Copenhagen 350

On December 10, 2009, students and teachers from Green Oasis School, Shenzhen, joined world wide vigils to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Scientists say that 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere is the safe limit for humanity. Currently, we’re at 387 and rising.

10th grader, Ann Sheng organized students and teachers to march from the school to the park, including securing permits from the municipal government.

15 years ago, Shenzhen urban planners expected the population to use public transportation and bicycles. Today, Shenzhen has one of the largest car markets in China, and the city’s roads have been rebuilt to acommodate the huge number of private vehicles. 15 years ago, Shenzhen urban plans included green space and basketball courts. Today, those public spaces are now used as parking lots.

All this to say, already in Ann’s short life, air quality in Shenzhen has noticibly worsened. I hope her efforts and the enthusiastic support of her classmates and teachers help world leaders (yes I’m looking at you, Barack Obama and Hu Jintao) to reconsider their positions to represent the views of the people and not just car manufacturers.

pictures of the vigil, here.

Choices PK 机会

This year, I began working as a college counselor, advising bright and talented students on the value of a liberal arts education and the concept of fit, as well as more mundane matters such as crafting essays that answer the question and making sure that an application is filled out correctly. My students willingly do homework, take tests, join clubs, and volunteer in order to craft themselves into highly desirable candidates. They are, no question, great students. Yet as the semester has progressed, I have found myself angry, frustrated, and screaming at my husband because the telephone is ringing.

Why the pissy attitude?

At first, I attributed all this unpleasentness to stress, comforting myself with wishful thoughts that after the first rush of applications, I would calm down, teachers would submit recommendations in a timely manner, and students would follow instructions. The question, as I first saw it, was procedural; all we had to do was figure out how to cooperate and everything else would fall into place. Nevertheless, despite major adjustments, minor tweaks, and a general policy of bribing and bullying students as necessary, my irritation only increased.

Several days ago, a student came to me and said, “I want to apply early decision.”

I asked, “What school are you thinking about?”

He replied, “What school do you think I have the best chance of getting in?”

I rolled my eyes and repeated, “Where do you want to go?”

“Recently, the University of X has admitted many Chinese students. Do you think I have a chance?”

“Why do you want to go there?”

“I want a good study environment and it has a high ranking.”

“But what’s special about this University?”

He stared at me. I rephrased, “How will you answer the application question – Why do you want to attend University of X?”

He reassured me, “That’s an easy question to answer. Don’t worry. I’m sure I’ll have something to say.”

Another college application standoff. I wanted to convince him to choose a college that fit him, he wanted me to get him into the highest ranking college possible.

This student typifies how my students have approached looking at US colleges and universities. They look at college rankings with an eye to how famous a school is in China and then compare the requirements for attending that university with what they have thus far achieved. They apply to a range of colleges based on these criteria – how highly ranked, how famous, how likely am I to get in? This is a highly rational approach to selecting a college and it has bothered me no end.

Only in retrospect have I unpacked my frustration in how my students have approached US college applications. I believe, unthinkingly, that which college a student attends is a choice. I maintain that the proper way of making a choice entails reflecting on one’s values, passions, and intellectual stregths. In this sense, academic achievements are necessary but insufficient to make a choice. The deciding factor is how a student wants to live. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the student to understand who she is and choose accordingly. This is a crude definition of “fit” – the idea that schools have different strengths, allowing students to flourish in different ways.

My understanding of “choosing a college” is based on a larger American valuation of choice in general. To my mind, a “good” person makes choices, a “bad” person opportunistically maximizes options. I value choice because it is where I express my commitments, ethics, and personality. I believe that society should be structured in such a way as to provide fair and equal opportunities to make choices. Indeed, I understand “freedom” to be defined through choice, experiencing the absence of choice as not only emotionally intolerable, but also unjustly oppressive. Moreover, I interpret other people’s actions with respect to my valuation of choice. I understand critical moments in a life to be defined by the choices that an individual has made – the choice of friends, the choice of where to go to college (or not), the choice of a spouse (or not), the choice of jobs… At each moment, I see that the self must express itself by making choices. A not B, C rather than D.

