Jackie Chan does the Orientalist thing

Let's just go straight to the report in the Telegraph in the UK:

Jackie Chan has triggered controversy by claiming Chinese people are so chaotic they need to be firmly controlled by the government.

The actor told a forum on the southern Chinese island of Hainan, whose attendees included Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, he was not sure "freedom" was necessary.

Chan, 55, whose latest movie, Shinjuku incident, was banned in China, was asked about censorship and restriction on the mainland. He expanded his comments to discuss Chinese society in general.

"I'm not sure if it is good to have freedom or not," he said. "I'm really confused now. If you are too free, you are like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic."

He added: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we are not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."

His comments were applauded by the Chinese audience, but triggered fury in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Where to begin?

I am hesitant to give too much credence to what celebrities have to say about politics.  In most cases, these are people who have not thought a great deal about history and politics and philosophy.  Is he even aware that he is making an argument very much like that used by imperialists against China in the nineteenth and early twentieth century; that he is repeating something rather like the "Chinese characteristics" analysis?  Has he heard of Arthur Smith?  Probably not.  So, perhaps he is not aware of how Orientalism can turn back upon its targets and become part of a discourse that reproduces certain stereotypes and all of the social and political practices that are associated with them.

Because that is what he is doing here.  He is taking an image - China is so "chaotic" that individual Chinese persons cannot be trusted with meaningful political participation - that, ironically, the founders of the Chinese Communist Party rejected in their early days of revolutionary struggle, and he is investing it with a certain celebrity legitimacy. In doing so, he ignores the vast range of political realities expressed and experienced by Chinese people both historically and contemporaneously. This, of course, serves the interests of current CCP power holders.  It is what they want to hear; it is what they want Chinese people to believe.

Chan is rather easy to understand, however.  While we should not expect him to be conversant with academic debates on Orientalism, it is clear that he is saying what needs to be said to maximize his material gain within the current political environment of the PRC.  His most recent movie was banned there because it is too violent.  This utterance, then, might just be his effort to make amends with the censors and create better opportunities for his next film.   It's all about the Maos.  (this is my attempt to coin a Chinese version of the American slang phrase, "it's all about the Benjamins;"  Mao Zedong appears on PRC currency...).

In any event, how can we know if Chan's assertion is true or not?  The PRC, since 1949, has never had a moment of meaningful, institutionalized electoral contestation.  Thus, all we have in the historical record is precisely the Chinese people being controlled by authoritarianism, sometimes with world historically horrible results (see: Great Leap Forward; Cultural Revolution; viii ix vi iv; etc.).  Would a gradual political liberalization (no, it does not have to be "Western democray;" just less repression of speech and association and the like) lead to something worse than the Great Leap Forward?  I seriously doubt it.  Would it open the door to large-scale public "chaos" and violence?  Not necessarily.  Hong Kong and Taiwan demonstrate precisely that freer politics is possible in Chinese cultural contexts. The primary reason why political repression continues in the PRC has nothing to do with such concerns but is, rather, driven by the fears of those now in power who do not want to cede their positions of authority and privilege.

One more thing.  Here is a test.  When we encounter this kind of statement, let's ask ourselves: what would be the political implications had a foreigner said it?  Would it be seen as an essentialist racist distorition?  Or would it be welcome as a wise and deep understanding of "Chinese culture"? 

Personally, I think Chan is wrong.  I think the average Chinese person knows his or her own personal interests and, given the chance, would advocate for those interests in non-violent ways that could be productively channeled into new and less repressive political institutions. I have more faith in the average Chinese person than does Chan.  But, then again, I am not trying to sell movies to the the Party leadership...

