A contemporary account that gives systemic insight is Yuen Yuen Ang's "How China Escaped the Poverty Trap" (2016). She argues local governors are incentivized by the center to excel in industrial development. The relations between the center and the periphery, the Government and the private sphere, has a dynamic in China that is very poorly appreciated internationally.
China's cultural development is strikingly distinct, as Seattle Ecomodernist Society points out. First of all it developed in a region relatively separated from the rest of the world -- highlighted by the salience of the exceptions, such as the incredible obstacles encountered by Faxian to fetch some scriptures. There were of course also other influences through the Silk Road, such as with the Persians, but compared to the communication channels between the rest of the world it was a treacle drip.
Secondly, China's core cultural wealth was generated very early, during the Warring States period. A massively disproportionate amount of civilization-forming thought dates back to the time of Lao Tzu, Sun Zzu, and Confucius. We could perhaps compare it to the influence of Aristotle, Plato, and Jesus on the European late Middle Ages.
Third, China's deference to authority had a built-in safety valve, due to Mencius: the Mandate of Heaven. If the emperor causes chaos and famine, it's legitimate to overthrow him. It happened repeatedly, a regular part of the rhythm of history. Obedience, harmony -- but no divine right. It has to work for everyone.
Fourth, modernity was brutal and came from the outside: gunboats, opium trade, and Marxism. Gradually, after massive failures, this started to congeal into a working model of multi-level industrialization and state-supported capitalism.
Fifth, recovery/revenge. China explicitly cultivates public knowledge and memory of the Century of Humiliation -- down to the wanton destruction of the Summer Palace in Beijing. They're expecting a hostile world, they're prepared to confront difficult times and to work hard.
Finally, they're not universalist in their thinking. They don't think they've discovered the secret solution for humanity or how to run a society in general -- they're just trying to make their own society work. They have zero tradition of exporting their way of life to other countries. They don't expect to be a model -- they expect everyone to mind their own business.
China is in a situation now that is in some ways familiar -- productive, self-sufficient, self-contained -- but also dramatically new, in that they are now inextricably part of an integrated global system. We will need to engage China in a dialogue in a way that has never been necessary before.
Re: the last two, my sense is that while China may not desire to export their ideology or cultural mores to other parts of the world (they did during Mao's time though), they will want to export their metabology to the rest of the world - connecting them to Chinese supply chains and IP. A crude version of that metabolic export has already been tried with OBOR, but I expect to see far more sophisticated and desirable versions over the coming years.
Mostly according to Frederick Starr the India-central Asia-Europe intellectual area developed independently from the Chinese intellectual area, at least in terms of science and scholarship. Is the rise of global prosperity and the study and translation of Classical Chinese texts leading to a reintegration of separate historic scholarly thought? Is this likely to trigger a burst of synergistic advance in various knowledge domains? If generative AI develops wider and different learning source data might it also push similar synergy and acceleration?
Read the article, looking forward to reading about your journey into Chinese history, literature, and your learnings. If you’d like I’d be happy to introduce you to Admiral Bill Owens who was commander of the Sixth Fleet (former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and spent much of his career working with China, understands it well, and has many friends in the region. He was also on the Wipro board and is a proponent of both cultures.
A contemporary account that gives systemic insight is Yuen Yuen Ang's "How China Escaped the Poverty Trap" (2016). She argues local governors are incentivized by the center to excel in industrial development. The relations between the center and the periphery, the Government and the private sphere, has a dynamic in China that is very poorly appreciated internationally.
I appreciate Yuen Yuen Ang's work quite a bit - wrote about some of more recent work here: https://www.ranganaut.com/p/bhumics-the-weekly-planet-4
China's cultural development is strikingly distinct, as Seattle Ecomodernist Society points out. First of all it developed in a region relatively separated from the rest of the world -- highlighted by the salience of the exceptions, such as the incredible obstacles encountered by Faxian to fetch some scriptures. There were of course also other influences through the Silk Road, such as with the Persians, but compared to the communication channels between the rest of the world it was a treacle drip.
Secondly, China's core cultural wealth was generated very early, during the Warring States period. A massively disproportionate amount of civilization-forming thought dates back to the time of Lao Tzu, Sun Zzu, and Confucius. We could perhaps compare it to the influence of Aristotle, Plato, and Jesus on the European late Middle Ages.
Third, China's deference to authority had a built-in safety valve, due to Mencius: the Mandate of Heaven. If the emperor causes chaos and famine, it's legitimate to overthrow him. It happened repeatedly, a regular part of the rhythm of history. Obedience, harmony -- but no divine right. It has to work for everyone.
Fourth, modernity was brutal and came from the outside: gunboats, opium trade, and Marxism. Gradually, after massive failures, this started to congeal into a working model of multi-level industrialization and state-supported capitalism.
Fifth, recovery/revenge. China explicitly cultivates public knowledge and memory of the Century of Humiliation -- down to the wanton destruction of the Summer Palace in Beijing. They're expecting a hostile world, they're prepared to confront difficult times and to work hard.
Finally, they're not universalist in their thinking. They don't think they've discovered the secret solution for humanity or how to run a society in general -- they're just trying to make their own society work. They have zero tradition of exporting their way of life to other countries. They don't expect to be a model -- they expect everyone to mind their own business.
China is in a situation now that is in some ways familiar -- productive, self-sufficient, self-contained -- but also dramatically new, in that they are now inextricably part of an integrated global system. We will need to engage China in a dialogue in a way that has never been necessary before.
Agree with much of what you say, Frode.
Re: the last two, my sense is that while China may not desire to export their ideology or cultural mores to other parts of the world (they did during Mao's time though), they will want to export their metabology to the rest of the world - connecting them to Chinese supply chains and IP. A crude version of that metabolic export has already been tried with OBOR, but I expect to see far more sophisticated and desirable versions over the coming years.
Mostly according to Frederick Starr the India-central Asia-Europe intellectual area developed independently from the Chinese intellectual area, at least in terms of science and scholarship. Is the rise of global prosperity and the study and translation of Classical Chinese texts leading to a reintegration of separate historic scholarly thought? Is this likely to trigger a burst of synergistic advance in various knowledge domains? If generative AI develops wider and different learning source data might it also push similar synergy and acceleration?
One can hope so!
Looking forward to it.
Read the article, looking forward to reading about your journey into Chinese history, literature, and your learnings. If you’d like I’d be happy to introduce you to Admiral Bill Owens who was commander of the Sixth Fleet (former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and spent much of his career working with China, understands it well, and has many friends in the region. He was also on the Wipro board and is a proponent of both cultures.
That might be the nicest thing someone has said on my Substack. I would love an introduction to Bill Owens.
I’m at +91-98126-12345 on whatsapp and cmd@goldsteinroth.com shoot me a whatsapp and I’ll set up a zoom call for both of you 😊
Hi. This is a very confused and ornery article.