· Blog participants are asked to state whether they would be willing to participate in a conference held in China, and whether they feel it is appropriate to hold the conference there. Blog participants are also welcome to elaborate on their reasons if they so desire.
· The motive for this initiative is to provide a forum for discussion. The proposal to hold the conference in China raised important issues at the ICLA General Assembly in Krakow in July, and these issues deserve further deliberation. The ICLA Board has asked the two Chinese contingents to work on a revised joint proposal, and has also received an alternative proposal for a venue for 2011. Since the Board will be deliberating on these proposals later in the fall, it is important to have some sense of how the larger community of ICLA members and conference participants view the relevant issues.
41 comments:
I would be going to China for the next ICLA conference and think that China is the logical cite for it. I remember that Bei Hang submitted a proposal at the 2003 conference to host the 2009 conference but the association decided on Berkeley largely due to the LSA Summer Institute slated for Berkeley in 2009. The consensus at the time seemed to be that Bei Hang would be the next in line. If the association sent a message of sorts to Bei Hang, I think it should honor it.
I happen to know something about CL research in China. It is quite exciting--CL is making quite a splash. Holding a conference there would undoubtedly help what appeared to be an exuberant movement for all of us working in CL.
There's also practical reason. While air tickets may be a bit costly for those of us living America and Europe, other expenses are significantly lower. I would estimate that the overall cost wouldn't be a lot higher than for someone flying from cost to cost in the U.S.
I was not at the general meeting in Krakow, hence do not know a whole lot about what's going on, not even know what the "two contingencies" refer to.
I have never been to any ICLA conference but I have heard a lot about it. I would like to go to the one in 2011 in China. China has organized lots of Cog Ling events successfully, and there shouldn't be any problem if this event will take place there. I would like to help so if you need anyone working in the team. I am in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Wichian, Chiang Mai University.
I think there should be a clear-cut separation between academic and political issues. We should respect our Chinese colleagues who have offered to host an academic conference and judge their proposal solely on academic grounds. The purpose of a linguistic conference is to share ideas about linguistics rather than make personal or collective political declarations. I assume that members of the Cognitive Linguistics Society may agree or disagree about a wide array of political and social issues which they can discuss and debate freely at dinner or over drinks in their free time. My personal experience has been that collective political censures and boycotts do not advance an open and free exchange of ideas and knowledge in general and in linguitics in particular. Any individual who feels strongly about holding a conference in a specific country should be free to express his/her opinion and/or decide to attend or not to attend on a personal basis.
Posted on behalf of Yishai Tobin.
Posted on behalf of Chris Sinha:
I have in the past publicly supported the idea of academic sanctions, in particular the moratorium proposed on EU funding for Israeli participation in joint research projects. I no longer support this, and have not done for some time, although my critical views of Israel's
treatment of Palestinians, including academics and students, remain unchanged. Indeed, that particular situation has in some respects worsened, with Palestinian students from Gaza, regardless of their political affiliations or lack of them, being subject to a blanket ban
on leaving the country, making it impossible for many of them to
continue their studies abroad. However, the problem with academic
sanctions is that they easily become inflated into boycotts of
individuals and/or calls for individuals to disavow the policies of their governments on pain of boycott. This does not seem to me to be helpful in encouraging free and open debate, and is easily interpreted(or misinterpreted) as an attack on communities and nations as distinct
from governments.
Another, more pragmatic but no less important consideration is the
problem of determining how bad an offence has to be before it attracts boycotts. There are, unfortunately, few if any countries that can claim
an unblemished record in human rights or compliance with international law. I agree that China is a serious offender, but where is one to draw the line? For example, many of us recently attended the conference in Krakow, presumably in many cases(including mine) in full knowledge of the fact that Poland is one of two European countries (the other is
Romania) that not only facilitates (as do many countries) US
"extraordinary rendition" flights, some of which deliver illegally
detained prisoners to torture facilities in N. Africa; but also has or at least had a CIA interrogation centre on its own soil. Now, it would have been possible to raise this issue at the conference, to request
statements from the organisers denouncing such human rights abuses, and so on. I think, however, that this would have been discourteous, since we have no reason to suppose that the organisers support such practices
carried out by their government, and the conference was not a forum for official government propaganda. Better as Yishai suggests to raise and discuss such matters with colleagues, without the presupposition that they are themselves, just because of their nationality, complicit in human rights abuses. (Yes, I know that in democracies we ARE to some
degree responsible for the actions of the governments that represent us, but this is a difficult and complex area which I don't want to get into here).
Third, calling for boycotts by organisations is more divisive than
calling for boycotts by individuals. For example, Gerard might say "in conscience, I cannot attend an ICLA conference in China, and I call on others to stay away as well". Such a boycott call based on individual decision and conscience is different in nature from a call that the ICLA
should institutionally boycott China, which is liable to set in train acrimonious debates about which criteria should be used to exclude countries from consideration, whether these criteria are even-handedly
applied, etc etc. Many of us, I am sure, have "red lines" we would not
wish to cross in terms of lending our support (or even just seeming to lend our support) to oppressive governments, including the Chinese one, and I would be unlikely to go to the ICLA if (say) it was organised in Tibet with the support of the Chinese government. But there are usually better ways of expressing disapproval than blanket boycotts.
Finally, there is the very real issue of inclusiveness in the global academic community. I think we have to acknowledge that all decisions about where to site a conference are political in some way, but human rights is not the ONLY political dimension. There are good political reasons in favour of locating the ICLA conference in China, the most
important being the growth, actual and potential, of the cognitive
linguistics community there, which we wish to both recognise and
encourage. I hope that this widening of our geographical scope as a community will find expression in the future through siting conferences in eg India and Latin America. So, for what it is worth, my voice is in favour, as a political decision, of holding the next but one ICLA in China (with the provisos discussed in Krakow), and I hope that there will be ample opportunity for discussion there and in the meantime of
issues of science, democracy, human rights and social responsibility.
Prof. Chris Sinha
University of Portsmouth
Department of Psychology
King Henry Building
King Henry I Street
Portsmouth PO1 2DX
United Kingdom
Tel +44 2392 846323
Fax +44 2392 846300
Posted on behalf of Raphael Berthele:
This discussion is bewildering. Who came up with similar initiatives when the ICLA committee suggested holding the next ICLC in a country -that wages an illegal war in the mid-east -whose government (elected by the nation's Supreme Court and not by the people) allows torture in interrogations -still has death penalty, etc. No opposition as far as I know against ICLC in Berkeley. This is fine, since we all know that national politics and science have to be separated, and that our friends and colleagues in Berekeley are not responsible for the worldwide mess that is caused in the name of their nation.
A linguist puts his/her career at risk if he/she boycotts the US academic market, which is not yet the case with China. So please, stop the hypocrisy and start working on Chinese motion verbs, emotion words, etc. in order to be ready for ICLC in the Middle Kingdom. And support human rights NGOs if you want to change the world (which I hope you do).
--
Heureux l'étudiant qui comme la rivière peut suivre son cours sans quitter son lit.
--
Raphael BERTHELE, Prof. Dr.
CERLE/LeFoZeF
Université de Fribourg
Universität Freiburg
Criblet 13
CH-1700 Fribourg/Freiburg
Switzerland
Posted on behalf of Max Figueroa in response to Gerard Stern:
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. IT'S ABOUT TIME TO MAKE A FEW POINTS IN THE MATTER...
MAX FIGUEROA
Posted on behalf of Koldo Garai in response to Yishai Tobin:
Especially when we have avoid the discussion about Guantanamo, or don't even know the millions of deads we have provoked in Afghanistan. I believe US have targeted China long ago,a nd is using geopolitics to reach there, openning her way through from Syria to Nepal (next countries are Iran and Pakistan). Pertaining to the Allies side (the ones Bombed Bagdad in Christmas 98, during 4 months, before Bush while playing the saxophone; or the ones legitimizing Franco during the cold war) I don't feel authorized at all for talking about China
koldo garai
www.emergiatech.com
Posted on behalf of Dan Slobin in response to Tobin and Steen:
Well said. I agree with Yishai: a clear-cut separation between academic and political issues.
Academic meetings (and publications) are for supporting and continuing intellectual discourse, and not for attempting to influence governments and political decision makers. Furthermore, it is not at all clear that "an open society is a prerequisite for doing academic work." Simply think of the important academic work that was done in the Soviet Union, for example, or that is being done in the Peoples Republic of China now. I also don't believe that holding a meeting, or having other types of academic contacts with colleagues in a particular country, "sends a signal" of approval for the political actions of that country. Let us decide whether to meet in the PRC, or any other country, on normal grounds of the potential value of the intellectual interchanges, the availability of adequate facilities, and the convenience of the site for our members.
(Indeed, if we want to boycott countries that violate human rights, we must avoid the United States, among many others. Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org) lists the following countries as currently being of concern in violations of human rights: Bhutan, Burma, China, Colombia, Egypt, France, Guatemala, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines, Russia, Syria, Sudan, Thailand, Tunisia, United States of America.)
