Confucius Institute Politicization Misunderstood; Distance from Government Is Best Solution

On May 17, the U.S. State Department made an announcement requesting that all Confucius Institutes throughout the U.S. apply for official accreditation before offering classes at their respective universities. At the same time, the announcement requested that Confucius Institute teachers currently holding J-1 visas leave the country before June 30. The U.S. would not extend their visas.

The manager of the Confucius Institute headquarters recently stated that he was reluctant to see the interruption in volunteer activities that would result from this. The foreign affairs office spokesperson, Hong Lei, also stated that Chinese officials are currently communicating with the U.S. and hope that this affair can be appropriately resolved without influencing the Institute’s normal operations. Xu Lin, the director of the Office of Chinese Language Council International (Hanban), stated that the U.S. causing difficulties for the Confucius Institutes is definitely not a random event, nor is it an isolated incident. According to her, Confucius Institutes in the U.S., Europe and other countries have on many occasions been “encircled.” The People’s Daily published an article stating: “In American society … there exist some political forces that have been pointing fingers at the Confucius Institute, discrediting their teaching activities.”

From here, what was originally a technical problem (academic accreditation and visa qualifications) began escalate toward having a somewhat political nature. These developments, and the Confucius Institute itself, have given us a lot to ponder over, such as: What kinds of rules should be followed during cultural exchange, and what role should be played by the government?

The Goethe Institute’s Successful Experience

Cultural exchange organizations similar to the Confucius Institute are present in many countries, such as France’s Alliance Francaise, England’s British Council, Spain’s Cervantes Institute, Italy’s Dante Institute, Portugal’s Camoens Institute, Germany’s Goethe Institute, etc. Here we will use the Goethe Institute as an example. Before discussing the Confucius Institute, let’s have a look at the Goethe Institute’s course of development, as it’s been called “the Confucius Institute’s teacher,” and the problems it ran into when entering China. It should give us a certain amount of enlightenment.

The Goethe Institute is a cultural institute run by the Federal Republic of Germany, which actively engages in cultural activities around the world. Its job is to promote German language education and promote international cultural cooperation outside Germany’s borders. Additionally, through introducing information on aspects such as German culture, society and political life, it reveals a richly colorful Germany to the rest of the world.

According to Michael Kahn Ackerman, the former chairman of the Goethe Institute in China and current consultant for the Confucius Institute, in reality, the original intention of establishing the Goethe Institute also involved political considerations. In post-war Germany, just after the fall of the fascists, Germany’s reputation was especially poor. The Goethe Institute was partly founded to change the view the rest of the world held toward Germany, and show that Germany was not just “fascist Germany,” but also the Germany of Goethe, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche and Marx. But perhaps because they initially thought a bit too simply, they just gave foreigners a bright, beautiful view of Germany. Afterward, they quickly discovered doing only this kind of propaganda-like cultural exchange is ineffective. Ackerman said, “I estimate the Goethe Institute’s success started when it began to express our pain, our contradictions and our dark history. At that time many politicians criticized us, felt we were destroying Germany’s image, but we discovered that if you want to make people trust you over the long term, the only method is to tell the truth. We aren’t trying to say how much we’ve achieved, every organization has problems. But all things considered, our experience is that the more you want to dress yourself up, the less people will trust you.”

One more thing especially worthy of our attention is that although the Goethe Institute’s total budget is more than 280 million euros, the majority of that is allocated by the Foreign Affairs Office and the Federal News Department. But the Goethe Institute works independently; it doesn’t have any political obligations. This point is especially remarkable; realizing political and cultural separation, and letting culture remain under its own supervision and follow its own rules of development.

As for the Goethe Institute’s development in China, when it first wanted to enter China it also faced many difficulties. In 1986, the Goethe Institute was the first foreign culture organization that received permission to enter China; at the time there was fierce and polarized debate. One side firmly opposed their admission, considering the Goethe Institute to be a cultural infiltration organization. One side felt they should give it a try. The middle held that the Goethe Institute could only engage in language education and must submit to Chinese supervision, and that China must appoint an assistant chairman to help with the work.

This kind of model is actually quite similar to the current development model of the Confucius Institute. When a foreign university creates a Confucius Institute, the Office of Chinese Language Council International provides their support and name, signs an agreement and appoints a Chinese department head. Nearly every Confucius Institute has two department heads, one Chinese and one foreign. Afterward, with all kinds of exciting cultural exchange programs as their driving force, the Goethe Institute gradually received the recognition of the Chinese. From this we can see, in the first stages of cultural exchange, the anxiety and deciphering of politicization are unavoidable, so there is really no need to get tangled up in disputes over political issues. Instead we should focus on doing the cultural exchange well; only then can we eliminate each other’s doubts and misgivings.

