Are Americans’ Attitudes Toward China Really That Simple?

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 5 June 2011
by Wei Ran (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Howard Segal. Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
There are some Chinese who complain that Americans’ attitude toward China is simple, which is not unique, because people in other countries also often believe that Americans’ attitude toward world affairs is simple. Are Americans’ attitudes toward China really that simple? The answer, it seems, cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” — that would be oversimplified.

Those Americans who hold simple attitudes toward China perhaps don’t quite understand American pragmatism and the give-and-take culture of communication. To begin with, Americans live in a country that is a highly market-oriented economy — all aspects of the basic necessities of daily life are closely linked with the market. A slight commotion on the market will have an immediate and clear impact on Americans. For example, the recent high oil prices at more than $4 a gallon have added insult to injury with unemployment and income below inflation for Americans. An Associated Press poll found that one-fourth of respondents indicated that the high gas prices had a serious effect on their lives. There’s an increase of two-car families changing into one-car families. People buying fuel-efficient cars is also clearly increasing — so much so that there’s a shortage in the stock of fuel efficient cars. Another example: China’s rise has led to an upsurge in learning Chinese; the numbers of American students coming to China for short-term study is unprecedented. Therefore, the average American’s attitude toward China more often than not comes from an already interrelated perspective, practically speaking.

Meanwhile, the attitude of the general American population toward China is fair — there are both pros and cons — and non-simplistic. A Pew Research Center study at the beginning of this year found that Americans have already gone from emphasizing Europe to emphasizing Asia. This poll was published in The Wall Street Journal, and the transformation of attitudes is described as unprecedented. Close to one-third of respondents said they were interested in news about China, and their interest in other countries like England accounts for less than half of their interest toward China. According to world public opinion surveys collected over the years, the American people believe China is a rising economic power. Although China has become America’s economic competitor and U.S.-China trade has a negative impact on the United States, they still affirm China’s rapid economic development. Similarly, they do not regard China as a military threat or as a hostile country.

Second, American culture respects differing viewpoints. Consequently, Americans like to come straight to the point in communicating. Americans certainly do not identify with the civilities valued by Eastern cultures and a culture of communication that avoids offending people. For example, Americans all speak bluntly among themselves. They won’t say one thing in public and then something else in private; they say what they mean. Sometimes this sort of habit of straightforward communication makes people from other countries believe that Americans are naïve.

The explanation above seems to have simplified the view that American attitudes toward China are simple, but, in fact, Americans see China in a complicated way. They have taken “understanding China” and made it into a branch of scholarship; at universities there are masters and doctorate degrees. American Chinese studies — whether it is the personnel, the number of research institutions or its influence on China policy — are all unrivaled in the world. Most schools equipped with Chinese studies fields are the famous ones, including Yale, Columbia, Johns Hopkins and the University of Michigan on the East coast, as well as Stanford and the University of California at Berkeley on the West coast. The students that these schools’ Chinese studies branches cultivate are “old China hands,” who comprise a part of the elite of American society. Currently, Ezra F. Vogel, Harry Harding, Ken Lieberthal and David Shambaugh are among the “ace experts” and leaders of the Chinese studies field.

Some media have described the old China hands as the “brains of America,” which is not an exaggeration. They have two channels of exerting influence: entering government departments and directly participating in government policy, or serving in unofficial think tanks. As far as government officials go, take as an example Susan Shirk of the University of California, who once served as Assistant Secretary of State for Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Clinton administration. At the moment, Kenneth Lieberthal is a member of Obama’s China Advisory Group. Among them, none is more influential on China policy for the United States than the president’s National Security Council advisor, Dr. Henry Kissinger. Kissinger is recognized by the public to be a national-level strategic thinker, and in the past several decades, American presidents have all sought counsel on China policy from him. Some media commentators have said that because Kissinger studied under the great history scholar William Elliot at Harvard University, he believed that if you don’t deeply understand a country’s culture and history, then it’s not possible to understand that country’s politics and government. He often quoted Chinese history as the center point of his policies; his new book, “On China,” fully demonstrated this kind of view. During an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Kissinger said that he and the current crop of senior Chinese leaders all have face-to-face contact, but, according to the view of Chinese leaders, he hasn’t left an impression.

