"Culture"

What is the meaning of that word we all use so freely -- culture? What does it make you think of?

Spring Festival? The mid-Autumn or Dragon Boat festivals? Dumplings and mooncakes? Or maybe Christmas; Santa Claus; turkey dinners on Thanksgiving Day?

Is that what culture is all about?

Of course, the important differences between Western and Chinese people do not center around a few festivals. The big differences between us are the different ways we think; our different reactions to events; our different attitudes to life, morality, friendships, and society. And we are quite different in these ways.

Americans are also different from Europeans. But most people would probably agree that the differences between Americans and Chinese are bigger.

So we're different. But why? Why are you Chinese so different from us? Is it biology? Is it some kind of genetic information that was transferred to each of you from your mothers and fathers? Is it because of your different Chinese eyes that you can read Chinese characters?

Of course, we all know that genes have nothing to do with it. What makes people different is the mental environment. Those of you who have met ABC's -- American-born Chinese -- will have seen that they are much more similar to other Americans than they are to the people of China.

That might put a question in your mind: how different would you be if you had been born in America? Would you be a completely different person?

If the answer is yes, you have to wonder: how much of you is you? Are you an individual -- a special, unique person? Or are you just a copy of the people around you as you grow up?

When you move to a foreign country and live there, especially if you're there as a teacher, you can learn a lot more than a tourist. Tourists can walk around and look at nice buildings. But when you live in a different country, you can meet and get to know the people. Students have a good chance to do this too, so if you plan to study outside China you should see this too.

If you go to America, you might feel what I have felt in China. People there are different, of course; but what's surprising is that in many respects they're all different in the same way. That's how I feel in China. In some respects, almost all the Chinese are different in the same way.

This kind of thing can really make you stop and think. I've begun to believe, personally, that maybe 90% of a typical person's personality is environment, and only 10% his or her own individuality.

It would be possible to explore such questions scientifically. Maybe it's been done, I don't know. But my feeling is that, to a surprising degree -- to a degree most people do not suspect --

• our ideas;
• our tastes;
• our moods;
• the way we behave;
• our ambitions, and what we want in life;
• our opinion of what it means to have a successful life;
• what makes us happy;
• our actual level of happiness;
• our opinion about whether a particular food is delicious or disgusting;
• our opinion about whether a person is beautiful or ugly;
• our opinion about whether or not a person is a hero;
• what we consider right and wrong;
• what we consider physically dangerous;
• our feeling as to whether we are sick or healthy

-- all these ideas, outlooks and opinions are, to a frightening degree, simply copied from the people around us. They are lessons learned from the people surrounding us as we grow up. But the lessons are learned uncritically. We don't think about it. We just copy it from the people around us by simple imitation.

That, I think, is what culture is.

Why do I say it's "frightening," the degree to which our personalities are mere copies of the people around us? Because individuality, at least in traditional Western thought, is supposed to be a good thing. If we are not independent individuals, it suggests that we do not have freedom.

One of the important Western values is the freedom of an individual to have his own ideas and opinions, to be his own independent person, irrespective of what everyone around him thinks.

If people who live in a culture are simply a copy of the other people in that culture, it's also frightening because it suggests that our ideas are arbitrary; it suggests that we believe what we believe simply because of where we were born; and that if we had been born elsewhere, we might believe the very opposite. It suggests that knowing the truth, or having smarter ideas, is simply a matter of luck-- being born in the right culture.

Examples of cultural differences

In most of America, it is unquestioned that America is a powerful force for good, and that its enemies are evil. In other communities in other parts of the world, ordinary civilians -- families, men, women, and children who are just as human as you and me, people who would be happy to extend their hospitality and invite you into their homes for a cup of tea -- strongly believe that America is the evil one.

In Beijing, I was quite surprised last year by what I saw in the subway trains, at least around pingguoyuan deetye. If a mother was with a 6-year-old child, and they could only find one seat to sit in, then the mother would make the child sit; and the mother would stand. If there was an 80-year-old woman nearby, standing wearily, looking bedraggled and miserable as she clutched one of the straps hanging from the ceiling ... would the mother and child show the traditional Chinese respect for older people? Would the child stand so the old lady could take the seat?

Forget it. Dream on, lady! The old woman would remain standing; and the little 6-year-old darling would sit and fidget in the seat.

Now, in other societies too, children will not stand up for old strangers. But nowhere else have I seen parents standing so their own child can take the seat. That seems really strange. It's much more natural for the parent to sit and children to stand.

But that's the power of culture. It seems the culture, today, in Beijing, makes people think that if you love your child you should stand so your child can sit. And I would guess that if you see a mother sit while her child is standing, you'll think the mother does not love her child.

Another cultural difference: I asked one of my university students how she spent her summer. She told me she loves her mother very much and misses her during the school year, so during the summers she goes home to spend time together with her.

You probably think this is a fairly common feeling. But if a young American said that, people might think she had some kind of problem. They might think she's mentally sick, that maybe she needs to see a psychiatrist.

