In my last entry I talked about the inherent conflict of ideals highlighted by two classic works of literature—1984 and Dao De Jing—and what they say about the prospects for the West getting along with China.
I’d like to expand on that a little more by considering the two classic texts of Chinese strategy and diplomacy—The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Sun Tzi’s Art of War, because their depth of creative duplicity makes The Prince read like How to Win Friends & Influence People.
The Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a long and rambling epic, but at its heart is the story of two generals, Liu Bei and his nemesis Cao Cao, in a quest for supremacy in the twilight of a dynasty. Liu Bei supposedly represents virtue and humility while Cao Cao represents opportunism and ambition. Liu Bei is forced into a leadership position to defend his emperor, and when his emperor dies his followers plead with him to resurrect a new empire. And, although Liu Bei at first refuses, circumstances and the determination of his followers force him to put on the crown.
Cao Cao also took up the sword to defend his emperor, but once opportunity presented itself he immediately began plotting to take the throne. There’s no difference in action between Liu Bei and Cao Cao (they’re both ambitious schemers who manipulate and deceive their followers), but it’s Liu Bei’s hypocrisy and duplicity that make him the hero. In Orwellian terms, Liu Bei has perfected doublethink.
Here is Orwell’s description of doublethink:
'Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt...To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary.'
Now read some of Sun Tzi’s strategies:
'Secret machinations are better concealed in the open than in the dark, and extreme public exposure often contains extreme secrecy.'
'You conceal your hostility by assuming outward friendliness. You ingratiate yourself with enemies, inducing them to trust you. When you have their confidence, you can move against them in secret.'
'Inflict minor or non-fatal injury on oneself to gain the enemy’s trust. This is a technique particularly for undercover agents: you make yourself look like a victim of your own people in order to win the sympathy and confidence of enemies.'
The Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a description of doublethink in practice, and Sun Tzi’s Art of War is an instruction manual on how to implement doublethink. (There really are too many Liu Beis scattered throughout Chinese history, the most famous being of course Mao Zedong.)
Compare these foundational texts of the Chinese empire with that of the Roman empire, Virgil’s Aeneid. The Trojan Aeneas has two main qualities: he’s pious and honest. Many Chinese would find him an idiot, and even Virgil depicts him as lacking any agency or ideas of his own. He’s neither a thinker nor a debater, and he comes truly alive and displays his personality only on the battlefield where by leading his Trojans to vanquish the Latin tribes arrayed against him he sows the seeds of the Roman empire.
And Americans admire above all else George Washington, a simple honest warrior who fathered a country and who in return asked for nothing more than to retire to his Virginia farm. Both Aeneas and George Washington would be horrified by the Art of War, and many Chinese would likely find both these men simple-minded and naïve. But the two are the heroes of history’s two greatest empires, and that’s no accident. A nation that worships Aeneas or Washington also typically worships hard work and honesty, duty and honor. And a nation that worships Sun Tzi and Mao Zedong also in many cases worships dishonesty and duplicity, deception and scheming:
China is full of practitioners of doublethink, and Orwell warned us that the ultimate consequence of doublethink is a people incapable of progress, a culture trapped in an inward-looking game of deception and duplicity. Thus, China’s long history is not its most blessed strength but strongest curse.








jim
Can the Diplomat have sunk any lower? It is now attacking historical figures in Chinese history.
By the way, George Washington is not saint. He owned slaves and signed Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which allowed runaway slaves to be recaptured and returned to slavery. Internationally, Washington sided with French slave owners on Saint Domingue in Saint Domingue slave rebellion. So by the same logic, that’s why US still have so many racism problem since everybody admired about George Washington. How ridiculous does that sounds?
harry
Being a Chinese living in a western country I do admit white men are usually more honest than Asians or Chinese. But I dont necessarily see double standard, doubethinking or dishonesty as a disadvantage. Japanese from 1905-1943 was the superpower of Asia, they didnt play fair. look at today’s America’s their foreign policies are full of double standards.
