Sunday, May 27, 2007
Iraqi war
How can people support Iraqi war? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Almost nothing. No one of the people accused of 9/11 was from Iraq. Isn't this enough to say that Iraq war is absurd and should be stopped immediately?
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Disney
Disney could only have been born in America.
When I walk along the strees in Indiana, I have the impression of being in a Disney cartoon: anywhere jumping hares in the gardens, squirrels eating their nuts, big colourful butterflies coming shopping with me, and red, blue, green birds singing around ...
When I walk along the strees in Indiana, I have the impression of being in a Disney cartoon: anywhere jumping hares in the gardens, squirrels eating their nuts, big colourful butterflies coming shopping with me, and red, blue, green birds singing around ...
Friday, May 11, 2007
racism
I have the impression that racism is not a solved problem in USA. I am speaking about USA simply because I am here, while it is certainly not a solved problem in Europe either.
Just this detail: in West Lafayette black people are not so many, or maybe this is my impression. I expected many more in USA. There are probably more black people in Italy.
In West Lafayette, that is at the university, they are few.
But if you just cross the bridge and reach Lafayette, they are many. On buses, along the streets, in shops there are many black people, while in W.L. you always walk among white people.
This is certainly nothing sociological or statistical, but you can imagine that black people are still partially excluded from cultural centers.
It must be something similar to women's condition: in theory the law garantees equal rights for everybody; in practice it is very, very different: mobbing, discrimination, subtle blackmailing, subtle psychological violence ... and above all the mass opinion which is still incredibly male chauvinist.
The presence of black people in universities should be incouraged at least because USA have a huge historical debt of denied human rights towards them. Probably USA are the nation with the most recent history of apartheid in the whole world, after South Africa.
For black people the best way to fight against any discrimination is to increase their presence in schools and universities: the improvement of life conditions passes mainly through education, higher titles, better jobs.
Just this detail: in West Lafayette black people are not so many, or maybe this is my impression. I expected many more in USA. There are probably more black people in Italy.
In West Lafayette, that is at the university, they are few.
But if you just cross the bridge and reach Lafayette, they are many. On buses, along the streets, in shops there are many black people, while in W.L. you always walk among white people.
This is certainly nothing sociological or statistical, but you can imagine that black people are still partially excluded from cultural centers.
It must be something similar to women's condition: in theory the law garantees equal rights for everybody; in practice it is very, very different: mobbing, discrimination, subtle blackmailing, subtle psychological violence ... and above all the mass opinion which is still incredibly male chauvinist.
The presence of black people in universities should be incouraged at least because USA have a huge historical debt of denied human rights towards them. Probably USA are the nation with the most recent history of apartheid in the whole world, after South Africa.
For black people the best way to fight against any discrimination is to increase their presence in schools and universities: the improvement of life conditions passes mainly through education, higher titles, better jobs.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
jimmy carter
(Roberta Barazza)
Horowitz Daniel, Jimmy Carter and the Energy Crisis of the 1970s. The 'Crisis of Confidence' Speech of July 15, 1979. A Brief History with Documents, Bedford S.Martin's, Boston, 2005.
The book I dealt with is Jimmy Carter and the Energy Crisis of the 1970s by Daniel Horowitz.
The main point of the book is the reaction of President Jimmy Carter to the energy crisis of the 1970s, his 'crisis of confidence speech' on July 15, 1979 and the reaction in the press by journalists, politicians, intellectuals and other personalities.
Carter's speech is preceded by a historical introduction to the problem and by opinions of several personalities about this situation and about Carter's politics.
Carter's speech is one of the most significant by an American President in the XX century. Carter deals with the problems of his time and in particular the shortage of energy, the inflation and decreasing monetary power of the citizens' earnings. The President gives a sort of religious interpretation to this situation: he speaks of moral decay, of lack of confidence, lack of hope in the future. He thinks that a solution is raising the spiritual and moral strength of the Americans.
He interprets the economical problems in a moralistic way. In the previous last days he could see in USA the worsening of the problem of lack of oil; he saw long lines of drivers waiting for gas at gas stations. Carter considers the US economical situation as a very serious problem. If US citizens had previously considered their possibilities limitless, for the first time they have the impression that they may face poverty.
The origin of the energy crisis goes back to the 50s when USA decided to lower the price of gas so that it was possible to use it in big quantity. In 1973 the problem became very serious: Saudi Arabia, one the largest producers of oil, increased its price of 350%. For the Western countries this was a terrible shock. The dependence of USA from the Middle East oil was huge and this decision almost strangled the American economy.
The reason for Saudi Arabia's decision was economical and political: it was a reaction to Nixon's support of Israel against Palestinian Arabs. With its decision Saudi Arabia defended the Palestinian fight for an independent nation.
Congressman David Stockman writes in 1978 that the decision of the Persian Gulf nations to raise the oil price in 1973 was not political, but just economical. I think this is not an acceptable idea. The political implications are more than clear and go back to Nixon’s time, while Carter inherits this problem, although he was accused of worsening the situation increasing inflation.
Carter was severely accused of being a moralist, a weak politician unable to solve political and administrative matters and of taking political and social problems for moral questions.
I have a better opinion of his politics. His speech of July 15 suggests as a possible solution for the dependence of USA from foreign energy the research of other sources of energy, like the wind power, nuclear power, coal, or others. He underlined the importance of supporting the research of new energy sources. This is what is now felt as very important in USA, in Europe and in other countries. After 30 years the problem of alternative energy is more and more urgent. Carter was right when he insisted on this choice. Soon after the July 15 speech, his appreciation among the people rose, but after the dismissal of many members of his government he was criticized by most Americans and in 1980 Ronald Reagan won the election.
His moralistic tone is less relevant, in my opinion, while his idea of the necessity of looking for other energy anticipated the present decisions of almost any government. In Europe this is a serious economical strategy. Probably less in USA: Bush has not yet signed the Tokyo agreements.
Another aspect of Carter’s politics is of value, in my opinion: his more peaceful politics than his followers. At Camp David and in other occasions he did a lot for peace agreements. And probably also his energy politics would have been more respectful of the economical independence of foreign nations. His idea that USA should try hard to be energetically independent is good and it would probably prevent USA from interfering in the decisions of other nations as they continue to do.
I think that Reagan, who seemed to despise Carter’s weakness while presenting himself as the champion of a revival of American politics and economy, could partially do this because of an arrogant foreign politics. It is true that he also contributed to the end of the cold war, but during Reagan’s time USA again controlled the world, and not always peacefully. To have a leading role, to become again a leading superpower is not a fault, but only if other nations are respected. While from 1980s again an aggressive US foreign policy began and, not by chance, especially in the Persian Gulf.
More humbly Carter wanted to solve the problem of energy, making USA more independent, and as a consequence, also respecting other nations’ independence. Reagan raised the US citizens’ enthusiasm because he was not so pessimistic and he spoke of a revival of US. But again a revival based on an aggressive foreign policy. Nowadays we still see the consequences of this politics. And again the area of special interest for US foreign policy is the Persian Gulf with all its oil. Congressman David Stockman says in 1978 that USA cannot afford to lose the control of the Persian Gulf because the oil there could fall in the hands of the Soviet Union, which, he says, would dangerously lead to the diffusion of communism. I would use Stockman’s previous words against this final idea of his: he uses a political interpretation to hide an economical reason: the importance for USA of controlling oil wells in the Persian Gulf is hidden behind a political reason. Stockman’s speech was pronounced in 1978 during the Cold War. And now? Again USA interest for that area is based on the effort to protect the western countries from the communist danger? The cold war is over but the American troops are still there. Now the reason is international terrorism, one could reply. But the economical leitmotiv of the oil is still there, in the same region.
In the 80s Afghanistan was a battlefield between Soviet Union and USA for … the cold war? Or for oil? The economical need of oil seems extremely important for USA and it links economy and politics. In Carter’s time each American used the double quantity of energy of each citizen in the richest European countries (Sweden or Germany) or in Japan. And the difference with a citizen of a poor country in Africa or Asia is incomparable.
This is why Carter’s plan seems to me less cheerful but better politics; probably it would have pushed US policy on a path of more respectful international relations while searching for new energy sources would have been less immediately rewarding for Americans but an intelligent choice because this is what is necessary now too and what will be more and more necessary in the future.
Horowitz Daniel, Jimmy Carter and the Energy Crisis of the 1970s. The 'Crisis of Confidence' Speech of July 15, 1979. A Brief History with Documents, Bedford S.Martin's, Boston, 2005.
The book I dealt with is Jimmy Carter and the Energy Crisis of the 1970s by Daniel Horowitz.
The main point of the book is the reaction of President Jimmy Carter to the energy crisis of the 1970s, his 'crisis of confidence speech' on July 15, 1979 and the reaction in the press by journalists, politicians, intellectuals and other personalities.
Carter's speech is preceded by a historical introduction to the problem and by opinions of several personalities about this situation and about Carter's politics.
Carter's speech is one of the most significant by an American President in the XX century. Carter deals with the problems of his time and in particular the shortage of energy, the inflation and decreasing monetary power of the citizens' earnings. The President gives a sort of religious interpretation to this situation: he speaks of moral decay, of lack of confidence, lack of hope in the future. He thinks that a solution is raising the spiritual and moral strength of the Americans.
He interprets the economical problems in a moralistic way. In the previous last days he could see in USA the worsening of the problem of lack of oil; he saw long lines of drivers waiting for gas at gas stations. Carter considers the US economical situation as a very serious problem. If US citizens had previously considered their possibilities limitless, for the first time they have the impression that they may face poverty.
The origin of the energy crisis goes back to the 50s when USA decided to lower the price of gas so that it was possible to use it in big quantity. In 1973 the problem became very serious: Saudi Arabia, one the largest producers of oil, increased its price of 350%. For the Western countries this was a terrible shock. The dependence of USA from the Middle East oil was huge and this decision almost strangled the American economy.
