The Otherness of the Everyday

Twelve Conversations from Chinese Art World During the Pandemic

JIANG Jiehong, JIANG Jiehong

• Publisher: Intellect Books
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781789384413
• Topic: Art
• Subtopic: Art asiatique

At the end of 2019 to the beginning of 2020, when the coronavirus first emerged, Wuhan in China became the first city in the world affected by this deadly disease. It then rapidly spread to the entire country, and further on to Europe, America and the rest of the world.

During these strange times, we witness the emptiness of streets, squares and cities everywhere; we are estranged from and yet 'connected' to each other. As a response to the pandemic, Jiang Jiehong convened in-conversation talks with figures from different disciplines in the Chinese-speaking world, including anthropology, architecture, art, curating, fashion film, literature, media, museum, music and photography.

The twelve high-profile participants in these conversations are Xiang Biao, Zhang Peili, Pi Li, Zhang Zikang, Gu Zheng, Li Lin, Zhang Zhen, Shu Kewen, Jiang Jun, Wang Shouzhi, Chen Danqing and Zhu Zheqin.

These conversations foster new understandings of this present-day crisis; the threat of the invisible, notions of distance and spatialization, separation and isolation, communication and mobility, discipline and surveillance, and community and collectiveness, as well as the increase in conflicts and divisive voices between China and the world. At the same time, these reflections give us the opportunity to re-examine our past 'normality', and to project our future visions of a post-COVID world.

Readership will include those working and studying in the humanities and specifically in the disciplines of the interviewees, and those who have particular interests in contemporary China. The Otherness of the Everyday is also of interest to a more general audience who has experienced the pandemic and is seeking innovative understandings of this global crisis in human history.

1. The State of Suspension

Conversation with Xiang Biao, 6 June 2020

Jiang Jiehong (JJH): Good morning Xiang Biao, and welcome to our online research seminar series, The World, Two Metres Away. This is the very first conversation of the series, live streaming on Bilibili (Chinese online video platform). We are both in England and now and it’s a quarter past nine in the morning, seven hours behind China, and I know there are around 15,000 audience members with us now online to join our discussion.

Xiang Biao (XB): Thank you so much Jiehong for your invitation. I am very happy to have this opportunity to share my experience with all of you. In China, the current debate is about the so-called ditan jingji (stall economy).¹ I think we are just like vendors of market stalls, or indeed, setting up a virtual stall online, shouting loudly with lots of people passing by, although I don’t really have much ‘in stock’ to sell.

JJH: From the end of last year to the beginning of this year, the pandemic has swept through the whole world. We also find that in the time of the pandemic, we have suffered from various degrees of impact, while some of our usual ways of living and working are gradually being changed. While in China the lockdown started just before the Spring Festival, the two of us can only talk about our everyday experiences on the lockdown here in the UK since March. Slogans can be seen and heard everywhere – ‘Stay at Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives’ (Fig. 1.1). The public are also asked to maintain social distancing, as in Britain, 2 metres, while in China, it is said to be one and a half metres – I am not sure how much difference these 50 centimetres could possibly make.

Figure 1.1: The sign of ‘Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives’ on the billboard at Piccadilly Circus during coronavirus lockdown, London.

Figure 1.2: Shoppers queuing 2 metres apart to enter a supermarket, 15 June 2020, Oxford.

Experiencing this 2-metre social distancing measure, it is not as simple as keeping 2 metres away from others while queuing up in front of the supermarket, and the perception sometimes has been of much more than the physical distance (Fig. 1.2). When you are shopping, for example, in order to observe things on the shelf in detail, you might have moved a little forward and inadvertently got too close to another consumer. The social distance between the two then needs to be readjusted immediately either in agreement or conflict, through (purely) the eye contact, especially with wearing face masks. Also, when we go out for a walk, people would avoid any closer contact to keep 2 metres distance when they pass each other face to face. This distance is not only to be kept physically, more importantly, it must be formed and maintained psychologically and therefore has become a great change to the normality that each of us has been used to.

XB: It is interesting to start with the market-stall economy and social distancing. I don’t know how they tackle the problem of social distancing, as one of the important features of the market stall is that there is no distance. This type of stall can be considered the earliest supermarket, or a ‘pre-supermarket’. It allows a buyer to get up close to the vendor and the products, to create a space without a sense of distance.

