Canglang Pavilion 沧浪亭, by Megan Wong (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/04/photo-canglang-pavillion-%e6%b2%a7%e6%b5%aa%e4%ba%ad-by-megan-wong/
Monday, 5 April 2021
Photo: Canglang Pavillion 沧浪亭, by Megan Wong
source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/04/photo-canglang-pavillion-%e6%b2%a7%e6%b5%aa%e4%ba%ad-by-megan-wong/
Translation: Wei Zhou on “Empathy for Authority”
Wei Zhou is a rare voice in the world of WeChat public accounts, keeping his critiques of contemporary Chinese society just vague enough to stave off censorship (most of the time), yet relevant enough to amass a steady following. This March 30 post, translated in full below, lands in the midst of a nationalist boycott of H&M and other international brands in protest of their pledge not to use cotton from Xinjiang. Several internet users responded to the boycott by calling on their compatriots to “not just support Xinjiang cotton, [but] support Xinjiang people too.” Without mentioning the protests, or even Xinjiang directly, Wei Zhou writes about Chinese society, “In this system, people pay attention to their own feelings and interests, and have a hard time understanding the suffering of others.” There is also a timelessness to Wei Zhou’s analysis, showing how the regime and its purported emphasis on the collective interest in fact turns the collective on its own.
Translator’s note: The term “sophisticated egoists” (jingzhi de liyizhuyizhe 精致的利己主义者), which appears in the middle of the essay, was coined by Peking University professor Qian Liqun to describe university students who are trained to use displays of loyalty for personal advantage.
1
I’ve said before that there is a sort of “empathy for authority” that is universal in Chinese society: people easily adopt the perspective of those in power, emphasizing that it’s not easy to “be in charge,” or that various methods of control are just and rational. Thus the existing mechanisms appear to be unproblematic. If you do have a problem, then you best find the source of that problem within yourself.
Someone once confided in me that they themselves have the tendency to “empathize with authority,” and that in conversation they tend to defend those in authority, stressing that in a particular instance there are no better options. “I always feel that it’s a little wrong for me to be that way, but I just can’t change.”
Actually, this is understandable. In Chinese families, this is not only extremely common, but also encouraged. From the parents’ perspective, “empathy for authority” proves that a child has gained “maturity” and can see things from the parents’ position. I’m also a father; if my child could appreciate the predicament of their parents and not make a fuss, it would without a doubt save me a lot of worry.
This is definitely not limited to males. A lot of women have been this way from the time they were young. They are even more “mature” than some rebellious boys. A male friend of mine said the invasion of privacy during the pandemic period has created deep divisions among his close friends, and that those who defend these measures are mostly female—“So what if they’re looking into your business?”
However, when considered on a deeper level there are actually two different types of “empathy for authority.” One type adopts the vantage point of “the master of the house.” The other manifests as a dependence on authority, an internalization of rules, a convincing of oneself that the status quo is the best arrangement for everyone, and that in order to obtain security and other basic needs, one must unconditionally conform. Males tend towards the former, whereas females mostly tend towards the latter.
The “thinking about the big picture” so prevalent in Chinese society is its logical extension, emphasizing that every individual should “take the big picture into account” to achieve the optimization of the collective interest. This [idea] certainly has its believers, but the problem is that when it comes to reality, the ones who ultimately compromise are usually the most vulnerable individuals, who have no other choice.
This is not to say that there’s no individual benefit at all, but rather that one has to fend for oneself. Perhaps a better way of saying this is that “the little streams overflow” only after “the large rivers have been filled.” That being the case, this approach is to be more focused on equality of distribution, because the best way to optimize personal benefit is by appealing to the collective interests. This is where so-called “sophisticated egoists” come from.
Herein lies the paradox: a community that appears to be built on the ideal that “every person puts the other first” and that considers the interests of the collective will in the end give birth to a society in which people have difficulty empathizing with others, because the community does not accept the legitimacy of the pursuit of one’s personal interest. Therefore, personal interest cannot help but grow in the constricted space it is allowed.
