Front. Philos. China 2011, 6(4): 656–664 DOI 10.1007/s11466-011-0160-4

Book Review

Wenhua Fuxing Lun: Gonggong Ruxue de Jinlu 文化复兴论：公共儒学的进路 (Revival of Culture: The Approach of Public Confucianism). By DENG Xize. Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe, 2009. Ұ56. pp. 447. ISBN: 9787010083223

1

Introduction

Recently, I received Deng Xize’s work Revival of Traditional Chinese Culture: The Approach of Public Confucianism. Coincidentally, I also read Xu Jialu’s paper “Remove the Shackles and Dance: Chinese Philosophy Needs a Revolution” (Literature, History and Philosophy, 2009, No. 5). The former is a book of great length while the latter is terse and forceful paper, but both refer to the same serious topic—cultural autonomy. Xu Jialu praises the comparative philosophical vision held by scholars from A. C. Graham to Roger Ames, and he looks forward to starting a revolution in Chinese Philosophy by building up cross-cultural interpretation, which will bring about a free dialogue between China and the Western world. Deng Xize uses a set of rigorous and systematic methods in his analysis and rigorous critique, devising several solutions to the modern question “what’s the use of the historical culture?” He proposes using the approach of Public Confucianism, in order to build a common platform for dialogue between China and the Western world. In comparison, Xu mainly stresses negation, while Deng Xize emphasizes affirmation. The two both refer to the same major contemporary issue—the cultural renaissance. It can be said that Deng Xize has not only removed the chains, but also performed a magical dance. It is the negation and the affirmation here that lets us enjoy the Chinese people’s pursuit of academic autonomy.

2

Remove the Shackles

Since the later years of Qing dynasty the historical culture in China could not respond to real life, because of the invasion from the Western world. Therefore its value was seriously doubted and negated, and the historical culture itself became a dead body being dissected on the operating table (as Levinson calls it, “museumization”) and lost its independent life. In order to revive the vitality of Chinese historical culture, scholars have tried to introduce Western concepts to explore its modernity. Then Chinese scholars were accustomed to explaining Chinese historical culture with Western terms, which led to the problem of the shackles described by Xu Jialu. Similarly, Deng Xize also observed and criticized this specialized mode of interpretation, which shows that cultural

Book Review

657

autonomy is indeed a common problem concerned by Chinese people. Deng Xize thought that the widely used interpretation method (using the Western concepts to interpret Chinese classics) by Neo-Confucianists, the representatives of modern classics, were entirely ineffective or even diametrically opposed to their original intent. Without an independent explanation system (observing from the tradition itself) as the basis, the interpretation of traditional Chinese classics by using Western concepts can neither help to understand the classical study of the ethical principles, nor can it maintain the independence of the native culture. Moreover, it cannot help in introducing Western culture into China. In order to remove the shackles of using Western concepts to interpret Chinese classics, Deng Xize reapproached cultural autonomy in two ways: First, he used rigorous and systematic analytical methods; second, he worked from the perspective of the public communication to construct a solid basis for evaluating historical culture, namely the renaissance of the culture, rather than discussing the specific value of the historical culture directly. The former is the basic method, while the latter is the fundamental issue. Deng Xize said in the preface: “I can finally discuss the issue of ‘what’s the use of the historical culture’ by a more rigorous and systematic method.” It shows that he had a strong methodological consciousness in dealing with cultural issues. Hence the widely-used approach of logical analysis constitutes his methodological basis. In the West, logical analysis is a basic method in the academic research (especially in the contemporary Western academic research) and the conventional means of Western academic activities as well. Therefore it serves as the public platform for academic exchanges. There was a similar method in ancient China, but it was not well-developed. In the introduction to the book, Deng Xize emphasizes this approach more clearly, and demonstrates that the method of using the Western concepts to interpret Chinese classics is completely different (pp. 48–50). Using logical analysis and taking public communication as the perspective, Deng Xize provides a new way to prove the value of the historical culture, which can promote academic exchange between China and the West. Traditional Chinese learning can basically be classified into the Han school of classical philology and the Song school of classical philology. Furthermore, there are two schools; one dealing with classical learning based on earlier texts, and the other focusing on classical learning based on contemporary texts in the Han school of classical philology. The classical learning based on contemporary texts stresses direct engagement with the world, responding to the contemporary issues and achieving the Confucian ideal of kingliness in ruling the state harmoniously and peacefully. The classical learning basing on earlier texts is more inclined to deal with things indirectly, uses literary study method to explore the Dao contained in the classics. The Song school of classical philology directly answers

