Years of Poems and Spirits

During the oral defense of my paper, Prof. Chirot asked a question he’d asked us before, “would you call the nationalist sentiments in China, Korea or Vietnam ‘nationalism’”? I thought I answered it rather well: nationalism in its purest form is a Western concept. I am leaning more toward Hans Kohn (”Idea of Nationalism”) and Gellner (”Nations and Nationalism”) that nationalism is a product of the Enlightenment and/or Industrialization. It is associated with the secularization and democratization movement in the 18th and 19th century. With regard to the national identity present among East Asian polities, I stated those should not be labeled “nationalism” because “a body of knowledge only becomes so if it worked. Otherwise, it is just another experiment”.

That is what I implied in the Caribbean paper, that is, nation building does not end with declaration of independence. To expand it further, I don’t think German and Japanese nation building should be labeled as instances of nationalism, since their nation building exercises lead both to path of (self-)destruction. The polities resulted were still monarchical and authoritarian.

In short, my answer to Chirot’s question is not a teleological statement, rather it is a historicist one.

I am also reading Ann Anagnost’s “National Past-Times: Narrative, Representation, and Power in China”. She frequently cited the national narrative in post-colonial countries as references. I wonder whether she’s bought into the structuralist argument of nationalism. But I have to finish reading it first. It is not an easy read by the way–I can re-write her Introduction part with phrases much easier to understand. For example, instead of saying China has large regional differences and varying ethos in recent times, she uses terms like “spatial and temporal” this and that. Scary, scary.

Notes:

noblesse oblige: Benevolent, honorable behavior considered to be the responsibility of persons of high birth or rank
[no-Bless ob-LEE-dge]

Nothing in particular, just some thoughts today:
1. Finished Blustein’s “And the Money Kept Rolling in (And Out)”. His main theme? Too much liquidity is bad for a small developing economy.

Note liquidity is not just “hot money”, as the term is highly charged and predisposed against currency trading (as Jesus would do). Instead, liquidity means zero-friction convertibility.

His proposed solution? If market is addicted to a quick buck, then impose an sovereign bankrupcy protection scheme that is enforced by international laws and institutions (e.g. IMF). Call it the Chapter 11 procedures for nations. It incurrs a mandatory suspension and restructuring of a nation’s debt. According to the author, some creditors were begging the Argentinians to organize such a “hair cut” across the board during the crisis.

The chance of his idea becomes a reality? Very small I am afraid. The creditors can easily influence the U.S. decision makers while the developing nations can’t.

2. Movies:
The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen). A good movie that I’d recommend to others. Worthy of the Best Foreign Movie recognition. Other than the Dreyman character, everyone performs well. However, I am not sure whether the movies is trying to tell a story or to leave an impression. Its linear progression leaves little room for any explosion. The closest is Christa’s suicide–a perfect moment to paint a torn body and soul. Yet the shots on the blood, the twisting body and her last words are short, tentative and restrained. What is more, Dreyman’s devastation and the exposure of Wiesler in front of his boss are compartmentized. Now instead of having to face an angry lover and a furious master, Wiesler is totally out of picture. How about that for a bang?

Then I watched the Madness of King George III again–always one of my favorites. Love the performance–everyone: the King, Pitt, Fox, etc. Unlike the Germans who like to use lighting and cinematographic composition to tell a story, the British are actors. They use body language, facial expression and catchy dialogue to “shake” you into feel something. The screen writer tried somewhat half-heartedly to circumscribe the significance of KGIII’s illness (e.g. American independence). They don’t have to, because the way the actors act makes an audience think the significance is already known to them and is irrelevant. Now that is art.

3. The Democratic Congress
Usually, I don’t care for what is going on in D.C. any more. But noticed that recently the Democrats are having trouble getting their agendas into law. It really came to no surprise to me. A short while ago, I commented on the difference between being politically liberal and ideologically liberal.

The problem with the Democrats is that they politik too much and govern too little. Either by nature or by design, they are more of agitators than administrators. That is very unfortunate. Since some of them are pretty brilliant and progressive.

The second failed attempt to pass SCHIP and the decision to roll everything into a defense bill are just a few examples (if Clinton ever did something, it is an exceptions (given eight years) that proves the rule). They fail to see the value of their causes can only be realized if the legislations are enacted (i.e. in the governance domain), not when they are held as political hostages (i.e. in the political domain).