
            Pinyin


  “Crisis” Does NOT Equal “Danger” Plus “Opportunity”


    How a misunderstanding about Chinese characters has led many astray

There is a widespread public misperception, particularly among the New
Age sector, that the Chinese word for “crisis” is composed of elements
that signify “danger” and “opportunity.” I first encountered this
curious specimen of alleged oriental wisdom about ten years ago at an
altitude of 35,000 feet sitting next to an American executive. He was
intently studying a bound volume that had adopted this notorious
formulation as the basic premise of its method for making increased
profits even when the market is falling. At that moment, I didn't have
the heart to disappoint my gullible neighbor who was blissfully imbibing
what he assumed were the gems of Far Eastern sagacity enshrined within
the pages of his workbook. Now, however, the damage from this kind of
pseudo-profundity has reached such gross proportions that I feel
obliged, as a responsible Sinologist, to take counteraction.

This essay is by Victor H. Mair <http://sino-platonic.org/contact.html>,
professor of Chinese language and literature at the University of
Pennsylvania, with contributions from Denis Mair and Zhang Liqing. ©
Victor H. Mair.

A whole industry of pundits and therapists has grown up around this one
grossly inaccurate statement. A casual search of the Web turns up more
than a million references to this spurious proverb. It appears, often
complete with Chinese characters, on the covers of books, on
advertisements for seminars, on expensive courses for “thinking outside
of the box,” and practically everywhere one turns in the world of
quick-buck business, pop psychology, and orientalist hocus-pocus. This
catchy expression (Crisis = Danger + Opportunity) has rapidly become
nearly as ubiquitous as The Tao of Pooh and Sun Zi's Art of War for the
Board / Bed / Bath / Whichever Room.

The explication of the Chinese word for crisis as made up of two
components signifying danger and opportunity is due partly to wishful
thinking, but mainly to a fundamental misunderstanding about how terms
are formed in Mandarin and other Sinitic languages. For example, one of
the most popular websites centered on this mistaken notion about the
Chinese word for crisis explains: “The top part of the Chinese Ideogram
for 'Crisis' is the symbol for 'Danger': The bottom symbol represents
'Opportunity'.” Among the most egregious of the radical errors in this
statement is the use of the exotic term “Ideogram” to refer to Chinese
characters. Linguists and writing theorists avoid “ideogram” as a
descriptive referent for /hanzi/ (Mandarin) / /kanji/ (Japanese) /
/hanja/ (Korean) because only an exceedingly small proportion of them
actually convey ideas directly through their shapes. (For similar
reasons, the same caveat holds for another frequently encountered label,
pictogram.) It is far better to refer to the /hanzi/ / /kanji/ / /hanja/
as logographs, sinographs, hanograms, tetragraphs (from their square
shapes [i.e., as /fangkuaizi/]), morphosyllabographs, etc., or — since
most of those renditions may strike the average reader as unduly arcane
or clunky — simply as characters.

The second misconception in this formulation is that the author seems to
take the Chinese word for crisis as a single graph, referring to it as
“the Chinese Ideogram for 'crisis'.” Like most Mandarin words, that for
“crisis” (wēijī) consists of two syllables that are written with two
separate characters, wēi (危) and jī (機/机).

Chinese character wei 危

Chinese character wēi

Chinese character ji1 -- in traditional form 機

Chinese character jī (in traditional form)

Chinese character wei 危

Chinese character wēi

Chinese character ji1 in simplified form 机

Chinese character jī (in simplified form)

The third, and fatal, misapprehension is the author's definition of jī
as “opportunity.” While it is true that wēijī does indeed mean “crisis”
and that the wēi syllable of wēijī does convey the notion of “danger,”
the jī syllable of wēijī most definitely does not signify “opportunity.”
/Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary/ defines “opportunity” as:

     1. a favorable juncture of circumstances;
     2. a good chance for advancement or progress.

