China: Traditional vs. Modern

Some people like to talk about experiencing The Real China.  Some are expat teachers, but this group also contains a significant amount of backpacker tourists who think that the more primitive it is, the more real it is.

I think that argument is misguided.  The financial district of Shanghai is just as real as the poorest village in the country.  If you want to argue about what parts of China are the most surreal, that needs its own thread.

I believe what some people are really looking for is a place in China with more of China's older traditions and less western influence.  Since this topic keeps coming up as a sideline in other threads, the time has come to give the idea it's very own thread.

I'll quote myself from the other thread and then add some stuff

When I moved to Kunming it was about 5 years after they'd totally destroyed the entire old city and remade it into the concrete mess that it is now and most people I know think it is a pity that they didn't even leave a tiny bit of it up, but then, how can you do that and at the same time preserve "authenticity?" If no one wants to live in the creaky old wooden (fire hazard) homes, and prefers a more modern, convenient, comfortable house, then the only real option you have is creating subsidized Old Towns like Dali or Lijiang, and people bitch about those being too touristy. It is very hard to have it both ways, but I do support programs that try.

I just think that where it gets a little bit dodgy is when foreigners who have no vested interest in the country come in and start telling the locals they're Doing It Wrong because they're more interested in having a decent standard of living than they are in preserving their cultural heritage. Probably most of us do not fall into that category, but a whole lot of backpackers who moan about the real China and such definitely do.

I also think it is a bit problematic when we start defining "modernity" as something inherently Western. I was thinking about this yesterday but couldn't really put my finger on exactly what bothers me about the idea of "Westernization" or "Western influence" but something does. I don't think of high rises as being a particularly Western phenomenon, although they are certainly modern.

I guess to me it sort of starts to feel patronizing when Westerners go on about authenticity and tradition, because most Westerners seem to pick and choose the "cool" parts of tradition and forget that old China was not really some sort of oriental Disneyland. Tradition encompasses lots of really horrible things. Foot binding was a tradition, concubinage was a tradition, slavery was a tradition. It is all fine for us to say well of course we abolish the bad traditions and keep the good ones, but in reality it isn't really all that simple. In order to get rid of the bad traditions China had to really reform the entire society. Mao didn't just go around smashing tradition for the fun of it, he and his ilk really felt that in order to improve Chinese society, the old society had to be destroyed.

I do have more to say on the subject but I have to leave the house so I'll leave it at that and see what others have to say.

Two thoughts

It's not just a western thing, I've met quite a few Chinese people who were really disappointed when they went to Europe because they didn't realise that there were new buildings and *gasp* working class people in Europe, I've had that from Americans as well, they imagined everyone in England lived in castles etc

I think this often gets confused with hegemony. In the 90s people were really worried about how fast American corporations were growing and the appetite that newer markets like the post Communist countries had for them and as capitalism rolled out people freaked out about just how big these companies were.
I'd say that it's not really 'westernisation' so much as capitalism. Everything in the west comes from Korea or China now, the west will be full of Chinese brands before long, I don't know what scenario people are imagining where China eventually becomes Americanised, it seems more likely that everywhere will become er sinocized(?)
When I found out that Chinese call Tokyo 'Dongjing' I asked where is Xijing and my girlfriend said there isn't one so I said that it'll be London

I'm going to go a little out on a limb here and say that although modernity and western aren't synonymous, there is a reasonably high correlation.  Take a look at the typical architecture of a more traditional Chinese place vs. the modern downtowns and shopping districts.

Obviously, asking people to live in substandard housing because it's tradition (or, perhaps, cool looking) isn't fair.  I'll counter that with "Why could I slip that modern Chinese apartment building into quite a few cities in America and no one would notice?" (until they went inside and saw all the security doors and squat toilets).  At least try to give some hint about where it came from.  Also, there are plenty of traditional structures that are solid and not very flammable.  I saw one old house here in the my village that looked like it had some sort of fire get to the roof supports in one room.  The roof over that room collapsed.  The walls and the rest of the roof were fine.  Traditional brick houses - not very flammable - and also a good place to hide if the big bad wolf comes to eat your pigs.

