丹尼爾·貝爾 - 西方媒體妖魔化中國

丹尼爾·貝爾 - 妖魔化中國

布雷斯特地緣政治
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa8VwubthSY

再次感謝你的邀請，我會用英語發言，但如果我能參加活動，我很樂意用法語回答問題。我被要求對“中國是一個鐵板一塊的他者”這一觀點提出質疑。

與我們習以為常的西方社會和文明相比，中國是一個根本不同的社會和文明。我來自加拿大蒙特利爾，當然我也來自西方背景。我認為這種觀點也導致了西方媒體對中國的妖魔化。西方媒體幾乎沒有報道中國發生的好事，中國被描繪成一個整體，從西方的角度來看，它既不同又糟糕。我認為這在經驗上是錯誤的。首先，中國並非一個鐵板一塊的“他者”。事實上，中國高度多元化，我的意思是，把中國看作某種類型的大陸更合理。中國如此多元化，我指的是不僅僅是農村地區、城市地區，以及中國不同地區的多元文化，那裏有民族群體和宗教群體，地理上非常多元化的中國，甚至城市也如此不同。我的意思是，任何去過中國的人都知道，
北京和上海是如此不同，坦率地說，來自這兩個城市的人
通常彼此看不順眼，他們認為自己也非常
不同。嗯，你可以說，這有點像
經驗主義。那麽，我的規範性觀點是，中國真的
像西方媒體通常呈現的那樣糟糕嗎？嗯，這裏也是如此。我的意思是，這又是一種嚴重的
誇張，中國發生了很多不好的事情，
例如在新疆的鎮壓，
坦率地說，香港加強了
審查製度，這對我這樣的學者來說並不好，但也有很多好處。事情
首先，自從武漢早期出現失誤以來，中國在應對疫情方麵做得相對不錯。我的意思是，中國幅員遼闊。我們基本上可以自由地過著正常的
生活，去咖啡館、去餐館、去學校、去大學、去經商，以及
在大陸各地旅行。因為中國
政府在應對疫情方麵發揮了重要作用，
得到了人民的大力支持。
還有很多其他因素，
讓我們感到樂觀。中國比以前更加重視環境問題，
不僅致力於短期的環境進步，
而且致力於應對氣候變化。長期來看，減貧
是
我們可以用任何詞來形容它。
這是一個了不起的成就，
據估計，已有8億中國人
擺脫了貧困。嗯，作為一名學者，我
對傳統的
興起或複興
非常著迷。
包括儒家思想關於儒教、佛教和道教的爭論非常激烈，它們在20世紀的大部分時間裏基本上已經消亡了。所以，中國也有很多好事發生。我認為，我們有理由對長期發展保持樂觀，但也有一些壞事。所以我們不得不問：為什麽會有這種妖魔化現象？最近這種現象變得更加嚴重。為什麽？為什麽會發生這種情況？不僅僅是……當然，媒體的報道是其中的一部分，而且這種情況在西方政治領導人中也很常見。有時，他們會去中國，甚至普通民眾，呃，普通民眾，他們……有時不認識來中國的人。嗯，我認為來中國的人，實際上通常會對中國有更細致的了解。因此，進行更多交流非常重要。這不僅包括普通民眾的交流，也包括學術交流。非政府組織之間也需要更多商業交流。當然，更多的政治交流，以應對共同的挑戰，例如全球變暖等等，這非常重要。我認為，這樣的交流越多，妖魔化就越少。但真正的驅動力是什麽？這種妖魔化觀點，認為中國是西方的根本敵人，是要破壞西方。我們真的應該對此感到擔憂。我認為，基本上有一種觀點，而且這種觀點在過去幾年裏變得更加突出，認為中國與眾不同，不會變得像我們一樣。尤其是在美國，我認為，也許在法國，在某種程度上，在我的家鄉加拿大，你們當中有些人認為中國正在進行改革，在經濟上進行改革，變得更加市場化，最終，它將在政治上自由化，它將變得像西方式的自由民主，但這需要時間。這
隻是時間問題
但現在我認為人們已經認識到，而且
我認為這種認識是準確的
那就是中國
不一定會
在很多方麵變得像我們一樣
它有自己的
傳統和文化，有自己的組織方式
經濟，有自己的政治方式
在許多重要方麵與西方
自由民主國家
有所不同
現在這是一個問題我隻想說，有兩個理由不認為這是一個問題。首先，在某些方麵，包括政治價值觀在內的價值觀在原則層麵上存在著實質性的共通性。中國，包括其領導人、知識分子和普通民眾，都致力於維護基本人權，即個人有權不遭受酷刑、不被殺害、不被奴役、不遭受種族滅絕。原則上，沒有人會真正反對這一點。從這個意義上講，這與西方的情況類似。你知道，西方隻有瘋狂的恐怖分子才反對這一原則。對，但這隻是一個小原則，沒有爭議。這不是一個道德論點。我的意思是，理想與現實之間總是存在差距。從這個意義上講，這更像是一個經驗論證。它關乎的是，揭示理想與現實在基本人權承諾方麵的差距。這在中國如此，在西方國家也是如此。你知道，美國和法國也犯下了可怕的侵犯人權行為，我們需要揭露它們。但這也不是一個道德問題。這是一個經驗性的論點。在傳統中國，存在著一種不同的觀點。有一種觀點認為，你可以在公共場合以非常殘酷的方式折磨他人，嗯，作為一種懲罰方式。
現在中國已經沒有人公開捍衛這種觀點了。
所以從這個意義上來說，兩者已經趨同。我們可以說，
西方和中國都已經發展到了一種共同的道德承諾。
那麽民主呢？
嗯，在中國曆史上的大部分時間裏，
確實沒有對
普通民眾參與民主的承諾。
但在這裏，也發生了變化，在某種程度上，我們可以稱之為
與西方觀點的趨同。有一種觀點認為，
中國普通民眾在一定程度上可以而且應該通過協商論壇參與政治。
他們應該在一定程度上被征求意見，
了解他們想要什麽。
他們應該參與地方實驗，
了解組織政治的方式。
中國有很多多樣性，
很多地方實驗
選舉也很普遍，
在基層被廣泛接受。
據估計，在村級選舉中，大約有9億中國人參加了基層選舉。
那麽，在基層，分歧究竟在哪裏？再次強調，是道德分歧。
嗯，分歧不在於人們是否能夠並且應該參與政治，而在於
高層領導人是否應該通過
一人一票的方式選出。
這在原則上是有區別的，當然在現實中也是如此。
現在在西方，我們認為，哦，哦，他們
反對民主選舉，這意味著
他們支持威權主義，而威權主義
當然是貶義的，對吧？
如果你不知道自己是否反對民主，那就意味著你支持
威權主義，所有反對的國家
都把僧侶們歸為一類。
朝鮮是家族獨裁政權。
今天，你看到緬甸是軍人政權。獨裁政權
埃及、泰國，嗯，嗯，也存在類似的獨裁政權。
或者沙特阿拉伯，像蘇丹家族統治的那種，或者隨便你怎麽形容，還有中國，它們都被混為一談了，這太荒謬了。讓我說說，我知道我隻能再說10分鍾，但
我還需要5分鍾，希望你能
原諒我。嗯，中國與其他非民主政治體製的真正區別是什麽？
首先，
值得注意的是，中國已經進行了大量的政治改革。
你知道，西方媒體有一種迷思，
非常受歡迎，很多經濟改革
都停滯不前，這意味著
更多的市場改革，但沒有政治改革，
因為同一個政黨仍然在位，
仍然掌權。
如果你超越這一點，看看現在的中國和文革時期的中國有什麽區別。
混亂
1966-1976年，以及40年後的今天
這是一個完全不同的政治
體製，主要區別是什麽？這是重建一種
賢能政治的努力，這意味著政治體製旨在根據卓越的能力和德行來選拔和提拔公職人員。在中國，賢能政治是一個可以追溯到2500年前的古老理念。從製度上講，這意味著我們需要一個複雜的官僚機構來選拔和提拔這樣的官員。那些通過政治體係晉升的人，需要經曆長達數十年的政治過程，在貧困地區和富裕地區的鄉村，擁有不同層級政府的豐富經驗，直到成為更高層級政府的領導人。這是一個非常古老的理念，它包含賢能機製，最著名的是科舉製度，用於選拔能力更強的領導人。至於科舉製度是否像德行一樣，在中國曆史上一直存在爭議，現在仍在繼續。這種理念推動了政治變革，我認為它啟發了許多政治改革。中國已經現在的情況大不相同，官僚體製錯綜複雜。所有政府領導人都擁有豐富的政治經驗，但理想與現實之間仍然存在差距。記住，領導者應該具備卓越的能力和美德。美德的本質是什麽？它的根本含義是不能腐敗。所以，我們仍然知道政治體係中存在很多腐敗現象。這意味著理想與現實之間存在差距。問題是，我們應該用什麽標準來評估中國的政治進步？普遍認為，這個標準應該是：政府高層實行政治賢能製，基層則更多地實行民主。這正是激勵中國政治體製的理想。如果要描述中國，我們可以稱之為一個非常不完善的民主賢能製，或者說，一個非常不完善的政治賢能製。就像美國或法國現在是一個非常不完善的民主國家一樣。這是否應該讓我們感到擔憂？如果我們關心的是一人一票，呃，在中國，選出最高領導人
我的意思是，是的，這確實是一個挑戰
因為如果
在哈洛政府實行競爭性選舉，
這將削弱
政治賢能政治的優勢，即
政府可以進行10年、20年、30年的長期規劃
如果實行競爭性選舉，
通常你會有四五年的規劃，不會更長
所有領導人都有政治經驗，
他們不會犯初學者的錯誤
嗯，而且領導者可以花更多時間
專注於政策，
而不是像美國領導人那樣花費大量時間
籌集資金，
或者一遍又一遍地發表同樣的演講，
想想看，這有點浪費時間
理想情況下，你希望領導者專注於
政策，
所以中國原則上反對在政府高層實行一人一票，
因為有必要保持
政治尚賢製的優勢
