic China. Nevertheless, his speech should not be mindlessly interpreted as a sole betrayal of democratic China or a cunning trick to declare his loyalty to the current Chinese government for personal gains. Due to the social dilemma in China today, perhaps his view could offer an alternative possibility for Chinese to realize a different kind of democracy. China has a prolong history of a top down political structure with the “wise monarch” on top of the hierarchy. Although Mainland Chinese were emancipated and a new China was established fifty years ago, historical events like the Great Leap in the fifties, the Cultural Revolution in the sixties, and the Tiananmen Square Incident in the eighties, to name a few, had proven over and over again that Chinese people are still circling within their internalized political ideology. Mao and Deng were and still being treated the “wise monarch” that governed the nation but of a different flag. After the Cultural Revolution of the Great Proletariat, China might be able to survive yet another political revolution but rational voices would prefer to have a gradual evolvement both socially and politically from an authoritarian state to a free nation, a transition period.
Perhaps, “Freedom” has become an untarnishable icon of worship that Chinese people fail to look at it with a clear mind. True freedom should be a freedom of conditions, a positive freedom. People are born with the freedom to make choices but of moral and ethical conscience. Not of selfish instinct. The proposition to Chan’s social dilemma and political chaos is conceivably rested on the realization of positive freedom: conditional freedom with intrinsic and extrinsic governing. Greene (1988) stated,
“The invention of cultures was seen as a break with natural selection. Capable of thinking and
choosing, capable of communicating and transmitting valued ways of life, men and women could direct the course of future evolution. No longer subject to the repetitive patterns laid down by instinct, they could be educated to pose questions, to pursue meanings, to effect changes, to extend control. Making more and more connections in their own experience, reflecting on their shared lives, taking heed of the consequences of the actions they performed, they would become aware of more and more alternatives, more and more experiential possibilities; and this meant an increased likelihood of achieving freedom. The capacity for achieving it, however, had to be continually nurtured, informed, and communally sustained.” (p. 42-43)
With the proliferation of freedom worshipping these days, Greene’s view on achieving freedom deserves serious reflections by human race as a totality. Through education, individual learns to interact with the communal dialectically, forming an interconnected whole to foster alternative possibilities, she believes human race would then be possible of freedom. Instead of self (individual) and others (communal), the relation between individual and communal in Chinese culture, however, is perceived as two inter-reacted selves, like yin and yang but of unequal weightage. The former is termed as the small self whereas the latter the big self. The interaction between the two is well illustrated in the Chinese idiom, “牺牲小我， 完成大我,” which can be directly translated as “sacrifice (the) small(er) self to complete (the) big(ger) self” or “one is expected to give up individuality for the sake of the communal (family/community/nation).” Individual is at the very bottom of the social hierarchy and is expected to forego personal interests for the communal. Individual identity is as such defined by the communal. Without the communal, individual does not exist. It is clear to make sense of Jackie Chan’s mandated freedom from this perspective. However, instead of saying “Chinese people have too much freedom,” Chan should address the question “What is the essence of freedom and how should Chinese people actualize a society of freedom?” Instead of proposing “Chinese people are to be controlled or governed,” Chan should apprehend that it is Chinese people who are to realize within themselves a sense of self-governing and this self-governing would be the key to help them to eventually arrive at the state of intrinsic and extrinsic freedom. (2375 words)
Reference
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lee, Min (2009). Spokesman: Jackie Chan comments out of context. Retrieved April 22, 2009 from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/spokesman-jackie-chan-comments-out-of-context/
Zhongtian News (2009) Jackie Chan’s speech sparked uproar, Hu Zhi Qiang: No need to make a big fuss 成龍談話惹議 胡志強：不用太計較. Retrieved April 22, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_YwB78iZws
Footnotes:
[1] Chinese speaking society here is referring to those of the Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, and to some extends, it encompasses Singapore and the Oversea Chinese communities around the world as well.
[2] What Foreman referring to was the speech Jackie Chan given on freedom during a panel discussion at the Boao Forum, an annual gathering of state officials, scholars and businessmen that is organized by the Chinese government, on China’s southern island-province of Hainan.
