I have to say I normally enjoy reading David Brooks‘ columns in the Times. He’s one of the few conservative columnists (although he would probably call himself a centrist) who I can read for more than ten seconds without becoming viscerally angry, and his cranky rants about popular culture like this one assessing the conformity of tattoo culture under the guise of individualism in the States can be biting and spot on.

However, I probably wasn’t the only Times reader put off by Brooks’ foray into Asian Studies 101 this week, entitled “Harmony and the Dream” where he dusts off the old “collectivism vs. individualism” dichotomy every NOVA teacher clings to for about six months to a year when confronted with the presumed ‘different-ness’ of Asia. Writing live and direct from Chengdu, Brooks comes up with the following orientalist gems for the ages, based on some dodgy psychoanalytic theory:

“Americans usually see individuals; Chinese and other Asians see contexts.”

“Americans are more likely to see categories. Asians are more likely to see relationships.”

“The ceremony drew from China’s long history, but surely the most striking features were the images of thousands of Chinese moving as one — drumming as one, dancing as one, sprinting on precise formations without ever stumbling or colliding. We’ve seen displays of mass conformity before, but this was collectivism of the present — a high-tech vision of the harmonious society performed in the context of China’s miraculous growth.”

Uh, yeah. Of course the olympic ceremony was a “display of mass conformity”. Because, er, it was Chinese-y and had a lot of people running around. While some of the above analyses may be true in certain cases, Brooks’ reading of Asia is far too cut and dry. He probably didn’t notice that the ceremony was fraught with celebrities from China. He doesn’t call attention to the fact that China’s economy is one of burgeoning capitalism and middle class growth and development, and that Western luxury goods, not Maoist texts, are what people are seeking in the mainland.

Not that Brooks’ premise is entirely incorrect–his assertion that “a new sort of global conversation develops” when non-capitialistic countries gain economic strength is interesting. Unfortunately Brooks falls into the trap of reading his own preconceived notions about China’s supposed collectivism into his interpretation of Asia. Tsk Tsk. Brooks normally gets it right but this one is a little too oversimplified for my tastes.