Defending Aladdin: Argument from Cultural Contagion

Aladdin, Birmingham Hippodrome (2015)
Photo by Keith Pattison

Whilst undertaking my research, I have encountered a number of distinct arguments made for the discontinuation of productions of Aladdin set in China. The subject matter is profound and many people's opinions are informed by their own personal experience – it is therefore no surprise that I have encountered nearly as many different viewpoints as I have people. 

 

Broadly speaking, the arguments are usually variations on 1 of 5 themes: 

 

1. The Argument from Personal Experience of Racism 
2. The Argument for Diversity and Inclusion 
3. The Argument against Cultural Appropriation 
4. The Argument against the Perpetuation of Negative Stereotypes 
5. The Argument of Cultural Contagion 

 

Each argument approaches the question from a different direction, and each is worthy of consideration.

 

In this response I will consider the one I consider the most compelling - the argument from cultural contagion. The appraisal of which, as we will see, requires fastidious and robust logic. 

 

🀀

THE ARGUMENT OF CULTURAL CONTAGION 

 

1.     The Chinese empire was colonised by the British during the 19th century 

 

2.    During this period, the British constructed an idea of China that was paternalistic, condescending and unrealistic

 

3.     During the colonial period, the British state visited economic and military atrocities upon the people of China 

 

4.    The effects of colonisation upon China are still ongoing 

 

5.     It was during this colonial period that the dramatic conventions associated with pantomime productions of Aladdin were developed and codified 

 

6.    The conventions used in pantomimes of Aladdin are the tainted products of a colonial mindset which denigrate people of Chinese heritage

 

7.      Contemporary productions of Aladdin which are set in China necessarily perpetuate the problematic effects of the colonial mindset 

 

 

             

THEREFORE 

 

White British producers should not stage productions of Aladdin  

which are set in China. 

 🀀

 

At first blush, this argument seems persuasive. It is logical, provides adequate context and appeals to a universal sense of natural justice.  

 

Indeed, the consideration of this argument has led me to do a great deal of reading around the subject – and no doubt there is much more that I could usefully do. However, upon reflection, I believe the conclusion, though persuasive, is unsound.  

 

The refutation requires nuance and considerable contextual exposition. However, not only do I argue that the premises unsafe, I will go on to argue that the conclusion relies on a tacit, uncertain claim to knowledge. 

 

  🀀

CONTEXTUAL EXPOSITION 

 

The rapid expansion of the British Empire into Asia during the 19th century was unprecedented. 

 

Sino-European relations during the pre-modern era were characterised by the Chinese Imperial boon of limited trading dispensations bestowed upon sea-faring merchants. The boons allowed trading only within the predesignated boundaries of Canton.1 

Sale of English goods in Guangzhou (Canton), China, 1858.

 

At the beginning of this period, China was a wealthy but fading imperial power, leading the world economy (alongside Mughal India) in the production of high-value commercial goods such as porcelain, silk and spices. By contrast, European traders found they had little of value to trade in return. Compared to oriental silks, Europe’s main export commodity: wool was inferior, bulky and not highly prized. The only goods that Asian merchants wanted from their European trading partners were precious metals which were mined by enslaved peoples in huge quantities in the Americas and shipped Eastward in exchange for desirable commodities.

"Chinese merchants did not simply pursue bullion; they sought one particular metal; silver"  

Richard von Glahn, Myth and Reality of China’s Seventeenth-Century Monetary Crisis. ( 

The Journal of Economic History, vol. 56, no. 2, 1996, pp. 429–54.

Thus, the period of pre-modern Sino-European trade can best be understood as one of West-to-East- wealth transfer.

"The enormous demand for Chinese silk and ceramics in the world market transformed China into a "sink of silver" that absorbed most of the bullion originating in the Americas" 

Hung, H. (2001). Imperial China and Capitalist Europe in the Eighteenth-Century  

Global Economy. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 24(4), 473–513.

So unbalanced was the economic dynamic that there are countless tales of desperate European merchants being turned away at ports, exiled for petty grievances, or forced to kowtow to access the lucrative Chinese markets. The Chinese state maintained a monopoly on violence within the factories – any merchant not playing nicely was dealt with swiftly and decisively. 

