Last moment in Manhattan. I sat alone in the northwestern corner of Bryant Park in brisk autumn air, reflecting one more time on my three years in this city, and six years in this country. At long last, I told myself, “Yep, this is it,” stood up, and went away.
During the Graduation Ceremony, I noticed that there is a guy in the Fordham JD Class of 2011 who already received an MD and a PhD before his JD. Which prompted me to make a cursory recollection of “degree collectors” (no pejorative meaning intended) that I have met or known in my life, in 5 categories: Double PhDs, JD+PhD, JD+MD, MD+PhD, and JD+MD+PhD. Comments and input very welcome on this thread, as I’m sure this is just the tip of the iceberg.
1. Double PhDs
Ming Huang, professor of finance @ Cornell and CEIBS (China Europe International Business School) (PhD in finance from Stanford and PhD in physics from Cornell)
Norman Schofield, professor of political science @ Washington U. in St. Louis (doctorates from Liverpool University, Universite de Caen and Essex University)
2. JD+PhD
a) Law Professors:
Edward Cheng, Vanderbilt (JD from Harvard, PhD in statistic from Columbia, in progress)
Albert Choi, Virginia (JD from Yale, PhD in economics from MIT)
David Law, Washington U. in St. Louis (JD from Harvard, PhD in political science from Stanford)
Thomas Lee, Fordham (JD from Harvard, PhD candidate in political science from Harvard)
Wentong Zheng, SUNY Buffalo (JD and PhD in economics from Stanford)
b) Economics Professors:
Michael Woodford, Columbia (JD from Yale, PhD in economics from MIT)
c) Law Firm Partners:
There are many law firm partners who have PhD degrees. Off the top of my head, here are two:
Steven Cui, Jun He (JD from Stanford, PhD from UIUC)
James Zhu, Jun He (JD from Columbia, PhD from Cal Tech)
d) Government Officials:
Bo Li, head of Monetary Policy Department II, People’s Bank of China (JD from Harvard, PhD from Stanford)
e) My friends at the law schools of Fordham, NYU, U. of Chicago, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, etc.
3. JD+MD
Elizabeth Tillinghast, Columbia University, Department of Psychiatry (JD from NYU, MD from Columbia)
Steven Yu, Kenyon & Kenyon (JD from George Mason, MD from Columbia)