UPDATE: This story is getting a lot of play all over the internets.  Too many posts to link to all of them, but one rather interesting response was that of John Pomfret over at WaPo's PostGlobal:

My reaction, however, is this: Chan is just saying what a lot of other rich Chinese feel. In the 20 years since Tiananmen, Chinese society has changed enormously. One of the most astounding ways has been in the return of a class society and in the disdain with which China's rich view China's poor. When Chan was saying Chinese need to be "controlled," to be sure, he was speaking about the poor. He didn't have to say it, But that's what the audience at Boao heard and that's why they cheered him on. Anyone who has conversations of depth with members of China's elite has heard this argument before. "The quality of the average Chinese is too low," the line goes. (Zhongguoren de suzhi tai di le.) "So of course we can't have full freedom."

He is right: class-based politics is increasingly obvious in China. I ran in to a bit of it on my recent trip to Beijing and Nanjing.  In talking with both academics and a cab driver about the potential problem of unemployed migrant laborers, several people (admittedly from rather different class positions) said the same thing: the migrants all had access to land back in their villages so they can just go back there and farm.  Of course, it is far from empirically clear that all migrants really do have access to farmable land (or that they want to eke out a survival with subsistence agriculture), but I took this as an expression of a certain urban bias: people in the cities are stereotyping migrants ("they all have land") in a way that will facilitate their exclusion.  Migrants could, in a sense, be "controlled" right out of the cities back into the countryside.  Although cab drivers are not haute bourgeoisie, they may feel more of a claim (if they have the right hukou) to the opportunities of the urban economy and thus be more willing to agree that some Chinese, especially the poorer migrant laborers, must be "controlled."

Comments

[The Rambling Taoist]

The moment I read the article you quoted, I asked myself, "How do such statements serve his material interests?" For me, this is the type of question that must be asked whenever we hear strange utterances from a "celebrity" or otherwise public person. A good deal of time we find that it has been written and rehearsed to elicit a particular response and this response is part of an anticipated strategy to some specific end.

[FOARP]

I refuse to accept that 'contestation' can be a word, otherwise I entirely agree.

[in favour of tolerance]

I think fundamentally what has been quoted has been taken out of context. I would want to see/hear/read a transcript of what he actually said before I get my knickers all knotted up about it.

[Chaz]

The "chaos" Chan describes is what a free nation looks like from an authoritarian POV. Democracy and Capitalism (the economic system of a free society) lets people do their own thing as each person sees fit. From the POV of an individual in a free system, life is not chaotic at all, even when one pursues unique aspirations--like acting!

[Christopher]

This is not the first time Chan has said things like this. He's been very critical of elections in Taiwan, also calling them "chaotic" (and we all know the special connotations of 亂 in such contexts, which is a much more loaded term than the English equivalent) and "the biggest joke in the world." I find it particularly annoying that someone whose massive wealth comes largely from the people of Taiwan, HK, and the mainland basically says they can't be trusted to vote or hold political power. He, of course, because of this wealth and social standing, is essentially above politics. If things get too hot, I'm sure he'd be on a private jet to Vancouver in no time.

[david]

If I could bet money on which government would be more stable and responsive in the long run - Taiwan or China - I'd bet it all on Taiwan.

[Zoomzan]

The thing is - most Chinese people believe in some form of big government. I hear other Chinese people say that "Taiwan is too chaotic (luan)" all the time.

I don't agree with it, but it doesn't surprise me that Jackie Chan would say something like this.

The perceived chaos in Taiwanese democracy really plays into the PRC's PR.

[Denis Wong]

"Chinese characteristics" are a part of Orientalism, which becomes "part of a discourse that reproduces certain stereotypes" - ABSOLUTELY.

This discourse happens all the time and is no surprise within ordinary dialogue amongst Chinese where "gweilo" are excluded. This is not to excuse the practice, merely to expose the phenomenon.

Of interest here is the attention Jackie Chan has attracted within the western press and its audience. This points needs to be turned back on itself, with a reflection upon how that press/audience relationship has shifted (e.g. with respect to racism and the "yellow peril" at the time of Arthur Smith)

[Gary]

This article has excerpts Jackie Chan's original comments in Chinese which may but his words in a slightly different context, although the author of the article himself may be a little bit too generous in his interpretation of Chan's comments.

http://cnreviews.com/life/news-issues/jackie-chan-chinese-control_20090420.html

[Kaiwen]

I prefer to say, "It's all about the Chairmans" as an equivalent phrase, but it hasn't really caught on either.