Here’s the cross-cultural rub: My Chinese students don’t operate out of the same valuation of choice. Instead, they value contexts of possibility. They understand that if they attend a certain high school, they will have the possibility to meet a particular set of friends, attend a given set of colleges, and find a related job. At each moment, they see that one’s options are context dependent. Consequently, they work to make ensure that at any moment they have as many options as possible. Indeed, they see the greatness and expansiveness of the self in terms of endless possibility.

Clearly, choice and opportunity as organizing principles have different consequences, both good and bad. On the upside, those of us who value choice making, craft highly defined selves. We also tend to see ourselves as shaping the world. [Good morning, America!] Those of us who value an array of options, craft highly fluid selves. We also tend to see ourselves as adapting to an already formed world. [Hello, China!] On the downside, Americans who value choice making, often miss opportunities to live and experience the world otherwise because our selves are so firmly fixed through definitions of what “I” should choose. Likewise, Chinese who maximize opportunities, often live passively and without passion, taking what is offered as if it were an unchangeable fate.

可想而知 – as can be well imagined – when I, a muddled and American teacher meet up with bright but Chinese students to discuss the future, we often talk at cross purposes. Fortunately, we become vexed when the misunderstandings become too obvious to ignore. In turn, this irritation allows us to re-think how different points of departure might nevertheless lead to common ground.

Another highly speculative post from the depths of Shenzhen. What do you think?

the meaning of work and the pursuit of 幸福

I have been thinking about the familial as opposed to the personal value of work in Shenzhen. More specifically,I have been thinking about how happiness (幸福) is tied to family life and thus, how work is understood in terms of how it contributes to and/or impedes the creation and maintenance of families. For example, when people talk about why their jobs are important, they do so in terms of how it contributes to family life, rather than in terms of personal satisfaction. Thus, a “good” job provides a stable income and respectability for a family. If the job allows an individual to pursue and develop interests, so much the better. But if not, individuals may still derive (some) satisfaction from their jobs insofar as these jobs allow them to fulfill their responsibilities to their families.

This insight has allowed me to rethink how my students and their families understand my role in their lives (helping them get into top schools so that they can launch into good jobs), as opposed to what I think my job should be (helping them get into schools that will help them further explore, discover, and develop their passions so that they can find satisfying jobs).

1. The purpose of education: If the social value of a job is familial, it means that the goal of education is to prepare students for well-paid, stable and respectable jobs. These means that in an increasingly technology driven world, education would focus on the sciences and mathematics, despite (and often at the expense of) students’ interests in the arts and humanities. In contrast, if the social value of a job is personal, it means that the goal of education would be to help students figure out what their passion is and how to perfect it, whether or not that particular passion was economically viable.

2. The gender of the job: If the social value of a job is familial, it means that family roles become one of the most important criteria for choosing a career. Fathers/husbands must find jobs that allow them to provide for their families. Likewise, mothers/wives must take jobs that allow them to take care of the family. This means that men often end up taking jobs that they don’t like and women often don’t pursue jobs that they might enjoy in order to maintain family stability.

3. Who decides what one does: If the social value of a job is familial, it also means that parents, spouses, in-laws, and lovers all have a say in what one does because what one does is understood to be an expression of one’s commitment to these relationships. For example, a man who pursues an engineering career has expressed both the potential and the desire to take care of his family because engineering is a proven middle class job. In contrast, a man who pursues a passion for painting has demonstrated neither the potential nor the desire to care of his family because earning a living from painting is difficult. Likewise, a woman is rarely evaluated in terms of her success, but how that success impacts family life. For example, after a woman has a child, the child’s welfare comes before her job. Moreover, problems that children have are often explained in terms of mothers’ inability to manage both work and family responsibilities, regardless if the mother works long, underpaid hours to help meet ends meet, or has chosen to pursue a demanding career, which requires long, well paid hours to meet professional goals.

