Statement of Support from UK Professor

Although the Falun Gong movement is a recent one – only a decade old – it belongs in a long and honoured Chinese tradition of ‘cultivation practice’, in which equal attention is paid to physical and mental discipline and flourishing. The ‘five gentle exercises’ performed by followers of Falun Gong are designed, like those practised in Tai Chi, to promote both bodily health and peace of mind. Falun Gong does not have any particular religious allegiance. However, its commitment to the three moral and spiritual goals of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance is clearly in both the Taoist and Buddhist traditions.
That the ideals and practices of Falun Gong so obviously belong to time-honoured Asian traditions – and that these are strikingly similar to ones otherwise permitted, or even encouraged, in modern China - make it difficult to understand the Chinese government’s hostility towards, and persecution of, its followers. The movement is not, as already mentioned, tied to any particular organized religion, and it does not promote any political agenda that could be regarded as threatening to the Chinese political system. Nor, it should be emphasised, is Falun Gong in any sense a ‘cult’. Its founder and leading figure, Li Hongzhi, neither claims, nor is credited by his followers with, special spiritual authority or charisma. People are not forced, cajoled or seduced into membership and there is no evidence of pressure being exerted on those who choose to leave the movement.
My own guess is that the Chinese government’s initial hostility to Falun Gong may have been due to nothing more mysterious than misunderstanding or misreporting of the movement’s aims or practices by some incompetent official, and that the government then simply painted itself into a corner. Having begun to imprison Falun Gong followers and ban its literature, there would then have been ‘loss of face’ on the authorities’ part to admit that a bad mistake had been made. It is not always easy for westerners to appreciate the importance attached in East Asia to ‘face’. Simply, therefore, to condemn the Chinese authorities in the name of ‘human rights’ and justice may, I fear, prove ineffective. What is necessary is to persuade them that it is not loss of face, but something both courageous and honest to admit that misconceptions about Falun Gong and its aims have so far prevailed. China’s present rulers have, in several respects, shown themselves to be capable of such honesty and courage – when denouncing, for example, the appalling excesses of ‘the cultural revolution’. Those rulers are not, one likes to think, without their respect for truthfulness, compassion and tolerance, and it must be hoped that they will take the opportunity – at a time when, because of the Olympic Games, eyes will be upon them - to reverse their policy towards a movement committed to precisely those values.

David E. Cooper
Professor of Philosophy
University of Durham