I am pleased to have seen some buildings that at least try to put some Chinese trim on an otherwise boring (and western looking) concrete and glass box.

I feel like Chinese architecture is pretty creative ... sure it isn't all Chinese traditional trim, but structures like the Expo Center in Shanghai, or the Bird's Nest in Beijing, these are not really the types of things you find in the West. Sure they aren't "traditional" but they're Chinese just the same. How boring would architecture be if all Chinese buildings had to stick to "traditional" Chinese forms. Plus there are definitely quite a few Chinese architects who are trying to fuse modern and traditional modes of architecture. One of my students, who is headed off to USC in the fall, actually did a big research paper on this exact topic.

It feels like kind of a cop out to say "oh well slap some traditional trim on stuff, that'll make it "Chinese" rather than "Western." I think that is more playing to a Western sense that when we're in China it should look like China, and disappointment with coming over here and seeing people not dressed in Qipaos, not seeing tiled roofs, no monks on every corner, no opium dens, no Joy Luck Club fantasy China. But that's our hangup, not China's. I honestly don't care if the big buildings have Chinese touches or not, in fact, some buildings, like Beijing's Western Station, or the Friendship Hotel, which are a big concrete building with loads of Chinese trim, I find kind of ugly. Not creative at all.   

The problem with traditional houses is not just that they're flammable (although, not every places uses mud-brick. The old structures in Kunming were almost all wood, and if a fire had swept through the city it would have been catastrophic), it is that in the middle of the city that is prime real estate and it is much more efficient to build upward rather than outward. You can keep the old houses, like the hutongs in Beijing, but they become extremely expensive. Do you think most middle class Chinese people can afford to own a hutong? Even renting, the cost is ridiculous and you're paying out the nose for the privilege of having your own space. Usually the traditional courtyard houses were already split, so good luck finding one with all sides of the courtyard available for use, and if you are lucky enough to find one, and one where you can live in the same comfort that you'd live in in a "regular" apartment, expect to pay out the nose. Looking through listings, I recently came across a hutong house for rent. Beautiful, up to date, a dream house really. 18,000RMB a month. A humble two room (and that's all, no living room, kitchen, etc) courtyard house done up modestly still cost over 5000rmb a month. By comparison, I just signed the lease on a new apartment in Beijing, 200sqm, 4 bedrooms, about the same level of luxury as the beautiful courtyard house, but the rent is 1/3rd of the cost. Traditional houses are fine for the village, where populations are less dense, but in a big city by and large they just aren't practical, not when you have to house a huge number of people and those people want to live in comfort.

As for Chinese apartments fitting in in America --- really? Most Americans live in the suburbs, in stand alone houses. When people do live in apartments they are almost never high rises, not outside of New York City. The traditional American style of living is very different from what a Chinese city dweller experiences. The apartment blocks here are, I'm fairly certain, actually Soviet-style, not American. They were created to be no-frills efficient housing, easy to erect, housing large numbers of people cheaply.

I do care about preserving historic old buildings, but I don't see how it is really possible in the cities on a large scale. At most you can do an "old quarter" in cities that have historic buildings, but inevitably those places will become touristy and "inauthentic" to some people (I feel like Dali and Lijiang, for instance, do a good job of preserving their own local feel, but tourists always complain they're too "commercialized.") You just can't win. If you don't specifically designate and subsidize areas (and how do you fund these areas but through tourism?)  that are to remain "untouched," Chinese people are going to destroy them because they want money and comfort more than they want old buildings.

Buidings are a really tricky topic though because of the economics involved. Other traditions are much less problematic to promote -- traditional music, arts, language, fashion, etc. Most of that comes down to individual choice and freedom, rather than large scale city planning and government policy.

Yeah, language is kind of a special category because it is very loaded issue in the Chinese context. I actually did my undergraduate research about bilingual education in China (not English + Chinese, minorty language + putonghua) and its role in the construction of one's ethnic identity (in relation to the Han majority). I was planning a grad school proposal on the same topic but life got in the way.

