This post is a response to two essays written this past weekend. One on the blog Froogville that in turn sparked a response from Richard at The Peking Duck. Below are my own thoughts, which began as a comment on TPD but ran long and so I’ve decided to post them here.
I don’t think that fenqing can be defined by a particular perspective or viewpoint. Certainly adopting the CCP or Han nationalist worldview doesn’t make one a fenqing. Furthermore, it is far too simplistic to say that just because somebody accepts the CCP worldview on a set of issues this means they are “indoctrinated” or “brainwashed.” But I would suggest that fenqing do share some traits in common with the CCP. The CCP’s information/education environment is not only mono-message but actively hostile to dissenting perspectives. Likewise, for me, the defining characteristic of a fenqing is not strong belief in a particular view, but rather an inability to accept that other valid perspectives might exist.
As with the CCP, a common strategy is to attack the speaker/writer rather than address an argument. For the party, witness the continuing ham-handed attempts to paint the Dalai Lama as a “jackal in monk’s robes,” or the knee-jerk detention and intimidation of dissenters and protesters. On a smaller scale, the fenqing follow the same playbook: Anti-CNN, ad hominem attacks on websites and blogs, Chinese exceptionalism (If you’re not from China, how dare you say…), all attack the messenger with very little said about the message.
The third characteristic reminiscent of the CCP (and the US government for the past eight years) is a consistent tendency to see complex issues in black/white with no room for nuance, complexity, or balance. Fenqing bristle at the mere introduction of complexity into the discussion, so enmeshed are they in the certainty of a worldview cast in anti-intellectual stone fronted by a plaque that reads “New learning need not apply, I have all I will ever need.”
Finally, and this is perhaps of greater importance for historians, debate on history for fenqing, as it is for the CCP, is driven not by the spirit of historical inquiry and research, but by the emotional and political needs of the present. The rich history of the Tibetan people is less important than justifying the PRC’s continued control over the region. Anything that is irrelevant to that goal (or worse, complicates those claims) is attacked and dismissed.
At the same time, it’s easy to overstate the importance of the fenqing. The fenqing are to most patriotic Chinese youth what the meth-riddled KKK rednecks on Jerry Springer are to the Republican party. They are wildly overrepresented on the internet, and the web gives this whacked-out fringe a powerful megaphone that amplifies their voices and adds to their self-importance.
This is hardly scientific, but every once in awhile, if I get the chance, I’ll ask colleagues or friends about fenqing or show them some of the nuttier comments left on sites like The Peking Duck or Blog for China, and ask them their opinion. “Lonely boys” is one of the most common replies, along with “morons,” “people of poor quality,” or “well-intentioned but without culture.” Unscientific to be sure, but telling: I do think most of the fenqing are motivated as much by psychological warps as they are politics. Young men (and there is a heavy gender component to this whole debate as might well be imagined), stuck in dorm rooms in Boston or Paris, socially isolated, sexually frustrated, and confronted with cognitive dissonance caused by the new information environment. They huddle before their computer screens or clasp together in tight monolingual groups and vent. (For that matter, that describes any number of “fenwai” in Beijing as well, but I digress…)
Last year I suggested this potential headline: “Angry Chinese youth finds girlfriend, loses virginity, decides ‘CNN not so bad after all.’”
Nationalism in China, especially online nationalism, is an important trend to watch. While the PRC is an authoritarian government, it is not immune to the pressures of public opinion. There is always the potential that in the event of an international (or domestic) crisis, online opinion, if left unchecked, could run ahead of the government position and so limit the options for a moderate response. But if we are to accept that being a fenqing is less about a particular perspective than a style of debate, then it’s also clear that the fenqing are hardly the totality of the new Chinese patriotism. They are a loud voice, to be sure, that is their modus operandi, but scratch the surface and they are quickly unmasked for who they truly are: lonely boys, bullies hiding behind ridiculous screen names, and anti-intellectual frauds.
Nevertheless, they can be hard to ignore, especially the online trolls that infest sites like The Peking Duck and others, though it’s wise to remember that despite the shrillness of their voices, the fenqing and the troll can best be compared to the short guy in the corner of the bar, whom all the women are ignoring, and so he decides to be as obnoxious as possible in the hope that somebody–anybody–notices him. Frankly, it’s kind of sad, and so, I feel, are the fenqing.
