Read my latest story, "The All-Nighter", at 52|250.

This Wall Street Journal piece about a new book with a title that translates as Unhappy China misses the function of nationalism in the PRC. The government maintains its grip in part by instilling nationalistic pride in its youth (which in itself isn’t especially unique). Disaffected college students and workers then blame local entities (governmental or private) for their troubles rather than blame the national government. Moreover, when issues like Tibetan independence are framed as questions of nationalism (China, the savior of Tibetan slaves, versus the hypocritical West according to CCTV9 broadcasts during the Olympic torch relay), it becomes nearly impossible for students and workers to connect their own causes and issues with other movements. 

Given this function, why have state-run media outlets criticized this book? The slightly better Time article on the subject points to one reason: “the fear is that if the sentiment flares unchecked, it could push Beijing to take a belligerent, isolationist line.” That would certainly be bad for business.

Note, too, that at least some of the criticism is not of extreme nationalism but, rather, of taking advantage of a nationalism that, it is assumed, ought to exist. The Wall Street Journal article quotes China Youth Daily as claiming that the authors are seeking to profit from nationalism, “fish[ing] money from the pockets of the angry youth and angry elderly”. This sort of critique reinscribes the value of nationalism by the very angle of attack.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rebecca Novick: China Makes a Song and Dance About Tibet’s ‘Liberation’ (huffingtonpost.com)
• Modernization poses new challenge for Tibetans (nationalpost.com)
• China marks 50 years of direct control over Tibet (ctv.ca)
• China bans Oasis (telegraph.co.uk)
• Capitalism Finds Voice in China TV (nytimes.com)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.