Regarding serving on think tanks, old China hands have pervaded all the big think tanks and brain trusts across the United States, such as the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Heritage Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations. They influence government policy decisions with their profound views on China issues through congressional testimony and holding such events as academic symposiums. This author once spoke with Kissinger at a Heritage Foundation think tank seminar, and his views were sharp. His understanding of China was not only insightful but also forward-looking. Therefore, however you look at China, America has already established a system of academic officials, the old China hands. They see China both as a theoretical study and as an opportunity for providing operational American policy recommendations. Of course, they take American values and American interests as their starting point.

Somewhere in between the general American public and the elite old China hands is the American media, which is playing the role of how to see the key factors of China. This is because the elite experts’ attitudes need to pass through news reporters to be communicated to the American public and transform public opinion, and thereby influence government decision-making. Each large think tank has a public relations department and the familiar and big media communications. For example, the Carnegie Endowment has a Chinese website, and they published online a “Carnegie China Perspective,” which released their latest views toward China. In addition, American think tanks often hold academic conferences in Washington and New York, inviting both the media and the government to participate. In the future, most media will be in-depth reporting. Chinese media scholar Zhang once praised the country as a news source. He analyzed The New York Times and The Washington Post and discovered that for the reporting on China done by these two most influential papers in America, the White House administration is their biggest news source, and the reporters’ style of writing stories includes anonymous sources, press conferences and speeches.

More importantly, reporters who are specially assigned to China become a part of the American elite early on. The news reports on China after China and the United States established relations in 1977 clearly reinforced, to a great extent, the strong expertise that had already existed. What’s interesting is that among the American reporters covering China, several have also become old China hands — not only writing reports for the media but also writing academic works looking at China. For example, Christopher Wren of The New York Times wrote the book “China Wakes.” Another Times author, University of South Carolina alumnus Patrick Tyler, wrote the treatise “Six Presidents and China.” The Los Angeles Times foreign affairs correspondent James Mann wrote a book on three ways of observing China. When he talks about how to see China, he says that in order to understand China, “an impulse to simplify is understandable; however, China is too big, too complicated and too different. You can’t look at it from only one perspective. You can’t use a simplistic formula to understand China.”*

Are Chinese people still able to grumble and say that American attitudes toward China are simplistic?

*Editor’s Note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.


美国人对中国的看法真的简单吗?

有一些中国人抱怨美国人对中国看法简单,无独有偶,其他国家的人也常常觉得美国人对世界事务看法简单。美国人对中国的看法真的简单吗?答案好像不是一个简单的“是”与“否”就可以回答的。那样的话,似乎过于简单了。


  持有美国人对中国看法简单的人,可能不太了解美国人的实用主义精神和直来直去的沟通文化。首先,美国人生活在一个高度市场化的国家,日常生活的衣食住行等各个方面,与市场息息相关,市场上的风吹草动对美国人有立即和明显的影响。比如,最近油价居高不下,每加仑超过四美元,对于失业和收入低于通胀的美国人来说,雪上加霜。美联社的民调发现,1/4的受访者表示,高油价对他们生活影响严重,两部车变为一部车的家庭在上升,购买省油型车的人明显地增加,以至于畅销的省油车型缺货。又例如,中国的崛起带动了学中文的热潮,到中国短期留学的美国学生,数量空前。所以,一般美国人对中国的看法,往往从与己相关的角度,注重实用。


  同时,美国一般民众对中国的看法持平,利弊互见,而非简单化。皮由传媒研究所(Pew )在年初做的调查发现,美国人已经从重欧转到重亚,该民调见报于《华尔街日报》,并将此看法转变描述为“史无前例”。接近1/3的受访者表示对有关中国的新闻有兴趣,而对其他国家如英国还不到关注中国的一半。据世界舆情调查所收集的多年民调,美国民众认为中国是崛起的经济大国,虽然中国成为美国在经济上的竞争对手,美中贸易对美国有负面影响,但是他们肯定中国的高速经济发展。同时,他们并没有将中国视为军事威胁,或者是敌对国家。


  其次,美国文化尊重不同意见。所以,在沟通上美国人喜欢直来直来,开门见山,直抒己见。对于东方文化所看重的客套、避免撕破脸的沟通文化,美国人并不认同。其实,美国人在自己人之间,都会直言不讳,不会台面上说一套,背后说一套,而是表里如一。这种直来直去的沟通习惯,有时会让别国人觉得美国人天真。


