编者按：美国一些媒体、政客常常质疑中国的抗疫表现，有的还指控中国隐瞒感染人数。在第37篇“变局”专栏中，作者中国人民大学重阳金融研究院执行院长王文认为美国不只是低估了中国政府强大的动员与调配能力，更低估了普通中国人为此自觉付出的努力。
本文英文版在Global Times的版面截图
我所居住的望京，是北京国际化程度很高的区域。这里有许多全球500强公司区域总部，常住60万居民里约10%是外国人。每周末，我都会在望京各个公园之间健走，一边锻炼身体，一边观察着城市变化。
按理说，中国多数城市已连续1个多月没有新增本土新冠病例。这个热爱自由、向往繁华、对标国际的街区，应该全面解禁了。但相反，包括许多外国人在内，望京居民们仍都戴着口罩，丝毫没有放松，小心翼翼地防范二次复发的可能性。每个住宅小区、商场门口，有专人负责检测体温。在商务区，周末加班的公司也非常少，尽可能鼓励在家办公。
其实，不只是望京，14亿中国人、2800个县城多数都如此。只要政府不下令解禁，即便本地区从未出现过病例，国民仍会自律，以强大的忍耐力，为疫情防控做出经济上、生活上的个人牺牲。
相比于美国，连续两个多月日均2万以上的新增病例，但许多州的民众已忍无可忍，纷纷上街游行，抗议政府的禁令。很多人甚至拒戴口罩，涌向海滩，有的城市还准备开启大型体育赛事。
医学统计表明，人人自觉戴口罩的社会，比一半人不戴口罩的社会，感染率将下降50倍。人们总是比较中美两国政府的治理能力，却经常忽视了这次疫情期中美两国民众的素质差异。
美国一些媒体、政客常常质疑中国的抗疫表现，有的还指控中国隐瞒感染人数。显然，他们不只是低估了中国政府强大的动员与调配能力，更低估了普通中国人为此自觉付出的努力。
这是一种全民付出，包括从中央到基层社区的公务人员加班加点，排查隔离检测的细致工作，还包括上百万医务人员勇于奉献、如军队般敢打硬仗，更包括每一位普通国民将生命看得高于一切的价值观与自我限制自由的社会成熟度。
国民成熟度，是中国取得抗疫阶段性胜利的重要文化密码。尽管在1月份刚面对陌生病毒时，中国社会有一些手忙脚乱。在社区防控上，还存有一些小农意识。但很快中国就稳住了局面。经历了2003年非典、2008年汶川大地震的中国人，在抗疫阶段的总体表现显然强于过去，也好于欧美社会。
很显然，抗疫正在改变中国人的社会与政治价值观。像是一次思想启蒙，中国人正在出现超越西方新自由主义精神的新觉醒。40年前，中国重新打开国门后，个人主义、自由主义如洪水般涌向中国，思想解放、权利保护、个体至上吸引了无数中国人。不得不承认，这些源于西方现代化进程中的新思想，为中国改革开放的成功贡献了积极力量。
但智慧的中国人将源于本土的文化传统与外来的意识形态完美地结合起来，平衡了自由与限制、市场与政府、改革与稳定、资本与公益、个人主义与集体主义之间的微妙关系。每当国家有困难时，那些有利于中国发展的文化特点就会突显出来。
2008年国际金融危机后，中国人更是全面反思西方国家以新自由主义的运行逻辑的经济、金融、政治发展模式，自信地发现了中国自己优势。“华盛顿共识”在中国全面破产，“中国方案”常常被世界所引述。
在国家治理上，当下的中国人像检测出病毒那样，发现了此前从西方引进的经济与社会政策的问题。比如，房地产市场化，虽推动部分人财富增长，但隐藏着大量社会风险；交通私家车化，虽带来出行便利，但也是能源危机、环境恶化、城市病的关键症结。相反，一些根植于中国本土的治理经验，却有不少亮点，比如精准扶贫；家庭储蓄习惯；农村土地联产承包责任制；人类命运共同体的外交理念，等等。
遗憾的是，美国多数媒体、政客仍将中国独创视为一种叛逆、革命甚至是邪恶的存在。这无疑是一种意识形态层面的种族歧视。
好在包括马丁·雅克、马凯硕、贝淡宁、罗思义等一批国际学者已开始重新研究中国。希望这样的外国学者越来越多。而那些低估中国人觉醒的美国媒体、政客们，终究会为自己的错误而自我埋单。
宣传片《中国速度》
以下为英文版
Never underestimate Chinese awakening
By Wang Wen
I live in Wangjing, a quite internationalized area in Beijing. Many Fortune 500 companies are headquartered there, and 10 percent of the around 600,000 residents are expats. Every weekend, I take walks in Wangjing's many parks to exercise and watch the changes in the city.
