Thoughts: By China and the USA Citizens.

[danb]

Hello, I thought this article presented some interesting views of how ours (Chinese and Americans) positions in the world today is. Here is the link:

 

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/8492905.html

 

Here is a quote from the article" "A Chinese scholar proposed that in addition to differences in ideology and political system,America’s military deployment and the “siege” it imposes on China also contribute to Chinese people’s low trust in the U.S."

 

I wish it went into more details about the "seige".

 

These was an interesting contrast in perception :

 

"Strong majorities of China’s public and elites identified the United States as the country that posed the greatest threat to China, ranging from 63 percent among the public to 81 percent among business executives. America’s public and its elites generally viewed China’s emergence as a world power as a far less serious threat to the wellbeing of the United States than other enumerated threats, such as international financial instability,Iran’s nuclear program, Islamic extremism, and North Korea’s nuclear program."

 

Danb

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

It's clear the article is written by Chinese in that it rambles and is hard to follow; passive statements throughout making several unsubstantiated claims and treating them as conclusions.The article cites several times the "elites." Just who exactly are these 'elite' people and how are they differentiated from the 'general public?' Pretty pathetic way to approach a poll actually. The author discredits their own report by claiming military and government as not being comparable and then goes on to compare them in a feeble attempt to excuse the obvious. A quote from the article also shows who is considered to be 'influential' and who is not:

 

 

 

Influential opinion was canvassed from five distinct categories—government, business, academia, the military, and the media. During the second phase, workshops of foreign affairs experts with backgrounds in these same five categories were convened in Beijing and Washington to discuss the survey results and their implications for China-U.S. relations.

Edited December 30, 2013 by GuangDongExpat (see edit history)

[Randy W]

This article appears to be a response to the publication in

Publications - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

This publication defines what was considered "elite" and who were the respondents to the survey

 

U.S.-China Security Perceptions Survey: Findings and Implications

 

In the United States, the general public survey was conducted April 30–May 13, 2012, among 1,004 adults. The elite survey was conducted March 1–May 20, 2012, among 305 elites, including 54 government officials in the executive and legislative branches; 52 retired military officers; 74 business and trade leaders; 93 academics, think tank experts, and nongovernmental organization leaders; and 32 reporters, editors, and commentators. Although not representative of all U.S. foreign affairs experts, the elite survey findings are indicative of attitudes among high-ranking individuals responsible for matters related to national security or foreign policy.

 

In China, the general public survey was conducted May 2–July 5, 2012, among 2,597 adults in urban areas. The elite survey was conducted May 22–August 22, 2012, among 358 elites, including 75 government officials (primarily retired officials with experience at the provincial and municipal levels); 73 scholars at military research institutions; 70 business and trade leaders; 76 scholars at nonmilitary academic research institutions; and 64 professionals working for the media.

 

For more details on the methodology used in the public and elite surveys in each country, see the accompanying reports on the survey results by the Pew Research Center and the RCCC.¹

 

 

I'll have more time to check this out later.

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

This article appears to be a response to the publication in

Publications - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

This publication defines what was considered "elite" and who were the respondents to the survey

 

U.S.-China Security Perceptions Survey: Findings and Implications

 

In the United States, the general public survey was conducted April 30–May 13, 2012, among 1,004 adults. The elite survey was conducted March 1–May 20, 2012, among 305 elites, including 54 government officials in the executive and legislative branches; 52 retired military officers; 74 business and trade leaders; 93 academics, think tank experts, and nongovernmental organization leaders; and 32 reporters, editors, and commentators. Although not representative of all U.S. foreign affairs experts, the elite survey findings are indicative of attitudes among high-ranking individuals responsible for matters related to national security or foreign policy.

 

In China, the general public survey was conducted May 2–July 5, 2012, among 2,597 adults in urban areas. The elite survey was conducted May 22–August 22, 2012, among 358 elites, including 75 government officials (primarily retired officials with experience at the provincial and municipal levels); 73 scholars at military research institutions; 70 business and trade leaders; 76 scholars at nonmilitary academic research institutions; and 64 professionals working for the media.

 

For more details on the methodology used in the public and elite surveys in each country, see the accompanying reports on the survey results by the Pew Research Center and the RCCC.¹

 

 

I'll have more time to check this out later.

 

Let me clarify regarding the author's use of the word 'elite.' When it comes to China, the opinions of their 'elite' should be excluded in order to make it a valid poll. China's elite is comprised of those who are spoon-fed the party line and expected to echo it in every way. The poll would have been more honest had the author stated that the elite is comprised of those who are communist party leaders and officials.

 

China does not treat its people equally. General people are not as good as the elite. The elite speak for the general people. In the West, we have Congress. I don't think the General people of the USA think that their Congressmen expresses the sentiments of those who live in their districts. They're supposed to, but the people know they do not. That's why their approval ratings are so low.