I don’t think that’s THE problem.
The New York Times usually doesn’t publish my letters to the editor, either. And every time I ask CNN for screen time, I’m usually turned down. The New Yorker won’t publish my stories and I can’t book a gig at Carnegie Hall.
Outlets, great and small, have editorial control. That’s NOT the same as censorship. Deciding not to publish something in a particular space does not stop you, me, or Richard from creating our own outlet (starting a blog, founding a newspaper, buying a television station) and saying whatever the hell we want.
To confuse that with a state using its power and authority to deny a voice to its citizens through legal or extra-legal intimidation is to misunderstand the concept of ‘free speech’ and granting Richard such power by comparing him to an authoritarian government will only serve to validate his already considerable ego. (joke.)
Short form: Richard may or may not have deleted your comment, but he’s not going to arrest you or your family for coming over here and talking about it, right?
There are people who just like to be anti everything for the sake of attention. They pick fights on English “laowai” blogs for the same reason, but maybe because all the bridgebloggers tend to write things like politics about China and describe China or the Chinese as a whole, the disagreeing voice sounds like radical nationalism, but I really doubt that they even know what it means.
Or maybe they know that being nationalistic is what the West tends to generalized about the Chinese youth, so by following this image and pushing it to the extreme (the harsher, the more ridiculous, the better), it is really a guarantee for attention, maybe he can get interviewed next time when a journalist wants to write a story about nationalism in China. To cater the “other” created image of self is what you might call it.
There are other Chinese English bloggers followers that are lack of information on the issue or language skills to express properly so they choose to quit by saying mean things, which is more of a frustration than being angry, though it can appear so.
There are Chinese who see bridge bloggers as a messenger to the Western media or the representative of it, who failed to do a good job on explaining the Tibet issue. It collectively fell into the spins created by governments and NGOs of whatever kinds , maybe because China fails to create its counter spin as it is always considered as illegitimate source every time it gets quoted. Also, who can say no to a “humanized” angle of the story well prepared by those organizations? Looking at AP’s coverage , the main source for international news in the world, from 3.14 to 4.30, 406 stories, 323 if you take the repetition out, top 2 are stories on Olympic torch relay, being interrupt or being tear gassed(67) and government reactions (36), does it help to understand the issue? Looking at the protester’s comments on TV interviews, I do not believe they will accept another valid perspectives either because most of them become the mouthpiece of NGOs as well, because they FEEL it is the right thing to do. Then how can you expect the Chinese to not get angry or frustrated, of course, bridge bloggers will be the first to attack, not because what they write or say, but because they represent the Western media among the Chinese.
Su,
Thanks for your ideas and your comments. I think the ‘bridge blogger’ phenomenon is an interesting and important trend to watch.
If I might gently add my own thoughts here:
Anger is okay. For example, when I read about people being arrested for having dissenting views, I get angry.
And I don’t believe a “disagreeing voice” necessarily equals radical nationalism, as I’ve written about four times now.
In the post, way back up at the top of the page, I was pretty clear listing a set of behaviors I thought defined the fenqing. Nothing in that list relates to a specific set of views or emotions, but rather tactics and behavior.
Isn’t it possible, to resort to cliche, to disagree without being disagreeable?
Pffefer,
I think I stated my position most clearly in Comment 31.
I think fenqing is hard to define, and am wary of attempting to. We find it a (too) convenient label for a certain kind of Chinese blog-commenter; I see it as an essentially jokey term, not necessarily derogatory, or not strongly so. This is where Jeremiah and I differ: he wants to make it extremely derogatory, limited in application to an extreme fringe who are capable only of abuse rather than argument – basically the same as ‘troll’.
I don’t see the value of defining the concept so narrowly – when that is not, as far as I can see, how most people perceive the term. I wouldn’t want to extend the extremely derogatory connotations of ‘troll’ to the broader mass of netizens who are often considered, and maybe even self-defined, as fenqing, but are capable of engaging in some sort of debate about their views.
For me, the key element of fenqing is the “anger”: they get so emotional about their views that this often gets in the way of any rational discussion. I think they also tend to be characterised by certain types of opinion which arouse such extreme emotion – particularly nationalist opinions.
