I bloody love Jeremy Goldkorn. A rare thing...a China-loving foreigner not afraid to tell it exactly as he sees it.

@pug_s,

This is not an isolated issue caused by selective memory or the exaggerated media influence of the Yueyue case. The reason Yueyue made the news is that two drivers actively ran the child over. If it were just a case of bystanders ignoring someone in peril the incident would not have been out of the ordinary.

Nor is this a new problem. I remember reading essays dating back to the 1990s about exactly this same problem in Hong Kong, where bystanders essentially stood rubbernecking at accidents while ignoring cries for help. Whether this phenomenon is worse in China than other countries is perhaps a fair question, but you can hardly accuse Kaiser and crew of misreading the zeitgeist -- Chinese intellectuals have been complaining about this problem for a long time. And I've also heard quite a number say that the solution is for other people (and usually the poor) to be more religious.

@orbital,

Well, these Chinese 'intellectuals' are wrong. Why don't you google the term "bystander effect?" It doesn't just happen in China alone by 'uncaring' bystanders, but it happens anywhere. I am surprised that this podcast didn't even discuss about this, perhaps the lack of research or worse, purposely omit this fact.

Not impressed with this cast at all, it seemed like a sermon for Christianity, esp. from this David guy, dishing on the entire cultural history of the country and contrasting it with Christianity, all religions show themselves to be morally bankrupt sooner or later.

You don't need religion for morals.

@shinnernerious,

While I think religion is to some degree helpful for morals. But there must be other factors related to this topic, for example, in a society how man in power acts. The reason why a society need morals is that they help the exchanges among people keep going on. If one person is immoral, people will condemn him and stop exchanging with him. But what if the person has something everybody have to exchange with him? Maybe people around him will at one hand still condemn him, but at the other hand start to imitate him.

--Amber

amber@popupchinese.com

I think some people were listening to this podcast with half an ear, for heaven's sake. (Oops, I shouldn't say "heaven's sake" I guess.) Nobody on the podcast was advocating Christianity or Buddhism or any religion for China. Nor were we saying that you need religion to have morals. We were merely reporting what very many CHINESE people themselves are saying about their own country, and why they are turning to religion in droves, which is just a fact, folks. We were doing reportage, anthropology. And please, I would never "dish on the entire cultural history of China." I know that I'm often rather inarticulate or unclear, and sorry about that, but I never came close to saying anything like you heard. But thanks for listening.

By the way, for folks interested in hearing more, there is another podcast on basically the same topic on Popup, a panel discussion with Evan Osnos, Ian Johnson and Gady Epstein, "China's Moral Crisis". http://popupchinese.com/lessons/cet/chinas-moral-crisis

Links to recommendations please? Thought provoking as always!

@pug_s

You're either deliberately misconstruing the views discussed on the podcast, or you didn't listen to it properly. At no point did anyone advocate, implicitely or explicitly, the spread of religion in China as a means of providing a moral framework, or for any other reason for that matter. If you don't get that, that's your loss.

But, at the very least, you shouldn't disrespect the very people who are responisble for the content of this site, while at the same time having the nerve to benefit from it. Expressing disagreement with their views is one thing, but the tone and language you use towards them in your last reply in particular is completely uncalled for - especially when both Kaiser and David Moser have posted here to explain their views, which by the way, they didn't have to. The podcast was clear enough to anyone who was actually listening to what they were saying.

While I thought the discussion on religion in the context of moral frameworks was perhaps overemphasized, it's plain to see that those involved in the discussion were either playing devil's advocate, or exploring views that were clearly not their own. This was so stupefyingly obvious, that it's both baffling you didn't latch on to it, and ironic that you went on a tirade against them. Calling the hosts "Jesus freaks" is as insulting as it is incorrect and, frankly, embarrassing - and I mean embarrassing for you, because it makes sound like a tool.

Pug. You are awesome. You sound just like my wife, and so many other Chinese that I have met that are such excellent people, that completely reject the notion that China is somehow evil. I wonder how these people sleep at night when their entire success is derived from China. Frankly, they should be grateful they are here, as opposed to in the United States. Which is partly how they can ask ridiculous and offensive questions like the subject of this podcast.