  以上的解释似乎把“美国人对中国看法简单”的看法简单化的,其实美国人看中国是复杂化的,他们把了解中国当成一门学问,在大学设有硕士和博士学位。美国的中国研究不论是人员上和研究机构数量上还是对华政策影响上,世界无敌。设有中国研究专业的学校多为名校,例如东岸的耶鲁大学、哥伦比亚大学、约翰·霍普金斯大学和密歇根大学,以及西岸的斯坦福大学和加州大学伯克利分校。这些学校中国研究所培养出来的学生是“中国通”,属于美国社会的知识精英的一部分。当前,中国研究的领军人物和王牌专家有傅高义(E zra F .V ogel)、何汉理(H arryH arding)、李侃如(K enLieberthal)、沈大伟(D avid Sham baugh)等人。


  有媒体将中国通形容为“美国的大脑”,实不为过。他们有两大渠道来发挥影响力:进入政府部门直接参与政府决策,或者服务于非官方的智库。在做官方面,加州大学的谢淑丽(SusanShirk)曾出任克林顿政府负责亚太事务的助理国务卿即为一例;目前李侃如是奥巴马中国顾问团的成员。他们当中对美国的对华政策最有影响的,莫过于总统国家安全事务顾问基辛格博士。基辛格被公认为国师级的战略思想家,近几代美国总统在对华政策上,都咨询过他。有媒体评论者说,基辛格因在哈佛师从史学大师艾略特的缘故,他认为没有深入了解一国文化及历史,就不可能理解该国的政治和政府。他常常引述中国历史作为其政策的支撑点,其新著《论中国》充分展现这样的视点。基辛格在接受《华尔街日报》的专访时说,他和当今中国的高层都有面对面的接触,但对于中国领导人的看法,他从不单凭印象。


  在服务智库方面,中国通遍布美国各大智囊思想库,包括如布鲁金斯学会、卡内基国际和平基金会、传统基金会以及外交关系委员会。他们把中国问题的深刻看法,通过到国会作证、举办学术研讨会等形式,影响政府的决策。笔者曾经在一次研讨会上跟传统基金会的一位智囊交谈,他的看法敏锐,对中国的了解既有洞见,又有前瞻性。所以,就如何看中国,美国早已经建立起了一个亦学亦官的体系,中国通们看中国既有理论性的研究,又有操作性的美国对华政策建议。当然,他们以美国的价值和美国的利益作为出发点。


  介于一般美国民众和精英中国通之间的,是美国的传媒,他们也扮演着如何看中国关键的角色。这是因为精英专家的看法,需要通过新闻记者,向美国大众传播,形成公众舆论,进而影响政府决策。每个大型智库都设有公关部门,密切和大媒体沟通。例如,卡内基基金会设有中文网站,并在网上发行《卡内基中国透视》,通过该刊物发表最新的对中国看法。另外,美国智库经常在华盛顿和纽约举办学术研讨会,邀请媒体和政府一起参加。会后,传媒大多会作深入报道。华人传播学者张赞国曾经从消息来源上,分析了《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》,他发现这两份在美国最有影响力的报纸在对中国的报道上,白宫行政部门是最大的消息来源,而记者写报道的形式包括匿名消息来源、新闻发布会和演讲。


  更为重要的是,记者,特别是驻华特派记者,早已成为美国精英的一部分。对中国的报道在1977年中美建交后,深度明显加深,具有很强的专业性。有趣的是,在美国驻华记者中,许多也成为中国通,不仅为传媒写报道,而且著有看中国的专著。例如,《纽约时报》的克里斯托弗著有《中国醒来》一书;另一个时报记者,南卡大学的校友泰勒写有《六个总统和中国》的专著。《洛杉矶时报》的外交专栏作家詹姆斯·曼,写有三部观察中国的著作,他在谈如何看中国时说,要了解中国“有简单化的冲动是可以理解的。不过中国太大了,太复杂了,太不同了,不可能以单一的角度来看。对于中国,不能有简单化的公式来解释。”


  中国人还能抱怨说美国人对中国的看法简单吗?
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Topics

Austria: Trump’s Film Tariffs Hurt Hollywood

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Related Articles

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?