Dan Slobin
Posted on behalf of Thomas Li:
Dear colleagues
As an official member of ICLA, I am from Beijing, China. I hope I could be able to respond more to the discussion later. But now I am too busy to prepare any longer responses than this. Basically because I am busy with the preparation for the 4th China International Forum on Cognitive Linguistics, which will start on this coming Friday. Our main forum speaker, Professor Leonard Talmy arrived yesterday afternoon. He was very happy with us, happy with our food, happy with our hospitality, happy with our hotel, happy with our promotion… We laughed a lot over the dinner table. Tomorrow my colleagues and I will accompany Len to visit the Summer Palace, then to listen to the Peking Opera, ….
The first lecture will start at 10am on Friday. Some Chinese scholars will also give presentations at the intervals of Prof Talmy’s lectures. 7 lectures will be at Beihang University, 5 lectures will be arranged at the following universities: Peking U (may be called Harvard U in China) , Tsinshua U (then MIT in China), Beijing Normal U, Beijing Foreign Studies U, Beijing Language and Culture U. At the moment, as the organiser from the main host BEIHANG U (or BUAA), I have received 450 registrations. That means we will have over 500 participants plus students from my own department . They are from all over China and a few from our neighbouring countries. Our organization is different from many conferences organised in western counties. Though I mentioned the word REGISTRATION, in fact our registration is completely FREE. My main purpose to ask them to register is to count the number of the participants, in order to prepare enough seats and handouts. Free public lectures on CL in Beihang U is our tradition, we have done the same with lectures series by Prof George Lakoff, Prof Ronald Langacker, and Dr John Taylor. I hope I will keep the tradition.
In the past few ICLCs, I made my very efforts to get my students to attend and support ICLC. Therefore you saw some Chinese young faces in Logrono, Spain, 2003; Seoul, Korea 2005 (a theme session completely attended by over 10 of my students; and a group in Krakow,July 2007, distributing three lecture books with DVDs.
To attend ICLC was not an easy thing for those Chinese students, the total cost in attending ICLC in Krakow is around RMB20,000, the exchange rate could be roughly 1 Euro to 10 RMB, or 1 USD to about 7.5 RMB. That will bring one individual’s cost to 2000 Euro, or around USD 2700. A student can live here with a monthly minimum cost of RMB300, which means, the cost on ICLC Krakow, equals to their cost on food for 67 months, or about 6 years.
Will any of you, no matter professors or your students, be willing to attend such a conference with 6 years living cost? We have done that, we are happy with it.
I hope I could give more responses when I have some clearer ideas, but now it is 5 minutes to 1:00am, and I will meet Len at the lobby in the morning. I have to close here, with a GOOD NIGHT (or GOOD MORNING) to all of my colleagues around the world.
(sorry for any typos)
Thomas Li
From Beijing
Dear colleagues
I would like to emphasize and second some of the things Anatol Stefanowitsch has just contributed to the discussion as well as raise another perspective that I think has so far not received much consideration (in the postings that have come to my attention).
I will start like most others who are critical of holding the ICLC in China by pointing out that, just like anybody else, I of course respect our colleagues from China and their work and that I do not blame them for any activities their government is involved in.
Having expressed the necessary caveats, I agree with Anatol with regard to several issues:
- yes, there are many countries whose fairly recent international conduct may be regarded as questionable and whose right to host an ICLC may therefore be questioned, but I also fully agree with Anatol's assessment that there is a qualitative difference such that in these countries criticism of governmental actions by various individuals and institutions does not expose these individuals and institutions to the same risks;
- yes, anecdotal information about how our academic colleagues are wined and dined, attendance statistics of past ICLCs or current lecture series, and travel costs etc. do not address any of the issues that was raised in those mails that expressed concern any more than a characterization of the degree to which I enjoyed the hospitality of my own Chinese hosts during my last stay. As far as I can see, nobody has ever called into questions our Chinese colleagues' willingness, devotion, and ability to host a good ICLC.
Having said all this, I would also want to make clear that I also agree with other previous postings
- that every individual can make a decision regarding whether he or she wishes to attend a conference offered in country X, Y, Z to express a political opinion;
- that probably little good comes of boycotts and that it is probably too idealistic to assume that any one such boycott will bring about changes (assuming for the sake of the argument that one could ever come up with an agreed-upon set of such changes).
In spite of this, I am still not certain whether an ICLC should be held in China (and my "I am not certain" means just that I am no certain, it's not an attempt at a polite disguise of "I think we should not have the ICLC in China."). What is missing from the debate, however, is another perspective. This perspective would be to say that a decision by whoever in the ICLA prepares/makes such decisions (cf. below) against holding an ICLC in China is not considered a boycott -- where I assume Wikipedia's definition of a boycott: "A boycott is the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest." Rather, my question is whether it can be considered as an organization trying to take over responsibility for where its members convene. Given the human rights and governmental oppression issues that were raised in previous postings, I think it is a legitimate question to ask whether an organization should or should not decide on convening in a country various policies of which put people at risk, given that these "people" may very well be its own members and guests from other countries that attend the conference. Yes, the above is still true: every delegate can decide on his or her own whether he wants
- to subject his or her email communication from China to be read by volunteers attempting to keep the political atmosphere clean;
- to maybe bring a laptop computer with, say, pictures and reports of the Tiananmen Square massacre (again, I am using terminology from Wikipedia), which Chinese below the level of the Politburo are not allowed to possess/watch, and face prosecution;
- to subject his or her personal belongings to the risk of clandestine frisking of the kind that was customary in many 'Eastern European bloc' countries only 20 years ago.
Thus, the question I am putting up for discussion here is not "should the ICLA (or which ever exact body makes that decision) express political/humanistically motivated disapproval or protest and thus not hold an ICLC in China?" but "should the ICLA knowingly decide to encourage its members and other scholars to subject themselves to such kinds of risk or rather opt for a location where such issues do not arise and wher, if they did arose, a judicial system is in place that allows such issues to be resolved.
As I said above, I am still uncertain myself -- maybe now more than before I began trying to organize my thoughts for this posting. It seems, though, as if the majority opinion is that the ICLC 2011 should be held in China. I am nevertheless asking that, if a decision were to be made against hosting an ICLC in China along the above lines, then it be made clear that this decision is not only not meant as an expression of doubts regarding our Chinese colleagues' ability to host an ICLC of the same quality as the previous ones, but that it is also not meant as an expression of disapproval or protest.
In that connection an aside that does not directly bear on the issue but is still related: is it worth considering the possibility that we need no institutional body other than a general assembly to decide where an ICLC is going to be held? (This is by no means to imply that our colleagues who have graciously agreed to serve on the board of the ICLA are not capable of performing their duties -- it is meant to imply that an issue such as this, which obviously sparks a variety of different opinions/emotions, is maybe best resolved in a way that allows for the largest possible expression of plurality of opinions (which is why I personally very much appreciate Laura's initiative to discuss this matter in mails and even anonymously in blog posting, which also shows I do not call into question our ICLA board's abilities.)
Just my two cents
On behalf of Sherman Wilcox, who says:
I'll make my contribution short. From my perspective, Chris Sinha's
contribution is the most cogent and reasoned I have seen. I agree
100% with what he says.
And who could disagree with the brief but brief but on-target comment
by Raphael Berthele?
--
Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of Linguistics
MSC03 2130, LINGUISTICS
1 UNIV OF NEW MEXICO
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
I'm posting this on behalf of Phillip Elliott, who says:
An extraordinary discussion.
Many USA universities have study abroad programs and memoranda of understanding with universities in China, and my guess is that most view China as a country in transition of becoming a more open society. Here in the USA, the number of Master's degree programs that require a prolong stay in China for their students has grown tremendously. The trend is toward more mutual cooperation between the academic communities of the USA and China. Chinese will likely lose its LCTL status in the USA in the decades to come, considering the number of FLES programs developing throughout the nation that are teaching the language.
I see no good coming from a boycott.
Phillip Elliott
Southern University
Department of Foreign Languages
Baton Rouge, LA 70813-2063
I'm posting this on behalf of Anatol Stefanowitsch, who says:
Dear colleagues,
as it was me who originally brought up this issue at the general
assembly in Krakow, I obviously agree with Gerard.
I have great respect for our colleagues from the People's Republic of
China, the same respect that I have for all members of our species.
Please understand that I do not intend to criticize you as human beings
or fellow academics, or that I hold any of you in any way personally
responsible for the criminal activities of your government. Among my
immediate ancestors there are citizens of no less than four European
nations with a very recent fascist history, so I am certainly in no
position to criticize anyone for the actions of their governments. I
also respect the positive achievements of your culture in the same way
that I respect any positive cultural achievement by any group of people
anywhere in the world and at any point in history.
