I’ve gotten a little tired of all the stories about Chinese and nationalism around that I spent most of last weekend trying to avoid most foreign news coverage about it. But I was dragged back in an interesting way when I learned to a recent podcast on the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) Radio’s Ideas program. Two of the New Yorker Magazine’s Canadian writers, Malcolm Gladwell and Adam Gopnik were debating what Canada was — a nation or a notion?
It was Gladwell’s argument that Canada was a nation that pulled me back in. He was making the “small as beautiful” debate. Gladwell’s method for arguing this was to use the experience of overseas Chinese businesspeople as in the communities they immigrate to. He says that Chinese are successful not by their Chinese but because they are outsiders in their new communities and don’t have the ties to that society. Therefore they are better able to succeed than their local competition who is tied to their communities.
When I heard that I felt that Gladwell was right, but that this success was actually due to Chinese culture. If you’ve lived in China for any length of time, you’ll know that China is not a monolithic block, but a mixture of 56 nationalities. It was only brought together by force and held together by emperors and now by the Communist Party. That history has made the people very regional. You notice it with migrant workers who tend to band together and construction bosses that tend to hire people only from their hometowns and provinces. So Chinese people have a lot of experience with being outsiders — all they have to do is travel outside their home region.
The thing is that the Chinese government doesn’t accept this argument. Instead they see it as a melting pot where everyone is Chinese with one monolithic culture. It’s true everyone is Chinese by citizenship, but by culture, as I mentioned above, is not — it’s a mosaic one. There is the regional culture mixed with the greater national culture which is encouraged by the central government as a uniting force. With that cultural mix, the melting-pot nation framework the Chinese government is pushing doesn’t work (and hence the title). Beijing can try to use the nationalism that you see in the media, but eventually things will tip unless everyone is kept included and equal. That’s not happening in today’s capitalist China, as we all know people are getting left behind. Beijing is realizing this as it’s been trying to calm down the nationalist feelings in the last week. The problem is, trying to temper nationalism and then push it up again later isn’t sustainable.
What the central government could do is take a page from Adam Gopnik’s argument. Gopnik claimed that Canada is a country of people with a common hyphenated identity. Everyone is from somewhere else but they all live in a shared territory and subscribe to a shared set of cultural values of acceptance. I don’t know if the Chinese government will copy all those ideas, but I do think that if it stops trying to treat the Chinese people like a monolith and more like a mosaic the whole issue of nationalism will become much more controllable.
A better example than Canada may be the diversity of India and how it has coped in many different crises and even bouts of nationalism, all the while still maintaining a government and of course a democracy.
JohnG: Thoughtful post. I think it’s good advice for any nation – as we’re in a unique era of human history whereby nationality can have very little to do with historical roots. “Nation” in the modern world is much more societal by definition, and much less racial.
I think if we look at the countries that grasp this best we’ll have a list of countries that are quite, erm, “harmonious”.
@Demerzel: I think the stability of Canada over the last half-century or so has a better track record than India. Not that it’s not a good example to compare to, just that they’ve a HUGE population that has also been left behind – and for all their democracy they’ve still an entrenched caste system. Never mind that it wasn’t too long ago “India” represented a much larger land mass that included other fragmented parts (Bangladesh, Pakistan) but couldn’t keep the people in agreement that their cultural/racial backgrounds didn’t have to play into their nationhood.
@Ryan thanks for the compliment. One of the other things that attracted me to the model of Canada as an example of “multi-nation” countries is that it is frequently cited as a possible solution to debates in Serbia and Belgium. So it has the credibility of a sustainable model.
J.
Intresting point about Canada as an model to use in this topic. the only thing i wounder about in this is that Canada is an fairly new country/state where most people migrated to Canada to get a new start and a new future ( i hope i’m not wrong in this now ^_* ) where in a country as China people usuly are rooted manny genarations back in history in there respective region. i just have an felling that this might play an part in the subject to and that for this reasoun can be harder to achive same thing in countrys as china as you can do in Canada but i am hopefully wrong ^_^
Multi-nation usually implies more than two nations within it. Now, you could say the territories could compose of a separate nation, but I am hesitant to give it that much credit. That leaves only Quebec (French speaking) with the rest of the English speaking part.
