In connection with recent events, there has been a lot of discussion at the Center lately around the issues surrounding Tibet. It all started with a few international students organizing a Tibet forum – a space for the Center community to come together and discuss the topic freely. Initially, a couple Chinese students also participated in the organization of the forum, but they dropped out, with the last student dropping out on the day of the event. Despite this setback, the international student organizers managed to put together a good presentation, covering mostly American and Chinese media’s portrayal of the events.
To my count, four Chinese students attended, and only one had anything to say. Given the gravity and topicality of the issue, you might ask yourself: why so few? I asked myself and the Chinese students the same question. Here are the responses I received* and my personal reactions to each of those responses:
1. There is no “Tibet problem”, so there’s nothing to discuss.
I have noticed that the very individuals who insist that there is no “Tibet problem” or that there is nothing to discuss get into heated discussions on the issue as soon as it is brought up. They also seem to be much more willing to listen and consider alternative viewpoints from Chinese people (especially authority figures like professors) than foreigners. Also, students who refuse to participate in group discussions on the topic need almost no encouragement to discuss it with foreign classmates in private conversations or in small groups over lunch.
2. “Tibet problem” is an internal issue, so it is inappropriate to discuss it with foreigners.
As members of the academic world studying international relations, it is inevitable that we explore issues that are perceived by either side to be “internal” problems. When Chinese students study the history of Native Americans in the United States, the American Civil War, slavery and the Human Rights Movement, the treatment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, and the attacks on individual privacy and human rights within the United States in the wake of 9-11, they are free to discuss these events and to pass judgment as individuals. The Western students at the Center are also happy to discuss these issues with their Chinese classmates, because such dialog will be useful for both sides, helping us both to understand the issues at hand and widen our perspectives. Then why is it inappropriate for the Western students to try to understand China’s internal issues better through similar bilateral dialog? Would that discussion not be useful for both sides as well?
3. All Americans support free Tibet, so there’s nothing to discuss because we will never agree on anything.
It is not true that all Americans support free Tibet. Is it even less true that all Western Center students support free Tibet. Only open dialog can reveal how much agreement and disagreement actually does exist between Chinese and Western students at the Center. Further, the forum’s purpose was not to produce agreement, but to communicate and come to an understanding of both sides.
4. There is little reliable information available to either side, and none of us are experts on Tibet, so we cannot engage in a meaningful discussion
We all know that complete information is a rare luxury, and thus incomplete information, imperfect as it is, is often the best we can get. Policy-makers and business people normally make important decisions based on incomplete information. In fact, the ability to deal with ambiguity is a skill many employers emphasize when looking for professional-level personnel.
It is true that none of us are experts on Tibet. Some of us know more, some less. But the benefits of a discussion between non-experts are two-fold:
1. sharing the information we do have makes all of us better informed;
2. expressing and discussing our opinions on the matter refine our understanding of the various existing points of view.
Ideally, we will all continue to seek out information on the topic, but if we wait until we have complete information to discuss anything, we will never discuss it, because no matter how expert we are, our information will never be complete.
Democracy is in fact based on a multitude of people with varying levels of limited information making collective decisions. An argument against under-informed discourse is in effect an argument against democracy. That is not necessarily wrong, but simply something to consider.
5. Chinese students are tired of defending China’s point of view and being attacked by Westerners.
I understand this feeling, having been repeatedly “attacked” (verbally and ideologically) as an American while living in Europe and Russia. However, as an up-and-coming power, China will continue to come under such attacks. In fact, the more powerful a country is, the more attacks it has to endure from the rest of the world. If they want China’s national power to continue rising, Chinese people must learn to live with the (sometimes uncomfortable) consequences. Furthermore, the Center is one of the safest places to encounter such attacks. The Western students here are much more informed and often sympathetic to China than the average Westerner, and most of them try their best to conform their style of argumentation to China’s more conciliatory manner so as to avoid offending Chinese classmates and uphold a productive dialog.
6. Chinese students already know everything there is to know about the American point of view, so they don’t see the value of attending the forum.
There are undoubtedly many misconceptions among Americans about Tibet. However, in the weeks following the forum, I have learned how many misconceptions, faulty assumptions and generalizations exist among the Chinese students about the “Western” point of view on the Tibet issue, and about the points of view of their Western classmates. There are multiple points of view on both the American and Chinese sides.
(Frustrated aside: At the Center, I am often confronted with the Chinese students’ belief that they already know everything about American culture and opinions. First, this is ridiculous because even Americans can’t make this claim. Second, this makes me wonder why Chinese students decided to attend a Center where their education would focus on learning about the United States. And third, it is both arrogant and ignorant to presume to know everything about the United States without ever having lived there while implying that the Western students, many of whom have lived in China for years, will never understand this country.)
7. All Westerners want to do is interfere in China’s internal issues, and this is what the forum is all about.
Realistically speaking, the current Western students at the Center have few ways of effectually interfering in China’s internal issues. We simply don’t have the power to change anything in China. The purpose of the forum was not to bring about change, but to gain a better understanding of the variety of points of view that exist on both the American and the Chinese side. Although it may have been politically sensitive, in its essense the forum was an EDUCATIONAL, not a political event.
8. The American and Chinese points of view on this topic are widely available on the Internet, so there is no need to organize or attend this kind of forum if your only goal is to understand the other side’s point of view.
The lack of reliability of information gathered on the Internet is one of the reasons in attending the Center for many Western students. If we could learn everything we wanted to know about the Chinese point of view from the Internet and the media, we would not have paid so much money to come to the Center. Supposedly, the Chinese students are also here to learn about America from the source. The insights we gain from private conversations and group discussions are invaluable and (in my opinion) one of the most important aspects of our education here. Besides, reading is informative, but only dialog can provide one with the dual opportunity to respond and be responded to, to question and be questioned.
9. We believe that there is only one way to approach the Tibet issue, and we’re not willing to accept any other solutions.
As recent events have clearly shown, the current approach is not working very well. Maybe it’s time to discuss alternatives or at least adjustments to the current strategy.
10. We don’t want to voice our true opinions on politically sensitive topics in front of our Chinese classmates for fear of criticism or even social isolation.
I wonder how many Chinese students feel that way but are afraid to say so, and I am grateful to those who were brave enough to reveal this concern to me, even if they did so in private.
Basically, the Chinese students boycotted the forum. To me, this action was a refusal to expose oneself to ideas contrary to one’s own (and especially those coming from foreigners) on a topic that is overwhelmingly perceived as an “internal issue.” The motivations of individual students in choosing to boycott the forum might have been somewhat different, but the message was the same: we (the Chinese) are right, and you (the foreigners) are wrong not only in your ideas but also in your insistence on meddling in other people’s business.
* This is a collection of responses of a number of individuals and is not meant as a quotation or direct representation of the reaction of any one person.
The topic of marriage has been coming up constantly in conversation with my friends at the Center. Some of them are already married, others looking, and a few have already given up on the whole idea. Images of the ideal spouse vary somewhat, but overall are strikingly similar and often defy cultural stereotypes.