China Law Blog

Good call, Dan. I'm pretty certain that the chattering Chinese yuppies quoted throughout that article are not representative of the majority. Their position is obviously unassailable -- of course they'd say/do anything to preserve the status quo. On the other hand, the beleaguered classes, all the quasi-educated urbanised who'll never catch a break due to lack of guanxi, ambition, the official version of "the smarts" etc. will probably continue to propound their dissatisfaction in ever more novel ways. They'll no doubt catch up to the yuppies' powers of self-expression, but somehow I don't think it'll be in the same terms of langourous (and hapless) ennui. Only my opinion.

The individuals interviewed in that article are a little over the top, most the people I know are in that age group (which is my age group) and while they aren't the "party animals" those girls are, they hold what amounts to the same beliefs and have relatively similar spending habits. It is a rare thing to find a 20 something Chinese who is a Party member, and when you do, its almost always for personal gain instead of belief in the system.

The article is also right that for those who don't have the economic freedom those girls have, they are striving to achieve it or focused on making smaller purchases, maybe a new phone or a nice digital camera or something, with the little earnings they have.

Politics is so far away from most people's thinking, especially my generation, and I don't see how that is going to change (or even why it should change).

The article was very accurate, but was spoiled by the final sentence which implied that young Chinese should/will "realize" at some point that democracy can help China. The article should have simply been a reporting of the current state of affairs of young/middle-aged people, without ruining it by a self-promotion of our own Western political ideal.

Money is the opiate of the Chinese population at this moment. The seemingly apolitical youth interviewed are entirely representative, so don't imagine that there is an entire group of tens of millions who are the idealistic underdogs just waiting for their time to assert some different "Weltanshauung" for China. In fact, what we may perceive as apolitical is not really apolitical. It is an acquiescence in the successful delivery, to date, of a new-and-improved China. Arguing with success is usually self-defeating. There is a price to be paid for this success, and the population is, by-and-large, agreeable to pay it. Going abroad for a trip is enough for a healthy dose of a different mindset. Returning to reality in China, to keep earning for the next trip, car, apartment, dinners out, nice clothes and accessories, school tuition, is both required and welcomed by most. Mr.Elegant should research the issue of when China did better for itself when it had democracy. I don't think the assignment would take a crushingly long time to complete, and probably wouldn't take us too long to proof-read.

Will the situation be the same when these 20-somethings are 40? Within logical parameters, yes.

My knowledge roughly matches the article - based on listening to my wife and her stories, I'd say she and her friends were not political growing up and into their 20's.

However, her opinions have changed somewhat after living in the US - and I wonder if the returnees (Chinese people returning to work in China after working for a long time - not just visiting - in the US, Canada, or Europe) might have a small impact.

The Chinese young people I have known are a-political in the sense that they don't write grand manifestos for political change, or take to the streets with banners. But there are other ways of being political than thinking about constitutions and protests. Most of the young people I know have some very strong, and more often than not, critical political views on issues like education, Japan, local-government corruption and the environment. I think it's true that older people tend to talk about democracy more, but I don't think that's because they are from a different generation, rather that the potential benefits of democracy are clearer to someone with 40 years of experience of life than to a 25 year old who has mostly only known study.

The fact that "the youth" don't develop plans for a better world has numerous explanations: the internal diversity of young people, historical failures of mass-action and lack of inspiration given their doubts about "West" politics and models. Moreover, I find it hard not to agree with this sentence from Elegants article:

"The political passivity of China's new élite makes sense while the good times roll. The question is what will happen to the Me generation — and to China — when they end."

What China will be like when growth starts to flatten out, and the 20 somethings become 40 somethings, is not easy to say.

I think Mr. Platek pointing out that last bit is exactly right. Ben's Blog did an entry awhile back about how horribly biased the Time blog is, there isn't really a single positive article. This is another example, the author editoralizing about China's need for democracy when those that he talked to didn't share those feelings and, in that sense (and perhaps only that sense), they are highly representative of their generation.

"Politics is so far away from most people's thinking, especially my generation, and I don't see how that is going to change (or even why it should change)."

Being "apolitical" is impossible because politics is about relationships between individuals and/or groups with respect to their wants and needs. Chinese claim to be apolitical but practice "guanxi".

". There is a price to be paid for this success, and the population is, by-and-large, agreeable to pay it."

Todd, they don't realize what the true cost of this "success" is.

The yuppies quoted in the Me Generation article belong to the 1% elite in their/my age group. I track Vicky Young's blog, Little Sperm, and usually enjoy the reading. Vicky Young has become quite a web celebrity through her writings, mostly of parties and feasts and travels.

If the economy goes bad, then everything is going to come crashing down, which is why the government is going to do everything it can to keep the economy from going bad. When people think of the Communist Party, Orwell's 1984 comes to mind, but it seems to me that the policies are really closer to Huxley's "Brave New World."

[q]On the other hand, the beleaguered classes, all the quasi-educated urbanised who'll never catch a break due to lack of guanxi, ambition, the official version of "the smarts" etc. will probably continue to propound their dissatisfaction in ever more novel ways.[/q]

Maybe.... On the other hand, what could happen is that people who think that they have a change of making it into the idle rich, will grumble a bit, but basically avoid making any radical changes, and ultimately be given enough stuff by the powers that be to keep them happy. People that figure out that they have no chance of making it to the top, will ultimately just give up and have neither the will or the means to challenge the system.

There were a couple interesting researches published in the past couple years pointing to the correlation of happiness and incomes are not linear. However, they do grow together below certain point, estimated between USD$15,000 to $20,000/year.

The "Me" generation in China is still at the phrase of "Money does buy happiness" and big global brands are happy to exploit that at this point. Instead of age, we should be expecting to see a change once the major metropolitan areas starting to break $10,000 in per capita income. Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shanghai and Beijing are likely to reach the level in the next 5 years.

