Content uploaded by Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner on Apr 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
For Peer Review Only
Democratic election in a Wuhan prima
ry school
–
Competition, corruption and the ambiguous moral self
among eight-year olds
Journal:
The Journal of Moral Education
Manuscript ID:
CJME-2013-0101.R1
Manuscript Type:
3. Special Issue Articles
Keywords:
China, democracy, moral education
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
For Peer Review Only
1
Introducing Democracy in a Wuhan primary school – ‘Please, vote for me (2007)’
directed by Weijun Chen
Film Review
Abstract
In the film ‘Please, vote for me (2007),’ a document that has received prestigious
awards, director Weijun Chen sets out to illustrate how leadership ambitions through
democratic election allows ‘undemocratic’ means of competition in the adoption of
‘democratic’ values: the unscrupulous competition encouraged in a primary school in
a democratic election among 8-year olds leaves manipulated and disappointed
classmates in a similar ‘dictatorship’ to that of previous years. In reform China,
ambitious and proud parents inculcate dominant values into their child to support
them in the ‘democratic race’ for the envied position of class monitor. Whereas the
filmmakers ascribe this to the systemic uncertainty inherent to the current
undemocratic regime, this film review expresses some doubts as to whether the
primary school experiment shown in the film can serve as an oracle for divining the
nature of societal change.
1. Introduction
In 2008, the documentary ‘Please, vote for me’ by director Weijun Chen caused much
controversy among China observers. The film, which is prohibited in China, shows
how ‘democratic election’ in a primary school in Wuhan, China, articulates
‘democratic ideas’ with native Chinese values of the ‘good leadership’ in reform
China. The documentary has become well-known through its presence on the internet
and broadcasting, and it has won various prestigious awards, including the Sterling
Award for Best Feature (2007), Best International Documentary – medium length
(2007), Adolf Grimme Award (2008) and Best Documentary Emmy Nomination
(2008). Director Weijun Chen set out to illustrate how democracy works in a class of
8 year olds in contemporary Wuhan, China. In the film, competition and corruption
Page 1 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
2
played a crucial role in the election of the Class Monitor, usually appointed by the
teacher, a pupil serving as a mediator between students and teacher. The main task of
a Class Monitor is to keep order among the students, and it is regarded as a
prestigious and important position.
This documentary forms a comment on the way in which China, a socialist country,
has introduced economic reforms since 1978, but has not introduced the democratic
reforms many China observers have been waiting for. The makers of the documentary
introduce the notion of class monitor election into the class of grade three at
Evergreen Primary School in Wuhan, challenging those committed to China’s
democratisation to consider the feasibility of its implementation. It is clear that the
filmmakers have reservations about the imminent democratisation of China.
The children are our successors and the future of our countries. However, our
societies and our educational systems have complicated the growing up process of
children by compromising their simplicity and making their child-like innocence
conform to worldly standards (Chen 2014).
Nevertheless, the filmmakers asked the teachers to use a predefined notion of
‘democracy’, here referring to a form of ‘government in which the supreme power is
retained by the people and exercised either directly or through a system of
representation’. In practice, however, teachers, parents and children adopt their own
notions of democratisation in class, and it is the teachers’ and parents’ notions of
democracy and appropriate behaviour that is reflected in the camera in interaction
with children’s interpretations of their task.
A main theme in the film is that of the important role of corruption in the leadership
competition. The documentary shows how the explicit task of supporting their
children in participating in democratic election nevertheless tempts them to actively
persuade their children to adopt specific tricks and techniques to gain votes. The
techniques varied from bribing classmates (lapiao) and the vilification of competitors,
to reciting memorised speeches written by parents. Initially existing conceptions of
fairness, loyalty and friendship seem to retreat in the process.
Page 2 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
3
This documentary uses the film observation on the adoption of democratic reform on
a micro-level, in a primary school in Wuhan, to attract attention to notions of
‘democracy’ and ‘good leadership’ at the macro-level of China.
If we place the democratic rules found in an adult world among these eight to nine-
year-old children, create an experiment and ask audiences to make their own
observations, we would surely initiate more questions and more reflections... The
children are our future; will it also be the same for democracy? (Chen 2014)
By describing and analysing how the relations between parents and children develop
throughout the election process, this documentary seems to say that the desire to be
‘good’ does not just depend on the teaching of notions of good and bad, but is also
mediated, enacted and given contents through conditions in wider society, the
classroom and at home. The conditions as described by the documentary make for a
leadership based on intimidation, bribery, authority, and force, rather than an ideal
based on persuasion through argument, insight and choice. The filmmakers use the
democratic experiment among 8-year olds to provide the viewer with the opportunity
to reflect upon the question of whether China will become democratic or not. The
question is, then, whether primary school children in China will form a democratic
self by adopting democratic procedures through experiments with democratic
elections and reforms in the classroom.
Education and corruption
China has a rich history of educational policies. In traditional China rote learning of
classical texts, in which Confucian ethics played a main role, and passing exams
about them was a condition for males to become officials and a main way of making
career (Starr 2012). Under the regime of Mao Zedong until 1976, it was crucial to be
‘red and expert’, i.e., having a correct political attitude as well as technical or
academic skills (Kent, 1981). After Opening Up and the 1978 reforms initiated by
Deng Xiaoping, expertise was increasingly emphasised over political attitude. But it
was the educational reforms after 1985 (China Handbook Editorial Committee, 1983),
introducing compulsory education and decentralisation of funding, that brought
education in line with the needs of modernisation (Mackerras, 2006: 203-12).
Page 3 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
4
Education influences society in various ways. Apart from affecting its intellectual
development, it allows the population to become more involved in debates related to
the country’s decision-making, and can improve the quality of life of the community.
It is common that family members help each other in funding the education of their
few children. In China, good education is seen as a means to further both the career of
the student and the prosperity of the family (Kipnis, 2011). But despite the emphasis
in Chinese education on moral behaviour, corruption became endemic to Chinese
political, economic and educational institutions. Anti-corruption campaigns were
devised in the beginning of the 1990s under President Jiang Zemin, as it threatened
the legitimacy of the communist Party State.
In the 21
st
century, the anti-corruption campaigns were stepped up, as public outrage
against corruption continued to grow (Information Office of the State Council of the
PRC, 2010). President Hu Jintao saw a ‘harmonious society’ as a condition for the
country to prosper. This vision was reflected in a policy encouraging moral training,
street campaigns and slogans against corruption, the dismissal of corrupt tax officials,
a crackdown on graft in development estate companies, and campaigns against the
acceptance of red envelopes – bribes – in healthcare and education (Zheng, 2006;
Yang, 2008; Pan, 2004).
Even though economic embezzlement formed the greater part of financial
misdirection, public concern is focused on corruption in the medical sector (-) and
education (Yang, 2004), in particular unauthorised fee collection in primary and
secondary schools (Chan et al, 2008: 164). Thus, in 2002, investigation by the
Ministry of Education revealed 420 million RMB of unauthorised fees (Liu quoted in
Chan et al 2008: 164), which had especially benefited grassroots education
administrations, primary schools, secondary schools and local authorities.
