丹尼尔·贝尔 - 西方媒体妖魔化中国

丹尼尔·贝尔 - 妖魔化中国

布雷斯特地缘政治

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa8VwubthSY

再次感谢你的邀请，我会用英语发言，但如果我能参加活动，我很乐意用法语回答问题。我被要求对“中国是一个铁板一块的他者”这一观点提出质疑。

与我们习以为常的西方社会和文明相比，中国是一个根本不同的社会和文明。我来自加拿大蒙特利尔，当然我也来自西方背景。我认为这种观点也导致了西方媒体对中国的妖魔化。西方媒体几乎没有报道中国发生的好事，中国被描绘成一个整体，从西方的角度来看，它既不同又糟糕。我认为这在经验上是错误的。首先，中国并非一个铁板一块的“他者”。事实上，中国高度多元化，我的意思是，把中国看作某种类型的大陆更合理。中国如此多元化，我指的是不仅仅是农村地区、城市地区，以及中国不同地区的多元文化，那里有民族群体和宗教群体，地理上非常多元化的中国，甚至城市也如此不同。我的意思是，任何去过中国的人都知道，

北京和上海是如此不同，坦率地说，来自这两个城市的人

通常彼此看不顺眼，他们认为自己也非常

不同。嗯，你可以说，这有点像

经验主义。那么，我的规范性观点是，中国真的

像西方媒体通常呈现的那样糟糕吗？嗯，这里也是如此。我的意思是，这又是一种严重的

夸张，中国发生了很多不好的事情，

例如在新疆的镇压，

坦率地说，香港加强了

审查制度，这对我这样的学者来说并不好，但也有很多好处。事情

首先，自从武汉早期出现失误以来，中国在应对疫情方面做得相对不错。我的意思是，中国幅员辽阔。我们基本上可以自由地过着正常的

生活，去咖啡馆、去餐馆、去学校、去大学、去经商，以及

在大陆各地旅行。因为中国

政府在应对疫情方面发挥了重要作用，

得到了人民的大力支持。

还有很多其他因素，

让我们感到乐观。中国比以前更加重视环境问题，

不仅致力于短期的环境进步，

而且致力于应对气候变化。长期来看，减贫

是

我们可以用任何词来形容它。

这是一个了不起的成就，

据估计，已有8亿中国人

摆脱了贫困。嗯，作为一名学者，我

对传统的

兴起或复兴

非常着迷。

包括儒家思想关于儒教、佛教和道教的争论非常激烈，它们在20世纪的大部分时间里基本上已经消亡了。所以，中国也有很多好事发生。我认为，我们有理由对长期发展保持乐观，但也有一些坏事。所以我们不得不问：为什么会有这种妖魔化现象？最近这种现象变得更加严重。为什么？为什么会发生这种情况？不仅仅是……当然，媒体的报道是其中的一部分，而且这种情况在西方政治领导人中也很常见。有时，他们会去中国，甚至普通民众，呃，普通民众，他们……有时不认识来中国的人。嗯，我认为来中国的人，实际上通常会对中国有更细致的了解。因此，进行更多交流非常重要。这不仅包括普通民众的交流，也包括学术交流。非政府组织之间也需要更多商业交流。当然，更多的政治交流，以应对共同的挑战，例如全球变暖等等，这非常重要。我认为，这样的交流越多，妖魔化就越少。但真正的驱动力是什么？这种妖魔化观点，认为中国是西方的根本敌人，是要破坏西方。我们真的应该对此感到担忧。我认为，基本上有一种观点，而且这种观点在过去几年里变得更加突出，认为中国与众不同，不会变得像我们一样。尤其是在美国，我认为，也许在法国，在某种程度上，在我的家乡加拿大，你们当中有些人认为中国正在进行改革，在经济上进行改革，变得更加市场化，最终，它将在政治上自由化，它将变得像西方式的自由民主，但这需要时间。这