[Gabriel Nichols]

It's all about the maos sounds a tiny bit off given that mao is another term (and from my experience the more common one) for the chinese dime. Somehow I don't think Chan is that interested in dimes. All about the Dàhuìtáng maybe?

[marco polo]

If the suggestion made here--namely, that Chan is pandering to advance his own naked economic interests--is, in fact, true, then that would only appear to strengthen the perception of an out-of-control and chaotic mentality needing "guidance", which adds nothing to support the anti-orientalist argument being presented here, but ironically supports Chan's own contention (and his own culpability in feeding the "chaos"). Anybody get the humor in all this fallacious reasoning?

[isha]

Does anybody here have the capacity to understand spoken Chinese before giving your condemnation？if so, you might benefit yourself by watch/listening to this piece about Chan on the Taiwan TV, which in itself was taken Chen's wrod out of the context, but anyway, is nearer to the true meaning of Chen's words than parroting the western media, which has its own fish to fry.

http://news.backchina.com/2009/4/20/37768.html

It is time to learn some Chinese, which is a difficult language ...

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/13/texas-lawmaker-chine.html

[Oi-lin]

isha: Best to not assume that everyone doesn't understand Chinese, as many do.

My colleagues here in HK and I were discussing this at lunch yesterday. We, of course, had all read it in the original Chinese and still found Chan's statements to be extremely racist and trying to curry favor with the people who just blocked his most recent movie.

Why anyone asks Chan or other celebrities their opinions on anything other than their trade is beyond me.

[Shenzhen Lau Wai]

You wrote, "I am hesitant to give too much credence to what celebrities have to say about politics."

Hoorah! I heard it said recently that, "The world has been taken over by celebrities and it's time to take it back!" A movie star said what about what? Who cares? If you want to hear celebrities talk about what they know then watch "The Actor's Studio" and hear them talk about their craft, otherwise tune out.

Austin Ramzy says just as much on the "Time China Blog": http://china.blogs.time.com/2009/04/20/what-to-make-of-jackie-chan/

[Zoomzan]

I really doubt that Jackie Chan was trying to curry favour. Maybe I'm just naive. I think he loves his country as much as anyone else.

I definitely agree with Sam's observation about "class-based society." Another manifestation of this is when people talk about the one-child policy. People would say, "There are too many people in China. Look at our peasants."

Actually, even a few years ago, when I was going to high-school in Vancouver, I was always surprised when my mainlander classmates made fun of people by calling them peasants (nongmin). Seems like the classic classist put-down.

[isha]

"had all read it in the original Chinese and still found Chan's statements to be extremely racist"

Did you read the WHOIL transcripts? or only part of it, tailored by the partisan reporters, such as the ones from Taiwan? Chen didn't hide his disdain for Taiwan's current regime, even though that has already hurt his market there.

If you listen to his speech, you can see that he is not the one who can express himself as good as he wish ... he had a elementary school education and he is not the match for those who manipulate languages for a living ...

[isha]

"Chan's statements to be extremely racist"
===================================================

Chen "racist"? To whom? what a laughing stock! Do you have some common sense? Look at the songs at the earthquake and his donation...Chen doesn't hide that he is a lover of China and Chinese, for that and for that only, he is accused as "racist" ...

He has more humanity that many of you combined...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_f4OOWd-mI&feature=related

http://shanghaiist.com/2008/05/15/celebrity_power.php
Film star Jackie Chan has donated RMB10million to help those in need following the earthquake in Sichuan province. Other celebrities have also dipped into their wallets. From CriEnglish:

"Jackie Chan also sent his consolation to the quake victims and encouraged them to hold on as "people all over the country are with you," the star said.

The One Foundation initiated by kungfu star Jet Li has made a donation of one million yuan and volunteers as well as medical experts under the organization have also headed for Sichuan.

