A WISEMAN SAID:
CHINA’S APPROPRIATION OF “POSITIVE ENERGY”
Few non-Chinese can claim the odd distinction of having forged a favoured political catchphrase of the Chinese Communist Party. But British psychologist Richard Wiseman may have done just that, thanks to the 2012 publication of his self-help book Rip It Up, rendered in Chinese translation as Positive Energy.
“Positive energy,” or zhengnengliang (正能量), is now at the very heart of political discourse in the Xi Jinping era, having direct implications for media and Internet control, and extending to international diplomacy and other areas as well.
Delivering the keynote speech to the Fifth China-UK Internet Roundtable in September 2013, China’s cyber-security czar, Lu Wei, doffed his hat to Richard Wiseman as he noted that “positive energy” had topped the list of popular new catchphrases for the year. “The phrase ‘positive energy,’” said Lu Wei, “has acquired extra levels of meaning in China today.”
Indeed it has.
And Lu Wei, the director of the powerful Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) — under the Xi Jinping led Central Leading Group for Cyberspace Affairs — has played a critical role in conferring these “extra levels” of meaning.
The first public use of positive energy as part of the Communist Party’s mainstream political discourse came one year ahead of Lu Wei’s roundtable address in London, when he served as minister of propaganda for the city of Beijing. At a discussion forum on September 3, 2012, called “There is a Spirit Called the Beijing Spirit,” Wang Danyan (王丹彦), deputy section head of the Propaganda Management Division of what was then still SARFT (now merged with the General Administration of Press and Publications), voiced her approval of a TV drama called Beijing Youth (北京青年), saying dramas of its kind “transmit positive energy to society.” The need to spread positive energy as a matter of propaganda policy was a central theme of that forum, where Lu Wei, who would soon rise to a new and powerful post as head of the CAC, was the most senior official present.
Lu Wei’s London speech a year later was called “Liberty and Order In Cyberspace.” Quoting from World Wide Web founder Tim Berners-Lee (“This is for everyone”) and from George Bernard Shaw (who once said “the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship”), Lu cut straight from the privilege of liberty to the imperative of order:
The famous writer George Bernard Shaw once said: “Liberty means responsibility.” I think I can also say “Liberty means order.” The two are closely linked, as liberty is the aim of order and order is the safeguard of liberty. Liberty cannot exist without order. Where there is no order, there is no liberty. The more we seek liberty, the more we need order. The essence of order is exactly that it is “for everyone.”
When he says “order,” Lu Wei of course means control. And control is to be achieved through a campaign of “positive energy.”
The devilish genius of “positive energy” is the way it seems more spiritual than ideological, as though it isn’t about exercising control over the minds of the population so much as engaging in a national project of self-help. Translated overseas, the phrase becomes almost touchy-feely, a saccharine expression of everyone’s fondest hopes. Here is Lu Wei in London once again:
“Positive energy is meant to give people confidence and hope, encourage people to love their country, society and life, as well as to pursue nice things. Everything we do is ultimately for the sake of spreading positive energy. Positive energy knows no boundaries. If everyone were to spread positive energy on the Internet, the world would be a much better place.
Tomorrow, China will host its second World Internet Conference (WIC), actively promoting its vision of cyber-sovereignty as it dangles the fat carrot of its domestic Internet market before global tech firms. Lu Wei and Xi Jinping will no doubt speak again about the imperative of order and freedom, of the restraints needed to save us from ourselves.
“Freedom is our goal; order is our means,” Lu Wei said at his pre-WIC press conference last week.
Behind the feel-good vibe, of course, this is all about control. And “positive energy” is core to the strategy of control. The following passage from a recent article in Guangming Daily, published by the Central Propaganda Department, allows us to see just how ideological this concept actually is, marking the intensity of Xi Jinping’s struggle against all dissident voices on the Internet:
[We must] focus on our grasp of the “online army” programme. This means that with the demand of “consolidating and expanding the [pro-Party] red zone (红色地带), transforming the [unaligned] grey band into red band territory, and courageously engaging in struggle within the black band (黑色地带)” , [we must] build a powerful “online army” that we can utilise, winning the online battle for public opinion . . .
The characterisation of unwelcome viewpoints in the online sphere as “the black band” is chillingly reminiscent of ideological struggles in the Chinese Communist Party’s past.
