Rhetoric and my Taiwanese girlfriend....

Okay, so how's that for a title? I knew this was going to be long, so I turned it into my "what i've learned this semester" blog. Enjoy:

Well, I hate to get personal in a blog, but it's pertinent (the subject, not my candor). I'll try to keep the sappiness to a minimum.

Background: I studied in Angers, France for six months last year; met a pretty girl from Taiwan; we kept in touch; things "blossomed"; I surprised her (and myself) and went to Paris (she lives there now) at the last minute for a week over Christmas break; badda-bing badda-boom; we have long conversations in French every day that none of my friends can understand; and I'm moving back to Paris after graduation.

Everyone thinks it's like a movie, how cute.

Okay, so I didn't know much of anything about Taiwan when I first went to France. Turns out, they've had this little problem with China for several decades (I've brought it up a couple of times in the blog/class I think) and China is now said to have over 500 to 700 missiles pointed across the Straights of Taiwan. Occassionally they just toss one in the middle of the Straight to keep everyone on edge.

There's a lot more, but I could write book on it (there are plenty already, I'm sure)....

Anywho, that FREAKS me out. Seriously.

Moving on.

Two weeks ago, my girlfriend, Fanfan (I have this stigma about saying her name to people....yes, it's a funny sounding Chinese name) went home for a couple of weeks to get a VISA to come to NY for a while (another long story made really short: because of Taiwan's precarious position, it's not as easy for Taiwanese people to travel as, say, Americans). While she was there, China basically put into writing what it had been saying for the last several decades, most notably that China reserved the right to "non-peaceful means" of stopping Taiwan from declaring independence.

So that FREAKED me out even more. I read all of the articles, listened to NPR, and I was convinced that my "petite amie," her family, her friends, etc. were going to be vaporized and there was nothing I could do about it.

That's a pretty crappy feeling, let me tell you.

Yet, when I talk to her about, it's she who calms me down, and not the other way around. Her reason: it's all rhetoric. She said that it's a bunch of sensationalism and empty words.

That's not to say nothing will come of it. For instance, yesterday, two days after she'd gone back to Paris, several hundred thousand people gathered in the capital city of Taipei (where Fanfan is from) to protest the new Chinese law.

But, the way she looks at it, China needs Taiwan (they're pretty prosperous right now from what I understand), and Taiwan could never beat China's military force (China is actually becoming very powerful economically as well). In this situation, it's just a bunch of empty talk.

The plot thickens: right now, Europe wants to lift arms sanctions on China (i.e. start selling arms to China again) while the US has vowed to protect Taiwan if they are attacked by China. Imagine that web....

Okay, what's my point? Well, I think this (from what I understand of it) is a perfect example of how rhetoric can either be used completely eneffectively or as a veil for something else. We said that rhetoric was the art of using words to persuade others, right? Well, perhaps the rhetoric that's being used is meant to do exactly the opposite of what it "says" its doing. Does that make sense? Like saying the opposite of what you mean, so that everyone knows what you "mean."

Therefore, using our readings, think of what Habermas (who seems to have been in Taiwan in 2002, http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2001/08/23/99765 ) said about the telos and all humans' innate ability to comprehend that, essentially all societies have a telos and people can evaluate their progress based on their accomplishment of that end. Well, in that sense, neither the Chinese declaration of sovereignty nor the Taiwanese declaration have accomplished their ultimate goal (obviously).

Yet, moreso, Habermas (and Burke) focus a lot on images and their uses in society. Habermas has great reservations about patriotism and the facility of using images to rally people. (See http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/066649.html ). This is much like Burke's "Tyranizing images" (or was that Toulmin/Weaver?)

Fanfan believes in large part, the rhetoric from Taiwan is based on pride. In a country that has its own government, it's own money, liberty, and a successful economy, there really is no pressing need for Chinese recognition of autonomy. She believes (I gotta say that this is a summary of a conversation in French, so it's a very broad treatment, maybe over-symplified) that in large part the argument is centered around one word that Taiwan wants to claim as its own: "independence."

Okay, I'm going to stop here for now. I haven't slept in days.

I guess, now that we've had a heart to heart, that I can go ahead and mention that this is the reason my attendance/blogs have been so sporatic. We have a six hour time difference when she's in Paris, and a 13 hour difference when she was in Taiwan. There's no real convenient time to talk, and it usually ends up being in the middle of the night for one of us.

Habermas and China: http://www.nousland.net/data/2.6.htm

Have a good one,
Robert