Another difference: one of the things that's so nice here is that you always see lots of children walking and running around -- laughing, happy, carefree. I don't think the dangers to children in the West are much greater than in China, and I don't think Western parents love their children more than Chinese parents, but in Western cities you almost never see children out alone without adults. Parents are afraid that their children would be attacked or kidnapped.

The most immediately striking difference one sees in China is how terribly dangerous your roads are; how unbelievably badly drivers drive their cars. In the West people driving the way they do here would be put in jail. Every time I take a taxi here I am terrified that the car I am in is going to kill somebody. When I see people limping around the campus, I know why. Being hit by a car seems to be common here.

But there is something much more surprising, and utterly different from the West: the people walking or bicycling along the streets are not afraid! They are not afraid of being killed. In America, anyone walking on the street who saw a car move the way they do here would run -- run for his life screaming. But here, people seem to be completely unworried even as death comes within inches. They walk on the road, with their backs to traffic. Sometimes they walk into the road -- without looking at the cars. I am still trying to understand this.

Another thing I've observed, on the Tsinghua campus, is that when two bicycles nearly collide, the two riders simply recover, adjust, and go along their way with no comment, without speaking any words. In the West, a near-collision normally makes people angry. You might hear: "Would you watch where you're going, you goddamn bloody idiot?!"

Another thing: friends here hold each other's hands. That's very nice; friendly and innocent. But in America that's the same as holding up a sign saying: "I am a homosexual."

How about at restaurants? Here, people are pushed to drink alcohol even if they don't want to drink. In America at least we know that's not very smart. And let's not forget cigarette smoking -- a foolish habit that is much more common in China than in America.

I'll also mention the shocking litter in your beautiful parks. I was climbing down the Xiangshan mountain recently and it seemed the whole mountain was covered with garbage: candy wrappers, potato chip bags, drink containers, napkins. The parks and lakes of Tsinghua also have this problem (though it's not as bad). In the West, this is considered a great social offense; as a result, you almost never see garbage in parks.

These are some of the differences between the Chinese and Americans that are superficial -- easy to see. There are other differences too. I feel that more of the young people in China are mentally alive. That's one of the main reasons why, at least for now, I feel life is better for me here than in the West.

The people I've met in English corners here don't just want to learn English so they can have better jobs and make more money. They are interested in conversation and ideas; they are awake -- they pay attention when I speak to them; they have a natural, healthy desire to understand more about the world; they find conversation fun, and they are curious. That is what life is actually all about.

Real conversation, the exploration of ideas, rarely happens in America. People are too busy. People sense that something is wrong if they spend more than a few minutes simply exploring ideas for nothing. It won't help them get ahead in life. It won't add to their list of accomplishments. It won't bring them closer to the "American Dream" -- which really just means to get rich. And besides, they are tired; they don't have the mental energy to think very hard. Conversation about ideas is regarded as a waste of time.

The need to be busy really comes from a deep restlessness that is widespread among young Americans. A writer called Bill McKibben has written that this restlessness is a disease that comes from never-ending exposure to propaganda.

What kind of propaganda?

Advertising -- business propaganda.

McKibben wrote that advertising is always teaching Americans false lessons about how to live happily. Americans search endlessly but cannot find happiness -- because they are looking in all the wrong places. Americans no longer trust their own human instincts.

Does anyone know Marxist theory? What are the two inputs needed to produce things?

Capital and Labor.

But there's also a different kind of capital.

A few years ago Robert Putnam, a professor of government at Harvard, was trying to understand what makes some governments successful and others unsuccessful. He compared 20 local governments in Italy and found that the most important factor in making society work well is social capital. By "social capital" he meant how socially connected people are; how much they join voluntary groups; how involved they are with their communities; how much they trust each other.

Prof. Putnam wrote: "Good government in Italy comes from singing groups and football clubs." When people join groups and are socially active with each other, they build trust and cooperation. And that makes everything else go well.

Then Putnam began studying social capital in America. How did he do his research? He used statistics.

What's a statistic? It's a number that tells you something about the world. For example, the number of public meetings that were held in America last year. That number -- the number of public meetings that occurred -- provides some information about society. Another statistic would be the percent of homes that have a telephone.

Putnam got mountains of statistics about almost everything in American life: how many picnics Americans go to; how often they play baseball; how much they join clubs; how many public meetings they attend; how many petitions they sign. He had 50 assistants, people working for him, to help with his research, and millions of dollars for his study. What did he find?

Anyone know bowling?

The result of Putnam's research was a 1995 book called Bowling Alone.

The data -- the numbers, the statistics -- showed a very great, shocking drop in social capital in America, between the 1960's and 1990's. Bowling, of course, is not important, but what happened with bowling is the same thing that happened everywhere else in American society during that time: Today, when an American goes bowling, it is more common than before for him to go alone, without friends. In the past, it was more common to go bowling with friends.

The drop in social capital, Putnam said, is bad for society in many ways. It harms education; it makes people less honest; it makes them less happy and healthy; and it hurts democracy by leading to governments that do not represent the people as much.

What had amazed Putnam when he studied Italian society was how slowly social capital changes. He found that the low social capital in southern Italy, and the high social capital in the northern Italy, came from the 1100s. Nine hundred years ago, the Normans set up a system of bosses and servants in the south; but in the north people were more equal and had to work with each other. That created trust between people that still exists in the north today, but not in the south. And that's why the northern societies are more successful.