Considering this background, why then do the filmmakers raise the question of
corruption in this filmed experiment on democracy in the classroom?
After describing the main events in the documentary below, I will interpret the
documentary through three types of ‘selves’ presented in the film, which symbolise
both the character types of leadership candidates as well as the different types of
Page 4 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
5
political systems in Chinese society. In the discussion I will raise some objections to
the methods used by the filmmakers to communicate their message.
‘Please, vote for me’ (directed by Weijun Chen)
The location of the documentary is a primary school in Wuhan. Wuhan is the large
industrialised modern capital of Hubei province, and recognized as an important
political, economic, and educational centre of central China.The primary school is a
daytime school. Every morning, the children start the day with marching and singing
loudspeaker accompanied songs, such as the national anthem and other patriotic
songs. One song goes: ‘March forward, we are the successors of communism,’ and
another: ‘Learn to be an honest and upright person. Learn to learn, learn to live. Try to
be honest and brave.’ A few times a day the students exercise collectively. The
children do daily homework in the evenings, and parents are expected to help them
and to show them the ropes.
The documentary starts with the teacher’s introduction of a democratic election
(minzhu xuanju). The manner in which the teacher introduces democratic election
suggests that the children do not often voice their views in class: ‘Every child has the
right to express their own opinion. Is this not very new? Very different from before, is
it not?’ The teacher explains that the student who gets most votes will be Class
Monitor. At the end of the class the teacher announces three pre-selected candidates
(houxuanren): Luo Lei (boy), Cheng Cheng (boy) and Xu Shaofei (girl). Luo Lei has
been Class Monitor for the previous two years, and has a reputation of being a bully;
Cheng Cheng is playful, loud, a wheeler and dealer, and full of self-confidence;
Shaofei is just, kind and sensitive. As a daughter of divorced parents, she is extra
vulnerable. Candidates can chose two assistants to help them in their ‘campaign’. The
candidates have to prepare for a talent show, a debate and a speech before the vote
takes place.
The Parents’ Roles
The parents of the three children all urge their child to become Class Monitor and
provide support.
Page 5 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
6
The parents of Cheng Cheng [CC]: Cheng Cheng’s stepfather is an engineer who likes
to explain things to Cheng Cheng. The mother uses rewards in getting Cheng Cheng
motivated, such as watching television to make him practice his songs. Cheng Cheng
likes the idea of becoming Class Monitor, as ‘I can order others about.’ Later he asks
his father what democracy means. The father explains: ‘It means that people are their
own masters’. Cheng Cheng soon has the hang of this, expressed in the way he reacts
to his mother’s prodding (‘Get out!’).
The parents, however, have the last say. When Cheng Cheng tells them that he
wants to withdraw, his mother asks him ‘Don’t you want to be like President Hu
Jintao? Class Monitor is only the first step.’ This notion helps Cheng Cheng to regain
his self-confidence. When Cheng Cheng feels better, his mother tells him that he has
learnt how to compete. She asks him: ‘Are you not afraid?’ Cheng says: ‘No. Not
even of God.’
In preparation of the debate with Luo Lei, the mother says: ‘If Luo Lei
criticises you, you say: “I want to be a manager, not a dictator.”’ Cheng repeats after
his mother. The mother continues: ‘Then you say “I will help the teacher to manage
the class, I will be equal to others, and take care of everyone.”’ Although Cheng
Cheng likes this formulation, he complains: ‘I can’t remember it all’, but the Mother
insists: ‘Your speech must be organised; it has to have rhythm.’ Cheng practices and
asks rhetorically: ‘What is a dictatorship?... It is someone who beats others; who has
been beaten by Luo Lei? Raise your hands!’
The parents of Luo Lei [LL]: Luo Lei’s father is Director of the Police Department.
His parents repeatedly ask him if he needs help to become Class Monitor and if he
would like to learn tricks and techniques from them. Luo Lei each time refuses,
saying ‘I do not want to control others. They must think for themselves’. He insists
‘People should vote whom they want.’ The mother continually points out Luo Lei’s
mistakes. For instance, when playing the flute, she finds fault and orders him about.
When Luo Lei wants to withdraw from the competition, his stepfather
convinces him that he can win by inviting his classmates to have a ride on the
Monorail: ‘the most modern form of transport in Wuhan’. He advises Luo Lei to tell
the class that ‘The monorail is managed by my father’s police department’. The
Page 6 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
7
mother encourages him to ask the children afterwards whether they had a good time,
and whether they will vote for him. This boosts Luo Lei’s motivation.
While preparing for the debate, Luo Lei’s father says ‘Of course Cheng Cheng
will say that you always beat people. You answer: ‘I’m managing the class: if I am
not strict, they won’t obey me’. ‘You explain that many parents beat their kids,
because they misbehave.’ Luo Lei tells his parent that Cheng Cheng said that he
would vote for him. The father advises: ‘Well, you ask him: “For whom will you
vote?” If he says that he will vote for you, you say: “You see, you don’t have any
self-confidence. So how can you be a class monitor?” If he says: “I will vote for
myself”, then you call him a cheat. Don’t say too much tomorrow; he is a better
speaker than you.’ Luo Lei follows this advice to the letter.
The mother of Xu Shaofei: The mother of Shaofei is a divorced school administrator.
She encourages Shaofei to work hard: ‘If you very much want to become a Class
Monitor, then you have to work on your communication skills. Otherwise you won’t
make a good impression on your classmates. You need to show your talents’. But
Shaofei does not really want to do this.
When taking a walk in the park, the mother asks Shaofei if she can defend
herself if others point out her mistakes: ‘What I they call you a ‘cry-baby’?’ The
mother tells Shaofei to remain civilised and reasonable. The mother also advices
Shaofei to mobilise her assistants in gathering information on the faults of the other
candidates.
The performance
When Cheng Cheng hears that Shaofei can play the flute well, he instructs his
assistants to say ‘It’s terrible!’ after her performance, and the assistant tells others to
do the same. Shaofei is very nervous. Even before she has started, children shout
‘Shaofei slow eater!’ ‘Rotten Gossip’, ‘Overthrow Shaofei!’ You can see Shaofei’s
confidence crumbling, before she breaks down. The teacher scolds the children for
not giving Shaofei a chance. Cheng Cheng apologises, saying ‘I apologise for Luo
Lei’. Then he goes to Luo Lei and says ‘Now it is your turn to apologise’. Cheng
Cheng makes the others apologise, who do this through their tears, making the rest of
the class join the crying. After wiping her tears Shaofei starts to play the flute, while
her assistants dance. The mother is crying too, telling how difficult things are for
Page 7 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
8
Shaofei, as she does not have two parents, as most children do. She performs, but
cannot hold back her tears.
After practicing his song with his assistants, who greatly admire him, Cheng Cheng
performs in front of the class, clearly enjoying himself. He receives loud support,
including from Shaofei. Cheng Cheng tells all to support him. He asks if they want to
hear more, and they start screaming ‘yes’. When he shouts ‘quiet’, silence falls
immediately. Triumphantly he tells his mother this, who agrees he is the best
candidate.