I don’t think anyone who is a Chinese nationalist (or who supports the CCP) is necessarily a fenqing. However, it does tend to be the case that almost everyone who espouses Chinese nationalist or pro-CCP viewpoints on blogs like this does so in an extreme manner, with excessive emotion, and with poor (or no) argumentation. That’s what I would call fenqing.
No, I don’t think that the CCP is an absolute evil, and I don’t think everything they do is wrong. I don’t think anyone who supports the CCP is wrong or stupid or crazy. The CCP enjoys a far higher level of approval from its citizens than just about any other government on earth, and I don’t think that’s just down to the control of information in this country; it’s because, on certain levels, they’re not doing a bad job.
What I tend to take issue with are the products of CCP propaganda, the ‘party line’. On issues like Tibet, Taiwan, and so on, the range of points made by most Chinese commenters is very, very, narrow, very, very predictable.
I like you, Pffefer. You raise a lot of very intelligent points. However, you are so tightly wound that you frequently go off in all directions at once rather than following a line of argument; you do stoop to personal attacks; you do rehash standard ‘party’ arguments. I hope you are not offended to be considered – by some – a fenqing. I do not mean it in Jeremiah’s extreme sense. But for me, the kinds of opinions you hold, and the vehemence with which you express them is definitive of fenqing. You are ANGRY. And that anger, unfortunately, often gets in the way of a good debate.
Western coverage on third world issues is biased, the bias is even more obvious on TV. They tend to focus on dramatic, violent and tragic images while giving very little context or explanation to the events. This happens when given full access of information.
Also, they failed in the coverage on Iraq war, twice, with full access of information.
So, is censorship really the key problem?
Even if it is, doesn’t it require even more ethics when reporting on such a complicated and sensitive issue without access of information?
24-7 news circle does not necessarily help the audience to understand global issues. This report as it happens way of journalism limits the space for investigative stories with a more in-depth context, instead, repetition creates a false sense of the audience being close to the event. The demand for images lowers the ethical standard of journalists as the aesthetic value rises. Budget on international reporting is still being cut so the journalists have to work on technical stuff instead of learning the background information(explain the Nepalese police) and wire service (leader of 24-7 news circle) is still the main source for international news globally for the same money saving reason. So what is the purpose of all these? Profit. And for journalists, they constantly forget the compromise they have to routinely make within the system because the false idea of professional journalism makes them believe that by simply reporting little by little of what is happening, an objectivity can be reached.
I had great hope for Western media and it is the reason why I came to Canada to study journalism, but I have to say that that the Tibet coverage kinda blew me away and so far I have not heard any journalist or blogger or media worker criticize this poor quality journalism within the system but blame China’s censorship. Yeah, the mistakes are not good, but they are not serious, can be ignored. Maybe they should learn more from their own academy where all these issues have been soo well studied. :S urgggg…frustration!!!
Tibet independence is an opinion. It is Ok if western media sympathetic to it. It was a fact that major western countries recognize Tibet as part of China instead of independence country before 1950, and western media lied about this.
So in your opinion it is OK for western media to lie/mislead public about some facts just because they are sympathetic some righteous opinions.
Your fact, as our many facts when looking at history, is subject to interpretation, especially in a situation that was highly complex and fluid. If you’re unwilling to admit to complexity and nuance in history, well than you simply dive into the realm of anti-intellectualism and so become a bit of a case study for our debate.
For example, whether the “Western media” lies can also be problematized. (For example, all Western countries, Peru included? Lichtenstein? Every journalist? Because that’s A LOT of people in a conspiracy. Did they meet all at once face to face in planning this, or was a conference call sufficient?) If I ask a Tibetan journalist, am I going to get the perspective as yours? Perhaps, perhaps not.
I can understand the frustration on the part of many proud Chinese, because a lot of media coverage by companies based in Europe and America has been quite bad, but blanket statements of black/white motivations assigned to ill-defined entities does little to further understanding.
And such is the difference between a thinking person and a fenqing.
Ah, I understand now! It’s OK to use bigoted stereotypes, as long as they’re used to demonstrate the fringe nature of the fenqing movement and to acquit the saner and more balanced proponents of a “pro-China” perspective. I’ll remember this for next time I need a straw man in my argument.
vel,
Well, I guess it depends which side of the line you find yourself on.
‘Fenqing’ doesn’t strike me as a new concept, just a new word to describe a rather common phenomenon:
‘A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.’
