Language and culture go together like a horse and carriage. Many have observed that China attempts to teach English in the same manner as any other subject. In fact, what China is doing is attempting to teaching English without the western culture that makes the language contextually comprehensible.
An ESE would simply provide far too much western culture to suit the CCP. We finally have a definitive statement which explains the Party’s position.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/03/bloomberg_articlesLX7DTP6JTSEC.DTL
West Is Using Cultural Means to Divide China: Hu
By Bloomberg News – Jan 2, 2012 7:32 PM PT
The West is using cultural means to divide China (PRCH), which needs to be alert to this threat, President Hu Jintao said in a Communist Party magazine.
“International forces are trying to Westernize and divide us by using ideology and culture,” Hu wrote in an article in Qiushi. “We need to realize this and be alert to this danger.”
Many countries, especially Western powers, are attempting to expand their influence through cultural hegemony, and China must deepen and promote its own values of “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” Hu wrote in the article, which was published on the government’s website on Jan 1. China needs to strengthen its cultural values as it faces possible challenges from the West, he said.
This of course ignores that it was not the west who decided to make English education mandatory throughout China.
This also explains the dismal failure of China’s National English teaching program. Students simply cannot learn English without learning English culture, if they are to be competent to produce comprehensible English output.
As long as China maintains its paranoia about the west, there will never be any English village or ESE for students.
30 years ago western cultural influence was called spiritual pollution. (See movie Iron and Silk) Now it is called westernization. China is always changing but China never changes. China’s front stage culture is changing at breakneck speeds but the back stage culture remains unchanged.
Western engagement has had little or no effect on the back stage culture of China.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/chinese-president-says-hostile-forces-seek-to-westernize-divide-nation-using-culture/2012/01/03/gIQAvSzcXP_story.html
China’s President Pushes Back Against Western Culture
By EDWARD WONG
Published: January 3, 2012
BEIJING — President of Hu Jintao has said that China must strengthen its cultural production to defend against the West’s assault on the country’s culture and ideology, according to an essay in a Communist Party policy magazine published this week. The publication of Mr. Hu’s words signaled that a new major policy initiative announced last October would continue well into 2012.
The essay, which was signed by Mr. Hu and based on a speech he gave in October, drew a sharp line between the cultures of the West and China and effectively said the two sides were engaged in an escalating war. It was published in Seeking Truth, a magazine that evolved from a publication founded by Mao as a platform for establishing Communist Party principles.
“We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of westernizing and dividing China, and ideological and cultural fields are the focal areas of their long-term infiltration,” Mr. Hu said, according to a translation by Reuters.
“We should deeply understand the seriousness and complexity of the ideological struggle, always sound the alarms and remain vigilant, and take forceful measures to be on guard and respond,” he added.
Those measures, Mr. Hu said, should be centered on developing cultural products that can draw the interest of the Chinese and meet the “growing spiritual and cultural demands of the people.” Chinese leaders have long lamented the fact that Western expressions of popular culture and art seem to overshadow those from China. The top-grossing films in China have been “Avatar” and “Transformers 3,” and the music of Lady Gaga is as popular here as that of any that of any Chinese pop singer. In October, at the 6th plenum of the party’s Central Committee, where Mr. Hu gave his speech, officials discussed the need for bolstering the “cultural security” of China.
“The overall strength of Chinese culture and its international influence is not commensurate with China’s international status,” Mr. Hu said in his essay, according to another translation.
“The international culture of the West is strong while we are weak,” he added.
Mr. Hu’s words suggested that China would not lift anytime soon strict limits that it sets on imports of some cultural products. Each year, the agency in charge of regulating film allows only 20 foreign films to potentially make a profit off their box office take here. Hollywood studios have long criticized that system and lobbied the United States government and international organizations to pressure China into scrapping or loosening the quota.
People involved in the arts here say the policy also means more government financing for Chinese companies to create cultural products, ranging from books to live musical productions. At the same time, officials have been encouraging many cultural industries to become more market driven and rely less on government subsidies.
Some investors might see the government’s announcement of support for more creative works to be positive, but the policy also runs counter to market freedoms, emphasizing the need to censor cultural expressions that the government deems unacceptable.
In his essay, Mr. Hu did not address the widespread assertion by Chinese artists and intellectuals that state censorship is what prevents artists and their works from reaching their full potential. Last week, Han Han, a novelist and China’s most popular blogger, discussed the issue in an online essay called “On Freedom.”
“The restriction on cultural activities makes it impossible for China to influence literature and cinema on a global basis or for us culturati to raise our heads up proud,” Han Han wrote.
The publication of Mr. Hu’s essay and other articles in Seeking Truth about bolstering China’s cultural power signaled that this would be a central initiative in 2012, which is a transition year for the Chinese leadership as seven of the top nine party members step down from the Standing Committee of the Politburo. Mr. Hu appeared keen to enshrine the culture drive as a final defining moment of his decade-long tenure at China’s helm.
The Central Committee meeting in October established the ideological foundation for a tightening of cultural sphere that is only now beginning to unfold. Right after the meeting, officials announced a sweeping new policy to wipe scores of so-called entertainment shows off the air. That took effect on Sunday. Television stations have been racing to come up with new programs that will be deemed “socially responsible” by the censors.
Last month, officials in Beijing and other cities ordered Internet companies based there to ensure that people posting on microblogs, called weibo in Chinese, had registered their accounts using their real names, though they could still post under an alias. Officials have been putting pressure on executives and editors running the microblog platforms to self-censor, and many microblog users say the microblogs have been getting less interesting.
At the same time, China has been making a push to increase its cultural influence abroad, or its “soft power.” The government has opened up Confucius Institutes around the world to aid foreigners in learning Chinese. The state is also lavishing financing on opening operations of large state-run news organizations, including Xinhua, the state news agency, and China Central Television in cities around the world. Officials from those organizations say they hope their version of the world events becomes as common as those from Western news organizations.
Leaving western culture out of English courses is like leaving blood out of anatomy courses.
Comments