@theoriginaljedi, rorym123

Absolutely. much like why it is so ridiculous when many foreigners were offended when Yang Rui made his 'foreign trash' statement. Those 'hyper-sensitive' foreigners were just overreacting.

@trevelyan

I think what 'moral' issue in China that you are talking is due to China was a poor communist society where most people have nothing, to a capitalist society with all the 'moral' problems that comes with it. Probably many people who have the nostalgia of the 'good old days' when life was simple. How can China be a corrupt society when people had nothing? So is Chinese society more corrupt than 40 years ago? Yes Does that mean that people want to live like in the old communist days? Probably not. So that's why the discussion of morality to try to fight it does not mean that Chinese people are immoral in general.

What I don't agree is with the speakers using the oversimplification religious/Confucian slant as well as the current government has anything to do with it.

Sinica,

I mostly agree with you with what you said. There are definitely moral issues within China from a social standpoint which I mostly agree. However, what you discussed in the podcast and not mentioned above is the moral issues from a religious and government standpoint. While it is certainly true there is a spiritual revival within China and government corruption, they have little to do with morality in China in general. To lump these topics together in one podcast is misleading at best. I am not the only person who made this complaint. Sorry, I am not going to listen this podcast again, as these cheap remarks by Didi Kirsten Tatlow about the Chinese government and Jeremy about Yue Yue, pm 2.5 and people going to foreign schools pissed me off.

MENTIONS

Stifled Laughter: How the Communist Party Killed Chinese Humor, by David Moser

http://www.danwei.org/tv/stifled_laughter_how_the_commu.php

RECOMMENDATIONS

Didi Kirsten Tatlow:

Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age, by Robert N. Bellah

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Human-Evolution-Paleolithic-Axial/dp/0674061438/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339388637&sr=8-1

David Moser:

Sino-Platonic Papers, edited by Victor H. Mair

http://www.sino-platonic.org/

The Mandarin and the Cadre: China's Political Cultures (Michigan Monographs in Chinese Studies), by Lucian Pye

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mandarin-Cadre-Political-Monographs/dp/0892640839/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339389092&sr=1-1

Jeremy Goldkorn:

The Marco Polo Project

http://marcopoloproject.org/online/

Kaiser Kuo:

The China History Podcast, by Laszlo Montomery

http://chinahistorypodcast.com/

Understanding China's Political System, a Congressional Research Service report by Susan V. Lawrence and Michael F. Martin [DIRECT LINK]

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41007.pdf

Wow. A lively debate. Can I attempt to calm things by making a uncontroversial and - some may say - rather prosaic point: the standalone MP3 download link isn't working. Having come this far without having given in to Apple's wily ways, this link is my only means of listening to Sinica - please fix! Thanks:)

@pug_s

I hope you reconsider on not listening to the podcast bit again, while i also was not impressed with the way guests put their points across in this particular discourse, the show is not static and changes guests and topics regularly, so boycotting it makes little sense over 1 episode.

Show is still the best English language China related podcast on the net.

I finally managed to listen to the podcast on my drive into London this morning. Agree that this was one of the most stimulating Sinicas ever (I'll resist the 'best' vs 'worst' tags). I guess my only very slight criticism is that I felt that many of the issues discussed were presented as being pertinent only to China (recognising that Jeremy did make explicit reference to South Africa). There were several occasions where I felt the problems being dissected were equally as applicable to the UK, or perhaps US society, as China. In your discussion of the place of civic virtue, you might have considered how the US political system was, essentially, constructed on the basis of the IMPOSSIBILITY of leaders being (and remaining) virtuous. I thought you guys overlooked the fact that virtue was recognised as unrealistically idealistic - at least in the political context - and written into (or 'out of') the constitution as such.