Sino-European trade increased throughout the 18th century, and by the turn of the century, British commercial interests were heavily invested in Chinese supply chains. 

 

The dates are important. Britain became the first country to undergo the Industrial Revolution (1760s-1800s). The productivity of British labour increased exponentially. British industry suddenly experienced huge manufacturing surpluses which in turn slashed the relative prices of British goods on the international markets. 

 

So stark was the increase in output and consistency of manufacturing, the pre-industrial societies with which Britain was trading could not compete.

Asian markets were flooded with British goods and their domestic industries collapsed. Private companies increasingly employed private militias in an attempt to protect their lucrative revenue streams. In the span of just a few decades, Britain experienced a gigantic and rapid reversal of fortune; wealth transferred from East-to-West and gold poured into company coffers in London. 

The Chinese Empire faced turmoil: the economy was ravaged, businesses closed, the Imperial treasury was depleted. Unemployment and hunger skyrocketed. In an attempt to defend China's domestic markets, the Emperor erected an array of barriers to trade including tariffs, price controls, import quotas and the seizure of private goods. The implementation of these controls put China and Britain on a collision-course towards armed conflict. Both empires deployed their military might in an attempt to defend their economic interests fighting a succession of bloody conflicts.

 

Destroying Chinese Junks by Edward Duncan -
 Public Domain

It was not clear who would be victorious, and both sides pressed their advantage.  However, it was Britain – buoyed with industrially manufactured weapons – who emerged victorious. 

 

Redolent in victory, Britain dismantled trade barriers. After a few years, the Chinese emperor once more declared war on Britain. This time, the defeat was even more resounding, resulting in the treaty of Nanjing and the ceding of Hong Kong. 

 

From this point on (1840s-1900s) the British Empire capitalised on their industrial advantage. Domestic Chinese production withered, and the British Empire took full advantage of its role as a global hegemon. The tools of the British state were employed in increasingly ideological attempts to impose British culture on the peoples of the East – leaders were coerced, battles were waged, indigenous workers were exploited and the lives of others were traded in return for Croesus-evoking profits. 

 

 

 🀀

EXAMINING THE PREMISES 

🀀

 

1. The Chinese empire was colonised by the British during the 19th century 

 

Britain did not colonise China in the same way as it did India during the Raj. However, there is some merit in viewing Sino-British trade on 19th Century through a colonial lens. Following military defeat, British merchants and diplomats imposed their will upon the Chinese Empire, whether the people liked it or not. There was no rule by consent. Furthermore, it is undoubtedly true that in the name of Empire, huge injustices were perpetrated against the people of China.  

 

Political cartoon about the Open Door Policy.

However, we must be careful not to be blinkered by the benefit of hindsight. The relationship between China and Britain in the 19th Century was one of two mighty empires, each boasting a vast military, both seeking to project power over the other, standing toe-to-toe with each other in the pursuit of economic dominance. Of course, we know now that Britain emerged victorious, and exploited this victory evermore so as the century drew to a close. if you wanted to go back and take a snapshot of relations in 1900, you may indeed find the analogy of colonisation fitting. 

 

However, not every year is 1900. For centuries, China exerted control and power over British merchants, humiliating diplomats and collecting untold wealth. In recent years, China has once again been in the ascendancy: the PRC economy dwarfs that of UK, and (particularly since Brexit) British diplomats once again lobby Chinese leaders for special dispensations to trade. 

 

Take a snapshot of Sino-British relations in 1600 or 2023 and you would find a very different picture. 

 

It is not clear to me that in contemporary characterisation of the relationship between Britain and China, we should privilege one 50-year period from centuries ago, over everything else. 

   🀀

 

2. During this period, the British constructed an idea of China that was paternal, condescending and unrealistic  

 

It is true that between 1850-1900, British colonialists constructed an ideal of Chinese culture as increasingly effeminate, philosophical and esoteric. We see as much in the myriad artistic representations of “the Orient” that proliferate during the late Victorian period. 