The reason for Saudi Arabia's decision was economical and political: it was a reaction to Nixon's support of Israel against Palestinian Arabs. With its decision Saudi Arabia defended the Palestinian fight for an independent nation.
Congressman David Stockman writes in 1978 that the decision of the Persian Gulf nations to raise the oil price in 1973 was not political, but just economical. I think this is not an acceptable idea. The political implications are more than clear and go back to Nixon’s time, while Carter inherits this problem, although he was accused of worsening the situation increasing inflation.
Carter was severely accused of being a moralist, a weak politician unable to solve political and administrative matters and of taking political and social problems for moral questions.
I have a better opinion of his politics. His speech of July 15 suggests as a possible solution for the dependence of USA from foreign energy the research of other sources of energy, like the wind power, nuclear power, coal, or others. He underlined the importance of supporting the research of new energy sources. This is what is now felt as very important in USA, in Europe and in other countries. After 30 years the problem of alternative energy is more and more urgent. Carter was right when he insisted on this choice. Soon after the July 15 speech, his appreciation among the people rose, but after the dismissal of many members of his government he was criticized by most Americans and in 1980 Ronald Reagan won the election.
His moralistic tone is less relevant, in my opinion, while his idea of the necessity of looking for other energy anticipated the present decisions of almost any government. In Europe this is a serious economical strategy. Probably less in USA: Bush has not yet signed the Tokyo agreements.
Another aspect of Carter’s politics is of value, in my opinion: his more peaceful politics than his followers. At Camp David and in other occasions he did a lot for peace agreements. And probably also his energy politics would have been more respectful of the economical independence of foreign nations. His idea that USA should try hard to be energetically independent is good and it would probably prevent USA from interfering in the decisions of other nations as they continue to do.
I think that Reagan, who seemed to despise Carter’s weakness while presenting himself as the champion of a revival of American politics and economy, could partially do this because of an arrogant foreign politics. It is true that he also contributed to the end of the cold war, but during Reagan’s time USA again controlled the world, and not always peacefully. To have a leading role, to become again a leading superpower is not a fault, but only if other nations are respected. While from 1980s again an aggressive US foreign policy began and, not by chance, especially in the Persian Gulf.
More humbly Carter wanted to solve the problem of energy, making USA more independent, and as a consequence, also respecting other nations’ independence. Reagan raised the US citizens’ enthusiasm because he was not so pessimistic and he spoke of a revival of US. But again a revival based on an aggressive foreign policy. Nowadays we still see the consequences of this politics. And again the area of special interest for US foreign policy is the Persian Gulf with all its oil. Congressman David Stockman says in 1978 that USA cannot afford to lose the control of the Persian Gulf because the oil there could fall in the hands of the Soviet Union, which, he says, would dangerously lead to the diffusion of communism. I would use Stockman’s previous words against this final idea of his: he uses a political interpretation to hide an economical reason: the importance for USA of controlling oil wells in the Persian Gulf is hidden behind a political reason. Stockman’s speech was pronounced in 1978 during the Cold War. And now? Again USA interest for that area is based on the effort to protect the western countries from the communist danger? The cold war is over but the American troops are still there. Now the reason is international terrorism, one could reply. But the economical leitmotiv of the oil is still there, in the same region.
In the 80s Afghanistan was a battlefield between Soviet Union and USA for … the cold war? Or for oil? The economical need of oil seems extremely important for USA and it links economy and politics. In Carter’s time each American used the double quantity of energy of each citizen in the richest European countries (Sweden or Germany) or in Japan. And the difference with a citizen of a poor country in Africa or Asia is incomparable.
This is why Carter’s plan seems to me less cheerful but better politics; probably it would have pushed US policy on a path of more respectful international relations while searching for new energy sources would have been less immediately rewarding for Americans but an intelligent choice because this is what is necessary now too and what will be more and more necessary in the future.
'Chinatown' by Roman Polanski
Roberta Barazza
Chinatown (Polanski)
“Chinatown” was produced in 1974 by Roman Polanski.
Film studies seem to show that the most intelligent and creative films are produced in times of strong social conflict and instability of the film industry. This happened in Italy during Neorealism soon after the IIWW, in Germany during the Weimerer Republik in the 30s, and also in USA in the 70s.
The 60s were years of social conflict and change; in the 70s there is a contrast between a tendency to keep to the traditional values and the wish to change. The films of the 70s mirror this double direction (1).
Chinatown goes even further: it does not only represent a contrast between change and reaction but the total disillusion that any change is possible, the acceptance of a necessary and unchangeable evil.
Robert Towne wrote the script and before finishing the film, Towne and Polanski argued about the end: Towne wanted a happy end with Mrs Mulwray killing her father; Polanski preferred the tragic ending with Gittes ending in jail and Mrs Mulwray killed by a policeman while she tries to leave her house for ever. There seems to be no hope of a solution and of any improvement.
The film is a cult movie, one which had a great success and still continues to raise the interest of critics and public.
It is set in the 30s but the main problem it deals with - draught in Los Angeles - refers to real events in the 1910s in California.
The film deals with social, political, personal problems representing the problems of USA in the 70s: corruption, overpower of rich owners, exploitation by the rich, police controlled by the rich class, and personal tragedies like limited freedom for women and the rape of Noah Cross’s daughter by Noah Cross himself.
The film is a reaction to the disillusion with politics after the Watergate scandal in 1972-74. The film deals first with a precise problem - shortage of water in Los Angeles - and continues with a general denunciation of corruption, criminal connection between police and rich owners, personal problems. The impression is of a nightmarish society where it is impossible to find justice and safety. Gittes, who tries to solve the problems, seems first unable to understand what is important, then his wound in his nose makes him appear clownish which he is as still unaware of the gravity of the problems. He still focuses on a possible relationship between Mr Mulwray and a girl, while behind the stage a much more criminal game is played. The very rich Noah Cross uses the water of the dam for his property stealing it at night to the local peasants and causing the ruin of many small landowners. This is what Noah Cross’s son-in-law finds out and he is killed by Cross for this. The tragedy of these events is expressed also by the use of biblical references such as the name Noah, like Noah’s Ark bringing the whole story on a universal level of meaning. Gittes will understand in the end the real problem but he will be unable, like years before in Chinatown, to help and save his lover.
Another important problem is women’s total dependence on men. It is surprising that a rich and aristocratic woman like Mrs Mulwray, who was raped by her father at 15, still lives near her father’s house and her husband is her father’s colleague.
The word ‘Chinatown’ has a negative meaning: it seems to mean chaos, lack of law and justice. And this is a common xenophobic stereotype, especially in the 30s. But we can hardly see a Chinese man or woman, so this negative meaning becomes rather a general connotation of the whole country and you have the impression that these problems are anywhere in USA.
The film seems to convey an anti-capitalistic opinion. The whole nightmarish situation is caused by the power of richness dominating everything: the inhabitants‘ properties, the law, the characters’ personal lives. The film seems to be based on a Marxist point of view but unlike Marx it does not offer any hope of change (2). It seems impossible to improve anything. Gittes, the hero, is a tragicomic hero unable to offer a solution. All this while everything in Los Angeles is golden and bright, rich and smart. Behind the richness of buildings, streets, cars, dresses, hides the lowest dark side of human will. Something similar to USA in 1970s at the time of the Watergate scandal and the rise of oil price. The 70s are a time when people no longer believed in politics as a field of great actions; the general disappointment with politicians makes this time a turning point and the new Presidents seem to behave in a different way, for ex. - like Jimmy Carter - giving his first interview to Playboy rather than to more serious magazines. For the first time US Presidents are continuously laughed at in newspapers strips. After Vietnam War, Watergate scandal, women’s revolution, youth protests, everything seems to have changed and the heroism of the past has disappeared forever. In Chinatown too the hero will not solve any problem and will end up in jail because the whole society is a big Chinatown ruled by chaos, corruption and injustice.
1. Lev Peter, American Films of the 70s. Conflicting visions, University of Texas Press, 2000, p. XVII.
2. Lev Peter, American Films of the 70s. Conflicting visions, University of Texas Press, 2000, p. 58.
Bibliography
Chinatown (film) by Roman Polanski, 1974.
Peter Lev, American Films of the 70s. Conflicting visions, University of Texas Press, 2000.
Bailey Beth and Farber David (edited by), America in the 70s, University Press of Kansas, 2004.
Towne Robert, Chinatown, (script) third draft, 1973.
Chinatown (Polanski)
“Chinatown” was produced in 1974 by Roman Polanski.
Film studies seem to show that the most intelligent and creative films are produced in times of strong social conflict and instability of the film industry. This happened in Italy during Neorealism soon after the IIWW, in Germany during the Weimerer Republik in the 30s, and also in USA in the 70s.
The 60s were years of social conflict and change; in the 70s there is a contrast between a tendency to keep to the traditional values and the wish to change. The films of the 70s mirror this double direction (1).
Chinatown goes even further: it does not only represent a contrast between change and reaction but the total disillusion that any change is possible, the acceptance of a necessary and unchangeable evil.
Robert Towne wrote the script and before finishing the film, Towne and Polanski argued about the end: Towne wanted a happy end with Mrs Mulwray killing her father; Polanski preferred the tragic ending with Gittes ending in jail and Mrs Mulwray killed by a policeman while she tries to leave her house for ever. There seems to be no hope of a solution and of any improvement.
The film is a cult movie, one which had a great success and still continues to raise the interest of critics and public.
It is set in the 30s but the main problem it deals with - draught in Los Angeles - refers to real events in the 1910s in California.
The film deals with social, political, personal problems representing the problems of USA in the 70s: corruption, overpower of rich owners, exploitation by the rich, police controlled by the rich class, and personal tragedies like limited freedom for women and the rape of Noah Cross’s daughter by Noah Cross himself.