Before Luo Lei’s flute performance, Cheng Cheng tells Shaofei that it was Luo Lei’s
idea to hinder her performance, and suggests that it is her turn to scream during his
performance. But Shaofei ignores him and refuses to. Cheng Cheng tells the teacher
that his mother had taught him a trick: to boo Luo Lei off the stage. The children find
Lei’s flute performance ‘great’, but when he starts singing a tune, Cheng starts to
shout ‘Totally out of tune!’ He eggs on the others, and when Lei asks if they want to
hear another song, all shout ‘Nooooo!’ Cheng Cheng then starts to shout: ‘Luo Lei
beats people’ ‘Overthrow Luo Lei!’ ‘Violent Luo Lei. Nasty Luo Lei’. And the others
join in.
Afterwards, a small boy says to the microphone ‘I won’t vote for Luo Lei; he always
beats people’. When confronted with it, Luo Lei says ‘If I am not strict, you kids will
never obey me!’ Luo Lei is fed up, and said to some children that he wants to
withdraw, after which Cheng Cheng starts to dance. Cheng Cheng then promises
positions to his classmates, such as Study Committee Officer and Vice Monitor.
The debates
The debate between Shaofei and Cheng Cheng is spontaneous and therefore
worthwhile writing out:
SF: You are often late and don’t do your homework.
CC: What else?
SF: That’s it.
Page 8 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
9
CC: Now it is my turn. Your weak point is that you have no confidence. When you
performed during the talent show, you cried. How can you control the class if you are
so delicate?
SF: I was not crying while I was supervising the class of course. I don’t cry that much
anymore since third grade.
CC: Another shortcoming is that you eat too slowly.
SF: Eating slowly is a personal habit!
CC: As Class Monitor, one sets an example, if you eat fast, others will follow. If you
eat slowly, who will be in charge?
Laughter in class.
SF: I did not get that.
Sounds of confirmation.
CC: And you’re picky!
CC: Quiet!
Everyone quiet.
SF: I am not picky anymore.
CC: Next fault. You always gossip, and you don’t concentrate in class. I was sitting
right behind you; I saw you.
SF: I only spoke for a moment.
CC: Did you not say that you were picky once or twice?
SF: Yes.
CC: Well it is not good to be picky at all. Are you proud of being picky? That is why
you are not qualified.
SF: I forgot to mention one more weak point: He is a blabbermouth!
CC: Talking is a form of communication! [goutong fangshi]
A discussion follows. A girl says that if Cheng Cheng was watching Shaofei, he could
not have been paying much attention either. Luo Lei, raring to have a go at Cheng
Chent, too, says ‘Cheng Cheng has many faults to. Aren’t you naughty during
breaks?’ Although the entire class confirm this unanimously, Cheng Cheng replies
‘No: just active.’ Cheng Cheng then becomes angry and, after class, follows Shaofei,
saying that she mentioned too many of his faults.
Page 9 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
10
The debate between Cheng Cheng and Luo Lei does not reveal new views, as the two
boys follow the instructions of the parents quite closely, ending up in Cheng Cheng
calling Luo Lei a dictator and Luo Lei calling Cheng Cheng a cheat. Cheng Cheng
gets most support.
The speeches
During preparation parents tell their child to memorise the speech they wrote
themselves (!). Shaofei is told to stop crying and learn her speech by heart, at which
she cries more; Cheng Cheng is told to bow, talk about the constitution, the law and
class management, and to apply his talents to make the class famous; Luo Lei is told
to say how hard he will work using dramatic gestures. He is also told to wish his
classmates a Happy Mid-Autumn Festival and to give them presents.
In his speech, which he reads, Cheng Cheng says he wants to be a bridge between
students and teachers; he will be a democratic Class Monitor.
In her speech, which she partly reads, Shaofei explains that although she has cried
before, she will be courageous and brighten up the future for everyone everyday, after
which she politely thanks all.
In his speech, which he knows by heart, Luo Lei says that over the years they built up
friendship, and that he will do all to improve their situation. He ends by distributing
the Mid Autumn Festival gifts, wishing the class well.
The teacher says it is time to vote, using a secret ballot. Saying that it should be their
individual choice, she explains it is a sacred matter. One boy says to Cheng Cheng: If
Luo Lei wins, he will torment you to death.
The votes are counted, and the result is Shaofei, 6 votes; Cheng Cheng, 8 votes; and
Luo Lei, 25 votes. After the teacher announces ‘Once again we congratulate Luo Lei
as Class Monitor!’, Cheng Cheng breaks down in the bathroom, Shaofei starts to cry,
with the other children in the class following suit. To comfort them, the teacher
explains: ‘The result is not at all important, but the experience is.’ Then, the children
Page 10 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
11
are all made to shake hands with Luo Lei. The viewer’s last glimpse of the class is
Luo Lei shouting: ‘Quiet! Those who are not, must stand in front of the class!’
Message: Competition, corruption but no democracy
In this section I analyse the relationship between the parents and the children as
presented by the filmmakers in terms of the kind of self the children develop in the
competition shown. The filmmakers continuously move back and forth between the
parents’ notions ‘democracy’, what they regard as ‘competition’, and the means that
parents show their children as acceptable in the competition, but which are implicated
elsewhere as bullying or buying votes. This shift in perspective creates a clear link
between what goes on in the classroom and in wider society.
In former years, the Class Monitor had been appointed by the teacher for his ability to
keep order in class and his success in mediating between students and teachers. This
year, for the first time, the students were allowed to use ‘democratic means’ to choose
the Class Monitor from three candidates based on their accomplishment (performance
in music), persuasion (expressed through debating skills), and leadership (expressed
in their speeches). The documentary makes clear, however, that the competition is
shaped by the overbearing influence of competitive parents.
Observing the relationship between the parents and children, the film does not just say
that the children’s behaviour is only shaped through the moral values of the parents:
the children did rebelled. All of the parents insisted on their child’s suitability for the
race for Class Monitor and pushed them, sometimes even against their will, which
was the case with Luo Lei and Shaofei. Whereas Shaofei did not like the idea of
competition, Luo Lei did not like to put effort into competing – he preferred to be
chosen on the basis of the ‘friendship’ (sic!) he had built up with the class over the
two years he had been class monitor. Secondly, all parent encouraged the children to
follow their instructions rather than to rely on their own ideas and to learn by heart the
speeches they had written for them. None of the children seemed to enjoy it.
Page 11 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
12
There was substantial difference between the ways the parents advised the children:
Cheng Cheng’s parents spoke in terms of competition, teaching tricks, justice and
management; Luo Lei’s parents nagged Luo Lei to perfect his play and speech and
showed him how to bribe and trap his classmates; and, Shaofei’s mother taught
Shaofei to compete through accomplishment, rational argument and kindness.
