Three-quarters of a century ago, Americans often viewed China through one of
two distorting lenses, both of which can be linked to famous works of popular
culture of the 1930s. One was a patronizing lens that can be associated with the
1931 Pearl Buck novel "The Good Earth," and the popular 1937 film it inspired.
The other was a demonizing lens that can be associated with a 1932 horror film,
"The Mask of Fu Manchu." China today, of course, is a very different place.
And yet, as a look at recent American bestseller lists reveals, lenses of the
"Good Earth" and "Fu Manchu" varieties continue to distort our view of the
world's most populous country.
"Scratches on Our Minds: American Views of China and India," a masterly 1958
study by the journalist and later M.I.T. professor Harold Isaacs, was the first
book to analyze those lenses in detail. Isaacs argued that two "sets of images"
bedeviled American understanding of China. A positive set "identified in our own
generation with the people of Pearl Buck's novels," presented the Chinese as
"solid, simple, courageous folk staunchly coping with the blows of fate." And a
negative set that encouraged us to think of China as a place that produced
power-mad sadists (such as the diabolical Dr. Fu Manchu) and faceless hordes
ready to do their bidding. One set of images kept alive the fantasy that, if
only given the chance, the Chinese would embrace our ways and buy our goods; the
other kept alive yellow peril visions of a China threat.
Isaacs would later write prefaces to two follow-up editions to "Scratches on
Our Minds," in which he noted the continued hold of these images and fantasies
up through 1980. Were he still alive, bestseller lists might convince him that
though we are in a new century, we remain trapped in these old patterns.
"The Good Earth" was recently back on these lists in 2004. Why? Because
talk-show host Oprah Winfrey selected it for her book club. A much newer book
also enjoying popularity is Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's "Mao: The Unknown
Story." This does not present Mao as a complex figure who was responsible for
causing enormous suffering at certain points (the most common view among
scholars), but as from start to finish a sadist without redeeming features, a
sort of Fu Manchu with totalitarian characteristics - and a mass following.
President Bush, according to The New York Times, thinks it a great book.
My goal here is not to cast aspersions on Buck's literary skills or Ms.
Chang's and Mr. Halliday's abilities as the authors (though I should note that I
am among the China specialists who have published harshly critical reviews of
their sensationalized life of Mao). My interest in the books here is simply that
their reception is one indication that Americans remain stuck in old ruts
regarding China at a time when new scholarly approaches to that country are
needed.
Accessible books that provide the basis for fresh thinking certainly do
exist. A case in point is "The Changing Face of China" by John Gittings, who was
trained in Chinese studies and for decades covered East Asia for the Guardian
newspaper. A more recent book with even more potential to move us beyond
stereotypes is Sang Ye's "China Candid: The People on the People's Republic," a
wonderful collection of diverse interviews with men and women of differing ages
and occupations that introduces us to an array of distinctive Chinese
individuals trying to get along and make sense of the often confusing
transformations swirling around them. When taken together, they provide a
powerful and unforgettable sense of just how varied the experiences and
viewpoints of contemporary residents of the People's Republic of China can be.
If only Mr. Bush or, more realistically, Ms. Winfrey would sing the praises
of a book like "China Candid"! Then, perhaps, someday when I quote Isaacs in
class, I will be able to present "Scratches on Our Minds" as quaint, a period
piece. Alas, yet again this semester I had to treat its arguments as remaining
as relevant today as they were midway through the past
century.