The film is a reaction to the disillusion with politics after the Watergate scandal in 1972-74. The film deals first with a precise problem - shortage of water in Los Angeles - and continues with a general denunciation of corruption, criminal connection between police and rich owners, personal problems. The impression is of a nightmarish society where it is impossible to find justice and safety. Gittes, who tries to solve the problems, seems first unable to understand what is important, then his wound in his nose makes him appear clownish which he is as still unaware of the gravity of the problems. He still focuses on a possible relationship between Mr Mulwray and a girl, while behind the stage a much more criminal game is played. The very rich Noah Cross uses the water of the dam for his property stealing it at night to the local peasants and causing the ruin of many small landowners. This is what Noah Cross’s son-in-law finds out and he is killed by Cross for this. The tragedy of these events is expressed also by the use of biblical references such as the name Noah, like Noah’s Ark bringing the whole story on a universal level of meaning. Gittes will understand in the end the real problem but he will be unable, like years before in Chinatown, to help and save his lover.
Another important problem is women’s total dependence on men. It is surprising that a rich and aristocratic woman like Mrs Mulwray, who was raped by her father at 15, still lives near her father’s house and her husband is her father’s colleague.
The word ‘Chinatown’ has a negative meaning: it seems to mean chaos, lack of law and justice. And this is a common xenophobic stereotype, especially in the 30s. But we can hardly see a Chinese man or woman, so this negative meaning becomes rather a general connotation of the whole country and you have the impression that these problems are anywhere in USA.
The film seems to convey an anti-capitalistic opinion. The whole nightmarish situation is caused by the power of richness dominating everything: the inhabitants‘ properties, the law, the characters’ personal lives. The film seems to be based on a Marxist point of view but unlike Marx it does not offer any hope of change (2). It seems impossible to improve anything. Gittes, the hero, is a tragicomic hero unable to offer a solution. All this while everything in Los Angeles is golden and bright, rich and smart. Behind the richness of buildings, streets, cars, dresses, hides the lowest dark side of human will. Something similar to USA in 1970s at the time of the Watergate scandal and the rise of oil price. The 70s are a time when people no longer believed in politics as a field of great actions; the general disappointment with politicians makes this time a turning point and the new Presidents seem to behave in a different way, for ex. - like Jimmy Carter - giving his first interview to Playboy rather than to more serious magazines. For the first time US Presidents are continuously laughed at in newspapers strips. After Vietnam War, Watergate scandal, women’s revolution, youth protests, everything seems to have changed and the heroism of the past has disappeared forever. In Chinatown too the hero will not solve any problem and will end up in jail because the whole society is a big Chinatown ruled by chaos, corruption and injustice.
1. Lev Peter, American Films of the 70s. Conflicting visions, University of Texas Press, 2000, p. XVII.
2. Lev Peter, American Films of the 70s. Conflicting visions, University of Texas Press, 2000, p. 58.
Bibliography
Chinatown (film) by Roman Polanski, 1974.
Peter Lev, American Films of the 70s. Conflicting visions, University of Texas Press, 2000.
Bailey Beth and Farber David (edited by), America in the 70s, University Press of Kansas, 2004.
Towne Robert, Chinatown, (script) third draft, 1973.
chinese literature after the cultural revolution
New topics in Chinese literature after the end of the cultural revolution.
(Roberta Barazza)
In this essay I described some examples of changes in Chinese society after the end of the cultural revolution, and how they were mirrored in Chinese literature. In 1976, after Mao’s death and the arrest of the Gang of Four, a lot changes in society and politics and, correspondently, in literature. Some tales written between 1976 and 1985 reveal examples of this development. What could not be said or written before, can now timidly be suggested. If during Mao’s time writers could just praise the virtues of communism, New Realism gives way to the first attempt to describe also what is negative, like poverty, injustice, abuses of power. And love, which was considered before just as an aspect of a citizen’s political commitment, now emerges as an end in itself.
The end of the Cultural Revolution is for China a total turning point. From 1966 to 1976 the Cultural Revolution, planned by Mao Tse Dong, hugely limited the freedom of speech and action. The official aim was the realization of the socialist ideal, but it soon changed into the glorification and defence of the personal power of the Chinese leaders1.
Mao founded the Communist Republic of China in 1949. In 1966 the Cultural Revolution began, and went on officially till 1969, but in practise till Mao’s death, in 1976.
After Mao’s death and the arrest of the Gang of Four, a new epoch began for China and, at first, a timid possibility of change and freedom seemed to be possible.
In 1979 the new leader Deng Xiao Ping pronounced a famous speech in which he praised the idea of improving one’s economical conditions and of getting rich, while previously the only ’moral’ acceptable activity was to work for the collective wealth, neglecting personal wishes and aspirations.
This big change, which later led China to a rapid development, mirrored itself also in the cultural and literary production.
In this short essay I’d like to write about some new aspects of the literary production which could not have been thinkable previously, due to the different political situation. More frequent examples are taken from the literature of New Realism.
It is possible to perceive important changes in society after 1976 reading short stories and novels.
An interesting source for this information is The Chinese Western. Short Fiction from Today’s China2, published in 1988 and dealing with China of the 70s.
The tales deal with episodes happened in the Western part of China, which was, and still is, the least developed part of the country. This area was the farthest from the central power and the least controlled.
It was an important economical area during the years of the Silk Road, but when, after 1400-1500, travels by sea from Europe became more frequent than along the Silk Road, it became marginal and a bit abandoned by the central political power. Also during the Cultural Revolution, the western citizens could sometimes avoid the rigid control of the capital city.
Western China created a new literary and film genre, the Western. The name is the same as the US Western genre.
The main aspect of the Chinese Western hero is his/her challenge to the rules of the political power and bureaucracy.
This area is populated by several ethnic minorities, and it is the favourite dwelling place for outcasts and outlaws, where outlaws often means simply people who are victims of political injustice. The western hero is one loved by people, a sort of Robin Hood who does not fear to challenge authorities if he considers them unjust.
The tales of the Chinese Western are not descriptions of audacious changes in people’s lives, but rather of timid attempts to change rules, or to refuse what is felt as un unnecessary wrong imposition.
The tales often express the contradictions of people, torn between their faithfulness to tradition and their obedience to the establishment and their wish to change.
So, for example, some characters do not understand why they have to submit to bureaucratic rules and think that what matters is to resolve a factual situation; if you do nothing wrong why should you care for pieces of papers and official certificates?
Another expression of the new changing sensibility is when a heroine refuses to accept male rules and feudal ideology if they prevent her from living with the man she loves.
Another example is the one of a student who does not question the rules to climb the social ladder but he feels frustrated by the rigid bureaucracy which does not always reward merit.
In 1942 Mao Zedong published his ‘Talks on Art and Literature’ where he dictates what good literature and art should be.
Literature must express the optimistic, revolutionary commitment of workers, peasants and soldiers working for the socialist society. Literature and art must be used for the purposes of the political party.
The model is the Russian proletarian literature based on Stalin’s socialist realism. Literary works had to glorify the communist doctrine and to present a society forever enthusiastic of serving the communist ideals.
The belief that art and literature’s first aim was to glorify communism, began to be shaken by the literary movement of New Realism some years before the end of the Cultural Revolution.
New Realism’s date of birth is 1956-7. Its basic ideas were that Communism was not so perfect as writers and artists were obliged to say in their works, and that Chinese society showed many contradictions which it was no longer possible to hide. In particular bureaucracy, corruption and abuses of power by the leadership and by the local representatives of power were big problems for the Chinese population and it was right to deal with them in the works of art.3
The first ideas of New Realism appeared in the last years of the Cultural Revolution, but the movement could express its opinions and publish more freely only around 1979, after the more democratic political plans of Deng Xiaoping.
The writers of New Realism want to talk about the problems of Chinese society, the poverty in the country, the oppression of people under the privileged class, the degradation of many, due to the difficult conditions of life. The heroes of the New Realist novels and tales are the oppressed.
The protagonists of this new literature are very different from those of the past: they are no longer happy supporters of the communist ideals but poor people, victims of a system which often unjustly destroys its citizens.
The writers still felt faithful to the communist party and to their political identity but they wanted to feel free to speak about the negative aspects and to defend the victims of the system.
New Realism is not only important in the literary field. It was important also for the reaction it aroused in China and abroad. Abroad people did not want to believe that Chinese communism was not what it had always been presented. And in China at first these ideas were refused and censored, but later accepted, and the awareness of an unsatisfactory political and social situation increased.
New Realist writers published both in China and in Taiwan. Quantitatively it was richer in China, but the quality of the books written in Taiwan was better, at least in the first period.
Sometimes creativity increases deeply at the end of a bad historical time. And this was maybe the case in China. The prospect of more freedom in a near-by future seemed possible and this encouraged creativity and dynamism. But it did not last long. In 1957 these new concepts were repressed and again Chinese literature was reduced to silence.
A new revival took place in 1976 when Mao died and the Gang of Four was arrested. It is true that most of the leading class was then reinstated, but people already believed in a big change.
In 1977 the movement of the ’Literature of the Wounded’ began. The ’wounded’ are those who suffered for the injustices of the communist system: the victims of abuses of power, peasants, women who cannot choose the life they have right to, frustrated intellectuals.
What is felt as the worst problem in China was bureaucracy, a system based on prerogatives, special favours, bribery, considered a hindrance to China’s modernization.4
New Realists aim at speaking not only of the communist ideal - which they do not refuse at all - but also of the real conditions of life of Chinese people. They refuse to blindly praise society. They feel the duty to expose social contradictions, political inequity and injustice. The leadership is now often portrayed as insensitive to the needs of people, unconcerned with their personal problems and just interested in personal privileges and power.
The absolute exercise of privileges at the expense of poor people is a common theme in New Realism and it gives a sense of degradation of society. The military class is portrayed as morally corrupt.
These themes are new. Never before leadership, military class and politicians had been depicted in such negative terms. Nor had writers dealt with peasants and poor people, considered for the economical and social problems they revealed.
I read some tales, taken from Chinese literary reviews.
