Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A179-M15
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A179-M15
Release Date: January 21, 2006
发布日：2006年1月21日
Topic: The Shame and Responsibility of the Returnees to China - by CHEN DanQing
标题：海归派的羞耻与责任 -- 陈丹青
Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
Note: Please use "Simplified Chinese (GB2312)" encoding to view the Chinese parts of this release. If this mail does not display properly in your email program, please contact us or visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2006/report2006-01/ChenDQ060121returnChinaA179-M15.htm which contains identical information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note:
Chen DanQing was a well-known youth artist in China in the early 1980's. He left China for advance study and settled abroad for over a decade and returned to China several years ago. Last year, his resignation from his professorship in the prestigious QingHua University shocked the nation and won many people's respect. In the following article, he describes excellently the state the returnees to China and the nation itself.
The Shame and Responsibility of the Returnees to China
By Chen Danqing
Before I went abroad, I was sent to the countryside for eight years, and then was accepted as a graduate student in the Oil Painting Department of the Central Academy of Fine Arts. Two years later, I graduated, and then worked at the Academy for a year.
This is a typical experience of a portion of sent-down youths. Later, these people divided into two groups: some stayed in our native country, while others went abroad. People like me who go abroad and then return to China to settle down are often called "returnees" [note: the term here, haigui, is a pun meaning both "returnee" and "sea turtle"]. Our generation of returnees has three fundamental differences with the students who studied abroad during the Republic of China Period or those who studied in the Soviet Union during the 1950's.
First, they were primarily sponsored by the government, while we are primarily self-sponsored. This is especially so for art students, as public funds are extremely scarce.
Second, the returnees of the '20s and '30s truly were students before going abroad. The returnees of our generation, on the other hand, such as Chen Yifei, Xu Bing, Gu Wenda, and Cai Guoqiang, had already received diplomas in China and had already produced well-known works of art. At least from Chinese standards, they were already artists.
Third, the students from these first two eras basically all came back to China to work, especially the first generation of returnees at the end of the Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Republican period. After returning home, they established a foundation for China's modernization. But as for our generation, most of the students studying abroad have elected to settle down there.
These differences are the detailed footnotes of the undulations and changes in China's history over the last one hundred years. China's modern history is mainly a history of collaboration and clashes between the returnees and the natives. At the end of the Qing and the beginning of the Republican period, not only did returnees introduce advanced Western technology, more so in the fields of culture and politics, they cleared out the old to make way for the new. They worked together to establish a Republic. Our nation's father, Sun Yat-Sen, was also a returnee. I once saw a statistic that said that roughly 70 percent of high officials of the government of the newly founded Republic of China in 1911 were returnees. With regard to culture in a general sense, the first generation of returnees initiated China's Enlightenment, started China's transformation, and constructed modern universities and education.
We have no way to match the contributions of the first generation of returnees. We are simply serving our country, not establishing anything. The "reforms and opening up" have gone on for twenty some years. The government first ended its closed-door policy; loosened restrictions on studying abroad, and then promoted the returnees that came back one after another. Of course, these people mainly had expertise in science and engineering, technology, management, trade, finance, and diplomacy. Today, these returnees are basically used as tools in their role and character. In the fields of the humanities and arts, returnees are merely decorations. The government's understanding of art is limited to songs and dances, not thought, spirit, and values. Thus, as soon as returnees in the fields of arts and humanities re-enter the system they are reduced to tools, and are even willing to become tools. As far as I know, a few individual returnees outside of the system have truly brought the West's modern artistic cultural concepts and creative vigor, such as the artist Ai Weiwei in Beijing, as well as several planners and developers.
The fates of returnees over the last one hundred years have verified the historical changes in China over that time. China's process of modernization is a recurring contest between the tides of history and political forces. Most of the time, the natives succeed, and the returnees lose, re-adjust, and cooperate. Modernization has three levels: tools, systems, and culture. In what is known as modernization, culture is undoubtedly the most essential and deepest link. Modern national policy is basically to study the West, but the relationship between the three levels of tools, systems, and culture, has always been unbalanced.
As for the level of tools, through 150 years of hard work since the Opium War, one generation of returnees after another have accomplished for China a high level of modernization: nuclear weapons, high technology, modern transportation, modern information, and so on. There is no doubt that China is now the developing country with the most potential, and both its speed and attitude of its rapid growth are unprecedented. Yet as the country is stuck within its system, the whole society including many people within the system have realized that political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms. In order to comprehensively implement modernization, we cannot avoid cultural modernization that is people's modernization. Today's China is still far away from democratic thought and civil society, and since the level of tools has modernized so quickly, the delays in changes to culture and systems magnifies by the day.
I believe that this is a very distorted state: China has many kinds of the most modernized tools and facilities, and has realized the ideal of having a prosperous nation with a strong armed forces, but the people have no soul, intellectuals hold no views of their own, and society has lost the ability to choose and judge; all there is consumerism and people who act as tools. Society has become well-fed and clothed, but this is not modernization.