The candidates themselves, although not following their own inclination, mainly
adopted their parents’ advice in presenting themselves to the class: Cheng Cheng,
who liked ordering about his classmates, performed the part of the entrepreneurial and
active manager. He was creative in finding ways of cheating, slagging off his
competitors, and showed ambition in leading his school to glorious heights of fame
(as China’s President!); although at first averse to applying himself to competition,
Luo Lei ran for ‘democratic’ election, using intimidation to get his classmates to obey
his orders, and buying their votes; Shaofei, under her mother’s coaching, did her best
to pull herself together and to be strong, but could not stand up to the bullying and
intimidation of her competitors. She did not bully when she had a chance, and was
earnest in dealing with competitors, who were strategically finding fault with her.
Despite initial hesitation to run for election, the motivation of the children to compete
intensified, especially encouraged by the ambition of their parents. Luo Lei had been
appointed as class leader before, as he was ‘a good class monitor’: he kept order and
obeyed the teacher. In the filming of class relations in the primary school, the socio-
political relations of wider society seem to condition the shaping of the sense of self
of those making up the system. Using Nikolas Rose’s concept of ‘enterprising self’
(Rose, 2007: 111, 134, 135), Amy Hanser argued that in China there is a trend for
young educated people to develop an enterprising self, thought to be prevalent in
neoliberal societies, as a result of the withdrawal of the state, for instance, in
allocating jobs. They now have to compete on the basis of ability. Such self strives for
personal fulfilment, aspires to autonomy, and ‘interprets its reality and destiny as a
matter of individual responsibility, it is to bind meaning in existence by shaping its
life through acts of choice’ (Hanser, 2002). This Enterprising Self before the reforms
was regarded as calculating and selfish, but in current Chinese society, the
Enterprising Self has ability, initiative and autonomous choice.
Page 12 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
13
In this Enterprising Self we recognise Cheng Cheng, who initially seemed to be a
promising candidate. But although the primary school in Wuhan aimed to stimulate an
Enterprising Self through competition based on talent in the areas of accomplishment,
persuasion and leadership, it had limited success. The election was dominated by
other factors, including collaboration in disadvantaging other competitors; spreading
irrelevant negative information about competitors; buying votes; and, intimidation of
voters and competitors. Even though the students clearly did not like to be
intimidated, bullied and beaten, they voted for Luo Lei. An obvious explanation for
this would be that he was both authoritative (through his use of intimidation and
force) and benevolent (he gave away presents, took the class on a trip to monorail, so-
called led by his father’s police department). The message of the documentary seems
to be that, even though other candidates may have been stronger in kindness,
creativity and management, they did not fulfil the dominant notion of a leader as
being strong, authoritative, and capable of sustaining stability. This, then, would be a
bad omen for the implantation of democracy in China.
The message of the film seems to be that without a clear political stance taken by the
teachers and parents, the class continues to embody disjointed practices of
‘democratic’ competition subsuming autocratic, managerial, and to a lesser extent,
relations of equality and justice. This kind of competition seems to favour authority,
cunning and entrepreneurial skills over choice, persuasion and fairness.
Discussion
The documentary provides interesting insights into the experiment of adopting
notions of democracy among 8-year olds. This method and the experiment itself,
however, have drawbacks if regarded as a looking glass on society in general.
Furthermore, the notions of democracy and corruption as performed in the classroom
and as used in the comparative analysis of society may have quite different
implications for our view of leadership competition in the classroom.
Will China become a democracy?
Page 13 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
14
Discussions on democracy over the last decade or so, both in and outside China, have
shown diverging views about China’s political future: Democracy is a necessity for
the sustainability of China’s economic growth (Hutton, 2008; Friedman, 2000);
China’s economic and political system will collapse (Chang, 2001); China will
continue its current road to overall prosperity without further political reforms (Mann,
2007); only sustained efforts and struggle will lead China to turn into a democratic
nation-state (Perry & Selden, 2000; Waldron, 2004); and, China will develop a new
form of democracy, a kind of democracy with Chinese characteristics (Zhang,
Kleinman & Tu, 2011). This debate also illustrates the social uncertainty about the
political future of China, and with it the extent to which it pays for citizens to actively
subordinate themselves in the face of authority, whether in- or outside the classroom.
The filmmakers pay close attention to democracy and its implementation. They show
that the parents in Please, Vote For Me have no problem with what, in an ideal
democratic election, is regarded as unfair means or corruption to enhance the chances
of their children to climb the socio-political ladder. However, in China, as it is
elsewhere, it is not at all obvious what can be regarded as corruption in what context
and when. According to Levy (2002), bureaucratic bribes and the collection of
unauthorised tax are regarded as dirty, while entrepreneurial wealth is seen as clean,
even when gained through ‘corruption’, while the evaluation of what can be regarded
as bribery in village elections in China varies widely. It has been argued that vote
buying demonstrates the importance of democratic elections, as the financial input
accentuates that it is worthwhile investing in (Levy, 2007: 34-6). Furthermore, to
ordinary citizens ‘the gift’ can be the only means available to ‘get things done’ from
staff in resource-poor educational and medical institutions, whose incomes are low
(Yang, 2008). Such ‘gifts’ can even be seen as a means of resistance of what is
experienced as an unfair system (Polese, 2011).
The documentary as message for society?
Another drawback relates to the methods used to create the film. Using documentary
material as ethnographic material has its limitation, as the camera configures and
articulates meanings through the selection of shots and editing of materials. The
framing (Goffman, 1974) of the film highlights the three character types of the
candidates for leadership: authority figure, entrepreneur, and eloquent righteousness.
Page 14 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
15
These types exhibit traits that neatly correspond with political systems in wider
society under which autocratic tradition, entrepreneurial liberalism, and democracy
thrive. Whether this is coincidental or not, we do not know, but it is likely that most
competitions do not show these character types, and also that there is no reason not to
highlight other traits and methods for characterising candidates differently. ‘Good
leadership’, one could imagine can be demonstrated by other accomplishments other
than musical performance
Furthermore, although the documentary draws a parallel between adult society and
children society, just because children in class do not implement democracy does not
mean that Chinese society will not be democratic in the near future, or that these very
same children will not be good examples of democratic behaviour when they grow
up. After all, the society of the grown-up parents and that of eight-year olds is not the
same. This is true for any society, not just China. Many other societies have schools
with children whose parents help their children to win competitions at any cost.
Children everywhere adopt grown-up notions into their games, where they develop in
interaction with classmates, teachers and families. It is the dynamic of that moment
and place in which the performance of the children creatively combines the elements
provided into a constellation of leadership abilities that count there and then.
The children in the film, it becomes clear, do not follow their parents without protest.
They cry, shout, and rebel, but in the end make up their own minds. Thus, it is on the
basis of cajoling, persuasion, nagging, and competition, rather than physical force,
blackmail and abuse, that the candidates made choices about their participation and
performance in the class monitor competition. A serious limitation of using
ethnographic film to make a point about society on the basis of what happens in the
classroom at one point of time, that it lacks a longer-term perspective. Furthermore,
the lack of a reliable notion of what is a ‘good class monitor’ complicates the
appraisal of leadership in democratic elections in wider society.