Furthermore, India is heavily regional as well with a very unique political system that encompasses it too. Yes, there are problems of the caste system and Kashmir, but considering that it has still stayed a democracy through some rough times (the worst Canada has lately had to deal with [beyond an annoying US] is Quebec voting to leave Canada) tells me it has a sustainable model to follow over Canada at this point in time.
@Ryan: Canada hasn’t been entirely stable vis-a-vis Quebec, as FLQ terrorism was significant in the 1960s, but the Quebecois of late seem to see more bad than good in union with Canada, so they stay in.
Ironically, many netizens have said “If you say Free Tibet, I’ll say Free Quebec,” but they don’t seem to know that Quebec has voted several times to remain in Canada, and the Canadian government supported these votes, no matter the result. Considering the Chinese viewpoint, Quebec is a bad comparison to draw with the West.
Correction, that should be “the Quebecois see more good than bad.” Heh.
@Matthew, I know this is off topic but I couldn’t resist replying. The FLQ was a significant part of the 70’s as was the Quebecois nationalist literature that accompanied it — I’m thinking of the book “White N—-rs of America” — but I think the voilent view was a small minority. With the rise of the Parti Quebecois in the 1970s (and the Bloc Quebecois on the Federal level in the 1990s) violence was really out of the question, there really was a commitment to separating through democratic principals. Today, I think Quebec is almost in a post-nationalist state and it is quality of life that matters.
I hadn’t heard about the Free Quebec claims on Chinese websites. I would definitely chalk that up to ignorance on the part of most Chinese — and a lot of the world in general — Quebec separatism doesn’t get much coverage outside of Canada except that there are separatist elements and political parties there.
J.
@John, by the standards of the 1960s, the terrorist actions of the FLQ were significant, but today they’d hardly merit reporting, I guess.
We’re agreed on the postnational state of Quebecois politics at present, but that’s because Canada’s economy has been moving along nicely. Let an economic downturn come and people may “think different” to borrow a phrase from Apple.
Anyways, yes, the Chinese nationalists have cited Quebec when attacking the pro-Free Tibet side. They’ve also claimed to support independence for Corsica, Texas, Hawaii, Scotland, Ireland, and a few other locations which may or may not actually have anyone who strongly desires independence. (Texas?)
Matthew:
“the Chinese nationalists have cited Quebec when attacking the pro-Free Tibet side. They’ve also claimed to support independence for Corsica, Texas, Hawaii, Scotland, Ireland, and a few other locations which may or may not actually have anyone who strongly desires independence.”
Do you know how many people that strongly desires independence in Tibet? I am sure there are almost all exiled Tibetans wanted an independence, but they left China in 1959, so their voice should not count b.t.w., they were slave owners back before 1959 and surely they want indepedence. How many Tibentans living in tibet want an independence? 10%? 20%?
The Chinese should learn from the Canadians. To create China as a “nation” rather than a “notion” you need something to unite them. Buy the people of China hockey sticks and a puck and see if that has the same effect on China that it does in Canada.
Ever heard of Switzerland?
It’s a country – don’t confuse it with Sweden – that hosts four people of different languages (Italian, French, Romance and German). It’s far from a nation. Even within the German speaking area, there are about seven very different dialects, some of which are not understood by their neighbours without practice, as the people have originated from different parts of Europe and not interacted much for several hundred years.
(Note: Switzerland is 717 years old, and many cities are older than Chinese ones, founded by the Romans)
Agree with “From Toronto” and Matthew:
Xizang is probably less of an issue in China than Quebec is in Canada.
Think about that…
Hi John, this is a neat discussion, and with the interconnectedness of the world today I suppose there is renewed debate about what “nation” means.
Not being able to contribute any facts about Canada here, I sense that Canada has demonstrated it is a successful “melting pot” nation, more successfully than the US, anyway. (Per Tang’s comment, Switzerland definitely is, too, but it’s been successful in that way before there was such global mobilization, so Canada still should get credit for managing its new non-European members into the melting pot so well).
If I had any advice for the Chinese government, it would be to promote a sophisticated appreciation for its minorities and the historical significance of their roles in all of Chinese history, rather than portray them as the happy, dancing, thankful elements of the current regime.
Of course, it’s tough to let go of power over the people like that, but Canada demonstrates it’s possible to define “nation” geographically, not culturally, and to thrive for it.