Basketball star Yao Ming, who is currently in the United States for his injury treatment, donated 500,000 yuan upon hearing the news."

Meanwhile, Supergirl Li YuChun (李宇春) yesterday joined a group of other singers and Chinese celebrities in donating blood in Beijing, singing a song, and sending her best wishes to the people affected in Sichuan. If you would like to donate blood please read this post for more information, obviously all donations are welcome and needed.

[wee]

isha,
What has that got to do with Jackieoff wanting being Hitler? You're so star struck to even realize the donation is only for PR purposes. Do you even see how you got suckered into believing it? like promoting for them right now in this post? Why dont you donate some real time to the cause instead of recycling the same PR lines?
SHALLOW & DUMB

[tsunmak]

Chinese need to be controlled? Yes! Of course, so do Amereicans, if they were properly controlled,this depression would not happen.
What is politics, according to Suen Yet Sin, the founding father of modern China, politics is the management of people's (nation's) affair, and if you are not good at controlling people of your nation and let the go their democratic way, you hurn everyone in your country.

[isha]

Chinese need to be controlled? Yes! Of course, so do Amereicans, if they were properly controlled,this depression would not happen.
=========================================================

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010108/20001226

Capitalism is falling apart. Tires explode, utility rates skyrocket, pharmaceuticals kill patients, telephone service is a mess, airports are gridlocked, broadcasters rip off scarce airwave spectrum for free and salmon in the Northwest are becoming transgendered and unable to breed. Even successful dot-commers are an endangered species.

...
Deregulation and the Financial Crisis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-weissman/deregulation-and-the-fina_b_82639.html

[isha]

SHALLOW & DUMB

Did you donate anything for the victims?

If not, shut up!

If you donate your money, I would congratuate you and I don't care whether you are doing it for your PR purpose or not.

[Robert]

Fenqing very need girlfriend.

Back on topic: Orientalism is a Western discourse, not a Chinese one. Jackie Chan is participating in a particular Chinese discourse which is unrelated to Orientalism (Western views on China, not Chinese views on China). It has certain similarities, but only by virtue of its being a power discourse. This particular Chinese discourse is also a discourse of power, specifically one which seeks to perpetuate the status quo and preserve the current balance of power in the hands of those who hold it.

To put it another way: Jackie Chan is sucking up to the Party. But this [Chinese] discourse which he is pandering to, and the line of reasoning that goes with it, is something much older than the Gong Chan Dang. This discourse has been running through Chinese culture for a long time. And it has nothing to do with us laowai. There is no racism here. There are only Chinese people involved in this discourse. Classism most definitely, and even regional ethnic rivalry, but it's mainly just politics and power.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that everyone has framed the issue in terms of racism or 'Orientalism'. You're applying Western cultural concepts; you're seeing the issue through your own cultural lens.

[isha]

Robert:

This one is from a Fenqing, but I　guess he is highly regulated by his wife, therefore, no girlfriend is needed...

成龙“中国人是要管的”意见提纲

老王

1、“中国人是要管的”，有什么错？满世界一片挞伐，问罪追杀？难道我们过去没听
过这类意见吗？听得多了，太多了！怎么就不见对这些人挞伐、追杀？相反，从来而
且至今是一片叫好？我们听听，熟不熟悉：

“英国人把香港治理得好啊！”“主权换治权吧！”－－什么意思？“中国香港人是要
英国人管的”！

“日本人把台湾治理得好啊！”“台湾人怀念日本统治啊！”－－什么意思？“中国台
湾人是要日本人管的！”

“圆明园烧得好啊！”，“八国联军进北京进得好啊！”，“欢迎美国大兵日本皇军今
天打来北京啊！”“中国还需要三百年殖民统治，才能改造中国人的奴性啊！”－－什
么意思？“全中国人通通都是要管的！”，通通都是应该被西方帝国主义国家管的！
而且要管几百年。