The idea suggested by Jiehong, in the discussion The World, Two Metres Away, is an artistic perception of studying the world through such a microcosm. The 2-metre distance does not necessarily change our interpersonal relationships; but it can provide a perspective that enables us to experience or rethink the subtle grammars in interpersonal relationships. These grammars were previously hidden, but now they suddenly have appeared. For example, you just mentioned eye contact. In the past when we walked on the streets and saw people coming towards you, or in very crowded transport, you didn’t actually pay attention to each other, but simply coexisted in the same space and time. This kind of coexistence is direct and it has been taken for granted. Now you have to be cautious all the time and there might be a need to exchange information through eye contact. It doesn’t necessarily aim to protect ourselves, but we have to show others that we know the concerns they may have. I want to send you a message – not only that I am here, but also that I know the government has the social distancing rule. I am saying to you that I am aware of this rule, and at the same time, I also notice that you may have concerns. This means that the information transfer between us is no longer direct or at the same level. It forms an imposition based on a common rule from above us and subsequently the relationship between us can then be established. Such a triangular relationship makes this issue complicated. Other factors would come into play too, for example, when the other person is an elderly person or an Asian wearing a face mask. You have many references and symbolic factors to locate what kind of person they are. Although all these factors are processed very fast in our brain, the responses it causes are quite complicated. It will affect our detailed body movements, such as our next smile, walking speed and body postures. For now, of course, there is no evidence at all to prove that this pandemic will change our behaviour. But it shows that the originally natural interaction that we didn’t notice before is now interacting through a third party. It involves some basic social structural issues.

JJH: Yes, it can be too early for us to make judgments on many of the current situations, as we are living in the process right now. But through the current situations, we will be able to reflect upon the past. You suggest that our previous normal, or rather ‘direct’, interpersonal relationship has been taken for granted and it makes me think of the distance between people in the past. For example, take two people who meet in a coffee shop. The distance between them is probably about a metre, and within such a distance they can comfortably sit down and chat. Or say, if one of them is the boss or manager then the distance between them may have to be slightly extended unconsciously to maintain this power relationship. In another possibility, if they appear to stay very close to each other, then there must be a particular established relationship. Before Covid-19 arrived, all these various distances were not completely fixed in either case during the course of the meeting. It could be flexible, elastic and fluid dependent on any creative interactions. The changeable distance between individuals can build up an occasion, even a community, consciously or unconsciously define a relationship, and encourage bodily expression. When the distance between us has now to be conformed to the same standard – 2 metres – the previous flexibility, the beauty of it, is no longer available. However, this rigidity of the 2-metre is not entirely invalid or dysfunctional in constructing relationships and communities. It is like a time when you wake up in the morning with a stiff neck. You don’t turn your head around quickly even if there were things very exciting behind you, but have to slow down cautiously and move your entire body altogether. But this could only be learnt possibly after experiencing the pain once, if not a few more times, and then you will be alert and remember to keep the movement of other parts of your body consistent to that of the neck, the inelastic and painful status quo. Similarly, when the distance between us is conformed and standardised, it becomes inflexible and rigid, and has to bring in the third party to form the triangular relationship as you just insightfully revealed, to maintain our communications.

XB: There are two points here I can respond to. The first is the correspondence between physical distance and social distance. There is a cultural difference between the East and the West. In Eastern society, physical contact is not particularly important in social interaction. For example, shaking hands – ordinary people don’t have much handshaking experience, let alone with hugs and kisses. But in the West, hugs and kisses are very important, and when they are suddenly barred, how to find alternative ways of greeting becomes an issue. This is a typical and interesting example of being ‘2 metres away’.

In Europe, Latin America and North America, social relationship and physical distance are clearly related. There are intimate relationships, general colleague relationships and acquaintance relationships respectively, from kissing, hugging, handshaking, to how to walk together – there are a series of hierarchical codes and grammars. Generally speaking, in Asia, on the one hand, we have abundant forms of social distancing. The hierarchical relationship and the intimate or distant relationship are all very delicate. But they are not always manifested in the physical distance. In Asia, it is difficult to figure out the relationship between two people from the distance placed between them. For example, teenagers often hang out with their arms on each other’s shoulders, which is very common, especially among men. And it is also more common in India. Everyone thinks that it is a very natural expression of friendship. Does this mean that nowadays the changes will produce different effects on the two cultures, like the rigidity Jiehong just mentioned? It will be interesting to observe.