嗯，這是否意味著它對西方構成了
挑戰？
嗯，不是。中國不想輸出其
模式。中國認識到政治
尚賢製在中國很重要，
因為中國擁有悠久的政治文化，
也因為像中國這樣的大國，在更高層級建立更多的
尚賢製機製很重要，
嗯，那些沒有這種政治文化、沒有
複雜官僚體製曆史的國家
算了吧，他們不會
學習這種模式的。
學習這種模式非常困難，而且中國
沒有興趣輸出這種模式。
所以不用擔心。中國可以
在自己的模式上發展，就像西方
應該努力完善自己的
民主根基和基礎一樣。
我們應該在共同的挑戰上合作，
比如氣候變化、全球變暖、核武器監管、危險形式的人工智能監管等等。
我的意思是，我認為這些都非常重要。
坦白說，
在西方，我們變得更加
思想封閉，我們並非一直如此。
在法國，讓-雅克·克魯索當然
以捍衛一種非常強大的民主形式而聞名。
但當他被要求為一個大國（比如波蘭總督）提供建議時，
他捍衛的是一種民主程度低得多，
坦率地說，官僚主義色彩更濃的組織形式。
呃，這種組織形式實際上更接近於
中國的賢能政治理念。
嗯，喬恩·斯圖爾特·密爾，偉大的英國自由黨人。
他反對一人投票製，他說，
並非每個人都擁有同等的政治判斷能力，
所以我們應該給受過教育的人
額外的選票。
我們可以爭論他的想法是否正確，
但至少它被認真對待了。
現在在西方，我們變得非常
教條地堅持一人投票製，
認為它是唯一
在道德上合法的選舉政府領導人的方式。我們需要更加
開放地思考，
以允許其他在道德上……理想的
可能性
讓我們恢複我們過去擁有的這種開放心態
所以我就此結束吧，我認為中國
也有不同的理由
嗯，是它組織經濟的方式
我認為它不會是純粹的資本主義
它仍然堅定地致力於
嗯，某種社會主義的理想
原則
但由於時間有限，我就到此為止了
非常感謝

Daniel Bell - The Demonization of China

Les Géopolitiques de Brest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa8VwubthSY

thank you um for the invitation again and i will speak in english but i'm
happy to respond to questions in french if i can participate in the event itself i was asked to cast some doubt on the idea that china is a kind of monolithic other
a kind of um fundamentally different society and civilization compared to what we are used to in the west and i'm from canada from montreal and of course i'm from the western context as well i think that there's also this idea contributes to
the what we can call the demonization of china in the western media there's hardly any reports of good stuff happening in china and china is presented as kind of monolithic whole that's both different and bad from a kind of western perspective i think that's just empirically wrong for one thing china is not a monolithic hold in fact it's highly diverse i mean it makes more sense to think of china as a kind of european continent so diverse i mean not just the rural area and the city areas and the different parts of china where there's
ethnic groups and religious groups that very geographically diverse china but also even the cities are so different i mean any of you who have been to china you know that beijing and shanghai are just so different and frankly speaking often people from those cities don't like each other they regard themselves as very different as well um you can say well that's kind of
empirical for what about my kind of normative point of view is china really
as bad as is presented in typically in the western
media well here too i mean again it's a gross
exaggeration there's many bad things
happening in china the repression in xinjiang
in hong kong frankly increased
censorship which is not good for
academics like me but there's also a lot of good stuff
happening for one thing since the early mistakes in wuhan now
china has done a good job relatively speaking at dealing
with covet i mean it's a huge country
we're basically free to leave normal
lives go to cafes go to restaurants go
to schools go to universities go to business and to
travel within this whole
kind of continent because china has the
government has done a good role
of dealing with covet with the strong
support of the people
and many other things are reasons to
make us optimistic china has taken the
environment much more seriously than before with a
strong commitment not just to short-term environmental
progress but to dealing with climate
change in the long term poverty reduction i mean it's
we can use whatever words we use i mean
it's an amazing achievement that
it's estimated that 800 million chinese
have been lifted
out of poverty um as an academic i'm
fascinated by the
uh in rise or the revival of traditions
including confucianism there's very
lively debates about
uh confucianism buddhism taoism which
was basically dead
for most of the 20th century so