I also understand that our colleagues from the PRC as well as
high-ranking officers of the ICLA have worked hard and in good faith
towards bringing the ICLC to the PRC and I do not wish to belittle their
efforts.
But with all due respect, I think "a clear-cut separation between
academic and political issues" is only possible up to a point. Disgusted
as I am by human rights violations in Guantanamo Bay and by the
unfortunate decision of some Eastern European governments to support, or
at least acquiesce in, illegal CIA operations on their soil, as much as
I regret the continued terrorist attacks against Israel and the overly
harsh reactions by the Israeli army, I do not think that any of these
situations are in any way comparable to the systematic and deeply
ingrained abuse of basic human rights by the government of the People's
Republic of China.
I do not wish to attack anyone personally, but take the grace and
humility with which, for example, Dan Slobin is perfectly willing to
criticize his own country in order to defend our Chinese colleagues and
compare it to the irrelevant story of food, hospitality and the Peking
Opera that constitutes the only reaction so far by a colleague from the
PRC. To me, this difference is just one more illustration for why it is
acceptable to hold the ICLC in the USA but not in the PRC: if I do not
agree with the U.S. administration, I can say so loud and clear. I may
not be able to change anything, but I will not be arrested and held at
the whim of a criminal government. Unfortunately, the same is *not* true
of the PRC, where anyone who criticizes those in power will be brutally
silenced (at least I hope that that is the reason why our colleagues
from the PRC are so strangely silent on the human rights issue).
I would be interested to hear what our colleagues from the Republic of
China (a.k.a. Taiwan), from Tibet, from Burma or from any of the other
countries and territories oppressed directly or indirectly by the
People's Republic of China would say to our intention to "separate
academic and political issues".
As I said in Krakow, as cognitive linguists we are both scientists and
humanists. The scientists in us cannot possibly tolerate the
restrictions on the free exchange of ideas that the People's Republic of
China practices (for example, by banning foreign books and newspapers
and by hiding most of the Internet from its citizens behind what has
become known as the Great Firewall of China). The humanists in us cannot
possibly tolerate the suffering that the machinery of oppression that
calls itself the "government" of the People's Republic of China
unleashes on its own citizens and on the citizens of its occupied
territories and satellite states.
I am honestly surprised that any of this should have to be discussed.
Best regards,
Anatol Stefanowitsch
I'm posting this on behalf of David Moser, who says:
I've been observing this exchange and now sending this short email comment via my Internet Service Provider and its server here in Beijing.
Should I not avail myself of this communication channel simply because it is set up in China and overseen by the freedom-of-speech-violating Chinese Ministry of Information?
And should those of you overseas block my message because it is passed on through such a channel?
David Moser,
Beijing China
I'm posting this on behalf of Anatol Stefanowitsch, who says:
Dear colleagues,
this message was sent to my email account from someone with an email
address from the People's Republic of China. In the interest of the free
exchange of ideas, I am passing it on to the cogling mailing list.
> Dir Sir,
>
> i am not a member of the ICLA. However, since it's a topic about my
> country, i would certainly like to let my voice heard. Perhaps u have
> heard about the term clash of culture, and understand the cause and
> consequence of such things. I believe the topic u raised falls into
> the category which causes COC. Human rights varies by definition in
> differnt nations and in differnt cultures. I believe it's also true
> for the very term of cognition. If u are imposing ur understanding of
> human rights to what the Chinese poeple do, i guess it's no different
> from imposing ur understanding of cognition to any other scholars.
>
> The Chinese people, if u may have already noticed, is kind and
> hospitable. It's also true for the government. And with all the
> problems, all the scandals of government officials, our country,
> under the administration of the present government, is boosting with
> it's economic growth. Chinese people have the confidence that the
> country will be bettern tomorrow, and much better in the coming
> future. The hosting of ICLA will certainly be a contribution to the
> development of academic study in China and Chinese people should be
> grateful for such a meeting. And I also believe Chinese government
> surely encourages such a meeting. However, it may not be regarded as
> a friendly attitude to threat to withdraw such a conference simply on
> the base of so called human rights.
>
> Best regards.
>
> [SIGNATURE REMOVED]
I rest my case.
Best regards,
Anatol Stefanowitsch
I'm posting this for Sherman Wilcox, who says:
On Oct 10, 2007, at 10:31 PM, dmoser@netchina.com.cn wrote:
> And should those of you overseas block my message because it is
> passed on through such a channel?
And maybe we have to just stop discussing this online at all, since
we almost certainly are all using computers made in China.
--
Sherman Wilcox
Department of Linguistics
University of New Mexico
I'm posting this on behalf of Poppy Siahaan, who says:
This discussion reminds me of my personal story in the University of
Ulster at Coleraine in Northern Ireland, when I was an exchange student
from 1993-1994 from the University of Bremen in Germany. Two exchange
students from Portugal didn't want to shake hand with me after I told
them that I come from Indonesia. One of them said in an accusing tone,
"What have you done in East Timor?" Until then, my knowledge on East
Timor was limited to what I received at Indonesian school, which was
very government-oriented. I wrote letters (at that time, I wasn't aware
of the use of emails) to my friends in Indonesia. Only one answer came
from a friend (perhaps most of my friends didn't know, or didn't care. I
don't know). But, it wasn't more than what I had known, "Indonesian
government freed East Timor in 1976 after the Portuguese left its
territory". So I started to go to the library and read old newspapers'
articles - mostly from The Guardians. What I found there really opened
my eyes about my country, about the Indonesian government (Soeharto
regime) at that time. A lot of civilian people were killed by the
military soldiers during the invasion. Such horrible stories and
pictures! After a while, I thought, I somehow owe those narrow-minded
Portuguese students. Because of them, I gained a broader view of my own
country.
So far from my personal story.
My opinion: We need more of this exchange! In form of ideas, linguistic
conference etc. In the first place, we cannot make the people to be
responsible for their government. Furthermore, I don't think that
boykotting can change the attitude of the Chinese government.
Poppy Siahaan
Wiesbaden, Germany
I'm posting this on behalf of Alan Cienki, who says:
I would like to pick up on the emphasis in Gerard Steen's
message on the status of the ICLA's actions as an
organization. Individual members can decide whether they
want to attend or boycott a conference because of its
location, but nevertheless an organization as an entity
takes a public stance by holding a conference in a given
country.
To make a comparison with another organization, the
Linguistic Society of America (the major professional
society in the United States for the field of linguistics)
occasionally passes resolutions on policy matters via mail
ballot (see the list of resolutions and statements at
http://www.lsadc.org/info/lsa-res.cfm). Sometimes these
concern criteria for the selection of a conference site.
In the past this included a ban on holding the annual
conference in any U.S. state maintaining laws which could
involve arrest for same-sex relations, since meeting in
such a place could be potentially hazardous for some
conference attendees. Currently there is a standing
resolution concerning the selection of conference hotels
in light of their labor practices.
I would encourage the ICLA Governing Board to consider
whether voting on an occasional resolution by the
Association membership might be an effective way to make
some general decisions about Association policy (so, for
example, not about whether country A or B should host, but
about whether or not certain aspects of a potential host
country should be taken into consideration or not in the
selection process, and if so, in what way). In the case
of site selection for future conferences, having a policy
or some policies in place, beyond the existing practical
guidelines for hosting an ICLC, would provide a clear
point of reference. Even if the membership were to decide
that the ICLA will not take a position on certain issues
as an organization, that is also taking a stance -- which
would facilitate decisions about individual cases in the
future.
Regards,
Alan Cienki
Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam, Netherlands
I'm posting this on behalf of Ahmad R. Lotfi, who says:
Dear colleagues,
Anatol wrote:
>
>I would be interested to hear what our colleagues from the
>Republic of China (a.k.a. Taiwan), from Tibet, from Burma or
>from any of the other countries and territories oppressed
>directly or indirectly by the People's Republic of China would
>say to our intention to "separate academic and political
>issues".
>
A wise thing to do.
>
> But with all due respect, I think "a clear-cut separation
>between academic and political issues" is only possible up to
>a point.
>
The remark is bitter but reasonable. Unscientific politics is
quite possible but apolitical science is also too good to be
always true.
Scientists in a capitalist society (and I doubt any reasonable
person could call the Chinese society socialist or something)
are white-collar workers producing science as some form of
commodity (and sometimes a very strategic one given the
importance of science and technology in the establishment of
political-military powers, which, fortunately, doesn't
usually apply to what cognitive scientists do).
Boycotting/approving of a conference to be held under a
dictatorship, then, would be better understood if also
considered in the context of the possible effects
this political decision would have on the lives of our
colleagues living in such societies (and nOT just its political
consequences for the dictatorship itself).