4. MD+PhD
I guess numerous…I have a friend’s husband who got his PhD from Cambridge and MD from Stanford.
5. JD+MD+PhD
A guy in the Fordham JD Class of 2011…
http://wec.shu.edu.tw/corner/culture/wen_letter.htm
楊學友：
諸事牽絆，羈延至今才回覆妳的信，實在抱歉。
史景遷在書中曾經提及他是發自內心深處來書寫中國歷史，而不是在故紙堆裡拼湊僵硬的史料。身為譯者的我，確實能感受到他字裡行間所流露出的真摯情感，況且他對於中國歷史有其獨到的見解和不凡的勾勒功力，我是真心喜歡他的作品，所以在翻譯過程頗費心思推敲字句。當然，史景遷桃李滿天下，台灣史學界不乏他的故舊門生，對於我這個自不量力的史學界門外漢，出版社方面也千叮萬囑，切勿做壞這位大師的作品，這樣的鞭策壓力著實不容我懈怠。
我想，翻譯西方漢學界的歷史著作，最難之處、其實也是成敗的關鍵，乃在於史料的還原功夫。這不僅關乎翻譯的正確性與否，同時也涉及了能否脫去英文的洋味，而使整部書的文風讀起來「不像翻譯」，而趨近中文。我認為這對於翻譯西方人的中國歷史作品尤其重要。
史景遷在《追尋現代中國》書中常有神來之筆，引用皇帝的朱批、騷人墨客的詩詞、小說家的文學段落等等，藉以傳達歷史人物的心境或者時代的場景，這對譯者而言是極大的挑戰。為了還原這些史料，我曾在中研院的近史所、民族所、中文所和國關中心的圖書館耗費不少光陰；有時更為了一段話，而翻遍了曾國藩全集、魯迅書信集、雍正的朱批奏摺、六四天安門學生運動時期的地下詩抄、情報局蒐錄的資料，甚至還一度央人遠從上海復旦大學的圖書館找尋孔尚任的詩。這過程雖然苦不堪言，但一有結果卻又常令我喜出望外。
翻譯《雍正王朝之大義覺迷》時，適巧政大社會資料中心蒐藏有大陸甫整理自北京故宮的雍正朝奏摺，中正圖書館裡也陳列《大義覺迷錄》一書，這是史景遷寫作時所用的主要史料。所以在動手翻譯前，我即已循著英文原著的註釋，按圖索驥影印史景遷所援引的史料，與我的合譯者一同閱讀這些檔案，並先了解曾靜案的來龍去脈。
回想起來，追索、閱讀這些中文原典對於翻譯還有不期然的收穫。十幾年的社會科學訓練，腦中盡是洋味十足、現代人的用語，閱讀原典其實還有助於豐富中文的詞彙。例如，在翻譯清朝歷史時，我會刻意用「兵丁」而不是「軍隊」、「軍人」來翻譯 military。
除了以上的準備功夫之外，在翻譯過程中若是遇有疑義之處，例如《追尋現代中國》書中有關清朝中國考證學派的風行與江南社會經濟條件之間的因果關係，或者明末清初文人畫風丕變與政局翻轉之間關聯性這類較須仔細端詳的論述，我也會循著書中的註釋找出原書來讀，幫助我較精準地掌握史景遷的遣辭用字和他欲表達的意念。當然，在閱讀過程，也讓我更了解西方人對於中國歷史的研究自有不同的觀察視野，而增進我讀史的樂趣。
楊學友，很高興從大平和志嘉處得知妳喜歡史景遷的書，我也十分樂意與妳分享翻譯的甘苦。經由妳的提問，驀然回首，我才驚覺到翻譯過程的苦澀。不過當心血化為鉛字，那種喜悅之情是同為譯者的妳最能體會的。
祝
異鄉愉快
洽溢
这篇文章于2007年9月15日发在刘瑜的博客上，应该是她即将离开哈佛去剑桥或者刚到剑桥的时候。
作者简介：刘瑜 女 生于1975年12月。本科毕业于中国人民大学，美国哥伦比亚大学政治经济学博士，哈佛大学博士后。曾任剑桥大学政治系讲师，现任清华大学政治系副教授。为《南方周末》写时评专栏、《新周刊》写书评影评专栏。《南方周末》2008年度年度专栏作者。
1．
那年上飞机前圆圆的爸爸对我说：到了纽约，一定要随身带5、60美元现金，万一碰到抢钱的，这就是“保命钱”了。这是一个非常严重的告诫，于是我到了纽约之后，总是随身带着5、60美元的现金，随时等待被抢，等了好几年。如果那个迎面而来的黑人青年朝我拿出枪来，我就可以惊喜地掏出那些美元，说：你终于抢劫我了！
可惜7年来，这一幕始终没有发生。事实是，这些年我在街上遇见无数黑人青年，其中有n个曾经笑嘻嘻地对我说：“hey, baby, you’re beautiful。”但是从没有人对我说：“Give your money to me.”事实是，不但想象中的打劫始终没有发生，想象中的其它很多事情都没有发生。比如结婚生子，比如开始热爱学术，比如超越种族、文化、语言的障碍与世界各国人民打成一片。
而发生的事情却常常是没有想到的，比如911，比如在一个秋日的下午收拾东西去一个叫剑桥的地方。
说到和世界各国人民打成一片，这事的难度的确是我所料未及的，大约是我来美7年之后所有的“没想到”里面最没有想到的一个。以前我总觉得象我这样的民族虚无主义者，结交五湖四海的狐朋狗友还不是轻而易举，但是事实证明“文化差异”这个虚无缥缈的东西力量确实比我想象的强大很多。你和一个阿尔巴尼亚人可能政治观念、喜欢的哲学家、电影、电子游戏一模一样，你们甚至可以谈恋爱，但是somehow你们就是不能成为“哥们”。
这个 “somehow”是如此诡异以至于用“文化”去概括它都显得词不达意。
2.
