Building Global Citizenship: The 21st Century Academy in China and Canada

Author(s): Kimberley Manning

 

Abstract:

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper visits China this week, it might behoove the Prime Minister to reflect upon the role that higher institutions of learning in both of our countries could play in deepening dialogue on the values that matter most to us. More profoundly, the Prime Minister should ask how we can better equip our next generation of students with critical knowledge on China to help them understand and facilitate a durable and broad-based relationship with that country.

Op-Ed

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper visits China this week, it is largely with one thing in mind: to further cement trading ties between our two countries.

Yet it might behoove the Prime Minister to reflect upon the role that higher institutions of learning in both of our countries could play in deepening dialogue on the values that matter most to us. More profoundly, the Prime Minister should ask how we can better equip our next generation of students with critical knowledge on China to help them understand and facilitate a durable and broad-based relationship with that country.

In a research report recently completed for the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, I document some startling findings: Canada, perhaps more than any other country, has played a pivotal role in the development of China’s system of higher education since the beginning of China’s period of Opening and Reform. According to the research of York University scholar Qiang Zha, the Canadian International Development Agency has invested more than $250 million in higher education since the early-1980s, an amount surpassed only by investments made by the World Bank during the same period. Much of this early funding went toward the development of basic capacity-building in professional studies, including a highly successful program to build Chinese management education.

Today, however, federal agencies such as CIDA are no longer providing education funding to China on nearly the same scale as they once did – a shift that reflects China’s rapid emergence as a global power, and the willingness of the Chinese government to invest in universities capable of producing the knowledge necessary for governing more than 1.4 billion people. Canadian universities, in turn, have responded to this shift by establishing joint agreements – often focused on maintaining or enhancing ties between professional programs. China, with Canada’s early help, has now become a world leader in the provision of technocratic, professional higher education, and Canadian universities want to be at the table.

Educational ties are deep between our two countries. But by and large what they do not do is offer Chinese and Canadian faculty and students the opportunity for shared opportunities to examine different perspectives on citizenship and what this means in a global age. On one hand, many academic disciplines, such as political science, have developed into a service industry in Chinese universities – forging public policy in the name of governance. This development means that larger questions of what is “just” and “fair” can be lost, and that disciplines such as political science can wind up upholding some of the authoritarian features of the Chinese political system, as Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council post-doctoral scholar Stephen Noakes has recently argued.

On the other hand, although Canada boasts some of the world’s leading scholars in Chinese studies in history, politics, society and religion, there is little regional or national infrastructure in place that provides Canadian scholars with a forum for building and enhancing humanities-based programming for research and teaching on China – whether within Canada or between Canadian and Chinese programs. Indeed, over the last 10 years two of the only national organizations that served to link Canadian-based China scholars in the past have suffered sharp declines in funding. This development stands in stark contrast to the Australian government’s recent commitment to invest millions of dollars in Chinese studies.

There are signs of promise, however, for the creation of stronger humanities-based programming within Canada and between Chinese and Canadian universities. Within China, a small but growing number of academics across the disciplines are seeking to break out of past constraints on their research and teaching and forge programs that train their graduates in critical-thinking skills. Back here in Canada, the subject of “Chinese studies” is rapidly expanding to incorporate Chinese-Canadian scholarship.

With Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin) being the third most common language spoken in this country, and with increasing numbers of Canadians residing within the People’s Republic (some 300,000 at present), we are facing a moment in which we need to generate far more discussion with each other about China to understand what it means to be Canadian. These shifts offer important openings for new forms of collaboration – ways to encourage new generations of students in both countries to engage in the hard work of introspection and dialogue about values and how to best uphold them. We would do well to follow trail-blazing initiatives such as that of Professor Errol Mendes at the University of Ottawa, who worked with Beijing University, and with the help of CIDA funding, to produce three edited volumes on human rights.

But much more needs to be done, including establishing new publication outlets – unlike Australia, Great Britain and the United States, Canada does not have a single academic journal devoted to Chinese studies – as well as expanding and disseminating French-language scholarship on China and enrolling far more students in Chinese language programs. Just as important, funding is needed to establish far closer ties between colleagues working to develop and enhance humanities-based scholarship in China.

