How should we reflect upon the pandemic's spread? 

by Ip Iam-chong

Dr. Yuen Kwok-yung and Dr. David Lung recently co-wrote an article entitled "This pandemic originated in Wuhan, the lessons of seventeen years ago have been completely forgotten" published by Ming Pao. Facing immediate backlash, the pair announced the article's withdrawal. French scholar Jon Solomon may have responded the most strongly. He asserted the pair’s claim that “the Wuhan New Coronavirus is a product of the inferior culture of the Chinese" and their [Chinese] unbridled hunting and consumption of wild animals as the source of the virus constitutes "colonial racism". However, he did not stop there. He started an online petition [note 1] calling for the President of the University of Hong Kong [HKU] to publicly explain the extent and basis of HKU's support for Yuen. The petition also asked for a panel to investigate Yuen and reconsider his appointment at the university. It drew the ire of many Hong Kong netizens who promptly refuted Solomon and, in turn, demanded that French universities launch their own investigation on him.

In his petition, Solomon stated, "Those with a knowledge of modern Chinese history since the 19th century recognize that the discourse of 'inferior root stock national character' is indelibly marked with the history of colonial racism." He was likely referring to the history of Western imperialist powers forcibly dividing China, as well as the racism in Western countries against Chinese people. It is not entirely unreasonable to put Yuen and Lung in this historical context and link them to the current racism experienced by Chinese people in foreign countries. However, Solomon failed to see the other side of the discourse. Many Chinese readers (and I asked many friends) see Yuen and Lung's claim of the "inferior culture of the Chinese" as common cultural self-criticism within the context of modern Chinese history. Of course, theirs was an abridged version because they were not discussing cultural issues; the duo's focus was on Chinese people who hunt and eat wild game. Ever since the May Fourth Movement, Lu Xun and others have lashed out against Chinese nationalism. In my youth, Bo Yang’s "The Ugly Chinaman" was also quite popular. Perhaps by Solomon's standards, they would also be racists.

University investigation into either Yuen or Solomon would bring harm

Let us consider Yuen's background. He is not only an epidemiologist heavily relied upon by the SAR government, but also an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, and among the panel of experts within China's National Health Commission. There is no reason to believe that he would be a racist of the occidental sort, a critic of Chinese mainlanders or a supporter of the idea that "Hong Kong is not China”. Even if his writing is suspected of being racist, it could be a rhetorical issue or unintentionally conveyed. This could be analyzed, critiqued and discussed. No one can stop Solomon from labelling Lu Xun or followers of anti-traditionalists of Chinese culture as racists, however there is no need escalate his complaints to the university.

Of course, Solomon would disagree with my reasoning. Maybe he thinks that Chinese people like me internalise our colonial past and are in denial of our self-racism. In fact, many of his peers share this opinion of Hongkongers. An example is Alain Brossat, a French scholar. Regarding last year's Anti-ELAB Movement, he asserted that Hongkongers were Chinese people who approved of their colonisers more than their own people [note 2]. While I disagree, I believe his point can be discussed. However, escalating the issue to the point of investigating a university professor, be it Yuen or Solomon, is not only unnecessary but harmful. I do not know how French universities work but the ones in China and Hong Kong have seen many professors subject to political pressure or even fired. Although I doubt that anyone would dare to investigate a senior professor like Yuen for this, it is generally in poor taste to investigate a university teacher and their employment just because of their public opinions. To do so sets up a bad precedent.

Solomon and the hundreds of signatories to his petition probably believed that their complaints would go through some structure of authority to be settled, ignoring the social climate and the legitimacy of the university's management to be unfettered by politics. But the appointment of university presidents and council members in Hong Kong has always been politically controversial. Some have argued that the Chief Executive has too much power in the process and that it lacks transparency. There have been requests to investigate and confirm its justification. I try not to use conspiracy theories to understand the reasoning of Solomon and like-minded individuals. I think they are trying to stand by their convictions and abide by anti-imperialist and anti-racist principles like they would laws. This must be why they insist on a clear judgement no matter what!

Agamben criticises Italy's counter-epidemic measures as too strict, inciting controversy

Per Solomon's judgmental will and thought process, other interpretations of the Yuen and Lung duo's discourse is superfluous, only their condemnation is acceptable. This reminds me of another scholar who became embroiled in controversy over the epidemic, Giorgio Agamben, an Italian philosopher.