我还记得到达学校的那天下午，00年8月23号，在学校住房办公室的门口，因为签房约要照片，我在路边翻箱倒柜地找照片。三个大行李箱，全锁着，一一打开找照片，急得大汗淋漓。
为什么我后来见到的119街和记忆中第一次见到的119街如此不同呢？是不是脆弱感会让一个建筑、一个街区、一个城市显得比它实际上的更高大呢？
“你知道，一个人到一个新的地方总是特别脆弱。”
后来我竟然做了住房办公室的兼职员工，后来住房办公室的主任在指导我怎么给新生签约的时候这样说。还有一个人跟我说过这句话，他跟我同一年来美国，去了另一个地方，很快结了婚，他就是用这句话来论证他为什么急于结婚。
年轻气壮的时候，我总觉得一个人因为脆弱而结婚是多么可耻的事情，现在我觉得这也没什么。人人都追求幸福，但是很多人的当务之急不是追求幸福，而是精神自救、不发疯、不崩溃、不象大街上的那个疯子一样高举圣经在车水马龙中高喊“哈里路亚”。
又想起刚到美国的时候穿的那双塑料拖鞋，脚背上镶着两朵小花。走在大街上，有人说：cute shoes. 我说：what? 他重复：nice shoes. 我又说：what? 他又重复：cute shoes. 最后，那个既不懂美国人赞美陌生人的文化又不懂英语的女孩逼得那个善意的路人停下来，凑在她耳边大声、一字一顿地说：I’m just saying your shoes are nice!
又不是抢钱，那么大声干嘛。
还有另一双鞋。牛仔的靴子，00年的生日礼物，由西岸来访的某同学所送。那次该同学还和我一起从事了我来美之后的第一次shopping活动。我们在H&M买了大约200美元衣服，对于当时的我来说，已经是巨额消费了。我们高高兴兴地坐公共汽车回家，但是下车的时候忘了把购物袋拿下来。就这样，穿着粉色滑雪衣的我，和穿着黑色滑雪衣的他，沮丧地走在纽约冬天的大街上，为丢失巨资购买的衣服而黯然神伤。
后来天就黑了，后来他就走了，后来在一场关于巩俐演技的辩论结束之后我们就分手了，后来我就把那双穿旧了的牛仔靴给扔了。
一个令人奇怪的事实是，为什么关于每一场恋爱，我们所能牢牢记住的，往往只是开头和结尾而已。
或者，如果关于这个人你能记住的只是开头与结尾，那么你们从来就不曾真正恋爱过。
3.
这7年，发生的事情是多么地少啊，简直像一场我所厌恶的蔡明亮的电影，到处是长镜头里面目模糊的脸，对话稀薄，情节漫无目的。
At some point, I lost interests in making my life a soap opera. At some point, I started pretending I’m not home when people knock on my door.
那么，我到底应该出于对极简主义艺术风格的欣赏而为自己的生活喝彩呢，还是出于对热烈生活的向往而为自己的生活哀叹呢？
也许发生的事情并不少，只是我对事件有一只巨大的胃而已。还写小说了呢。还博客了呢。还专栏了呢。还和蚊米演绎了一场可以让单田芳来讲解的章回体爱情故事呢。
其实仔细一想，我在国内的时候过得也挺没劲的。在清华的时候，不也是一个人，骑着一辆破自行车，独来独往。翻看当年的日记，里面并没有莺歌燕舞欢声笑语以及“阳光灿烂的日子”。“生活枯燥得令人痛心。好象是在看一本书，翻到某个阶段，奇怪地出现了些空白页，一页一页，全是空白。”
那我为什么老嚷嚷着想回国呢？难道就算寂寞，上面也要裹上一层热闹的糖衣？而今天的地球上，没有哪里比中国更热闹。
可是，热闹有两种，一种是充实和丰富，一种是鸡飞狗跳。
可是的可是，苍白也有两种，一种对能量的珍惜与节约，一种是荒凉与空洞。
如果从鸡飞狗跳退出之后进入的只是荒凉与空洞，或者反之，这还是一件可喜可贺的事吗。
4.