2
If you pay even a little attention you will discover that in many situations, the unspoken subtext in China is “why should I care about others’ feelings,” “if worse comes to worst, I’ll do it myself.” This all demonstrates a lack of empathy. The whole of society doesn’t seem to know how to cooperate with others and achieve a win-win scenario. That is because in a closed power structure, others are often seen as potential adversaries. Therefore, people firmly believe that in order to optimize their own personal interest, they must build a power structure with themselves at the center.
In this system, people pay attention to their own feelings and interests, and have a hard time understanding the suffering of others. Sympathy can even be a product of feelings of superiority, sometimes without any real basis—for example, when people feel sympathy after reading reports of “untold suffering” in foreign countries, or when they see that others are single and think these women are “forlorn and friendless.” In other words, this can become (often condescending) “self-centered sympathy,” hence the saying that “an honest man won’t take handouts given out of pity.”
Another type of “cultivated empathy” is a product of the same logic: this causes people to express more empathy than they really feel as a way of demonstrating their own virtue. This is also an essential social skill. A lot of people turn up their noses at this and think it’s hypocritical, that it is essentially a sense of superiority or political correctness. However, in a society that has not yet achieved true equality in the distribution of power, the cost of abandoning it would be gross vulgarization, even if you called it by the fine-sounding name of “authenticity.”
The other day a friend of mine told me that he got into an unresolved dispute with someone in his [WeChat] group about “whether prostitutes deserve respect.” He thought that prostitutes were people and that all professions were equal in dignity. However, the person he was arguing with claimed that the profession was “trashy” and didn’t deserve respect. They even went so far as to say that “If you respect it, then you should let your children do it.” But “following the same logic, I’m also not willing to let my children do lots of things, including becoming handicapped, living as vagrants, or being idiots.” Is it reasonable to say that only those who have become this way deserve our empathy?
What should be noted are the group that call themselves the “liberal party.” Most are Trump fans who are discontent with the current situation in China, which seems to prove on a certain level that “freedom” and “equality” are incompatible. However, one can also see that many people’s vision for social order not only includes different social ranks but also provides that different social roles are unable to empathize with each other. Because of this, “respect” is impossible to realize in practice (just like the vast majority of males are unable to become females). The remainder can only be innumerable isolated groups struggling against one another.
This is why John Rawles’s “veil of ignorance” is so important: Only when people realize that they themselves could possibly fall into a weak position or be in a minority group will they finally be moved by others’ predicaments. Given the way power is distributed and structured in society, the difference among roles prevents this type of empathy. People might think that it’s completely reasonable to let those in the minority make some sacrifices to protect the interests of the majority. But what if you are the price that must be paid?
3
In order to break through “empathy for authority,” individuals should first pay attention to their own feelings and the power they deserve. Taking this a step further, they should come to realize that the status quo is not the only option available and that there are in fact other possibilities. The problem lies here: reflecting on, and changing, structural reality are always the hardest things to do.
Without changing these elements, the rise in consciousness of individual power will sometimes actually contribute to “sophisticated egoists” and an increased disregard for others, as people may just focus on effecting a “self-centered expansion of power.”
In certain situations, empathy can actually be misused—when positions of power are not distributed equitably, the more empathic are more likely to obey others. A couple of days ago, a female reader shared a comment that left a deep impression on me:
I once told a guy that he was not empathetic enough, but that he could practice. He asked me what being empathetic was good for. I said that it would allow him to better understand other peoples’ difficulties. He asked if that would mean that he would be carried away by others’ emotions. I said that this would be true in some respects. He responded, if that’s the case, I’d rather have low empathy.
As can be seen from this exchange, “empathy” is an understanding you gain within the existing power structure, and that considering others’ feelings means you must make some concessions. On the other hand, bullies don’t need to consider others’ feelings. They can carry forward their own agenda without thinking of others. Power really does inhibit empathy.
Empathy means that you put yourself in others’ shoes. However, for a lot of people this interferes with their concept of self. Because of this, strongly empathetic people must also have a strong heart. This, to a certain extent, borders on a religious spirit, or what Chinese people refer to as “compassion” (cibei 慈悲). Otherwise, they are unable to manage or process all the suffering of the world.