On the flipside, you also assumed that Communism, by its very nature, neglects morality and yet, at the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, isn't communism, theoretically at least, all about the notion of 'to each according to his needs'. Clearly, communism's praxis hasn't ever quite worked out this way, but it is at least a framework for morality which is at the heart of communist (though perhaps not Maoist) ideology, no?

Anyway, great podcast. Keep up the good work, folks.

just recently started listening to sinica - very excited! what a great set of programs you guys have. and all the high end

You should put those recommendations in the actual mp3s. In the tags, I mean.

Not really related, but I have a question that you might be able to help with.

I'm looking for a recording of something like this, any ideas where I could get one?

It's a 吹风会 from the Chinese Foreign Ministry. I'm studying interpreting at the moment and it would be really helpful.

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/gxh/tyb/zyxw/t940233.htm

There's so much material out there in English, but finding Chinese material that is recorded and recorded well is so hard.

@amber

I could only listen half-way through the podcast before having to stop it – I could not take anymore.

I think the respective panel members should first examine where their own morals come from first. And then study where the morals of their respective societies come from next. What were the morals of their own society like 50, 100, 150 years ago? Do this before commenting on the morals of other societies.

I believe the mainland Chinese and persons of western societies (I’m an American) share the very same characteristics (human nature). It is our respective histories that make us different. St. Augustine wrote “Time is not inert. It does not roll on through our senses without affecting us. Its passing has remarkable effects on the mind.”

Regarding Christianity – Lao Tzu in “Tao Teh Ching”, chapter 81, wrote “The sage never tries to store things up. The more he does for others, the more he has. The more he gives to others, the greater his abundance.” Which very surprisingly sounds a lot like what St. Francis of Assisi said “Remember that when you leave this earth, you can take with you nothing that you have received - only what you have given.” Also, Kong Fuzi said “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others". Which is very similar to Matthew 7:12 “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.”

I believe Christianity (I’m a Roman Catholic), faithfully practiced, provides a very very good basis for morals. I also believe the teachings of Kong Fuzi, as well as Lao Tzu, also provide a good basis for morals.

@amber

I agree with what you write, however, the sages (Chinese or Christian) did not teach morals for their own benefit. They taught morals for us to benefit.

If a person does not follow morals, they will probably selfishly “benefit” themselves only. However, the society, on a whole, will suffer. The society will be held back in its development.

If a person follows the sage’s teachings regarding morals, then the society will benefit greatly.

Think what it would be like if everyone as least tried to follow the teachings of Lao Tzu, Kong Fuzi, St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi, and other Great Sages. :-)

@Amber,

The overriding reason why, in our modern society, that the teachings of the great sages have been largely disregarded, especially by the youth, is because there is a massive amount of material worship and focus on materialism, more than any other time in recent history. People have also been force fed the idea of "easy street" as being the best place in life to be. Once you're on "easy street" then "life will be perfect".

Money equals happiness. Money is God.

More material equals more happiness. The most material equals the most happiness.

People these days want the be the owners of all the expensive luxury products and the newest and most beautiful objects as a way to validate themselves as people. In this world, material is king, everything else is second.

Success equals self-validation, material equals success.

People see that shallow, callous and uneducated "idols" like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardasian are stars, because they are rich and famous. They live the "dream life" that is 幸福 because they can drive expensive cars, play with expensive toys, eat expensive foods and throw away expensive things. Young people are told that these people are better than us, because they have money. They are idolized by millions. They put out sex tapes and are celebrated for it. They sport a new style and their images are plastered all over the news and media. The message seems quite clear.

These people are great.

These people *must* have something that the average person doesn't have, that *must* be the reason for all the attention and adulation.

All over the world people who hold high positions in life, whether they have done anything to deserve it or not, are the masters of the universe.

They are better than us.

High positions and lots of money equal success. Money equals success, success equals happiness (幸福).

Do the least amount of work and effort that you can and get paid the most possible for it. Make money while you sleep. Do nothing and money flows into your account like the tides under a full mooon, that's the ultimate validation of you as a person. A big number on a big bank account with your name on it.