One is ‘In the Archives of Society’ (a film scenario), by Wand Jing. 5
The protagonist is a young Chinese girl who wanted to enter the Liberation Army after finishing school. And she did. But she realized that what she was requested to do was not rewarding and often felt humiliated. She also decided to marry a medical doctor and she did, but she was soon refused, her husband having realized that she had had a previous relationship. Abandoned by her husband, she degraded herself, till she became the involuntary murder of the boy she had loved before her marriage. The police inspector understood that the girl was guilty, but also a victim of a society which punished her unjustly. For this reason he decided to help her avoid serious accusations. But he was condemned for this.
The story seemed to describe a changing society. The girl still idealized the Liberation Army and the communist plan. On the other hand, she felt partially betrayed by this political ideal: in the army she was not treated with respect and felt humiliated by the leaders. In her personal life she realized how many disadvantages a woman could suffer, and how male chauvinistic prejudices could ruin women’s lives. On the other hand, the police inspector, who tried somehow to reject social laws because he realized that an objective criminal is sometimes him/herself a victim of society. The inspector may represent the attempt of a change in such an unjust society, but he is arrested, meaning that change can be possible, but many obstacles will slow down the process.
Another tale I read is ’The Eye of Night’, by Wang Meng. 6
It is the story of a man travelling to a big town from the country where he lived. He is going to town invited by a ‘friend’ who told him he could help him find a work and earn money. Many people in the village knew Comrade X, who had settled down in town many years before. And they trusted him.
Chen Gao, the protagonist, is going to Comrade X’s house. He is on a bus at night. He listens to people speaking of democracy and he thinks that they can speak of democracy because they do not need to worry about money to earn. They also speak of the Gang of Four’s arrest. Chen Gao is a writer: he published some tales. He observes people. Much has changed since he came here years ago. He arrives at Comrade X’s address. A young boy opens the door. He is unkind; he listens to unpleasant noisy music. When he at last decides to let Chen Gao in, Chen Gao explains that he has come from the village because Comrade X told him that he would have helped him with a job. But the young boy treats him with contempt and he asks him what he can give in return. He can sell mutton, but the boy laughs at this. Chen Gao leaves.
In this tale there are references to the change in China soon after the Cultural Revolution. Chen Gao is still the idealist communist who believes in solidarity and friendship. He notices that in nowadays society money and commerce are what matters most.
When he observes the bus driver, he notices his paleness and suffering.
There seems to be a generation gap. The boy seems not to give importance to what has always been important for Chen Gao, his values, his sense of dignity, his culture. He listens to horrible music, he hardly cares what Chen Gao says, he has no respect for him, he is just interested in money.
Another topic in the tale is the contrast between country and town: the great poverty in the country and the relative ease in town.
There are strong differences between generations and between social strata as well. And China is changing. As any change, it seems to undermine past values (solidarity, comradeship); at the same time it seems that what was accepted in the past actually hid many negative aspects (poor peasants; pale, sad and tired bus drivers, unemployment), which the change may hopefully improve.
Another reading is ‘Five Letters - The First Letter‘, by Bay Hua.7
This letter is written by Yanan in 1978. She is a girl belonging to the ruling class. Her father is a General of the Army. In the first letter she meets her mother and they speak about Dad, their family and the boy courting Yanan.
The main topic in the letter is the generation gap. The girl says that she has the impression of having covered an incredibly long metaphorical distance, while coming back home.
She visits her parents and she can hardly recognize them. Speaking about her boyfriend, her mother says that he is not a good match for her, since he will never belong to the high leadership. Her mother defines people with the name of their cars. Shanghai is a friend who owns a Shanghai car. Yanan is surprised at this.
In her father’s study she sees Marxist-Leninist books, but nothing about personal stories, feelings, love. She says that all the men of his generation are like this.
She sleeps in an unquiet way and she suddenly wakes up, shocked by a nightmare: she dreamt of her mother pointing to people and calling her with cars’ names.
This tale is very meaningful if we deal with changes in Chinese society. The tale seems to be set in Miami, rather than in traditional China: the characters speak about rich cars, money, holiday, rich managers.
The generation gap is clear. Her father seems to belong to old Communist China, given his readings, but, at the same time, he is described as a modern manager, tanned after a holiday, and dressed smartly. Her mother seems still more to belong to the capitalistic leading class and instead of caring about people’s personalities, she is interested in their cars and richness. And Yanan seems getting lost in this distance from her parents, and instead of talking to her parents, she turns to the paper and writes letters to her friends.
The themes of love and personal relationships become important after the end of the Cultural Revolution. It is the most important topic rediscovered after Mao’s time. 8
Soon after 1976 love is treated in a prescriptive way, that is, writers express their thoughts and opinions about love, rather than personal experience. Later it becomes more descriptive, that is described with more practical situations and concrete problems.
It is often treated as a social situation, that is writers seem willing to show how love changes in the new Chinese society.
In the previous ten years love had been almost completely unmentioned in literature.
In 1978 the first love story after Mao’s dark age, by Liu Xinwu, appeared. It seemed more a critical essay than a tale. The author was so appreciated that he began to receive hundreds and hundreds of letters written by the readers. At last people could read and speak about love.
The idea of love as an aspect of one’s commitment to socialism was commonly accepted after 1942 and still dominated many stories of the 70s. The political meaning had always been emphasized in any aspect of personal life. For ex., it was common to consider a character negative or positive according to his/her political position. If a woman divorced from a communist husband and she married a less politically committed communist worker, she was presented as one person falling down a process of degradation.
But in love stories, after 1976, new ideas and situations emerge. In ‘Chinese Roses’ by Li Tuo, written in 1978, a wife still admires her husband’s political commitment, but at the same time she begins to doubt that his total devotion to the communist society may be negative for their private life. She feels guilty for these ideas, but at the same time she feels uncomfortable for her husband’s carelessness of their family life.
Such doubts could not have been written during the cultural revolution.
In 1978 the definition of love as a relationship linking two persons to the common communist project, would no longer have been considered sufficient.
And if, in the past, the most important virtue for a girl was her hard-working, now beauty and attractiveness are given importance, too. Love begins to be considered as an end in itself.
According to Kam Louie9, love becomes an important theme for books and tales after 1976. The theme is used for commercial purposes like in western societies; except for sex, which is still left out, more than in western societies. In the 90s, despite of many broken taboos, sex remains a topic which is rarely elaborated. The Confucian viewpoint of abhorrence of sex continues to influence common sensitivity.
A new idea of love, a sense of injustice, a more critical view of communism, a generation gap: these are some new aspects of Chinese society in the first decade after Mao’s death, and these are also some new themes dealt with in these years’ literature
Footnotes:
1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#The_Cultural_Revolution
2. The Chinese Western. Short Fiction from Today‘s China, Ballantine Books, New York, 1988, VII.
3. The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983, p.3-4.
4.The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983, p.7.
5. The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983, p.102.
6. The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983, p.92.
7.The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983, p.323.
8. Jeffrey C. Kinkley (editor), After Mao: Chinese Literature and Society. 1978-1981, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1985, p.64.
Bibliography
www.wikipedia.com
The Chinese Western. Short Fiction from Today‘s China, Ballantine Books, New York, 1988.
The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983.
Jeffrey C. Kinkley (editor), After Mao: Chinese Literature and Society. 1978-1981, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1985.
(Roberta Barazza)
In this essay I described some examples of changes in Chinese society after the end of the cultural revolution, and how they were mirrored in Chinese literature. In 1976, after Mao’s death and the arrest of the Gang of Four, a lot changes in society and politics and, correspondently, in literature. Some tales written between 1976 and 1985 reveal examples of this development. What could not be said or written before, can now timidly be suggested. If during Mao’s time writers could just praise the virtues of communism, New Realism gives way to the first attempt to describe also what is negative, like poverty, injustice, abuses of power. And love, which was considered before just as an aspect of a citizen’s political commitment, now emerges as an end in itself.
The end of the Cultural Revolution is for China a total turning point. From 1966 to 1976 the Cultural Revolution, planned by Mao Tse Dong, hugely limited the freedom of speech and action. The official aim was the realization of the socialist ideal, but it soon changed into the glorification and defence of the personal power of the Chinese leaders1.
Mao founded the Communist Republic of China in 1949. In 1966 the Cultural Revolution began, and went on officially till 1969, but in practise till Mao’s death, in 1976.
After Mao’s death and the arrest of the Gang of Four, a new epoch began for China and, at first, a timid possibility of change and freedom seemed to be possible.
In 1979 the new leader Deng Xiao Ping pronounced a famous speech in which he praised the idea of improving one’s economical conditions and of getting rich, while previously the only ’moral’ acceptable activity was to work for the collective wealth, neglecting personal wishes and aspirations.
This big change, which later led China to a rapid development, mirrored itself also in the cultural and literary production.
In this short essay I’d like to write about some new aspects of the literary production which could not have been thinkable previously, due to the different political situation. More frequent examples are taken from the literature of New Realism.
It is possible to perceive important changes in society after 1976 reading short stories and novels.
An interesting source for this information is The Chinese Western. Short Fiction from Today’s China2, published in 1988 and dealing with China of the 70s.
The tales deal with episodes happened in the Western part of China, which was, and still is, the least developed part of the country. This area was the farthest from the central power and the least controlled.
It was an important economical area during the years of the Silk Road, but when, after 1400-1500, travels by sea from Europe became more frequent than along the Silk Road, it became marginal and a bit abandoned by the central political power. Also during the Cultural Revolution, the western citizens could sometimes avoid the rigid control of the capital city.
Western China created a new literary and film genre, the Western. The name is the same as the US Western genre.
The main aspect of the Chinese Western hero is his/her challenge to the rules of the political power and bureaucracy.
This area is populated by several ethnic minorities, and it is the favourite dwelling place for outcasts and outlaws, where outlaws often means simply people who are victims of political injustice. The western hero is one loved by people, a sort of Robin Hood who does not fear to challenge authorities if he considers them unjust.
