Sino and American Exceptionalism
One aspect of contemporary Sino-American scholarship largely overlooked is the notion that both China and the United States contain a notion of 'exceptionalism' that largely doesn't exist elsewhere in the world. The most immediate explanation I can think of for why is the enormous size of the two countries as well as their relative insularity from the outside world.
American exceptionalism is best exemplified by universal health care reform. Any rational comparative analysis of health care systems around the world would lead one to conclude that the US system is easily the least effective and the most expensive of any OECD country. The obvious solution would be to look at a model that works better- say, in France- and come up with ways to reform the American system so that it conforms to a higher international standard.
Yet opponents to universal health care in the US, represented neatly in the Republican Party, believe that because the US system is different it must therefore be better. As a result they devote their energy to devising mendacious explanations for why our broken system is in fact superior.
In foreign affairs right-wing Americans find no trouble distinguishing between acts of terror and violence by our political enemies between those of ourselves and allies such as Israel. If we do it, then it isn't bad, because we did it, right?
China for its part is at least well aware that it is a developing country, yet Sinic exceptionalism does exist. One notion shared between both countries is its persistent refusal to accept that they are imperial in nature.
Rather than accept that China annexed and colonized Tibet for strategic reasons, most Chinese I know find it easier to believe that Tibet has 'always been a part of China'. The same logic applies to Xinjiang. Beijing's historical designs for Central Asia are no different than that of the Russians, British, and other participants in the Great Game. Yet for some reason China pretends that that part of the world is intrinsically Chinese regardless of what the indigineous inhabitants say.
Americans are fond of the same fiction. I remember the usually-astute Bill Maher claiming on a talk show that America has never engaged in empire- building. Oh, really? Historians familiar with the late 19th/early 20th century administrations of McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt would likely beg to differ. In contemporary America, there are currently US soldiers stationed on bases throughout the world. As much as we'd like to believe that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were strictly for liberalization purposes, imperial strategy dictates otherwise. And from the Monroe Doctrine to Bush-era US skullduggery in Venezuela and Haiti the US has long claimed a certain dominion over the distribution of power in the Americas.
I'm not trying to be cynical for its own purpose but rather point out that nations the size of the US and China- and Russia- are imperial by nature.
Exceptionalism also shines through in politics. In China, the Communist Party is fond of saying that while democracy may be well and good for other countries it doesn't suit China. Chinese and Western apologists for the CCP parrot this line oblivious of how self-serving it is.
Why doesn't exceptionalism exist elsewhere? In Europe, there are so many countries crowded in a small area that insulation is simply untenable. Yet in China and the US our shared sense of exceptionalism can persist given our physical immensity.
I understand that geo-politics are much more complex than this, and that there are a great number of variables at play. But would elements in both China and America realize that both are merely members of the great big nation-state family rather than exceptional elements some progress could be made.
January 21st, 2010 - 00:18
Thanks for sharing this observation Matt. How can anyone say with a straight face that the US is not imperialistic? Sadly, solutions for real change are elusive.
January 21st, 2010 - 10:40
Free Hawai’i! (sorry, couldn’t resist)
I disagree that exceptionalism doesn’t exist elsewhere and that it’s cause is size. Couldn’t Nazism be seen as a kind of Teutonic exceptionalism? Or that exceptionalism played a part in Nazism? Didn’t exceptionalism play a role in European and Japanese empire building as well? I don’t see how these attitudes have disappeared – apparently Europe is still far more civilised than the rest of the world, and which country is the most civilised depends entirely, of course, on who you’re talking to (the correct answer is always, of course, France. Unless the person you’re talking to is not French…) I’m sure you’ll find exceptionalist attitudes in the South Pacific.
I was most amused a couple of days ago to read of French feathers getting a little ruffled over the sudden influx of US military personnel into Haiti. Un tout petit peu de jalousie, peut etre? Can’t have those Anglo-Saxons getting involved in la Francophonie, lest it remind the French of the sorry state of their own empire. Speaking of which, France is still very protective of and involved in its and Belgium’s former empires… a look at the post-independence histories of Algeria and Centrafrique, for example, may reveal some of the kind of meddling the CIA is so famous for. But of course, France is no longer all arrogant and imperialistic like those Yankees. No, not at all.
And I think the cause has more to do with culture and history than size. For China, it’s the long history, and it’s disturbing the sheer number of Chinese who think that China has the longest history of any country, or that Chinese characters were the first form of writing ever. Combine that with the reaction against Euro-American and Japanese imperialism from the 19th century onwards. And I’m always disturbed by otherwise liberal, open-minded Americans who insist that America is the world’s greatest ever experiment in democracy. Because it is. Don’t argue, it is dammit. And no, I won’t listen to your arguments or reasons, or present you with any logical argument in support of my claim, because I’m right and that’s that.
Sure, sheer size and economic success play a large part in exaggerating Chinese and American exceptionalism, but I think the cause lies more in how people construct and process national identity, and so I think exceptionalism is something you’ll find in every country (it’s just that the rest of the world tends to be a bit quieter about it).
January 21st, 2010 - 12:48
Chris,
Excellent comment, thanks. In the case of Europe while France does maintain a sense of paternity with its former colonies in Africa its willingness to participate in supra-national experiments like the European Union indicate that it sees itself as one of a group of similar countries with a shared historical identity.
Your point about Americans believing in the unique greatness of our ‘experiment in democracy is spot on. I remember a blogger once making the obvious point that parliamentary systems- such as yours in New Zealand- are more democratic in an absolute sense than the US system and receiving a torrent of abusive dissent. Institutions that might have made sense in 1789 but don’t now are kept in place due to a slavish deification of the founding fathers. This is something that reinforces exceptionalism, in my view.
February 4th, 2010 - 01:45
I totally agree with Matt on this one. I’ve often noticed that politically, the US and China are going through the exact same imperial processes, granted the time line is a bit different. I’ve always equated the “Tibet has always been a part of China” line with our concept of “Manifest Destiny.” But I still find Chinese are reluctant to accept that China would ever take part in anything imperialistic in nature. The more you study the histories of the two countries, the more one realizes they are both following the natural tendencies of large empires.