Anyhow, boycotts and sanctions usually have drastic negative
effects on the lives and careers of the academics living there,
and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Such
sanctions (esp. for non-strategic sciences like cognitive
sciences which dictatorships usually consider as mere luxuries)
may be even welcomed by the target governments, which
perhaps doesn't apply to China's case given its important
economic-political ties with the capitalist world, as such acts
strenghten the solidarity of their scholars with the government.
>
>Disgusted
>as I am by human rights violations in Guantanamo Bay and by the
>unfortunate decision of some Eastern European governments to
>support, or at least acquiesce in, illegal CIA operations on
>their soil, as much as I regret the continued terrorist
>attacks against Israel and the overly harsh reactions by the
>Israeli army, I do not think that any of these
>situations are in any way comparable to the systematic and
>deeply ingrained abuse of basic human rights by the government
>of the People's Republic of China.
>
Tut tut! such judgements are too subjective and potentially
dangerous. Some scholars in the East may feel just the opposite.
And this could be a very dangerous game to play. Just imagine
the scientists in every other country consider the crimes
committed by their own government to be less malignant than
those by other governments. This would only fuel
the doctrine of clashes of civilisations.
Anyway, a less probable scenario is also conceivable where
Chinese scholars themselves feel a boycott would contribute to
their struggles for a better (political and/or academic) life.
Whatever the case, Chinese scienteists must know these things
better than others.
Regards,
Ahmad R. Lotfi
Azad University
Esfahan, IRAN
Ahmad R. Lotfi, Ph. D
Department of the English Language,
Azad University at Khorasgan Esfahan, IRAN.
I am posting this on behalf of Tahir Wood, who is responding to Anatol Stefanowitsch:
As a citizen of South Africa may I say that, while a clear cut
separation between science and politics is not always sustainable,
academic boycotts really are not very effective in changing oppressive
societies. I doubt very much whether the academic boycott against South
Africa was hugely instrumental in ending apartheid.
But I do think it had some rationale in that there was almost a
universal international consensus against the apartheid regime. This is
seldom the case. Burma may be a current case; I'm not sure. But to
divide the world up into good and bad nations is to me a very
questionable pastime - I think that most governments are thoroughly bad
- but nowadays what one finds is a stigmatising process, led by the USA
and one or two other countries, where western democracy is taken as a
model that can even be imposed by force on other countries, with
astronomical levels of death and suffering, because it is 'obviously'
the best model. I reject that. I don't see why it is a human rights
abuse to oppress your own citizens while it is somehow okay to oppress
people outside your national borders as the USA has been doing, for
decades.
There are some countries where I would personally not go to a
conference - Israel is certainly one of them - but I would hesitate to
organise a boycott around my own views, precisely because this is a
two-edged sword which can be wielded by the other political side as
well. You've first got to have the kind of near universal consensus that
I was talking about. Otherwise it becomes a tit-for-tat game. When the
issue of having agreements with Iranian universities came up in my
university and it was suggested that this was problematic unless the
universities concerned dissociated themselves from their government, I
opposed this because it was a politically very questionable position to
take. I asked why only Iran, why not Australia, which has practised not
only genocide against its own people, as well as kidnapping of children,
but also regarded its indigenous people as non-human ("Australia was not
populated when the British arrived") AND practised a whites-only
immigration policy, but also, under its present government, refused to
apologise for ANY of that? But we know why that kind of thing is okay
with certain people, it is because of racism and Eurocentrism. In that
context, a boycott of China? No I don't think so.
I would also like to suggest to the gentleman whose message appears
below that I do not accept that what is going on in Israel is that there
is simply retaliation for terrorist attacks. How about dispossession of
the land as an issue? But I don't expect this to be agreed upon,
otherwise there would be the universal consensus about Israel that I
have been talking about. Clearly there is still work to be done before
we have that. And most of that work is needed inside the US.
Tahir
I am posting this on behalf of Tahir Wood, who writes:
In the context of the recent discussion the letter below may be of
interest.
Tahir
9/26/07
Open Letter to Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University
By Clifton Ross, Berkeley, California
To Mr. Lee Bollinger,
President of Columbia University,
I'm writing you to express my outrage over your vulgar treatment of
President Ahmadinejad yesterday when you invited him to speak at your
university. Simple human etiquette of the most primitive and elemental
sort, was required in the situation, but you failed to deliver even
that. You were obnoxious, insulting and displayed an appalling ignorance
of President Ahmadinejad, Iran and politics, not to mention the rules
that govern "civilized" human conduct (arguably "primitive" conduct is
even more governed by politeness and elevated rules of conduct).
Moreover, in a context that calls for objectivity, investigation, open
mindedness and a willingness to learn and exchange ideas, you displayed
a remarkable absence of any of those qualities. Instead, you showed
yourself to be one with the bullying, abusive, ignorant and arrogant
people who unfortunately govern our country at the moment and who are
attempting to induce a phobic and neurotic xenophobia comparable only to
what Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin inculcated in their countries
during those moments of greatest darkness in human history. The irony of
the situation is that you displayed all those qualities of which you
accused President Ahmadinejad. Where was that display of that "great
tradition of openness" in your callous, close minded speech? Your speech
shows you to "exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator" and
worse: a bully, a man who invites a guest into his house, then abuses
him before a cheering crowd.
You accuse President Ahmadinejad of "a brutal crackdown on scholars,
journalists and human rights advocates" but you fail to mention the
scores of scholars, journalists and human rights advocates, imprisoned,
tortured and murdered by U.S. forces in Iraq. Is that cowardice or a
double standard or merely "oversight" on your part? And when you accuse
President Ahmadinejad of denying the Holocaust and calling for the
destruction of the state of Israel, that is, when you pander to your
Zionist supporters, you merely display an ignorance of the actual words
of Ahmadinejad (words that were twisted in the translation to English,
predictably; see this piece by Virginia Tilley,
http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html ), which he corrected
yesterday in his comments and clarifications. However, when you say
"your [Iran's] government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by
funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like
Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces" you show yourself to be as biased, and
blinded by nationalism and an imperial arrogance as the architects of
the genocide we're currently seeing in Iraq. You don't ask what
"American troops in Iraq" are doing there as invaders, occupiers, who
are, de facto, now made war criminals by being the willing instruments
of the "war of aggression," considered the supreme international crime,
one committed by Mr. George Bush through fabrications of evidence, lies,
and manipulation; you don't ask what role those resistance fighters like
Muqtada Al Sadr are playing, but those less blinded by nationalism than
you would compare him to our own patriotic forefathers who fought the
British for our own nationhood; and now you don't bother to ask what
your ignorant, uninformed criticisms of President Ahmadinejad will do to
help the same war criminals who destroyed Iraq to now go on and destroy
Iran.
If you knew anything of history, the history of your own lifetime, you
might understand the situation that currently confronts Iran. You
probably know that the U.S. overthrew Iran's democracy in 1953 and set
up a brutal, decadent Shah who was our man in the Middle East for the
following two and a half decades. You may even know that the CIA helped
organize the imprisonment, torture and killings of dissidents under that
Shah, which is why the students took over the U.S. embassy when they
finally got rid of the filth the U.S. had imposed upon them for all
those dark years.
We don't need to agree with the elected President of Iran, Ahmadinejad,
to show him the simple respect due an elected head of state. But you
seem incapable of that simple act required of someone in your position.
To call an elected president a "dictator," however, is not only
insulting but inaccurate. Such epithets are reserved for those who
impose themselves by force and by fraud, such as Mr. Bush, who has
stolen two elections. But I'm sure you wouldn't use terms to describe
your own head of state so, now would you?
The Chinese have a saying, roughly translated, that goes, "the one
pointing his finger at another, has three fingers pointing at himself."
But you are so blind to who you are, up there in your position of power
as President of the prestigious Columbia University of New York in the
great empire of the United States of America, that you don't see the man
being accused by his three fingers. So, to close, I invite you to take a
look at yourself, and our people, as another sees us. Her name is Layla
Anwar and she writes a blog called Arab Woman Blues which you can find
here: http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2007/09/no-past-no-future.html
I warn you. A man of your highly sensitive sensibilities may find some
of her language harsh, painful, distasteful. But I assure you, she has
far more justification for saying what she does than you did in your
pronouncements against the President of Iran yesterday. And it is long,
but I plead for you to have patience because you are a man in need of an
education, and sometimes education is a very painful process.
She writes:
"Is there anything in Iraq that the Americans have not destroyed ?
Anything at all?...The past - you have looted and destroyed. Trying to
erase our collective historical memory...Our roots, where we came from,
what our ancestors did, their achievements, their trials, their statues,
their writings...
You do not know history, you are rejects of history. You have no
history. You have no past, you have nothing...you are nothing.
You are nothing but ogres of consumerism. Not just material stuff, but
anything you can swallow whole you will. You even swallow other people's
history whole.
You are a greedy, covetous, gluttonous, voracious, jealous, envious
people...
Since you are nothing, your nihilism contaminates everything else...
You destroy and self destruct...
