Three major differences between Cervantes Institute and Confucius Institute on developmental patterns

朱澤彤

【Abstract】English hegemony urges the establishment of linguistic and cultural institutions of other languages including Spanish and Chinese. This essay aims to analyze the developmental patterns of Cervantes Institute and Confucius Institute in order to manifest three major differences between them by comparison， which are distinctions on foundation， overseas partnership and operational modes.

【Key words】English hegemony； cross-cultural communication； Confucius Institute； Cervantes Institute

1. Introduction

Under the pressure of globalization， nations have established tighter connections on economics， political affairs， and cultural communication. What globalization brings are not only benefits but also potential risks and threats， which contribute to weaker countries' cultural construction being corroded by stronger cultures. In the language domain， the unequal status lies in the English hegemony. In order to contour the world's most popular and widely used language， many countries develop their linguistic strategies， like the establishment of Spain's Cervantes Institute and China's Confucius Institute. The former one was founded on May 11 in 1991 by the Spanish government focusing on Spanish culture and language， which has branched out in more than twenty countries and provided experiences for the construction of the first Confucius Institute in Seoul thirteen years later. On December 7 in 2004， the Chinese government established the first Confucius Institute in Seoul in the model of Cervantes Institute. And that is the reason why the two institutes share many features in common， such as they are both official non-profit organizations named after their famous philosophers， they pursue their culture status via language liberty aiming at a higher national strategy： to strengthen their soft power and shape their reputation on the world stage. Although there exist similarities between the two organizations， compared with Cervantes Institute， Confucius Institute shows special characteristics in terms of the foundation of the institute， overseas partnership， and schooling practice.

2. Distinctions on the foundation

Primarily， Confucius Institute is more like a governmental organization than Cervantes Institute. According to the official website of Cervantes Institute， the administration of Cervantes Institute is subdivided into three parts： Board of Trustees， Board of Directors and the Director （Hanban， 2016）. Board of Trustees， also called Patronato in Spanish， not only contains members from the Spanish Monarchy and government representatives， but also twenty-five elected members from cultural and language institutions including professors in universities， important cultural figures and so on.

Likewise， Confucius Institute is one part of Hanban （The Office of the Chinese Language Council International） that is also called the Headquarter of Confucius Institute. Parallel to the tertiary structure of Cervantes Institute， Hanban is like Board of Trustees； the council of Confucius Institute Headquarter is similar to Board of Directors； and the chief executive takes the same responsibility as the Director in Cervantes.

However， there are many clear differences between the administrations that reflect Confucius Institutes more bureaucratic characteristics. First of all， the leadership team in Confucius Institute does not consist of as many the members who are the key opinion leaders in the field of language and culture as Cervantes Institute does. The headquarter of Confucius Institute， Hanban is “a group made up of members from state ministries and other organizations” （James F. Paradise， 2009： 651）， which include the Ministry of Culture， the State Council， the Ministry of Foreign Affairs， and the Ministry of Education. Furthermore， the background information of leaders posted on the official website of Confucius Institute demonstrates that only one deputy director， Ma Jianfei had been engaged in teaching at Beijing Language and Culture University for 9 years. The other three leaders， Xu Lin， Jing Wei and Xia Jianhui have been doing political and administrative works all the time （Hanban， 2016）. In contrast， the Broad of Directors in Cervantes Institute contains 25 experts who help the decisions to be more professional， and more suitable to language overseas communication. Take the construction of the official websites for example. The front page of Confucius Institutes website mainly focused on Chinese state leaders speech or activities concerned with Confucius Institute. Conversely， on the front page of Cervantes Institutes website， contents of Spanish courses， cultural activities and examination information occupy the most space.

The above evidence strongly demonstrates the governmental characteristic of Confucius Institute differing from Cervantes Institute， which leads to worries and distrust of Confucius Institute. In the year of 2014， the American Association of University Professors （AAUP） announced a statement to call for agreements between Confucius Institutes in the United States and around 100 universities that cooperate with Hanban to be either canceled or renegotiated. As they defined in the statement， Confucius Institutes in the U.S. “function as an arm of the Chinese state” （Peter Foster， 2014）， which operate under the supervision of the Chinese government even in the aspect of teaching contents. The professors in AAUP saw Confucius Institute as one of the governmental actions than a normal cultural organization. Therefore， for the sake of further development， Confucius Institute should consider the professional problem seriously and figure out a better solution， such as forming a think tank made up of front-line professors or experts to offer feasible suggestions and make suitable policies to avoid the same query as the AAUPs and so forth.

3. Gaps on the overseas partnership

Furthermore， Cervantes Institute has more overseas resources and developmental opportunities than Confucius Institute. In 2015， Cervantes Institute joined hands with University of Buenos Aires， National Autonomous University of Mexico and University of Salamanca to issue a new form of international Spanish test dubbed the Servicio Internacional de Evaluación de la Lengua Espa?ola （SIELE） （SIELE， 2016）. Different from the DELE examination that has already existed， SIELE is more like TOEFL or IELTS in English world， which aims at providing a passport to Spanish speaking countries. With the establishment and the expansion of SIELE， Cervantes Institute not only helps people whose second language are Spanish and who are willing to study or work in Spain or Spanish-speaking countries， but also create a new way of generating income. By now， sixty exam sites have been set up in China， and each candidate needs to pay 960 Yuan for one exam which is valid only in two years （SIELE， 2016）. So it is easy to estimate the huge profit in SIELE. What is more， since this examination contains， tolerates and encourages different Spanish accents， Hispanic cultures will play the role as a strong adhesive for development and dissemination for one purpose of resisting the hegemony of English. As another case in point， Cervantes Institute in Beijing devotes itself to crafting a diversified cultural band and deepens the core of Hispanic culture not by simply teaching Spanish in class， but by cooperating with local cultural organizations， such as holding exhibitions with Today Art Museum， displaying rising designs in Beijing Design Week， and participating in the Meet In Beijing Art Festival.