Alternative democratic conceptions
Considering that the primary school in Wuhan experimented with democratic
elections for the first time, it would be premature to conclude that this means that
autocracy in Chinese society is there to stay, even if the most autocratic candidate was
elected as class leader among 8-year olds in the primary school of Wuhan (!). It is
Page 15 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
16
also possible that the pupils believe that leadership associated with authority and
benevolent power is preferable to the inventiveness, fun and organisation skills of a
manager – here, Cheng Cheng -, and more effectively compared to the justice of the
virtuous and earnest Shaofei, despite the suffering that they are bound to experience
during the next year. In this case, the children may be developing a ‘situation-centred’
Relational Self, which Francis Hsu referred to as ‘ren’ (Hsu 1981). A Relational Self
takes a subordinate position in a hierarchic regime when it is subjected to
authoritarian leadership. Individuals in some organisations are dominant and in others
subordinate, and can be both dominant and subordinate in one organisation. A
Relational Self knows how to behave according to the requirements of both positions.
Although it is possible for democratic values to develop under an autocratic regime,
when uncertainty reigns over whose efforts are rewarded and how, when individuals
feel uncertain about available choices or are punished for exerting their choice, and
when subjective values, such as gender, race and ownership, overrule the legitimate
values of the socio-political system to the disadvantage of a particular group, the
socio-political organisation becomes too uncertain to be effective. This we could say,
could lead to the creation of an Ambivalent Self characteristic for confused
individual, whose uncertainty incapacitates their ability to make effective choices. In
this case the authoritative nature of the school system continues to emphasise example
and obedience over legitimate initiative and valid modes of persuasion. We thus see
the emergence of an unstable regime in which elements of both enterprising and
relational selves create systemic uncertainty.
Conclusion: Adeptness at Reform
What is most striking about the film’s representation of democracy in primary school
class leadership elections in Wuhan is not so much the trickery employed in
competition and the bleak future it promises for democracy in China, but the ways in
which the concept of democracy is introduced into the education system and the ways
in which it is adopted, adapted and given meaning in a flexible manner by students,
teachers and parents alike. It is the preparedness to adopt new notions and creatively
link these to politics and adopt them in practice, which is striking. Here the ‘good
Page 16 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
17
leader’ is shaped through the adeptness of institutions to interlink political notions
with changes in educational practice. A ‘good leader’, as the documentary shows,
may be a winner supported by parents, teachers and classmates, even if the majority
are not happy under the regime. At the same time, however, this first attempt at
implementing a democratic process was accompanied by choices framed more
broadly than before, the participation of more candidates, and the active participation
of children, who will have the opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of the
choices they made during the next year.
No doubt, it was the intention of the filmmakers to warn the viewers that experiments
with democracy in the classroom are unlikely to herald an era in which democracy
will be implemented in a manner resembling textbook democracy. But the notion of
‘democracy’ does not necessarily refer to the practice of any of the ‘democratic’
systems used in other countries. Any political democracy is underpinned by its own
drivers and is accompanied by its own practices in which contexts it should be
understood, including China’s self-appellation as the ‘democratic people’s
dictatorship’. Whether the democratic contents will increase has much to do with the
choices citizens have and the ways in which they are framed by the political system.
And most societies have multiple systems of which some are more democratic than
others.
References
Chan, C.-K., Ngok, K.-L. and Phillips, D. (2008) Social Policy in Chin. Development
and well-being (Bristol, The Policy Press).
Chang, G. (2001) The Coming Collapse of China (New York: Random House).
Chen, W.-J. (2007) Please, vote for me (China, Denmark, Don Edkins). For a trailer
see online: http://pleasevoteforme.org/trailer.html.
Chen, W.-J. (2014) Please, vote for me. Online available at:
http://www.itvs.org/films/please-vote-for-me/filmmaker
Page 17 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
18
China Handbook Editorial Committee (1983) Education and Science. China
Handbook Series (Beijing, Foreign Language Press).
Friedman, T. L (2000) The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York: Anchor Books).
Goffman, E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience
(London: Harper & Row).
Hanser, A. (2002) The Chinese enterprising self: young, educated urbanites and the
serach for work, in: P. Link, R. P. Madsen, and P. G. Pickowicz (eds) Popular China.
Unofficial culture in a globalizing society (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield),
189-206
Hsu, F. (1981[1953]) Americans and Chinese: Passages to Differences (Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press).
Hutton, W. (2008) The Writing on the Wall: China and the West in the 21
st
Century
(London: Little, Brown Book Club).
Information Office of the State Council of the PRC (2010) White Paper on China's
Efforts to Combat Corruption and Build a Clean Government. Available online at:
unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/.../apcity/unpan043696.pdf
Kent, A. (1981) Red and Expert: The Revolution in Education at Shanghai Teachers’
University, 1975–76, The China Quarterly, 86, June 1981: 304: 321.
Kipnis, A. B. (2011) Governing Educational Desire. Culture, politics, and schooling
in China (Chicago & London, Chicago University Press).
Levy, R. (2002) Corruption in popular culture, in: P. Link, R. P. Madsen, and P. G.
Pickowicz (eds) Popular China. Unofficial culture in a globalizing society (Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield), 39-56.
Page 18 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
19
Levy, Richard (2007) Village elections, transparency, and anticorruption: Henan and
Guangdong Provinces, in: E. Perry & M. Goldman (eds) Grassroots Political Reform
in Contemporary China (Cambridge (Mass.) & London, Harvard University Press),
20-47.
Mackerras, C. (2006) Critical social issues, in: Czeslaw Tubilewicz, Critical Issue in
Contemporary China (Routledge, London and New York/ Hong Kong, Open
University of Hong Kong Press),193-226.
Mann, J. (2007) The China Fantasy. Why Capitalism Will Not Bring Democracy to
China (New York: Viking/Penguin).
Pan, X. (2004) Doctors told not to take hongbao. Shanghai Star (15 April 2004)
http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2004/0415/bz9-4.html
Perry, E. J & Selden, M. (2000) Chinese Society. Change, conflict and resistance
(London & New York, Routledge/Curzon).
Perry, E. J. & Goldman, M. (2007) Introduction: Historical Reflections on Grassroots
political reform in China, in: E.J. Perry & M. Goldman (eds) Grassroots Political
Reform in Contemporary China (Cambridge (Mass.) & London, Harvard University
Press), 1-19.
Polese, A. (2011) The Monetarization of the Gift in former Socialist Spaces: Evidence
from Ukraine, Paper in the Anthropology Department Lecture Series, University of
Sussex, 18 January 2011.
Rose, N. (2007) The Politics of Life Itself. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Starr, D. (2012) China and the Confucian education model. Universitas 21, the
leading global network of research universities for the 21st century, May 2012.
Online available at: www.universitas21.com/relatedfile/download/343
Page 19 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
20
Waldron, A. (2004) Democratization and Greater China. How would democracy
change China? Orbis: Spring 2004, 247-261.