 

Attributed to Studio of Tingqua (Chinese, 1809-1870)

However, it is not clear to me that it is reasonable to take this observation and extrapolate a gestalt caricature of Britain and British people as colonial oppressors. It goes without saying that the vast majority of people in 19th century Britain never visited China – they didn't know any Chinese people – they didn't border-hop with any opium shipments, they didn't fight any Chinese armies. Yes, the industrial revolution started in Britain, but for most British people, it brought factory work, long hours and pollution – not the filthy lucre of international trade. 

 

Indeed, for the most part, scholars agree that the decades immediately preceding military engagement (1770-1830) are ones in which Chinese culture is venerated, extolled and mimicked by the British.  

 

Not every Victorian was Clive of India or Prince Albert. British people in Britain were by-and-large exploited by the same wealthy group of capitalists that pressed the British state to move against China. In the nearly 250 years that British people have been going to the theatre to watch pantomimes of Aladdin set in China, they have gone there to be wowed – to be blown away – to be transported to a wonderful world of luxury, mystery and ancient grandeur. 

 

It is not apparent to me what moral harm is wrought by seeking entertainment in someone else’s culture. 

 

Of course, you may point to specific productions and/or conventions of yesteryear that now seem hideously xenophobic (buck teeth, heavy eye makeup, faahny voyse). But that overlooks the fact that we have (by and large) left those tropes in the distant past. Yes, the industry can always improve... if I saw a production where the actors were taking the mick, I'd get up and leave with you. But when was the last time you saw that on stage? Unfortunately, it has become de rigueur of late to lambast any productions set in China – simply having a Chinese costume, or playing Chinese music is enough to provoke cries of “racism.” But deliberately tarring all productions with the dirtiest of brushes is not only disingenuous, it risks diverting the attention of the well-intending observer away from the occasional production that is genuinely problematic. 

🀀

3. During the colonial period, the British state visited economic and military atrocities upon the people of China 

 

It is true that, applying contemporary mores, the apparatus of the British Empire was employed to commit atrocities against the Chinese population. It's a historical truism that the victor enjoys the spoils of his success at the expense of those over whom he is victorious. The actions of the British Empire can certainly be viewed through this lens. 

 

However, it is dishonest to weaponise contemporary reflection on the foreign policies of modern Brits’ great-great-grandfathers' liege lord’s diplomats in an attempt to granfalloon the present population into a state of perpetual, primordial guilt.

Storming the fortress of Amoy, 1841

🀀

 

4. The effects of colonisation upon China are still ongoing  

 

"The Western invasion in the 19th century greatly expanded foreign trade, which brought new goods and ideas to China... The opening of the Suez-Canal (1869) and the telegraph (1871) changed the way business was done in China – and none of this would have happened without China’s opening under pressure in the 1840s. Like it or not, the legacy of the opening of China by force in the 19th century are being felt today."

• Ben Li et al, China's soaring foreign trade: Made in Britain c. 1840 (2010)
 

I'm sure there may be lingering impacts of colonialism on Chinese culture. As Ben Li goes on to explain:

"As we discuss in Keller et al. (2010), China’s role in world trade today is shaped in part by the post-1978 market reforms and in part by foreign trade several centuries ago."

ibid

But it is a stretch to argue that these are in some way definitive. Realistically, to what extent is the state of the Chinese economy contingent on British gunboat diplomacy of the 1800s? More-so than as a result of the occupation by Japan? More than two world wars? More than the Chinese civil war? The decades of Maoist oppression, purges and secret police? More than the millions starved to death during the great leap forward? 

 

I think not. . 

It's true that Britain benefited from Empire, but the expansion of the British Empire owed as much to the industrial revolution and the concomitant exploitation of British workers in the dark Satanic Mills of Manchester, as it does to the capitalisation of foreign markets. 

I get it, life was rubbish if you were Chinese 200 years ago. Life was pretty rubbish if you were British 200 years ago.  

As a case in point, here's a fab quote from one of the books I've been reading that shows how the tropes of Orientalism were applied not only to the people's of the East, but to the working classes back in Blighty:

“... as early as 1851 in London Labour and the London Poor, Henry Mayhew uses the travel writing tropes of “the most distant tribes of the earth” and “the undiscovered country” to describe the Eng­lish urban poor, as well as describing them as “our own heathen,” who are living in “the lowest depths of barbarism.”