No Future - You have no future, because inside of yourselves, your
future is limited to your own little egos. Little egos have no future.
Little egos are amoebas, parasites, feeding off others...You think you
have a vision but your vision is only about your stomach, your pockets
and what you have in between your legs...That is it.
This is where it stops. Surely this does not make you seers...
What have you contributed to the world ? Anything of real substance?
Nothing. Apart from brutal might and power... and your sickening culture
that is as hollow and as empty as you are.
And just as you have no real future, you robbed us of our own. You are
collectively a bunch of criminals, thieves, thugs and perverts of the
worst kind.
Since your f****** 9/11, you have totally destroyed two countries.
Afghanistan and Iraq.
And you have not stopped. Not one day, not one hour...
You wanted regime change in Iraq - you got it.
You also changed us, me, beyond anything I can recognize...I never
hated you before. Today I do. I really hate you.
You collectively disgust me. Even our ancient Mesopotamian deities and
spirits are disgusted with you. Every single letter of the Alphabet is
disgusted with you.
The earth, the rivers, the sky, the mountains, the trees, the birds of
Iraq are disgusted with you...The cosmos is disgusted with you ...
Everytime I spot one of you anywhere in close proximity and hear that
ugly accent of yours I run away...I avoid you like the plague. I can't
bear to hear you or see you.
You represent nothing but Death and Destruction to me.
Your ugliness is all pervading...
Everytime I switch on the TV or the Radio and see or hear one of you, I
zap. I wish I can zap you out of my life once and for all...
I know, I keep repeating myself, but then you keep repeating the same
acts.
Iraq is going down, with its past and its future...
I can only promise you one thing, however long it may take, we are
going to take you down with us."
As a North American I can add nothing more except to apologize to Iraq
for what my government has done and continues to do to them and to Iran
for what you, and your government have done, and are preparing to do, to
them. And to President Ahmadinejad, I apologize for Mr. Bollinger's
barbarous and inexcusable words. Not all U.S. citizens are as ignorant
and lacking in basic manners as the presidents of our universities.
About the author: Clifton Ross is the co-editor of Voice of Fire:
Communiques and Interviews of the Zapatista National Liberation Army
(1994, New Earth Publications). His book, Fables for an Open Field
(1994, Trombone Press, New Earth Publications), has just been released
in Spanish by La Casa Tomada of Venezuela. His forthcoming book of poems
in translation, Traducir el Silencio, will be published later this year
by Venezuelas Ministry of Culture editorial, Perro y Rana. Ross teaches
English at Berkeley City College, Berkeley, California. He can be
reached at clifross@gmail.com
I'm posting this on behalf of Giancarlo Buoiano, who writes:
Premise: I am not an ICLA member. So I really speak for myself.
Dear all, that you like or not the idea, dictatorships *use* everything to survive and cheat the people. Hitler used olimpic games in 1936 to spread nazism, Mussolini used soccer world cup in 1934 and 1938 to show that Italy, after all, did not really live under the fascist regime. The Argentinian Junta used soccer world cup in 1978 for the very same reason. Soviets used 1980 olimpic games to show a 'civilized' Russia. These things happen because somebody thinks that boycott is not the right way, that it is better to discuss with dictators and their apparatus, et cetera.
Well, the question is quite simple: take the universal declaration of human rights, control if it is applied in a given Country. If the answer is 'no', then boycott that Country and its government until civil rights have not been re-established.
Just my opinion.
Giancarlo Buoiano
Dear all
I am a little perplexed by some of the postings here, most notably by the failure to stick to what is at issue.
First, I fail to see how personal experiences and anecdotal stories of people who were in China contribute to the issue more than anybody else's opinion (cf. Chaoqun Xie's posting). The point is not
- whether our Chinese colleagues can organize an ICLC successfully - we know they can;
- whether colleagues who have been to China enjoyed their stay - most if not all probably did;
- whether China as a country is worth seeing - yes, it is.
- that Len Talmy has received a spectacular treatment (cf. Thomas Li's posting).
The issue is whether a professional organization such as the ICLC should decide to host a conference in China given concerns about political / human rights issues, and since we are all to a greater or lesser degree political beings, no particular opinion is privileged. Otherwise, what's next: we count the days we spent there and (s)he who was there longest gets to say most?
Second, I also fail to see what all the rambling about holding the ICLC 2009 in Berkeley has to do with the issue. Yes, I see that the conduct of the United States government can be and has been criticized. But the topic of the discussion has been defined, by, I guess, the assembly in Kracow and the President of the ICLA, as whether the ICLC 2011 should be held in China! If members of the ICLA feel that the ICLC 2009 should not be held in Berkeley, fine with me, but then can they please
- pass a motion that the conference venue for 2009 should be reconsidered (with whatever supporting arguments they wish to provide);
- have the President of the ICLA open up blogspot.ICLC2009 Berkeley (or do it themselves); and most importantly
- stick to the topic of the discussion and discuss China where we're supposed to discuss China and discuss the US where we're supposed to discuss the US?
Thx,
STG
--
Stefan Th. Gries
-----------------------------------------------
University of California, Santa Barbara
http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries
-----------------------------------------------
I am posting this on behalf of Steve Deiss, who says:
Speaking from the high bleachers in the peanut gallery, I'd just like to point out that the present diplomatic venom coming from PRC leadership over Bush meeting with the Dali Lama, and the flack over the honor being bestowed upon him by the USA, is indicative of why it is very hard to separate politics from science, religion and sports as well. Political issues are everywhere unless ignored.
The world does not carve itself up neatly along departmental lines. Some things just cannot be ignored or one could find oneself riding to a nice cozy conference in a train with an engine powered by dissident remains.
Steve Deiss
A Friend of Tibet
I am posting this on behalf of Rong Chen, who says: Colleagues:
Growing up in China and having lived in America for more than two decades, I would like to offer my perspective on the discussion regarding the pros and cons of holding ICLC 2011 in China.
First of all, I agree that human rights violation is a serious problem in China. I admire colleagues holding the position that ICLC not be held in that country. However, as many colleagues have pointed out, to tie academics and politics is to go down a slippery slop. Are we ready to define the severity of human rights violation? Are we even able to pin down what human rights really are?
There is a practical side of the issue, which does not seem to have been touched upon in previous posts, and that is “what would we gain by boycotting China?” In my opinion, we would gain little and lose much. ICLC is important for many of us. For me, for instance, it is the most important conference among the many I attend. But how much does it mean to the Chinese government if the 600 of us didn’t go to a Chinese city with more than 10 million people? Put it bluntly, how much would they care? Would we make a dent in the human rights situation in that vast country?
So, if we decided to boycott, I am quite convinced that we would be boycotting the CL movement in China. We would be sending a discouraging message to our colleagues working alongside us for years in CL. Wouldn’t that loss be a bit too heavy for the sense of moral superiority that we would derive from the boycott?
I am aware that my position could have resulted from a loss of idealism.
Respectfully yours,
Rong Chen
California State University
I am posting this on behalf of Adam Glaz, who says:
Dear Coglings,
First, I would like to thank Anatol for raising the issue of human rights in
China at the ICLC in Krakow. An act of courage and even if the decision is
"for" China, I'm glad it will not be made unreflectively.
Now a comment on Ron Chen's recent post. Ron says:
>>"what would we gain by boycotting China"? ... [H]ow much does it mean to
>>the Chinese
government if the 600 of us didn?t go to a Chinese city with more than 10
million people? Put it bluntly, how much would they care? Would we make a
dent in the human rights situation in that vast country?<<
It probably would not make a substantial dent and the Chinese government
would not care too much. But I believe it's a wrong perspective. It's like
saying that an action only makes sense if its results are immediately
palpable. Take ecology: does it matter if you use the energey-saving bulbs
or not? What "dent" does it make in the global greenhouse effect? And yet
those of us who are ecologically-minded would certainly support it. Would it
make a difference if the conference had 60,000 participants? How many is
enough? Does a single act of a single individual matter? The China issue is
not about bringing immediate effects but about deciding if the CL community
is ready to contribute to the overall struggle with the oppressive Chinese
authorities.
In my city, a plaza has recently been built on the site of a WWII Nazi
prison/transition camp for Jews and other nationalities. Some people (few,
I'm sure) find it repulsive to do shopping or go to the cinema there and
they don't. Does it substantially reduce the income of the plaza owners?
Hardly. Are the people who actually work there to blame? Certainly not. But
it does mater whose side one is on.
Don't get me wrong: I have Chinese friends and really wish all of them well.
But precisely for this reason I think this discussion is important - no
matter what decision is finally taken. Coming from an ex-Soviet block
country, I am grateful to those who boycotted the 1980 Olympic games in
Moscow, even at the cost of hindering the careers of many of its own
sportsmen and sportswomen. Incidentally, I wish the same would happen to the
Beijing games and the Sochi games in Russia (because of the war in
Chechnya).