But that made his findings in America even more shocking and puzzling. The question was not only how could social capital fall so much; he also could not understand how it fell so fast. How could such a big decline occur in only 30 years, from the 1960's to the 1990's?

Putnam used the numbers, and statistical analysis methods, and he thought about many possible explanations. Education, for example. The average educational level of people went up a lot from the 60's to the 90's. But that only made the mystery bigger: social capital normally goes up when educational levels go up. So why did social capital go down?

Putnam also thought maybe the changed role of women might explain the drop in social capital. In the 90's women worked, while in the 60's they stayed at home. But he found this could not explain the large drop in social capital either.

We'll get back to Putnam later.

Take what's good

As you think about the differences I mentioned earlier between the American and Chinese cultures, you may feel that American culture is better in some ways; and Chinese culture is better in other ways. I agree with you. It's perfectly reasonable to make judgments. Of course, you have to be smart enough to be fair in comparing your own culture to other cultures. Smart people should learn from other cultures. Take what's good; reject what's bad.

Many Chinese I've spoken to seem to think capitalism is wonderful. And I know China has become more capitalistic, especially as it enters the WTO. It seems to me there is a likelihood that China will take what's good ... and also take what's bad ... as it moves closer to American-style capitalism. It seems to me the Chinese people don't know much about the problems of capitalism -- even though they are on public display all over America.

What shapes young people in West?

Think about what you know of Western culture. Think about young people growing up in the West and tell me: What shapes their attitudes and personalities? Where do they get their ideas?

What is the strongest force that affects youth culture? Parents? Schools?

TV, movies, popular music, video games. Media entertainment is the strongest influence on youth culture by far.

TV is everywhere. It is the first teacher for young people. TV teaches them lessons on how to behave socially -- how to interact with other people. If you have grown up in America, you have already seen everything on TV before you experience it in your own life. If there is someone that a young person admires, a hero whose lessons he tries to follow in life, that person is probably a TV character.

Our species -- modern man -- evolved ...

How many years ago?

... about 200,000 years ago. That's when we first appeared on Earth.

Now, TV appeared relatively late during those 200,000 years.

How long ago?

About 50 years ago. And that was when something very important changed forever.

From 200,000 years ago until 50 years ago -- throughout history, throughout pre-history -- children growing up, in every human society, have been socialized by the people around them. They learned their lessons, their culture, from human beings.

Not any more. Since 50 years ago, the social world of young people is made up of many people who are not natural human beings.

Now remember, people copy the thinking around them. They copy it blindly -- without thinking. That's why friends don't touch each other's hands in America; that's why men in China smoke cigarettes more than they do in America; that's why parents are afraid to let their children play outside alone in America. That's why people walking on your roads aren't afraid they will be killed.

The habits, customs, behaviors that young people are learning today come from artificial (man-made) beings -- fictional characters they see on TV. Typically those lessons begin before the children are old enough to speak.

In what ways are TV people, and movie people, different from natural people? The main difference is that they are corporate products -- created by business corporations -- and the reason they are created is money and profit. Natural humans can have many different wishes and goals in life. TV people have one goal. They are single-minded. Their only purpose, their only reason for existing, is to make more money for their creators.

Understand the nature of TV and movie people

How many people do you feel you know in your life? How many people do you feel connected to? Count them. Now, you know TV and movie people are all around us in our societies. How many of the people in your life are TV and movie people?

I want to help you understand the true nature of these artificial people.

To understand TV and movie people better, it is useful to think of a character from a popular American action movie. The character is not a man, but a kind of robot -- made of a very strong steel. So it is artificial, man-made, just like the many TV people in our own lives. Also, like TV people, it is single-minded. It does not have wishes, feelings, fears, emotions. Its mind is a computer.

This machine, this robot, has been programmed with a single objective. The only purpose of that robot's existence is to murder a specific target ... a particular woman.

There is an actor ... he's a superstar now ... who made that robot so wonderfully un-lifelike, that robot became world-famous and won many more fans than most human actors.

Who is he?

Arnold made everyone fall in love with the Terminator. But Terminator also returned the favor for Arnold.

How?

Well, it changed Arnold Schwarzenegger from an obscure actor with a very strange English accent into a top celebrity and international movie star.

Let me remind you how, in the movie, the man called Reese tries to explain to Sarah what kind of danger she is in. Sarah is the woman the Terminator is programmed to kill. Reese is the man who has come from the future to save Sarah's life. Sarah is terrified, because the Terminator has just tried to kill her.

Sarah thinks the Terminator is a man, because it looks just like a man. But she's just seen Reese fire five shots from a rifle into the Terminator's chest. Then the Terminator got back up and ran after her again.

"I can't believe this is happening," she tells Reese. "How could that man get up after you shot it like that?"

Reese tells her:

Not a man. A Terminator. Cyber Dynamics Model 101. A Cybernetic Organism. The Terminator's an infiltration unit. Part man, part machine. Underneath, it's a hyperalloy combat chassis, microprocessor-controlled, fully armored. Very tough... But outside, it's living human tissue. Flesh, skin, hair...blood.