Minorities with very strong ethnic identities take the preservation of their local language very seriously. The government "promotes" local languages but only to a degree. It is obviously somewhat of an anathema  to the idea of one unified Chinese identity if you have people running around speaking loads of different languages. It is no mystery as to why areas where groups very strongly identify themselves as non-Chinese (think certain Western provinces), the local language is very strong.

So, depending on which side of the issue you fall on, you either want to promote languages, or you pay lip service to the idea but you actually do all that you can to supress them.

I do think that music and art seem not quite as problematic, on the surface at least. China actually does a fairly good job at promoting  their own traditional instruments, art forms, and dance. Probably about as many kids study Guzheng or Erhu or Pipa as study Western instruments. Calligraphy is big, so is Kung Fu. When we start getting into minority culture, we do start to fall into the "sideshow" category though I suppose, and a lot can be said for how Han Chinese society actually objectifies minority culture, similar to how Western culture objectifies Eastern culture. If you notice how the Dai are often protrayed for instance -- lots of the "Dai artwork" features naked girls, the dancing is very sexy, the girls in tourist ads for places like Jinghong are usually half dressed, bathing themselves in the river. Or the Mosuo. Han men go to Lugu Lake for the express purpose of experiencing a "walking marriage," an actual Mosuo custom that has been perverted into a kind of prostitution, with Han guys justifying it by saying they're just participating in local customs. This is Orientalism at its finest, but it is China exoticizing their own homegrown others.

So "tradition" is always somewhat problematic in a modern society. In promoting it, we need to be aware of what sort of messages we're actually sending about that culture. Why do we really feel the need for China to be "traditional?" Why do Han Chinese feel the need for minorities to be "exotic?" Difference is to be celebrated, for sure, but at the same time, do these people want or need our help in defining what makes their culture unique, what is worthy of promotion and preservation?

I guess this is probably one for the anthropologists. I'm an amateur at best so I don't have the answers.

I feel like Chinese architecture is pretty creative ... sure it isn't all Chinese traditional trim, but structures like the Expo Center in Shanghai, or the Bird's Nest in Beijing, these are not really the types of things you find in the West. Sure they aren't "traditional" but they're Chinese just the same.

Although things like the Bird Nest are impressive showpieces, those are a tiny fragment of what's being built.  The vast bulk of "modern" Chinese buildings could be dropped into western cities without raising an eyebrow.

It feels like kind of a cop out to say "oh well slap some traditional trim on stuff, that'll make it "Chinese" rather than "Western." I think that is more playing to a Western sense that when we're in China it should look like China,

I consider it to be at least a small attempt by a minority of architects to notice that they've got some cool cultural traditions that should be acknowledged on occasion.

and disappointment with coming over here and seeing people not dressed in Qipaos, not seeing tiled roofs, no monks on every corner, no opium dens,

You city doesn't have opium dens?

The problem with traditional houses is not just that they're flammable (although, not every places uses mud-brick. The old structures in Kunming were almost all wood, and if a fire had swept through the city it would have been catastrophic), it is that in the middle of the city that is prime real estate and it is much more efficient to build upward rather than outward. You can keep the old houses, like the hutongs in Beijing, but they become extremely expensive. Do you think most middle class Chinese people can afford to own a hutong?

If everyone flees from a type of structure due to expense or danger, that's one thing.  Consider that not all the people living in those hutongs were exactly thrilled to see their neighborhood bulldozed and find themselves moved to an apartment building.

As for Chinese apartments fitting in in America --- really? Most Americans live in the suburbs, in stand alone houses. When people do live in apartments they are almost never high rises, not outside of New York City.

I've seen plenty of Chinese apartment building ranging from 4 floors up to some very very tall ones.  A 4 floor apartment building wouldn't fit into Manhattan.  A 40 floor apartment building would look a little out of place in Tampa.  The same goes for office buildings.  Pick a Chinese one of similar size to the ones in the USA, and it would blend in very well.