I'm sure the negative decision would be disadvantageous for the CL movement
in China and this is bad. But there are a number of other ways of
cooperating and helping out. And a clear message would be sent.
One of the participants of the Kakow ICLC said that it is precisely because
of the human rights violations that we should go there and "see what it's
like". It's just that we would not see anything even if we wanted to. We
would spend a week in a comfortable conference centre, well-fed and taken
care of (which, obviously, is exactly what it should be like).
My last word: I'm still undecided if I were to take a vote but I think the
issue IS importnat and MUST be discussed, if only to raise awaraness and let
people make that decision against a broader background. Thanks to Anatol,
again.
Adam Glaz
Lublin, Poland
I am posting this on behalf of Jordan Zlatev, who says:
Dear all,
I managed to keep quiet in Krakow, and my intention was to do so on this list, but this is going too far.
If we are going to discuss a boycott of China, then I think that we should first discuss a boycott of the USA: since (a) the next ICLC concerence is going to be there and (b) since under the Bush regime, the USA is a more flagrant violater of international law and human rights. That is, I agree completely with Raphael's earlier statement.
The question is: just how political do fighters for democracy wish to make this list?
Jordan Zlatev
Lund, Sweden
P.S. I wonder whether I would now get a US visa, so maybe I have hereby sealed my own private US-boycott.
I am posting this on behalf of Chaoqun Xie, who says:
Dear Colingers,
I believe one of the feasible ways to test whether it is a correct choice to have an ICLC conference held in China is to go and ask those scholars who have been to China before how they feel about China. Some of the distinguished professors who have been to China are, if my memory serves me right, Mona Baker, Gills Fauconnier, Dirk Geerearts, Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., Hartmut Haberland, Gabriel Kasper, Istvan Kecskes, Ronald W. Langacker, Jacob Mey, Klaus-Uwe Panther, Dan Sperber, John Tayor, Reuven Tsur, Mark Turner, Deirdre Wilson, to name just a few.
Best wishes,
Chaoqun Xie
I am posting this on behalf of Dirk Geeraerts, who says:
In reply to Chaoqun Xie's request, let me specify the two main reasons that I have for opposing a boycot. The first reason is directly related to my experiences in China, the second is related to Cognitive Linguistics.
1 On my visits to China, I have not only been struck by the size and liveliness of the Chinese Cognitive Linguistics community and by the hospitality of my hosts, but specifically also by the attitude of the students that I was fortunate to meet: they combine a remarkable eagerness to learn with an open critical disposition. They are keen to learn, but they do not do so passively or uncritically: they have a genuine habit of asking perceptive, inquisitive, investigative questions - the kind of questions that any teacher will be happy with because they couple interest to insight.
It would seem to me that if we wish to support the democratic process in China, the constructive way to do so is not to ignore these discerning and questioning young people, but to give them the opportunity to broaden their horizon even further and to get in touch with an international community of scholars. The critical and open-minded attitude they exhibit in the academic domain is likely to extend to political and ethical matters: independently thinking people form the basis of any genuine democracy. That is why we should foster that critical and open-minded attitude (even if only in an academic context) rather than isolate it.
2 There is a conceptual confusion involved in thinking that a refusal to have the ICLC in China amounts to a boycot of the Chinese government. And it's a confusion that can be analyzed by using the apparatus of Cognitive Linguistics. Our normal metonymy is the government represents (stands for) the people. Now, as we know, many metonymies can be reversed: you have pars pro toto's as well as totum pro parte's. When you believe that a refusal to have the ICLC in China amounts to a signal with regard to the Chinese government ("a refusal to interact with [part of] the people is a refusal to interact with the government"), you are arguing on the basis of a reversal of the metonymy: the people stands for the government.
That, however, is an unwarranted reversal; it would not even hold in a democratic country. Moreover, if you deplore the undemocratic nature of the Chinese government, you imply that the initial metonymy does not apply (for it is the metonymy with which we describe the relationship between people and government in a democratic country). So, as far as I can see, a boycot of China as an ICLC venue would be based on an inacceptable reversal of an inapplicable metonymy. As far as I am concerned, that's a fair enough argument against a boycot.
With best wishes,
Dirk Geeraerts
I am posting this on behalf of Rob Freeman, who says:
I don't really want to comment on this, but I am in China, and said I
would write something.
Firstly, perversely, I would like to thank this debate for drawing my
attention to the 4th China International Forum on Cognitive
Linguistics, in Beijing this week.
I have been in Beijing all summer, but without Thomas Li's response I
would have missed an opportunity to hear a very interesting series of
lectures taking place, as it happened, just down the road.
Many thanks to Professor Li for organizing the forum, and to Professor
Talmy for presenting his series of lectures.
Which is by way of saying that in most ways Beijing is a modern city
indistinguishable from many in the West, and it is certainly possible
to have a great conference here.
On the other hand YouTube joined Wikipedia and Flickr this week as a
resource to which I no longer have easy access. YouTube stopped
resolving about two days ago. A reminder to me of some of the
differences, and a practical irritation.
If I chose not to be in China it might well be such practical
irritations which would dominate.
There are perhaps two things I could say on the subject of a boycott.
One is that if the intention would be to help the Chinese people, I am
sure the vast majority of Chinese people do not want this "help" at
this time.
The second is that if the intention would be to send a clear message,
then no clear message would be sent.
To convey a clear message you need a common context (to pull some more
linguistics back into this.) There is simply not enough common context
for people in China and the West to understand each other on this or
other issues. That is why the few messages coming from China appear to
be irrelevant to most of the people posting here. While from the point
of view of China, most of the debate appears merely hostile.
To provide some of that context I might comment that there is an
enormous amount of construction taking place here in Beijing in
preparation for the Olympics next year. The overwhelming emotion seems
to be pride. I have had shopkeepers, doormen etc. ask me if I am
coming.
The most common question of all is "do you like China?"
In short, the way in which interaction with the West is perceived is
altogether at another level from some of the subtle nuances of this
debate.
I think the best way to resolve that is more interaction, not less.
Of course for a particular conference, those most directly affected must decide.
Though perhaps another point is that it is hard to justify the name
"International" for an organization which excludes a quarter of the
world, for whatever reason. (To follow a logical extreme, should the
ICLA change its name? Or dissolve until there is more international
consensus on political issues?)
-Rob Freeman
I am posting this on behalf of Fancisco Ruiz de Mendoza, who says: Dear colleagues:
Not long ago I had the chance to visit Beijing, give a number of lectures, and interact with Chinese professors and students alike. I can corroborate Dirk's words. I was very positively impressed by their eagerness to learn, ask questions, and develop critical thinking. The professors in Beijing universities are doing a great job in looking for resources to help their students be updated in linguistics.
I do not think that a refusal to hold an ICLC in China will have any kind of impact whatsoever on the Chinese government but it will surely have an unwanted negative impact on the development of CL research in China and on the incorporation of Chinese scholars to the international CL community.
Best regards,
Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza
I am posting this on behalf of Moshe Haven, who responds to Chris Sinha's comment as follows:
Yegads, could we stay even remotely on topic for Cognitive
Linguistics. Are you so narcissistic to hijack the attention of
everyone on this list's time to go on with this? Believe it or not,
most of us also have personal and political matters that are very
important to us. But generally an adult is expected to respect other's
time and not steal it inappropriately.
Yes, these topics are important. Yes, they are life and death. But
that doesn't mean that you then take over everyone's attention in
every forum you can find.
Please exercise a bit better judgement and self control.
I am posting this on behalf of Anatol Stefanowitsch, who says:
Dear colleagues,
I would like to thank you all for the productive exchange of ideas so
far. Leaving aside the posts that seem to argue that the fact that some
of our computers (not mine!) were assembled in the PRC or that many
"distinguished professors" have visited the PRC are relevant to the
discussion, I have learned a lot from our discussion.
There are three recurrent issues that I would like to comment on before
attempting to move the discussion to a new level.
"We should not mix politics and science."
Several participants in this debate suggested that science and politics
should not be mixed. In a democratic country, that is a reasonable
attitude. In fact, it is one of the hallmarks of democracies that the
influence of politics does not extend into the economy, academia,
religion, the free expression of opinions, choices of lifestyle etc. But
the People's Republic of China is NOT a democratic country. It is a
ruthless dictatorship, even if it sometimes puts on smiling faces and
Sunday clothes. If anyone believes that it is possible to separate
science and politics in the PRC, they are missing that central fact. You
can rest assured that the influence of the political sphere reaches deep
into academia in the PRC, and the fact that our colleagues from the PRC
continue to refuse to participate in this discussion is good evidence
for this.