Then Reese explains to Sarah how he and the Terminator have both travelled through time from the future, where there is a war taking place ... a war between men and machines.

Sarah thinks Reese is out of his mind -- crazy. She begs him to let her go. But Reese knows that if he leaves her alone, the Terminator will find her and kill her. He explains to her:

Listen. Understand. That Terminator is out there. It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with...it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear... and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead.

First, they do look human, since they're designed for "infiltration" -- but they're in fact artificial. Second, unlike humans they are single-minded. They don't feel pity or remorse or fear. They have one objective only: to make money. Third, as I will explain, TV people are the enemy of man.

Capitalism

TV people are created with the objective of money, which is what capitalism is all about. Many of us understand there are many good things about capitalism. Capitalism can make our lives better by making things more efficient. But we have to remember corporations are single-minded. The objective is money. If the best way to make money is to hurt people, to betray people, to make the world ugly, to spread poison everywhere ... then that is exactly what they will do.

Adam Smith understood this 250 years ago. He is the economist and philosopher who wrote The Wealth of Nations, the classic book that first described the theory of capitalism: how it works, how it leads to economic efficiency. The Wealth of Nations introduced the famous "invisible hand" to the world.

Adam Smith had a low opinion of businessmen. He wrote that if two businessmen happen to meet by chance in the street, they are likely to fall into a discussion of how they can make themselves richer in some way that will harm their fellow citizens and their nation.

If a corporation's CEO (chief executive officer, or top leader) tries to stop the corporation and say No, this is wrong! Money is not everything. -- what do you think will normally happen to that CEO? The shareholders -- the owners of the company -- will deliver a simple message to him: Go to hell. He will be kicked out, and somebody who understands the objective better will take his place.

And if they don't -- then the company might well lose the competitive race against other companies, then go bankrupt and disappear.

It's very nice when businessmen try to make the world a better place. But it's not their job. Their job is to make money.

So is capitalism bad?

How many people here like capitalism?

Capitalism is a powerful engine for social wealth. But just like a powerful robot, it must be programmed; it must be controlled, so that it behaves in a way that is good for people and good for the nation.

There's only one way to control business.

How?

The only entity with the power to control business is government. Government can write laws, watch the corporations to ensure that they obey the laws, and punish them when they violate the laws.

If the government writes good laws, then capitalism will work the right way. Then Adam Smith's magical "invisible hand" will push businesses in directions that are good for society. Then corporations, even though all they care about and all they are trying to do is to make themselves richer, will end up doing things that are good for society and good for the people.

The basic idea that business must be controlled by law to protect the public is very old and very well understood. For example, there are laws requiring that corporations have a safe workplace for their employees. There are also laws that control how much pollution corporations may produce.

Cultural Pollution

But some types of pollution are not controlled at all. Corporations are free to produce as much as they want, even if it kills people. Cultural pollution is just as poisonous as physical pollution.

Some stats on exposure to media

the average child or adolescent watches an average of nearly 3 hours of television per day. That's only TV, not including other media like music. By the time the average person reaches age 70, he or she will have spent the equivalent of 7 to 10 years watching television.

32% of 2- to 7-year-olds and 65% of 8- to 18-year-olds have television sets in their bedrooms.

Young people see 10,000 violent acts each year.

By age 18, the average young person will have viewed an estimated 200,000 acts of violence on TV.

American media glamorizes guns. And the people who use guns often are not punished.

The idea that is shown most often in American media is that violence is a good way to solve problems. Heroes typically achieve results with violent action.

Each year, teenagers view nearly 15,000 sexual references. TV between 8 and 9 PM (prime time) contains more than eight sexual incidents per hour, more than four times as much as in 1976.

Denby

A few years ago the New Yorker magazine published an article called "Buried Alive" by a writer called David Denby.

Mr. Denby had two sons, aged 9 and 13. The title "Buried Alive" refers to what Denby saw happening to his two sons. Denby described what he called an "avalanche of crud."

Denby was saying that there was an "avalanche of crud" burying his two sons.

What do you think he was talking about?

Hint: Denby's article describes an "endless electronic assault that leaves obvious marks all over" a child.

Denby wrote that by the time children are five or six years old, they've been pulled by TV into the marketplace. They are on the way to becoming consumers ... instead of citizens.

Denby wrote that the sound of garbage, rubbish, is heard everywhere in America: "in the air and on the streets." He talked about the times when he feels furious:

I don't like the way my boys talk -- I don't like the way they think. The attitudes they've picked up, the profanity, the echo chamber of voices and attitudes.

Denby wrote that the "culture industries" -- the corporations that produce media entertainment -- use "armies of psychologists and market researchers to reach my children."

Denby wrote about the wish, the dream of parents and teachers. What is that dream? To help the child develop his own personality, his own nature, as he grows up. But, he wrote:

That dream is largely dead. In this country, people who have only one wish -- to sell something and make money -- have become far more powerful than parents.

Parents hate it; what about science?

Denby and many other parents hate the media and blame it for polluting their children's minds. Are they right? What have scientific studies of the effects of television found?