[3] This new release was written by the Associated Press writer Bill Foreman in Guangzhou on April 23, 2009.
[4]成龍談話惹議 胡志強：不用太計較 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_YwB78iZws
[5] The remarks were broadcasted on Zhongtian News, one of the cable channel run by the Chinese Television Network Inc.. CTN， a pro-Kuomintang (国民党 Nationalist Party) organization in Taiwan， was founded by a Hong Kong businessman in 1994,
The speech Jackie Chan gave recently in a business forum held in the Hainan province of China sparked uproar in the Chinese speaking society[1]. It immediate became the central attraction of the media. The following is an extract from one of the news releases:
“(Jackie Chan), the 55-year-old star of the "Rush Hour" action comedies caused a huge uproar after he told a business forum[2] on Saturday that it may not be good for authoritarian China to become a free society."I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said Saturday, adding freedoms in his native Hong Kong and Taiwan made those societies "chaotic." Taiwan, which split from China in 1949, is democratic and Hong Kong, a former British colony now ruled by China, enjoys some free elections. "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want," he said. "Sure, we've got 5,000 years of history, but our new country has just been around for 60 years and the reforms for 30 years. It's hard to compare us with other countries," Chan said, referring to China's communist rule and capitalist-style reforms under the communist regime. "But I feel that in the 10 years after Hong Kong's return to Chinese rule, I can gradually see, I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan continued. Hong Kong and Taiwanese legislators lashed out at the comments, with some accusing Chan of insulting the Chinese race.” (The Washington Times)[3]
What was not included in most of the reports was that Chan elaborated his point with the ban of chewing gum in Singapore as the realization of a better society with straight enforcement of rules and regulations. He also pointed out that there are enormous immoral deeds occurring within Mainland China today that need to be put into justice. Chan believes that Chinese people should be governed (a more appropriate translation than the term “controlled” used in the above article), as freedom of speech, of culture, and of human right are now being abused in Chinese society. He, however, is optimistic about an open and better China in the future under the current communist government.
The issue was later termed as the “Jackie Chan Incident” by the media, politicians, scholars and netizens from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. In response to Chan’s speech about Taiwan is politically chaotic, the mayor of Taichung city also friend of Chan told the Taiwanese media, “… Firstly, we should listen to what Chan has to say with an open mind and determine if it is right or wrong and whether any improvement is needed on our part. Secondly, to recognize if what Chan said is slandering, if yes, then we will definitely pursue the matter further. …”[4] Of course, some legislators from Hong Kong and Taiwan said otherwise. The authority from Mainland, on the other hand, shows no response to the issue, thus far. Chan refused to further explain himself; his entourage, however, expressed Chan’s speech was interpreted out of context.
Regardless the motif behind Chan’s speech, the “Jackie Chan Incident” actually opened up the Pandora Box of Chinese society. Many seek this as a chance to make themselves heard by calling for a boycott of Chan’s up coming concert in Beijing and his new featuring film Shinjuku Incident; to strip Chan’s role as ambassador of the Deaf Olympic Games to be held in Taipei this year; to remove his role as Hong Kong’s tourism ambassador and the list goes on. Indeed, all backlashes against Chan are nothing of meaningless yells of nonsensical. However, they, at the same time, exposed people’s ignorance to critical thinking and the important of contextualizing the issue. Chan’s concern of the constant rising desecration of ethical and moral norms, the general ignorant to the essence of democracy and freedom within the Chinese society was somehow lost in translation through the lenses and reinterpretation of the media. The terms freedom, democracy, and Chinese Communist Government became forever contradictive triplet that trickle impulsive and mindless responses. The term govern is instantly implicated with negative denotation, as absence of freedom.