The traditional American style of living is very different from what a Chinese city dweller experiences. The apartment blocks here are, I'm fairly certain, actually Soviet-style, not American. They were created to be no-frills efficient housing, easy to erect, housing large numbers of people cheaply.

Some apartment buildings are more spartan (soviet style), but the newer (more modern) ones are looking more and more just like the ones in the US, at least from the outside.  As above, you need to pick the correct size before trying to slip them into the USA undetected.

Beware of the wave of the future.  I've been to the ritzy suburbs here in DG.  Single family homes and duplexes with lawns.  With the over-emphasis on palm trees, they look like a typical Miami subdivision.

I do care about preserving historic old buildings, but I don't see how it is really possible in the cities on a large scale.

I'm not saying to protect every old building.  Historic architectural preservation vs. efficient usage of land is an issue in many cities worldwide.  I just see it as a larger issue in non-western cities, since the bulk of the "modern" buildings look more and more like something designed by a mediocre American architect.

At most you can do an "old quarter" in cities that have historic buildings, but inevitably those places will become touristy and "inauthentic" to some people (I feel like Dali and Lijiang, for instance, do a good job of preserving their own local feel, but tourists always complain they're too "commercialized.") You just can't win. If you don't specifically designate and subsidize areas (and how do you fund these areas but through tourism?)  that are to remain "untouched," Chinese people are going to destroy them because they want money and comfort more than they want old buildings.

A difficult question.  In some cases, almost unsolvable.  In other cases, there are neighborhoods in cities or rural villages that suddenly find themselves being "modernized" even if they didn't ask for it.

Buidings are a really tricky topic though because of the economics involved. Other traditions are much less problematic to promote -- traditional music, arts, language, fashion, etc. Most of that comes down to individual choice and freedom, rather than large scale city planning and government policy.

I think we need to institute "traditional clothing" Fridays in China.

I feel like Chinese architecture is pretty creative ... sure it isn't all Chinese traditional trim, but structures like the Expo Center in Shanghai, or the Bird's Nest in Beijing, these are not really the types of things you find in the West.

Bad example. Both of these (and many major/famous structures in China)were designed by foreigners.

Quote

I feel like Chinese architecture is pretty creative ... sure it isn't all Chinese traditional trim, but structures like the Expo Center in Shanghai, or the Bird's Nest in Beijing, these are not really the types of things you find in the West.

Bad example. Both of these (and many major/famous structures in China)were designed by foreigners.

The birds nest was designed by Ai weiwei, a Chinese. A total bad ass dissident (and I'm sure the gov't is kicking themselves now) but still a chinese nonetheless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_National_Stadium

"Architect:    Herzog & de Meuron[3], ArupSport, China Architectural Design & Research Group

Ai Weiwei (Artistic consultant)"

I don't really think it matters what countries the architects themselves come from, although maybe calling those buildings "Chinese architecture" is misleading on my part. The Chinese government though funded those projects so of course the designs the architects come up with have to meet official approval. In these cases I feel like the designs really represent a modern Chinese aesthetic.

EL, the Beijing hutongs are sort of a special case. A lot of people were made very rich by selling out to developers. I don't think the case in Beijing is nearly as cut and dry as poor put upon Beijingers being forced out of their traditional homes. Also, Beijing is probably an example of one modern city where many more traditional old homes have survived than any other. There are two districts, Xicheng and Dongcheng, which are almost entirely old courtyard structures and renovated "old-style" buildings. That's huge, since those two districts are right smack in the heart of the city. That's directly because Beijing has done exactly what we would hope cities would do, and has protected the historic quarter.  I don't honestly think Beijing could do any more than it has.

Of course people do move outward towards the suburbs, and the villas (which here in Beijing still do not look or feel quite like America to me. We do have lots of villas and lots of people living in the suburbs, but the feel is very very different), but that can't be helped. Those wealthy who can afford to live in the suburbs also have their choice of living in the hutongs -- they can afford it. So if they're chosing a modern, convenient, Western style house over a hutong courtyard, that's on them. Developers are going to build what there's a demand for.