Think about it. The average American child, as he or she is growing up, watches hours of TV each day and sees 10,000 acts of violence every year. Many children watch over 5 hours each day. TV teaches that violence is good; that heroes are violent; that violence solves problems.

Teenagers are taught that they should smoke and drink alcohol if they want to have friends. If they smoke and drink, they can also have sex.

Teenagers.

[Mock pensive.] Does TV change the way young people think and behave?

The answer is so obvious, it is almost stupid to even ask the question.

So why doesn't everyone know the answer?

Again we come back to the extravagant, immense, limitless power of money in American society. There is so much money being made by the entertainment media, it's enough money to make 1+1=3; it's enough to make people fly by flapping their arms; it's enough to make George Bush speak perfect Mandarin Chinese.

Does TV change the way young people think and behave? Yes, science has found the answer. They have confirmed what many parents can easily see; they have found that what is obvious is also true.

Scientific and medical organizations have made many public statements; and they have spoken before the U.S. Congress -- the people who write the laws of the United States.

If there were not so much money being spent to fool Americans and hide the truth, maybe everyone would know it.

One of the earliest questions people have had about children watching TV was: does it make them more violent? Has science answered this question?

The American Academy of Pediatrics

Pediatricians are the specialized medical doctors who deal with children and infants. The American Academy of Pediatrics publishes a scientific journal called Pediatrics. Here are some of the things that have recently been written in the Academy's journal:

Violence

Over 1000 studies show that media violence causes aggressive behavior in some children.

The scientific literature on media violence shows that media violence causes real-life violence. As much as 10 to 20% of real-life violence may be the result of media violence.

Children quickly learn that violence is an acceptable solution for solving even complex problems.

Guns are one of the biggest causes of death for young people. But guns are still everywhere on prime-time television, in the movies, in video games, and in music lyrics. Shows that make guns more attractive, glamorous, or desirable create danger for both young people and adults. Shows like this are dangerous, unhealthy, and unethical.

Sex

Pediatricians also see patients with problems not caused by violence -- for example, diseases like AIDS that they can catch when they have sex in ways that are not safe. And they know that when a teenage girl becomes pregnant, it can harm her education and her entire career.

A 1985 report found that the United States has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the Western world; and that one of the causes was the wrong lessons young people are learning about sex from the media.

Tobacco

Tobacco is another major health issue that pediatricians are concerned about. The Pediatrics journal says:

Smoking cigarettes causes over 400,000 deaths per year in the United States. In 1988, teenagers spent $1.26 billion on tobacco. Approximately 2 million teenagers begin smoking cigarettes each year.

Alcohol

Alcoholic drinks are yet another "major health risk to American youth." According to Pediatrics:

In 1993, thousands of young people died in car crashes involving alcohol. Also, alcohol is involved in more than one quarter of teenage suicides and murders. Still, American children view nearly 2000 beer and wine commercials per year on television.

Alcohol advertising encourages young people to drink by showing they will have more friends, greater prestige, more fun, and greater sex appeal. And they suggest that without alcoholic beverages teens cannot have fun or be popular.

Advertising in general

As the Pediatrics journal reports,

selling products to American children is standard business practice. American children have viewed an estimated 360,000 advertisements on television before graduating from high school.

Tobacco manufacturers spend $6 billion per year, and alcohol manufacturers $2 billion per year, advertising to young people.

American advertising messages often make sexual suggestions to sell their products.

The American Psychological Association

Another organization of doctors pointing out the harm caused by media is the American Psychological Association. In 1992 they spoke to a committee of the U.S. Senate and said this:

There can no longer be any doubt that watching a lot of TV violence is one of the causes of aggressive behavior, crime and violence in society. The evidence comes from both the laboratory and real-life studies. Television violence affects youngsters of all ages, of both genders, at all socio-economic levels and all levels of intelligence.

Many studies, in many countries, have found there is a relationship between TV violence and aggression in children. These research results cannot be ignored.

Children's exposure to violence in the mass media, particularly at young ages, can have harmful lifelong consequences. Aggressive habits learned early in life are the foundation for later behavior. A study of boys found a significant relation between how much TV violence they saw when they were 8 years old, and violent crimes and spouse abuse 22 years later....

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The #1 agency in the U.S. government for protecting the health and safety of the American people is called the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). One of the things the CDC looks at is childhood homicide rates.

[Homicide = murder]

The childhood homicide rate is the percentage of children who are murdered, killed, in a given year.

The CDC calculated the homicide and suicide rates for each year from 1950 to 1993. The CDC found that in 1993, homicide rates were 3 times higher than in 1950.

Also, suicide rates were 4 times higher at the end of the period than at the beginning.

The numbers make it obvious: young Americans are much more likely today than in the past to die by murder or suicide.

This large social and cultural change took place in a period of only 40 years -- 1950 to 1993.

The CDC has also asked the question: how does the current homicide rate for children in the U.S. compare to the rate in other economically advanced countries? The CDC got recent data, numbers, from 25 other economically advanced countries. The numbers showed that the homicide rate for children in the United States is now five times higher than the average for the other 25 countries.