How will the Party win this “battle for public opinion”? Among other tactics, such as the expansion of “online news commentary groups’ (网评专家组), achieving these goals, says the Guangming Daily, would necessitate “developing and strengthening teams of [pro-Party] Internet commentators (网评员) online . . . and creating a new matrix of “online armies” (网军) that could concentrate positive energy online.”
As we’ve been saying for some time now, “positive energy” is a Party catchphrase to watch — not only for its mobilisation in the arena of press and Internet control, but also for the way it strikes a different tone among CCP terminologies.
For more on this catchphrase we direct you to a recent piece by former China Media Project fellow Zhang Ming (张鸣), a professor at Renmin University of China. In tracing the origins of the super-popularity of “positive energy,” Zhang goes back to the 2012 film Beijing Blues, which is possibly indebted to Wiseman’s book.
What is This “Positive Energy”?
By Zhang Ming
Who came up with the phrase “positive energy” I don’t know. But the phrase getting hot goes back to a Zhang Lixian film called Beijing Blues, in which his character says “positive energy” over and over again — and that’s how its popularity took off. Of course, anyone who knows the rudiments of physics knows that energy doesn’t give a hoot about positive or negative, that it’s all about where energy goes or is induced. But when people in the arts use such a term it has a kind of infectious simplicity about it, and it goes right to the heart.
However, this term having now become popular, we find that the Party and government, and those closely aligned with them, are especially fond of using this term too. they open their mouths or shut them, and it’s all about positive energy.
Originally, the notion of positive energy was directed in our minds toward light, sunshine, love and decency. So a play, or a novel, so long as it made one feel a sort of warmth, we could say it was full of positive energy. Now, however, as use of the term has become habitual, we find its meaning has changed its flavour.
So-called positive energy now denotes patriotism, love for the government, love for the Party. It even bears along with this the sense of opposing Japan, opposing America and opposing the West. Articles, or posts on Weibo, no matter what the content, even if they are nothing more than abusive name-calling, are considered positive energy as long as they have this flavour. Some people make the most outlandish claims online, saying that the United States has no forced demolition because it massacred all of the native Americans, that the French president’s dining budget runs to 96 million euros, that US President Barack Obama and his family spend four million dollars each time they dine together, or that Obama’s mobile costs 27 million dollars. But because all of these statements suit the demand that we love the Party, the government and the country, and that we oppose Japan, America and the West, they all pass the positive energy test.
Positive energy having evolved to this point, we are now in a state of confusion as to what exactly is positive and what is wicked. Even if it were true that the American and French presidents were unpardonably evil, that they were the chieftains of imperialism, we can’t just throw mud indiscriminately, can we? If the definition of political correctness makes allowances for wild rumourmongering, if the ends justify the means anda all is fair however foul, how do we think the people of the world will view this country of ours?
The authorities, perhaps, have seen the situation prevailing online and feel that their own image is too lamentable, that there is too much praise for South Korea, Japan, America and the West. They imagine articles leaning in a different direction, that can be written in such a way as to suit the online style and earn approving eyes, and that they might, if energetically promoted, bring some balance or even turn the tide of public opinion in their favour. For the authorities, this is a kind of Operation Rescue, and there is no time to consider its implications more carefully.
But this term, “positive energy,” has been utterly befouled. It has become a political correctness utterly devoid of principle. And as a direct consequence people not only hold the concept itself in low regard, but beyond this look down on the authorities themselves, who have seen fit to elevate [online propagandists] like Zhou Xiaoping (周小平) so solemnly. The inference people draw from this is that the authorities have a weak capacity, insofar as they are incapable of finding writers of better quality.
Actually, in most places in the world, when people talk about positive energy they mean pretty much the same thing — those things that warm our hearts like a ray of sunshine. In any country in the world, regardless of its political system, regardless of the complexion of its people, love is something invariable. Without love, there is no positive energy. To politicise positive energy, and to uphold as champions of positive energy a group of hacks who will say anything in the pursuit of political correctness — this might deceive fools who lack any basic common sense, but the losses ultimately outweigh the gains.
In the end, public opinion cannot be swayed by the lowliest of fools. They are credulous and fickle. And never in history have they won the day.
