The last time I was in Beijing there was a Pound conference. I talked to a
few of the Chinese participants. I also talked to a number of (Chinese)
friends, women, who live in Beijing. They are mostly academics. I noticed
there were serious differences regarding the future course of China.
The Chinese I talked to who were at the Pound conference talked about Pound
somewhat abstractly. They were interested in the fact that POUND, a well
respected American poet, took an interest in China. They were a bit
troubled by Pound's political reputation, but not much. It was too
complicated to study or understand. Besides, so few Chinese scholars knew
anything about Pound, and he was too complex to read and digest for just
about every Chinese student of English in China. They had enough to deal
with trying to study Shakespeare and Keats.
Female scholars in China seem to agree on a few things: Confucius is coming
back. Sexism is coming back. The "reformed" economy needs old
non-communists sources of morality to reinforce the emerging capitalist
hierarchy. Confucius is very good for putting women and workers in their
place. Some women think the re-emergence of Confucius might be a good
thing, because, after all, "women are not as capable as men in running
businesses. Women tend to argue too much; they don't know how to keep the
organization functioning in an orderly fashion," said one female professor
friend of mine, who is steeped in the study of traditional Chinese culture.
Another friend of mine said, "The state sector is being dismantled. This is
the only sphere in which women have made substantial progress. I am very
interested in the ideas of the American and French feminists, but don't tell
so-and so . . . . I could get in trouble if anyone found out that I think
such and such . . . ."
Meanwhile, at the Pound conference people speak of Pound and Confucius in a
purely literary way, oblivious to the effect which a renovation of
Confucian doctrine could have on the social status of women and workers.
In the US, many seem oblivious to the fact that Permanent Normal Trade
Relations will mean a lowering of labor rights standards for US workers.
The lack of protection for workers in China encourages factories to move to
China where they can hire workers at 3 to 30 cents per hour, working seven
days a week, 14 to 16 hours a day.
So in China the citizens have an amalgam of Communism (Totalitarianism,
nothing to do with 'sharing wealth), Fascism (Authoritarian rule), and
capitalism, with a encroaching Confucianism to help weld it all together.
The first rule of Confucianism is "obey the authorities, whatever they are
doing". As Pound said it was in fascist Italy, so it was in China "Freedom
of speech exists for those who are qualified to speak."
American capitalists LOVE to invest in this type of environment. Of course
the "hope" we hear in the US, expressed by lying legislators, is that as
investment continues on a larger and larger scale, China will become more
like the US. Given current trends there does not seem much hope for that.
A more likely possiblity, in line with the logic of the "race to the
bottom," would be for the US to become more like China: more
authoritarian, more hierarchical, less democratic, as more and more workers
see their wages depressed and jobs lost.
In China people try various ways to relieve the sense of oppression, for
example, by reviving Buddhist doctrines. The tens of millions who practice
traditional "ch'i " (qi) exercises, like Falun Gong, are among these.
However, as we know from Pound's depiction of China ANY revival of Buddhism
or Taoism would be subsversive, would threaten ORDER. Pound would have
frowned upon Falun Gong, wouldn't he ? The Chinese authorities have put
hundreds of these people in jail, mostly the leaders. It is not quite the
"pogrom from the top" that Pound might have wished. But it is a start.
Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
|