本来我还一直为离开纽约这个“大城市”前往剑桥这个“小镇”而伤感的，后来我想通了：在美国这些年，虽然我名义上住在大城市，但过得其实也只是“小镇”生活。除了在波士顿那大半年，来美7年，我活动的范围一直是一个叫做morningside heights的小社区：96街为南界、125街为北界、Riverside为西界、Amsterdam为东界，还不如剑桥大呢。
这么一小块巴掌大的地方，就是我的纽约，我的西伯利亚。
来美7年，我没有去过西岸，没有去过“南方”，没有去过阿拉斯加或者夏威夷。我并没有强烈的旅游的愿望。我成为一个全球流浪者完全是历史的误会。我骨子里的理想就是坐在村头那棵大槐树底下给孩子喂奶而已。
他们说人生是一场旅行，我怎么觉得人生就是从一口井跳到另一口井呢。
他们还说时光飞逝如电，那说的大约是中国的时间，而不是这里的时间。这里的时间是宽阔平静的河流，一点一点往前挪，还动不动断流的那种。
7年来我的村庄几乎没有任何变化。110街的Right Aid，113街的Mill Korea，116街的Ollie’s，112街的Labyrinth bookstore……当然，110街的Dynasty早就不在了，旁边的Café Taci也变成了一个墨西哥快餐店，新的West Side虽然重新开张，但是冷气大得我都不敢进门。
我想起有一回坐在110街的Starbucks，隔着玻璃窗，看见外面出了一场车祸。我看到的时候，车已经翻了，斜躺在马路中间的矮树丛中，警察还没有来或者已经走了，车里的人也不知道有没有出来，几个群众在围观，更多的人若无其事地从旁经过。那天下午的太阳特别好，好到马路中间的一场车祸都显得非常安详。
若干年后，想起我的纽约，我的西伯利亚，我的morningside heights时，我希望自己想起的，是这样的安详。
5.
24岁到31岁，对于一个女人来说，算是一段“黄金岁月”的流失？我试图为此伤感，但却伤感不起来。时间嘛，哪一段和哪一段不是差不多。一想到一个30以上的女人为自己的年龄而自卑本质上是迎合男人的世界观和审美观，我就更觉得不能让他们得逞。
事实上，青春简直是个负担呢。它让你对生活抱有不切实际的幻想，让你以为“世界归根结底是你们的”，现在好了，这误解消除了，该干嘛干嘛去，还少了上当受骗的屈辱感呢。还更好。
写毕业论文的时候看了不少红卫兵传记，从此简直讨厌青春了。年少，口号，不知天高地厚，以为大地在你脚上，荷尔蒙武装起来的正义感，这些东西搅和起来，人就操蛋了起来。而这操蛋中最操蛋的一点，就是那貌似“反叛精神”中隐藏的谄媚情结以及herd mentality.
对，我31了，在异国他乡如你们所幸灾乐祸的那样变老了，但是我并不伤感。
6.
总还有些变化吧，比如说，政治面貌？其实也说不上什么变化，99年开始上网之后，因为网上辩论，发现自己在向理性底线不断退却的过程中，退到了一个叫做 “自由主义”的地方。其实从来没有刻意在某一个阵营里安营扎寨，但是接下来的7年里，我发现自己在几乎每一场政治辩论里、对每一件事物的看法里，都不断回归到这个立场，最后不得不承认这个立场对于我具有一种“地心引力”。
7年来，我已经从一个“自在的”自由主义者变成了一个“自为的”自由主义者。我并不以前更反动，但是我的反动比以前更顽固。
顺便说一句，我不认为自由主义是我的政治信仰，它只是我的政治底线。事实上自由主义真正关心的只是底线问题，而其它主义者关心的大多是蓝图问题。
不是没有过惶惑，not politically， but socially。过去7年，作为一个留学生中的右派，我渐渐意识到自己“双重少数派”的位置。在中国留学生当中，我当然是少数派。但即使是在美国学界，我也时常处于“少数派”的位置上。7年来目睹了美国高校越来越被乔姆斯基这样的极端左翼占领的氛围，而我特别反感这样的氛围，反感乔姆斯基等恨不得把那些“流氓政权”描述呈诗情画意的“和谐社会”的架势。
我想我骨子里其实挺neo-con的。当我说我灵魂深处是个“老头子”的时候，我指的“老头子”是那个已经死了很久的、现在已经被媒体搞臭了的、据说是新保守主义鼻祖的犹太移民Leo Strauss。
7年过去，作为一个Leo Strauss的当代中国女文青版，我逐步克服了“双重少数派”地位带来的孤独感。岂止克服孤独感，简直培育出了一股“我看你们能把我怎么地”的焦大感以及高尔基的海燕感。明知山有虎偏向虎山行，我不再需要有意识、无意识、潜意识的herd mentality。用北岛老师的话来说：告诉你吧，世界，我不相信。
7.
