風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
西方視中國為“威脅”，而不是一個真實的地方，一個有真實人民的地方
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/05/west-china-threat-real-place-domestic-agendas
Yangyang Cheng，2021 年 10 月 5 日，粒子物理學家，耶魯法學院博士後研究員
Paul Tsai China Center News & Events
Center Addresses China Relations with Leading Figures in the U.S., China, Taiwan, and Europe
我出生的國家政府最嚴重的濫用職權行為被用來推進國內議程。我和一位朋友共進晚餐，她問我的工作。“說出一件你希望美國人知道的關於中國的事情，”她說。“中國人就是人，”我回答道。
她讓我詳細說明，我說中國人民和這裏的人其實沒什麽不同，我們和任何地方的人一樣具有人性。這是一次令人不快的交流。我的朋友是白人和美國人，而我兩者都不是。
我後悔自己的回答，因為我對她善意問題的回答卻隱含著指責。我把種族這個難以承受的重擔拋在了輕鬆的談話中。但種族問題總是擺在桌麵上，即使隻有我們中的一些人習慣於看到它。
在大型強子對撞機上工作了十多年後，我今年離開了物理學界，轉而從事科學政策和中國政治的研究。我以為，我在美國從事歐洲實驗的經曆教會了我如何在作為“少數族裔”的情況下從事一份職業。但我錯了。作為一名在美國研究中國的中國女性，我經常被這個領域令人眼花繚亂的白人現象所震驚。
我並不是說隻有中國人才能研究中國。生活經曆並不等同於專業知識，不同的背景會帶來新的視角。被視為“真實性”標準的指標，例如能說中文或在中國待過一段時間，也可以用來排除。中國政府經常利用自我東方化來為自己的政策辯護，將中國視為與西方截然不同的事物，將任何外部批評都斥為“帝國主義”。中國政府還限製了境內或公民自由研究的空間。根據研究主題，外國護照可以允許進入中國並受到保護，外國可能是對中國進行獨立研究的唯一安全場所。
那麽，真正的問題不是誰或在哪裏，而是如何，更重要的是，為什麽和為了什麽？西方產生了什麽樣的中國知識？根據美中關係全國委員會最近發布的一項調查，美國對中國研究的需求日益增長，但討論越來越受國家安全問題的主導，正如一位受訪者所說，該領域“極其缺乏多樣性”。從國家利益的角度來看，一個國家變成了一個“挑戰”、“威脅”和一個需要解決的“問題”。國家邊界與人們想象中的同情心的種族界限相一致，中國人變成了一個標簽、一個統計數字。
在關於中國的普遍敘述中，中央政府是一個開始統治世界的萬能怪物，它充滿了古老的遠見，並通過龐大的政府官僚機構毫不費力地表達自己的意願。在中國，公眾的表達要麽是抗議，要麽是宣傳，人民要麽是無助的受害者，要麽是國家壓迫的盲目步兵。美國政客和評論員吹噓計劃保衛南海或用軍事力量保護民主的台灣。當真正的目標是維護美國的權力時，另一個大陸上的潛在生命損失並不令人擔憂。從新疆到香港，中國政府最嚴重的虐待行為被用來推進國內議程。許多人認為應該“懲罰中國”的人權記錄；但很少有人停下來思考，這些懲罰是否會傷害到他們聲稱要捍衛權利的人民。
在公開論壇和私人談話中，我經常被問到：中國想要什麽？我們應該如何應對他們？代詞的選擇很有啟發性，讓我既不在這裏也不在那裏。我從來都不知道該如何回答這些滑稽的泛泛問題，好像我是某種龍語者。那些默認這種概括的人並不是真的想了解中國這個地方。他們更喜歡把它當作一種理念，一種可以提煉成聲音片段並轉化為政策的地緣政治概念。白人可以在一夜之間被重新包裝成“中國問題專家”，並以他們的見解收取高額費用，而中國人更有可能被視為“異見人士”，而不是學者。一個反對壓迫性超級大國的孤獨鬥士是一個吸引人的故事。它證實了西方認為中國是獨裁邪惡化身的觀念。它向西方觀眾肯定了他們的優越感。對中國政權的譴責不夠，會讓人懷疑一個人對中國的研究，無論其關注領域是什麽。
我對我職業的偏見感到失望，這不是個人的不滿。
問題的核心不在於西方對中國的了解程度，而在於西方對自己的了解程度。中國的崛起及其在全球資本主義中的作用挑戰了西方的經濟主導地位，打破了市場必然帶來自由的便捷觀念。給人留下政治壓迫或技術濫用問題隻存在於中國這一印象，就是拒絕了解治理的複雜性以及人性的複雜性。與其麵對自己的真相，不如將一切歸結為虛假的二元論，將恐懼投射到一個不露麵的他者身上，這要容易得多。西方並不是唯一犯下這種邏輯的一方。
隨著每一條新聞周期漫不經心地談論最新的中國“威脅”，隨著我的出生國和我的第二故鄉似乎陷入了“大國競爭”，我感到腳下的土地正在崩裂。我有時會想，這種不穩定是否是我離開祖國必須付出的代價。然後我提醒自己，幾代人一直生活在邊緣，對那些貶低他們人性的人為分歧提出異議。如果我們聚集足夠多的人並重新奪回這些邊緣，一個沒有人被流放的新世界可能會誕生。
程陽陽
法學研究學者兼研究員，保羅蔡中國中心
https://law.yale.edu/yangyang-cheng
程陽陽博士是耶魯法學院保羅蔡中國中心的法學研究學者兼研究員，她的工作重點是中國科技發展和中美關係。她的文章發表在《紐約時報》、《衛報》、《國家》、《新政治家》、《中國製造》、《麻省理工技術評論》和《連線》等媒體上，並獲得了亞洲出版商協會 (SOPA)、亞裔美國記者協會 (AAJA) 和原子科學家公報的多個獎項。她的文學評論獲得了《華盛頓月刊》頒發的 2024 年庫庫拉非小說類圖書評論傑出獎和《洛杉磯書評》頒發的 2022 年人民選擇獎。她是 Crooked Media 廣受好評的敘事播客係列《門口的異見者》的聯合主持人、作家和製作人。程女士出生和成長於中國，在芝加哥大學獲得物理學博士學位，在中國科學技術大學少年兒童學校獲得學士學位。在加入耶魯大學之前，她在大型強子對撞機 (LHC) 工作了十多年，最近在康奈爾大學工作，並擔任費米國家加速器實驗室的 LHC 物理中心傑出研究員。
The west sees China as a ‘threat’, not as a real place, with real people
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/05/west-china-threat-real-place-domestic-agendas
Yangyang Cheng，Oct 5 2021 a particle physicist and a postdoctoral fellow at Yale Law School
The worst abuses of my birth country’s government are used to advance domestic agendas
I was at dinner with a friend, and she asked about my work. “Name one thing you wish Americans knew about China,” she said.