The tales of the Chinese Western are not descriptions of audacious changes in people’s lives, but rather of timid attempts to change rules, or to refuse what is felt as un unnecessary wrong imposition.
The tales often express the contradictions of people, torn between their faithfulness to tradition and their obedience to the establishment and their wish to change.
So, for example, some characters do not understand why they have to submit to bureaucratic rules and think that what matters is to resolve a factual situation; if you do nothing wrong why should you care for pieces of papers and official certificates?
Another expression of the new changing sensibility is when a heroine refuses to accept male rules and feudal ideology if they prevent her from living with the man she loves.
Another example is the one of a student who does not question the rules to climb the social ladder but he feels frustrated by the rigid bureaucracy which does not always reward merit.
In 1942 Mao Zedong published his ‘Talks on Art and Literature’ where he dictates what good literature and art should be.
Literature must express the optimistic, revolutionary commitment of workers, peasants and soldiers working for the socialist society. Literature and art must be used for the purposes of the political party.
The model is the Russian proletarian literature based on Stalin’s socialist realism. Literary works had to glorify the communist doctrine and to present a society forever enthusiastic of serving the communist ideals.
The belief that art and literature’s first aim was to glorify communism, began to be shaken by the literary movement of New Realism some years before the end of the Cultural Revolution.
New Realism’s date of birth is 1956-7. Its basic ideas were that Communism was not so perfect as writers and artists were obliged to say in their works, and that Chinese society showed many contradictions which it was no longer possible to hide. In particular bureaucracy, corruption and abuses of power by the leadership and by the local representatives of power were big problems for the Chinese population and it was right to deal with them in the works of art.3
The first ideas of New Realism appeared in the last years of the Cultural Revolution, but the movement could express its opinions and publish more freely only around 1979, after the more democratic political plans of Deng Xiaoping.
The writers of New Realism want to talk about the problems of Chinese society, the poverty in the country, the oppression of people under the privileged class, the degradation of many, due to the difficult conditions of life. The heroes of the New Realist novels and tales are the oppressed.
The protagonists of this new literature are very different from those of the past: they are no longer happy supporters of the communist ideals but poor people, victims of a system which often unjustly destroys its citizens.
The writers still felt faithful to the communist party and to their political identity but they wanted to feel free to speak about the negative aspects and to defend the victims of the system.
New Realism is not only important in the literary field. It was important also for the reaction it aroused in China and abroad. Abroad people did not want to believe that Chinese communism was not what it had always been presented. And in China at first these ideas were refused and censored, but later accepted, and the awareness of an unsatisfactory political and social situation increased.
New Realist writers published both in China and in Taiwan. Quantitatively it was richer in China, but the quality of the books written in Taiwan was better, at least in the first period.
Sometimes creativity increases deeply at the end of a bad historical time. And this was maybe the case in China. The prospect of more freedom in a near-by future seemed possible and this encouraged creativity and dynamism. But it did not last long. In 1957 these new concepts were repressed and again Chinese literature was reduced to silence.
A new revival took place in 1976 when Mao died and the Gang of Four was arrested. It is true that most of the leading class was then reinstated, but people already believed in a big change.
In 1977 the movement of the ’Literature of the Wounded’ began. The ’wounded’ are those who suffered for the injustices of the communist system: the victims of abuses of power, peasants, women who cannot choose the life they have right to, frustrated intellectuals.
What is felt as the worst problem in China was bureaucracy, a system based on prerogatives, special favours, bribery, considered a hindrance to China’s modernization.4
New Realists aim at speaking not only of the communist ideal - which they do not refuse at all - but also of the real conditions of life of Chinese people. They refuse to blindly praise society. They feel the duty to expose social contradictions, political inequity and injustice. The leadership is now often portrayed as insensitive to the needs of people, unconcerned with their personal problems and just interested in personal privileges and power.
The absolute exercise of privileges at the expense of poor people is a common theme in New Realism and it gives a sense of degradation of society. The military class is portrayed as morally corrupt.
These themes are new. Never before leadership, military class and politicians had been depicted in such negative terms. Nor had writers dealt with peasants and poor people, considered for the economical and social problems they revealed.
I read some tales, taken from Chinese literary reviews.
One is ‘In the Archives of Society’ (a film scenario), by Wand Jing. 5
The protagonist is a young Chinese girl who wanted to enter the Liberation Army after finishing school. And she did. But she realized that what she was requested to do was not rewarding and often felt humiliated. She also decided to marry a medical doctor and she did, but she was soon refused, her husband having realized that she had had a previous relationship. Abandoned by her husband, she degraded herself, till she became the involuntary murder of the boy she had loved before her marriage. The police inspector understood that the girl was guilty, but also a victim of a society which punished her unjustly. For this reason he decided to help her avoid serious accusations. But he was condemned for this.
The story seemed to describe a changing society. The girl still idealized the Liberation Army and the communist plan. On the other hand, she felt partially betrayed by this political ideal: in the army she was not treated with respect and felt humiliated by the leaders. In her personal life she realized how many disadvantages a woman could suffer, and how male chauvinistic prejudices could ruin women’s lives. On the other hand, the police inspector, who tried somehow to reject social laws because he realized that an objective criminal is sometimes him/herself a victim of society. The inspector may represent the attempt of a change in such an unjust society, but he is arrested, meaning that change can be possible, but many obstacles will slow down the process.
Another tale I read is ’The Eye of Night’, by Wang Meng. 6
It is the story of a man travelling to a big town from the country where he lived. He is going to town invited by a ‘friend’ who told him he could help him find a work and earn money. Many people in the village knew Comrade X, who had settled down in town many years before. And they trusted him.
Chen Gao, the protagonist, is going to Comrade X’s house. He is on a bus at night. He listens to people speaking of democracy and he thinks that they can speak of democracy because they do not need to worry about money to earn. They also speak of the Gang of Four’s arrest. Chen Gao is a writer: he published some tales. He observes people. Much has changed since he came here years ago. He arrives at Comrade X’s address. A young boy opens the door. He is unkind; he listens to unpleasant noisy music. When he at last decides to let Chen Gao in, Chen Gao explains that he has come from the village because Comrade X told him that he would have helped him with a job. But the young boy treats him with contempt and he asks him what he can give in return. He can sell mutton, but the boy laughs at this. Chen Gao leaves.
In this tale there are references to the change in China soon after the Cultural Revolution. Chen Gao is still the idealist communist who believes in solidarity and friendship. He notices that in nowadays society money and commerce are what matters most.
When he observes the bus driver, he notices his paleness and suffering.
There seems to be a generation gap. The boy seems not to give importance to what has always been important for Chen Gao, his values, his sense of dignity, his culture. He listens to horrible music, he hardly cares what Chen Gao says, he has no respect for him, he is just interested in money.
Another topic in the tale is the contrast between country and town: the great poverty in the country and the relative ease in town.
There are strong differences between generations and between social strata as well. And China is changing. As any change, it seems to undermine past values (solidarity, comradeship); at the same time it seems that what was accepted in the past actually hid many negative aspects (poor peasants; pale, sad and tired bus drivers, unemployment), which the change may hopefully improve.
Another reading is ‘Five Letters - The First Letter‘, by Bay Hua.7
This letter is written by Yanan in 1978. She is a girl belonging to the ruling class. Her father is a General of the Army. In the first letter she meets her mother and they speak about Dad, their family and the boy courting Yanan.
The main topic in the letter is the generation gap. The girl says that she has the impression of having covered an incredibly long metaphorical distance, while coming back home.
She visits her parents and she can hardly recognize them. Speaking about her boyfriend, her mother says that he is not a good match for her, since he will never belong to the high leadership. Her mother defines people with the name of their cars. Shanghai is a friend who owns a Shanghai car. Yanan is surprised at this.
In her father’s study she sees Marxist-Leninist books, but nothing about personal stories, feelings, love. She says that all the men of his generation are like this.
She sleeps in an unquiet way and she suddenly wakes up, shocked by a nightmare: she dreamt of her mother pointing to people and calling her with cars’ names.
This tale is very meaningful if we deal with changes in Chinese society. The tale seems to be set in Miami, rather than in traditional China: the characters speak about rich cars, money, holiday, rich managers.
The generation gap is clear. Her father seems to belong to old Communist China, given his readings, but, at the same time, he is described as a modern manager, tanned after a holiday, and dressed smartly. Her mother seems still more to belong to the capitalistic leading class and instead of caring about people’s personalities, she is interested in their cars and richness. And Yanan seems getting lost in this distance from her parents, and instead of talking to her parents, she turns to the paper and writes letters to her friends.
The themes of love and personal relationships become important after the end of the Cultural Revolution. It is the most important topic rediscovered after Mao’s time. 8
Soon after 1976 love is treated in a prescriptive way, that is, writers express their thoughts and opinions about love, rather than personal experience. Later it becomes more descriptive, that is described with more practical situations and concrete problems.
It is often treated as a social situation, that is writers seem willing to show how love changes in the new Chinese society.
In the previous ten years love had been almost completely unmentioned in literature.
In 1978 the first love story after Mao’s dark age, by Liu Xinwu, appeared. It seemed more a critical essay than a tale. The author was so appreciated that he began to receive hundreds and hundreds of letters written by the readers. At last people could read and speak about love.
The idea of love as an aspect of one’s commitment to socialism was commonly accepted after 1942 and still dominated many stories of the 70s. The political meaning had always been emphasized in any aspect of personal life. For ex., it was common to consider a character negative or positive according to his/her political position. If a woman divorced from a communist husband and she married a less politically committed communist worker, she was presented as one person falling down a process of degradation.
But in love stories, after 1976, new ideas and situations emerge. In ‘Chinese Roses’ by Li Tuo, written in 1978, a wife still admires her husband’s political commitment, but at the same time she begins to doubt that his total devotion to the communist society may be negative for their private life. She feels guilty for these ideas, but at the same time she feels uncomfortable for her husband’s carelessness of their family life.