Because of the system lagging behind, as well as widespread desire for instant fortune and opportunism, returnees in the fields of the humanities and arts have had almost no impact. According to my knowledge, the majority of returnees with non-humanities expertise identify with their role of being high-class tools, and are extremely satisfied with the current state of things; they are the community that shares material interests. Since these returnees with outstanding skills have agreed to this role, the current distorted cultural reality seems even more reasonable and legal, and the prospects for the culture on its trek are nearly invisible.
Each time I think of this, I feel ashamed as a returnee.
In my view, the most precious riches from experience overseas are not the so-called frontier expert knowledge but independent character, free thought, and a series of values that manifests from these qualities. Returnees should not only bring back expert knowledge and skills, as only modern value systems can have a far reaching impact on China. It's hard to come to understand such value systems and make them part of your own character if you do not leave the country. Even if new value systems are unsuccessful in China for a period of time, making them work successfully for oneself will help a person settle down and continue his or her life's work.
Yet I have not seen the overall group of returnees come to understand this point. On the contrary, the free intellectuals among natives are quite sober-minded. Nowadays, many people have brief overseas experience and have personally felt a contrast and clash between them and the outside world. They instead become even more sensitive to the advanced thought overseas and try their best to make their voices heard on the issue of the state of reform. I thought that sober-minded natives were worth more respect than returnees.
70 years ago, Hu Shi wrote an article saying that students studying abroad were the shame of the nation. How much has this situation changed by now? Current tuition fees in China, when compared with family incomes, are three times more expensive than the most expensive tuition fees in the rest of the world. Yet we don't provide character education, history education, or ideals education. Such education is worse than that of the May 4th, 1919 period, and even worse than old-style education. The old style made a priority of the teachings of Confucius and put ethics and morals first. The tragedy of studying abroad is still its brain drain on the country, and those who return still have so many value conflicts with their country. 90 percent of these conflicts end up in compromise or failure.
Looking at it optimistically, people are going abroad more and more, and there are increasing numbers of returnees. Hopefully this quantitative change will become a qualitative one, and perhaps it will gradually impact and spur transformations in the system and the culture. Yet this process is extremely arduous, and it's hard to see clearly its direction and result. People will surrender to the practical, but people also have emotions. An overseas living will makes you even more patriotic, and will produce an unparalleled and exquisite sense of shame in you. There is still such a large discrepancy between China and the outside world, but returnees should not be ashamed of their own motherland, but instead should find a sense of shame inside themselves. "To know shame is to be near to courage" - perhaps this is too high of a requirement, but allow me to say a few stern words: what I see around many returnees is courage to obtain material interests, but not a heart of shame.
(Published in "Business Watch".)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is a message from WeiJingSheng.org
The Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition is dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China. We appreciate your assistance and help in any means. We pledge solidarity to all who struggle for human rights and democratic governance on this planet.