658

LUO Lijun

a series of questions about life, values, etc. raised by Buddhist philosophy, which greatly expanded the Confucian theory of mind and tested the limits of the Confucian notion of sagacity. These research methods proceeded each other historically one after another, rising at certain times and declining in others with the change of the contemporary issues. These approaches were passed down and continued to play an important role in modern China respectively. Traditional academia responded little to foreign culture. But in modern times, answering the new issues raised by foreign culture has become the fundamental task to modern Chinese academics. As the result, traditional academia has evolved into a new type of classical studies for modern times (as represented by modern New-Confucianism), which aimed to break new ground in considering the nature of the sage. Before the formation of classical studies in modern times, the idea that Chinese traditional culture should be the ti 体 (substance) and the western learning the yong 用 (function), used to be very popular. So far, many people still respect and follow it. In fact, the intension of the idea is vague, and the extension of it is too wide. Exploring new aspects of the sage’s nature can be regarded as deepening and expanding the idea that Chinese traditional culture should be the substance and the western learning the function, which stresses abandoning the outdated and inappropriate things in the monarchical system of traditional Confucianism to make Confucianism functioning well in modern society. The idea that the Chinese traditional culture is the substance and the western learning the function, and the exploration of new aspects of the sage’s nature both try to escape the native cultural system, in order to achieve the joining of Chinese and Western culture. Thus, in this sense, I take the approaches by the Han and Song schools as the effective means for self-interpretation within the native cultural system, which is not related to exchanges between Chinese culture and the West. In contrast, Deng Xize’s method of logical analysis, a new path, is a formal one. On the one hand, he does not use Western concepts to interpret Chinese learning, in order to avoid the fate of becoming the footnotes in Western learning and losing subjectivity. On the other hand, he adopts approaches from the Song school who focused on personal experience rather than logical argument. Before dealing with the core issues of the Western and Chinese systems, Deng Xize probed into a series of basic conceptual issues through this method. And the method is another effective mode for research into ancient Chinese culture, which is helpful for clarifying the value of the historical culture, and building a common platform for cultural exchange between China and the West. Cultural exchange should not be blind, but should give service to human existence. Thus, it needs not only to be aware of the methodology, but also there is a need to make clear the basic issues in cultural exchanges. Among them is the question “what is the use of the historical culture in the end?” The earlier parts of

Book Review

659

Revival of Traditional Chinese Culture use rigorous logical analysis, and take the basic structure and form of occurrence of human existential activities and the four presumptions of public communication as the basis to explain and draw conclusions about this issue. By solving the two key questions of “how to construct meaning and value in life” and of “how to build effective public communication,” Deng Xize solved the more basic question “what is the use of the historical culture?” (p. 213). For the first issue, Deng Xize puts forward two key claims: First, on the basis of the form of occurrence of “Question-Answer–Action” in our daily routines, he treats an event as a discourse process, “since an event occurs in the process of ‘Question-Answer-Action,’ the event is a discourse process, the doer is always speaking when doing something (p. 67).” Second, culture can explain life. To wit: The occurrence of culture is a discourse process, which is easy to understand in the form of “Question-Answer-Action.” There is the form of “QuestionAnswer-Action” in people’s living activities, while people’s living activities are indispensible to culture. So it must enter into people’s living activities, and therefore take effect in the form of “Question-Answer-Action.” In this sense, we can say that culture is life, and life is culture. They two are united fundamentally, and the difference lies in that they are named from different perspectives. However, we can describe the relationship between culture and life more accurately, namely: culture can explain life. (p. 73) If we can grasp these two key claims, it would be very easy for us to understand how culture might construct the meaning and value of individual life. This is because the interpretation that culture can explain life “is to construct the meaning of life, to provide theoretical basis, value reliance and significance support for life” (pp. 73–74). Culture functions as the source of thought, and life is the collection of things and the process of discourse, which needs to go back constantly to the cultural source to inquire and carry out the activities in terms of “Question-Answer-Action,” thereby giving meaning to life. For the second question, Deng Xize started by analyzing the four presumptions in public communications. That is, people have desires; People must exploit others to meet their desires; People have the capacity for self-controlling; People have linguistic competence, so they can express their intentions and understand the desires of others. Among them, “the fourth presumption has drawn the most attention, because it is related to the understanding, value judgments, etc., in exchanges directly” (p. 92). Speaking of understanding, it is inevitably related to the questions of how to enhance mutual understanding and how to promote effective communication. Then how to enhance mutual understanding? Deng Xize

LUO Lijun

660

responds, “Let all sides in the exchanges share the common living language as much as possible, and make the living language express the life issues and methods as much as possible” (p. 96). At this time, the role of historical culture in constructing effective public communications becomes clear, and the core of Public Confucianism Approach also emerges. Namely, the basic functions, both direct and indirect, of historical culture are due to it being the common source of thought. The direct functions can form public values and build a public communication platform, while the indirect functions can heighten ethical standards and enhance the spiritual beliefs of the nation. Deng Xize said that his answer “was nothing but to re-affirm, re-expose the original functions of historical culture” (p. 405). And once the original functions of the historical culture were re-exposed, it means that we have cast off the heavy chains of using Western concepts to interpret Chinese classics, so that we can dance freely.