In the rush to do business with China, questions of justice and fairness need not be left behind. Prime Minister Harper’s trip to China offers an opportunity for Canadians to rethink how we want to engage with China and develop Chinese studies in Canada. There is much to be said for enhancing humanities-based scholarship and teaching to cultivate global citizenship within both of our countries.

 

This piece was first published in The Montreal Gazette on February 6, 2012.

Kimberley Manning is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Concordia University.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

/comment-guidelines?ajax=true
400
ajax
Commenting guidelines

Prof. Manning is sooo quite

Prof. Manning is sooo quite right. I am just back from twenty years in Taiwan, a period during which I mutated into an ABD as I plunged into active engagement and work on various international relations issues within the region, including more than ten years as a foreign advisor to Taiwan’s MOFA, and multifaceted involvements with INGOs, businesses and academia. I originally studied in East Asian Studies at U.de M’s CÉTASE, completed my BA in the field at McGill because U. de M. did not expand its program beyond a certificate, then went back to U.de M for an M.Sc in political science and a Ph.D. in anthropology (I have now re-registered in this program to write my thesis and prepare for books). I have a good overall understanding of the evolution of the situation of Asia studies in these three fields in both universities and throughout all of my studies, my focus was very much on China, Taiwan, and Japan. I also did a stint as visiting research fellow at the Academia Sinica, and undertsand the point of view about Chinese and Taiwan studies here from the other side of the ocean. What really stuns me after 20 years away from the field, from my old colleagues, and from the place, in spite of the progress Manning refers to, is that efforts to develop strong Chinese or East Asian studies departments, not to mention South and South East Asian studies, have seemingly been frozen in time in Canada, but particularly so in Quebec even though our development assistance agencies have poored billions in the region in various expertise fields, producing on the way quite a few top class experts working between the walls of specialized agencies with limited involvement or outflowing in academia. Ouch! It was really hard back then in Montreal, and not much, I am told, has changed in 20 years. That is an awfull long time of non-development and non-expansion all the while just about every one in the world claims that the 21st Century will be that of the Asia Pacific, and Canadian PM after PM rush to China to get business and trade deals with a rather weak base for understanding quite complex issues that involve not only China, but China and all of its neighbors. No surprise as to why Team Canada did not lead to better than huge trade deficits with China. This morning I was surfing the website of ChairAsia, and the last entry and last publications are from 2009! There are only two publications listed in there. What a shame. The CÉRIUM itself doesn`t even have a solid unit dedicated to China and/or the region, and only holds sporadic events thanks to the fact that J.F. Lisée does seem to have an interest in China. McGill is not particularly well known in the world in the field, except for a few courageous and long standing exceptions, and every one I spoke to so far tells me the same stories as 20 years ago, funding is….leaking. As Prof. Kimberly noted, “much more needs to be done, including establishing new publication outlets – unlike Australia, Great Britain and the United States, Canada does not have a single academic journal devoted to Chinese studies – as well as expanding and disseminating French-language scholarship on China and enrolling far more students in Chinese language programs. Just as important, funding is needed to establish far closer ties between colleagues working to develop and enhance humanities-based scholarship in China.” Such a forum would go a long way in fostering what Canada could easily produce, given the number of world class scholars and experts we have, and that is growing world leadership in more balanced, in depth and sound understanding of China and Asia (the two of which should always been seen in relation to each other), and in contributing to enhance better critical thinking among Asians about the numerous issues we hold to be important to address, as Manning pointed out. I must add to this that just in the case of Taiwan, which is a growingly respected area of studies in Europe (while it is usually crushed in the top “liberal” US universities because of the so-called China factor), a number of Taiwan studies programs, some of them funded by my old boss MOFA, which also provides funding to the best think tanks in the US, have grown in number in Europe, such as in France, Germany, and Spain, and sometimes grown in size (e.g. at the UK’s London School of Economics and Political Science), not to mention Australia. And be we Canadians blessed, the U. of Ottawa has just landed some funding for Ph.D. scholarships and a post-doc on