What's also interesting is that there actually are newly build traditional style courtyard houses out in the suburbs, mostly in the opposite direction of the villas (villas are by and large in Shunyi, countryside courtyards are in Changping). The difference in price between the counrtyside courtyards and the villas is staggering. I saw recently couryard houses of 500-800sqm for rent for under 5000rmb a month. New villas of the same size are about 30,000rmb a month, or more. The newly rich are just not drawn towards those older styles (although plenty of artist and writers are), they want a house that proclaims modern privilege and wealth, not 19th century tradition.

About fashion -- I'm not above a little Chinese fashion here and there, but I won't dress myself from head to to in it because I'd feel like an idiot. I was wearing some embroidered cloth shoes (that I bought in Pingyao, a place famous for cloth shoes) with my jeans once and this elderly gentleman on the bus took a real interest in my shoes and was very happy that I was wearing them. He said, oh, Chinese girls never wear shoes like that anymore, somewhat wistfully. My husband hates my cloth shoes, he thinks they're little old lady shoes. Arty Chinese types do kind of embrace the "minzu" clothing style, embroidered this and that and flowing hippy skirts, but that's a style that can easily skew towards "middle aged" so it takes a certain kind of Chinese woman with a strong sense of personal style to pull it off.

Go on! Wear some minzu inspired clothing.



That's Sa Dingding. Maybe a little odd in class but come on,  that looks awesome.

I can't afford head to toe Minzu clothing! That shit is damn expensive. I have a friend who owns a shop that sells (authentic!) miao/yi/buyi/dai/whathaveyou clothing, very beautifully embroidered and all, and I swear that stuff costs close to what you pay in shops like Zara or the Gap, that is, quite a lot.

I'll do the long flowy skirts, or an embroidered shirt with jeans sometimes, I don't mind a little minzu style (my own personal style, when I'm not in the classroom does tend to be a bit, as they say, bohemian), as long as it is tasteful and not over the top. I used to rock a lot more of this stuff when I was younger and not afraid such looks would show my age. Certainly better than satin dragons and the like though (sorry EL!).

Ooooh... Had no idea this would become the EL vs TLD thread. 

I don't really think it matters what countries the architects themselves come from, although maybe calling those buildings "Chinese architecture" is misleading on my part. The Chinese government though funded those projects so of course the designs the architects come up with have to meet official approval. In these cases I feel like the designs really represent a modern Chinese aesthetic.

Unique showpieces like the Birds Nest or the CCTV "Wrong Trousers" building are rare.  Day-to-day office and apartment buildings in the west are already getting too cookie-cutter, and I'm saddened to see China falling more and more into the same pattern.

EL, the Beijing hutongs are sort of a special case. A lot of people were made very rich by selling out to developers. I don't think the case in Beijing is nearly as cut and dry as poor put upon Beijingers being forced out of their traditional homes. Also, Beijing is probably an example of one modern city where many more traditional old homes have survived than any other. There are two districts, Xicheng and Dongcheng, which are almost entirely old courtyard structures and renovated "old-style" buildings. That's huge, since those two districts are right smack in the heart of the city. That's directly because Beijing has done exactly what we would hope cities would do, and has protected the historic quarter.  I don't honestly think Beijing could do any more than it has.

I'll agree that not every former hutong dweller cried with sorrow on leaving.  On the other hand, check the maps before all the Olympic construction began.  Not all of those people were waving "Welcome Bulldozers!" banners.  I am glad that some areas were preserved, but I think it would have been possible to save more.

Of course people do move outward towards the suburbs, and the villas (which here in Beijing still do not look or feel quite like America to me. We do have lots of villas and lots of people living in the suburbs, but the feel is very very different), but that can't be helped. Those wealthy who can afford to live in the suburbs also have their choice of living in the hutongs -- they can afford it. So if they're chosing a modern, convenient, Western style house over a hutong courtyard, that's on them. Developers are going to build what there's a demand for.

