[singlepic id=5 w=420 h=330 float=left]
How can such a question possibly be proven? Are there not Chinese musicians, artists, photographers, and other creative people? Do these individuals not disprove the notion that Chinese lack creativity? Well, then of course we begin to talk about trends, percentages, averages, and so on, and the terms of debate break down. We might better take this time to talk about our own failings, such as the recent ideological breakdown the US is suffering from, which very much a failure of creativity. But, having already hit that beat, I am going to provide my thoughts on this one.
It isn’t hard to get some opinions out of Chinese students, but it is hard to get a number of different positions on a topic out, as groups will rally to some extent around one position (or two), and that will be just about it. On the question about where to eat lunch (if it were a class decision) you will find a million suggestions, which will be whittled down to one in a fashion we would consider quite normal (and democratic). You might find a slightly higher amount of participation compared to the US in this case.
But in a classroom exercise the positions will be staked out hesitantly by the strongest voices in the class, multiple positions will be difficult, and the positions themselves will often be weakly supported or fleshed out. All that I think is true. And the class will arrange itself into a structure where a few individuals act as leaders and everyone jumps on one side or the other, happy to have cover. Not apathetic about the class, but just eager to avoid a risky position. Which does not seem unusual to me. The classroom is not real life, and everyone knows it; everyone is trying to just get by in such a situation.
This does not seem to be all that different from the US; a difference of degree only. I went to a large Midwestern university, and lots of students preferred to stay fairly anonymous and silent in class. Maybe things are different in Ivy League schools, with all the go-getters and whatnot. However, rarely will a contrarian enter into the picture, which I think is decidedly different from the US, and there is some degree of buck-passing and passiveness. So, in a limited way, I can support this account, although I do not think it is particularly strong evidence by itself.
I will also concede that math and science have siphoned off a great deal of talent that might be in business school, or in economics or some other profession. That was what the market wanted, and of course we have the stereotype that Chinese parents have a preference for hard science. In the case of economics, I believe basic economic theory was conflated with political theory, and therefore got a late start.
Now, just to go back in the story a little, it should be noted that Beijing freed up the education market in 1995, and in some market sectors a lot of progress has been made and creativity shown. Jiaotong created a law department from scratch, Fudan law is run like a Chinese Juris Doctor program, and the market has filled out in a million ways. (I live near Dong Hua University, so that ‘filled out’ was a pun.) But when you talk about secondary and primary sectors, development is not an easy thing to do, and has to involve local communities. Definitely weakness in that area, and a lot of work yet to be done.
China’s emissions, which come largely from its coal-burning electricity plants, doubled between 1996 and 2006. That was a much faster pace of growth than in the previous decade. And the trend seems set to continue: In January, China announced that it plans to continue its reliance on coal as its main energy source and that to feed its economic growth it will increase coal production 30 percent by 2015. That’s a decision that, all by itself, will swamp any emission reductions elsewhere.So what is to be done about the China problem?
Nothing, say the Chinese. Each time I raised the issue during my visit, I was met with outraged declarations that it was unfair to expect China to limit its use of fossil fuels. After all, they declared, the West faced no similar constraints during its development; while China may be the world’s largest source of carbon-dioxide emissions, its per-capita emissions are still far below American levels; and anyway, the great bulk of the global warming that has already happened is due not to China but to the past carbon emissions of today’s wealthy nations.
And they’re right. It is unfair to expect China to live within constraints that we didn’t have to face when our own economy was on its way up. But that unfairness doesn’t change the fact that letting China match the West’s past profligacy would doom the Earth as we know it.
Historical injustice aside, the Chinese also insisted that they should not be held responsible for the greenhouse gases they emit when producing goods for foreign consumers. But they refused to accept the logical implication of this view — that the burden should fall on those foreign consumers instead, that shoppers who buy Chinese products should pay a “carbon tariff” that reflects the emissions associated with those goods’ production. That, said the Chinese, would violate the principles of free trade.
Sorry, but the climate-change consequences of Chinese production have to be taken into account somewhere. And anyway, the problem with China is not so much what it produces as how it produces it. Remember, China now emits more carbon dioxide than the United States, even though its G.D.P. is only about half as large (and the United States, in turn, is an emissions hog compared with Europe or Japan).
Nonetheless, the progress cited by Fallows is very, very real, and a very large portion of the populace has been in, at least somewhat, on those gains. There is buy-in, especially for the younger generation, even if it is not without disagreement or criticism. And each generation (at least from my perspective here in Shanghai) comes along better educated and with less baggage from the past. So even if there is a creativity gap, expect it to be closed very shortly.