While that may be what our Pollyanaish advocates of “crisis” as “danger”
plus “opportunity” desire jī to signify, it means something altogether
different.

The jī of wēijī, in fact, means something like “incipient moment;
crucial point (when something begins or changes).” Thus, a wēijī is
indeed a genuine crisis, a dangerous moment, a time when things start to
go awry. A wēijī indicates a perilous situation when one should be
especially wary. It is /not/ a juncture when one goes looking for
advantages and benefits. In a crisis, one wants above all to save one's
skin and neck! Any would-be guru who advocates opportunism in the face
of crisis should be run out of town on a rail, for his / her advice will
only compound the danger of the crisis.

For those who have staked their hopes and careers on the CRISIS = DANGER
+ OPPORTUNITY formula and are loath to abandon their fervent belief in
jī as signifying “opportunity,” it is essential to list some of the
primary meanings of the graph in question. Aside from the notion of
“incipient moment” or “crucial point” discussed above, the graph for jī
by itself indicates “quick-witted(ness); resourceful(ness)” and
“machine; device.” In combination with other graphs, however, jī can
acquire hundreds of secondary meanings. It is absolutely crucial to
observe that jī possesses these secondary meanings only in the
multisyllabic terms into which it enters. To be specific in the matter
under investigation, jī added to huì (“occasion”) creates the Mandarin
word for “opportunity” (jīhuì), but by itself jī does not mean
“opportunity.”

A wēijī in Chinese is every bit as fearsome as a crisis in English. A
jīhuì in Chinese is just as welcome as an opportunity to most folks in
America. To confuse a wēijī with a jīhuì is as foolish as to insist that
a crisis is the best time to go looking for benefits.

If one wishes to wax philosophical about the jī of wēijī, one might
elaborate upon it as the dynamic of a situation's unfolding, when many
elements are at play. In this sense, jī is neutral. This jī can either
turn out for better or for worse, but — when coupled with wēi — the
possibility of a highly undesirable outcome (whether in life, disease,
finance, or war) is uppermost in the mind of the person who invokes this
potent term.

For those who are still mystified by the morphological (i.e.,
word-building) procedures of Sinitic languages, it might be helpful to
provide a parallel case from English. An airplane is a machine that has
the capability of flying through the air, but that does not imply that
“air” by itself means airplane or that “plane” alone originally
signified airplane. (The word “plane” has only come to mean “airplane”
when it functions as a shortened form of the latter word.) The first
element of the word airplane, like the first element of wēijī, presents
no real problems: it is the stuff that makes up our earth's atmosphere.
The second element, however, like the second element of wēijī, is much
trickier. There are at least half a dozen different monosyllabic words
in English spelled “plane.” While most of these words are derived from a
Latin root meaning “flat” or “level,” they each convey quite different
meanings. The “plane” of “airplane” is said to be cognate with the word
“planet,” which derives from a Greek word that means “wandering.” A
planet is a heavenly body that wanders through space, and an airplane is
a machine that wanders through the air. As Gertrude Stein might have
said, “An airplane is an airplane is an airplane.” Neither “air” nor
“plane” means “airplane”; only “airplane” means “airplane” - except when
“plane” is being used as an abbreviation for “airplane”! Likewise,
neither wēi nor jī means wēijī; only wēijī means wēijī. These are
illustrations of the basic principles of word formation that are common
to all languages. When etymological components enter into words, they
take on the semantic coloring of their new environment and must be
considered in that context.