 

When it comes to what Chinese people think of the USA, is it China's military officials who are best able to speak about it? Yes, if you want to hear the party line. The same is true for business leaders and academics. So, is there any way to validate a report that says these views express the 'general' population? Not likely

Edited December 30, 2013 by GuangDongExpat (see edit history)

[Randy W]

 

 

Let me clarify regarding the author's use of the word 'elite.' When it comes to China, the opinions of their 'elite' should be excluded in order to make it a valid poll. China's elite is comprised of those who are spoon-fed the party line and expected to echo it in every way. The poll would have been more honest had the author stated that the elite is comprised of those who are communist party leaders and officials.

 

China does not treat its people equally. General people are not as good as the elite. The elite speak for the general people. In the West, we have Congress. I don't think the General people of the USA think that their Congressmen expresses the sentiments of those who live in their districts. They're supposed to, but the people know they do not. That's why their approval ratings are so low.

 

When it comes to what Chinese people think of the USA, is it China's military officials who are best able to speak about it? Yes, if you want to hear the party line. The same is true for business leaders and academics. So, is there any way to validate a report that says these views express the 'general' population? Not likely

 

 

 

The survey report is what it is, and the interviewees are who they are. The "Party Line" is broadly representative of thought and what people are "spoon fed" in China. To my way of thinking, one advantage of the state-run media is that it will consistently "spoon-feed" the same message and have a consistency of purpose.

 

The report includes this caveat (along with specific caveats in each area)

 

During the process of survey design and translation, extensive efforts were made to ensure that the results from the United States and China would be as comparable as possible. For the first iteration of the project, much progress was made toward this end. However, there are several important caveats that call for caution to be exercised in making certain comparisons among some of the elite categories in particular.

 

The only information I see about the General Public portion of the survey is this -

 

In China, the general public survey was conducted May 2–July 5, 2012, among 2,597 adults in urban areas.

 

. . .

 

For more details on the methodology used in the public and elite surveys in each country, see the accompanying reports on the survey results by the Pew Research Center and the RCCC.1

 

So it's nice to think that the Chinese General Public can think for themselves - they do, of course, but don't forget that they are spoon-fed a consistent "Party Line" through the state media.

 

The "Party Line" is VERY significant, not only because it represents the Chinese government, but because it is what is spoon-fed to the general public.

 

For the American general public survey, there's this

Results for the general public survey are based on telephone interviews conducted April 30-May 13, 2012, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or older living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (600 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 404 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 195 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International (PSRAI). Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples was used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International.

Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older.

 

So I would hope there was a corresponding degree of randomness in the selection of the Chinese general public survey participants.

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

 

 

So I would hope there was a corresponding degree of randomness in the selection of the Chinese general public survey participants.

 

The only randomness in China is finding group of 'general' people and asking them what they think about political things. Largely, the people of China avoid discussing political topics. If you want to know what the people of China think, ask the CCP. They will surely tell you.

[danb]

Hello, I went to the link that Rand posted ( I am glad that he posted it so I could read the whole thing):

 

Publications - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The link that I originally first posted is taken from that publication. Not sure 100 % if it is directly quoted or if is a synopsis but I believe is just retelling some of the publication's finding. I am not even sure if I know what the intent of the author was.

GDE, the use of the word elite was an interesting choice. Probably not intentional but also not a word that a common man as myself would use. It kinda rings of the "Ivy Hall" type of talk. If I were to use the word I would use the word to mean the best, #1, the creme of the crop. I don't know how the "Carnegie endowment types" uses or chose that word. I wonder if they use it with a bit of "better than thou" type perspective. I also do agree with you that their choice of who they polled and talked to may be flawed if it was supposed to be an unbiased survey/poll. As I read the article I was wondering about how's and why's of their choices of the poll's participants. I noted it and just continue to read the article. I just thought it was interesting reading.

You also brought up the interesting point of viewpoints. Whose view point do we see in these articles? What is it a reflection of? When I read articles that originates from China I expect a bias. And when I read articles from the U.S. i often see and expect a bias. Me, I enjoy and am interested in reading articles about the relationships between China and the U.S. Mostly culturally but also to a lessor degree of political and economical relationships. I guess I am just trying to understand things better. Danb

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

Hello Danb,

 

The article you posted showed very clearly to me what I observed in the workplace in China. I did not teach English in China, but worked as a senior technical communications writer for one of the largest Internet security companies in the world.The use of the word 'elite' is no accident, not a mistake, or a poorly chosen word. The use of that word and the text that surrounds it are comprised of very carefully chosen words.

 

The people of China show very special credence to anyone who holds a position even one-notch higher than they do. These lines of separation were very active in the US 30-years ago, but are mostly gone today. There are however remnants in some workplaces that provide the best parking places for managers and top brass. Many companies have gotten rid of that practice because as a senior HR friend of mine put it: "It promotes the sense of 'us' and 'them.'

 

China is all about us and them, and anyone who attends a company New Years party, or special function dinner or activity will see that all managers and leaders are worshiped as VIPs. Best rooms, better food, better drink, best tables and so on. No one in China questions it; well, excluding me perhaps...haha.