Dirk, your point about the metonymic reversal is well taken, the
responsibility of individuals for their government is minimal even in
democratic countries. Now, not being able to vote does not entail not
being able to raise your voice against a dictatorial government, but I
would never, NEVER expect anyone living in a country like China to do so
or blame them in any way if they failed to do so. I honestly don't know
if I would be brave enough to do so if I were in the same situation, but
I suspect I would try to rationalize away any cognitive dissonances and
live a very, very quiet life. However, I don't see how this is related
to the issue. I'm not suggesting to ban citizens of the PRC from
attending the ICLC. To do so would be entirely unwarranted and arrogant.
In fact, you may recall that I suggested in Krakow to hold the
conference in the Republic of China (Taiwan), or somewhere else in the
vicinity of the PRC. This would impose less of a financial burden on PRC
citizens than holding it in Europe or the USA, and it would have the
advantage of allowing everyone, including PRC citizens, to have open
discussions, free from government snooping.
"Where do we draw the line?"
Several colleagues have suggested that, since there are violations of
human rights occur in almost all countries, there is no justification in
boycotting the People's Republic of China, but not, say, the USA or
France. The idea seems to be that the ICLA is not able to define a
cut-off point beyond which human rights violations become intolerable. I
must say that, for a discipline that is used to dealing with fuzzy
categories, I find that position surprising. It is not as though
information about human rights violations is difficult to find. Amnesty
International has detailed quantitative and qualitative information on
their web site and that information speaks a very clear language. To
take just one example that lends itself to quantification:
Executions in 2006
1. PR China (1,010 official, a realistic estimate is 7,500-8000).
2. Iran (177)
3./4. Iraq and Sudan (65 each)
5. USA (53)
(Source: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-sentences-eng)
Now, granted these countries differ in population size, so let's state
the figures as per million citizens:
1. Iran (2.5)
2. Iraq (2.4)
3. Sudan (1.7)
4. PRC (0.8)
5. USA (0.2)
If we take Amnesty International's estimate for the PRC, then of course
it moves right back to the top of the list with a mind-boggling 5.7 to
6.0 executions per million. But even if we accept the PRC's official
figures, there is still a clear difference between the USA and the PRC.
Sure, it is difficult to draw lines. I am no big fan of the Bush
administration and I could see that the USA under Bush might be a case
that would be difficult to decide. However, the fact remains that
underneath the thin veneer of neocon rhetoric that American media
broadcast to the world the USA is a deeply democratic country which
stands for all those values that the PRC does NOT stand for -- freedom
of speech, freedom of choice, freedom from fear, etc. Now, if people
seriously believe that we should have a discussion about having the ICLC
in the USA, by all means, let us have this discussion. Maybe I'm naive
or maybe I'm just not susceptible to anti-American propaganda, but I am
very confident what the result of such a discussion would be.
"But a boycott will not achieve anything."
Who cares? Since when have human beings engaged exclusively in
activities that "achieve" anything? Does the 99th polysemy network or
the 999th analysis of the LOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor "achieve" anything?
No. But it may help us understand a little bit more about what defines
us as human beings. In the same way, showing solidarity with the
oppressed in the PRC and its satellite states and occupied territories
may not "achieve" anything, but it will tell us something about our
humanness.
I never suggested, incidentally, that by not holding the ICLC in the PRC
we would be "boycotting" the PRC's government. I simply suggested that
the PRC is a place with seriously bad vibrations and that the ICLA
should stay away from it until that has changed. I don't believe that
staying away would send any noticeable signal to the PRC's government,
but I think NOT staying away would send a noticeable and very wrong
signal to the PRC's government AND to the worldwide scientific community.
So what's next?
I never seriously believed that any amount of discussion would stop the
ICLC from going to the PRC. It was clear from the beginning that many
people simply do not agree with the criticism that I and others have
voiced concerning the PRC and its government, and of course I fully
respect that. It was also clear, that a (hopefully much smaller) number
of people simply do not care about the state of human rights anywhere in
the world and want to visit the PRC at all costs. I must say that I find
both Chinas extremely fascinating places that I would love to visit, and
therefore the impulse to ignore the human rights issue is not entirely
unknown to me. I personally think it would be deeply wrong to give in to
this impulse, but I must respect people who feel differently. However, I
hope that there are a few others like me for whom going to the PRC *as
an organization* is inconceivable. If there are such people, I would
like to discuss with them the option of boycotting the ICLC 2011 by
holding an alternative conference in some politically neutral country. I
want to state clearly, that by doing so, I would not want to criticize
the ICLA, our members from the PRC, or anyone else. I would simply want
to find a way of providing a forum for those of us who feel that,
because of their political beliefs, they cannot go to the PRC in 2011
but who do not want to go for a whole year without the chance to meet
with colleagues and discuss their research. Those of you who are
interested in such an option, I would be happy to hear from you
personally by email and to discuss this in a smaller circle.
Best regards,
Anatol Stefanowitsch
I am posting this comment on behalf of Ron Kuzar, who says:
Dear colleagues,
A boycott that does not have a clear international context is meaningless. In the famous case of South-Africa, there was an international boycott spanning commercial, cultural, academic, and sports relations. Even so, some revisionist historians in South Africa claim this boycott had a very small effect, if at all, on the course of history, and in fact damaged many innocent merchants, academics, and sports people.
On the other hand, it should be remembered that even under extreme circumstances of human rights violations, people try to conduct a normal life, have wedding parties, school graduations, religious ceremonies, and soccer matches. Even in the Gaza strip, which suffers hurrendous human rights violations by Israel as well as by the Hammas, people try to keep their sanity by doing things that go beyond mere survival.
For our Chinese colleagues, hosting a scientific conference seems to me to be part of keeping sane in a scary environment. If I have to weigh the impact of a CL boycott on the government of the PRC as opposed to the support we can extend to colleagues who are trying to maintain some normalcy in their lives, I opt for the latter.
Ron Kuzar
===============================================
Dr. Ron Kuzar
Address: Department of English Language and Literature
University of Haifa
IL-31905 Haifa, Israel
I am posting this comment on behalf of Ron Chen, who says:
Dear Anatol:
I feel that the dichotomy in your assumption--the oppressor and the
oppressed--could be too simplistic. If the demarcation between the two were
clear-cut, whereby our colleagues were the oppressed and wanted the boycott,
the choice would be just as clear-cut. (How many of us would want to support
the oppressor?)
But I am convinced that our colleagues in China want the conference to be
there. (To be frank, I doubt if many of them feel that they are the
oppressed). What would be the result of a boycott, then? A sense of
rejection and a belief that we did it for our sense of moral superiority are
quite possible.
Lastly, a minor quibble about your "who cares" point. If we hold the 999th
conference on LOVE IS A JOURNEY, maybe it makes little difference to others
or to our daily life. But the contribution is obvious to the *function (or
purpose) it is intended*: we, as cognitive linguists, have taken on the job
of studying metaphor and we studied one particular instance of it 999 times.
But if the *intended purpose* of not holding the ICLC 2011 in China is to
send a message of promoting human rights, that message may not be sent.
Worse, a mis-message could be sent (at least, be received).
Best,
Ron Chen
I am posting this comment on behalf of Iraide Ibarretxe Antuñano, who says:
Dear all,
I've been reading through all the messages posted to this list about
China in the last weeks. I didn't want to reply to any of these
messages not because I don't care about the situation in China or the
ICLA, but because I thought that the list was for discussing issues
about linguistics.
However, when I read Anatol's last message, I felt that I should also
constribute to this discussion in just one point, the following:
"I never seriously believed that any amount of discussion would stop the
ICLC from going to the PRC [...] However, I hope that there are a few
others like me for whom going to the PRC *as an organization* is
inconceivable. If there are such people, I would like to discuss with
them the option of boycotting the ICLC 2011 by holding an alternative
conference in some politically neutral country"
I sincerely think that this is just outrageous.
The point of the whole discussion was to know what ICLA members
thought about holding the ICLC in China. As far as I know, in
*democratic* (you seem to know the very meaning of this word and how
to apply it, so maybe I'm using it wrongly) associations, members
propose different things, then these are discussed and taken to vote,
and if the majority says yes, then members accept the decision whether
they like it or not, although they are of course free to say that they
still disagree with the final outcome.
I could comment on more points raise by Anatol, e.g. what a 'political
neutral country' would that be?, what the basis for the execution
numbers provided is (those in the country of origin alone or those
provoke by citizens of that country in the whole world), etc.
I could also ask Anatol to tell us what the benefits of breaking up an
association are... I could also ask him to imagine, just for one
second, how his accademic life would be if he were Chinese...and not
from a supposedly democratic first world continent (here I'm talking
about Europe, ops, sorry, the European Union...)
I say I could, but I won't do it.
Iraide
--
Dra. Iraide Ibarretxe Antuñano
Universidad de Zaragoza
Lingüística General e Hispánica
San Juan Bosco, 7
E-50009 Zaragoza-Spain
I am posting this comment on behalf of Sherman Wilcox, who writes:
On Oct 20, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Anatol Stefanowitsch wrote:
It was also clear, that a (hopefully much smaller) number
of people simply do not care about the state of human rights anywhere in
the world and want to visit the PRC at all costs.
