To the Editor:

We would like to respond to a recently published article by William Lane entitled, "Looking Back East: A Beijing Retrospective, 2008." We have two criticisms. First, Lane's journalism is sloppy, and he relies mostly on unsubstantiated rumors and assumptions to make his argument. Second, and more importantly, however, we disagree with his characterization of the relationship between the Chinese government and its people as one of absolute Orwellian subjugation. In reality, while there is no denying the authoritarian nature of the Communist regime in China, the situation is much more complex and not nearly as negative as Lane implies.

Regarding Lane’s journalism: he bases the main portion of his discussion of Chinese government repression on his experience as a State Department intern in Beijing, during the course of which he assisted a senior officer in visits with Americans being held in Chinese prisons. He describes two examples of these visits, which are intended to show what he calls the "human cost of oppressive bureaucracy” and to illustrate just how authoritarian the Chinese government is. While Lane’s first example is unremarkable, his second does not serve his purpose well at all.

He describes the case of “Matt,” who Lane says was “arrested for something along the lines of smuggling non–Chinese citizens across international borders.” Lane then blithely notes that he “never really understood all the details,” but asserts with no evidence that Matt was still a fundamentally good person abused by bureaucratic tyranny—as if the details of the case itself, including the fact that Matt was apparently smuggling people, were irrelevant. Certainly, it is no secret that Chinese prison conditions are abysmal and that the Chinese government’s human rights record is appalling, but to gloss over such glaring holes in the story actually undermines the potential power of Lane’s article to document China’s egregious human rights abuses.

Lane’s next example of Chinese government repression is an anecdote that a coworker told him about a man riding a bus in Beijing. After having a conversation with a friend, in which he complained about how little the Chinese government spent assisting Sichuan earthquake victims in comparison to what had been spent on the Olympics, the man, according to Lane’s coworker, was quietly ordered off the bus by an undercover officer and detained. Lane admits that he is “not sure if the story is true,” but contends that, “it serves to illustrate the tense climate experienced by Beijingers for the past several years.”

Our problem with this is that, by citing an unfounded rumor that is almost certainly false, Lane says little, and worse, perpetuates a vastly exaggerated stereotype of Beijing’s authoritarianism. By making it easier to discredit the other, equally serious but verifiable instances of repression, Lane again undermines the very valid point he wants to make—that the Chinese government is brutally oppressive.

In short, it seems to us that in this article, rather than research and document actual abuses with real facts, Lane has carelessly drawn his anecdotes to make them fit his argument. This brings us to our second complaint: Lane's piece revolves around a strikingly one–dimensional and therefore inaccurate picture of what he calls the "Chinese acceptance of totalitarian domination," which seems to alternately mystify and frustrate him. The relationship between the Chinese government and its people is actually nowhere near that simple.

For many Chinese, the last thirty years have been an era of expanding opportunity and growing freedom. Today, Chinese citizens enjoy tremendously improved social mobility, which is reflected in a growing middle class and an unprecedented degree of personal freedom to make their own life choices. The consequence is that for most Chinese, the current situation is defined by tremendous hope, not political subjugation. In fact, a recent survey by the highly respected Pew Research Center found that “the vast majority of Chinese say their country is on the right path—more than eight in ten say things in China are going well and that the economy is strong.” In other words, because Lane all but ignores the social and political gains achieved as a result of China’s economic reforms and the country’s resulting meteoric growth, we would argue that the portrait he paints of the relationship between the Chinese government and its people dates from at least a couple of decades ago—not last summer.

However, what is most upsetting to us about this article is not Lane’s overly simplified argument so much as it is the attitude inherent in it. In this article, Lane portrays the entire Chinese people as a silent, faceless and unthinking mass, crushed by their remorseless leaders, yet who—if only they could see through his enlightened American eyes—would understand the depths of their oppression and, presumably, rise up against it. It seems to us that this sort of patronizing view is precisely what the word “orientalist” was intended to describe.

Editorial Board of The Columbia East Asia Review

The Columbia East Asia Review (CEAR) is an annual peer–reviewed academic journal dedicated to furthering knowledge of East Asia through the promotion of undergraduate research and interdisciplinary dialogue. For more information, visit us at www.eastasiareview.org.