“That the Chinese people are people,” I replied.
She asked me to elaborate, and I said that the people of China are really not so different from the people here, that we possess as much humanity as people anywhere. It was an uncomfortable exchange. My friend is white and American, and I’m neither. I regretted my response, that my answer to her well-intentioned question implied an accusation. I had dropped the unbearable weight of race into a lighthearted conversation. But race is always on the table and in the air, even when only some of us are conditioned to see it.
After more than a decade working on the Large Hadron Collider, I left physics this year for a position researching science policy and Chinese politics. I thought my time working in the US on a European-based experiment had taught me well how to navigate a profession while being a “minority”. I was wrong. As a Chinese woman studying China in the US, I’m constantly stunned by the blinding whiteness in this field.
I’m not saying that only Chinese people can study China. Lived experience does not equate to expertise, and diverse backgrounds bring fresh perspectives. The metrics seen as criteria for “authenticity”, such as being able to speak Chinese or having spent time in the country, can also be used to exclude. The Chinese government routinely deploys self-orientalisation – treating China as if it were radically different from the west – to justify its policies, discrediting any external criticism as “imperialism”. The state has also constrained the space for free inquiry within its borders or by its citizens. Depending on the subject, a foreign passport can grant access and protection in China, and a foreign land may be the only safe place for independent research into the country.
The real issue, then, is not about who or where but how, and, more importantly, why and what for? What kind of knowledge about China does the west produce? According to a newly published survey by the National Committee on US-China Relations), there’s a growing demand for work on China in the US, but the discourse is increasingly dominated by national security concerns and, as one respondent put it, the field “lacks diversity in the extreme”. Filtered through the lens of state interests, a country becomes a “challenge”, a “threat”, an “issue” to be solved. National borders align with racialised boundaries of one’s imaginative sympathy, and the Chinese people are morphed into a label, a statistic.
In the prevalent narratives about China, the central government is an almighty monster embarking on world domination, imbued with ancient foresight and effortlessly expressing its will through the vast bureaucracy of government. Public expression in China is either protest or propaganda, and the people are either helpless victims or mindless foot-soldiers of state oppression. Politicians and commentators in the US boast of plans to secure the South China Sea or protect democratic Taiwan with military force. The potential loss of life on another continent is of little concern when the real objective is maintaining American power. From Xinjiang to Hong Kong, the worst abuses of the Chinese government are appropriated to advance domestic agendas. Many postulate “punishing China” for its human rights record; few pause to ponder whether the punishments might harm the very people whose rights they claim to defend.
At public forums and in private conversations, I’m often asked: What does China want? How should we deal with them? The choice of pronouns is revealing, placing me neither here nor there. I never know how to address these comically broad questions, as if I’m some kind of dragon whisperer. Those who default to such generalisations do not really want to know China as a place. They much prefer it as an idea, a geopolitical concept that can be distilled into soundbites and translated into policy. White men can rebrand as “China experts” overnight and charge a fortune for their insights, while a Chinese person is more likely to be heard as a “dissident” than a scholar. A lone crusader against an oppressive superpower makes for an appealing narrative. It substantiates the west’s notion of China as the embodiment of authoritarian evil. It affirms to a western audience their sense of superiority. Insufficient denunciation of the Chinese regime casts doubt on one’s scholarship on China, regardless of its area of focus.
My disappointment with the biases of my profession is not a personal grievance. The heart of the matter is not how much the west understands China but how much the west understands itself. The rise of China and its role in global capitalism have challenged the economic dominance of the west, and shattered the convenient notion that the market necessarily brings freedom. To create the impression that problems of political oppression or technological abuse are uniquely Chinese is to refuse knowledge of the complexity of governance, as well as of humanity. Instead of confronting the truth about oneself, it’s much easier to collapse everything into a false binary and project fears on to a faceless other. The west is not the only party guilty of this logic.
With every passing news cycle carelessly talking up the latest Chinese “threat”, as my birth country and my adopted home appear locked in “great power rivalry”, I feel the ground splitting beneath my feet. I sometimes wonder if this precariousness is the price I must pay for leaving my homeland. Then I remind myself that generations have persisted in the margins and contested the artificial divisions that discount their humanity. If we gather enough of us and reclaim those margins, a new world may be born where no one is an exile.