Look at China today also have policies that are in some cases even more double standard than America, and yet China is able to secure every single major investment deals around the world at rates and efficiency Indians can only dream of, Chinese even beat India in its backyard Sir Lanka.
there is a Chinese saying “if you are not vicious enough, then you are not a man” hypocricy is clearly an advantage. However if you read some Confucious ideas he does promote honesty so there are a blend of both in Chinese culture.
gaoshan
I tend to agree with this assessment. Though I do think a fair percentage of Chinese tend to view simple friendliness and kindness as a weakness. I’ve certainly heard Chinese (especially Chinese with a just enough experience in living abroad to have an opinion but not enough to really understand the foreign culture they were in) laugh about how “stupid” foreigners can be when really they are just misunderstanding the situation.
A good example… a Chinese man who was dean of a college in Georgia. He was one of the first wave to arrive for study in the US and he rose to dean level quite quickly. This led to him giving well paid and attended lectures in China entitled “Being the Boss of Americans” (back in the 1990’s). He was a very stereotypical “get ahead, take advantage, looking for an angle” sort of Chinese man (if you are Chinese you know exactly the type I’m talking about). Back in Georgia he ended up arrested for corruption and embezzlement after being reported by the Americans he was “the boss” of. His serious misunderstanding of the situation he was in caught up with him. I find quite a few “overseas Chinese” and “returned” Chinese in this sort of misunderstood situation.
canrun
@gaoshan
Said Chinese Dean wouldn’t have happened to work at a university north of Atlanta situated next to a pretty little mountain, would he? If so, oh the stories I can tell!
The_Observer
The author gives the image that he is knowledgeable about China and describes only two of the many Chinese books. His ignorance shows as he has left out the the BIGGEST influence in East Asian countries, Vietnam and Singapore, namely the teachings of the Chinese philosopher, Confucius. The latter’s philosophy emphasized personal and governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice and sincerity. So much so that in over two thousand years his influence is still prevalent in the above mentioned countries.
Eddy
A little correction on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms factoid: The author mentioned that after the emperor died, Liu Bei reluctantly declare himself emperor. This is incorrect. In the novel, Liu Bei mistakenly believed that Cao Pi (Cao Cao’s son)had the emperor executed when in fact he only forced him to abdicate (reducing the former emperor to commoner status, but without taking his life). In fact the emperor (died on year 234) outlived Cao Cao (220), Liu Bei (223), and even Cao Pi (226)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Xian
SV
It’s by historical happenstance that things happened this way.
We might be looking at a China that reveres Sun Yatsen, a selfless patriot who dedicated his life to overthrowing the Qing Dynasty and making China a republic. He wasn’t motivated by the pursuit of power — in fact, after the 1911 Revolution, SYS gave up the provisional presidency of the newly-established Republic of China (ROC) for the sake of unity. (Yuan Shikai controlled the imperial remnants in the north and promised to surrender to the republican revolutionary forces in exchange for the top job. Unfortunately, this was a premature move on the part of the republicans; Yuan was no democrat, and once in office, usurped power as a dictator.)
Despite this setback, Sun’s legacy might be more influential still, had the Nationalists maintained control of China. A new generation of nationalist revolutionaries began reuniting the country in the late 1920s, and at least nominally were in control for the two following decades. And as recent histories show, there was plenty of happenstance that allowed the CCP to come to power, so the story of China in the 20th century could easily have been very different.
If the KMT had held onto power, it would be Sun Yat-sen’s portrait hanging above Tiananmen and adorning Chinese currency. We would have a clean moral exemplar — someone NOT responsible for the deaths of millions, NOT ruthless and power-hungry, NOT morally bankrupt — as the symbol of the nation.
We’d have our own George Washington.
It’s a pity what happened to the country instead.
Jay
I’m with you up to Yuan Shikai, but after that you seem to skip a few years/details. The KMT didn’t loose power without good reason. If they hadn’t lost power, you most certainly would not have had Dr Sun’s picture up. Peanut, maybe. But given the nature of Peanut’s “understanding” of democracy and what not, the picture up there would be that of whoever followed Peanut, or the next one and so on. The difference would really be that there wouldn’t have been a Deng Xiaoping to undo Mao (who would also not have happened), and there would not be a strengthening China with its people struggling to get out of the muck. Anybody’s guess what the alternative would have been, but Peanut’s KMT would not have created bliss (for anyone but the Soongs maybe).