Taiwan, which is quite a positive development in view of the fact that 1) Taiwan has evolved not only into an economic powerhouse in the world, but also the most vibrant democracy in Asia even as it is considered one of the hottest falshpoints in the world, and 2) that people to people exchanges between Taiwan and Canada have been quite extensive, extending back to over a 100 years, and have grown substantially over the last decade, in part through the very hard and painful work of the often diplomatically repressed Taiwanese representative offices in Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, in part because of the work of a number of very dedicated Canadian scholars, journalists, democracy activists and others, and lastly, in part because Canadian foreign policy has evolved, albeit at a snail pace, with regards to Taiwan’s importance to Canada and to the Asia Pacific region, where it is one of the largest FDI investors in Indonesia, Vietnam, The Phillipines and Thailand, among others, and also one of the most significant leading sheppards (as they are called) in APEC, with the notable ADOCs, projects on disaster relief, and money laundering. Regarding the people to people exhanges side of the spectrum, the Presbytarian Rev. George McKay left such a deep mark in Taiwan that just a few years ago a huge opera about his impressive story was produced in Taiwan, with rave reviews all over the country, where opera has a very long tradition of excellence, and done in Minannese, not Mandarin. Today there are more English teachers there from Canada than any other country, and that means a few thousands. Taiwanese students also enjoy studying in BC and Toronto in all fields, as it is much cheaper for them than studying in the US, and that there are now close to 400,000 Taiwanese immigrants all over the West and Toronto. More and more go to Europe too, as inter-university accords have grown in scale. But Montreal and Quebec in general? We have some work to do, indeed. I should know, it was part of my job. I have reviewed the English-French-Chinese cooperation agreements between Canada and Taiwan for over ten years at MOFA, and I can attest that if scholars and universities would follow the lead of growing official engagements and cooperation between both sides in the fields of public health, science, biotechnology, ITs, nanotechnology, trade, much could be done in terms of exchanges and scholarships programs between top Taiwanese universities (NTU, Chengda, Chengkong U., Pintong Technology U., Chiaotung U. etc.) and Canadian universities in these fields as well as in social sciences and humanities. The excuse that Taiwanese would not come to French universities here doesn’t really hold true. Some very famous Taiwanese political scientists were trained at U. of M in the past, and it is really all about quality “encadrement” and incentives to get the best brains. I know a few things about this too as at my department at MOFA, we handle thousands of exchange students who receive the Taiwan Scholarship. I note for the record that the Taiwanese are number three in terms of US registered patents, and that basically not a month goes by where a Taiwanese doctor, medical research institution scientist, science expert or engineer gets top international awards. The MIT, Harvard Medical School and many other top research agencies in the US, and a growing number of European counterparts, have all developped for two decades direct cooperation and exchange programs that have born many fruits. Can we Canadians get our bearings together too on such cooperation? The China Fear factor may sometimes be based on very hard facts in academia, but this also largely because we buy into that stuff. Prof. Kimberly doesn’t note here that general Chinese studies, including languages, are actually massively promoted by both China and Taiwan in Europe in the context of their perennial public diplomacy battle. On the one side Confucius Centres, and now on the other, Taiwan Academies. This is extending to North America. In the case of Taiwan, funding of programs abroad has long evolved from the old Cold War framework and is generally free of political interference on programs, which is not the case with China. Advantage Taiwan, if we can take it. To say the least, CÉTASE, which should indeed be a central piece of higher education in international relations at U. de M., still doesn’t even offer a BA degree, not to mention the possibility of MA and Ph.D. degrees in the East Asian or Chinese Studies fields per se, while students are still stuck with double majors at the BA level. A number of eager professors there tried for years to bring about developments, to no avail, sometimes because of poor leadership, but a lot of the time because of the overall absence of a strong and coordinated Asia perspective at the university and the faculty of arts and sciences. How can such a prestigious university, where related studies are squattered among departments with little resources and barely a China presence, such as in the anthropology department, lack a strong focus on East-Asia in 2012 is beyond understanding. McGill’s East Asian Studies Center has somewhat moved a bit, but it remains poorly