Colin Mackerras, Senior Researcher of Asia & International Trade Institute of Australian Griffith University, chairman of Australia-China Friendship Association:"Tibetan Culture:Change, Survival, Prosperity"

There has been a great deal of controversy recently over the survival of Tibetan culture. Indeed, in a formal speech before the British Parliament in London in July 1996 the Dalai Lama charged the Chinese with practising cultural genocide against the Tibetans, by which he meant that they are actually trying to stamp out Tibetan culture. In this talk I argue that this charge is totally false and irresponsible. I argue that there is a complex relationship between traditional cultures and modernization, and that modernization and economic development lead to cultural change. I also argue that, contrary to what the Dalai Lama claims, the Chinese government has actively promoted Tibetan culture and looks set to continue dong so. However, modernization may weaken some aspects of traditional culture, so there is need to support Tibetan culture. This is why I commend the holding of a forum like the present one and also support the work of the China Association for Preservation and Development of Tibetan Culture (CAPDTC). This talk does not define culture but examples will be taken mainly from religion and the performing arts.

Although in the 1950s Mao Zedong (1893-1976) showed considerable sympathy for Tibetan culture, the Cultural Revolution came down hard on all traditional cultures in China. All cultures were severely affected, including those of the Han people. However, the impact on Tibetan culture was particularly severe, partly because of the connection between the Dalai Lama and separatism and partly because of the Tibetans’ strong adherence to religion.

During the 1980s, traditional cultures revived all over China, including in the Tibetan areas. Although the government was always very clear that it would not tolerate the use of religion for any attempts to undermine the state, it supported the revival of traditional cultures. I recall visiting Tibet in 1985, and being struck by the strength of Tibetan cultural revival and survival, and note that even at that time, the Dalai Lama and his supporters were accusing the Chinese of trying to destroy Tibetan culture.

Separatist disturbances in Tibet between 1987 and 1989, including the imposition of martial law in Lhasa from March 1989 to May 1990 together with the fact that the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Prize at the end of 1989, increased tensions between China and the West over Tibet. Supported by some Tibetan émigrés, Western “free Tibet” groups intensified separatist activities and charges of the destruction of Tibetan culture.

I visited Tibet three times after 1985, in 1990, 1997 and 2002, and also Tibetan areas in Gansu, Qinghai, Yunnan and Sichuan. I saw many signs of actives traditional Tibetan culture and believe the accusations of these groups to be unfair and irresponsible. One of many examples was in the summer of 1995, when I attended a traditional festival in rural Qinghai, which I came across quite by chance. I saw traditional dancing both by men and women, as well as a traditional religious ritual. This was one of many factors that persuaded me that not only was Tibetan culture not dying out, but that it was quite prosperous and had the active support of Chinese government authorities.

One of the chief areas of accusations against China concerning Tibetan culture is in the field of religion. It is widely known that Tibetan Buddhism is a very strong part of Tibetan culture. During all my visits to Tibetan areas, I have been struck by the strength of religion at all levels. Official figures claim that the number of monks and nuns in the Tibet Autonomous Region was about 34,000 in 1992, rising to 46,000 monks and lamas by 2000. However, I believe that the number may actually be higher than the official estimates. This is because quite a few boys enter the monastic order on a semi-official or unofficial basis. In western Sichuan I heard from several independent sources that about one in five young Tibetan men enter the clerical order. I remember going early in 1997 to a remote village in western Sichuan, picked at random, where a young man was proposing to remain a monk all his life and has set up a mini-monastery in one of the rooms of the house.

However, it is important to note that modernization and globalization affects all traditional cultures in many was, and of course that includes Tibetan. Modernization changes traditional cultures, and often weakens them in many ways, but does not necessarily destroy them. To take but one example, in England, Anglican Christianity was once very powerful and very much part
of English culture. It is still part of English culture, but secularization and modernization have greatly weakened Christianity. There are still thousands of old churches in England, but the number of people who attend them or believe in Christianity is much less than it was. I actually do not expect Tibetan Buddhism to decline to this extent in the foreseeable future, but it may weaken as modernization gathers momentum. It seems to me hardly fair to accuse the Chinese of stamping out Tibetan Buddhism if it weakens under the impact of modernization any more than it is fair to accuse the English authorities of destroying Christianity.

Socialism uprooted some of the worst aspects of traditional Tibetan culture, such as the serf system, and though that may have affected the relationships within society, it is hardly equivalent to suppression of culture. Modernization has probably changed Tibetan values and society in general as much as socialism. It has altered the priorities that people hold about life and made the traditional religion less important in society than it once was. The education system has changed drastically from a narrowly based, religiously focused system to an almost universal and comprehensive one which is entirely secular, including religion only to the extent that it is part of

Tibetan culture. This inevitably affects religion and the arts. The focus is more on contemporary society than it was. I personally support a secular education system, which by the way has been adopted in virtually all modernized countries.

One of the reasons why modernization weakens traditions is because of television and other modern forms of communication. These tend to spread a globalized, modernized and sinicized culture. Although there are programs in Tibetan language, they are not much different in content from what one finds elsewhere in China. Change takes place much faster in the cities than the rural areas. This applies everywhere, including in Tibet.

However, even while affirming the changes in Tibetan culture, what strikes me most strongly is not the weakness of Tibetan culture, but its strength. It may be partly because Tibetan society remains so rural. In the villages, the traditional performing arts are still very strong. The artistic life of the people depends much more on the old customs than in the cities. Even though television is spreading in the rural areas of Tibet and the Tibetan areas, it is much less widespread in the countryside than in the cities. It is my impression that in general traditional arts, religion and culture are actually somewhat stronger among the Tibetans than the Han.

Finally, I argue that we should support the good elements of Tibetan culture. We should support the traditional religion, provided it is not used for anti-social and anti-state purposes, as well as the traditional Tibetan arts. It seems to me that the work of the CAPDTC is very much directed towards this end and I hope it will make many achievements in protecting, expanding and supporting Tibetan culture within context of modernization in a way that does not disrupt Tibetan society or the Chinese state.

Colin Mackerras, Senior Researcher of Asia & International Trade Institute of Australian Griffith University, chairman of Australia-China Friendship Association

Oct.10,2006