there's lots of good stuff happening in
china as well i i think there's reasons
to be optimistic
um for the long term as well as bad
things so we have to ask
why is there this demonization it's
gotten much worse of late
why what's why is it happening not just
in
i mean of course the media portrayal is
part of it but it's quite common
among political leaders in the west uh
sometimes who travel to china um
and and and and even ordinary people who
uh ordinary citizens who who who
don't know who come to china sometimes
um i think that people who come to china
actually usually have a much more
nuanced picture and it's very important
to have more exchanges
both of ordinary citizens terms of
travel but also academic exchanges
ngos more business interchange and of
course more political
exchanges to deal with common challenges
like global warming and so on
that's hugely important and i think the
more of that there is the less
demonization there'll be
but what's really driving it what's
driving this demonization this view that
china is a kind of
fundamental enemy to the west and that
and that is out to undermine the west
and
we really should worry about it
i think basically there's a view and
it's become much more prominent the past
few years
that china is different and it's not
going to become like us
i mean especially in the u.s i think
maybe
in france to a certain extent in canada
where i'm from
those of you that china is reforming
reforming economically becoming more
market society and eventually it's going
to become
it's going to liberalize politically and
it'll become
just like a western-style liberal
democracy but it'll just take time it's
just a matter of time
but now i think there's recognition and
i think it's accurate
recognition that no china won't
necessarily become like us in many ways
it has its own
traditions and cultures its own ways of
organizing
the economy its own ways of organizing
politics that will differ
in many important ways from western
style liberal democracies
now is that a problem well let me just
say for there's two reasons
not to view it as a problem the first is
that
in some ways there is substantial
commonality
of values including political values
at the level of principle china
including its leaders
and intellectuals and common people
are committed to basic human rights the
idea that
individuals have a right not to be
tortured
not to be killed
not to be enslaved not subject
to genocide in principle
nobody you know will seriously disagree
with that in that sense it's similar to
the west
you know who disagrees with that only
with the principle only crazy terrorists
right
but it's little principle there's no
dispute here it's not a moral argument
i mean of course there's always a gap
between the ideal and the reality
and in that sense it's more of an
empirical argument it's a matter of
exposing the gap between
the ideal and the reality of commitment
to basic human rights
that's true in china it's also true in
western countries you know the us
and france also commit horrible human
rights abuses and we need to expose them
but again it's not a moral argument it's
an empirical argument
in traditional china there was a
different view right there was a view
that you can
you can torture people in very brutal
ways in public
um as a way of kind of punishment
nobody in china openly defends that view
anymore so in this sense there has been
convergence and we can argue that both
the west and china
have progressed to a common moral
commitment
in that sense what about democracy
well it's true that in most of chinese
history there wasn't a commitment to
democracy in the sense of participation
by ordinary people
but here too there's been a change and a