Such doubts could not have been written during the cultural revolution.
In 1978 the definition of love as a relationship linking two persons to the common communist project, would no longer have been considered sufficient.
And if, in the past, the most important virtue for a girl was her hard-working, now beauty and attractiveness are given importance, too. Love begins to be considered as an end in itself.
According to Kam Louie9, love becomes an important theme for books and tales after 1976. The theme is used for commercial purposes like in western societies; except for sex, which is still left out, more than in western societies. In the 90s, despite of many broken taboos, sex remains a topic which is rarely elaborated. The Confucian viewpoint of abhorrence of sex continues to influence common sensitivity.
A new idea of love, a sense of injustice, a more critical view of communism, a generation gap: these are some new aspects of Chinese society in the first decade after Mao’s death, and these are also some new themes dealt with in these years’ literature
Footnotes:
1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#The_Cultural_Revolution
2. The Chinese Western. Short Fiction from Today‘s China, Ballantine Books, New York, 1988, VII.
3. The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983, p.3-4.
4.The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983, p.7.
5. The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983, p.102.
6. The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983, p.92.
7.The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983, p.323.
8. Jeffrey C. Kinkley (editor), After Mao: Chinese Literature and Society. 1978-1981, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1985, p.64.
Bibliography
www.wikipedia.com
The Chinese Western. Short Fiction from Today‘s China, Ballantine Books, New York, 1988.
The New Realism. Writings from China after the Cultural Revolution, edited by Lee Yee, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983.
Jeffrey C. Kinkley (editor), After Mao: Chinese Literature and Society. 1978-1981, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1985.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
intellectuals and political power
Intellectuals and political power in USA
(Roberta Barazza)
In this essay I will discuss the relationship between academic power and political power in USA.
As a student, in the past, I idealized the academic world and thought teachers in universities would always have been able to offer an enlightening example to common people. But as years go on, I realize that universities are sometimes represented by people who know more than others, but not necessarily are better than others. To be better involves the moral sphere, and it means to use what you know to improve society, to improve people’s lives and to defend what is true and honest.
In the essay I will give many examples of the relationship between academics and political institutions, especially when intellectuals betrayed their role of guides of society in order to defend their privileges and not to question a questionable political power. There are many references to the American politics of the 70s (Vietnam war, Nixon, Kissinger) connected to the following years and to the present.
The aim of this essay is not just to criticize a frequent betrayal by intellectuals, but to reflect on this topic so that more awareness of these events may lead to more honesty and courage of thinking freely.
In theory scholars should observe the political and social situation of a country and prevent power from changing into abuse of power; they should inform people of what really happens in a country and unmask demagogy and falseness. This is rare in any country of the world, but since I have to deal with USA, I will focus on US academic class and its relationship with the political leaders, or on the academic class as a leading class.
I want to begin with an example taken from the history of my country, Italy.
During fascism the Italian academic class accepted fascism and signed in favour of the fascist laws. Only 12 out of 1200 professors refused to sign their faithfulness to fascism in 1931, when the fascist laws had already clearly shown all its criminality and violence. A scandalous number. The 12 courageous professors lost their jobs and some had to leave the country. The number is certainly shocking because universities in any country represent the best of a country, the most intelligent part of society and people should learn from them#.
Academics have a responsibility towards society and for this it is surprising how they often bend their freedom of opinion to the powerful leadership instead of defending what is clearly honest and just. They prefer to support power instead of supporting who is unjustly damaged by power.
Vietnam war offers many examples of this. What was clear and obvious - the unjust destruction of populations by a foreign army - was instead defended with strange pseudo-intellectual reasoning lacking any moral concern. Knowledge and skills were put at the service of the destruction of other human beings.
During Vietnam war in New York some science museums allowed visitors to ‘play’ with US helicopters dropping bombs or chemical poison on Vietnam fields. And nowadays too, during the war in Iraq, some videogames deal with Muslims as targets to be shot.
Scientists were concerned with scientifically and technical experiments aiming at the destruction of the war enemy.
Some scholars studied the effects of bombs and weapons on the enemy. Some of their comments and observations surprise as completely devoid of moral content. Some military pilots complained that if they threw bombs on areas full of trees and woods, they could not see the effects of the bombs and this was unsatisfactory because a professional can only be pleased if s/he can see the results of his job.
Engineers worked on new war experiments, as for example, destructive arms for dikes and dams. During the Nazi time something similar happened in Holland at the time of the Allied invasion. The German High Commissioner Seyss-Inquart manipulated dikes causing flood and destruction. He was condemned to death for this. Instead, no one of the US soldiers during Vietnam war was condemned to death for similar operations.
During Vietnam war the Printing Office of the White House was ready to offer a ‘prompt and respectful hearing’ to ‘new, good ideas about Vietnam’ and it could offer a ‘source of insight into the moral and intellectual level of this expert advice‘#. In one of the publications Professor David N. Rowe, director of graduate studies in international relations at Yale University, suggested that the United States should buy all surplus of Canadian and Australian wheat, so that there will be mass starvation in China (country ready to help Vietnam). These are his words: “Mind you, I am not talking about this as a weapon against the Chinese people. It will be. But that is only incidental. The weapon will be a weapon against the Government because the internal stability of that country cannot be sustained by an unfriendly Government in the face of general starvation”#.
What is important is to reach a certain political aim, no matter the human cost.
In the same collection of publication we find the proposal of Reverend R.J. de Jaegher, regent of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Seton Hall University, who wondered why they should limit the action to indirect means like mass starvation. He thought bombing was a more efficient solution, and he explained that, like all people who lived under Communism, the North Vietnamese “would be perfectly happy to be bombed to be free”#.
Another example of how scholarly work sometimes supports the political power, neglecting honesty and clarity, is proved by a false use of certain scientific terminology. During Vietnam war the recurring word ‘urbanisation’ was the definition given by US to the destruction of crops, cultivated areas, rural villages. Similarly ‘pacification operation’ is the destruction of entire villages in Vietnam resulting in killing of women, children and old people. The invasion of Panama was called ‘Operation just cause’ and it killed thousands of innocent victims in order to arrest a politician - Manuel Noriega - who had been supported by USA and CIA till he began to act too independently for America. This invasion violated the same international laws which were at the origin of the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and USA intervened in defence of Kuwait. Donaldo Macedo, introducing Chomsky in On Miseducation, said that the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was of course brutal, but not more brutal than US invasion of Panama or Granada, not to speak of US support for the right-wing dictatorships and death squads in Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala#.
Many similar examples in the recent history show that the same actions are judged very differently if they are foreign interventions or actions of one’s own country. What may surprise is the incapacity of teachers and intellectuals either to call these events with their real names or to understand what hides behind a tricky definition.
Nato intervention in Kosovo under President Clinton was generally seen, not only by US intellectuals but also by European ones, as a humanitarian operation to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Balkans. And maybe the intention was this, indeed. But few noticed that the consequence of this intervention was a direct increase of ethnic cleansing, killings, rapes, tortures of the Albanians in Kosovo. And it was not so difficult to imagine this consequence.#
US often present their operations as humanitarian interventions but a critical analysis can easily discover their real purposes or their irresponsible side-effects. Clinton also supported Colombia government officially in its drug war, but with his support of the Colombian President Cesar Gaviria, US became themselves responsible for the appalling, wide use of violence against Colombian people.
In the 90s US supported the bombing of Kurdish villages by the Turkish government; this caused the flight of more than one million refugees from the bombed areas.
Another US ‘humanitarian operation’ is the military support of Indonesia in the carnage of Timor East, leading to the death of 60000 people in two months.#
US often defend their interventions of foreign politics as humanitarian operations of defence and justice, while they accuse other states of similar operations as violations of international laws. And too often do schools and universities support the acceptance of similar demagogical interpretations of events.
Edward Said, the famous author of Orientalism, wrote that teachers and scholars should not be, but they are, like any other professionals, who provide their expertise while gaining money. They are expected to shape students according to the requirements of the dominant society.# If a citizen condemns the aggression of a country by an enemy, he should also have the courage to condemn the same by his/her own country.#
Another case of manipulation of information is Laos. For many years thousands of people, above all children and poor farmers, were killed in the Plain of Jars in Northern Laos: it is recorded as the heaviest bombing of civilian targets in history. The worst moment began in 1968 when Kissinger and Nixon had to begin agreements for the end of Vietnam war. Bombing was stopped in Vietnam, and they decided to shift it to Laos and Cambodia. This period of war had an average of 20000 casualties per year, the half of which were deaths. How did the US media react to these events? We said that in Kosovo Nato’s intervention was applauded by US press because it stopped violence and ethnic cleansing, while it actually increased it. As regards Laos, US media said nothing at all, excusing this with the fact that it was a ’secret war’. Press and televisions chose an incredible self-censorship and nowadays too, Laos war is little known. While Milosevic in the Balkans was condemned by the International Tribunal for crimes against humanity, Kissinger, the architect of the massacres in Laos, has never had problems with justice and he is celebrated as an expert and a successful politician.#
In Iraq during the Gulf War the situation was similar: a humanitarian excuse (Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait - how many countries had US invaded before?) hid the real concern of US policy in the Gulf: the control of oil whose huge profits are used to support US and UK economies. All this while the US Presidents continue to present themselves as guarantees against violations of laws, violence and aggressions. And while many US intellectuals refuse to admit such a clear state of facts.
Chomsky wrote a meaningful sentence in 1967: “We must emphasize what must be obvious to a person with a grain of political intelligence: that the present world problem is [ not containing China but ] containing the United States.”#
The United States of America seem to be the only democratic Western country which still consider it right to invade other countries, without UNO permission. And the consequences are almost always big tragedies for other countries. UK, too, but at a minor extent. And I fear there is another example: Israel, which does not invade other countries in general, just one, the Palestinian territories, treated as a colony deprived of any right to autonomy. They never come to an agreement. I have the impression that what Israel is trying to achieve is discouraging Palestinians to stay in the Palestinian territories, increasing the emigration and reducing Palestinians to a minority which in the end will accept to live in the only existing state, Israel. But it is probably a wrong calculation, since the birth rate is too high among Palestinians to reach any similar goal.