The second point I think is more valuable to reflect on. There have always been differences between people. Power relationships are expressed through the distance in physical space. Now one size fits all – everyone has to be 2 metres away. What effect does it generate? Does it make us feel a commonality no matter whether we are in the East or the West? Now when this virus is the common enemy of humankind, it is a common battle for all of us. The measures taken by different governments across the world are now converging. Everyone agrees that we need to wear face masks. Social distance and isolation are critical and it is even necessary to lockdown the cities and regions to restrict people from going out and gathering under certain circumstances. When the measures are becoming more and more consistent – we are now all living in a consistent space and facing consistent problems, does it bring us all closer to one another and make us feel that we are more equal? According to what we observe now, it is in fact quite the opposite. There are not only differences between countries, but also differences among people even those of the same nation and culture. For instance, I have experienced it myself, when big controversies emerged within a social group of our secondary school friends. These controversies did not just derive from any disputes over the reception and analysis of any particular information. They have quickly transformed into something anxiously emotional. Even having been old friends for so many years, the friendship could have suddenly cracked because of the current situation. When we are facing a common enemy, with a common strategy and everyone is being 2 metres away, in such a consistent situation, why and how did these cracks appear? Back to the issue of elasticity raised by Jiehong, it is because the construction of interpersonal relationships sometimes requires difference and flexibility. If you make everyone obey one same rule, the flexibility between people will disappear. If everyone follows the third-party principle to regulate their behaviours, soon, such a crack would appear. How do you understand the third-party principle? Does the other person follow it well? Do I follow it well? And why should we all need to follow the rule and behave accordingly? Soon all these problems will occur. I think it becomes a philosophical question, that is: How do we find ourselves in a balance between the commonality and differences? An organic commonality cannot be anything superficial but can only be revealed from specific differences. Organic commonality, in the words of Jiehong, must be constantly constructed and reconstructed through the elastic space of daily life.

JJH: You mentioned your interactions with old schoolmates back in China. I also have such experiences. In my junior and senior school, we spent six years in the same school in Shanghai. Our group on WeChat used to be fairly quiet, with occasionally some casual and light-hearted messages, but since the pandemic, it became an arena for critical discussions, a battlefield. Some discussions are extremely intense, and some, similar to what you have experienced, not only talked about specific Covid-related issues themselves but also directly attacked the opponent. This is particularly sad. And noticeably, there have been two opposing camps: one is domestic – those who remain living and working in China, and the other is overseas – the group of people like us being ‘exiled’ to the West. And yet, those who themselves stay in China but whose children are studying in the West are in a dilemma. What you have just mentioned is a very important point – why there seem to be more conflicts when a set of standardised rules are in place, even in a same cultural and political context. And furthermore, what if we are on a narrow footpath in a park, and come across an Indian, a White, or a Black person? And how do we receive and perceive the subtle information through different glances or smiles within the distance?

Now we hide ourselves behind the screens, taking online classes, joining Teams meetings and like us having this virtual seminar via Zoom today. With absolutely no chance of face-to-face meetings and relying purely on these online platforms, I am not sure whether technology has really connected us or actually distanced us. The current distance between you and me is probably approximately 65 miles – from Birmingham to Oxford, a 1-hour drive. But what kind of distance is it between us now, some 20 inches away from our screen? Of course not, it is immeasurable. I think we can imagine this as a kind of ‘foldable distance’. We draw two little figures on two opposite ends of one piece of paper, and then fold it up, as if those two hopeless persons meet each other. We make use of some media and internet platforms, then we seemingly ‘gather together’ and are able to communicate verbally and visually. Although it is completely different in comparison with the elastic distance and socialising system in the past, we have to compromise – it is better than no ‘meeting’ at all. And yet, paradoxically, as soon as we turn on the camera, the distance disappears, as everything in the screen – right in front of you – has lost any need for imagination; and as soon as we turn on the camera, the distance is ‘materialised’, as you know everything you see is far away over ‘there’. When all these online meeting cannot substitute for the real, but form a new ‘normality’, we could re-examine the special distance and its ‘controllability’ formed by the current difficult circumstances.

XB: The ‘controllable’ distance I think is a very interesting way to see it. As you mentioned earlier, when we turn on the camera it seems that we have lost all our imagination. A very important reason is that I think the screen and the camera may actually provide us with more controllability. The interactions in a natural physical space have a lot of uncontrollable factors. For example, some embarrassment such as getting stuck in the middle of a conversation is easier to handle on the screen. But when a real person stands in front of you, it can be more difficult to handle. These kinds of frictions can be the source of creativity and resilience. The interaction through the screen basically is a frictionless interaction in an abstract space. There are always frictions in specific spaces, to stimulate some stagnation and embarrassment. Sometimes the conversation couldn’t go on or would even collapse.

I’ll provide another example on the limitations made by the contro...