The Steve Jobs of the world who've brought us "sexy" and sophisticated toys and who come with "brilliant" philosophical quips like, "stay hungry, stay foolish" are and the great "thinkers" of our generation, and the new philosophers and sages. They even come complete with their own respective cults of personality.

Because they are materially successful. They possess vast fortunes. Big bank accounts with big numbers with their name on them. Big numbers equal big fame, big fame equals big happiness (幸福).

It's no wonder why there is a large-scale, amount of hedonistic materialism among the younger Chinese generation. It's no wonder why there is a great question of morality being discussed here.

When everything in your environment tells a person that money is God, and that eveything from the west, including our western callousness, laziness, decadence, apathy, bloated sense of entitlement and self importance as well as our willingness to step on and expoit others for ones own personal benefit are the great road map to a "better life" or 幸福, then it's a bit difficult to resist the programming that surrounds you and listen to your own inner thoughts and feelings and come to a better judgement about what's really important in this world.

The teachings and values of the great sages, values like brotherly love, discipline, kindness, sincerity, charity, cooperation, self-cultivation, responsibility, honor, etc., are viewed as barriers that keep us from our material success or 幸福 and are long-standing conspiracies that are meant to keep our upward mobility in check, it's no wonder why the Chinese youth have thrown off these barriers. Streamline. The quickest shortcut to material wealth is what's paramount here.

Economy is everything, man is nothing.

Man is but a product of his environment.

The environment is material-centric.

This is a pervasive, top-down, wide-reaching thought pattern that has seeped it's way into the fabric of nearly every county in the world, with the possible exception of North Korea.

This mentality will not change with a few quips from Confucius or Lei Feng plastered on a poster. Although it might help a bit, it will never get at the root of the problem.

First, I want to thank the Sinica team for an excellent podcast keeping us up to date on goings on China. I don't have any personal or professional connections to China. I came to this podcast via the China History Podcast which in turn I sought out out of a frustration with the Western portrayals of China based on the ethnocentric ideology neo-orientalism.

If I have an ax to grind, it is through my origins in Central Europe which has always gotten the same myopic treatment as China. As such, I fully understand the frustration expressed by some people in the comments with this episode. I understand that the discourse was full of caveats but its foundations were in expatriate condescension (as were some other episodes). As someone who has had to deal with expats in my own country and then became one, I recognize echos of chronic low level culture shock in the stories being told by the participants in the discussion. I've heard tirades like this against the host country by many expats - particularly those living in the country for a long time with deep local connections. As we know from the diaries of Malinowski, an intellectual respect and understanding of another culture does not prevent us from being personally frustrated when we are embedded in it.

I don't have to have any more understanding of China than listening to a few podcasts and reading a few books to know that both the evidence and the synthesis underlying the discussion in this podcast are profoundly unreliable. Here are the reasons:

1. Almost universally, it was assumed that the "other" - ie Western - is the opposite of what was described as Chinese. Ethnography of US, UK and other European nations makes that assumption very problematic. Even these narratives of moral decline and public caring are ubiquitous in the West. The same journalists who are responsible for moral panics through selective reporting of "news stories" keep asking questions like "Are we too selfish as a society" or "Why don't we help each other more."

Years ago, I wrote an article for a Czech newspaper called "This could never happen in England" which listed all the things Czech commentators said could never happen in the "West", giving examples of how they happened in the UK during my 2 year stay. The last section was called "This could never happen in Sweden" which listed some of the things people were complaining about in the UK with reference to how things are better in Scandinavia. That was to illustrate that every culture has another culture or cultures that it uses as foil for its own perceived foibles. It is important to remember that every culture has narratives both about its greatness and lowliness (even the US and China).

2. The assumption that actual behaviors derive from the content of belief is suspect. Matching religions to perceived morals is a popular sport but historically people believing in the same things have behaved in different ways that cannot be predicted from the belief. Both Christianity and Buddhism can provide models (even just in Chinese history) of the same beliefs being held by both despicable and laudable actors. Patterns of culturally sanctioned behavior are much more important. I know relatively little about the ones in China but I do know that they are more complex than what was described in this podcast. If what was said were true, China would be in a state of anomie more similar to Mad Max than a real culture.