Nowadays, the general approach in China is to focus on personal feelings (“I’ll say whatever I feel like saying”). Our ability to empathize with others has not increased to the same degree; in fact, in many cases it has decreased. This has exacerbated interpersonal conflict. Of course, developing empathy is not intended solely for the purpose of resolving unnecessary conflicts. If that was the goal, it could certainly not be achieved through empathy alone. In the end, it’s likely to result in the individual bearing the heavy burden of society’s problems.
What cannot be denied is that empathy is constrained by costs, conditions, experience, and other factors. It is nearly impossible for someone to have complete empathy for everyone. It’s already rare enough to find someone who has real empathy for their close friends or a small group of people.
When more and more people start to consider the power structure and extricate themselves from it, as modern individuals, we can at least understand others’ feelings while understanding the foundations of our own privilege. In my hometown we have a saying that perfectly conveys a subtle principle about how to act: “treat others as you would treat yourself.” The meaning behind this is simply that others will treat us in the same manner we treat them. [Chinese]
For a fictional treatment of empathy for authority, read Te-Ping Chen’s short story “Gubeikou Spirit.”
Translation by Anonymous. Introduction co-authored by Anonymous and Anne Henochowicz.
source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/04/translation-wei-zhou-on-empathy-for-authority/
Friday, 2 April 2021
Thursday, 1 April 2021
Hong Kong’s “Father of Democracy,” Six Others, Convicted of Illegal Assembly
On Wednesday, March 31, Hong Kong’s “father of democracy” Martin Lee, media mogul Jimmy Lai, politician “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, barrister Margaret Ng, and three others were convicted of illegal assembly for their leadership role in a peaceful 2019 march. During the August 18 march, an estimated 1.7 million people defied a police ban to protest in the pouring rain, walking from Victoria Park towards Central, Hong Kong’s business district. Although expected, the conviction of the mostly elderly coalition of democracy activists—Martin Lee is an octogenarian—is a dark moment for freedom of assembly in Hong Kong. The group will face sentencing later in April. At The New York Times, Austin Ramzy detailed how a peaceful march became a means for the government to arrest prominent voices for democracy
The case centered on a rally on Aug. 18, 2019, when hundreds of thousands of people gathered in an antigovernment protest.
That gathering had received police approval. But what followed did not. The defendants were accused of leading protesters out of Victoria Park on Hong Kong Island, beginning a march that led toward the core business district. While there was no violence and minimal disorder, prosecutors argued that the march violated Hong Kong’s public order ordinance.
Their lawyers argued that leading protesters out of the park, which had filled with many more people than it could handle, was necessary for public safety. They also said that imprisoning them over a peaceful march was a heavy-handed application of the law. [Source]
It was a sea of umbrellas, as the crowds kept growing despite the heavy downpour which lasted most of the day. pic.twitter.com/XMSzZpWLOj
— Jeppe Mulich (@jmulich) April 1, 2021
This was the scene in Causeway Bay and Wanchai: the crowds were so huge they were not moving. This wasn't a march, it was a stationary rally overflowed from Victoria Park onto the streets. https://t.co/BGRQ7XQFyg
— Antony Dapiran (@antd) April 1, 2021
At The South China Morning Post, Brian Wong reported on the details of Judge Woodcock’s ruling:
On Thursday, Judge Amanda Woodcock found there had been no need to disperse hundreds of thousands of participants from Victoria Park in the form of a de facto procession, as there was no evidence that exit routes were inaccessible or problematic, or that the park was so overcrowded a stampede or risk of serious injuries were imminent.
[…] “I am sure this public procession was not about dispersal of crowds. That was a description used to defy the law and circumvent the ban. This intention was vocalised repeatedly and publicly days before the public meeting. It was only a dispersal plan in name, and the truth is it was a planned unauthorised assembly,” Woodcock wrote in her 89-page judgment.