4. There is more sympathy for folks who are trying, but failing to fulfill their responsibilities to their families through respectable jobs than there is support for folks who trying, but failing to fulfill their family responsibilities by pursuing their interests. Thus, men find their interests are limited by their ability to earn and women find their ambitions are constrained by household responsibilities.

5. Insofar as creating and maintaining a family is considered to be and bring about the highest happiness (幸福), it’s an open question as to how helpful it is when I encourage students to follow their dreams rather than to obey their parents’ instructions.

Hmm.

the shekou storm – translation

Throughout the 1980s, Beijing and Shenzhen were symbols in and locations of debates about the development of post-Mao society. In many ways, Beijing symbolized and produced theories of reform and opening, while Shenzhen symbolized and actualized these theories. However, as the saying goes, plans can’t keep up with change. Roughly a year and a half before the demonstrations in Tian’anmen, the Shekou Tempest demonstrated that the government was serious in its intention to reform and open all of society, including politics as usual.

In tribute to the efforts of young people in both cities, and the sincerity of the questioning, I have translated “Questions and Answers about the Shekou Tempest (蛇口风波问答录) by Zeng Xianbin (曾宪斌) because the article reminds us how important Shenzhen was (Shekou especially) to the hopes and dreams that characterized Chinese youth during the 1980s. The article also illustrates at what cost Shenzhen’s post Southern Tour (1992) development has come; once upon a time, Shenzhen residents had the rhetorical skills and ethical compulsion to debate the social implications of going capitalist.

Ironically, many of the early Shekou gold diggers, who once believed it was possible to make money and contribute to society, now sould like old leftists – too many people have come to Shenzhen only to make money without contributing anything to society. This emphasis on working for society, rather than oneself seems to be the important thread that links Old Shenzhen to the Chinese Revolution; New Shenzhen, post 1989 Shenzhen, is something else again.

Questions and Answers about the Shekou Tempest

by Zeng Xianbin

Reporter’s note: This is a small debate that took place half a year ago and was later reported in several newspapers. Today this newspaper [People’s Daily] introduces the event and some related opinions, as well as providing space for more comerades to participate in the discussion, together exploring the question of youth political thought work.

On January 13 this year [1988], Shekou, Shenzhen organized a “Youth Education Experts and Shekou Youth Symposium”. Participants included Comerades Li Yanjie, Qu Xiao, and Peng Qiyi, three political lecturers from the Chinese Youth Thought Work Research Center and seventy Shekou youths. The media has already introduced this symposium. Even if evaluations of this discussion were mixed, nevertheless there was concensus about one point: its meaning exceeded the actual tempest itself. During the first and middle parts of July, this reporter split his time between Beijing and Shenzhen, interviewing people involved such as Li Yanjie, Qu Xiao, Peng Qingyi and Yuan Geng, asking them to answer questions about which readers are concerned. In order to insure that the reader gets objective, verifiable facts, this reporter has recorded only the questions and answers. The reader must judge the rights and wrongs of the case for herself. Continue reading

great dividers

Yesterday, a colleague handed me a photocopy of a recent South China Morning Post Post Magazine article “Pass Masters” by Simon Parry. Unfortunately, the photocopy didn’t have the publication date and I haven’t been able to find an online link to the article. I apologize for responding without proper citation. If anyone does have the link, please let me know.

Uncontextualized translation seems to be one of the great dividers between Chinese and English readers of news both virtual and printed. At the very least, uncontextualized translation seems to add fuel to stereotypical fires, such as “China can’t be trusted”. Reporters often translate “words” in order to explain a situation. However, rarely to they remind readers that the histories and cultural schemes in which the orignal words operate are different from those in which the translation operates.

For example, in his expose Pass Masters, Simon Parry uses “shooter” to translate 枪手. Thus:

Stand-in candidates, known as “shooters”, claim to be able to exploit loopholes in a globally respected examination system to help students with weak English skills get the qualification the need, along with a home-country degree, to secure university places.