Rhetoric
I’m not sure I’m with you there on Sung Jung San/Sun Yatsen. His real strength was finagling financing from overseas Chinese. God knows what he sold them, but it was some kind of a dream which probably involved them being in power in the “new” post-Qing dynasty. One of the ways to asses Sun was what that dream entailed, the conquest and subjugation of Mongolia, as retribution for the Qing insult against the Han (this was carried out, up and until the Russians put a stop to it); and the conquest of Tibet, which was also carried out after Sun’s demise. It was all part of a very imperialist dream of a greater China. And this has happened; on the menu in a more ongoing way are the places we still call Indonesia, the Philippines, Burma/Myanmar, Thailand, etc.
It’s nice to see Occidentals discussing this. Re: the article, “The Dream of Red Chambers” also has a protagonist who succeeds through duplicity and callousness.
Ernie
Sure, juxtapose 3 Chinese classics and two western historical figures, and you have enough to declare two cultures mutually incompatible, and one destined for failure. The spuriousness of the piece is encapsulated in the off-hand “Americans admire above all else George Washington”.
I knew plenty of people in the States who would brag about using Art of War to deceive their business rivals, and plenty of people here in China who admire simple, honest warriors, although GW was by no means one of them. He was a sneaky opportunist, like most martial legends. I know you have to write blogs regularly. Try to focus on less sweeping theses; you can do a better job before hitting the bong.
Jim
Your article was on target! The Chinese have a charm offensive on-going with the 60th annivesary of Sino-Indian ties and New Delhi has falling for it. Delhi you are being deceived. Read the Chinese classic 36 Strategems, Sun Tzu, Bo Sun, etc. – you then know what I’m talking about. Have you forgotten the shame of your lost in the 62 War? I don’t think your world respected Army has! Wake up, don’t be fooled! China is not your friend! Don’t be deceived!
Marka
I agree with Orwell. If that is true about China, doublethinking, it is bound for failure. There is no room for truth and that is like snuffing out a candle. Good for short term but not good in the long haul.
Russ JD
George Washington was only the first President of the US not the best…
If your talking Ronald Reagan or George Bush (Both)…
Now your talking best!
Robert Trost
That was a bad joke,right?
Syamsul Rizal
I’m an Asian from SEA exactly and its always amusing to read about westerners comments or thoughts about Asia. They don’t get us, they may think they know us but most of the time they get it wrong. I’ve read so many books about Asia that only John Naisbitt got it right (almost).
The problem with the West is that they tend to generalized, viewed and judged everything from their own perspective and culture. This in turn tends to backfire in every aspect when dealing with Asian countries / people (and the rest of the world)
Joash
I may disagree with the idea of dividing the line between two extreme poles. Saying that Liu Bei and Mao worked through deception and lie or deliberately represent false reality implies that there is an objective reality out there, while Aeneas and George Washington did the opposite. This kind of division will be shattered if we put it that there is no such thing like objective truth. There is truth but it always subjective and what we claim as objectivity is basically only intersubjectivity.
Generalizing Liu Bei and Mao as the representation of all Chinese is also too simplistic. How about the five Tiger Generals who kept loyal to Liu Bei to the death and they didn’t have any grandeur ambition. They, for me, represent more the virtues you ascribe to Aeneas and George Washington. They believed that the people can get better life under Liu Bei and they stood for their believe.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a fan of Aeneas and George Washington too. But among the Romans, Augustus is my favorite, and his way to build and maintain his rule is closer to Liu Bei, even Cao Cao, and Mao.
Hayat Zaffar
As an Asian and friend of China i have to say that in this world there is no big second example of double standards but America.I have logic,in 1971 when East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was being attacked by India then we called America for our help as our strategic partner,America said that we have sent fleet for your help and fleet came when everything was lost,after that Henry Kissinger confess in his book that we did nothing because we wanted to divide Pakistan and they did.So now tell me who have double standards at this large scale that America divided our part of country to make Bangladesh by plotting with India.And there are others examples on record for your knowledge if u want to know then i can tell u but this one is enough for your so called honesty,piousness and …………….
shivendra
what is china doing in indias neighbour country! IS 4 ECONOMIC PURPOSE OR ANY OTHER.