funded and thus does not attract much new top teaching recruits, while it has not expanded significantly its scope in more than a decade. Concordia is in the same predicament, and so is the UQUAM. Meanwhile, I am told that this year more students enrolled in Chinese and Japanese languages classes at CÉTASE than ever. This reminds me of the gold rush towards Japan and China when I enrolled there in 1982 for the certificate in East Asian Studies before moving to McGill. The rush was never sustained even if there was a real engouement for those classes then, which as this year, had to be divided up in spite of the lack of teaching ressources because there were too many applications by students to enroll. Come to think of it, the sine qua no of good East Asian Studies programs and engagement at any level in the region is strong langauge programs that can ensure that students moving up to graduate studies actually know what they are talking about when doing research in or on China or other Asian countries, no matter in what field. Don’t we all know that high school boards in some of the world’s largest cities (e.g. London) have made Mandarin either compulsory (just that one makes for a hell of a lot of future Mandarin speakers) or part of the curriculum as second or third language (e.g. Collège Stanislas de Montréal). And here I don’t even mention India, studies of which are mostly confined to ethnolinguistics, religious studies, and a few other fields while India is just as important to the so-called Asian 21st century in every respect than China. There are notable efforts at Mc.Gill, U. de M, Concordia, Laval and others, but as Manning notes in the case of Chinese studies, “On the other hand, although Canada boasts some of the world’s leading scholars in Chinese studies in history, politics, society and religion, there is little regional or national infrastructure in place that provides Canadian scholars with a forum for building and enhancing humanities-based programming for research and teaching on China – whether within Canada or between Canadian and Chinese programs. Indeed, over the last 10 years two of the only national organizations that served to link Canadian-based China scholars in the past have suffered sharp declines in funding. This development stands in stark contrast to the Australian government’s recent commitment to invest millions of dollars in Chinese studies.” In the case of Australia, this is not, or just in part, because Kevin Rudd studied Mandarin in Taiwan and was posted in China as amabassador. It is mainly because all political parties understand the enormous importance of China in any agreements in the Asia Pacific (the interraltion I noted above). And as she vaillantly points out, it is high time to foster critical thinking about a whole array of issues in this region, and to significantly raise funding for exchange forums of the nature she suggests. This would go a long way in fostering greater foreign policy successes not only for PM Harper, but all of his successors on the long term of this Asian century, even though not a few of us would like to underscore that there is no such thing as it is mostly a construction resulting from a shaky understanding produced under the dominant economic paradigms of the West. It is as much a Canadian or any other country’s century, as it is just that, another century to pass, albeit with evolving and changing geopolitical centers of power, all of whom are getting and more more intrically and culturally entangled. But that is not new. Globalisation has, from an anthropological perspective, always happened, albeit not at the speed of the Internet as today, and China was historically always a major player in the world economy in spite of some 300 years of closure under certain emperors (a pretty short time in their view). Nothing new in terms of trend, but a lot of new in terms of contents and geopolitical and economic equations that does demand a much stronger focus by universities not only on all things Chinese, but on all of the Asia Pacific. As Albert Camus once wrote, “la vie n’est parfois qu’une insulte à l’intelligence”, and I really hope, along with Manning and the significant array of good Canadian China and Asia experts, that there will soon be some bells ringing in Parliament and the MRI in Quebec. Many many thanks to the AP Foundation and prof. Manning for this important and timely study. I look forward to more contacts. Boris Voyer Ph.D candidate at the anthropology department at U. de M., about to start writing my thesis on le Monde Chinois under Gilles Bibeau, Bernard Bernier, and others abroad.Prof. Manning is sooo quite right. I am just back from twenty years in Taiwan, a period during which I mutated into an ABD as I plunged into active engagement and work on various international relations issues within the region, including more than ten years as a foreign advisor to Taiwan’s MOFA, and multifaceted involveme...more

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Your comment will still have to be approved by site administrators before it is published.

Use 'AND' or 'OR' to refine your search.

Use quotes " " to get exact matches or remove them to get more results.