3. But perhaps the biggest problem with this podcast was journalistic hubris - that is the assumption that what is reported is actually representative of what happens. For instance, we know that crime rate in the US and UK has been dropping for the last 20 years. Yet, most people believe that it is getting worse based on news reporting. China is a massive country and a handful of examples of extreme callousness don't mean all that much. Even if one such thing is reported every day, it's nothing more than a statistical inevitability. For the most part, if humans are capable of it, someone in China will have done it (at about the same rate per population as elsewhere). You cannot compare that to any one other country. For a proper comparison, you'd need to survey the populations of the US, European Union, Russia, Japan, Brazil, and Egypt. You'd find just as much universally recognizable "immorality" (probably with relatively little regard to culture).

When making claims like the ones made in this podcasts you need to start from proper scholarship that tests all the assumptions based on personal experience. You can give as many personal anecdotes as you like but unless you can back them up by testable research, they don't count as evidence of anything but your own interpretation of your experience. Even if (or particularly if) "everyone" you know agrees.

Here's an example of a quick analysis I did of China's prison numbers http://metaphorhacker.net/2011/05/when-is-subtle-manipulation-of-data-a-flat-out-lie-truth-about-chinese-prisons/ when compared to the US, UK and Russia. An unexpected picture emerged. Such data is not always available or appropriate but we should look for it before we make conclusions.

I will continue following and recommending this podcast. The information it provides is invaluable. But that doesn't mean that we can take at face value synthetic statements that compare the "West" with China unless they are backed up by proper (ethnographic or demographic) evidence.

-- @techczech and @metaphorhacker

@zheren,

That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say in itself. I was raised a Catholic, went to Catholic school all my life, studied Theology at high school, and got full marks in the final entry exam for university, which no one else in my school did. I went on to study philosophy at university, which included philosophy of religion. And guess what... I'm an atheist.

As for the following statement:

"I believe religion can help with the resurgence of high morals."

Religion provides two sets of norms. The first are the sort of morals which are so self-evidently obvious as to render divine commands such as "Thou shalt not steal" superfluous. Name me one society, irrespective of its creed, that actually sanctions theft, or murder, or the coveting of your neighbour's wife. If you find one, perhaps the ten commandments would be of some use. Until you do, it's safe to assume that such basic morals are an intrinstic part of society, and as such, we don't need a divine referee of morals to invoke them.

The second set of norms are usually arbitrary sacraments and rituals which, although we are compelled to follow, are in fact amoral - i.e. neither moral, nor immoral. What's moral about circumcision? What's moral about communion? What's moral about praying on a rosary? What's moral about only eating halal, or kosher food? What's moral about going to Church? All of these actions are void of moral content. You might as well be compelled to go skating, or never wearing socks on Wednesdays. In a secular worldview, such actions are meaningful only to the individual. In a religious worldview, rituals of the like become falsely elevated to the status of moral, or immoral. What's immoral about falling in love with someone of the same sex?

In conclusion to those two points, religion merely echoes what people already know to be moral, then adds a set of arbitrary norms which have no meaning or moral content whatsoever.

If you really want to explore the basis of ethics, rather than an arbitrary normative code of rituals and worship, you should read some philosophy. Try "Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine, "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill, and "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals" by Immanuel Kant, just to name a few.

I didn't want to get drawn into this discussion, since I feel that this is a space for learning Chinese, rather than for bashing other people's beliefs. But I find the ignorance of your empty claims, compounded by your dismissive tone towards atheists, at best inappropriate, and at worst insulting, not to mention way off the mark.

1st, a technical issue: Sinica I can't seem to download this podcast. My windows right click produces an html file rather than the usual mp3. A left click to stream only returns me to the podcast page, itself.

I'm having no trouble with the numerous other download sites I visit.