如果我把过去7年的生活当作一个电影，放给7年前那个刚下飞机的女孩看，她会不会很失望呢？会不会失望到说“啊，就这样啊，那还是算了吧，我买张机票回去算了”？
来美7年，我最痛心的一点，就是自己没有如愿以偿地爱上学术。但是出于生计的原因，又不得不一直从事学术工作。不幸的是，对一件我并不热爱的事情，我竟然还有一点天分，至少足以通过考试答辩论文找到一份还算体面的工作。
最近老看蚊米他们打Texas Hold’em，一个发现：抓到烂牌固然不幸，但更不幸的往往是抓到好牌–好但不是最好的牌。我的学术天分对于我，就是这样一副好但不是最好的牌。
以前王小波对“反熵”行为表示欣赏时举过一个例子，一个登山者解释自己为什么爱爬山时说：不为什么，因为这座山在这里。
没有比这更可悲的答案了。我为什么要读博士呢？因为“博士学位在那里”？我为什么要出国呢，因为“美国在那里”？
00年的冬天，在我还是西岸某同学的女朋友的时候，有一天晚上，我曾经突发奇想，给他打电话，说：我想退学！我要考电影学院！
西岸同学当即给予了否定，为此我们大吵一架。
当然事后我并没有去考电影学院。我想究其原因，不过是因为我嫌先下这个山、再爬那个山，路途太遥远而已。
可是有时候我会畅想：What if？
弗洛姆说，“逃避自由”是人的天性。在我看来，逃避自由的表现就是：“因为山在那里，所以我要爬山”。
读关于“延安整风”以及的著作，读来读去，结论只是：一切洗脑（整风）的成功要旨，不过在于帮助人们逃避自由。当一个体系能够用逻辑自洽的方式替你回答一切问题、并且保证这些答案的光荣伟大正确的时候，的确，还有什么自主思考的必要性呢？
Am I escaping from freedom by climbing the academic mountain in front of me?
这是一场多么不辞辛苦的逃避啊，几乎可以说是艰苦卓绝，从一个大陆到另一个大陆，从另一个大陆又到另一个小岛。
从前有一个女孩，她总是非常焦虑。有人问她：你为什么总是那么焦虑？生活多么美好啊！她说：我也不服啊，但是没有办法，我缺乏智慧，总是要翻山越岭才能到达一个近在咫尺的地方，但是你知道吗？我有一种预感，我相信自己会越老越快乐的。
后来呢？
后来她就去了英国。
Houston
TODAY is the 300th birthday of David Hume, the most important philosopher ever to write in English, according to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The conferences being held on Hume this year in Austria, the Czech Republic, Russia, Finland and Brazil suggest that the encyclopedia’s claim is perhaps too modest.
Panelists will cite Hume’s seismic impact on epistemology, political theory, economics, historiography, aesthetics and religion, as well as his deep skepticism of the powers of reason. But chances are they won’t have much to say about Hume the man.
It’s not surprising; Hume was most concerned with the nature of knowledge, morality, causality — not with fashioning a philosophy for everyday life. And yet his life, like his work, does offer insights about how to live. Consider an episode in Hume’s life that reflects his most provocative and misunderstood claim: that reason is and always will be the slave to our passions. Predictably, it happened in Paris.
