大智若愚

Might blogs affect China's morals?

2007-12-03T16:58:59Z

So far I have considered the potential of blogs simply in terms of politics, how blogs might be used to muster support for a popular opposition movement or to publish reports on government injustices. The internet challenges the party's control of more than just political freedom, the internet might affect government control of China’s economy as well as the morals of the Chinese population.

An excerpt of a blog i was given by my Chinese literature teacher gave me the idea that blogs may be instrumental in altering in some way the morals of young people. The excerpt was written by Mian Mian, a young female writer who shocked audiences in China with her books and short stories which explored drug taking and various other taboos. Any impact that this type of blog might have on morals in China will of course depend on how active the government is in controlling what is published and the size and profile of the readership in China.

The entry, which I have roughly translated below, is taken from http://blog.sina.com.cn/mianmian . According to http://www.websitepulse.com , a tool which allows me to check whether a website is blocked in China, this blog has not been blocked, and is therefore can be accessed by all Chinese 'netizens'. The post has had 432 reads, perhaps since many of those, like me and my Chinese teacher, are from abroad, the impact of such a blog on Chinese people will be limited.

I just got back from attending a good friend's wedding.
The friend's husband is a young musician.
The wedding had a grand piano with the most romantic music.
Frank said to me: i don't like romantic music.
On the way back, mum said: I have never been to that kind of wedding!
Now I'm listening to Radiohead.
Yesterday I saw a musical biography of Leonard Cohen.
The people in it all had faces wrinkled like angels,
If you feel that you are not pretty enough, just watch a concert like this and spend some time with your best friends and you will feel better again!
Recently I have done much. I think now that i had best find a suitable time to list them.
I should do that.
Because I love you guys!
I really hope i can be your weekend DJ.
Now the record player is singing: Nice dream... Nice dream... nice dream...

Although this certainly didn't compel me to leave a comment, thirty other users did. Most of these were keen to show they got the references to Western music. One person wrote that Mian Mian's writing has real feeling.

Maybe I missed something.

The Internet as a Threat to Sovereignty

2007-11-28T22:41:08Z

Henry Perritt devotes much of this article to the internet and its relation to global government. The article makes little specific reference to China, and since it is written prior to the evolution of web 2.0, there is no mention of the blogging phenomenon. However, the article explains very well the internet’s relationship to governance.

Perritt first describes the internet as joining a long heritage of new information technologies which threaten to upset the existing nature of politics. He goes on to identify the characteristics that make the internet dangerous to sovereignty. The most distinct feature he claims is the state’s lack of physical and regulatory controls. Additionally, the internet has lower barriers to entry since it depends on existing physical communication structures. By mentioning that is difficult to impose border controls because the internet uses packet switching Perritt has reminded me of my need to read up a bit on the techie side of things!

He emphasises the need for sovereignty to be placed in its proper political context, rather than viewing it as some monolithic concept valid in all circumstances. As far as I can see an illiberal, repressive notion of sovereignty pervades in China. In such cases, he argues that information on the internet, since it is decentralised in nature, is difficult for repressive states to control and censure. Perritt argues that this may permit political opposition groups and movements to flourish. It is the possible use of blogs used in this way which interests me.

However, this was not the first time the concept of centralisation of information was raised for me today. A blog written in the last couple of days by Ethan Zuckerman (and which I will write about soon) talks about the views of world famous blogger, An Ti. He states that blogs are centralised, since they live on a central server. The ability of China to shut off whole providers like Blogspot testifies to this. The influence that blogging may have depends heavily on the extent to which the blogosphere is centralised in China.

To me it is clear that since this article was written in 1998, the government’s ability to impose physical and regulatory controls, the very lack of which Perrit believed endangered sovereignty, have developed. Another interesting development blogging. How is blogging, and other manifestations of web 2.0, which again may join the long heritage of new information technologies which threaten to upset the existing nature of politics, different from the internet in 1998, or “web 1.0”?