2. subscribedl/@czechtech - excellent comments. I would add, however, that anecdotal evidence does have something to say when the anecdote surfaces again and again. And, of course, there is the issue of perceptions playing an active role in shaping and constructing reality further down the road. Whether accurately, or inaccurately, how a situation is perceived can figure largely in the roles and scene-making that are subsequently enacted.

Damon

@techczech. Hmm, do I detect a whiff of rational fundamentalism here? We're not in disagreement about the dangers of anecdote. One aspect of that is how 'confirmation bias' itself can influence how events subsequently play out in the real world. Events that form real measurable data. Anecdote - its causes and effects - is, itself a part of the data to be examined. Whether the anecdote is an accurate index of the 'real state of affairs' does not mean it(they) can be ignored. And, as I am saying, anecdote can have a formative influence on how things really are.

@Xiao Hu,

Do you mean that MONEY has replaced God and the old generation of sages forever?

And since Money did it, the process cannot be reverse anymore?

The world will keep going like this? Because we already in a society worshiping money, all over the world, not only China. Maybe North Korea is different, but the leader's family also worship money and material. The reason why most ordinary people don't worship money is maybe the strict media control. Then, it brings another question, is media control good?

--Amber

amber@popupchinese.com

@Xiao Hu

Which notion is that? The one about atheists not being fit to talk about religion? Or the one about society needing religion as a basis to ground its morals on?

@华金 ,

“Smart School Boy”,

You are not a true “atheist”. You are a Catholic who chooses to turn your back on your faith simply because your faith does not permit you to do what you want to do.

There is a big difference (at least the way I see it) between turning your back on your faith because your faith does not permit you to do what you want to do, and a simple rejection of the belief in God (being an atheist).

Also, your whole reply to me was biased by your hatred of Catholicism.

And also, I did not “bash” other people’s beliefs - I looked for what we have it common. However, you clearly attempted to bash my beliefs.

Additionally, I’m not dismissive of atheist. They have a right to say what they want; however, it would be nice for them to first state that they are atheist before they start discussing religion.

And finally, I’m quite interested in where a true atheist draws their morals from:

• If a true atheist grew up in a predominately religious society, did they learn their morals from the religious society around them?

• If a true atheist grew up in a predominately atheist society, where did they learn their morals from?

I believe these questions are relevant to a discussion regarding "Morality Adrift?"

--Zheren (哲人)

@华金,

Both actually.

@华金,

华金 said on June 18, 2012 “If you sincerely believe that secular societies cannot have morals, then you're welcome to your delusion.”

I never said that a secular society cannot have morals. I did write “I believe religion can help with the resurgence of high morals. Being a part of a religion unifies the people behind a set of morals. Instead of one person trying alone, there is support in great numbers.” A people uniting behind Confucianism and/or Taoism would have the same affect. Also, Confucianism is non-theistic.

And then I wrote of my admiration of both Christian (Catholic) Sages and early Chinese Sages. I then summed up what I wrote by saying “I guess "the right things" are universal.” I know you surely have a hatred of Catholics; do you also hold in very low esteem the Chinese Sages such as Kong Fuzi and Lao Tzu? Taoism (Lao Tzu) forms a philosophical and religious tradition. Confucianism (Kong Fuzi) is primarily a Chinese ethical and philosophical system.

Additionally, 华金 said on June 18, 2012 “…here's an example of moral behaviour in the animal kingdom”. Are you suggesting that we, Chinese and all other people of the world, should learn our morals from animals? Is your answer to the question “How can China reverse the decline in civic consciousness?” – study the behavior of animals? Animals have some good behaviors, however, they also exhibit many bad behaviors.

Furthermore, 华金 said on June 18, 2012 “I was raised a Catholic, went to Catholic school all my life, studied Theology at high school, …went on to study philosophy at university, which included philosophy of religion. And guess what... I'm an atheist.” You show yourself to be a very very unfilial child. Filial piety is considered among the greatest of virtues. Yet you do not seem to possess this virtue. Is not the greatest of virtues morally good? What makes you think you are qualified to discuss morals?

--Zheren (哲人)

This was one of the most dissappointing podcasts so far. A huge, interesting topic that was not given justice.