Testimony suggests IELTS exams are being infiltrated by shooters on a nationwide scale, potentially earning places in overseas universities at the expense of properly qualified students.

A speaker of American English, I understand Parry’s use of “shooter” to refer to a vague, kind of random criminal. His usage also inflames a sense of unscrupulous goings on in China and that these nefarious dealings pose a threat to British education and by extension Western civilization as we know it.

However, a better translation of 枪手 would be “hired gun”, which points to the specificity of what is happening. And this is precisely where and why contextualized translation becomes necessary: in Mandarin a 枪手 is anyone hired to write something for another person. Thus, 枪手 also translates as “ghostwriter”, a respectable career in English-speaking worlds. Continue reading

anywhere but here

Recently, Lyn Jeffrey pointed to an article in the Christian Science Monitor on the reverse brain drain, where elite US trained Indian and Chinese scientists are opting to take their children back home for  a higher quality education.

In Shenzhen, parents place their children in international schools and pay for all sorts of cram schooling because yes, they want them to receive a higher quality education.

The question of where a child will receive a better education seems to me to be about the institutionalization of educational values as much as it is a grass is greener situation. Continue reading

阳光家庭 – Sunny Families on a Rainy Day


social work

Originally uploaded by maryannodonnell

Sometimes the anthropological moment comes to me.

This morning, I was hanging clothes despite the drizzle when a bullhorn announced the opening of a Nanshan District Sunny Family Pre-School Haiyue Community Event in our housing development. Specifically, the group was recruitng for its summer program, which would run from June 6 through July 4. From the information I gathered, it looks like more kindergarten. From the children dancing in gold costumes, it still looks like a summer of more kindergarten. SF also announced a program they will be holding on Household Relationship Management for the Professional Woman (职业女性家庭关系经营). Continue reading

More Shenzhen Hukou (debate about) Reforms

This academic year (2008-2009), for the first time, Shenzhen law allowed for students without Shenzhen hukou to have the same rights to compulsary education (义务教育) as students with Shenzhen hukou. Of the roughly 600,000 school children in Shenzhen, 340,000 do not have Shenzhen hukou. It was estimated that the reforms would cost the government 400 million rmb.

At the press conference announcing the decision, Vice Mayor Yan Xiaopei (闫小培) said that there were two bright spots to the new policy that would make compulary education in Shenzhen more equitable. First, was that education for non-Shenzhen students would be free, just as it is for Shenzhen students. Second, in addition to providing free education, the city would also begin issuing free textbooks. In addition, public and private schools would be obligated to follow the same standard for payment of additional fees.

Of course, these reforms are welcome. However, they point to two ongoing education problems in Shenzhen: 1. The lack of good high schools for the number of students in the city, which means that those who don’t test into a top school and have college ambitions leave the city for high school even if they have Shenzhen hukou and 2. the link between taking the college entrance exam (高考) and hukou.

This April at the Shenzhen two Conferences (the National People’s Congress and the Chinese Political Consultative Conference), Shenzhen began debate about dissolving the law that requires high school 3 students to return to their hometowns to take the college entrance exam.  A few quotes from the debate:

到目前为止,对于政协委员和居民的呼声,深圳市政府方面显得很冷静。对于“取消高考资格户籍限制”的建议,深圳市教育局副局长坦承:“这是一个非常好的理 想。”但唐海海随即表示,高考资格之所以有户籍限制,有多方面的原因。深圳社会科学院社会发展研究所所长、深圳市决策咨询委员会委员杨立勋认为,在目前配 套政策没出来之前,放开高考户籍限制会出问题。深圳市人口办有关负责人也表示:深圳是特大城市中户籍准入最开放的城市,深圳的人口压力已经很大了,如果完 全放开,可能会带来很多问题。