Many countries in the world invade others, but they do not boast themselves of being democratic countries based on a legal state.
The Geneve Convention signed in 1906, 1929, 1949 stated rules about human rights, international law and war law, and among other decision, one stated that the problems of each country should be settled by its citizens and not by foreign countries. All democratic countries accept, at least in theory, Geneve Convention.
US too often interfere in other countries’ choices, without being criticized abroad or in USA. This is what intellectuals should do: to be a sort of vigilant observers of the social and political situation and, if necessary, criticize what is wrong, even if this goes against what society invites to accept.
In Chomsky’s opinion, educational institutions in USA guarantee the social stability because they prepare students not only to learn certain contents but also to use them in society. ’If you don’t support the interest of the people who have wealth and power, you don’t survive very long’#
Historically intellectuals have played an inglorious role in support of the doctrinal system, praising certain political ‘civilizing’ actions which, in reality, have often brought to the opposite: violence, murders, genocide, slavery. I find particularly interesting these words by Chomsky: ’How many Americans have read anything written by the Central American intellectuals who were assassinated by US proxy armies? Or would know of Dom Elder Camara - the Brazilian bishop who championed the cause of the poor in Brazil? That most would have difficulty even giving the names of dissidents in the brutal tyrannies in Latin America - and elsewhere - that we support and whose forces we train, provides an interesting comment on our intellectual culture. Facts that are inconvenient to the doctrinal system are summarily disregarded as if they do not exist. They are just suppressed. [….] The critical skills they use in unmasking the falsehood propagated in what they call ‘rogue nations‘ disappear when criticism of our own government and the tyrannies that we support are in order. The educated class have mostly supported the propaganda apparatus throughout history.’#
After his trip to America in 1831-32 De Tocqueville wrote: “ I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America”.# There are certainly free institutions, but also a strong tradition of passivity and conformism.
I can add that a surprising aspect of the press in USA is the fact that the majority of articles are celebrations of something, praise, support, appreciation. This is pleasant, of course, and you have the impression that everything is golden here, but the side-effect is that people get used to accept everything without critical spirit. Also when it is necessary to be critical.
An example: when Steffey Wade died at Purdue University few months ago, and his body was found in a place which should have been locked, while it was not, the reaction of the press was, in my opinion, extremely mild. I can imagine what European newspapers would have written: ‘Scandalous lack of safety in this university!’ ‘Death of a boy. Serious responsibility of the university!‘. I do not want to say that one is better than the other. I simply say that it is rather easy to understand that people in USA are used to accept: to accept what they are commanded to do, what they are told, what is decided at the top. Here you can feel a pleasant, a bit childish atmosphere of a place where someone decides for you. But the bad consequence is that they may decide too much for you. This is just my impression.
In democratic societies propaganda is very important, even more than in dictatorships, where violent means may be used to force people in a certain way. In democratic societies you need a greater use of propaganda as a way to control what people think. The educated class becomes indispensable in the mind-control, and schools play an important role in this. If someone wants to become a chemistry teacher, s/he does not only has to study chemistry; s/he has also to learn how to behave, how to dress properly, what he should say in certain circumstances, and what not; and that s/he is required to conform to society. If s/he is too independent and s/he questions the professional code of behaviour, s/he will be excluded from that system of privileges.
Not often have American scholars criticized violence in Vietnam. Violence was considered necessary to keep the social order and they condemned the risk of losing this social order.
Order and stability are important words in USA. Their importance is so great that any change is slowed or feared, even if it is felt as necessary for other people. This shows a strange contradiction: people hate violence but they accept the violence against what disturbs the social order. Stability is very important. The order defended in America is the one of the leading class. What disturbs this stability can be suppressed with violence. There is another way of facing the risk of social instability and it is a more democratic one: considering the requests of those who complain.
Isn’t the fight against communist often just an attack to a possible social turmoil? So much violence was planned not because US faced a real enemy, but because there may have been the possibility of reverting this order. South America offers many examples in this regard. One for all: Chile dictatorship of Pinochet was supported by US and in Chile there had not been examples of communist violence or riots or rebellions. The aim was to suffocate the possible switching towards left of the legitimate, democratic government of Salvador Allende.
During Vietnam war Senator Fulbright described the failure of the universities to form ‘an effective counterweight to the military-industrial complex by strengthening their emphasis on the traditional values of our democracy’. In particular he refers to the failure of the social scientists ‘who ought to be acting as responsible and independent critics of the Government’s policies,’ but who instead become the agents of these policies.# And the main reasons for this are, in Fulbright’s opinion, money, power and career. Intellectuals are part of the leading class and what the state offers them, in terms of economical conditions, relevant role in society, influential activities, requires the defence, often passive and non critical, of the establishment.
What I wrote refers to US because this was required by the topic, but I do not criticize US in general. These ideas may refer to any society where conformism is of course more common than courageous free thinking.
And I also do not criticize universities as if they were the most guilty part of society. Even if they probably should be. People have right to request the best to universities, in cultural and human terms. This is why the disappointment is sometimes strong.
Besides I will probably continue to work in universities in the future. So, although I am not a scholar now, this criticism may also vaguely refer to myself and to the social environment which I have most often attended in these years.
Bibliography
Giorgio Boatti, Preferirei di no, Einaudi, Torino, 2001
Noam Chomsky, American Power and the New Mandarins, Pantheon Books, New York,1967
Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Miseducation, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland, 2000
Noam Chosky, On Democracy and Education, RoutledgeFarmer, New York, 2003
Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2002
Edward W. Said, Representations of the Intellectual, Pantheon Books, New York, 1994
(Roberta Barazza)
In this essay I will discuss the relationship between academic power and political power in USA.
As a student, in the past, I idealized the academic world and thought teachers in universities would always have been able to offer an enlightening example to common people. But as years go on, I realize that universities are sometimes represented by people who know more than others, but not necessarily are better than others. To be better involves the moral sphere, and it means to use what you know to improve society, to improve people’s lives and to defend what is true and honest.
In the essay I will give many examples of the relationship between academics and political institutions, especially when intellectuals betrayed their role of guides of society in order to defend their privileges and not to question a questionable political power. There are many references to the American politics of the 70s (Vietnam war, Nixon, Kissinger) connected to the following years and to the present.
The aim of this essay is not just to criticize a frequent betrayal by intellectuals, but to reflect on this topic so that more awareness of these events may lead to more honesty and courage of thinking freely.
In theory scholars should observe the political and social situation of a country and prevent power from changing into abuse of power; they should inform people of what really happens in a country and unmask demagogy and falseness. This is rare in any country of the world, but since I have to deal with USA, I will focus on US academic class and its relationship with the political leaders, or on the academic class as a leading class.
I want to begin with an example taken from the history of my country, Italy.
During fascism the Italian academic class accepted fascism and signed in favour of the fascist laws. Only 12 out of 1200 professors refused to sign their faithfulness to fascism in 1931, when the fascist laws had already clearly shown all its criminality and violence. A scandalous number. The 12 courageous professors lost their jobs and some had to leave the country. The number is certainly shocking because universities in any country represent the best of a country, the most intelligent part of society and people should learn from them#.
Academics have a responsibility towards society and for this it is surprising how they often bend their freedom of opinion to the powerful leadership instead of defending what is clearly honest and just. They prefer to support power instead of supporting who is unjustly damaged by power.
Vietnam war offers many examples of this. What was clear and obvious - the unjust destruction of populations by a foreign army - was instead defended with strange pseudo-intellectual reasoning lacking any moral concern. Knowledge and skills were put at the service of the destruction of other human beings.
During Vietnam war in New York some science museums allowed visitors to ‘play’ with US helicopters dropping bombs or chemical poison on Vietnam fields. And nowadays too, during the war in Iraq, some videogames deal with Muslims as targets to be shot.
Scientists were concerned with scientifically and technical experiments aiming at the destruction of the war enemy.
Some scholars studied the effects of bombs and weapons on the enemy. Some of their comments and observations surprise as completely devoid of moral content. Some military pilots complained that if they threw bombs on areas full of trees and woods, they could not see the effects of the bombs and this was unsatisfactory because a professional can only be pleased if s/he can see the results of his job.
Engineers worked on new war experiments, as for example, destructive arms for dikes and dams. During the Nazi time something similar happened in Holland at the time of the Allied invasion. The German High Commissioner Seyss-Inquart manipulated dikes causing flood and destruction. He was condemned to death for this. Instead, no one of the US soldiers during Vietnam war was condemned to death for similar operations.
During Vietnam war the Printing Office of the White House was ready to offer a ‘prompt and respectful hearing’ to ‘new, good ideas about Vietnam’ and it could offer a ‘source of insight into the moral and intellectual level of this expert advice‘#. In one of the publications Professor David N. Rowe, director of graduate studies in international relations at Yale University, suggested that the United States should buy all surplus of Canadian and Australian wheat, so that there will be mass starvation in China (country ready to help Vietnam). These are his words: “Mind you, I am not talking about this as a weapon against the Chinese people. It will be. But that is only incidental. The weapon will be a weapon against the Government because the internal stability of that country cannot be sustained by an unfriendly Government in the face of general starvation”#.
What is important is to reach a certain political aim, no matter the human cost.
In the same collection of publication we find the proposal of Reverend R.J. de Jaegher, regent of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Seton Hall University, who wondered why they should limit the action to indirect means like mass starvation. He thought bombing was a more efficient solution, and he explained that, like all people who lived under Communism, the North Vietnamese “would be perfectly happy to be bombed to be free”#.
