5 ms·

An occidental account, tainted by orientalism and packaged for, as you say, liberal arts students. My point was to the asymmetry of authentic visiting pedagogy

An occidental account, tainted by orientalism and packaged for, as you say, liberal arts students. My point was to the asymmetry of authentic visiting pedagogy. In other words, for the past 20 or 30 years Chinese universities have been enthusiastic and open to first hand accounts of western culture, ancient and modern. They've been keen to take the best of what we have and learn from it. On our side we have a cannon prepared for the most-part before 1900 and taught by aging white professors. McFarlane seems unusual, albeit that he is indeed the archetypal western Oxford don. It would be nice to avoid the implication of a "successful and scientific" Western cannon versus "failed" and primitive alternatives that don't pay bills. FWIW, I like to assume, in all discussions of interest, that the bills have been paid. Bill paying is, after all rather dull. On the other hand I casually wondered on Friday, amidst all the fireworks and what with it being a dragon new year, what we're missing about a problem that we seem to be struggling with - namely how a society, despite huge technological change and diversity, remains relatively stable for thousands of years. I would love to watch a YouTube video lecture series on something like that, from the horse's mouth as it were, but I suspect all the authentic professors who would have taught us were rounded up or starved in some Great Leap Backwards.

hnfong 3y ago
> namely how a society, despite huge technological change and diversity, remains relatively stable for thousands of years Most people in the west wouldn't want to hear the solution: value the collective over the individual, install benevolent authority figures empowered to make the final decision so that minor disputes don't get out of control (i.e. "authoritarianism"), ensure everyone is incentivized to perform their roles, and discourage troublemakers. > suspect all the authentic professors who would have taught us were rounded up or starved in some Great Leap Backwards The sad thing is that the Chinese tradition didn't just get wrecked during the Mao era. It started much earlier, though Mao probably handed them the nail in the coffin. In the early 20th century when the Qing dynasty collapsed, the prevailing theory among Chinese intellectuals was that China was weak because the Chinese cultural/intellectual tradition was inferior to that of the West, so to make the nation strong, everyone should just adopt Western thought instead. Within a decade or two the old system of learning was abandoned, and then there were decades of war and strife in China. This is one of the various reasons communism took a hold in China -- back then in the early 20th century, communism seemed like a progressive(?) "western" idea, and it sounded like a great way to run a nation. By the time of the "Great Leap" and the "Cultural Revolution", there wasn't that much left of traditional Chinese thought to destroy. Some prominent academics went to Taiwan or Hong Kong, but if you ask me, they were faint echos of what the classical Chinese thought had to offer. If you actually wanted to "hear from the horse's mouth", you might have to go back a couple hundred years.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Thanks for these thoughts. One point of departure is that our western concept of authoritarian is incompatible with benevolence. The rest, as you say is uncomfortable for many of us to contemplate as necessary.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    Authoritarianism is definitely "compatible" with benevolence at least on some levels. China had always been a large empire, so the rulers did not rule directly. To the rulers at the very top, their interests aligned with the peasants in that both wanted stability, and given that China was such a vast empire, stability was more important to the rulers than squeezing every drop of excess productivity from the peasants. So at least for the rulers at the very top, especially those who became emperor due to being the son of the previous one, their concerns were how to ensure the middle tier officials, who actually ran the day to day affairs, administered their lands fairly without corruption. So basically they invented a system of "scholar-officials" where education consisted of brainwashing aspiring officials about the virtues of "filial piety" and applying concepts of parenthood in governance. "Love the peasants as if they were your children", and "be loyal to the ruler as you would to your parents". This might sound hypocritical to the cynics in modern society, but back then it was not just rhetoric, they were absolutely expected to fully believe in it, because it was intentional brainwashing of the "scholar-official" class by the top-tier ruling elite. So basically that's where the "benevolence" comes from. It's not that the rulers at the top are benevolent per se, but that their interests generally don't come from squeezing the last drop of productivity from peasants for short term gain, but rather their main risk is corrupted middle/lower tier officials abusing their power, so they install systems to ensure the administrators are "benevolent" as far as possible. I'm not saying it's a great system, and I don't think it can or should be replicated outside of China, I'm just trying to describe, as a historical fact, how the Chinese empires were run (ideologically speaking).
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      I sometimes pick up criticism for my belief in positive influence. Somewhere in my world as a teacher is line between heartfelt benevolence and the accusation that all is manipulation and only serves the extant ruling classes. Somewhere in the middle is a truth. My theory is that in the West we've forgotten the real meaning of authority, with the same root as author/writer/architect. We've confused it with entitled power. Anyway, thanks indeed for a thoughtful explanation. I'll avoid my immediate instinct to connect it to Plato or other structural ideas I've been educated (brainwashed) with :), and give it some serious thought.