- Churchill
An interesting conversation, that I won’t get involved in except to say that I prefer froog’s definition of fenqing, which strikes me as broader and as having less overlap with “troll.”
What I really want to know is: did you try sending that headline to The Onion? Is it too obscure for their American orientation, or do you think they might actually do it?
Okay, a tiny bit more on my first point, following what froog said: given the dictionary definition of fenqing, wouldn’t it be actually wrong to classify them as people driven more by a need for attention than by anger? Or is your point basically that there is no such thing as fenqing, that they are really just a kind of troll and not really a social phenomenon of any importance in themselves?
re #14, #20
see comment 19 – 26 on this post
http://foundinchina.com/2009/03/11/territorial-ambitions/#comments
Seems like Stuart is “attacking the speaker so that ideas are left unexpressed. ” and “engenders an inability to accept that other valid perspectives might exist”
So is stuart by your definitions a “fengqing” ?
[...] Granite Studio [...]
I agree that whether Tibet should be independent in future is complicate issues. But “US recognized Tibet as part of China before 1950” is just simple fact can be easily verified by a call to US state department or old official maps. Why make this fact deep and complicated?
Based on my conversation with people in US, I believed that more that 90% people in US believed Tibet was a recognized independent country before 1950 and the Chinese invaded it out of blue in 1950. Where they got their information? If you watched CNN’s reporting regarding Tibet, you know why most people got the wrong facts. BTW I don’t think many US citizen get their information from Peru media.
Pugster’s comments do get published. Go look. They are delayed because I have to screen them first, but 9 out of 10 times I let them go.
“the kinds of opinions you hold, and the vehemence with which you express them is definitive of fenqing. ”
Ahh, so it does matter what opinions I hold. If my opinions are the exact opposite, anti-China as opposed to “pro-China” (to borrow it from Jeremiah), would I be considered a fenqing?
Lei,
I sense this is an issue about which you feel strongly, and that’s fine. I think that most thinking people, whatever their stance on the Tibet question, would agree that Tibet’s status prior to 1949, and especially between 1912-1949 is not easily defined one way or the other. There was a lot of uncertainty in the region at the time, and that uncertainty made black and white distinctions difficult to ascertain.
It’s one of the reasons I teach history, to help people understand that the story behind the story (to borrow a phrase) is a complicated one and that it’s worth learning. If you have time, you might want to check out some of the other posts on this sites, I tend to approach this issue with the belief that both sides in the debate have misrepresented history and eschewed complexity to serve contemporary political needs. But then again, this isn’t a Tibet thread.
As for the media and Peru, if you’re beef is with the American media, a particular news outlet, or a certain series of stories, it helps your argument to be specific about that. Generalized indictments of “Western Media,” as my tongue-in-cheek response suggested, are perhaps too broad to be truly effective.
Thanks for stopping by.
I came across with this interesting story in LA Times,
California Democrats hesitate to honor Dalai Lama,
The Chinese consulate was blamed for defeating this bill in the newspaper. But my guess is that the Chinese communitiy in California lobbied against it. The fight agains the Tibetan separatists appears to be quite rewarding to China. It generates tremendous public support both within and without China. China should let this struggle continue indefinitely and never give an inch. The harder China fights, the more respect it receives.
StP,
This story/link was actually up in the Twitter box on my site most of yesterday. Interesting story and I’d be particular interested in substantiating your guess. Any other sources other than the ones used by the LAT?
Also, this would probably have fit better on one of the Tibet threads.
Jeremiah,
I haven’t learned to use Twitter. It is on my to-do list.
I have no proof to my speculation. California is a futile ground of pro-Dalai sentiment. I do not think the Chinese Consulate alone has the ability to derail this piece of legislation. Other than lobbying by the local Chinese community, I can not imagine any other constituents to be motivated enough to have this bill killed.
Yes, this is about Tibet. It is also about the Fenqings. The Fenqings are most effective when they talk about Tibet. Look at what they have done. They turned the public opinion in China decisively against the Western media, and persuaded the overseas Chinese to become ardent supporters of the PRC for years to come.
The no proof thing does somewhat limit the utility of the example, but I might suggest that lobbying a assembly person because somebody has a reasoned and articulate disagreement with the politics of the Dalai Lama doesn’t make one a fenqing, calling an office and blathering about “hating China” and “jackals with monk’s robes,” etc., well…that’s another thing.