只是时间问题

但现在我认为人们已经认识到，而且

我认为这种认识是准确的

那就是中国

不一定会

在很多方面变得像我们一样

它有自己的

传统和文化，有自己的组织方式

经济，有自己的政治方式

在许多重要方面与西方

自由民主国家

有所不同

现在这是一个问题我只想说，有两个理由不认为这是一个问题。首先，在某些方面，包括政治价值观在内的价值观在原则层面上存在着实质性的共通性。中国，包括其领导人、知识分子和普通民众，都致力于维护基本人权，即个人有权不遭受酷刑、不被杀害、不被奴役、不遭受种族灭绝。原则上，没有人会真正反对这一点。从这个意义上讲，这与西方的情况类似。你知道，西方只有疯狂的恐怖分子才反对这一原则。对，但这只是一个小原则，没有争议。这不是一个道德论点。我的意思是，理想与现实之间总是存在差距。从这个意义上讲，这更像是一个经验论证。它关乎的是，揭示理想与现实在基本人权承诺方面的差距。这在中国如此，在西方国家也是如此。你知道，美国和法国也犯下了可怕的侵犯人权行为，我们需要揭露它们。但这也不是一个道德问题。这是一个经验性的论点。在传统中国，存在着一种不同的观点。有一种观点认为，你可以在公共场合以非常残酷的方式折磨他人，嗯，作为一种惩罚方式。

