Print

Mail

wiki links

Trends in American China watching

By Bruce J. Dickson

Monday, Oct 25, 1999, Page 9

Illustration: Mountain People

The changing politics, policies and personalities in China make China watching both fun and challenging. How well do American China watchers understand what is going on within China? What are the new opportunities available to them, and what constraints affect their analyses? This was the focus of a recent conference in Washington sponsored by the Sigur Center for Asian Studies entitled "Trends in China Watching: Observing the PRC at 50."

Who is watching?

Several key trends are apparent, regardless of what profession China watchers belong to. First, functional expertise is supplanting area specialists with linguistic skills and deeper appreciation of Chinese culture and traditions. This trend has pros and cons: those with experience in other countries bring a comparative dimension to their work and are not trapped by illusions or mistakes of the past. For instance, journalists who arrived in China in the mid-90s did not look at China though the lens of the Cultural Revolution or Tiananmen. Because they had not been disillusioned by those events, their reporting was not colored with lost hopes, as had been the case with journalists of earlier times. Those with experience in other authoritarian regimes expected China to be authoritarian, and were familiar with the techniques they witnessed for controlling both journalists and society at large. But because they lacked that experience, they also missed or did not fully appreciate the depth or extent of changes occurring.

"China specialists are writing more and more about less and less, with the result being we have a greater appreciation for the many parts of China but don't always have a clear understanding of the whole."

Scholars with no China experience are eager to try out their theories there. They see China as a lab for experiments based on Western theories and have less interest in understanding China per se. Businessmen with a period of in-country experience are often transferred to new posts within their firms before the firm is able to absorb all their experiences. They are then replaced by a new person who has to start back up the learning curve.

In government, there is a mix of area specialists with lots of experience and linguistic skill and functional generalists who are assigned to issues, topics, and crises as warranted. Functionalists seem more prevalent in recent years because budget cutbacks limit the government's ability to train and maintain country specialists. In an era of tight resources, those who can be transferred around like pieces on a gaming board have a competitive advantage, but this comes at the cost of depth of understanding that only comes with years of careful analysis. Higher officials occasionally pay lip service to the contributions of country specialists, but the advice of these specialists is often ignored.

Information paradox

Most professions complain that there is now a flood of information that is impossible to collect and absorb in a timely fashion. Within China, there are new sources of official information -- local histories, elite biographies, histories of ministries, sectors and CCP, etc. -- that are richly detailed. Outside China, there are new journals, newsletters, trade publications, and on-line services that provide good secondary analysis. This flood of information prevents a rigorous scrutiny of a few documents, a forte of Pekingology when no direct access was possible and documentation was limited. There is simply not time to be familiar with all relevant information even within an individual's area of expertise, let alone general trends.

At the same time, many complain there is a lack of data or even secrecy in some areas. This has been a particular burden for businessmen and their partners in China who have been repeatedly constrained by alleged laws and regulations they were not allowed to see. This problem has been improving as a consequence of US-China trade negotiations, which emphasize transparency and the evolution of China's legal system. A few years ago, a decree that only published laws and regulations could be enforced was issued. This has not completely stopped local officials from enforcing "secret" prohibitions, but foreign and domestic business people now have a basis for challenging these actions. However, even available information is not fully utilized. Many business people do not follow the main daily newspapers and newsweeklies with good coverage of business affairs, let alone read the specialized trade papers.

Similarly, journalists labor under restrictions on their ability to travel within China and gather information and scholars lack basic information on personnel and policy matters. Ironically, reporters, scholars, and government analysts visiting China from DC have easier access to people and places than do US diplomats in the embassy and consulates. But many complain -- especially the Chinese -- that this greater access is leading to excessively negative reporting and scholarship. These critics do not deny that problems exist, but they wish journalists would focus more of their energy on building friendship between the US and China and would prefer scholars to make policy recommendations instead of just analyzing China's economic, social, and political problems. However, journalists and scholars see their roles differently. The tradition of journalism is more rooted in muck-raking than being ambassadors of good will. Their reporting from China is generally no more negative or sensational than their coverage of any country, especially the US. Most scholars see their role as increasing knowledge rather than making policy recommendations to the US government, let alone to leaders in Beijing. Most journalists and scholars are unwilling to play the roles others would assign to them.

More access, less information

Improved access to China and the imbalance of information mentioned above has had another curious effect: the common complaint that China specialists are writing more and more about less and less, with the result being we have a greater appreciation for the many parts of China but don't always have a clear understanding of the whole. China's greater openness has allowed greater attention to local trends, but there is not enough effort being made at focused comparisons and generalizations. The consequence is that we have a better understanding for the diversity and variation across China, and how the impact of policy changes have been felt in specific locales. This is largely a natural and welcome development following decades when specific localities were largely invisible to outside scrutiny. The opportunity for scholars to do field work in China and for journalists to travel more widely allow detailed case studies previously unimaginable. New sources of information also allow business and government people to focus on localities and policy sectors. But this greater attention to detail has come at the expense of more comprehensive analyses.

Repeatedly during the conference, the complaint was raised that more and more was being written about less and less. What is now needed are studies that summarize and integrate these disparate case studies into a more comprehensible pattern. While China watchers need to be aware of local variation and change over time, we also need to pay attention to similarities and patterns. More explicit comparisons, not just between China as a whole and other countries, but also between different areas within China, are needed to balance our understanding of the pieces and the whole.

The future of China watching

American China watchers have contributed greatly to the general understanding of the changes taking place within China. China watchers are certainly not infallible -- scholars often chase the latest intellectual fad, government analysts correctly saw the Sino-Soviet split but missed the Cultural Revolution, and business people have too often ignored their business sense at the prospect of a billion consumers in China. Improved access and sources of information have led to changes in the China watching community, for better and worse.

Most China watchers, whether scholars, government, business or media, are interested in the current scene in order to anticipate future developments. Having confidence in assessments of the present and forecasts of the future depend on the accuracy of past observations. Taking stock of where China watchers have gotten it right and where they have gotten it wrong is a necessary process, if not always a comfortable one.

Bruce J. Dickson (狄忠浦) is director of the Sigur Center for Asian Studies the George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
This story has been viewed 2007 times.