3

Dance

Based on the construction of the basic theory in the former part, Deng Xize focuses on discussing the revival of the Chinese historical culture in the next part, “taking the public Confucianist approach, exploring a new way for the traditional Chinese historical culture to get out of the trouble, reconstructing the publicity of the Chinese historical culture to achieve the cultural renaissance” (p. 42). Related to the theoretical exploration in the former chapter, the following chapter mainly discusses the following issues: First, it explains the unification of the Qin and Han dynasties according to public communication theory, including answering the questions of why the first emperor of Qin Shi Huang and Emperor Wu of the Western Han regulated thought, and why Emperor Wu only adopted Confucianism to rule the nation, etc. (Chapter III). Next, the author looks at the predicament of modern culture, and on the basis of the public communication theory, comments on solutions put forward by politicians for coping with the cultural difficulties and answers the question of cultural renaissance directly (Chapter IV). Finally, the author explores the implementation of the cultural revival, including the feasibility, the system support, the basic task and basic strategies, etc., of the cultural revival (Chapter V). Basing his work on five reasons (pp. 404–408), Deng Xize believes that his public Confucian approach has gone beyond simply exploring new dimensions to sagacity. First, there is no need to impose the terms of science and democracy, the standards of Western culture, on the traditional historical culture. Second, cultural revival means that Confucianism or the historical culture should now become an important common thought source and public communication platform once again in our lives. Third, this cultural renaissance can build a basic platform for people to choose and follow what is right in cross-cultural exchange,

Book Review

661

so public Confucianism will fall neither into overall Westernization, nor exclusionism. Fourth, we can get rid of the dependence on Western concepts to interpret Chinese classics (“the A in Chinese classics is B in Western culture”). Fifth, the question as to what can and cannot be solved becomes clear and definite with public Confucianism. The second point mentioned above is the positive answer to the problem of cultural renaissance. The answer is simple and plain—this cultural renaissance is nothing more than the reaffirmation and reappearance of the intrinsic feature of Chinese historical culture, i.e., “the cultural renaissance means what the historical culture has done in the past, and what can it do as much as possible at present and in the future” (p. 405). The first point and the third point embody a concentrated reflection of the basic characteristics of Deng Xize’s solution. I have summarized it as the doctrine of the mean kept in its own limits without overstepping and not being closed. Here, “without overstepping” means that he does not like the cultural conservatives who one-sidedly exaggerate the function of the historical culture represented by Confucianism and look forward to building castles in the sand based on this historical culture. Meanwhile, “not being closed” refers to his demonstration that the cultural renaissance can build an effective basic platform for people to choose and follow what is right in dealing with foreign culture. In addition, another important significance of Deng Xize’s cultural renaissance program is to get rid of the political limitations on historical culture. Modernization in China is not a naturally native process, but with the resistant modernization (or the respondent modernization) forced by Western gunboats, national force played the most important role in the integration of social resources to achieve the revitalization. This resulted in the development of modern academic activities always being driven by politics, and the effectiveness of the academy being evaluated by the political forces. Therefore, there has been a political direction in the trend of modern New-Confucianism and even in contemporary philology toward the traditional historical culture represented by Confucianism. People believed that if they did not do things this way, it would be difficult for Confucianism to play a role in governing the country and pacifying the world, and Confucianism would even become restless just like a wandering soul. In fact, the Confucian doctrine has its independent value beyond the political system. This is indicated in a fascinating dialogue in “Kong Zi Shi Jia” in Shi Ji (“Confucius knew his disciples were unhappy… I will be your assistant”) The story is ingeniously conceived, Zi Gong, Yan Hui and Zi Lu were Confucius’ favorite disciples represented the three Confucian virtues of “wisdom,” “benevolence” and “courage” respectively. Among the different answers from the three disciples, Confucius only agreed with Yan Hui, and even said that he was willing to drive a cart for a child of Yan’s family who had made a fortune.

LUO Lijun

662

Judging from Confucius’s pleased smile, there is a kind of self- fulfilled value and independent dignity of the doctrine in the eyes of Confucians, and there is no need for secular politics to make any judgment. In a sense, whether or not the value of the doctrine can be carried forward is a problem of chance, so people with high ideals should be content in poverty, devoted to things spiritual, and wait for the opportunity to appear. Of course, waiting for the opportunity in Confucianism refers more to the expectation grow in the political arena. However, in addition to the public political sphere, there is the social domain in modern society as well. Confucianism certainly involves in politics, but it does not need to be limited to politics only. It can relate to social life more broadly and play a role in the promotion of public communications.