As a matter of fact, the word “airplane” has a contested etymology (I
follow Webster’s Third International), with some authorities believing
that it derives from “air” + the apparent feminine of French plan
(“flat, level”). Even with this latter etymon, however, we must
recognize that “airplane” does not mean “a flat surface in the air,” but
rather it signifies a heavier than air flying machine. That is to say,
when entering into a word consisting of two or more morphemes, the
constituent elements take on special meanings depending upon their new,
overall environment. In “airplane,” the second element no longer means
merely “wander” or “flat” — depending upon which etymology you favor.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to offer another example from English
that is closer to our Chinese word wēijī (“crisis”). Let’s take the –ity
component of “opportunity,” “calamity” (“calamity” has a complicated
etymology; see the Oxford English Dictionary, Barnhart, etc.),
“felicity,” “cordiality,” “hostility,” and so forth. This –ity is a
suffix that is used to form abstract nouns expressing state, quality, or
condition. The words that it helps to form have a vast range of
meanings, some of which are completely contradictory. Similarly the –jī
of wēijī by itself does not mean the same thing as wēijī (“crisis”),
jīhuì (“opportunity”), and so forth. The signification of jī changes
according to the environment in which it occurs.

The construction of wēijī merits further investigation. The nature of
this troublesome word will be much better understood if it is pointed
out that, in Mandarin morphology, morphemes are divided into “bound” and
“free” types. “Bound” morphemes can only occur in combination with other
morphemes, whereas “free” morphemes can occur individually.

It just so happens that, in the real world of Mandarin word formation,
/wei/ and /ji/ are both /bound/ morphemes. They cannot occur
independently. Just as the syllable/morphemes /cri-/ and /-sis/ that go
together to make up the English word “crisis” cannot exist independently
in an English sentence, so too /wēi/ and /jī/ cannot exist by themselves
in a Mandarin sentence. They can only occur when combined with other
word-forming elements, hence fēijī (“airplane”), jīhuì (“chance,
opportunity”), wēixiǎn (“danger”), wēijī (“crisis”), and so forth.

Now let us look at the morphology of the word “crisis” itself, bearing
in mind that it derives from Greek κρίσις (/krisis/) < κρίνω (/krinō/)
(see the last section of this essay). The English suffix /-sis/ may be
analyzed as consisting of /-si-/ + /-s/, where /-si-/ is a Greek suffix
and /-s/ is the nominative singular ending in Greek. The suffix is used
to form action or result nouns from verb roots: /kri-si-s/ (“judgement,
decision” > “crisis”); /the-si-s/ (“act of putting [down]” > “thesis”);
/ap-he-si-s/ (“act of letting go” > “aphesis” – /apo/ [“off, away”]).
Greek /-si-/ is cognate with Sanskrit /-ti-/. Greek /-sis/ endings are
nominal and productive (i.e., they can be added to roots to produce new
nouns quite readily), and are often used to make abstractions, usually
from verbs.

If one wants to find a word containing the element jī that means
“opportunity” (i.e., a favorable juncture of circumstances, or a good
chance for advancement), one needs to look elsewhere than wēijī, which
means precisely “crisis” (viz., a dangerous, critical moment). One might
choose, for instance, zhuǎnjī (“turn” + “incipient moment” = “favorable
turn; turn for the better”), liángjī (“excellent” + “incipient moment” =
“opportunity” [!!]), or hǎo shíjī (“good” + “time” + “incipient moment”
= “favorable opportunity”).

Those who purvey the doctrine that the Chinese word for “crisis” is
composed of elements meaning “danger” and “opportunity” are engaging in
a type of muddled thinking that is a danger to society, for it lulls
people into welcoming crises as unstable situations from which they can
benefit. Adopting a feel-good attitude toward adversity may not be the
most rational, realistic approach to its solution.

Finally, to those who would persist in disseminating the potentially
perilous, fundamentally fallacious theory that “crisis” = “danger” +
“opportunity,” please don't blame it on Chinese!


      Pertinent observations for those who are more advanced in Chinese
      language studies.