Yang, D.-P. (2004) Corruption and education: a tentative discussion, Chinese
Education and Society, 37(1), 89-100.
Yang, J.-Q. (2008) The power relationships between doctors, patients and the Party-
state under the impact of red packets in the Chinese health-care system, unpublished
PhD thesis (School of Social Sciences and International Studies. Sydney, University
of New South Wales), August 2008.
Zhang, E., Kleinman, A. and Tu W.-M. (2011) Governance of Life in Chinese Moral
Experience. The quest for an adequate life (London & New York, Routledge).
Zheng, Y.-N. (2006) Hu Jintao firmly in command:The Sixth Plenum of the 16th
Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, China Briefing Series – Issue
13. Available online at:
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cpi/documents/briefings/briefing-13-china-sixth-
plenum.pdf
Page 20 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
1
Referee(s)' Comments to Author:
Referee: 1
Unfortunately, this referee does not have access to the film website and has been
unable to understand the article. However, I am grateful for the references and
mistakes the referee detected in the references and the recommendations made to
literature.
Comments to the Author
Democracy education and practice is a very critical topic in Chinese educational
studies. It is widely observed that China has developed rapidly in the economic
arena, but shows much reluctance in the political reform in order to protect the
Chinese Communist Party’s ideology and rulership. The documentary file cited in
this paper is pertinent in describing the so-called Chinese democracy which
diverges much from the Western one. It will be a good paper to be capable of
making explicit the most fundamental moral commitments in such democratic
election at Chinese primary schools and exploring how such activity coheres
with moral growth of the pupils. This paper, however, fails to meet this kind of
expectation due to the following shortcomings.
1, There is a serious lack of reference in this paper.
Class Monitor election is a routine work at Chinese primary and secondary
schools. It is considered as an important part in democratic education as well as
in class management. There are a lot of literatures about it in both Chinese and
English languages. Despite of the influence of the Chinese centralized political
system, the Chinese educators are trying to make class management more and
more democratic and producing some trustworthy democratic models. As there
is no such reference in this paper, the readers will be misled in thinking that the
manipulation and corruption are the accepted way in class management as
shown in this paper. It is due to the lack of proper reference that it is hard to
argue what the question is and how to resolve it. The author claims that the
question raised in this paper is “…why corruption seems to play a
dominant role in the competition. One wonders, why, under a national
policy of universal crackdown on bribery and corruption, the enterprise of
stimulating democratic election among children ended up encouraging,
and even unintentionally inculcating ‘corruption’ into the minds of 8-year
olds.” (P3, Lines 13-20) This claim should be supported by more references.
Or else, it may just become personal complaint.
As mentioned above, this Chinese Referee clearly has no access to the film and has
no noticed the ‘complaint’ is entirely based and drawn from the documentary I
refer to in the text (almost constantly).
Here are some mistakes in the references of this paper.
“Levy, R. (2002)” and “Chan, C.-K., Ngok, K.-L. and Phillips, D. (2008)” are listed in
the reference but not referred to in the context.
I have deleted Levy, but Chan et al are in the text.
Page 21 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
2
“Hutton, 2008” and “Mann, 2007” are referred to in the context, but not listed in
the literature.
“Chang, 2002” (P16, Lines 22-23) is listed as “Chang, G. (2001)” in the reference.
I have corrected the references.
The website (http://pleasevoteforme.org/trailer.html) about the documentary is
unavailable
The website is unavailable, most probably because the author is in the PRC.
It is “China Handbook Editorial Committee” on page 5 line5-6, but it is “China
Hand Book Editorial Committee” in the references.
The original has the strange English for ‘Hand Book’, but I have made the format
consistent now.
2, There should be analytic thinking about democracy.
Election is obviously not the whole of democracy. John Dewey offers us many
classic works. There are enormous studies about democracy. But the author
simply says that “the notion of ‘democracy’ I use in this article is employed as an
ideal type, a heuristic tool, and does not refer to the practice of any of the
‘democratic’ systems used in other countries”. (P4, Lines 3-7)
I do refer to ‘democracy’ as defined by the film, but this Referee did not understand
this. Nevertheless, this passage has been deleted.
As the JME readers may not have a full knowledge about the so-called Chinese
democracy, I think the author could at least analyze the Chinese Communist
Party’s principles like individual’s subordination to the superior decision. I
suggest the author to read an article in the Economist (October 2nd, 2010, pp43-
44). It is entitled ‘The debate over universal values’, arguing that China is not
only rejecting Western values such as democracy but rather fighting over them.
There are plenty of references to democracy in China in the literature list. Referring
to an article in the Economist from 2010 does not seem to be the way forward,
although I did read it.
Without further and detailed analyses of democracy in this paper, the readers
may feel hard to find the logic in the author’s argument. The emphasis on
economic drive in Chinese society indeed provides answers to questions raised
by individuals in the midst of living, for example, competition for money and
power. But that is not the only answer for all one’s life in today’s China. The
author uses ‘Ambiguous Self’ to describe the pupils who get involved in
corruption, which “both subverts and lubricates a regime democratic in name
and autocratic in character”. (P16, Lines3-6) It should be based on specific
analyses (instead of bare narration) that the paper could address a topic in
Page 22 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
3
some perspectives such as moral psychology, moral philosophy or
educational policy, and further give an account about Chinese democracy
development in contemporary globalization.
Again, this Referee has based her/his comments entirely on the notion that the
conversation in the main body of the text has been plucked from nowhere.
3, The arguments seem rather colloquial and arbitrary.
This is quite a lengthy paper, but the arguments need to be more carefully
justified. The meanings of some claims are not clearly explained. For example,
the first sentence of the Abstract: This case study on ‘democratic election’ in a
primary school in Wuhan shows the articulation of ‘democratic ideas’ with native
Chinese values of the ‘good child’ in reform China. (P2, lines 13-14) The author
does not fully explain in the paper about the relation of being democratic and
being a good child. “It is clear that the filmmakers have reservations about the
imminent democratisation of China”. (P2, Lines 48-50) What do
‘reservations ’mean? “…showing the ambiguity of notions of the ‘good’ child in a
society experiencing political instability”. (P3, Lines 36-37) What does ‘political
instability’ mean?
Some arguments are arbitrary. For example:
China has a rich history of educational policies. In traditional China rote learning
of classical texts, in which Confucian ethics played a main role, and passing
exams about them was a condition for males to become officials and a main way
of making career. (P4, Lines 51-56)
But despite the emphasis in Chinese education on moral behaviour,
corruption became endemic to Chinese political, economic and educational
institutions. Anti-corruption campaigns were devise in the beginning of the
1990s under Jiang Zemin, as it threatened the legitimacy of the communist Party
State. (P5, Lines 21-28)
It is clear than that the public knows about the detrimental effects of
corruption, but it is not always sure what counts as being corrupt. (P6, Lines 3-4)
Although I do not agree with this referee that these passages are arbitrary (the
referee has omitted to indicate the reasons for pointing this out), the mentioned
passages are deleted to make room for the expansion of the film review elsewhere.
