Who Gives Governments Authority to Decide Moral Values for Their Citizens?
Even for someone who does not follow Chinese popular culture too closely, the author cannot escape the recent news of the government banning any display of hip-hop culture on television. After the CCP decided that the subculture of underground rap that is gaining some mainstream popularity in the past months can supposedly instigate crime, take youths away from proper, healthy values as citizens, often based on so-called vulgar lyrics of rap songs, international news outlets have ensured that lovers of hip-hop and rap music, especially in the US, deepen their already steep hatred for the Chinese government and society.
Granted, the Chinese government's opposition to rap culture is not at all unique. Culturally conservative elements across Western societies have been lashing out against the same for decades, arguing that it encourages violence, crime, and irresponsible conspicuous consumption. Even in the poorest parts of rural Tanzania, music video styles borrowed from rap culture teach its viewers the glories of chasing luxurious cars, gorgeous seaside villas, and sex women. There is definitely some justifications to be had on how frequent viewership of such programs can detrimentally bend the minds of youths.
Yet, even if there is definitive correlation between exposure to rap culture and violent tendencies of adolescents with little real-world experiences (such correlation is as of yet not scientifically proven), the questions remains whether the government should be the authority tasked with making sure those same youths do not overly consume such deviant cultural products. NGOs, community organizations, and indeed parents themselves, should take the primary role in dictating whether certain cultural products are considered appropriate or inappropriate for certain people.
Governments, rather than local, non-governmental organizations, evaluating what can only be termed moral judgments on certain cultures, run the risk of setting a precedent where citizens surrender the right to determine what is morally right and wrong to politicians with power to shape public opinions in very extensive and manipulative ways. In fact, political agendas on making young citizens "morally upright" is not just a matter of social responsibility but top-down exertion of power, under which those who are deemed "morally upright" are equated with those who toe the politically correct lines of existing authorities.
But who gets to decide whether the politically correct lines of existing authorities are really moral or not? Political agendas are often ruthless, sacrificing genuine interests of individuals for the sake of advancing interests of the political elites in the name of the country. Sometimes the ways by which individual interests are sacrificed, including wars, human rights violations, or intentional ignoring of basic survival needs, are completely immoral. But given the importance of national interests, the state expects its patriotic citizens to support such individual sacrifices, no matter how immoral they are.
What would be easier to achieve such an aim than to simply change the definition of what is moral and feed that new definition to young citizens? If people believe a certain action or way of behavior is moral in the first place, then there is little need for costly propaganda campaigns to lie and coax people into accepting certain actions of the government. People will simply use their revised sense of morality to naturally support government actions. Such naturalness with which popular support can be obtained for immoral actions would certainly be an ideal situation for political elites.
Incidentally, government definitions of morality harks back to the Nazi era, when people allowed a fiery politician to help them define what is good and evil, later adhering him to a path of no return. The relevance of such morality-defining politics is offered in the film Look Who's Back about Hitler's encounter with 2014 Germany. In a nation that become more and more sceptical about the increasing presence of foreigners both as permanent "guest workers" and seemingly endless streams of refugees, Hitler's old eugenics ideas subtly changes from comedy to something that frighteningly aligns with inner thoughts of some common people.
Indeed, to change citizens' morality does not require initial acceptance by the entire population of a changed definition. There only needs to be a radical, self-righteous minority that is willing to push new ideas upon the silent and complacent majority. Whether it be being against racial diversity in the 1940s or being against rap culture today, there are simply a few too many people who are willing to be that initial radical vanguard to push their opposition to the majority. If such radicals are given even the slightest tinge of moral authority, then their political power can quickly become effective against the masses.
In China, by having the general population surrender to easily banning rap culture, the first step toward that dark future has been taken. The issue is not about whether rap culture is really good or bad, moral or immoral for the country's young TV viewers. The issue is whether the government has the right, in the first place, of deciding for its citizens what is morality in an objective way. This blog argues that the government simply cannot be objective, but instead will use the rights to define morality, quietly conceded by citizens in cases like rap culture, to crease citizens that will support whatever government actions.