[…] Woodcock found the August 18 march “was not without reprehensible conduct”, as the event had caused serious traffic disruption. She also rejected the argument that the seven had a reasonable excuse for their acts because the assembly was not violent. [Source]
Eminent legal scholar Jerome A. Cohen wrote that Woodcock’s opinion was “reasoned” and that “she may emerge from this with added prestige from handling a controversial case in a responsible way, even though the outcome is politically disappointing to many of us.” The United States’ 2021 Hong Kong Policy Act Report, released on Wednesday, concluded that the Hong Kong government “generally respected judicial independence and impartiality,” despite increased interference by Chinese state media and officials. At The Wall Street Journal, John Lyons reported on democracy activists potential sentences, as well as the judge’s decision to grant the convicted bail:
The Thursday guilty verdicts raise the prospect of jail time for a prominent group of democracy campaigners who have been fighting to preserve the rule of law in the former British colony since before it was returned to China in the late 1990s. Sentencing on the charges, which can carry up to five years’ jail time, was set for later this month.
“We believe we were just exercising our constitutional rights to protest come what may,” said the labor leader Lee Cheuk-yan, one of the defendants, after the verdict. “It will be a badge of honor for us to go to jail for fighting for freedom and rights for Hong Kong people.”
[…] After the judge read out the verdict Thursday, a lead prosecutor called on the judge to revoke bail until sentencing, saying the offenses were serious and risked plunging Hong Kong into anarchy by undermining public order. Defendants, however, were granted bail but can’t leave Hong Kong. [Source]
FWIW, lawyers I’ve spoken to all expected them to be convicted. Real question is whether the judge would send Martin Lee, 82, to jail when suspended sentence is be easily justified. Some think this could be the Navalny moment for HK. https://t.co/jPd0CGzOoQ
— Wei Du 杜唯 (@WeiDuCNA) April 1, 2021
Judge AJ Woodcock indicated she was inclined to go for max 5 year sentence.
"It cannot be right for an offender to argue that although his act was unauthorised… but because it was ultimately peaceful & there was no violence he should not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted."
— Jerome Taylor (@JeromeTaylor) April 1, 2021
The hearing drew a crowd of protestors who shouted slogans from the 2019 anti-extradition movement, detailed Scott Neuman of National Public Radio:
“Ahead of the decision, supporters and some of the defendants gathered outside the court, shouting ‘Oppose political persecution’ and reiterating a key slogan of the protests: ‘Five demands, not one less.’” [Source]
Lee has campaigned for democracy in Hong Kong since the 1980s. When the British transferred Hong Kong to Chinese control in 1997, Lee said, “The flame of democracy has been ignited and is burning in the hearts of our people. It will not be extinguished.” Under Chinese rule Lee was a persistent, moderate force for democratic reforms. Before his 2020 arrest and 2021 conviction, Lee had never been in trouble with the law. Upon his arrest last year, Lee said, “I’ve felt bad to see so many outstanding youngsters being arrested and prosecuted, but I was not charged. Now I’ve finally become a defendant. I feel proud that I have a chance to walk this path of democracy together with them.” In an opinion piece published in The Washington Post, Lee noted that if the extradition bill he was protesting had passed, he might have faced trail in China. At The AFP, Jerome Taylor profiled the life and activism of the venerable democracy campaigner:
In the broad spectrum of Hong Kong’s democracy advocates, 82-year-old Martin Lee would not be considered a firebrand.
For decades he has campaigned in vain to see democracy in Hong Kong but always advocated working alongside authorities in Beijing, even as they branded him a traitor.
He was critical of younger generations that favoured a more confrontational approach and remained a vocal opponent of political violence.
[…] After the handover, Britain’s Prince Charles wrote in a diary entry: “Thus we left Hong Kong to her fate and the hope that Martin Lee, the leader of the Democrats, would not be arrested.”
[…] He remained defiant.