There are some incoherent parts or words in this paper. The first paragraph
of the paper talks about Chinese family planning or the ’one-child policy’.（P3）
It seems to have nothing to do with this paper even in the background sense.
This sentence has been deleted.
When talking about the relation between education and corruption on pages 4-5,
the author is actually criticizing the school officials. The author indicates the
initials like [LL] on page 7, but never uses them in the following context.
The documentary file cited in this paper may be briefly and precisely
described.
7 pages are dedicated to this – clearly this referee has not understood the article.
Page 23 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
4
There are even spelling mistake like Houxianren (P6, Line 45). It should be
Houxuanren.
Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected the pinyin.
Referee: 2
I am grateful for the points made by this referee. I have responded below to the
comments.
Comments to the Author
Manuscript ID: CJME-2013-0101
Title: Democratic election in a Wuhan primary school – Competition, corruption
and the ambiguous moral self among eight-year olds
This manuscript did not seem initially to be conceptualized and written up for
the Journal of Moral Education, or any journals on morality issues, but it broadly
touches on the political, social and economic issues the authors observed in the
documentary, Please vote for me.
The director of the documentary links morality in education and the issue of
democracy in the classroom to democracy in wider society. This is why I discuss
both in the article. I have made this more clear now in the review in the
introduction and in the discussion.
The phrase “moral self” appears in the title, but only in the title. Throughout the
article, the word moral appears only 5 times (p. 5 moral behavior [x2]; p. 12
moral values; p. 14 moral direction; p. 17 moral behavior). None of these terms
were carefully defined and elaborated on to develop a discussion about social
justice, equality and their relevance to education. Although corruption can be
analyzed as a moral issue, the authors did not treat it specifically as a moral issue,
less so about moral education.
I have changed the title and altered the discussion on the moral self. The discussion
on the moral self I now use to illustrate what the film tries to show in terms of
political messages. I have described this now on p. 11-15.
In addition, this manuscript presents three features that do not fit with the
common characteristics of scholarly work. First, the documentary, the central
piece of the whole discussion and display of the dialogues, was not made for a
research purpose. The authors did not make it clear how they are related to the
documentary. Are they the filmmakers? Contracted researchers with the
filmmakers? Or just audience? Without make this relationship clear, but
presenting the documentary as a data source, the authors trip over some moral
dilemmas in doing research, empirical or not. For example, whose research
Page 24 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
5
work are the authors talking about, the filmmakers’ or the authors?
Now that this is a Film Review, the author’s position is cleared. I also describe now
that in the section entitled ‘message’ I work out the filmmaker’s message and in the
Discussion I provide my views on the message of the film and the methods used to
reach the aim of the film.
Second, as part of the cultural analysis, it is crucial for the authors to show an in-
depth knowledge of the filmmaking process in order to convince the reader of
the reliability of the documentary as a data source for analysis. The way the
documentary was edited does not give evidence that the original filmmaker
intended to use this film as a data source.
I quote the filmmaker now as a film review. I also cite the filmmaker’s statement,
which contains the aim of the film (p. 2, 3)
Finally, the authors do not raise one or more research questions in this
manuscript to pursue their own data presentation and analysis in the domain of
moral education. For example, to cite a few:
The experiment raises the question of why corruption seems to play a dominant
role in the competition. (p. 3)
This study of the adoption of democratic election among children in a primary
school looks at why and how such corruption of the children continues, showing
the ambiguity of notions of the ‘good’ child in a society experiencing political
instability. (p. 3)
…the question is whether, as awareness grows of ways of moulding the self in
the light of desired career and conditions of living, parents and children will
chose different leaders in the near future. (p. 4)
I do not have my own data on a school class. The article is a film review now,
containing a theorization of what the director/filmmakers try to do and my
comments on it.
Again, it seems that the authors are more interested in dissecting the political
system of China than examining or informing the moral education in China by
referring to an provoking documentary as an example.
This impression is wrong. I am interested in the implications of the film on the
classroom for adult society, something which the makers of the film are open and
clear about. It is not odd for me to discuss this documentary as such. I find it an
odd observation, as most of the article is about the classroom and tries to show
how the film makers make links between three competing school children and
society.
Referee: 3
Page 25 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
6
I am very grateful to this Referee, who has provided me with insightful comments
and very useful suggestions. I am also grateful to the Doctoral Student’s efforts in
providing me with comments.
Comments to the Author
This paper raises some interesting points, but it doesn’t advance a coherent
argument. The main argument is that the way a class of 8-year-old children in
Wuhan behave during an election for class monitor reveals a moral crisis in
contemporary China, one the author of this paper suggests arises from
conflicting versions of self. This in turn leads to an inability to practice an
effective form of democracy and corruption in campaigning and voting. The
children’s behavior during the election also is revealing of problems in moral
development.
It is the contention of the film to show that an effective democracy is impossible if
based on the behavior of students as filmed in the documentary. I now have more
clearly described this in the section of the introduction, the message and discussion.
There are several core problems with this paper:
1. The key concept introduced by the author, the paper’s original contribution, is
“the ambiguous self.” This ambiguous self is proposed as a kind of blending of or
other to what Nikolas Rose proposed is the “enterprising self” characteristic of
neo-liberal capitalism and “the relational self” presumably characteristic of
traditional Chinese society. My first problem with the concept of an “ambiguous
self” is the name. “Ambiguous” means “open to more than one interpretation” or
“vague.” Does the author mean to suggest that these children are enigmatic or
hard for us to read? I think instead what he/she means to suggest is that they
have a self that is in some sense hybrid, multiple, fractured, or emergent, as they
struggle to put together two discourses prevalent in contemporary Chinese
society: Chinese traditional culture and entrepreneurial capitalism.
I now have changed the Ambiguous Self into Ambivalent Self, as the ambivalence is
more clearly a result of the insecurity among the students.
The literature review for this concept is scant. Rose is mentioned, but not cited.
Instead the citation to the concept of the enterprising self is to a book chapter by
another scholar, who bases her argument on Rose. If the conceptual framework
of this paper is to be based on Rose’s notion of the enterprising self, the author
should go back to Rose.
I now have located this in the work by Rose.
I’d also like more discussion of the “relational self.” Is this concept in some way
Chinese? Confucian? Pre-capitalist? There is a lot of writing on the notion that
people in China have a sense of self which is less individualistic and more
collective (e.g. in the writing of Francis Hsu).
Page 26 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
7
I have clarified the Relational Self and referred to sources.
I think the idea that contemporary Chinese young people are caught between
incommensurate world views, moral systems, and discourses is a valuable one,
and that this could be an interesting way to talk about the film Please Vote for Me.
I would encourage a rethinking of the notion of an ambiguous self. Perhaps a
Bakhtinian notion of hybridity would be more useful?
I now have changed the Ambiguous Self into Ambivalent Self, as the ambivalence is
more clearly a result of the insecurity among the students.
2. The context. If the author wants to argue that the moral crisis going on in
China is tied to economic change, the argument should be made more explicit.