New definitions of morality will be created by the state in line with actions to be taken. New sense of morality will be gradually accepted by the general public convinced that the government is helping to shape people's mindset in the "right" way. Government actions will become more and more immoral as they find public opposition withering away as new sense of morality ensure even the most immoral government actions will go down smoothly. It is a tactic that worked for Hitler eight decades ago, and its efficacy is not at all diminished in the authoritarian states of today.
Granted, the Chinese government's opposition to rap culture is not at all unique. Culturally conservative elements across Western societies have been lashing out against the same for decades, arguing that it encourages violence, crime, and irresponsible conspicuous consumption. Even in the poorest parts of rural Tanzania, music video styles borrowed from rap culture teach its viewers the glories of chasing luxurious cars, gorgeous seaside villas, and sex women. There is definitely some justifications to be had on how frequent viewership of such programs can detrimentally bend the minds of youths.
Yet, even if there is definitive correlation between exposure to rap culture and violent tendencies of adolescents with little real-world experiences (such correlation is as of yet not scientifically proven), the questions remains whether the government should be the authority tasked with making sure those same youths do not overly consume such deviant cultural products. NGOs, community organizations, and indeed parents themselves, should take the primary role in dictating whether certain cultural products are considered appropriate or inappropriate for certain people.
Governments, rather than local, non-governmental organizations, evaluating what can only be termed moral judgments on certain cultures, run the risk of setting a precedent where citizens surrender the right to determine what is morally right and wrong to politicians with power to shape public opinions in very extensive and manipulative ways. In fact, political agendas on making young citizens "morally upright" is not just a matter of social responsibility but top-down exertion of power, under which those who are deemed "morally upright" are equated with those who toe the politically correct lines of existing authorities.
But who gets to decide whether the politically correct lines of existing authorities are really moral or not? Political agendas are often ruthless, sacrificing genuine interests of individuals for the sake of advancing interests of the political elites in the name of the country. Sometimes the ways by which individual interests are sacrificed, including wars, human rights violations, or intentional ignoring of basic survival needs, are completely immoral. But given the importance of national interests, the state expects its patriotic citizens to support such individual sacrifices, no matter how immoral they are.
What would be easier to achieve such an aim than to simply change the definition of what is moral and feed that new definition to young citizens? If people believe a certain action or way of behavior is moral in the first place, then there is little need for costly propaganda campaigns to lie and coax people into accepting certain actions of the government. People will simply use their revised sense of morality to naturally support government actions. Such naturalness with which popular support can be obtained for immoral actions would certainly be an ideal situation for political elites.
Incidentally, government definitions of morality harks back to the Nazi era, when people allowed a fiery politician to help them define what is good and evil, later adhering him to a path of no return. The relevance of such morality-defining politics is offered in the film Look Who's Back about Hitler's encounter with 2014 Germany. In a nation that become more and more sceptical about the increasing presence of foreigners both as permanent "guest workers" and seemingly endless streams of refugees, Hitler's old eugenics ideas subtly changes from comedy to something that frighteningly aligns with inner thoughts of some common people.
Indeed, to change citizens' morality does not require initial acceptance by the entire population of a changed definition. There only needs to be a radical, self-righteous minority that is willing to push new ideas upon the silent and complacent majority. Whether it be being against racial diversity in the 1940s or being against rap culture today, there are simply a few too many people who are willing to be that initial radical vanguard to push their opposition to the majority. If such radicals are given even the slightest tinge of moral authority, then their political power can quickly become effective against the masses.
In China, by having the general population surrender to easily banning rap culture, the first step toward that dark future has been taken. The issue is not about whether rap culture is really good or bad, moral or immoral for the country's young TV viewers. The issue is whether the government has the right, in the first place, of deciding for its citizens what is morality in an objective way. This blog argues that the government simply cannot be objective, but instead will use the rights to define morality, quietly conceded by citizens in cases like rap culture, to crease citizens that will support whatever government actions.
New definitions of morality will be created by the state in line with actions to be taken. New sense of morality will be gradually accepted by the general public convinced that the government is helping to shape people's mindset in the "right" way. Government actions will become more and more immoral as they find public opposition withering away as new sense of morality ensure even the most immoral government actions will go down smoothly. It is a tactic that worked for Hitler eight decades ago, and its efficacy is not at all diminished in the authoritarian states of today.
Comments
Post a Comment