There have been no new confirmed cases of COVID-19 for a month in many Chinese cities. Wangjing, the internationalized area, is supposed to ease the epidemic control measures. But Wangjing's residents, including many expats, are cautious. They continue to wear masks and guard against second wave of infections.
This is not only happening in Wangjing. More than 2,800 counties nationwide and 1.4 billion Chinese are doing this too. As long as the government does not officially announce lifting the ban, people will always exercise discipline. Even if their residential areas have never reported an infection case, they will continue to make their own sacrifices for epidemic prevention and control.
This stands in comparison with the US where an average of 20,000 daily cases have emerged for two consecutive months, the public in many states cannot bear stay-at-home order. Certain people even go to the street to protest control measures. Some even refuse to wear masks and flock to the beach. Some cities are even starting to prepare large-scale sporting events.
Medical statistics show that the infection rate in a society where people are disciplined to wear masks is 50 times lower than in places where half of the people do not wear masks. Analysts tend to compare the governance abilities of both the Chinese and US governments, but ignore the differences of cultures between the two societies.
This is a nationwide devotion. From the central government to grass-root communities, public servants work overtime and check quarantine work. Tens of thousands of medical workers battle against the virus. Every ordinary Chinese people put life above all values and exhibit social maturity to practice self-discipline.
This national maturity is key to China's phased success in fighting the epidemic. During the initial stage of the outbreak in January, Chinese society was somehow chaotic, but the situation was soon much better. The Chinese people who have experienced the 2003 SARS outbreak and the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake perform much better than the past and than people in Europe and the US.
Obviously, the COVID-19 fight is changing Chinese people's social and political values. It is like the Enlightenment, and Chinese people are experiencing a new spiritual awakening that is surpassing Western neoliberalism. When China opened up more than 40 years ago, individualism and liberalism flooded into the country. The emancipation of minds and protection of rights attracted Chinese people. We have to admit that these new thoughts, which originated from the process of Western modernization hundreds of years ago, have contributed to the success of China's reform and opening-up.
But wise Chinese people have perfectly combined their domestic cultural traditions with foreign ideologies. They have balanced this delicate relationship between freedom and restriction, market and government, reform and stability, capital and welfare, and individualism and collectivism. Every time when our country faces difficulties, those cultural characteristics that benefit China's development will be highlighted.
After the 2008 financial crisis, Chinese people fully reflected on Western countries' economic, financial and political model under neoliberalism. They confidently found China's own advantages. The Washington Consensus went bankrupt in China, and the Chinese approach was often quoted by the world.
In terms of national governance, Chinese people have found problems in the economic and social policies introduced from the West. For example, although the marketization of real estate makes some people richer, it hides lots of social risks; the popularization of private cars, while bringing convenience, is the crux of the energy crisis, environmental degradation and urban diseases. On the contrary, some governance experiences rooted in China have shined, such as targeted poverty alleviation, the habit of household savings, the household contract responsibility system in the early 1980s, and the diplomatic concept of building a community with a shared future for humanity.
But it is a pity that a lot of US media and politicians still regard these Chinese experiences as a rebellion, revolution or even evil. This is undoubtedly ideological discrimination.
Fortunately, a group of international scholars, including Martin Jacques, Kishore Mahbubani, Daniel A. Bell and John Ross, have started to restudy China. Hopefully there will be more and more such foreign scholars. Those certain US media and politicians that underestimate the awakening of Chinese people will eventually pay for their own mistakes.
（The author is professor and executive dean of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, and executive director of China-US People-to-People Exchange Research Center. His latest book is Great Power's Long March Road.）