现在中国已经没有人公开捍卫这种观点了。

所以从这个意义上来说，两者已经趋同。我们可以说，

西方和中国都已经发展到了一种共同的道德承诺。

那么民主呢？

嗯，在中国历史上的大部分时间里，

确实没有对

普通民众参与民主的承诺。

但在这里，也发生了变化，在某种程度上，我们可以称之为

与西方观点的趋同。有一种观点认为，

中国普通民众在一定程度上可以而且应该通过协商论坛参与政治。

他们应该在一定程度上被征求意见，

了解他们想要什么。

他们应该参与地方实验，

了解组织政治的方式。

中国有很多多样性，

很多地方实验

选举也很普遍，

在基层被广泛接受。

据估计，在村级选举中，大约有9亿中国人参加了基层选举。

那么，在基层，分歧究竟在哪里？再次强调，是道德分歧。

嗯，分歧不在于人们是否能够并且应该参与政治，而在于

高层领导人是否应该通过

一人一票的方式选出。

这在原则上是有区别的，当然在现实中也是如此。

现在在西方，我们认为，哦，哦，他们

反对民主选举，这意味着

他们支持威权主义，而威权主义

当然是贬义的，对吧？

如果你不知道自己是否反对民主，那就意味着你支持

威权主义，所有反对的国家

都把僧侣们归为一类。

朝鲜是家族独裁政权。

今天，你看到缅甸是军人政权。独裁政权

埃及、泰国，嗯，嗯，也存在类似的独裁政权。

或者沙特阿拉伯，像苏丹家族统治的那种，或者随便你怎么形容，还有中国，它们都被混为一谈了，这太荒谬了。让我说说，我知道我只能再说10分钟，但

我还需要5分钟，希望你能

原谅我。嗯，中国与其他非民主政治体制的真正区别是什么？

首先，

值得注意的是，中国已经进行了大量的政治改革。

你知道，西方媒体有一种迷思，

非常受欢迎，很多经济改革

都停滞不前，这意味着

更多的市场改革，但没有政治改革，

因为同一个政党仍然在位，

仍然掌权。

如果你超越这一点，看看现在的中国和文革时期的中国有什么区别。

混乱

1966-1976年，以及40年后的今天

这是一个完全不同的政治

体制，主要区别是什么？这是重建一种

贤能政治的努力，这意味着政治体制旨在根据卓越的能力和德行来选拔和提拔公职人员。在中国，贤能政治是一个可以追溯到2500年前的古老理念。从制度上讲，这意味着我们需要一个复杂的官僚机构来选拔和提拔这样的官员。那些通过政治体系晋升的人，需要经历长达数十年的政治过程，在贫困地区和富裕地区的乡村，拥有不同层级政府的丰富经验，直到成为更高层级政府的领导人。这是一个非常古老的理念，它包含贤能机制，最著名的是科举制度，用于选拔能力更强的领导人。至于科举制度是否像德行一样，在中国历史上一直存在争议，现在仍在继续。这种理念推动了政治变革，我认为它启发了许多政治改革。中国已经现在的情况大不相同，官僚体制错综复杂。所有政府领导人都拥有丰富的政治经验，但理想与现实之间仍然存在差距。记住，领导者应该具备卓越的能力和美德。美德的本质是什么？它的根本含义是不能腐败。所以，我们仍然知道政治体系中存在很多腐败现象。这意味着理想与现实之间存在差距。问题是，我们应该用什么标准来评估中国的政治进步？普遍认为，这个标准应该是：政府高层实行政治贤能制，基层则更多地实行民主。这正是激励中国政治体制的理想。如果要描述中国，我们可以称之为一个非常不完善的民主贤能制，或者说，一个非常不完善的政治贤能制。就像美国或法国现在是一个非常不完善的民主国家一样。这是否应该让我们感到担忧？如果我们关心的是一人一票，呃，在中国，选出最高领导人

我的意思是，是的，这确实是一个挑战

因为如果

在哈洛政府实行竞争性选举，

这将削弱

政治贤能政治的优势，即

政府可以进行10年、20年、30年的长期规划

如果实行竞争性选举，

通常你会有四五年的规划，不会更长

所有领导人都有政治经验，

他们不会犯初学者的错误

嗯，而且领导者可以花更多时间

专注于政策，

而不是像美国领导人那样花费大量时间

筹集资金，

或者一遍又一遍地发表同样的演讲，

想想看，这有点浪费时间

理想情况下，你希望领导者专注于

政策，

所以中国原则上反对在政府高层实行一人一票，

因为有必要保持

政治尚贤制的优势

嗯，这是否意味着它对西方构成了

挑战？

嗯，不是。中国不想输出其

模式。中国认识到政治

尚贤制在中国很重要，

因为中国拥有悠久的政治文化，

也因为像中国这样的大国，在更高层级建立更多的

尚贤制机制很重要，

嗯，那些没有这种政治文化、没有

复杂官僚体制历史的国家

算了吧，他们不会

学习这种模式的。

学习这种模式非常困难，而且中国

没有兴趣输出这种模式。

所以不用担心。中国可以

在自己的模式上发展，就像西方

应该努力完善自己的

民主根基和基础一样。

我们应该在共同的挑战上合作，

比如气候变化、全球变暖、核武器监管、危险形式的人工智能监管等等。

我的意思是，我认为这些都非常重要。

坦白说，

在西方，我们变得更加

思想封闭，我们并非一直如此。

在法国，让-雅克·克鲁索当然

以捍卫一种非常强大的民主形式而闻名。

但当他被要求为一个大国（比如波兰总督）提供建议时，

他捍卫的是一种民主程度低得多，

坦率地说，官僚主义色彩更浓的组织形式。

呃，这种组织形式实际上更接近于

中国的贤能政治理念。

嗯，乔恩·斯图尔特·密尔，伟大的英国自由党人。

他反对一人投票制，他说，

并非每个人都拥有同等的政治判断能力，

所以我们应该给受过教育的人

额外的选票。

我们可以争论他的想法是否正确，

但至少它被认真对待了。

现在在西方，我们变得非常

教条地坚持一人投票制，

认为它是唯一

在道德上合法的选举政府领导人的方式。我们需要更加

开放地思考，

以允许其他在道德上……理想的

可能性

让我们恢复我们过去拥有的这种开放心态

所以我就此结束吧，我认为中国

也有不同的理由

嗯，是它组织经济的方式

我认为它不会是纯粹的资本主义

它仍然坚定地致力于

嗯，某种社会主义的理想

原则

但由于时间有限，我就到此为止了

非常感谢

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