B.Cheng: Would you mind telling my wife how exactly right I am? I could really use the support.

NH: They have no interest now in pondering such sublime issues as the "true cost." When they have all the real estate, cars and other material security they crave, they may devote some energy to such pondering. It's all a matter of relative priorities.

Thanks for posting this interesting article, Dan.
I don't think this article implied that these yuppies were representative of China or young Chinese people as a whole. Rather, the article implied that the Chinese government disproportionately values the support of yuppies. I have lived in Shenzhen, Dalian and Shanghai over the past five years, and my impression has been that very few Chinese yuppies give a hoot about domestic politics. While not all of them were blowing their money on snowboarding equipment, it seemed their top priority was providing themselves and their families with a comfortable standard of living and the latest modern conveniences. This, actually, does not seem very different from what many Western yuppies are concerned about. Western yuppies are just accustomed to being able to (when the spirit moves them) exercise their democratic freedoms.
When today's Chinese yuppies hit forty, I doubt their mentalities will be much different. They might not be so me-centered because they will be concerned about issues such as education for their kids (some members of this generation will be able to have two) and health care for their parents. However, I doubt they will get too interested in politics as long as their lives are comfortable.
My problem with this story was the argument that the belief that China will transition to democracy is the underlying rationale for the US maintaining close ties with China. I would have liked to have seen more evidence to support this argument. In my opinion, China's economic might forces the US to have close ties with China pretty much no matter what.

I am married to a Beijing girl who has certainly benefited from the China boom and gets paid very well. She is probably more politically aware because we discuss politics (and she was a young student who went to Tiananmen Square back in 1989) but I would still describe her as apolitical.

I tell her that the current boom China is experiencing is more the exception rather than the norm based on the last few hundred years of China's history. It wouldn't surprise me if 5-10 years later there is another major social upheaval in this country as the Communist Party has aligned itself with the elite and basically said "to hell with the rest of you". If the fortunes of the have not's doesn't begin to improve markedly then there will be trouble brewing.

In a way I won't have much sympathy for the current elite if there is a major social upheaval as they seem to show so little concern for the less privileged. Buying a new car or apartment or going on an overseas holiday is more important than, for example, the fact that many of the migrant construction workers who build those nice, new buildings get treated pretty badly.

I think the government needs to stop pumping so much money into the cities, especially the Beijing economy, for the benefit of a privileged few and start paying more attention to the 800-1,000m-odd people outside the major cities who have been left behind. But realistically this won't happen until after the Olympics, if ever.

Vicky Yang was outraged the day the Me Generation artical went public. She accused Simon Elegant of attributing to her things that she didn't say. "Say what you want to say about China, Mr Simon Elegant, but don't put my name on those words!" Vicky said in her blog.

One of her friends, Wang Sanbiao, another widely read blogger, tries to pacify her anger by explaining the common traps in interviews and saying that we've all been fooled by those journalists who listen up only for what fits their own views. http://www.wangxiaofeng.net/index.php?p=1334

Thanks for that link, Handan, it changed my perspective on the article and the whole discussion.
Further to what I said before, I think there are two ways foreign observers misread Chinese people's views on democracy, and going on what she says on her blog, it seems that Elegant fell for both of them.
Vicky is clearly not hungering for democracy and she does not voice clear support for the students of Tiananmin. Therefore, reasons Elegant, and I dare say many others would as well, Chinese people must all support their government and not care about democracy.
In my view, this assumption is just as faulty as the understanding that all Chinese people live in constant thirst for democratic feedoms.
A lot of people, including those in power, are ambivalent on such issues.

Re: Time's China bashing, I think there is plently of positive coverage of China in the Western media (e.g. "China's Century")

"In my opinion, China's economic might forces the US to have close ties with China pretty much no matter what. "

The US would survive just fine without China and from a business strategy and diplomatic point of view would be much better off having outsourcing operations spread around various countries and economic bloc (like ASEAN) than concentrating all of our production of consumer products in one country which happens to nuclear armed butchers running the country.

In fact, isn't that the way things used to be? We outsourced all over latin america and southern/SE asia.

Opening up China was a huge mistake, we ham stringed ourselves and it all started when Kissinger agreed to stop US support of Tibetan freedom fighters as a precondition of Nixon's visit.

China's pollution of the world and handing out of NBC technology and expertise make China bashing absolutely deserved.

It's surprising that this blog is "full of lawyers" however no one mentioned that BY LAW these "ME generation" (pardon me, if you think the older generation is not about ME you have not lived here long enough) is NOT ALLOWED to express real criticism. It's defined by law. There is no room for real "political expression".

Jonathan has a good point there.

It reminds me of an episode from Vicky Young's own blog, where some regular commenter exclaimed "Wow, you actually have a proper job, Vicky! I thought your life is all about partying!", and Vicky replied, "Oh yes I have to work just as well, often into midnight! I need to protect client information so I can't blog much about my work. You guys actually think my life is all about partying simply because that's what fills up my blog?"

It's dangerous to assume things from people's silence.

I think JL's point is the most important one here. The Time article has a very narrow view of what "political" means - if you're not a democracy campaigner, you're not it. But by being good consumers, by travelling, by changing the ways family members relate to each other, young people today are creating huge political change.

Being a Chinese myself, I do think the yuppies in the article is not representative of all the Chinese 20s. Firstly, many of them have trouble finding jobs instead of touring Egypt. Secondly, they are not that apolitical: many of them express dissatisfaction over the government.

Somewhere I read a survey saying that out of China's roughly 3500 millionaires, 2500 of them were children or grandchildren of senior party cadres.