You are welcome to use or distribute this release. However, please credit with this foundation and its website at: www.weijingsheng.org
Although we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your contribution as well. You may send your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org. Please remember, only in text files, not in attachments.
You may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or
Wei Jingsheng Foundation office at: 1-202-543-1538 Fax: 1-202-543-1539
You are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement. To be removed from the list, simply reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Please allow us a few days to process your request.
*****************************************************************
中文版
Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A179-M15
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A179-M15
Release Date: January 21, 2006
发布日：2006年1月21日
Topic: The Shame and Responsibility of the Returnees to China - by CHEN DanQing
标题：海归派的羞耻与责任 -- 陈丹青
Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
如有中文乱码问题，请与我们联系或访问:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2006/report2006-01/ChenDQ060121returnChinaA179-M15.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
陈丹青：海归派的羞耻与责任
（注：陈丹青于80年代初曾被国中同仁认为是当时最具才智的青年油画家，后出国留学。在海外定居多年后回国。一年前辞去清华大学教授时再一次引起人们的广泛关注与尊敬。以下为他著文谈归国感想。）
我出国前的经历是：插队落户8年，1978年考上中央美院油画系研究生，两年后毕业留校，工作一年。
这是一部分知青的典型经历。这些人日后分成两拨，一拨留在本土，另一拨出国。像我这样出国又回国定居的，就被统称为海归。我们这一代海归相比民国时期的留学生以及五十年代留苏学生，有三个根本差异。
第一，他们主要是政府公派，我们则主要是自费出去的，特别是艺术类留学生，公费生极稀有。
第二，二三十年代的海归，出国前真的是学生；而我们这一代，像陈逸飞、徐冰、谷文达、蔡国强等人，都在国内拿了学位，有知名的作品。至少从国内的标准来看，已经是艺术家了。
第三，前面两代留学生差不多都回国来做事，特别是清末民初第一代海归，回国后为中国各领域的现代化奠定了基础；到我们这一代，大批留学生选择定居国外。
这些差异，是中国近百年大历史起伏变化的详细注脚。中国现代史，大致是海归派与本土派既合作又冲突的历史。清末民初，海归派不只引进西方的先进技术，更在文化、政治领域除旧布新。他们共同创建了共和，国父孙中山就是大海归。我看过一个数据，大概是北洋政府高官70%都是海归派。就文化的广义性而言，第一代海归派开创了中国的思想启蒙运动，启动了国家的转型，兴建了现代大学和现代教育。
我们与第一代海归的贡献无法相比。我们只是服务国家，谈不上创建。改革开放20多年，政府先是终止了闭关锁国，开放留学，后是起用陆续回来的海归，当然主要是理工、科技、管理、贸易、金融、外交这类专业的海归。这类海归在今天基本上是工具作用与工具人格。在人文艺术领域，海归派只是摆设。政府对艺术的理解，就是唱歌跳舞之类，而不是真正的思想、精神与价值观。因此，即便是人文艺术类的海归派，一旦进入体制也沦为工具，甚至自甘于工具。据我所知，个别体制外的海归真正带来了西方当代艺术的文化理念与创作活力，譬如北京的艾未未，还有几位策展人。
百年海归的命运，印证了百年中国的历史变迁。中国的现代化历程，是历史潮流与政治势力的反复较量，多半是本土派胜利，海归派挫败、调整、合作。现代化有三个层次：器物、制度、文化。所谓现代化，“文化”无疑是最本质、最深层的一环。当今国策基本学习西方，但器物、制度、文化这三个层面的彼此关系始终不平衡。
器物层面，经过鸦片战争以来150年的努力，一代代海归已经为国家达成了高度现代化：核武器、高科技、现代交通、现代资讯等等。毫无疑问，中国现在是最具潜力的发展中国家，崛起的速度与姿态空前未有，举世罕见。但国家目前堵在制度层面，包括体制内人士的全社会都认识到政治体制改革严重滞后于经济体制改革。而全面实现现代化，文化关即人的现代化是绕不过去的。今日的中国离民主思想、公民社会等还差得很远，由于“器物”层面的超速现代化，制度、文化的滞后日益凸显。
我认为这是非常畸形的状况：中国有着最现代化的种种器物与设施，富国强兵的理想实现了，但是人民没有灵魂，知识分子缺乏主见，社会失去了选择与判断的能力，只有消费意识和工具人格。社会实现了高层次的温饱，但这不是现代化。
由于制度滞后，以及普遍的急功近利和机会主义，人文艺术领域的海归派几乎没有影响，而据我所知，大部分非人文类专业的海归认同这种高级工具角色，并对现状非常满意，属于利益分享的群体。由于这类身份优越者的加入，当下畸形的文化现实更显得合理合法，文化跋涉的前景相当渺茫。
每想及此，我身为海归，感到羞耻。
在我看来，海外经历最可贵的财富不是所谓前沿专业知识，而是独立人格、自由思想，以及因此体现的一系列价值观。海归不应该仅仅带回各种专业知识或技能，现代价值观才能从深远处对中国发生影响。这种价值观，你不出国很难认识，很难成为自身的人格。新的价值观哪怕一时不能在中国奏效，先得在自己身上奏效，变成安身立命的一部分。
但我看不出海归派在整体上意识到这一点。反倒是本土的部分自由知识分子相当清醒。现在许多人都有短暂的出国经历，切身感受我们与外间深刻的冲突和反差，他们反而对国外的先进思想更敏感，并尽可能在改革现状中发出声音。我以为，清醒的本土人士比海归更值得尊重。
胡适70年前就写文章说留学是国耻，到今天，这种状况有多大改变？国内现在的学费，以家庭收入计算是全世界最昂贵学费的三倍。但是我们不提供人格教育、历史教育、理想教育，这种教育不如五四时期，甚至不如旧式教育，旧式以儒学为主，伦理道德第一。留学的悲剧还在于精英外流，回来的又和本土国情发生种种价值冲突，这种冲突十之有九以妥协或失败告终。
乐观地看，出国的人越多，海归也越多，量变到质变，或许会缓慢影响并推动制度和文化层面的转变吧。但这个过程十二分艰难，很难看清它的走向与结果。人会屈服于现实，但人还有感情。国外生涯会使你更爱国，并产生无比细腻的羞耻感。国内国外仍有太多差异，但海归者不应以自己的祖国为耻，而是在自身寻找羞耻感。“知耻近乎勇”可能是太高的要求，但容我说句重话：我在不少海归那里看见的是取利之勇，而不是羞耻之心。
《商务周刊》
-----------------------------------------------------------------
魏京生基金会及中国民主运动海外联席会议以推动中国的人权与民主为己任。
我们欢迎任何形式的帮助与贡献。我们愿与世界上为人权与民主而奋斗的人们一起努力。
我们希望您能够帮助我们散发我们的资料。但请标明出处与我们的网址：www.weijingsheng.org
欢迎投稿（暂无稿费）或批评建议，请寄信箱: HCP@WEIJINGSHENG.ORG
魏京生办公室地址: 415 East Capitol Street, SE, Suite 2, Washington, DC 20003-3810，U.S.A.
电话: 1-202-543-1538 传真：1-202-543-1539
魏京生基金会网址：WWW.weijingsheng.org
中国民主运动海外联席会议及中国团结工会的网址为：www.ChinaLaborUnion.org
阁下之所以收到本信，是因为阁下以前曾表示有兴趣了解魏京生先生和中国
民主运动。倘若阁下希望不再收到类似信息，请回复本信并用 unsubscribe作为主题(Subject)。