Even in dating -- when a boy and girl go out together -- violence is common in America. Rape is when a girl says No -- she does not want to have sex -- and when the boy forces her to have sex anyway because he is stronger. Rape is an ugly subject; but I will mention it to you here because of the incredible numbers, which show it's a big part of American culture.

The CDC asked female college students across the U.S. about their experiences. The CDC reports that 28% of them said that they had been raped, or that someone had tried to rape them, at least once since they were 14 years old. More than 1 in 4 female college students in the U.S. have experienced this kind of violence. Often it is not a stranger, but a friend or regular dating partner.

Not just acts; culture too

As we've seen, medical and scientific organizations have warned the public, and the U.S. Congress, that media is at least a partial cause of social problems that harm many Americans: violence; teenage pregnancy; cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking. But what about typical, normal people who are not murdered or raped; who do not smoke or drink, and who do not get hurt by drunk drivers? Are they harmed by the media too?

The answer is Yes. One of the clearest scientific findings about media violence is that it leads to a greater acceptance of violence as a solution to problems. Average people don't get killed or injured. But before the age of 18, they see 200,000 acts of violence on TV. And the science is clear that that changes their thinking; it changes their attitudes. And that means that the political attitudes of voters are affected also. America's violent media has certainly affected the policies of the American government.

Consider one statistic -- the change in young people's opinions on capital punishment.

For many years the UCLA has been measuring young people's opinions. Every year, they ask questions to over 100,000 university freshmen across the U.S. One of the questions is about capital punishment -- Is it right or wrong? Some people think the death penalty is wrong and should never be used by the government; other people believe capital punishment should sometimes be used.

In 1969, early in the television era, 50% of male freshmen thought capital punishment was wrong. But by 1990, only 19% believed it was wrong.

I believe that this is another effect of violent media. It doesn't just make some people commit violence themselves. It changes the entire culture -- and at the same time, the people's political attitudes.

Capital punishment is only one issue, but violent media has certainly affected social attitudes towards many social and political issues, such as police brutality, illegal drugs, prisons, welfare, and war.

Remember Bowling Alone? The huge, sudden drop in America's social capital between the 1960's and 1990's? What did Prof. Putnam find, after all his research?

Guess what caused the drop in social capital.

Let me quote an article Putnam wrote in 1996:

Why, beginning in the 1960s and accelerating in the 1970s and 1980s, did the fabric of American community life begin to wear out? Why are more Americans doing things alone and not with friends?

Why? The answer is television.

Television flashed into American society like lightning in the 1950s. In 1950 barely 10 percent of American homes had television sets, but by 1959, 90 percent did.

Why tolerated?

All right. To put it simply, there is a powerful monster raging through America. The monster has changed American culture; the culture today looks a lot more like the monster.

The monster's most direct victims are the most precious and vulnerable people in the country -- the children. The monster is evil; and it is widely recognized as evil. Doctors and scientists have warned the public many times; they've spoken to political leaders in Congress. Try searching "television" on the web and see how many books and reports and research studies and websites you will find. Here are some book titles you can quickly find on Amazon.com:

1. Amusing Ourselves to Death
2. Endangered Minds
3. Selling Out America's Children : How America Puts Profits Before Values
4. Mommy, I'm Scared : How TV and Movies Frighten Children
5. Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill

Why does the most powerful country on earth tolerate this monster in its midst? How can parents permit this monster to continue to harm its children?

The answer, again, brings us back to culture. It is the unbelievable power of culture to impose arbitrary beliefs and attitudes on people.

There is only one practical solution for America; only one way to stop the media monster.

How?

Just like I said before. What is the only force that can control business?

The government has to make it illegal. The cultural pollution being produced today, and the way it is made available to young people, has to be strictly regulated by law.

Censorship

Incredibly, American culture today has made the people blind to this one and only solution. The idea of government controlling entertainment is almost never seriously discussed, either on TV or magazines or newspapers. Why?

Somehow, most people in America strongly believe that this solution is un-American. Controlling the media through law is the obvious, direct way to stop the real and actual harm being done to children. But somehow they have come to believe that this solution is even worse than the disease. Americans have been taught to think of one word when this idea is proposed: censorship -- the control by government of the news, and of what people may write and say to each other. Censorship is connected with terrible, un-American things like ... Communism.

And censorship is impossible in America because, as Americans will proudly tell you, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the 200-year-old United States Constitution.

Americans are so excited, so feverish about free speech, they do not even make any distinction between free speech for people and free speech for corporations. Censorship is considered a terrible, obscene violation of human rights -- even if it's not a human being censored, but a corporation.

I told you a bit earlier about the Academy of Pediatrics: the many warnings they have given about the bad things media does to children; how wrong it is for TV to make young people love guns and alcohol and tobacco, when these are the very things that harm them. Do they believe the government should control TV?

No. Even the pediatricians think corporations should have unlimited rights to produce cultural pollution, no matter how much the pollution harms society. Here's what the Academy of Pediatrics says:

The Academy strongly opposes censorship. At the same time the Academy is greatly worried about the media. Therefore, the Academy recommends the following:

1. Pediatricians should talk to parents ....
2. Pediatricians should talk to teachers ....
3. Pediatricians should talk to the public ....
4. Pediatricians should talk to the people in the TV and music industries ....
5. Pediatricians should talk to music stars ....
6. There should be more scientific research ....