The first paragraph introduces the issue of the single child policy, but doesn’t
follow this up. How is the decline of siblings tied to a changing version of
morality, social relations, and self?
I have deleted the first paragraph.
There is a suggestion in this paper that the corruption in the class election is
somehow reflective of corruption in Chinese society. But there needs to be more
discussion about the role of gifts, bribes, favors, and so forth in Chinese society,
and more explicit development of these practices to the notion of a “relational
self.”
This reflection in society is suggested by the filmmakers. I have clarified this now
in the sector ‘message’.
And if the argument is that the economic shift from socialism to market
capitalism is a main cause of the change in self, corruption, and notions of
morality, this should be made explicit.
I no longer make such an argument on the basis of the data in the film.
3. The research method of this paper is unusual and not well explained. The
whole paper is based on a documentary made by someone else. Much of the first
half of the paper is a retelling of events in the documentary. What is the status of
this documentary in this paper? Are we to treat the documentary as a
transparent window allowing us to see typical Chinese behavior? The film was
constructed, by a film-maker with a point of view. Is the assumption that the
events in the film are typical?
By turning the article into a film review, this problem is hopefully solved.
4. There is no attempt to connect the analysis to theories or the scholarly
literature on Chinese moral development or Chinese education. That makes me
wonder about whether the Journal of Moral Education is the right place for this
article. In 2004 JME published two papers on moral education in Chinese schools.
Neither is cited, as they should be. There are papers on Chinese child
development, the self, and education that could be useful to the author of this
Page 27 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
8
paper. She/he should check out papers by Jin Li. Here are some other references
that could be helpful:
Fu, Genyue; Xu, Fen; Cameron, Catherine Ann; Heyman, Gail; Lee, Kang, “Cross-
cultural differences in children's choices, categorizations, and evaluations of
truths and lies.” Developmental Psychology, Vol 43(2), Mar 2007, 278-293.
HK Ma - Educational Research Journal, 2009. Moral development and moral
education: an integrated approach
Yan, Y. (2003). Private life under socialism: love, intimacy, and family change in a
Chinese village, 1949-1999. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Tobin, Hsueh, and Karasawa’s Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited might also
be useful, particularly their discussion of changes in moral and civic education in
Chinese preschools.
I am very grateful for these literature suggestions. I have read them and find them
very useful. As this article has turned into a review, there is no longer space for
these.
There is no discussion of what the literature on child development suggests eight
year old children are like, in any country. As a result, the lack of morality seen in
Please Vote for Me is exoticized, and implicitly suggested to be a sign of a core
problem in contemporary Chinese society.
I have made clear not that the characterization of the Selves is based on the
documentary. I have also put this into perspective.
But I’m left wondering what criteria 8 year old children in the US or England or
other democracies use to guide their voting in class elections. I remember my
class elections in elementary school as popularity contests.
I agree fully with this comment. I have mentioned this now in the discussion.
5. I would recommend giving more attention to notions of leadership raised in
the film Please Vote for Me. I think there are interesting points to be made about
how the children in the film think and talk about what it means to be a good
leader, notions that may be different from those found in the US and
characteristic of Chinese values. I’d like some discussion of the role of the class
monitor in Chinese schools.
6. It would be useful to know the Chinese terms that are equivalent to
“enterprising self” and “relational self.” The paper lacks a sense of how Chinese
people think about democracy, entrepreneurialism, social responsibility, and
morality. The result is to risk leaving readers with a sense that China is lacking or
behind in comparison with other countries in morality and civic responsibility.
Are elections in the US less influenced by power and money?
Page 28 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
9
To avoid this impression, I have more clearly questioned the usefulness of these
notions. It is the documentary that suggests the existence of these selves.
7. Conclusions. I would recommend that the author end the paper with a return
to the film. Why in the end did one candidate, Liu, get most of the votes? Because
he has a tendency to dominate and bully or despite this? What was lacking in the
other two candidates? What is the moral of the documentary?
I have discussed this now in the Message: that there is competition, corruption, but
no democracy. This is not my message. My message is in the discussion.
In sum: I would recommend rejecting this paper, with an invitation to resubmit if
the author is willing to do a major re-write. The paper seems poorly suited to
this journal, in the form it has been written. Does this author want to engage
with the literature on moral education in China? If not, she/he should try to
publish it elsewhere.
p.s. I asked a Chinese doctoral student who works with me to read the paper and
give me her comments. I think these are useful for the author to consider:
Many thanks to the doctoral student!
1. The “ambiguous self” idea. The “ambiguous self” seems to be built upon two
“ambiguous” assumptions:
One is that Chinese society is experiencing political instability. The documentary
does not clearly convey this message to the audience. I am wondering where this
opinion comes from. This assumption of political instability must be justified. It
is a key linchpin of the paper’s argument.
I argue in this film review that the three selves presented in the documentary are
the selves mentioned.
The other assumption is the author’s perception of the candidates who compete
in the election in the documentary film. The author describes them from the
author’s own perspective, rather than from the students’ perspective. I suspect
that the students in the class don’t see these candidates as having “ambiguous
selfs.” Liu Lei in the film is presented as an authority figure, Cheng Cheng as a
master of inventiveness, fun and organizational skills, and Shaofei as a virtuous
and earnest person. I see Lu Lei as also showcasing his organization skills and
earnest aspect.
The selves are suggested through the portrayal in the film. I do not think that the
film shows exactly how the students think. I think that this comment is not
consistent: You say that “Liu Lei in the film is presented as an authority figure” and
“I see Lu Lei as also showcasing his organization skills and earnest aspect.” Luo Lei
is also referred to as a bully various times. I have watched the documentary
through the eyes of the film maker. I do not pretend that I can second-guess further
reasons for the behaviour of the students beyond that.
Page 29 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
10
2. In Part 2, the author sets up the connection of education and corruption as
part of the theoretical frame. However, this is quite problematic. The author
seems to be making a case for the influence of corruption on education and
specifically on the class election in the documentary. But this is a problematic
suggestion.
This is incorrect, as I actually show that the notion of corruption is relative.
First, there is no definition of corruption. Sending gifts to classmates cannot be
called corruption without a detailed analysis. Second, even if we accept that
giving gifts is corruption, the documentary, which only shows the voting results
without exploring the reason the children voted as they did, does support a
conclusion that the children’s votes were bought by gifts.
Although I make explicit that gift giving could be just that (see discussion), in the
eyes of the government and in the eyes of the filmmakers, it is corruption. For this
reason, I think this comment is superfluous.
3. More context is needed. The author should introduce more detailed
information about contemporary China, about economic change is impacting
Chinese people's values, and about elections in China and school elections in
particular. Also the author should cut arguments that are not developed, such as
discussions of the one-child policy and the good-child norm in school.
By turning the article into a film review, I have had to cut some of the text. The
discussions mentioned I have deleted. Also, I do not provide a further political and
economic analysis in relation to democratic aspects of education reforms.
Page 30 of 30
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjme
The Journal of Moral Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
