Six Questions, Washington Babylon — March 2, 2010, 1:28 pm

Six Questions for Peter Hessler About Driving in China

Peter Hessler is a staff writer at the New Yorker, where he served as Beijing correspondent from 2000 to 2007. Harper Collins just released his latest book, Country Driving, which chronicles the past nine years of his experience living, writing and, most of all, driving in China. My colleague Spencer Woodman recently asked him six questions about his new book. This interview was edited for length and clarity.

1. You talk about a pervasive internal turmoil felt by modern Chinese people. What is the cause of this?

When outsiders look at China, the instinct is to think about it politically, and there’s this deep interest in China’s political situation, and whether it’s going to change, which has a lot to do with the Communist Party being in charge. The longer I lived in China, the less impressed I was by that type of turmoil—it’s a very stable place politically.

But I did feel that, internally, people were very unsettled; the biggest source of turmoil is definitely emotional and personal. It comes from having so many new challenges and having their environment change so dramatically. You have all of these people—140 million—that have just left the countryside. And even people who haven’t left their former homes have seen their neighborhoods and cities radically transformed. Their opportunities are radically different from the past, and the challenges they face are radically different. All of that puts pressure on people. In the material sense, things have improved enormously. But despite that, it’s not true that everybody’s happier, which is something that I think is inevitable when a place moves so quickly.

2. You sometimes refer to Chinese “peasants” and sometimes to “farmers.” What’s the difference?

When the term needs to capture the sense of how these people are looked upon by the city folk, I’m more likely to use “peasant.” And when I’m trying to do it in a more functional way, I try to use “farmer.” That’s what I decided for this book. Maybe it’s an imperfect solution. A lot of it has to do with the fact that these are people who don’t own their land; it would be a strain to say it’s a feudal system, but there are elements of that. They are treated very differently in the legal sense. They dress differently and their skin is darker from working outside. Their hands are rough; they wear very simple clothes; they wear military surplus uniforms—these are all things that Chinese people notice. But there is a real legal issue for them, and their legal designation is quite different. Their relationship to the land is really dated. They don’t own their land, and they can’t sell it.

3. You describe rural Chinese people’s contact with urban life as “disorienting.” How do you mean this?

In the village, it meant having increased contract with cities like Huairou or Beijing, where they would go to do business or to make new contacts or buy things that they needed. Or having city people come into the village. This is disorienting in many ways, sometimes good and sometimes bad. For example, for Cao Chunmei, the wife of the family I write about in the village—contact with city people ended up making her religious. She took an interest in Buddhism set up a shrine, and that was directly because of hearing city people talk about religion. Her husband responded in a much different way, and became more materialistic, more focused on appearing like a city person. It puts pressure on everybody to try to figure out how to fit into this new economy, and how to make the transition from countryside to city.

4. The experience—both hilarious and terrifying—of driving in China underlies the book. Tell us about China’s relationship with the automobile.

It’s a massive change and symbolic in the sense of this whole issue of learning new things, which is one of the big stories about this new generation in China. Cars serve quite different functions in China. I don’t know anyone in China who doesn’t use public transport. Even if they do buy a car, they will still be using public transport for a lot of things generally. Whereas in the States, I know lots of people that don’t use public transport at all, because we live in areas that just don’t have it. So in the end it serves a different function—driving is always more of an optional thing in China. It’s not so much that you need it to live in the suburbs. In the end, you’re not going to have a situation where every Chinese family has two cars. I think it’s logistically and economically impossible. But driving has become very important for their economy, and the government has certainly encouraged it.

Driving itself is totally chaotic. They have training courses that I describe in the book where the people who are teaching people how to drive don’t know how to drive themselves—it’s the blind leading the blind. There’s also a section in the book where I describe that people drive the way they walk; they do it instinctively. They don’t really use turn signals and they rely heavily on automobile body language—you just look at the car ahead of you and if it’s inching a little to the left, maybe it’s about to make a turn. It’s a type of directed chaos, and it is dangerous.

5. Country Driving is filled with emptying rural villages. What will countryside look like in 10-20 years?

It’s hard to imagine because right now you just don’t meet young people who want to stay in the villages. We’re going to continue to see this out-migration. China had something like 900 million farmers in 1978 when the reforms started. You just don’t need that many farmers. They were working tiny plots of land where labor was underutilized, so, in economic terms, it’s inevitable and probably a good thing. When you talk to experts, what they would like to see is farms becoming specialized and consolidated so that you still have people farming but they end up with bigger plots because everybody else has left. When you have bigger plots of land it’s more efficient, instead of all of these small areas divided by footpaths and other delineations. That’s the thinking, but the reality is that the land-use laws often keep that from happening. Before we know what the countryside is going to look like in the future, we need to know how that question is going to be resolved—the whole issue of whether people in the countryside can buy and sell land.

6. Your descriptions of child labor and exploitative working conditions in Chinese factories seem almost outweighed by your excitement for China’s new opportunities for upward mobility. Have sweatshops been good for China?

Well, I wouldn’t call them sweatshops because that’s a loaded term. I would call them factories or workshops. Those jobs have given people a lot more mobility. When I drive through villages, I tend to feel a lot of nostalgia for these places, but, as I acknowledge in the book, these were very poor communities, and young people often felt trapped and didn’t have many options.

I describe these young girls who are working in these factories—and in some ways, it’s awful—they’re 15 years old and doing very basic assembly line work, but you see them really gaining in confidence. After following them for a couple of years, they really are different people in a way they wouldn’t have been if they if they were still in school, which makes you reevaluate your assumptions. That’s not to downplay all the terrible things that happen, and all of the exploitation that’s definitely a part of it—it’s a pretty unregulated system. There are a lot of laws, but they are often not enforced. It’s not what we would consider to be a fair system, but it’s highly functional. What that means is that everybody knows what’s going on. They know the rules. They know what it takes to advance and they can see opportunities for advancement.

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Pushing the Limit·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the early Eighties, Andy King, the coach of the Seawolves, a swim club in Danville, California, instructed Debra Denithorne, aged twelve, to do doubles — to practice in the morning and the afternoon. King told Denithorne’s parents that he saw in her the potential to receive a college scholarship, and even to compete in the Olympics. Tall swimmers have an advantage in the water, and by the time Denithorne turned thirteen, she was five foot eight. She dropped soccer and a religious group to spend more time at the pool.

Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner

Cost of a baby-stroller cleaning, with wheel detailing, at Tot Squad in New York City:

$119.99

Australian biologists trained monitor lizards not to eat cane toads.

Trump tweeted that he had created “jobs, jobs, jobs” since becoming president, and it was reported that Trump plans to bolster job creation by loosening regulations on the global sale of US-made artillery, warships, fighter jets, and drones.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today