怎么这些的话除了叫好，出国“领奖”，就不见人讨伐、反对？是没听见过吗？网上网
下没听见过的人举手？我看，不会有人举手。因为都听过，耳熟能详。
听过怎么不反对？偏要反对成龙？岂不又是双重标准？秘密在哪里？
秘密就在，“中国人是要管的”，在他们那里其实没错的。看谁管。西方帝国主义来
管，来分裂，来肢解中国，那是欢天喜地的，一定要欢迎的。欢迎的就是“人权”，不欢迎
就是“愤青”的。这里，成龙的意思是谁管呢？他没说，但现在中国谁在管？共产党在管。
因此，自然理解，成龙的意思是，“中国人要共产党管”。那就不行，那就要问罪，要
讨伐，要追杀！

所以，当今一片的反对“中国人是要管的”，是假的，是假批判。焦点根本不在是不是
“中国人是要管的”，而是中国人应该被谁管？

2、老王的意见是，中国人既不需要共产党“管”，更不需要西方帝国主义列强管。还是
毛主席说得好，中国人民要“自己教育自己、自己解放自己。自己管理自己”（大意）。
结果还是要管，不能无政府主义，“为所欲为”。但这本质是人民自己的管，是在民主
基础上的严明法制的“管”。成龙的原意，可以理解为他反对无政府主义，主张法制下
的自由。若是这样，无大错。他是艺员，又生性率直，这类政治性的表述，不甚准确
，容易误解或被蓄意歪曲罢了。而中国人应该被西方国家管，则是学贯天人的“教授”
“精英”们的表述啊。

3、中国最终的目标是中国人自己民主来管。但今天确实还不行。老王从来赞成孙中山先
生的“军政、训政、宪政”三步民主方略。共产党最大的错误，是它迄今不承认中国的
最终目标，是向全民共奉的民主宪政发展，而要片面的坚持永远的自家一党专政。60年
过去的失误已经过去，今后中国的民主宪政方向一定要确立下来。中国最大多数人民的
民主任务还不是反对今天共产党的“管”，而是要批判和反对共产党理论上对中国人民
永远“管”的特权。

4、成龙反对无政府主义的混乱，并列举了香港、台湾两个例子，是不准确的，可商议的。
香港不混乱。香港反对派，反对运动的活动，历来遵循着英治以来的法制的轨道，有个别
人的过激表演，不过是吸引公众眼球的手段，远未至于危害、动摇香港整体的法制精神。
何况，它还有中港双方都必须遵循且受国际监督的中英声明和《基本法》“管”制着。因
此，香港民主是建设性的民主，它迄今还是中国全国未来很好的民主试验田和样板。

台湾不同，台湾“民主”不在宪法法制的轨道上。台湾绿党，特别是它的承认日本对台法
权的皇民骨干集团，以推翻中华民国，否定中国南京宪法及其法统在台湾的合法性为职志
（有时唱唱“宪法”，也只为实用）。其政治上，极力消灭在台湾的“中国势力”，分裂
人民，尖锐岛内冲突，这种“民主”，是破坏性的“民主”，毁灭性的“民主”，本质是
在“民主”外衣掩盖下的革命。故台湾的一切无政府主义混乱，“为所欲为”，不是偶然
的，不是民主成熟的过程现象，确是因为失去了法制基础，失去了“管”。但也没有完
全失去，不然，早发生政治彻底消灭蓝色“外来政权”“中国势力”（“割喉割到断”）
的绿色法西斯革命了。为什么没有发生？且发生的可能性越来越小？就因为有一个“鸟笼”
在管！这“鸟笼”是陈水扁作了“总统”才恍然发现的，使他这个“总统”也不能为所欲
为 ---“办不到就是办不到”。这“鸟笼”是什么？就是笼罩在台湾之上的中国与美国联
合对台管制。而中国的管制力越来越强大，美国则在消退。在全中国的中国人尚未能达到
自己管理自己的民主宪政时代前，台湾的“中国人是要管的”！

2009年4月22日
美西海湾

[isha]

Taiwan democrazy in action ...

http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=taiwan&MsgID=394770