For more than a decade, Agamben criticised the nation's sovereign power and the normalisation of the "state of exception”[note 3]. He introduced concepts like "bare life" that received acclaim among European, American and even East Asian philosophical circles. He recently published an article in Il Manifesto [note 4] criticising the Italian government's counter-epidemic measures. He claimed that COVID-19 was no more serious than the common flu and that the government declared a state of emergency disproportionate to the actual dangers. The aim was to strengthen control over its citizens by creating a climate of panic and suspending daily life. He further pointed out that people sacrificing their public and social lives for "bare life" was a dangerous path.

In Europe, where the epidemic worsened by the day, these comments drew much criticism and response. The most interesting was a brief one from Agamben’s friend and fellow scholar, the renowned Jean-Luc Nancy [note 5] from France. He said Agamben mistook the basic empirical fact that the coronavirus spreads much faster and is more lethal than the normal flu. He also used a personal anecdote to mock Agamben for being "off-target". He recounted that many years ago when he had heart disease and the doctors decided that he needed a heart transplant, Agamben surprisingly advised against it. Nancy humorously said, if he had paid heed, he would have left the world long ago!

Another young philosopher, Anastasia Berg, also responded in the bluntly entitled "Giorgio Agamben’s Coronavirus Cluelessness”[note 6]. Her perspective was actually not as offensive as her title. She also believed that calling attention to Agamben's theories was not wrong and conceded that solely preserving ourselves biologically does not make life worth living. However, Agamben never truly saw the situation for what it was. His intellectual habit ignored our loved ones, especially the old and vulnerable. Just as he did not see the severity of his friend Nancy's illness, his paranoia held him steadfast against medical technology. Citing the cancellation of her wedding due to the epidemic as an example, Berg said she was not making sacrifices for the sake of anyone’s mere survival. Rather, she feared losing her loved ones, especially her ageing [partner’s] father, whom she hoped her future children would meet. 

Likewise, many people are willing to accept a temporary state of emergency to protect their kin, friends and members of the community. In the real world, a sovereign power’s decree to live a “bare life” stands against the principles of humanity. In the face of the epidemic and state of emergency, it is not just about compliance and resignation, there can be multiple meanings and possibilities. People do not intend to submit to the state of emergency unconditionally and indefinitely. Rather, the wish is to create a better social and ethical life [i.e. Agamben's qualified life].

Thinkers clinging to their theories become semantics police

In a world where hopes for revolution or even reform are lost, many intellectuals have become anxious and disheartened in the face of the complex reality. These thinkers settle on using the theories they desperately cling to as law to judge various aspects of the world. Unwittingly, the originally enthusiastic thinker becomes the police of semantics. Yet, he views himself as a brave fighter of the resistance.

As a reminder, Agamben's critique of sovereign power and Solomon's anti-imperialism and anti-racism are both worthy of attention. However, it is all the more important that we see how compassion for one another creates meaning amid this great crisis. Criticism should make way for hope to take root rather than sink into melancholy and emptiness. Hope should flourish from practice and intention. Many years ago, I read a book by the famous sociologist C. Wright Mills, entitled "The Sociological Imagination". One of its most profound passages warned that we need to escape the confines of syntax and understand the richness of semantics. I see people stuck in structure and history but still strive and struggle to cross beyond it. I think this hope is shared among the many who self-isolate or try to stay home.

Source: https://m.mingpao.com/pns/副刊/article/20200329/s00005/1585420246614/周日話題-在疫症蔓延時該如何思考

Notes: 

1. Solomon's petition: https://www.change.org/p/president-s-office-university-of-hong-kong-call-on-hku-to-investigate-and-condemn-colonial-racism

2. Brossat's article: https://www.storm.mg/article/1908012

3. State of Exception (2005) by Agamben explores how, in times of crisis, governments increase their power and suspend certain laws. This power can be abused or prolonged to become a new "normal" over time.

4. Agamben's article: http://positionswebsite.org/giorgio-agamben-the-state-of-exception-provoked-by-an-unmotivated-emergency/

5. Nancy's article (Viral Exception): http://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/coronavirus-and-philosophers/

6. Berg's article: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Giorgio-Agamben-s/248306