Technical Problem, Technical Solution

Outside of Germany, the Goethe Institute’s status is that of a German organization, with an agreement and contract with the country it’s in. But in the U.S., Confucius Institutes are the result of cooperation between a Chinese education organization and an American university. Legally, they are American organizations. Therefore, even though Confucius Institutes may be beneficial in promoting cultural exchange, the activities of each location must fit its exchange specifications and obey related rules. In this instance, the visa problem is essentially that the Chinese had been exploiting a loophole for a long time, so the Americans introduced more strict regulation.

In a great many reports, we essentially haven’t seen any explanation of what a J-1 visa is. In fact, the J-1 visa is a kind of non-immigrant visa which is given to various kinds of foreign visitors coming to the U.S. to participate in U.S. State Department approved “exchange visitor programs.” There are 14 classes including university exchange students, government organization groups, interns, doctors, professors and visiting scholars, experts, teachers, summer holiday work-vacationers, training groups, etc. Which is to say, those holding J-1 visas can’t teach elementary and middle school students. If they want to teach the elementary and middle school students in the Confucius Institutes, they must apply for teaching visas. There is a strict distinction between entering the U.S. on a visiting scholar visa and entering on a teaching visa; visiting scholar visa holders serving as teachers in middle schools are violating the exchange visitor agreement framework and federal law. We must respect other countries’ laws. This point is actually the heart of cultural exchange itself: respecting the other country’s culture and values, following their laws, living under of their system of government.

Additionally, the Confucius Institute is above all a language school; 90 percent of its activities are in teaching Chinese. Therefore, it shouldn’t be politically decoded overseas. Of course, the most important thing is still that we in China don’t allow this to escalate to the political and diplomatic spheres. Technical issues should be viewed and resolved in a technical manner. For example, with problems involving visas, why not take the Goethe Institute’s lead; according to Ackerman, the Goethe Institute generally doesn’t select its teachers from within Germany, instead almost entirely hiring local Germans and German teachers. The Confucius Institute’s method, on the other hand, is to send large numbers of teachers from China to foreign countries, and so they are now facing this visa problem. They should first calmly think about how to resolve the problem. There’s no need to overreact, even to the point of regarding it as “political forces that have … discredited” the Confucius Institute.

Between Nov. 21, 2004, when the first Confucius Institute was established in Seoul, Korea, and today, more than 300 Confucius Institutes have been established around the world, as well as 500 elementary and middle school Confucius Classrooms, covering over 150 countries. This has already been criticized as “radical” by some. In America there are already 81 Confucius Institutes and more than 300 elementary and middle school Confucius Classrooms, of which 127 are classrooms set up for the Confucius Institute. Clearly, considering the large scale of the Confucius Institutes and Confucius schools, the qualifications and visas of the teachers they have sent abroad in such large quantities and that they have existed in a grey area of visa policy for a long time, misunderstandings having arisen is within reason. Furthermore, viewed from a distance, these kinds of misunderstandings and suspicions serve a correcting function as we define the Confucius Institute’s position and how it should be properly run; just as Ackerman said: “I don’t know what hopes the Chinese government has for the Confucius Institute. If they think that this is an advertising tool, I think, they will discover sooner or later that this kind of tool is not very effective. On the contrary, the more the Confucius Institute is turned into a propaganda tool, the less foreign countries will trust it.” Therefore, if you want to earn trust and true, widespread welcome, you must get rid of governmental and cultural boundaries and let culture be culture and politics be politics.

As Ackerman sees it, generally, people have a relatively simple view of cultural exchange. They think it’s a good thing, a beautiful thing, when in fact it is an incredibly difficult thing. Don’t think that if you are willing to communicate with people, then it’s not a problem and everyone is welcoming. In reality, you will realize if you execute culture exchange and interactions politically, the majority of it will be contradictions, misunderstandings and unhappiness. Successful cultural exchange is rare, and very hard to do. During cultural exchange, from the past to the present, when some country and some other country are friendly and have a deep friendship, this is all a load of bull, because nationalities don’t know friendship. Physical people have friendships, not nationalities and countries. So, from this perspective, the best method is still for the government to let go, let increased private interactions propel the interactions of the countries and their citizens and leave the specialized problems for the specialized organizations to deal with.