Dot Com for Dictators

2007-11-26T23:32:02Z

In a Foreign Policy Journal article entitled Dot Com for Dictators Shanthi Kalathil explores the internet’s potential to rewire regimes from within. Whilst tales of cyber dissidence may grab headlines, as nations such as China embrace the Web to streamline government and boost economic growth, they also create opportunities for greater transparency, accountability, and freedom.

Dot Com for Dictators, with its "headline grabbing" headline, states that there is an image of an internet arms race pitting would-be revolutionaries and democracy hungry publics against states determined to block, censor, and monitor citizens. (I must confess, it may have been this appearance that generated my initial interest in the topic!) This, says Kalathil, is only part of a larger puzzle which also includes the adoption of e-government, and the likelihood that it may foster democratic reform. My investigation however is limited to blogs and the relationship between the so called democracy hungry public of China and the state. This is down played somewhat by the article, which suggests that I would do well not get carried away by headline grabbing tales of cyber dissidence which fill sites like Global Voices.

The author highlights how the internet has empowered government, providing the Strong Country Forum, part of the People’s Daily website, as an example of ideological control. I must find out if government administered blogs might be used to strengthen government in the same way as Strong Country forum.

This article draws attention to another important force, foreign involvement in China’s IT infrastructure. The study briefly mentions accession to the WTO and China’s resulting obligations to allow foreign investment in telecommunications. Such involvement may reduce the government’s ability to restrict the content of the Web, and thus allowing more freedom. My study requires further investigation into the exact status of telecommunication ownership and the extent to which it affects internet freedom and coverage.

.

Shutting the mouth of the people is harder than stopping the flow of the river?

2007-11-25T18:09:52Z

It looks like I have incorrectly translated a comment in my entry on the 1510 post below. The correct translation raises an interesting point.

I translated 防民之口，甚于防川, as shutting the mouth of the people, is harder than stopping the flow of a river.

This piece is a quote from Guoyu (国语), a classical Chinese history book that collects the historical records of numerous states from Western Zhou to 453 BC.

One Chinese explanation I found is as follows: 防：阻止；甚：超过。阻止人民进行批评的危害，比堵塞河川引起的水患还要严重。指不让人民说话，必有大害。Which I understand as: Preventing the danger of allowing people to criticise is more serious than the flood water caused by damming rivers. Meaning that not letting people speak will certainly cause great harm.

So, stopping people's mouths is more dangerous than the result of damming rivers.

Is this really the case? If the Chinese government censures the press, or shuts the mouth of the people, will they really be in danger? To use the same analogy, if the flood waters which have displaced 1.3 million people along the Yangtze don’t seem to worry the government, why should a bunch of disaffected bloggers?

Does Technology Bring Democracy?

2007-11-24T23:07:47Z

I started my research with a blog post on 1510. The author, Youyou, begins describing the June 1st 2007 Children's Day protest in Xiamen and the media's response. After an expected silence from the traditional media, news of this story spread like wildfire on the internet, including blogs and portal websites.

Wider analysis follows:

In our society where our media is restricted in such a way, it is relatively difficult for the traditional media wants to put out an independent and responsible voice, this is simply because of the government supervision, however the speed of the flow of information on the internet is fast, even with the GFW there is nothing the government can do. For me, the basis of democracy is the complete publication of public information.
Now is now longer an age where information is spread by word of mouth, one person on the internet can publish a piece of news and in that moment it is possible for thousands of people to see and act accordingly, if just one hole appears in the shield, that hole will certainly grow until everyone can see though it.

The comments raise some interesting points.

Dreamer:
“'shutting the mouth of the people is harder than stopping the flow of a river' Now in the age of web 2.0 everyone is media, how can they be screened? I hope that the govt will not be shamed into anger and plunge the Chinese internet into a cold winter”

Foolfitz:
“Once again I will take out my theory on Internet Mob:
Why are we firewalled in?
Not because there is too much rebellion,
but because there is not enough rebellion.
If every netizen stands in opposition, can government catch us all?
If they shut me down, there are a thousand other people just like me!”