4

Remove the Shackles and Dance Together

As for the success of the argument, Revival of Culture proves that historical culture is an important platform for exchange (First Part), but it does not prove that the historical culture in China or Confucianism must be a good communication platform (Second Part). The culture discussed in the first part of the book refers to general historical culture. No matter which nation or country it is, historical culture will be an important basis for exchange. “Important” here does not mean that all the historical culture is good. If the specific content of a particular historical culture (or tradition) is comparatively excellent, the historical culture will be a good starting point for further communication, otherwise it will be unable to serve as a proper platform. In the second part, though Deng Xize also deals with the feasibility of the revival of historical culture and the task and strategy of the revival (Sections I and III in Chapter V), it still, in fact, investigates the problem of the realization of cultural renaissance generally. Hence these general discussions, the methods developed, and the conclusions drawn are universally applicable. Although Revival of Culture cites some specific examples to demonstrate the value of the Chinese historical culture, it is not enough. In order to prove that Chinese historical culture is a good and effective communication platform for the Chinese nation, it also needs to demonstrate what specific content of the historical culture can become the important platform for public communication. Therefore, it also involves another problem: Revival of Culture cannot prove that China’s historical culture or Confucianism will in fact be revived. Today, Western culture still occupies a powerful position and constantly gives input to China. Then, how much proportion does Chinese historical culture occupy in the public life (and the private life) of the Chinese nation can we say that the Chinese historical culture has been revived? Can we say that the Chinese historical culture has been revived just by seeing that statues

Book Review

663

of Confucius have been erected everywhere and that a few classical quotations such as “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you” have been repeated constantly? Maybe Deng Xize would defend it this way: As long as the historical culture is worthy of renaissance and the positive value regarded by modern society has been revived, then we might as well say that the Chinese historical culture has too been revived. If we believe that eighty percent of the historical culture is dross and that twenty percent is essential, then as long as the essential twenty percent is revived, it can also be said that the historical culture is alive again. But the actual situation we are facing is that much of the essential twenty percent has been buried. Thus, Deng Xize’s approach of Public Confucianism cannot give a complete answer to the renaissance of Chinese historical culture. According to this approach, we seem to come to the conclusion: Historical culture is important; we should cultivate a kind of excellent and stable historical culture; and we should even develop a new historical tradition to promote public communications. Therefore, public Confucianism just does the basic work. If we want to promote the useful ideas of the historical culture alone; to absorb the excellence of foreign cultures; to create an excellent new culture; and to build a more stable, broad, and effective communication platform for the Chinese nation, there is still some specific work to be done. Namely, it cannot be decided by one person, since one person, whose capability is limited, cannot finish all of the work alone. But there is reason to be optimistic that the approach of Public Confucianism developed by Deng Xize has opened a new path for the Chinese nation to construct a superior paradigm for public communication—a basic platform for the next step of work. This review on Revival of Culture could stop here, but I want to make a further brief point about the independence of culture. Cultural autonomy emphasizes cultural independence. Meanwhile, just as the saying goes: “A bird is known by its song,” Deng Xize’s concern for cultural autonomy and his brilliant exposition also reflect a kind of independence—keeping independence in research. The independence in research is the “independent personality and free spirit” shown by Chen Yinque. However, it is easy to know but difficult to carry out, the same can be said of independence in research. Academic independence not only requires a character that will not cave, but also a who-but- me-can-do-it type of confidence as well as great foresight, which can break through the cage of the present day and the past with an innovative spirit. Academic independence leads Deng Xize to develop his distinctive approach of Public Confucianism. The uniqueness of this program can be summarized as follows. First, as far as the relationship between ancient and modern times is concerned, the dimension of public communication opens a new road, which is no longer limited to political pursuits but can realize the aims of Confucianism to handling real world

664

LUO Lijun

situations. Second, as far as the relationship between China and the West is concerned, Public Confucianism takes the rigorous analytic method used in the West as a reference and through the analysis of basic problems of the cultural renaissance escapes the twin dilemmas of using the Western concepts to interpret Chinese classics and using Chinese terms to interpret Western culture. This builds a basic platform for exchange between the Chinese culture and the Western culture, and casts off the attachment to the supposedly “higher” status of western learning. Combining these two points together, we will remove the shackles, regain the original value of the historical culture, and rebuild the independence of the historical culture. From this perspective it is worth asking, is there causal relationship between the academic independence and the culture independence? (translated by LEI Yongqiang) LUO Lijun Department of Political Theory Course, Guangdong Food and Drug Vocational College, Guangzhou 510520, China E-mail: [email protected]