China, Darfur and the Olympics
A Wall Street Journal editorial today got me thinking. As you may or may not know, Stephen Spielberg resigned recently from his post as the ‘artistic director’ for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. He linked his resignation clearly to what he sees as China’s complicity in the Darfur problem. Apparently, Spielberg tried to talk with PRC officials about the issues privately, but saw no action whatsoever.
As a result, as he put it, he had to resign out of conscience (China’s response to Spielberg’s announcement is typical of the PRC though surprisingly quick for them). Interestingly enough, when President Bush was asked about Spielberg’s decision, and whether he himself should go to the event (which he plans on doing), he said that he saw the Olympics as a “sporting event” and so saw no reason to connect the Olympics (hosted by the PRC) to the Darfur situation.
My interest in this problem is sparked not just by the China-Darfur connection, but by a more general question: “how do you deal with China effectively when you want them to do something?” Given that we just read a chapter of Francois Jullien’s Detour and Access for my Confucius class, my mind is still thinking of some of Jullien’s points, and there is a connection to this question. Specifically, Jullien argues that communication methods in the East and in the West are different.
- West: favors “direct” communication. So you come right out, essentially, and tell your opponent what your beef is, and you try to dismantle the opponent’s arguments against you in a direct, forceful, and public way, believing that the opposition will be forced to cave in (to capitulate, essentially) and accept your point of view.
- East: favors “oblique” communication. This is a kind of “indirect” communication. It’s aim is not direct confrontation, but rather, in a way, communication that is meant to get your opponent’s forces to “crumble from within” by forcing the opponent to come to the conclusion you want “on their own” through suggestion, innuendo, metaphor, and other forms of “obliqueness.” Confucius fans will recall the stress in the Analects put on knowing historical works containing stories and poems; the reason partially being that communication, especially at the high state level (which his students were hoping to take part in), would likely be conducted through stories, with each side making points “obliquely.”
Now back to China. Clearly, Spielberg’s resignation is clearly a case of “direct” communication. He publicly resigned, and in doing so brought world attention to bear on the issue, probably with the intention of embarrassing Chinese officials into thinking more about their position. According to Jullien, such a method is entirely inadequate for the Chinese; as a matter of fact, all it succeeds in doing is driving the Chinese further into intransigence, mostly due to the need to save face. As far as Jullien suggests, interestingly I think, this is one of the virtues of the indirect method; though this methodology, you allow the person to make a change (here the PRC, say), without there ever being the “public” perception that they had been “called out.”
I have a number of questions here, none of which I have the answer to.
1. On a side note, I’ll admit that I am curious about President Bush’s response. Is his comment an attempt at indirect communication? Is he drawing attention to the issue without having to directly confront the PRC? Or (unfortunately more likely, no doubt) is he simply believing exactly what he’s saying — that there’s no linkage between China hosting the event and their possible relationship with Darfur? If it’s indirect communication, it’s smart. If it isn’t, well, then…draw your own conclusions on that one.
2. The more important question I have is: “How should governments and private individuals deal with China on this and other issues?” How do you effectively make your point obliquely? Should direct or indirect communication be used? If Jullien’s thesis is right, here’s the dilemma I see:
(A) Use Direct Methods: if these are as ineffective as Jullien suggests in these contexts, then they have no real effect (or at least they are not efficient) on altering the face of the problem that you are trying to solve. So what you get here, I think, is the ability to claim that ethically you will “not put up” with their behavior (you make your point and your stand) but — you lose the effective means to actually get “what you’re not putting up with” changed.
(B) Use Indirect Methods: if these are as effective as Jullien suggests, then they will have an effect, but the effect will take longer to take root, and it will no doubt take more energy on the part of the communicator to get the point across well. At the same time, however, it means something that might strike some as ethically problematic: it means, on the face of it, “accepting” the behavior that you are trying to change and not making that public stand that you “won’t put up with it.” In this sense, it may be that Bush’s claim is indirect; if so, it surely makes him look callous, even if his intention is to effect change.
As usual, more questions than answers. If anyone has any opinions on any of this, I’d love to hear them!