Both ideas have been prominent in recent events covered by the Chinese media. These ideas threaten to push China away from the West, back to a relatively introspective model of international relations, which is based on the system in place during the dynastic period of its history.
China’s recent agreement to resume ‘candid’ talks on human rights with the US is certainly a refreshing prospect, but what does it really mean? The agreement echoes the old concept of Sino-centralism. Best conceptualised as part of dynastic Chinese nationalism, historically the concept involved a worldview with China and Chinese interests at heart, and helped buttress the tribute system that operated during dynastic China. Nowadays, instead of receiving strings of silver from its vassal neighbours, outsiders are paying tribute with intangible, yet economically and politically valuable commodities. In this case, the tribute consisted of US concessions on the yuan revaluation issue. In exchange, the US acquired human rights talks, which was a win for China, who loves to ‘talk’ about human rights. China has indicated that it would revalue the yuan at its own pace and not at the behest of the US.
Another example is China’s proposed indigenous innovation rules. The rules reflect Sino-centralism by exposing China’s confidence in its attractiveness as a market for international investment. The rules introduce ‘accreditation’ requirements for intellectual property, effectively handicapping non-Chinese businesses. An example closer to home is Australian Prime Minister Rudd’s refusal to meet the Dalai Lama last year—a back flip on the zhengyou concept raised in his speech at Beijing University in 2008. Concessions like this may boost China’s confidence in its global position, and are slowly reinvigorating the idea of Sino-centralism.
The Sino-‘barbarian’ dichotomy is also tied to Chinese nationalism during the dynastic period. It is at work in the report of China Central Television’s (CCTV) removal of all English acronyms from its broadcasts. One Comment on the website proclaims: ‘the whole world is speaking Chinese, China’s great rejuvenation is finally complete’ and another jokes: ‘then why doesn’t the government ban all schools from teaching English?’ Will ‘CCTV’ be the next acronym on the chopping block?
The Sino-‘barbarian’ dichotomy involves contrasting the Chinese civilisation with all non-Chinese ( ‘barbarian’) people. Not only are the recent media regulations ludicrous and inefficient—NBA becomes Meiguo zhiye lanqiu liansai and WTO becomes Shijie maoyi zuzhi—but it may also obstruct the Chinese population’s understanding and acceptance of international ideas.
Looking back again to dynastic China, the greatness of the Tang Dynasty hinged on its cosmopolitanism. In a famous quote Emperor Taizong (reign period 627-49) said the Chinese and non-Chinese should be ‘loved as one’. The richness of the Tang dynasty’s literary culture was a result of this acceptance of the ‘other’.. In terms of the problem at hand, acronyms are trifling, but their removal represents a subtle change in the way the Chinese are being told by their leaders to view the culture and ideas of non-Chinese people. China is a nation among nations and must remain receptive to international ideas. We should all embrace the advice of Emperor Taizong and embrace the ‘other’ rather than block it out.
The World Expo in Shanghai ties both themes together. The Expo intends to bring the international community together to share, learn and understand, but beneath this ideal is some interesting imagery. While I disagree with recent commentary arguing that Sino-centralism is at work within the expo’s advertisements, I would argue that the Sino-centralism and barbarian concepts inform China’s perception of its role within the international community, and have been incorporated into the geography of the Expo precinct.
Obviously the way China views itself informs the way it interacts with others. The Expo’s layout clearly reflects this. Not only is China (and Asia generally) in the central/east of the precinct, but America and Europe are in the westernmost quarter. The layout isn’t designed with real-world geography in mind (the food stalls separate China from the Southeast Asian pavilions), but China was sure to place its capitalist doppelganger as far from itself as possible. So what? I would argue this kind of imagery fuels the ‘barbarian’ dichotomy and is harmful to the Sino-US relationship.
The World Expo obviously speaks for inclusionary imagery. It would have been a prouder statement to place the two countries who have so much in common, and who equally share the power to lead the planet, at the centre of the expo. Instead China has isolated itself, dividing through difference rather than celebrating commonalities. This is the essence of Sino-centralism and the Sino-‘barbarian’ dichotomy.
To combat this phenomenon, education and understanding must necessarily be a core component of the East-West dialogue. For the West, understanding old China’s history and philosophy, is one productive place to begin. But likewise China must come to the table with an open mind and avoid becoming a cul-de-sac of political ideology cut off from the international system.
What China does with the Cheonan issue in the coming weeks may indicate afresh its willingness to cooperate with international institutions such as the UN Security Council, and therefore to direct its citizens’ attention beyond its own borders.
Edward Kus is an undergraduate student at Australia National University on exchange at Tsunghua University.
older than that .. i have friends telling me about lao tzu, daosism, zhuangzi .. something is returning, the ancient center
China is never likely to return to those old ideas that Edward Kus mentioned.
For one thing, those ideas were formed in the long history that China knew very little the outside world due to geographical, transportation and communication barriers between China and the outside world.
The west invasion has forever changed those old ideas.
They may never give up certain values of their own as every nation won’t, but China and the Chinese have moved on.
They are not as silly or stupid as some other people with their own old and outdated ideas are.
Globalisation and the benefits China has derived from it means it will never retreat from integration with the world.
It is just as simple as that. To say or believe otherwise is not only ridiculers but laughable.
There’s no return whatsoever. Mao’s China, for instance, was essentially sinocentric, based on the idea that China could produce its own more successful brand of communism for the world to learn. The Chinese-Barbarian dichotomy was there as well. The “opening-up” has allowed FDI and commodities to enter China, while some cultural influence has made its way in some parts of the country as well. But that is widely regarded as a negative consequence of a necessary process. Now, the level of cultural openness has already reached its peak. The Chinese government and intellectuals alike have decided that the country will not open up more that this, and that it’s mainstream culture will not become less sinocentric than this. China’s integration with global economy will continue of course, but to serve China’s interests — “which is natural and obvious”, Uncle Sam would argue. Chinese etnocentrism, together with the belief that Chinese are the best, the smartest and superior to any other people in the world will continue — it may have left us for a while back in the Eighties, but that era is over. Reform and opening up has come to a conclusion?
The essence of Lao tzu, zhuang zi and Daoism which your mentioned is “keeping humble” but not sino-centeralism. Western world also viewed themselves as the center of the world in 19 century. And if I remembered correctly, even older than that, westerners claimed Roma as city of cities and the center of the world.
Those time has passed, for both China and western countries.