certain extent we can call it a
convergence
with western views there is a view that
common people in china to a certain
extent
can and should participate in politics
through deliberative
forums they should be consulted to a
certain extent about what they want they
should participate in local experiments
about ways of organizing uh politics
there's a lot of diversity in china a
lot of local experimentation
and elections too are very common and
widely accepted at local levels at the
village level
it's estimated that it uh so about 900
million
chinese have participated in elections
at local levels
so where exactly is the area of
disagreement again the area of moral
disagreement
well it's not about the idea that
people can and should participate in
politics it's about the idea that
top level leaders should be selected by
means of one person one vote
there is here a difference and in
principle of course in reality as well
now in the west we think oh oh they
oppose
the democratic elections that means that
they favor
authoritarianism and authoritarianism of
course is pejorative right
if you don't know if you're against
democracy it means you favor
authoritarianism
and all the countries that are against
the monks are lumped up together
north korea family-run dictatorships
today you see
myanmar military-run dictatorships
you have similar uh dictatorships in
uh in egypt and and and in thailand um
or else saudi arabia
family run kind of uh sultans or however
you want to describe it
and china they're all lumped up together
that's
ridiculous let me speak i know i'm only
allowed to speak for 10 more minutes but
i need five more minutes i hope you'll
forgive me
um what really distinguishes china from
these other non-democratic
political systems well for one thing
it's worth noting that there's been
tremendous amount of political reform in
china
you know there's a myth in the western
media very popular a lot of economic
reform all that stalled of late meaning
more market reform but no political
reform because the same
political party is still in place still
in power
over if you look beyond that over the
difference in china now
between china and the cultural
revolution this period of chaos
1966-76 and now 40 years later
it's a totally different political
system what is the main difference
it's an effort to re-establish a kind of
political meritocracy
which means that the political system
aims to select
and promote public officials on the
basis of superior ability and virtue
in chinese xi'an non-jung it's a very
old ideal goes back 2500 years
and institutionally it means that we
need a complex bureaucracy
designed to select and promote such
officials and those who rise through the
political systems a decades-long
political process
requ have to have a lot of player
experience at different levels of
government
in villages in poor areas and rich areas
until they become
leaders at higher levels of government
it's a very old ideal
and has meritocratic mechanisms most
famously the examination system which is
used to select
leaders with higher ability and and and
well whether or not it's like virtue is
a controversy in chinese history ongoing
controversy now
now this is the idea that motivates
political change and i think it has
inspired much political reform china is
very much different now complex
bureaucracy
all government leaders have a lot of
political experience and there's still a
gap though between the ideal and the
reality
remember leaders should have superior
ability and virtue what's virtue at
bottom it means don't be corrupt so
there's
we still know there's a lot of
corruption in the political system so it
means that there is a gap between ideal