The word “crisis” enters the English language around 1425 with the
meaning of “turning point in a disease,” in a translation of Chauliac’s
Grande Chirurgie (Major Surgery). It was borrowed from Latin /crisis/,
which in turn comes from Greek /krisis/ (“a separating, distinguishing,
discrimination, decision, judgement”), from /krinein/ (“separate,
decide, judge”). Chauliac’s first translation gives it as Old French
/crise/, while the second translation has Latin /crisis/. The sense of
“decisive moment” is first recorded in English in 1627 as a figurative
extension of the original medical meaning. In Latin, crisis signified:
1. a (literary) judgement, 2. a critical stage in one’s life;
climacteric. Since, in the Hippocratic-Galenic medical literature,
“crisis” signified “a turning point in a disease; sudden change for
better or worse,” this old Greek usage would be somewhat better
positioned to serve as a justification for the “danger + opportunity”
meme than does Chinese wēijī, which is, from the very beginning, always
something worrisome and unwanted.

The earliest occurrences of the Chinese expression wēijī occur in the
3rd century A.D., at which time, and for centuries thereafter, they
convey the notion of “latent danger.” It was not until the late 19th and
early 20th centuries that wēijī came to mean “crisis,” as in “financial
crisis,” “economic crisis,” and so on. How did this happen? It was
almost certainly the result of matching up the old Chinese word wēijī
(“latent danger”) with the Western concept of “crisis,” and carried out
through the intermediary of Japanese, where it is pronounced /kiki/.
This would make it another of the hundreds of modern Chinese terms that
I refer to as “round-trip words” (see /Sino-Platonic Papers/, 34
<http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp034_sinolinguistics_fanqie.pdf> [October,
1992]).

Many coinages that made it into twentieth-century báihuà (vernacular
Mandarin) are based on traditional uses of words. That is to say, new
compounds using jī draw on traditional uses of jī.

There is no traditional use of jī that means “opportunity” per se. Jīhuì
is a neologism coined to translate the English word “opportunity.”

To say that jī means “opportunity” is like saying that the zōng of
zōngjiào means “religion” (N.B.: jiào here means “doctrine, teaching”).
Zōng traditionally means a line of orthodox transmission, or a clan
lineage. It is anachronistic to say that zōng by itself means
“religion.” For numerous examples of such calques and neologisms, many
(such as those for “economics” and “society”) involving an initial
borrowing into Japanese, and then a reborrowing into Chinese with a
completely new, Westernized meaning, see Victor H. Mair, “East Asian
Round-Trip Words
<http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp034_sinolinguistics_fanqie.pdf>,”
/Sino-Platonic Papers/ <http://www.sino-platonic.org/>, 34 (October 1992).

Traditional senses of jī include: mechanism, inner workings (and by
extension secrecy), germinal principle, pivotal juncture, crux, or a
witty turn of thought.

This is the same jī that was used in the coinage yǒujī (organic), but we
can hardly say that jī in and of itself means “organic.”

As examples of recent coinages using jī in innovative ways, we may cite
jīzhì, which means “mechanism” or “machine-processed / produced.”
There's also another jīzhì meaning “quick-witted” where the zhì syllable
is written with a different character than the zhì syllable of the jīzhì
meaning “mechanism.” The latter jīzhì is based on the same sense of jī
which is used in the expression dǎ Chánjī — to employ the gnomic, witty
language of Chan (Zen) Buddhist teaching stories. If anyone is truly
interested in sharpening his or her mind to meet the crises of the
future, engagement with this kind of challenging wisdom might be a good
place to begin.

Victor H. Mair
Professor of Chinese Language and Literature
Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305
USA

With contributions from Denis Mair and Zhang Liqing.
Thanks also to Don Ringe and Ralph Rosen.

Last revised September 2009.

Copyright © 2010 拼音/Pinyin.info <http://pinyin.info/> | XHTML
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer> | CSS
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://www.pinyin.info/main.css>

home <http://pinyin.info/index.html> readings
<http://pinyin.info/readings/index.html>	rules
<http://pinyin.info/rules/index.html> tools
<http://pinyin.info/tools/index.html>	systems
<http://pinyin.info/romanization/index.html> Pinyin News blog
<http://pinyin.info/news/> links <http://pinyin.info/links.html> contact
<http://pinyin.info/contact.html> 拼音
