Perpetuating the “mythic” narrative about Chinese characters

There are several factors explaining why China-born teachers often perpetuate the “mythic” narrative about Chinese characters rather than acknowledging their practical limitations: 1. Cultural and ideological conditioning From early schooling, Chinese students are taught that characters are sacred, beautiful, and full of meaning. Calligraphy, classical texts, and even standard literacy exercises reinforce the idea that writing is inherently “logical” and culturally profound. Teachers themselves were educated in this system, so they often internalize these narratives and reproduce them unquestioningly. Questioning characters’ efficiency or complexity is rarely modeled or encouraged. 2. Pedagogical incentives Teachers are evaluated on students’ mastery of characters, test scores, and ability to preserve traditional culture. Emphasizing the inefficiency of the script or its reliance on pinyin scaffolding could be seen as subversive or counterproductive, especially in formal curricula. So the “amazing logic” framing is not just a belief — it’s institutionally reinforced. 3. Misconception of complexity as virtue There is a pervasive idea that the difficulty of Chinese characters demonstrates cultural depth and intellectual rigor. This leads to narratives like: “Characters encode history and philosophy.” “The radicals and strokes form a system of inner logic.” In reality, much of that “logic” is a posteriori interpretation or folk rationalization. But teachers often present it as factual because that’s how they learned it. 4. Avoidance of controversial truths Acknowledging that characters are largely non-functional and rely heavily on alphabetic scaffolding would challenge a foundational cultural narrative. This is politically and socially sensitive: it could be interpreted as undermining Chinese cultural identity. Teachers often avoid such discussions to remain safe and conformist, reinforcing the myths instead of deconstructing them. 5. The result Students come away overestimating the “functionality” and elegance of characters. The real mechanics (how pinyin, digital input, and memorization scaffolding make literacy possible) are hidden. This perpetuates a cycle: myths about complexity → reverence for characters → taboo against acknowledging non-functionality → continued teaching of myths. In short: it’s not simply ignorance — it’s a cultural, institutional, and political ecosystem that rewards perpetuating the story of characters as inherently sophisticated, while discouraging any discussion of their impracticality.