I grew up with one can opener in the house. It got plenty of use—a large proportion of the food my mother fed us came from cans: canned fruit, canned soup, canned pork and beans. From the time I was a small child until I reached high school, that same yellow-handled can opener carried out its duties without flaw or failure. (Update: My mother informs me that she still has that can opener.)
Nowadays, I can’t find a single can opener that works. They bend, they break, they do funky things like open half the can and give up. And if I turn them over, I am guaranteed to see the same words stamped into them: Made in China.
Nearly everything, it seems, is made in China these days. The cheap little plastic toys that last 10 minutes that fill goodie bags for children’s birthdays; appliances that have to be replaced three times a year; even the extremely expensive vacuum cleaner the Cap’n and I bought that has NEVER worked.
When my family was with friends for Pesach seder this year, our hosts’ daughters brought out a magnificent toy: an ice cream shop with beautifully fashioned counter, tables and chairs, dolls, even tiny ice cream cones that fit in the dolls’ hands. It was made out of plastic, but a higher grade than I’m used to seeing. It was colorful, durable, and endlessly entertaining to the girls. When I complimented my hostess on it, she said she had bought it in her hometown of Vienna. I told her I’d never seen anything like it before, and she answered, “That’s because all the junk here is made in China. No one in Europe would buy such trash.”
That got me thinking. If Europeans have such high standards for things, why are everyone else’s so low? When did quality take a back seat to quantity? Isn’t it better to have things that last rather than things that break all the time? Couldn’t we do with less stuff, if that stuff was really worth having?
The more I think about the pervasive Made in China Syndrome, the more I think it’s symptomatic of a larger trend in people’s thinking. To believe that poorer quality is better, that breaking is better than lasting, and that giving money to a country with an appalling human rights record is better than giving those jobs to people in your own country who share your values, is to live in a world where the values have been turned upside-down.
Perhaps this explains the trend toward legitimizing terrorists; relying on fossil fuels long after it has been proven that those fuels damage the environment irreparably and that the money to buy them funds worldwide terrorism; and bashing, boycotting, and even threatening states trying to defend themselves against the same bloodthirsty enemies who seek to destroy the bashers, boycotters, and threat-mongers.
Up is down. Right is wrong. Weakness is strength.
In my favorite “Simpsons” episode, Marge and other concerned parents band together and demand that the children’s favorite cartoon abandon its violent themes and model appropriate behavior. As a result, the children completely lose interest in the TV show that has suddenly failed to entertain them. The viewer then sees a wide shot of the suburban street they live on and, to the sounds of the first movement of Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony (the “Pastoral”), the kids slowly trickle out of their houses and spend the day playing outside, cycling, jumping rope, and playing ball. The children rejected a lousy product and found something else much more healthful and productive. Of course, when the cartoon’s producers saw their ratings plummet, they restored the show’s violence (to the delight of the children who vacated the street as quickly as they had filled it).
Perhaps the economic downturn can turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Perhaps people are meant to have to make do with less. Perhaps people will come to recognize that the policies that have driven manufacturing for decades—like planned obsolescence and appliances that are cheaper to replace than to fix—are crooked, and the stuff they can no longer afford is not worth having anyway. Perhaps people will come to recognize that paying for a few well-made things that last is actually less expensive than buying poorly made stuff that has to be replaced frequently. Perhaps people will come to understand that less is, in fact, more.
And perhaps—just perhaps—people will take stock of the world we live in and realize that applying their own values of freedom, justice, the rule of law, due process, and fairness is essential in picking our friends in the world, and that societies that do not value these things should be regarded warily, and kept at a distance.
May people once again find their true north.
To believe that poorer quality is better, that breaking is better than lasting, and that giving money to a country with an appalling human rights record is better than giving those jobs to people in your own country who share your values, is to live in a world where the values have been turned upside-down.
How well you reflect my thoughts.
I tend to think that people buy “made in China” objects first and foremost because they are cheap. Here, in Europe, we often get the choice but the Chinese products are definitely much cheaper. I consider myself lucky to be able to afford the European ones. When given the choice I buy the European stuff primarily, as you wrote, because we more or less share the same values.
We often get the impression that when people become customers they become mindless and fail to see how things are connected. More Chinese products also means fewer jobs in Europe.
There must be ethics in buying too. I wonder if anyone has written about this. Michael may know!
Shimshonit, great post.
We might also note how often these Chinese toys have toxin-related recalls. China’s CPU R&D and production has reached Pentium II levels, and I applaud them, but I hope they’ll stick to the wonderful absence (or at least, reduction) of heavy metals (lead, mercury, cadmium, etc.) which Intel, AMD, and others have recently achieved.
(Speaking of which: I cannot say how frustrated I am that Israelis are entirely unaware of the need to notify hazardous waste disposal organizations for pickup of dead electronics. My family will religiously notify the local pickup every time we have a dead TV, VCR, even alarm clock.)
I’m reminded also of Moshe Feiglin, the great racist, saying we should (have) boycott(ed) the Olympics in China, as a protest of their human rights record.
I don’t know where to find a discussion of the ethics of buying, but perhaps a discussion would be in a book I’ve heard of (not read), “Pure Money: A Straightforward Guide to Jewish Monetary Law”, by Dayan Shlomo Cohen, http://www.feldheim.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?item=978-1-56871-430-1&type=store&category=search
Also, Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir is famous for writing on subjects like these, especially business ethics (his PhD is in economics). He writes a well-known column, “The Jewish Ethicist” (http://www.besr.org/DCPage.aspx?PageID=203), and he also has a book of the same title.
I recall a Mishpacha article about the human-rights atrocities in China, comparing China to the Tower of Bavel (when a worker fell, no one cared, but when a brick fell, all mourned).
The wonderful thing was, not a single Jew was involved; this article had nothing to do with Jews. Suffering humans was enough.
Similarly, I was delighted by a particular passage in Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz’s Eyes to See. Actually, I was delighted by the entire book (ethical grandeur was a golden thread throughout), but I particularly remember this passage: the author (born in Poland in 1921) was discussing the fact that there are great non-Jews as well, and that we should recognize when non-Jews are ethical as well. His first example was a particular gentile who had argued against antisemitism – wonderful; gratitude towards gentiles who have aided Jews is certainly proper. But his next example blew me away: he cited Abraham Lincoln as a paradigm of a righteous gentile, for his role in ending slavery! When a 1921-born Polish Haredi rabbi speaks of pro-black abolitionist as paradigmatic of righteous non-Jews, you know you’ve found a glorious book.
Also, in Yosef haKohen’s “The Universal Jew” (a wonderful book, which particularly relies on Rav S. R. Hirsch for his weltanschauung; Rav Hirsch is particularly close to my heart, though I have seen from Rabbi Marc Angel’s book on Rabbi Benzion Uziel that Rav Hirsch has some competition from Rav Uziel in the fields of valuing secular education and non-Jews, but I digress…back to Yosef haKohen’s “The Universal Jew”), there was a particular case of a pre-Holocaust Polish rav (perhaps the Hofetz Haim…I forget), who cried every time he walked on a particular road that had been built by the government using (non-Jewish) corvee.
Ilana-Davita: Thank you. I wish we had choices here in Israel between non-Chinese and Chinese products. Most of the time, all we can get here is Chinese. I fear that may be the case increasingly in America as well.
Michael: Thanks for all the sources. I really like Rav Asher Meir’s column in the Post, and I also understand he was asked to help the OU develop its ethical guidelines for hashgachah in the States. It’s good to have rabbis like him around.
[…] Made in China, Shimshonit questions the Made in China Syndrome […]