Pausing on Opportunity

Throughout the multiple crises that must be surmounted in order to achieve anything that resembles sustainable development, one of the most commonly used tropes is that of the Chinese character for 'crisis' combines 'danger' with 'opportunity'.  From Milton Friedman to Joseph Stiglitz to Gordon Brown, from the American (and Middle Eastern) Gulf disaster(s) to the financial crisis, at this point, any intelligent reader surely 'knows' that meaning of the Chinese character 'wei-ji' - though they might not be able to draw the character.  The use of this term in this way harkens to US President John F Kennedy's use of this trope in 1959, and it was later picked up by Richard Nixon.  Despite the wide political breadth between these two men, both wanted to assure the American public (an often a skittish bunch) that despite how 'bad' things might look now, fear not, for an appropriate attitude can lead to a better tomorrow.

There are, however, two problems with this. First: it is an inaccurate translation of the character. Second, jumping into 'opportunity' too fast is, well, dangerous. High likelihood of further crises ensue.

'Wei' does, indeed, mean danger/perilous/fear. But 'ji' is more complex. The compound noun 'jihui' does mean 'opportunity', but 'ji' has numerous meanings, including 'machine, crucial point, incipient moment, opportunity, chance, secret, cunning'.  Its meaning depends on the character preceding it. In this case, it is closer to 'crucial point' than 'opportunity'. Thus 'wei-ji' might better be translated as 'danger crucial point'.  Chinese language specialist Victor Mair at University of Pennsylvania suggests that the rampant mis-use of the term might be a result of wishful thinking combined with an poor understanding of the Chinese language system.

The romantic notion that the Wise Chinese Ancients understood crises better than modern Westerners do is not only misleading (especially when interpreted incorrectly) but risks the danger of not recognising what a crisis is. Ironically, the old Greek 'krisis' from which the English term 'crisis' derived in the late 1400s is closer to what these pundits seek: it emphasises a 'decisive' time for a 'turning point' in (traditionally) a disease for 'better or for worse'.

The rush to look for opportunity in every crisis runs the danger of not recognising what the crisis itself often is. If anything, crises should be taken as times to slow down. As Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' points out, after crises, people are in a state of shock - and are less able to critically consider the options before them. She argues that many  neo-liberal policies were rolled out when countries were in a state of shock and unable to say no. From one 'crisis' thus ensued many others.

A wise doctor ensures he knows what the roots of the 'crisis' is before he suggests treatment; she knows that in a crisis-situation, the wrong treatment will lead to loosing the patient. When we talk about our ecological, food, health, water, climatic, financial and security systems being in a state of 'crisis', loosing the patient is quite serious. Ensuring the response fits the causes of the symptoms becomes paramount. This entails recognising the real losses that have already occurred and not jumping over them in a rush to obtain that seemingly fleeting opportunity.  Without fully recognising the problems, people jump too fast, and that 'ji' will quickly becomes lost in the 'wei' of danger.