Jeremiah, thank you, just a final quick point.
You are right. There are two sided opinions on China/Tibet issues, just as some other countries:
Spain/Basque
Turkey/Kurdistan
India/Kashmir
Russia/Chechenia
However the ways some major west media (CNN, PBS frontline, some news papers) reporting of China/Tibet issue are quite different from the reporting of other similar issues. Many Chinese feel that those media gave one-sided anti-China view and distorted some facts to make China more sinister. After last year’ bloodshed and Olympic touch relay, this type of feelings are more common among Chinese people. So I just want to point out that there are more in those Fenquin’s angry posts than lonely young men without enough sex.
Lei,
I would agree about those other countries, but I wonder if we were having this discussion on a board devoted to, say, Indian history, with patriotic Indian and Pakistani voices commenting, would they be making similar complaints? Bias is an interesting thing. George Bush’s White House and its supporters frequently complained about the “biased media” in relation to Iraq. No matter how much W. tried to paint the Iraq War in black and white terms, there were those damn media outlets doing stories that suggested the situation was messier and far more complex than the official line.
As I said to your earlier comment, I have no doubt that many patriotic Chinese are frustrated with the tone of coverage in Europe and America. But, for example, you just expressed this view in a very rational manner, and many others do the same. I have no problem with that, I don’t entirely agree with you but I see where you’re coming from and I understand your perspective, and that’s the way forums such as these are supposed to work.
Once again, my view, and I’m sensing some disagreement here from certain camps, is that being a proud, patriotic Chinese person, even one who is angry about a particular issue, does not equal “fenqing.” A fenqing is less about a particular stance or perspective than a stubborn refusal to accept that alternative perspectives or nuance might exist as well as a particular style of commentary that doesn’t allow for debate or discussion pf certain issues.
Don’t make the mistake, as do many in the media, of equating “Chinese people,” “Chinese views,” or “many Chinese” with “fenqing.” The former describe a large number of people with thoughtful views and ideas, the latter is a lunatic fringe.
Pffefer, you’re such a unique specimen, we probably have to come up with a new word just for you.
Yes, fenqing are commonly perceived (by Chinese as well as foreigners, I think; even by fenqing themselves) as being at least partly defined by their vociferous nationalism. If someone is anti-nationalist, or less vociferously nationalist…. then we need a different term for them.
There are distinct groups in many countries and of many political persuasions who share the fenqing failings of excessive emotion and poor argumentation. One or two earlier commenters on this thread have pointed out that you can find similar phenomena on political blogs in almost any country. But we have to use different terms for them – fenqing is by convention restricted to Chinese (who are vehemently nationalist).
The criticism implied in the term fenqing is, as Jeremiah has emphasised in this article, not attached to the views themselves, but to the attitude underlying them (anger, irrationality) and the way they are presented.
I may not agree with a lot of Chinese nationalist/CCP views, but I respect your – or anyone else’s – right to advocate them. I just wish you wouldn’t get so ranty about it.
I think you’ve often found, Pffefer, that in fact our views are quite close on many things (for example, I am not in favour of independence for Tibet, and I would like to see the Yuanminyuan bronzes returned to China). I think, if you were a little calmer and more open-minded, you might even find that you share some common ground with your nemesis, Stuart.
[...] seems that it matters little how you define ’fenqing’, once they smell foreign blood on Chinese soil they get mobilised in a hurry. So who’s [...]
[...] kommer fra den bloggende Qing-historiker fra granitstudiet, der lidt mere seriøst omtaler dem sådan her: The fenqing are to most patriotic Chinese youth [...]
@j – re. your comment to lei’s comment, there is actually a pretty virulent online hindu right element that is remarkably similar to fenqing (or, for that matter, the american online right). there has been a couple of threads discussing it in relation to a recent history by prof. wendy doniger over at chapati mystery lately.
Wu Ming,
Sorry to be unclear, that was my point. This idea that the world is “out to get China,” you could find similar complaints around the world against media bias, etc. Lei’s point was that it was only China/Tibet that receives such negative attention, to which I should have replied “wouldn’t we find such complaints…”
Sorry for the rhetorical imprecision.
gotcha.