    Valeri Kennedy, Orientalism in the Victorian Era  (2017)

Thank goodness we all live here and now, in our peaceful, internationally-oriented, industrial world. Why don't we get on and enjoy it? 

 

🀀

5. It was during this colonial period that the dramatic conventions associated with pantomime productions of Aladdin were developed and codified  

 

It is true that many of the modern conventions of Aladdin were codified during the colonial period. These include:  

• The Dame’s name is Twankey 
• They live in a laundry  
• Her son is called Wishee Washee 
• Chinese costumes 
• Chinese style entrance stings 
• The comedic duo of the Chinese policemen

 

However, considering each individual charge, I'm not entirely sure what is so morally repugnant. 

 

Dan Leno as Widow Twankey, 1896

• The Dame’s name is Twankey  

 

For those who don't know: Twankey's was a brand of cheap Chinese tea, popular with Victorians. You did know that, didn’t you? 

 

No, of course you didn’t. No real, actual person knows the brand-names of Victorian teabags. In fact, as far I can tell, the only discernible reason that anyone has to know Twankey is named after a teabag is so they can use it to claim that it's racist. 

 

The dame is a poor widow – why shouldn’t she be named after a cheap teabag? It's only akin to being “Widow Typhoo” - what's the big fuss? Here's a clue for you: if you have to give someone a lesson on tea bags to explain why a character’s name is racist – it (effectively) isn't racist. 

 

• They live in a laundry

 

During the 19th century, a very small number of Chinese immigrants (mostly sailors on East India Company ships) settled near the docks in Limehouse in London. However, as recent immigrants, they struggled to access the professions (owing to a lack of social capital, exacerbated by the wariness of indigenous Brits towards foreigners), and over time, many of these immigrants set up and managed laundries. For context, there were vanishingly few Chinese expats living in Britain until after WW1 – the 1921 census records only 337 Chinese born citizens living in Britain2.  As a result, there was a significant stretch of time in which the limited experience that indigenous Brits had interacting with immigrants of Chinese heritage, were in and around laundries. The legacy of this quirk of history is that Twankey also works in a laundry.  

 

Why is that problematic? It isn't a comment on anyone nowadays. Does having a scene in a laundry insinuate a belief that all British-Chinese citizens should work or do work in laundries? Of course not! No more than productions of Jack and the Beanstalk insinuate that every boy who grows up on a small holding propagates beanstalks from their compost heaps. Again, some context: the period in which Chinese-born nationals worked predominantly in laundries is scarcely within living memory. When was the last time you opened a newspaper to read “Skinheads mock Chinese immigrants with racist references to textile-cleaning"? For someone to be genuinely aggrieved that a pantomime includes a laundry scene, they'd have to be over 100 years old. 

Chinese laundry postcard

 

• Her son is called Wishee Washee  

 

Wishee Washee is called Wishee Washee because he works in a laundry, washing clothes. It's a play on words – as in: "my son is Wishy-washy, the common adjectival descriptor meaning indefinite or moonish." Unless the British Empire stole wordplay from China, I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. 

Look at my husband being cutesy!

 

• Chinese costumes 

 

What is the fuss about wearing Chinese costumes? They're costumes... based on the real-life, actual historical clothes worn by people from China hundreds of years ago. It's not as if British-Chinese citizens are walking the streets of Manchester wearing Qing-dynasty shot-silk Hanfu rompers on a day-to-day basis. The costume of the Emperor of China (historical or pantomime) is equally as exotic to every single soul born on this island. To try and claim special ownership over the look and feel of a costume, the likes-of-which you have never, ever worn, nor seen in the flesh outside of a stage show is frankly preposterous. What is the corollary? That being born white British imbues you with a sacred connection to Elizabethan doublet and hose? 

Chinese Princess Costume

 

Costumes are celebrations of colour and fabric, cut and trimming. Can we not celebrate them together? 