and the reality the question is what
standards should we use
to assess political progress in china
and this widespread agreement that that
standard should be
political meritocracy at higher levels
of government
and much more democracy at lower levels
of government
that's the kind of ideal that motivates
a chinese political system and if you
want to describe china we can call it a
highly imperfect
democratic meritocracy or let's just say
a highly imperfect political meritocracy
just as the us or france is a highly
imperfect democracy right
now should that worry us well
at one level if we care about one person
one vote uh to select top leaders in
china
i mean yes there is a challenge here
um because there if
competitive elections were to be
implemented at harlow's government it
would undermine the advantages of
political meritocracy which is that
governments can engage in long-term
planning 10 20 30 years
if there were competitive elections and
usually you'd have a four or five year
horizon not much longer
all leaders have political experience
they don't make beginners mistakes
um and leaders can spend more time
focusing on policy
as opposed to say spending a lot of time
raising money like leaders in the u.s
or giving the same speech over and over
again which is a you know think about it
a bit of waste of time
ideally you want leaders to focus on
policy so
so china is against one person one vote
in principle at higher levels of
government
because it's necessary to maintain
advantages of political meritocracy
um now does this mean that it's a
challenge to the the west
well no china doesn't want to export its
model china recognizes that political
meritocracy is important in china
because it has a long political culture
and because it it's important a large
state like china to have more
meritocratic mechanisms at higher levels
um by countries that don't have this
political culture and don't have a
history of complex bureaucracy
forget about it they're not going to uh
it's very hard to
learn this model and china has no
interest in exporting this model
so there's no worry about it china can
build on its own model just as the west
should try to improve on its own
democratic roots and foundations
and we should collaborate together on
common challenges
like uh climate change global warming
regulation nuclear weapons regulation of
dangerous forms of ai and so on
i mean i think that's all very important
and frankly speaking
in the west we've become more
closed-minded we weren't always this way
in france jean-jacques crusoe of course
famously defended a very strong form of
democracy
but when he was asked to advise a large
state like the governor of poland
he defended a much less democratic and
frankly much more bureaucratic form of
uh organization much closer actually to
china's idea of political meritocracy
um jon stewart mill the great british
liberal
he he opposed one person vote he says
not everybody has equal capacity to make
political judgments so we should give
extra votes to educated people
we can argue about whether he had a good
idea but at least it was taken seriously
now in the west we become very
dogmatically attached to one person vote
as the only morally legitimate way of selecting
government leaders we need to be much
more open-minded
to allow for other morally uh desirable
possibilities to recover this open-mindedness that we
had in the past so i'm going to end here i think china
also has a different case to make for
uh it's it's the way that it organizes
its economy it won't be purely capitalist i think
it's still strongly committed to
uh kind of the ideals of socialism metal
principle but because of lack of time i will end
here thank you very much