In 1761, Hippolyte de Saujon, the estranged wife of the Comte de Boufflers and celebrated mistress of the Prince de Conti, sent a fan letter to Hume. His best-selling “History of England,” she wrote, “enlightens the soul and fills the heart with sentiments of humanity and benevolence.” It must have been written by “some celestial being, free from human passions.”
From Edinburgh, the rotund and flustered Hume, long resigned to a bachelor’s life, thanked Mme. de Boufflers. “I have rusted amid books and study,” he wrote, and “been little engaged … in the pleasurable scenes of life.” But he would be pleased to meet her.
And so he did, two years later, when he was posted to the British Embassy in Paris. Boufflers and Hume quickly became intimate friends, visiting and writing to each other often. Hume soon confessed his attachment and his jealousy of Conti. Boufflers encouraged him, though no one knows how far: “Were I to add our deepened friendship to my other sources of happiness … I cannot conceive how I could ever complain of my destiny.”
Yet she was also merciless. Men, she wrote to Hume, have “servile souls”; they “like to be mistreated; they are avid for severity, all the while indifferent to kindness.” Hume seemed different, but she warned him: “If I have been mistaken, my affection and all that supports it will soon be destroyed.”
While visiting Paris, Gilbert Elliot, a Scottish friend of Hume’s, became alarmed by Hume’s preoccupation with the comtesse and feared that his heart would be destroyed by her domineering character. After leaving, Elliot wrote to warn him: “I see you at present upon the very brink of a precipice … the active powers of our mind are much too limited to be usefully employed in any pursuit more general than the service of that portion of mankind we call our country.”
In seeing his friend in danger of losing himself to passion, Elliot might have heard an echo of Hume’s own philosophical precepts. In his “Treatise of Human Nature,” Hume argued that “reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will.” Desire, for example, “arises not from reason.” And yet it can (and ought to be) “directed by it.”
As Elliot foresaw, his friend’s bliss was soon shattered. The comtesse’s husband died; she was free to try to convince the Prince de Conti to marry her, and focused her formidable energy on doing so. A distressed Hume was transformed into her platonic adviser and confidant.
Yet he acquitted himself with dignity. When it became clear to everyone except Boufflers that the prince would not marry her, Hume urged her to be reasonable.
In effect, Hume did for her as Elliot had done for him. He reminded her that, insofar as it never causes or creates our desires, reason is indeed passion’s slave. But it is a most useful slave, for it helps us understand and guide our competing passions.
The “chief triumph of art and philosophy,” he wrote years before meeting Boufflers, is that it “refines the temper” and “points out to us those dispositions which we should endeavor to attain, by a constant bent of mind and by repeated habit.”
Those lines sound as if they came from a philosopher whose life reflects his convictions and intends to offer us a model for our own lives. Scholars of the urbane and portly Hume typically see him as an unlikely candidate to place alongside, say, Socrates as a philosopher of this “art of living.” So it’s worth remembering that Hume proved himself equal to his philosophy in his relationship with Boufflers.
He corresponded with her until the end of his life. In fact, he was on his own deathbed when news of the Prince de Conti’s death reached him. Yet he took up his pen to commiserate with the greatest love of his life.
And at the letter’s end he said goodbye: “I see death approach gradually without any anxiety or regret. I salute you, with great affection and regard, for the last time.”
Robert Zaretsky, a professor of history at the University of Houston, is a co-author of “The Philosophers’ Quarrel: Hume, Rousseau and the Limits of Human Understanding.”