hnfong 3y ago

> namely how a society, despite huge technological change and diversity, remains relatively stable for thousands of years Most people in the west wouldn't want to hear the solution: value the collective over the individual, install benevolent authority figures empowered to make the final decision so that minor disputes don't get out of control (i.e. "authoritarianism"), ensure everyone is incentivized to perform their roles, and discourage troublemakers. > suspect all the authentic professors who would have taught us were rounded up or starved in some Great Leap Backwards The sad thing is that the Chinese tradition didn't just get wrecked during the Mao era. It started much earlier, though Mao probably handed them the nail in the coffin. In the early 20th century when the Qing dynasty collapsed, the prevailing theory among Chinese intellectuals was that China was weak because the Chinese cultural/intellectual tradition was inferior to that of the West, so to make the nation strong, everyone should just adopt Western thought instead. Within a decade or two the old system of learning was abandoned, and then there were decades of war and strife in China. This is one of the various reasons communism took a hold in China -- back then in the early 20th century, communism seemed like a progressive(?) "western" idea, and it sounded like a great way to run a nation. By the time of the "Great Leap" and the "Cultural Revolution", there wasn't that much left of traditional Chinese thought to destroy. Some prominent academics went to Taiwan or Hong Kong, but if you ask me, they were faint echos of what the classical Chinese thought had to offer. If you actually wanted to "hear from the horse's mouth", you might have to go back a couple hundred years.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Thanks for these thoughts. One point of departure is that our western concept of authoritarian is incompatible with benevolence. The rest, as you say is uncomfortable for many of us to contemplate as necessary.
- hnfong 3y ago
  Authoritarianism is definitely "compatible" with benevolence at least on some levels. China had always been a large empire, so the rulers did not rule directly. To the rulers at the very top, their interests aligned with the peasants in that both wanted stability, and given that China was such a vast empire, stability was more important to the rulers than squeezing every drop of excess productivity from the peasants. So at least for the rulers at the very top, especially those who became emperor due to being the son of the previous one, their concerns were how to ensure the middle tier officials, who actually ran the day to day affairs, administered their lands fairly without corruption. So basically they invented a system of "scholar-officials" where education consisted of brainwashing aspiring officials about the virtues of "filial piety" and applying concepts of parenthood in governance. "Love the peasants as if they were your children", and "be loyal to the ruler as you would to your parents". This might sound hypocritical to the cynics in modern society, but back then it was not just rhetoric, they were absolutely expected to fully believe in it, because it was intentional brainwashing of the "scholar-official" class by the top-tier ruling elite. So basically that's where the "benevolence" comes from. It's not that the rulers at the top are benevolent per se, but that their interests generally don't come from squeezing the last drop of productivity from peasants for short term gain, but rather their main risk is corrupted middle/lower tier officials abusing their power, so they install systems to ensure the administrators are "benevolent" as far as possible. I'm not saying it's a great system, and I don't think it can or should be replicated outside of China, I'm just trying to describe, as a historical fact, how the Chinese empires were run (ideologically speaking).
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    I sometimes pick up criticism for my belief in positive influence. Somewhere in my world as a teacher is line between heartfelt benevolence and the accusation that all is manipulation and only serves the extant ruling classes. Somewhere in the middle is a truth. My theory is that in the West we've forgotten the real meaning of authority, with the same root as author/writer/architect. We've confused it with entitled power. Anyway, thanks indeed for a thoughtful explanation. I'll avoid my immediate instinct to connect it to Plato or other structural ideas I've been educated (brainwashed) with :), and give it some serious thought.