(from xinhua net): To date, the Shenzhen government remains cool in the face of  the desires of the Consultative Conference and Shenzhen citizens. With respect to the suggestion to “dissolve hukou limits on the college entrance exam”, Shenzhen Vice Minister of Education, Tang Haihai (唐海海) said, “This is a wonderful ideal.” However, the Vice Minister then pointed out that there are many reasons why participation in the college entrance exam is limitted by hukou. According to Yang Lixun, Head Social Development Research Department of the Shenzhen Academy of Social Sciences and Member of the Shenzhen Policy Consultant Commity, until an entire set of related policies are in place, disolving hukou restrictions on participating in the gaokao will only lead to problems. A person in the municipal population office pointed out: Shenzhen hukou policy is the most liberal of all the especially large cities, and population pressure in the city is already very great, if [hukou restrictions] are completely dissolved, it is possible that many problems will follow.

In the meantime, the “Sunny Internet” program for middle and high school students who will take the high school and college entrance exams, respectively, enters its fourth year. All of Shenzhen’s schools are required to put basic information online, for free, in the interest of fairness. Required information includes: the kind of school (public, public-private hybrid, run privately owned by the state) its ranking (provincial first level…), target students, recruiting field (the whole city, a particular district), costs, address, and where to go for more information. For those desiring the latest information on both tests, visit the Shenzhen Tests Website (深圳招考网).

What’s your experience?

Yesterday, a journalist interviewed me about differences between US and Chinese education systems. The heart of the matter was how might Chinese students apply successfully for US university and college admissions. I blah-blahed for a while – on the different social functions of testing, on the relative importance of excelling in one subject, rather than having good grades in all subjects, and on the advantages of finding an environment that fits the student, rather than choosing a college based on how famous it happens to be in China. Thus far, a rather ordinary interview. Or so I thought.

At the point when I was blathering on about how the ideal function of a US college education was for students to figure out their intellectual interests and then professionalize at the graduate level (as opposed to many other post-secondary systems, where professionalization happens at the undergraduate level because many countries track students into the humanities or sciences as early as high school), the journalist sighed (?!) and said, “You’re really idealistic.”

I’ve heard this. Frequently. It’s as if idealism was a bad, bad thing. My stock answer du jour is, “In the context of the US college system, it’s practical to assume that students will change majors once or twice, may transfer to another school, or could take time off to follow other passions. It’s safe to say, most will stumble into a job after college and then professionalize on the job (and even more likely professionalize through a series of jobs) with a possible detour through grad school.

“That’s just it,” the journalist jumped in. “In China we don’t have so many choices. It’s even worse when you reach middle age. Then the job chooses you. Living for one’s passions is a luxury that Chinese people don’t have.” And then he added the zinger designed to end the conversation, “You don’t have this experience of living for other people because you’re not Chinese.”

Bracketing the fact that the journalist was younger than me and I haven’t yet admitted to middle age-dom, his rebuttal was similar to other responses (especially from parents) that I’ve heard. What’s interesting to me is what makes my response seem “American”. On the face of it, the journalist’s rebuttal assumed that realism means getting a secure, high-paying job right-out-of-college. This seems to me a pretty standard response to capitalism as we know it wherever we happen to live. Specifically, I think Chinese and American parents share this definition of realism, especially about their children’s college education, because they are anxious about what will happen to their children once launched and they know that it’s harder to make a living in an uncertain economy.

Making college “about” getting a job is actually magical realism (of an albeit cross-cultural kind), rather than hopefully and practically idealistic. Imagine parents stirring the pot of destiny, thinking, “If I can control what college my child attends, then I can protect them from unemployment, debt, and exploitation. My child will never experience the humiliation of unemployment and the sadness of insufficient medical care.” Fingers wiggle, green smoke appears –Poof – “You won’t ever have to suffer the arrows of outrageous multi-national fortunes.” In contrast, it seems to me that protection from the injustices of an economy out-of-control (and I think that’s a constant state of being, rather than a momentary aberration) is more likely to come from discovering and nourishing passions that will make our lives more meaningful, and by extension, make the world more beautiful than it is to come from placing one’s faith in name-brand schools and top-ten jobs.