Anatol, this comment is uncalled for. I've followed this discussion too, and I have seen no evidence that any of our colleagues "simply do not care about the state of human rights anywhere in the world" or that they would visit the PRC at any cost.
What I *have* seen is a thoughtful discussion with people stating differing points of view, but all of them clearly expressing that they abhor the violation of human rights. We also clearly disagree on how we as individuals should react, and how our professional organization should react, to a bid from our Chinese colleagues to host ICLC.
"But a boycott will not achieve anything." Who cares?
It's more complex than that. Other issues must be considered, including potential harm to others and the possibility that self-interest is coloring our principles.
As someone who has been involved in human language rights for more (30+) years than I have been a linguist -- specifically, the rights of deaf people to use their natural language, to have their languages recognized and respected, and to have equal communicative access in their daily personal and professional lives -- I do understand that sometimes we must act on principle even when our actions will have no affect. I agree: "Who cares?" It's the right thing to do. Sometimes too we act knowing that our actions will in fact cause us harm. But we act nevertheless, again simply because it is the right thing to do.
However, I think it is always necessary to keep in mind and balance our actions, not with their lack of affect or negative affect on *us*, but with their affect on the very people we intend to help. I have seen sometimes when people (in my case, typically signed language interpreters) profess to be acting on principle in an effort to help deaf people, when in fact they are harming deaf people. Rather, in these cases -- and this is just my perception, of course -- it seems to me that their actions are narcissistic. It feels good to act on principle. It doesn't feel all that good when it hurts us, but we can justify it nonetheless, because we are acting on principle.
I have a much more difficult time justifying it when our actions are harming others. In this case, I can't simply accept "Who cares?" I need to inspect my -- and other's -- motives. Even if self-interest is not sneaking in the back door, I still need to weigh the very difficult decision of whether the harm being done is worth it.
Let me be clear: I am NOT saying that anyone on this list who supports a boycott of ICLC in China is simply acting to make themselves feel better. But I do think it is reasonable to consider whether a boycott will have any appreciable impact on China's abysmal human rights record, whether it will send any kind of signal that will even be a blip on the PRC government's radar. Even if the answer is that it will have no effect, we still have to consider if it will hurt or help people. And in this case, I wonder whether it will hurt or help our cognitive linguistic colleagues in China. I believe it will hurt them. My judgment, in this case, is that the potential to do harm is not worth acting on (my) principles. Sometimes others' welfare (and I construe this broadly, including such considerations as Ron Kuzar's comment about "keeping sane in a scary environment") trumps my principles.
Others on this list will surely disagree with me, or agree yet decide that the balance tilts in the other direction. That's fine. But let's grant that we are all struggling in good faith with difficult moral and ethical judgments, and let's not assume that some people are just jumping at a chance to visit the PRC at any cost.
--
Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of Linguistics
MSC03 2130, LINGUISTICS
1 UNIV OF NEW MEXICO
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
Dear CL colleagues:
I am a Chinese Ph. D student currently visiting Berkeley. I have been watching this issue for some time. The discussion covers a number of related topics, but I want to stress one perspective shared by Professor Ruiz de Mendoza and Professor Dirk Geeraerts in this discussion: It will benefit the academic development of Chinese CL research if the conference is held in China, (and needless to say, the international CL research in the long run).
As those of you who have been to China have found, we Chinese scholars and students are quite anxious to learn from the western academics. Holding the conference in China will provide a bridge to pass important information and resources to those of us who do not yet have the chance to go abroad. Therefore, please take the Chinese academic community into account when you decide whether to hold the conference in China, instead of simply thinking from your own perspective. I fully understand and respect your concern and choice, but we Chinese scholars and students are the other side of coin that you shouldn’t have neglected.
As to issues of human right, a small example will suffice to express my point of view. China has been carrying out the one-child policy for almost three decades. The policy has been attacked fiercely from the west as a violation of human right. I have no comment on the attack. But please come to China and see what the population is like before you launch this attack. After you stand on tiptoes in a subway in rush hours, or cannot get off the bus even if you are a few inches away from the door, rethink about this policy. So please come to China to have this conference. It will be a chance for us Chinese scholars and students to grow, as well as a bridge for you to know better of China.
I only speak for myself and Thank you for reading my post. I do apologize if there is anything impolite conveyed in my message.
Zhang Yi
I am posting this on behalf of Phillipp Elliott, who writes:
Since we have spent so much time on this issue, I thought perhaps some of us could learn some Chinese expressions related to boycotting and casting votes.
to say "boycott" in Chinese, you could say:
抵 制
dǐ zhì
to cast a vote against boycotting (given a statement like "we should boycott") you could say:
我 投 反 对 票 不 要 抵 制。
wǒ tóu fǎn duì piào bù yào dǐ zhì
And, to cast your vote in favor of boycotting (given such a statement) you could say:
我 同 意 抵 制。
wǒ tóng yì dǐ zhì
Please feel free to correct or refine my L2 Chinese. I have heard of bei1 ge3 also for boycotting, but am not sure if that is also correct.
Phillip Elliott
Professor
Department of Foreign Languages
Southern University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
USA 70813-2063
(225)771-3030
I am posting this on behalf of Uri Hasson, who writes:
Hello all,
As long as we're on the topic, we can also refresh our memory of the
voting system in China, wherein whether you boycott or vote might not
really have the influence you want , since even local elections are
"semicompetitive" -- potential candidates are determined by the CCP.
If in addition you are classified as a rural person by the Hukou
system (and SOL, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou) you have 1/4 the
vote of a townsmen, so you'll have to boycott 4 times to have the
impact of one boycotter in the city. Which raises the linguistic
question of whether vote and boycott mean the same thing to us as they
do to the chinese, and I'll skip 5 years of potentially interesting
experimental work and just say no.
Uri
I am posting this on behalf of Anatol Stefanowitsch, who writes:
Sherman,
thank you for your thoughtful and carefully argued remarks. Like many
other comments in this thread, they have widened my views on the issue
under discussion and I agree with much of what you say, even if, in my
case, the balance clearly tilts in the other direction.
I just want to clarify two things:
First,
>> It was also clear, that a (hopefully much smaller) number
>> of people simply do not care about the state of human rights
>> anywhere in the world and want to visit the PRC at all costs.
>
> Anatol, this comment is uncalled for. I've followed this discussion
> too, and I have seen no evidence that any of our colleagues "simply
> do not care about the state of human rights anywhere in the world" or
> that they would visit the PRC at any cost.
As I clearly say in my post, I believe that most of our colleagues have
thought about the human rights issue very carefully and have excellent
reasons for coming to different conclusions from mine. As I have also
said in my first post, I think that this is especially true of the board
members of the ICLA who argued in favor of taking the conference to the
PRC at the general assembly.
However, I have also seen evidence for the accusation I make in the
passage you cite, both on this list and in some emails that I have
received personally, which ranged from the thoughtful over the flippant
to the personally insulting.
Second,
> I have a much more difficult time justifying it when our actions are
> harming others. In this case, I can't simply accept "Who cares?" I
> need to inspect my -- and other's -- motives. Even if self-interest
> is not sneaking in the back door, I still need to weigh the very
> difficult decision of whether the harm being done is worth it.
I agree with you in principle, but I simply do not accept that by not
taking the ICLC to the PRC we are harming our Chinese colleagues any
more than, by taking it there, we are harming those members who cannot,
for whatever reason, travel to the PRC.
But let me make this clear one final time: I never suggested that by
‘boycotting’ the PRC we would be sending a political message of any kind
or that I thought that we are helping our colleagues in the PRC.
Instead, I think that by *not ‘boycotting’* the PRC we *are* sending a
political message, and it is the wrong one. But I respect the opinion of
you and all other members who see things differently.
Best regards,
Anatol
Dear Iraide Ibarretxe Antu?ano,
I'm sorry you think that my proposal for an alternative event is
"outrageous" to you and I'm bemused by your understanding of democracy,
as it seems to involve the idea that if the majority decides something
(say, that they want to hold a conference in the PRC), then those who
disagree must shut up and play along.
If I were given to taking offense easily, I might also feel insulted by
your suggestion that I am trying to "break up" the ICLA. Those who know
me, as you obviously do not, know that the ICLA has been my intellectual
home since the beginning of my career ten years ago, and harming it in
any way is the last thing I want. I have tried to be respectful even to
people who have abused me personally in this discussion, but in your
case I find that difficult, and so I will leave it at that.
But perhaps I can take your comments as an opportunity to clarify once
more that I do not wish to criticize the ICLA, our colleagues from the
PRC or those colleagues who exercise their right to choose and choose to
attend the ICLC 2011. All I am trying to do by organizing an alternative
event is to provide a venue for those colleagues who have made the free
choice not to visit the PRC.
Sincerely,
Anatol Stefanowitsch
Post a Comment