In response to the uproar stirred up by the Jackie Chan Incident, some Chinese commented that Chan, as a celebrity figure, should not be making political statement; some said he picked a wrong place on earth to express his view; some pointed out that he was just being himself, saying things without considering its consequences[5]. Nonetheless, Chan’s view of Chinese people should not be indulged with freedom and ought to be governed by rules and regulations (otherwise the society will turn into chaos) is in itself problematic. Firstly, his obscured application of the word freedom discredited his view to a discursive argument. Chan commented on the social dilemma in Mainland China and at the same time making a sweeping remark that both Taiwan and Hong Kong are also very chaotic. When was asked at the end of the business forum what did he meant by both Hong Kong and Taiwan are chaotic, Chan responded that he was referring to the political situation in both places. Apparently he was making a comment on freedom of a two different affairs: social dilemma on one hand and political democracy on the other. Secondly, his opinion of people needs to be governed subjected human being to rules and regulations. Undeniably a society without rules and regulations would have a high risk of falling into chaos if this society exists at all; however, the implementation of rules and regulations does not mean lack of freedom and should not be perceived as suppression and alienation, as most of his backlashers alleged. Rules and regulations can be common codes of conduct that every member of the society follows with mutual consent. As Greene (1988) stated, “Human beings, unlike the cattle, must choose what they will do and be. We are not governed by our instincts or totally dominated by our keepers. Rather, we are free, and our freedom puts us under an imperative of decision and action. (p. 46)” To majority of the people, Chan’s speech insinuated his eager to illuminate the shepherd then voicing his concerns about the social dilemma in China today.
The question is why a comment by Jackie Chan, a sole movie celebrity, could cause uproar in the Chinese speaking society? Chan’s social status actually transcended his role as a celebrity. He is well respected by the Chinese society and is always being treated as the big/elder brother Chan. In Chinese patriarchal system, elder brother plays a role as the father among the siblings and as the head of the family during the absent of the father. He inherited an unchallengeable authority second to the father within the family. Chan, who said “Chinese need to be governed,” was in fact being interpreted as a gesture to please the father, i.e. the leaders of the Chinese government, in the expenses of the freedom of the younger siblings. Foreseeing the lost of freedom that they have not bestowed, some younger siblings realized the need to voice their unpleasantness and attempt to sabotage the elder brother; to make their voice heard within as well as outside the family.
Nonetheless, the incident unveiled a general misconception of freedom among majority of the Chinese people, including Jackie Chan himself. For Chan to say, “Chinese has too much freedom and this cause social chaos.” can be interpreted as Chinese people know less about freedom and their wrong doings had indeed stained the chastity of freedom and therefore they have to be governed, as Chan manifested; or it can be Chan himself knows less about freedom and the motif of his speech is questionable. Perhaps, freedom is perceived by Chan as a mandated consent given by the father but could be taken away if infringement occurs. Chinese people today are like children who cross the line therefore are deserved to be grounded. Chan’s manifestation of mandated freedom can be perceived as a form of slavery as indicated by Greene (1988),
“Freedom of mind and the opportunity to realize certain potentialities are conceivable under slavery. Within predetermined limits, enslaved persons have been known to believe they can exert their wills and achieve much of what they desire. It may even be that they can do so much of what they choose to do within these limits that they do not perceive them as obstacles.” (p. 65)
It is a mental instead of physical enslavement. Chan, however, does not see this as enslavement but an appropriate procedure in fostering a harmonious society. There always needed someone to ensure the smooth running of daily affairs and the government, being the one who govern, has the rightful mandate for it. What Chan proposed was social harmony overrules individual freedom, a Chinese heritage of the Confucianism thought. His notion of govern, as he sees it, is a positive control (with instrumental reasoning) for the betterment of the people. Individual freedom is therefore should be given circumstantially. As one of the Chinese celebrities who stood up to condemn the Tiananmen Square Incident of 1989 two decades ago, Chan is now being condemned of betraying his stand for a democratic China. Nevertheless, his speech should not be mindlessly interpreted as a sole betrayal of democratic China or a cunning trick to declare his loyalty to the current Chinese government for personal gains. Due to the social dilemma in China today, perhaps his view could offer an alternative possibility for Chinese to realize a different kind of democracy. China has a prolong history of a top down political structure with the “wise monarch” on top of the hierarchy. Although Mainland Chinese were emancipated and a new China was established fifty years ago, historical events like the Great Leap in the fifties, the Cultural Revolution in the sixties, and the Tiananmen Square Incident in the eighties, to name a few, had proven over and over again that Chinese people are still circling within their internalized political ideology. Mao and Deng were and still being treated the “wise monarch” that governed the nation but of a different flag. After the Cultural Revolution of the Great Proletariat, China might be able to survive yet another political revolution but rational voices would prefer to have a gradual evolvement both socially and politically from an authoritarian state to a free nation, a transition period.