I suppose part of my argument would be with the Chinese buyers.  "We've got thousands of years of amazing history that I'm SOOO proud of, but I want a house EXACTLY like what I saw on an episode of Desperate Housewives.   Then again, I think the developers have to share some of the blame based on what they offer.  I know one of the developers of one subdivision here.  He spent a few years in Miami.  I'm beginning to wonder if some of the other developers spent too much time in Florida and California.

I'll have to check out the Chinese burbs in Beijing sometime.  I'll guess they skipped the palm trees.

What's also interesting is that there actually are newly build traditional style courtyard houses out in the suburbs, mostly in the opposite direction of the villas (villas are by and large in Shunyi, countryside courtyards are in Changping). The difference in price between the counrtyside courtyards and the villas is staggering. I saw recently couryard houses of 500-800sqm for rent for under 5000rmb a month. New villas of the same size are about 30,000rmb a month, or more. The newly rich are just not drawn towards those older styles (although plenty of artist and writers are), they want a house that proclaims modern privilege and wealth, not 19th century tradition.

At last!  Someone out there finally noticed that they can build modern versions of traditional buldings.

About fashion -- I'm not above a little Chinese fashion here and there, but I won't dress myself from head to to in it because I'd feel like an idiot.

I've never been able to show much self-restraint in making myself feel like an idiot.

Usually, I just settle for a jacket or the occasional round collared shirt (from WalMart ).

I was wearing some embroidered cloth shoes (that I bought in Pingyao, a place famous for cloth shoes) with my jeans once and this elderly gentleman on the bus took a real interest in my shoes and was very happy that I was wearing them. He said, oh, Chinese girls never wear shoes like that anymore, somewhat wistfully.

Oh good.  Somewhere there's an old Chinese guy who agrees with my sense of fashion.

Surely we're not the only two with opinions, but maybe everyone else is just worn out from the douchbaggery battle in the other thread.

EL, you'd love the modern/traditional buildings out in the suburbs. My dad is absolutely in love with them and wants to move into one as soon as possible (and he's quite a bit like you are, loves his Chinese suits and has his house full of Chinese knicknacks). Unfortunately they're like 3 hours outside the city if you're relying on public transport, like we are. They are HUGE. Not as fancy as the villas, but you could easily do a nice renovation job on one of them and you wouldn't spend nearly as much as you would on a villa. I wouldn't mind living in one, I like the idea of a courtyard house, although I am not sure if I'd like the reality of having to run through a freezing courtyard in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom. Maybe if I lived in DG.

Unfortunately, no so many people agree with us. Just the difference in price goes to show how much more popular the villas are. Try and rent a modern villa for less than 30k a month at a minimum. This has to do with developers as well, not *just* the buyers, but the buyers influence what the developers decide to build. I guess my point though is that people get to spend their money however they want to spend it and developers, who, when we're talking about suburbs, aren't really knocking down anything historic in the first place, of course have the right to build what they know will sell, not what appeases a Western sense of aesthetics. There's no doubt those developers have done extensive market research (palm trees would um ... not thrive in this climate) and are building what they think will sell. I asked my husband why he thinks Chinese people don't prefer those old style villas, and he said that for new rich especially, if they came up from a poor background, they probably grew up in the crappy versions of those houses. They want to feel like they've moved up in the world, and to them Westeren luxury represents progress. I mean, we can blame them all we want for their choices, but the choices are theirs to make since they're the ones with millions of RMB to spend on villas in the first place.

I saw an add recently for a somewhat large courtyard house in downtown Beijing for rent and the owner said something like "it is good either for opening a business, or, if you're a foreigner and like this kind of house, it would be perfect." Heh.

As for Beijing's downtown. I honestly don't think saving any more than what was saved in Beijing would have been feasible or (dare I say it) necessary.  Two whole districts EL, sure they are not districts the size of Haidian or Chaoyang, but two whole districts, smack in the middle of the city, are very heavily hutong-ed. I've even seen numerous kindergartens and elementary schools in courtyard compounds in those areas. I work in Xicheng, so I go down there pretty often, and I can honestly say I have been to any other big city that has so many "old" structures as there are in Beijing. Maybe they could have done more, but I give Beijing a lot of points for effort.