As we blow the annual candle -An immediate reaction to the 18th June 4 vigil

Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif did a classic social psychological study in the 1950s to show that group conflict can be effectively overcome by the need for cooperative attention to a higher superordinate—or, in plain English, common—goal. The Sherif’s demonstrated this by randomly setting up two conflicting groups of boys at a summer camp. The two groups were pretty quick to develop all sorts of prejudices and hostility against one another, as they engaged in different within-group and inter-group tasks. The “us vs them” mentality was very salient until the two groups had to collectively overcome a problem. The enemies became friends almost instantaneously.

Let's zoom forward in time. 18 years have passed since the massacre of Tiananmen Square. Tonight’s vigil was somber and moving as usual. I still have vivid memories of seeing and hearing those horrific gunshots and spackles that cut across in the dawning of June 4, 1989 on TV. I was eight. Ever since, I don’t recall a year when I didn’t do something to commemorate that fateful night when flesh and blood of young men and women covered the biggest open public space in the nation. The appreciation of the magnitude of the historical event became only much more greater as I grew and began to participate in civic movements. June 4 shall be a scar that reminds us the plight of those who suffered and are still suffering in China.

And yet the this year’s annual gathering at Victoria Park as well as the conversations I had with people soon after conveyed a couple of notable themes that might deserve our attention and suspicion.

Mr. Ma Lik (馬力) of the DAB made an outrageous comment a few weeks ago about his skepticism of the details of the June 4 as well as his discontentment about how it might be taught in schools with biases. The city immediately condemned the Legco member; hatred towards him was readily felt at tonight’s meeting of 55,000 people. While I was amused by the rhetoric used to slam Mr. Ma and his comrades (“馬力之流”), I was soon to be reminded how sensational the vigil was.

While a memorial service is meant to be emotional, this annual gathering, especially as time passes, also serves the function of educating the next generation so that they could take on the cause and continue to fight for democracy and liberty of the Chinese nation. In fact, this agenda was made rather clear throughout the night. Passing the sadness and burden and hatred and frustration down is good and necessary but what is perhaps equally important is providing a factual perspective for the younger generation—like the background of June 4, the chronological order of events, who said/did what, the verified facts according to available resources. If Mr. Ma has doubts about the degree of atrocity made that day and night, then let’s confront him and his comrades with facts and figures—however limited they may still be.

The earlier-mentioned Sherif’s Robbers’ cave experiment taught us that it is sometimes efficient just to create a common goal to unify people, even when they might not like each other. Applying this perspective, Mr. Ma is the convenient scapegoat and rebuking him is the superordinate goal. While this strategy—deliberate or not—may be effective in introducing or amplifying the sense of solidarity among participants, it is not particularly conducive to good education for the young ones.

What are we trying to teach them? While it is imperative to sustain the passion for June 4, it is equally important for us to teach the kids how to think and how to think about history and politics. While it is a noble thing to inherit a strong sense for justice and democracy and equality, it is also worthwhile to show our successors how to think critically for themselves, and how to question—especially the opinion of the majority. Essentially, I believe, people MUST process for him/herself why justice, democracy and equality/equity are desirable. Otherwise the outcome of any initiative would be futile and unconvincing.

I do not wish to come across as a sympathizer of Mr. Ma (in fact I have fantasies of how poorly he would be treated if he return to HK), I must say I can see why some people boycotted this year’s vigil because of its focus on attacking Mr. Ma. Sure, his act was insensitive, inconsiderate and just blatantly stupid (politically and otherwise). But it is totally another issue to use that as catalyze for social cohesion and education. What China’s democracy needs is not just a large group of pissed off slogan chanters (and yet I’ll be first to admit that I’m proud of being one), but also a generation that is bold enough to question, to engage in checks and balances, even when the questions might be unpopular and uncool.

It is of little doubt that a new generation of social activists and socially and political conscious citizens is in much demand, especially in the endeavor of democratizing China. While a picture with a clear friend and enemy distinction would make life much easier, we should not shy away from appreciating and dealing with the complexity and gray areas. Because more likely than not the "bad guys" are not purely bad and the "good guys" are not 100% good. And that's why humans are interesting.

Christian Chan
June 5, 2007
Hong Kong