Isn't it sad ... that educated people, professional doctors and scientists, can be so blind to the urgent needs of their country?

Free Speech

Is it true that the U.S. Constitution makes censorship illegal? What is this free speech law exactly?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is part of the famous Bill of Rights, which was adopted in 1791. It states that "Congress shall make no law ... limiting the freedom of speech, or of newspapers." This central element of the U.S. Constitution is what Americans consider one of their major guarantees of political freedom. It allows anyone to freely criticize the government.

This is not just a theory. Newspapers often criticize the government very severely. In my English Newspaper Reading course at Tsinghua, one of the newspaper articles we have studied is a recent editorial, or opinion piece, written by a professor of Economics at MIT. His name is Paul Krugman, and he writes a regular column for the New York Times. The article is about the U.S. budget. The budget is the government's official plan for collecting money through taxes, and spending it on many public services. Prof. Krugman's article talks about how Congress is reporting the numbers, the dollars, to the public. His article is called "The Big Lie." He refers to members of the U.S. Congress as criminals committing fraud. He says if a private corporation's executives played tricks with numbers the way Congress is doing, they would be sent to jail. In fact, that's what he recommends: "Senator Breaux and Senator Baucus and the other senators who are their partners in crime should be sent to a low-security prison ... somewhere unpleasant."

A newspaper can write about the government's mistakes, or its dishonesty, or the corruption of any of its officials up to and including the President, and the government has no power to silence it. The idea of the First Amendment to the Constitution is that free discussion and debate leads to the truth; in the competition of ideas, the truth will win. And if the truth wins, Americans will make wise decisions in choosing their political leaders in free elections.

Somehow, most Americans today wrongly believe that this Constitutional protection of political liberty makes it legally impossible for the government to control the entertainment industry. Every child knows about the First Amendment -- "freedom of speech." And whenever there is even a suggestion by anyone of controlling what people may say, you will instantly see people jump up and say that censorship is wrong and unacceptable. This is part of the modern American culture.

The real Constitution

But this idea is totally false. Government control of the entertainment media would not violate the Constitution at all.

Can somebody tell me -- in the U.S. system of government -- who is the #1 authority on the meaning of the Constitution? --the #1 authority on what the Constitution really says?

Many decisions of the United States Supreme Court make it clear that speech is not totally, completely free. A 1942 decision of the Supreme Court states:

It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain types of speech which can be stopped and punished. Examples are: obscene speech, profanity, libel [telling lies that harm someone's reputation], and insults or 'fighting' words which can quickly cause injury or disturb the peace.

Words like this are not important to explain ideas; and even if they have some small social value in making the truth easier to see, that small value is clearly much less important than the importance of peace and morality.

We [the Supreme Court] have already written before that it is very important to protect the physical and psychological well-being of young people. This means the government can write laws to stop young people from hearing certain kinds of words, even if those words are protected by the Constitution when they are communicated only to adults.

Minow writes that "we" (Americans) have given up; we have stopped looking for solutions. The First Amendment does not make government control impossible, but we are ignoring this truth. And by accepting false arguments about the First Amendment, we have abandoned our children to the evils of the media.

Good government, he writes, "requires civic debate among free people. That is why we were given the First Amendment."

The media is a poison that has affected the entire culture and continues to harm children every day. The solution, government control, is the most obvious idea in the world. How is it possible that Americans never hear this idea even discussed?

Let's suppose I am making a huge mistake. Let's say the idea of government control is a terrible idea. Even if that is true, isn't it strange that you never hear people talking about this idea in America? Doesn't this seem impossible, in a society that has the First Amendment and free speech, in a society where the New York Times can publish articles saying top government leaders should be sent to jail?

The idea of controlling media is never talked about. You never hear it in America.

Tell me: how this is possible? How is this possible in a society that celebrates freedom of speech?

Censorship is here

The answer may be one of the greatest of ironies in American life.

Don't forget that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not really promise that any opinion may be heard. It only stops the government from controlling speech.

And don't forget that the media does not want to be controlled.

And don't forget one more very very important thing: the media industry does not deliver only entertainment.

What else does the media deliver besides entertainment?

Virtually all political news and debate that is heard by Americans also comes from the media.

Now, any idea why the idea of controlling media is never heard?

Here is one of the richest ironies in American life. The media is a monster -- hurting people, hurting children. Many Americans see this. But even those people say it would be wrong to control the media, because that would be censorship. And yet ... and yet ...

Yes! Censorship is already here. Except it's not the government controlling speech. It's the media. The media decides which words people may hear, and which they may not hear.

And the media does not want people to hear that controlling the media would be a good idea; and that controlling the media is not unconstitutional. Those opinions are bad for the profits of the media business. So the people cannot hear them.

At least, that's my theory. And it's also been suggested in the June/July, 2001 issue of American Psychologist, the journal of the American Psychological Association.