Perhaps, “Freedom” has become an untarnishable icon of worship that Chinese people fail to look at it with a clear mind. True freedom should be a freedom of conditions, a positive freedom. People are born with the freedom to make choices but of moral and ethical conscience. Not of selfish instinct. The proposition to Chan’s social dilemma and political chaos is conceivably rested on the realization of positive freedom: conditional freedom with intrinsic and extrinsic governing. Greene (1988) stated,
“The invention of cultures was seen as a break with natural selection. Capable of thinking and
choosing, capable of communicating and transmitting valued ways of life, men and women could direct the course of future evolution. No longer subject to the repetitive patterns laid down by instinct, they could be educated to pose questions, to pursue meanings, to effect changes, to extend control. Making more and more connections in their own experience, reflecting on their shared lives, taking heed of the consequences of the actions they performed, they would become aware of more and more alternatives, more and more experiential possibilities; and this meant an increased likelihood of achieving freedom. The capacity for achieving it, however, had to be continually nurtured, informed, and communally sustained.” (p. 42-43)
With the proliferation of freedom worshipping these days, Greene’s view on achieving freedom deserves serious reflections by human race as a totality. Through education, individual learns to interact with the communal dialectically, forming an interconnected whole to foster alternative possibilities, she believes human race would then be possible of freedom. Instead of self (individual) and others (communal), the relation between individual and communal in Chinese culture, however, is perceived as two inter-reacted selves, like yin and yang but of unequal weightage. The former is termed as the small self whereas the latter the big self. The interaction between the two is well illustrated in the Chinese idiom, “牺牲小我， 完成大我,” which can be directly translated as “sacrifice (the) small(er) self to complete (the) big(ger) self” or “one is expected to give up individuality for the sake of the communal (family/community/nation).” Individual is at the very bottom of the social hierarchy and is expected to forego personal interests for the communal. Individual identity is as such defined by the communal. Without the communal, individual does not exist. It is clear to make sense of Jackie Chan’s mandated freedom from this perspective. However, instead of saying “Chinese people have too much freedom,” Chan should address the question “What is the essence of freedom and how should Chinese people actualize a society of freedom?” Instead of proposing “Chinese people are to be controlled or governed,” Chan should apprehend that it is Chinese people who are to realize within themselves a sense of self-governing and this self-governing would be the key to help them to eventually arrive at the state of intrinsic and extrinsic freedom. (2375 words)
Reference
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lee, Min (2009). Spokesman: Jackie Chan comments out of context. Retrieved April 22, 2009 from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/spokesman-jackie-chan-comments-out-of-context/
Zhongtian News (2009) Jackie Chan’s speech sparked uproar, Hu Zhi Qiang: No need to make a big fuss 成龍談話惹議 胡志強：不用太計較. Retrieved April 22, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_YwB78iZws
Footnotes:
[1] Chinese speaking society here is referring to those of the Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, and to some extends, it encompasses Singapore and the Oversea Chinese communities around the world as well.
[2] What Foreman referring to was the speech Jackie Chan given on freedom during a panel discussion at the Boao Forum, an annual gathering of state officials, scholars and businessmen that is organized by the Chinese government, on China’s southern island-province of Hainan.
[3] This new release was written by the Associated Press writer Bill Foreman in Guangzhou on April 23, 2009.
[4]成龍談話惹議 胡志強：不用太計較 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_YwB78iZws
[5] The remarks were broadcasted on Zhongtian News, one of the cable channel run by the Chinese Television Network Inc.. CTN， a pro-Kuomintang (国民党 Nationalist Party) organization in Taiwan， was founded by a Hong Kong businessman in 1994,
No comments:
Post a Comment