五月二日夜访故友新居，四人围坐小酌，相谈甚洽。窗外，帝国大厦近在咫尺。归来拈成小诗一首，聊以遣怀。
空谷幽居有佳人，
窗牖清辉澹水木。
六朝烟雨三尺剑，
年年天际识归舟。
[宋] 王之道
一饷凝情无语，手撚梅花何处。倚竹不胜愁，暗想江头归路。东去，东去，短艇淡烟疏雨。
叶底芳蕤如缀，坐对广庭忘味。娇呆最怜伊，乱糁舞馀风袂。贪喜，贪喜，不觉宝钗斜坠。
遥指汤泉西路，隐约碧云天暮。宿鸟择深枝，两两相呼如语。凝伫，凝伫，今夜梦魂何处。
黄叶声迟风歇，龛火夜寒明灭。残月却多情，来照先生归辙。清绝，清绝，透隙飞霜似雪。
[唐] 鄭准
吳山楚驛四年中，一見清明一改容。
旅恨共風連夜起，韶光隨酒著人濃。
延興門外攀花別，采石江頭帶雨逢。
無限歸心何計是，路邊戈甲正重重。
清明上河图局部第十（中国画艺：清明上河图全图欣赏）
From the New York Times. The author nicely captures several points that I have been hoping to address.
ABOUT a week after Egyptian protesters forced out President Hosni Mubarak, anonymous calls demanding a similar revolution in China appeared on Web sites hosted outside of China. The unnamed activists asked people to gather every Sunday at designated spots in 13 Chinese cities.
The Chinese government responded swiftly, rounding up prominent dissidents and installing a heavy police presence in the cities. On the following Sunday, police officers at the designated spots herded people away and detained resisters. Foreign journalists were roughed up.
That’s how the Chinese “Jasmine Revolution” has turned out so far. But while it’s true that sudden, radical change is not likely to happen in China, that’s no reason for despair: change has been under way in China for years, but in forms more subtle than most people outside the country understand.
After the government crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989, it was widely assumed that Beijing had quashed any chance for meaningful dissent. But protests have become more common since then, over everything from wages and polluted land to dam-building and animal rights. They have involved workers, villagers, migrants, environmentalists and public-interest lawyers.
Protest is also increasingly common on the Internet. I recently counted 60 major cases of online activism, ranging from extensive blogging to heavily trafficked forums to petitions, in 2009 and 2010 alone. Yet these protests are reformist, not revolutionary. They are usually local, centering on corrupt government officials and specific injustices against Chinese citizens, and the participants in different movements do not connect with one another, because the government forbids broad-based coalitions for large-scale social movements.
Because of those political limits, protesters express modest and concrete goals rather than demand total change. And the plural nature of Chinese society means that citizens have sometimes conflicting interests, making it difficult to form any overarching oppositional ideology. In other words, the government allows a certain level of local unrest as long as it knows it can keep that activism from spreading.
And while the Internet has revolutionary potential, here too Chinese leaders have a firm grasp of the situation: they understand the power of the Internet much better than their Middle Eastern counterparts, and they regularly restrict access to the Web when they sense that unrest is gaining momentum.
At the same time, they are careful not to cut off access completely, knowing that could backfire against them as well as damage the Chinese economy.
What outsiders often miss, however, is the response to that strong government control. Activists who understand the possibilities and limits of political opposition in China have developed new forms of online and offline mobilization.
For example, using the Internet to rapidly organize informal “strolls,” rather than formal protests, is part of a broader trend of contemporary activism in which Chinese activists challenge, embarrass or shame the authorities through provocation rather than direct confrontation.
This kind of activism is effective: even as the government tightens control, it also takes steps to mollify public concerns. To demonstrate his awareness of pressing social issues, Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, has gone online three times over the last two years to talk with Chinese Web users. And new laws and policies are constantly introduced to tackle the issues raised by activists: barely a year after a scandal involving tainted milk, for instance, China instituted its first food safety law.
Yet rather than resolving the underlying sources of instability, the government all too often offers short-term, superficial solutions, which are more likely to sweep the problems under the carpet or dam them up. The introduction of the food safety law, for example, has so far failed to solve the country’s serious food safety problems.
What’s more, the energy and resources Beijing puts into maintaining control — its 2011 budget commits more money to internal security than to the military — means that little effort is being devoted to real reform.
There is always the possibility that, if these trends continue, the gaps between reality and people’s expectations will boil over into more aggressive, organized activism. But given the complex dynamic between the Chinese state and public activists, it’s unlikely to happen any time soon.
Guobin Yang, an associate professor of Asian and Middle Eastern cultures at Barnard, is the author of “The Power of the Internet in China.”
