Incompatibility of Noon Nap in Modern Society

One of the main complaints about China by almost all the foreigners who had to deal with any Chinese institutions, at home and abroad, is the habit of noon nap. It had been part of the life style there for quite a long time. People, in urban and in rural alike, took to napping during the lunch break, which normally lasted one and a half hours in the winter and two hours in summer. Sometimes and at some places the break even lasted as long as three hours. Many people who lived near their offices went home to sleep. Those who lived far away used to sack out on chairs at the office after lunch. Anyway, businesses suspended. It was almost totally impractical to try to contact any person or to make any transaction during the official lunchtime nap.

Now, in accordance with a circular issued by China’s State Council General Office last November, the length of lunch break at all government offices, starting from Jan. 1, would be cut to one hour throughout the year. That means no more nap opportunities.

Undoubtedly, all the foreigners who have business links with China welcome the new deal.

However, the cut of lunch hour is not primarily to please the foreigners. The objective of the Chinese government to abolish the lunchtime nap is enhancing the work efficiency.

No matter how impeccable the intention might be, it’s not a sure guarantee for its goal.

When I thought about the appraisal of this new deal, the story of bread was brought to my mind. Several years ago, at around 1978 or 1979 when I was still in China, I once heard from an officially relayed report that Yu Guangyuan, one of Deng Xiaoping’s advisers, advocated bread as staple food for the whole population to replace the traditional rice. In that case, he maintained, people could save a lot of cooking time for work. The argument was very convincing. But then bread was not always available on the market and butter was a luxury rarely seen. So it was purely a speculation that how delicious and tasteful and handy the buttered bread would be. I myself was also inspired to imagine that I would be satisfied and would never get tired of bread as every meal. Therefore, at that time, Yu’s suggestion sounded quite reasonable, at least to me.

Later, I left China for good and arrived in the United States where bread and butter are the most common commodities. But I could hardly find any person here dieting solely with bread and butter. The reason is very simple. When basic requirements become ample and plenty, people won’t be satisfied with ordinary food. They want to enjoy something with higher quality. For preparing the delicacies, they are willing to spend no less amount of time than those living in scarcity spend to struggle for plain food.

In other words, the desire for the exquisiteness of living rises hand in hand with the abundance of wealth. This is human nature. What is true is that the advance of a society is triggered by the consuming power and can never be stimulated by saving meal time.

By the same logic, it is deducible that the time saved from sleeping has nothing to do with modernization. One might as well predict that the cut of lunch hour does not certainly increase work efficiency.

Noon nap is definitely incompatible with a modernized society. But the backwardness of a society should never be imputed to noon nap.

If the officers, instead of taking noon nap in the office, sleep with wide open eyes all through the office hours, things might be even worse.

YI-LING WANG

Santa Ana