Modernization is not Americanization

David Marash, a veteran journalist who just spend four months in Shantou, notices how American consumer culture has become common in China:

In the United States of the late 1940s and 1950s, people once-shackled by Depression-era want and caution and wartime uncertainty and sacrifice were liberated as consumers. They bought, for one, huge numbers of new homes. So, too, in China. These exuberant Asian Levittowns are dense and vertical rather than green-patch horizontal, but since the late 1990s apartments have been selling like noodle soup at noontime. And so have home furnishings, home appliances and all the accoutrements for the lifestyles that go with them.  
 
To most Chinese the idea of such a life, freely expressed, freely financed by your own best efforts, is American. And so is the inspiration behind almost every particular component of this lifestyle. They buy American and so do their kids.

It is undeniable that mass consumption has boomed in China in the past thirty years, and that many of the most popular commodities are American.  But, even though Marash does not quite go so far, this does not add up to something like "Americanization."  Especially in the political sphere.

I say this because it might be tempting to read Marash's piece and assume that not only is China becoming more like America, but that the US might be able to derive some sort of "soft power" advantage from this.  There are obviously limitations on US soft power in China, and the world, these days.  The popularity of certain American commodities and cultural practices does not simply trump the unpopularity of US foreign policy, most notably in the Middle East.  Also, while Charter 08 is a significant thing, we should not expect a direct and smooth development of American style democracy in China any time soon.  The social and economic and political and cultural contexts are simply too different.  In the realm of political culture, for instance, the legacy of Legalism, especially in the minds of political elites unwilling to accept even modest expressions of opposition, makes political liberalization difficult. 

That said, I agree that the emergence of a modern mass consumption society in China has some parallels with the US.  And the analogy with the 1950s and 1960s might have some merit.  People do have more choice in more areas of their personal lives.  They may not be able to pursue political projects outside the rather narrowly defined Party restrictions, but more people have more social and cultural freedom than the Maoist period.  Where that will lead to, however, is what is unknown, and we should not hold up the American present as an image of China's future - that's been tried too many times in the past and has failed.

We might be able to say, however, that China's mass consumption present is certainly leading it further away from its Confucian past.  To the extent to which consumption takes on what Marx referred to as the "fetishism of commodities" - that our personal identities become expressions of the material things we surround ourselves with - the sadder a Confucian would be.  Confucianism embeds our identities (which can never be as autonomous and individualized as liberal theory would have it) in the performance of our familial and social duties.  Confucius himself takes a rather dim view on chasing after more and better material possessions:

The Master said: "Poor food and water for dinner, a bent arm for a pillow - that is where joy resides.  For me, wealth and renown without honor are nothing but drifting clouds. (Analects, 7.16)

And renown and honor come from doing the right thing by your family and friends and community.

So, maybe we cannot say that China is Americanizing (it is experiencing more general processes of modernization that are not tied to any particular nation or national outcome) but we can say that it continues to de-Confucianize.

Comments

[isha]

"Also, while Charter 08 is a significant thing, we should not expect a direct and smooth development of American style democracy in China any time soon."

Sam:

Assuming I understanding what you are saying, why do you assume it is even desirable for China emerging into a " American style democracy "???!

Here is one outstanding example of " American style democracy" in action:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll010.xml

TOTALS 390 Teas 5 Nays 22 Pres 16 NV

(The House vote (390 in support, 5 opposed) followed the Senate which the day before unanimously passed its non-binding resolution supporting Israel’s “right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza.” )

Here is the question: Do U.S. House and Senate represent the collective will of American people?

If the answer is YES, then that collective will definitely go against the collective will of the majority of " international community" 14 vs. 1

==============================================================
Rice shame-faced by Bush over UN Gaza vote: Olmert
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gD-QcI_C-CrcqfSZBh6A5_e514Zw
48 minutes ago

JERUSALEM (AFP) — US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W. Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.

"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.

The UN Security Council passed a resolution last Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire in the three-week-old conflict in the Gaza Strip and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza where hundreds have been killed.

Fourteen of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, which was later rejected by both Israel and Hamas.
========================================================

If the answer is NO... these guys don't represent the interest and sentiment of the American people,( who are basically a decent bunch of guys with some limited and residual sense of justice ) , then the question is, this system of yours can't even reflect the best interest of the country, couldn't reflect the basic moral sentiment of the people, then it is a defective product, something very much like the tainted milk these bad guys made and been punished for in China, then, the question is:

Why do you still have the urge to export this product?

Do you seriously want China to become a U.S.A. the Second in this increasingly dangerous world ? Isn't one enough for now and in the foreseeable future?

Isha

[Kerstin]

I agree with Isha with respect to the limitations of the political system of the States with respect to its representation of collective will. The two-party blocks (Republicans and Democrats) that are only distinct from one another at the margins do not help either an effective democratic process.

Personally, I also think that it is not an important empirical question, of course China will not become another America, not only because policymakers often enough express their abstinence from the form of Western democracy but also for the reasons that you mention, history, traditions, etc.

However, what may be interesting to observe about 'Americanization' in China. It is always irritating to see a deeply rooted ambivalence among some peoples. Like Chinese people, also Muslims, Iranians as well, always surround themselves with an image of dislike if not hatred of America, but in their real lifes they very often desire and passionately embrace the products of American culture, technology and identity sometimes as well. The dream of American life style interestingly is so often at the heart of otherwise displayed dismissal of the country as such which in my view is extraordinary hypocritical, almost like a self-lie.