“Even if you jail me, kill me, I will still point out it’s their fault. Democracy will come to China one day.” [Source]
I was there at Kai Tak Airport the night Lee Cheuk Yan returned from Beijing, after being detained and beaten during and after the June 4 massacre at Tiananmen. pic.twitter.com/lhtqRdc8b2
— Samuel Chu 朱牧民 (@samuelmchu) April 1, 2021
Martin Lee is a true gentlemen, in the ancient sense of the word. When the prisons fill with 君子, young and old, you have to ask yourself: Who is being 'kept safe' from what? https://t.co/MIcRDSW5gO
— John Delury (@JohnDelury) April 1, 2021
Apple Daily publisher Jimmy Lai was also convicted of illegal assembly on Wednesday. He potentially faces life in prison for other charges brought under the National Security Law. The charges against Lee, Lai, and the others are part of a coordinated campaign to bring Hong Kong under the People’s Republic of China’s control. In just the past few weeks, Hong Kong’s election system was radically changed with all candidates now undergoing vetting by national security police; 47 pro-democracy politicians were charged with subversion for taking part in an informal primary in July 2020; and Beijing’s calls for “patriotic politicians” means elected officials must take a loyalty oath as they are sworn into office. At Bloomberg News, Kari Soo Lindberg and Chloe Lo situated the charges against Lee and Lai within the broader assault on Hong Kong’s freedoms:
“The government has chosen 15 people very carefully out of the 1.7 million protesters, and all are moderate democratic activists and politicians,” Davis said. “It’s very hard to separate this trial from the current effort to prevent participation in the political process.”
[…] Chinese authorities have accused [Lee] of being a “traitor” for testifying before the U.S. Congress, and in August 2019 labeled him as part of a “New Gang of Four” in a publication under the Communist Party’s top legal body. The piece also named Lai and Ho, a former Democratic Party leader and chief executive candidate, as members of the “gang” — a reference to a Communist Party faction jailed for attempting to seize power after Mao Zedong’s death in 1976.
[…] “But once Hong Kong’s human rights and rule of law are rolled back, the fatal virus of authoritarian rule will be here to stay,” [Lee] said. [Source]
Chinese state media celebrated the convictions, labeling Lai a “modern-day Traitor” and intimating that more punishment lay in store. Cui Fandi for Global Times:
Lai also faces other serious charges under the national security law for Hong Kong, including colluding with foreign forces to endanger national security, which was widely seen as a high-profile case. The 73-year-old has been considered a “modern-day traitor” for his notorious acts and deeds in instigating one of the most violent and chaotic riots in the city in 2019. He was repeatedly denied bail over the past few months as a risk of continuing to commit acts that may endanger national security.
[…] This ruling is symbolic as we can see from it that the Hong Kong courts have made fair judgments based on facts and laws, and have formed a constructive and benign interaction with social development, rather than becoming a tool of certain political forces to sway over, Li Xiaobing, an expert on Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan studies at Nankai University in Tianjin, told the Global Times on Thursday.
[…] “Today’s ruling will also serve as background information reference for other charges against Lai in the future, so that the judge can understand his character and make a fair decision and sentence that can have a deterrence effect on those anti-government rioters,” Wong noted. [Source]
It is a deeper and more insidious form of political persecution – to not only silence them and to take away their freedom, but also to erase their political influence and legacy to recast them as criminals as the CCP rewrites the history of Hong Kong.
— Samuel Chu 朱牧民 (@samuelmchu) April 1, 2021
"We are very honored to be with the people at the march and I want to remind the people that it was a big march and big rally that 1.7 million people responded to the call for a peaceful assembly in Victoria Park."
— William Yang (@WilliamYang120) April 1, 2021
No matter what outcome it is on Thursday, even if we are sentenced or jailed, we are very honored to be jailed for standing together with the people of Hong Kong in expressing our views and will for democracy and freedom."
— William Yang (@WilliamYang120) April 1, 2021
I spoke to Hong Konger in exile @SunnyCheungky on his reaction to today's guilty verdicts against activists: "Xi Jinping… is willing to pay the price to crack down on Hong Kong, regardless of how many sanctions will be implemented by the international community." On @dwnews
: pic.twitter.com/2RISdtlDyy
— Melissa Chan (@melissakchan) April 1, 2021
source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/04/hong-kongs-father-of-democracy-six-others-convicted-of-illegal-assembly/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)