Another example of how scholarly work sometimes supports the political power, neglecting honesty and clarity, is proved by a false use of certain scientific terminology. During Vietnam war the recurring word ‘urbanisation’ was the definition given by US to the destruction of crops, cultivated areas, rural villages. Similarly ‘pacification operation’ is the destruction of entire villages in Vietnam resulting in killing of women, children and old people. The invasion of Panama was called ‘Operation just cause’ and it killed thousands of innocent victims in order to arrest a politician - Manuel Noriega - who had been supported by USA and CIA till he began to act too independently for America. This invasion violated the same international laws which were at the origin of the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and USA intervened in defence of Kuwait. Donaldo Macedo, introducing Chomsky in On Miseducation, said that the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was of course brutal, but not more brutal than US invasion of Panama or Granada, not to speak of US support for the right-wing dictatorships and death squads in Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala#.
Many similar examples in the recent history show that the same actions are judged very differently if they are foreign interventions or actions of one’s own country. What may surprise is the incapacity of teachers and intellectuals either to call these events with their real names or to understand what hides behind a tricky definition.
Nato intervention in Kosovo under President Clinton was generally seen, not only by US intellectuals but also by European ones, as a humanitarian operation to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Balkans. And maybe the intention was this, indeed. But few noticed that the consequence of this intervention was a direct increase of ethnic cleansing, killings, rapes, tortures of the Albanians in Kosovo. And it was not so difficult to imagine this consequence.#
US often present their operations as humanitarian interventions but a critical analysis can easily discover their real purposes or their irresponsible side-effects. Clinton also supported Colombia government officially in its drug war, but with his support of the Colombian President Cesar Gaviria, US became themselves responsible for the appalling, wide use of violence against Colombian people.
In the 90s US supported the bombing of Kurdish villages by the Turkish government; this caused the flight of more than one million refugees from the bombed areas.
Another US ‘humanitarian operation’ is the military support of Indonesia in the carnage of Timor East, leading to the death of 60000 people in two months.#
US often defend their interventions of foreign politics as humanitarian operations of defence and justice, while they accuse other states of similar operations as violations of international laws. And too often do schools and universities support the acceptance of similar demagogical interpretations of events.
Edward Said, the famous author of Orientalism, wrote that teachers and scholars should not be, but they are, like any other professionals, who provide their expertise while gaining money. They are expected to shape students according to the requirements of the dominant society.# If a citizen condemns the aggression of a country by an enemy, he should also have the courage to condemn the same by his/her own country.#
Another case of manipulation of information is Laos. For many years thousands of people, above all children and poor farmers, were killed in the Plain of Jars in Northern Laos: it is recorded as the heaviest bombing of civilian targets in history. The worst moment began in 1968 when Kissinger and Nixon had to begin agreements for the end of Vietnam war. Bombing was stopped in Vietnam, and they decided to shift it to Laos and Cambodia. This period of war had an average of 20000 casualties per year, the half of which were deaths. How did the US media react to these events? We said that in Kosovo Nato’s intervention was applauded by US press because it stopped violence and ethnic cleansing, while it actually increased it. As regards Laos, US media said nothing at all, excusing this with the fact that it was a ’secret war’. Press and televisions chose an incredible self-censorship and nowadays too, Laos war is little known. While Milosevic in the Balkans was condemned by the International Tribunal for crimes against humanity, Kissinger, the architect of the massacres in Laos, has never had problems with justice and he is celebrated as an expert and a successful politician.#
In Iraq during the Gulf War the situation was similar: a humanitarian excuse (Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait - how many countries had US invaded before?) hid the real concern of US policy in the Gulf: the control of oil whose huge profits are used to support US and UK economies. All this while the US Presidents continue to present themselves as guarantees against violations of laws, violence and aggressions. And while many US intellectuals refuse to admit such a clear state of facts.
Chomsky wrote a meaningful sentence in 1967: “We must emphasize what must be obvious to a person with a grain of political intelligence: that the present world problem is [ not containing China but ] containing the United States.”#
The United States of America seem to be the only democratic Western country which still consider it right to invade other countries, without UNO permission. And the consequences are almost always big tragedies for other countries. UK, too, but at a minor extent. And I fear there is another example: Israel, which does not invade other countries in general, just one, the Palestinian territories, treated as a colony deprived of any right to autonomy. They never come to an agreement. I have the impression that what Israel is trying to achieve is discouraging Palestinians to stay in the Palestinian territories, increasing the emigration and reducing Palestinians to a minority which in the end will accept to live in the only existing state, Israel. But it is probably a wrong calculation, since the birth rate is too high among Palestinians to reach any similar goal.
Many countries in the world invade others, but they do not boast themselves of being democratic countries based on a legal state.
The Geneve Convention signed in 1906, 1929, 1949 stated rules about human rights, international law and war law, and among other decision, one stated that the problems of each country should be settled by its citizens and not by foreign countries. All democratic countries accept, at least in theory, Geneve Convention.
US too often interfere in other countries’ choices, without being criticized abroad or in USA. This is what intellectuals should do: to be a sort of vigilant observers of the social and political situation and, if necessary, criticize what is wrong, even if this goes against what society invites to accept.
In Chomsky’s opinion, educational institutions in USA guarantee the social stability because they prepare students not only to learn certain contents but also to use them in society. ’If you don’t support the interest of the people who have wealth and power, you don’t survive very long’#
Historically intellectuals have played an inglorious role in support of the doctrinal system, praising certain political ‘civilizing’ actions which, in reality, have often brought to the opposite: violence, murders, genocide, slavery. I find particularly interesting these words by Chomsky: ’How many Americans have read anything written by the Central American intellectuals who were assassinated by US proxy armies? Or would know of Dom Elder Camara - the Brazilian bishop who championed the cause of the poor in Brazil? That most would have difficulty even giving the names of dissidents in the brutal tyrannies in Latin America - and elsewhere - that we support and whose forces we train, provides an interesting comment on our intellectual culture. Facts that are inconvenient to the doctrinal system are summarily disregarded as if they do not exist. They are just suppressed. [….] The critical skills they use in unmasking the falsehood propagated in what they call ‘rogue nations‘ disappear when criticism of our own government and the tyrannies that we support are in order. The educated class have mostly supported the propaganda apparatus throughout history.’#
After his trip to America in 1831-32 De Tocqueville wrote: “ I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America”.# There are certainly free institutions, but also a strong tradition of passivity and conformism.
I can add that a surprising aspect of the press in USA is the fact that the majority of articles are celebrations of something, praise, support, appreciation. This is pleasant, of course, and you have the impression that everything is golden here, but the side-effect is that people get used to accept everything without critical spirit. Also when it is necessary to be critical.
An example: when Steffey Wade died at Purdue University few months ago, and his body was found in a place which should have been locked, while it was not, the reaction of the press was, in my opinion, extremely mild. I can imagine what European newspapers would have written: ‘Scandalous lack of safety in this university!’ ‘Death of a boy. Serious responsibility of the university!‘. I do not want to say that one is better than the other. I simply say that it is rather easy to understand that people in USA are used to accept: to accept what they are commanded to do, what they are told, what is decided at the top. Here you can feel a pleasant, a bit childish atmosphere of a place where someone decides for you. But the bad consequence is that they may decide too much for you. This is just my impression.
In democratic societies propaganda is very important, even more than in dictatorships, where violent means may be used to force people in a certain way. In democratic societies you need a greater use of propaganda as a way to control what people think. The educated class becomes indispensable in the mind-control, and schools play an important role in this. If someone wants to become a chemistry teacher, s/he does not only has to study chemistry; s/he has also to learn how to behave, how to dress properly, what he should say in certain circumstances, and what not; and that s/he is required to conform to society. If s/he is too independent and s/he questions the professional code of behaviour, s/he will be excluded from that system of privileges.
Not often have American scholars criticized violence in Vietnam. Violence was considered necessary to keep the social order and they condemned the risk of losing this social order.
Order and stability are important words in USA. Their importance is so great that any change is slowed or feared, even if it is felt as necessary for other people. This shows a strange contradiction: people hate violence but they accept the violence against what disturbs the social order. Stability is very important. The order defended in America is the one of the leading class. What disturbs this stability can be suppressed with violence. There is another way of facing the risk of social instability and it is a more democratic one: considering the requests of those who complain.
Isn’t the fight against communist often just an attack to a possible social turmoil? So much violence was planned not because US faced a real enemy, but because there may have been the possibility of reverting this order. South America offers many examples in this regard. One for all: Chile dictatorship of Pinochet was supported by US and in Chile there had not been examples of communist violence or riots or rebellions. The aim was to suffocate the possible switching towards left of the legitimate, democratic government of Salvador Allende.
During Vietnam war Senator Fulbright described the failure of the universities to form ‘an effective counterweight to the military-industrial complex by strengthening their emphasis on the traditional values of our democracy’. In particular he refers to the failure of the social scientists ‘who ought to be acting as responsible and independent critics of the Government’s policies,’ but who instead become the agents of these policies.# And the main reasons for this are, in Fulbright’s opinion, money, power and career. Intellectuals are part of the leading class and what the state offers them, in terms of economical conditions, relevant role in society, influential activities, requires the defence, often passive and non critical, of the establishment.
What I wrote refers to US because this was required by the topic, but I do not criticize US in general. These ideas may refer to any society where conformism is of course more common than courageous free thinking.
And I also do not criticize universities as if they were the most guilty part of society. Even if they probably should be. People have right to request the best to universities, in cultural and human terms. This is why the disappointment is sometimes strong.
Besides I will probably continue to work in universities in the future. So, although I am not a scholar now, this criticism may also vaguely refer to myself and to the social environment which I have most often attended in these years.
Bibliography
Giorgio Boatti, Preferirei di no, Einaudi, Torino, 2001
Noam Chomsky, American Power and the New Mandarins, Pantheon Books, New York,1967
Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Miseducation, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland, 2000
Noam Chosky, On Democracy and Education, RoutledgeFarmer, New York, 2003
Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2002
Edward W. Said, Representations of the Intellectual, Pantheon Books, New York, 1994
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