 

• Chinese style entrance stings 

 

A similar defence can be mounted with regard to Chinese-style instrumentation. There is a reason why Aladdin soundstacks are awash with gongs and flutes... because traditional Chinese music is awash with gongs and flutes. It is a pastiche. Does it imply a belief that all people of Chinese extraction have Chinesey underscores every time they enter a room? Of course not! It just means that Chinese music sounds a bit like this... “ “... and it does! Not all Chinese music. Not every song goes just like that. But these instruments, these tonal combinations, are found in traditional Chinese orchestration. It's not a judgement; it's not a dig,; it's an observation.

 

• The comedic duo of the Chinese policemen
   

Much is made of the appropriateness of having Chinese Policemen. Well, if you have a play set in China, what nationality would you expect the policemen to be? Some take exception to the names Ping and Pong - imagining that the audience extrapolate all their expectations of Chinese names from a panto script. OK, this one I concede. Not because I'm entirely convinced that it's truly problematic (The Pong are one of the most ancient clans of China tracing their heritage back to 11073... and there have been two Chinese emperors called Ping!)

However, a weak reference to table tennis is not a hill I'm particularly eager to die on – in my script, the policemen are called Sergeant Pepper and PC World, and they wear blue cord with black and white check flashing, instead of a kuli hat with a clip-on pigtail.

Is it a problem that they're buffoonish and dim-witted? I'm not convinced. The henchmen are always buffoonish and dim-witted... that's the stock character – whether they're Chinese or not. If you want to argue that it reinforces a view of Chinese people as clownish stereotypes, you'll have to argue why the character Aladdin isn't reinforcing a stereotype of Chinese as bold and handsome, or Jasmine as regal and demure. Characters are characters. They can only be understood within the narrative in which they are placed. Not every character represents every person. 

🀀

 

6. The conventions used in pantomimes of Aladdin are the tainted products of a colonial mindset which denigrate Chinese people. 

 

There is a growing trend in some circles to assume the most negative interpretation possible. If something references nationality, it's automatically racist. If someone makes a joke about gender, it's automatically sexist.

 

What a pity! Doing so risks more than throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater. It warps our perception, pollutes our ability to commune with each other, taints our paradigm until all we can see is trauma, hurt and blame. 

 

Can you find racism in Britain today? Unfortunately, yes. 

 

Can you still find racist panto productions of Aladdin? If you go looking for one, I imagine so – yes. 

 

But that is not typical. There are some wonderful productions out there. Shows made with love, attention to detail and in celebration of Chinese culture. How can you tell which is which? There's only one way... go and watch them. 

🀀

 

7. Contemporary productions of Aladdin which are set in China necessarily perpetuate the problematic effects of the colonial mindset 

 

Pantomime is a live theatre art. It is made on stage with the audience. That's when the magic happens: when audience, performers, tech, creatives, all come together and commune. Before that moment, it doesn't exist. 

 

For there to be problems right from the start requires someone else to have brought them in with them. 

 

We are not doomed to carry around the sins of our forefathers. The tears our grandparents shed don't have to stop us from laughing today. 

 

And yes, things aren't always as we would like. We can all do our bit towards improving our practice. But if we can take a wide view, relax and have fun, everybody will benefit. 

🀀

 

A FURTHER REBUTTAL OF THE CONCLUSION 

 

As we have seen, the premises of the argument from cultural contagion are far from sound. Many of the “established facts” are shown to be subjective and can easily be contested. 

 

However, even if we were to accept the premises, the conclusion is not foregone. The whole argument is predicated on the tacit assumption that meaning is something that can be owned. This is not an obvious truth. Nor is it something I accept. 

 

Meaning emerges from the interaction between the perceiver and the perceived. I will concede that some people feel that setting Aladdin in China carries problematic meanings for them. But the key words here are: for them. Their meaning is personal and subjective to them.  

 

Wisdom starts when we acknowledge that everyone else experiences their own meaning as well. All of them equally valid. You cannot own a folk story any more than you can own a handshake. The folk tales on which pantos are based are vestiges of humanities common cultural heritage. A story about a boy in Peking, told by a Syrian storyteller to a French collector of folk stories, and performed on the British stage since 1781.

 

Arguments that seek to establish a hierarchy of ownership predicated on who people are is as narcissistic as it is futile. What benefit could it possibly bring you to have more right to understand a story than somebody else? What bitter parsimony would seek to exclude other people from making their own meaning and owning their own understanding.