So I return to the question of what made my understanding American, rather than optimistically idealistic within a global context. I believe my American-ness hinged on the journalist’s belief that “Chinese” people live for other people and “Americans” live for themselves. Unsurprisingly, I’ve also had this conversation with other Chinese friends. When it’s pointed out to me that “Chinese” people live for others, the examples tend to be about sacrificing oneself for the greater good. – 牺牲你一个,幸福千万人 and 舍小家为大家 being two recent contributions to the debate. When I counter that I’m not opposed to living helpfully, I just don’t see how my unhappiness (and even death should sacrifice go so far) would improve the world, I have heard, that this is precisely the cultural difference that they are talking about. The sacrifice of a few for the many does lead to greater happiness. If I had the experience (体验 – which I understand to emphasize embodied knowledge of the walked-a-mile-in-a-man’s-shoes variety) of living for others I would know in my bones that this was true.

And yet. Throughout the public sphere, Shenzhen inhabitants butt in line to get on the bus, cut off other drivers to make a U-turn, and push themselves in front of me to buy breakfast buns. Why don’t the activities of lining up and waiting for one’s turn count as “living for others”? This kind of living for others I do quite well. However, my Chinese friends tell me these behaviors are examples of 素质 and 文明 – breeding and civilization. In contrast, living for others is about one’s relationships to 自己人 – one’s people. On this explanation, “living for others” defines degrees of intimacy; it is not about one’s relationships with strangers. So two points. First, what makes me American is an unwillingness to participate in forms of intimacy that are defined by a willingness to sacrifice myself for my family and friends. Second, in those contexts defined by a lack of intimacy, what makes one Chinese is full throttle “living for oneself” and giving over to one’s (unlimited) desires.

It seems to me that in defining cultural difference between Chinese and Americans, it’s more important to establish where and when self-expression (defined as giving over to one’s desires) is socially acceptable, rather than positing “selfless” Chinese and “selfish” Americans. Certainly, many Chinese have experienced the liberating effects of Shenzhen in terms of being unconstrained by the desires of family and friends back home. Indeed, this lack of constraint is what makes Shenzhen seem “un-Chinese”. My experience has been that the more friends I make, the more is asked of me in terms of social commitments. So that despite a zero intimacy starting point, I have been and continued to be socialized according to Chinese norms that are tempered with the “knowledge” that I am American and hence of the selfish ilk.

What’s your experience?

Slow Shenzhen

Wed afternoon I heard a Taiwanese friend describe development in Shenzhen as “slow”!? Not slowing, but slow. My friend referred to the cultivation of talented people (人才). She pointed to how poorly Shenzhen students do on the college entrance exam to prove her point. 30 years into reform and a real city would have produced top scholars. She added that people who migrate to Shenzhen are go-getters (loose translation of 勤奋), but not cultured.

Bracketing a discussion of the way the gaokao quota system works and Guandong students’ limited options, my friend’s impression of education in Shenzhen is interesting because many of the students I work with will study abroad at top universities. This semester, for example, one of my students has been accepted to Cornell early decision and another accepted to Cambridge. I also know that top American universities now include Shenzhen schools on their Asian campus visits. Indeed, rumor has it that many of the best Shenzhen students use their high school senior year to prepare to study abroad, rather than cramming for the college entrance exam.

In other words, as soon as possible, Shenzhen students opt out of the Chinese system and their parents fund a major flow of talented young people abroad. All this to say, Shenzhen’s middle class and nouveau riche may be merely hardworking, but clearly they have elite aspirations for their children. I don’t know how relatively fast or slow this reorientation of the educational system has been, but I do know that the numbers of Shenzhen students studying abroad has grown steadily and will continue to grow in the foreseeable future. Moreover, I know many to be bright, creative, and capable of enriching wherever it is they ultimately decide to contribute their talents. Seen in this light, Shenzhen may be raising global, rather than national intellectuals. Lucky world.