I noted above that the idea that the Constitution forbids government control of media is part of the American culture. But culture is always changing, and this is a new aspect of the culture. Back in the 1960's when TV was still new, people did not have this feeling that it would be wrong for the government to control TV. Back then, Senator John O. Pastore, chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, wrote a letter to Robert H. Finch, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). The letter said:

I am very troubled by the lack of clear information which would help answer the question of whether there is a ... connection between TV crime and violence and violent behavior by individuals, especially children....

His letter concluded by pointing out that his concern was with "our most valuable and trusted resource -- the minds and hearts of our young people."

Corruption of govt by media industry

What happened? Very briefly, this scientific investigation was corrupted by the TV industry, which again acted to protect its profits. Douglas A. Fuchs, the senior research coordinator for the investigation, stated that "the scientific independence of this study has obviously been subverted."

Dr. Murray, an officer at the National Institutes of Mental Health who also served as a research coordinator for the study, said that readers of the report get the impression that TV violence has almost no psychological effect on children. That impression, he told the New York Times, is "absolutely wrong."

Prof. Albert Bandura of Stanford University was one of the scientists whose research the Report was based upon. Speaking to Congress during its 1972 hearings on the Report, he said that the Report "demonstrates that the television industry is sufficiently powerful to control how research bearing on the psychological effects of televised violence is officially evaluated and reported to the general public."

This is America's disease. Even where the physical and mental well-being of children is concerned, money and business are stronger than the people. And when there is a contest, money and business win -- and the people lose.

How can minority defeat majority interests?

How can a minority of businessmen and capitalists control government, in a democratic society in which the people can choose the government that is best for them?

How could President Bush's top priority (before September 11) be a tax cut for the rich, in which the richest 1% got 37% of the cut?

The answer is money. Because without money, politicians cannot win elections. They need money to get votes. That is another major, central, and widely discussed problem, and again you can immediately find many references to this on the web: the election campaign financing system.

Congress has several times held debates about the problem of the campaign financing system, and how it is corrupting American politics. Several proposals have been made to fix the problem. In one recent debate in the Senate, Senator Feingold asked his colleagues: "Does anyone think the principle of one person/one vote means anything to anyone anymore if somebody can give a half million dollars to a politician? The system has turned Senators into beggars for huge contributions from corporations."

Senator McCain said: "It is now legal in America for a People's Liberation Army-owned corporation in China, with a subsidiary in the United States of America, to give unlimited amounts of money to an American political campaign." He said this is "a very serious challenge to our political system, as dangerous to our democracy as war and depression have been in the past. We politicians have ourselves to blame for the sickness in American public life today. We have failed to fix a campaign finance system that is really just a contest to win elections by selling the country to the highest bidder."

Senator Schumer said: "We have a poison that is in the roots of this great tree of democracy. If we don't fix this system, then we can't survive as a democracy. This is a debate that goes to the core of whether this Government will ultimately survive."

Democracy has been said to be America's strength. But when business interests clash with the public interest, democracy is America's great weakness.

The forces of business are hard at work in China. I see Chinese culture changing. Chinese people are adopting America's bad habits. You are eating bad American food -- McDonald's, KFC, potato chips, chocolate, ice cream. You are starting to drink coffee. On the Tsinghua campus, I see people working for corporations giving the students free potato chips and other junk food. There will soon be a McDonald's on the Tsinghua campus. And of course, if the entertainment media are not controlled, China will soon have the same media habits that Americans have today. And Chinese culture may quickly become much worse -- just as American culture has. Maybe you would not recognize Chinese culture if you could see it 20 years in the future.

China has adopted some of America's strengths. I hope, for the sake of the happiness, well-being and success of China and the Chinese people, that you will wake up and see the monster. And I hope you will be strong enough to say NO to big business, when what big business demands is harmful to the Chinese people.

See related article: Wrongdoing by American Mormons in China

The following statement, which was in the previous version of "American Culture -- A Warning for China," has been removed in the amended version above:

Four thousand years ago, in ancient Babylon, it was a crime, punishable by death, to sell anything to a child.

This relied on a statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics's Committee on Communications. The statement's opening paragraph reads:

Advertising is a powerful force in American culture. It exists to sell products and services. In 1750 BC the Code of Hammurabi made it a crime, punishable by death, to sell anything to a child without first obtaining a power of attorney. In the 199Os, selling products to American children has become a standard business practice.

However, the assertion about Hammurabi's Code of Laws is not warranted by anything I can find in the actual Code (English translation at http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm).

The AAP statement was published in the AAP's Pediatrics journal (February, 1995; Vol. 95, No. 2), as an article titled "Children, Adolescents, and Advertising." As of now it remains online (in PDF form) at http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;95/2/295.pdf.

I brought this to the attention of the AAP's Committee on Communications on September 16, 2005. They tell me it will be addressed at the committee's upcoming meeting in November, 2005. I will note their followup here.

I didn't hear back from the AAP, so I inquired again and got this reply from Carolyn Kolbaba, Director of the AAP's Division of Public Information, on Dec. 7:

Yes, the committee addressed your concerns. However, it continues to wind its way through an internal review process for further comment. We anticipate the statement to be published within the 12 months to come.