Conversely， Confucius Institute has not built enough overseas cooperation relationships yet as Cervantes Institute did， partially due to the limited distribution and usage of Chinese worldwide. Unlike the colony policies and cultural exports in the Age of Sail conducing to the wide use of Spanish outside the Spain， Chinese has never got a chance to become a mainstream language when it travels outside， which explains the difficulty of building overseas contacts as Cervantes did. Although Chinese ranks the third place in language using in the United States and Canada， one problem Confucius institute has to deal with is the wide range of using Cantonese instead of Mandarin overseas. If more overseas people prefer to use Cantonese rather than Mandarin， is it necessary to set special Cantonese courses or employing local Chinese residents as faculty？ But until now， Hanban has not paid enough attention to the dialect issue while swelling. Another point is that with only thirteen-years history， the main activities of Confucius Institute are restricted to language training and academic communication. According to Hanban， there are 3 initial objectives， teaching Chinese， promoting cultural exchange， and facilitating business activities. Up to the present days， depending on language teaching materials obviously cannot fulfill Hanbans ambitions. One efficient way is to seek for local cooperation opportunities. If there is an art gallery， collaborate to hold a brush painting and calligraphy exhibition； if there is a music center， attract people to listen to a performance of traditional Chinese folk music； if there is a theater， bring some excellent original plays to the local audience. “This soft power （cultural power） – getting others to want the outcomes that you want – co-opts people rather than coerces them.” Joseph S. Nye， an American professor at Harvard University said so. （Joseph Nye， 2004： 65） Language is just a key to open the door of culture. In order to gain more acceptation， a country should attach more importance to deeper layers of culture.

4. Differences of the operational modes

Additionally， Confucius Institute is more suitable for linguistic overseas communication than Cervantes Institute in terms of operational modes. Confucius Institute is a comprehensive schooling mode， including direct operation mode， authorized operation mode， and corporation mode. Actually， when it comes to action， the corporation mode are used more often， and nearly all institutes are set up based on the consociation of Hanban， a foreign and a Chinese university. Considered the current conditions， this operation is the easiest and less demanding one. Hanban provides the set-up capital， teaching materials， and pays the fees of Chinese volunteers； the Chinese university sends teachers； the foreign one supports hardware facilities and public relations service. Integration of each others advantaged sources combined with the flexibility of specific developing directions tailored to local conditions is paving the way for a new era of linguistic communication.

That sounds perfect and profitable for each side and further development of Confucius Institute； however， some problems emerge in the run. For example， the course of Confucius Institute has not been given the credit certification yet by academic councils. It becomes an obstacle when American students are willing to learn Chinese but they have to consider the balance of the minimum requirement of credits and their interest （Pengcheng Sun， 2008： 19）.

In contrast， Cervantes Institutes single but efficacious operation mode—the direct operation mode seems to be more acceptable in target countries. Take the cooperative project in University of International Relations （UIR） for example， Cervantes Institute dispatches foreign teacher to UIR， designs introductory curriculums， and provides textbooks for students who choose Spanish as their minor subject. Accordingly， UIR is responsible for all the equipment， credits， and other administrative staffs. When students finish the two-years Spanish learning subject and pass the final exams， they are certificated to be able to take B levels courses. Different from Confucius Institute， Cervantes Institute （Beijing） only cooperates with Chinese universities with introductory Spanish courses and does not mingle with the universities too much， so it has no worry about the problems as above.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion， the three major differences between Cervantes Institute and Confucius Institute clearly indicate the Chinese characteristics of Confucius Institute. On one hand， Confucius Institute innovates multi-operation models， which increase the development potentials. As a result， over five hundred Confucius Institutes sprung up around the world. On the other hand， the strong color of the Chinese government and the lack of sufficient overseas partnership disclose， to some extent， the curtness and maladies of bureaucracy which need to be eliminated step by step with development in depth. “China will not become a superpower in the world， because China today exports TV sets， rather than ideas，” Margaret Thatcher once commented on China （Margaret Thatcher， 2002： 341）. The foundation of Confucius Institute has already proved it wrong， but how to export ideas in a right and acceptable way still remains to be solved.

References：

[1]SUN，P.（2008）.Comparative Study on Confucius Institute and Overseas Language Promotion Institute.19.

[2]Paradise，J.F.（2009）.China and International Harmony： The Role of Confucius Institutes in Bolstering Beijing's Soft Power.Asian Survey，Vol.49（No.4），651.

[3]Nye，J.（2004）.Soft Power： The Means to Success in World Politics.New York： Public Affairs.

[4]Thatcher，M.（2002）.Statecraft： Strategies for a Changing World New York： HarperCollins.

[5]WHAT IS SIELE？（2016）.Retrieved Dec 4，2016，from https：//siele.org/web/guest/conoce-siele.

[6]Annual Reports of Confucius Institute.（2016）.Retrieved Dec 4，2016，from http：//www.hanban.edu.cn/report/.

[7]Cervantes Institute Homepage.（2016）.Retrieved Dec 4，2016，from http：//londres.cervantes.es.

[8]Foster，P.（2014，Jun 18）.US professors urge Western universities to end ties to China's Confucius Institutes.Retrieved Dec 16，2016，from http：//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10907971/US-professors-urge-Western-universities-to-end-ties-to-Chinas-Confucius-Institutes.html.