Phoenix Reading Plan
Classic literature, you can't just pass by
Hu Shi is a modern Chinese thinker, writer and philosopher.
In 1935, china was in social chaos, various ideologies and cultures poured into China, and advanced intellectuals worked hard to learn Western social and cultural ideas in order to save the country. However, in the past five thousand years in China, traditional culture has been deeply rooted, Chinese and Western ideas have constantly intersected and collided, and advanced elements have also been constantly exploring the way forward in the great ideological discussion.
Twenty years ago, Lyman Abbott, editor-in-chief of The Outlook, published an autobiography in which, in its first, recorded his father's remarks, saying: "Since ancient times, nine out of ten philosophical and theological controversies have been merely noun arguments. Abbott added a comment to the end of the sentence, saying, "My father's words are good. But the older I got, the more I felt that there was something wrong with his old man's arithmetic. In fact, the remaining tenth is only a noun argument. ”
In the past few months, I have read local magazines and newspapers discussing the debate about "Chinese-based culture" and "total Westernization", and I often think of the discussion of abbott's father and son. So I think of the little criticism I caused when I first discussed this cultural issue five or six years ago because of my careless use of words. That year (1929), the ChristianYear-book asked me to write a text entitled "China's Cultural Conflict Today," and I pointed out that Chinese had three schools of thought on this issue: one was to resist Western culture, the other was to choose compromise, and the third was to fully Westernize.
I said that resistance to Westernization is a thing of the past today, and no one advocates it. However, the so-called "choice of compromise" argument seems very reasonable, but in fact, it is only a disguised conservative theory in its bones. Therefore, I advocate total Westernization and single-mindedly embark on the road of globalization.
After the yearbook was published, Mr. Pan Guangdan wrote an English book review in the China Review Weekly, almost the entire text of which was devoted to my short article. He pointed out that I used two words of different meanings in that short essay: Wholesale westernization, which translates as "total Westernization," and Whole hearted modernization, which translates as "single-minded modernization," or "all-out modernization," or "full modernization." Mr. Pan said he could fully approve of the latter word and not the previous one. That is to say, he can support "all-out modernization" and not "total Westernization."
Mr. Chen Xujing and Mr. Wu Jingchao probably didn't notice our discussion in English five or six years ago. The slogan of "total Westernization" has received a lot of criticism and caused a lot of debate, I am afraid that it is because this term is indeed a little bit of a language disease. This is because, strictly speaking, "total" contains one hundred percent meaning, while ninety-nine percent is not "whole."
In fact, Mr. Chen Xujing's original intention was not like this, at least I can say that my own original intention was not so. I am in favour of "total Westernization", only because this slogan has recently been advocated for "full" globalization in the past decade or so; I have forgotten for a moment that Mr. Pan Guangdan pointed out my negligence in using words a few years ago, so I have not specifically stated that the meaning of "totalization" is only "sufficient" and should not be interpreted in quantities of one hundred percent.
So I would now like to sincerely propose to all cultural discussants that, in order to dispense with many unnecessary literary or noun arguments, it is better to say "fully cosmopolitanized" than "totally Westernized." "Sufficient" means "to try" quantitatively and "to use all our strength" in spirit.
The rationale for my proposal is this:
First, the word "wholesale" is avoided, which spares all trivial arguments. For example, at this moment, I am wearing a robe, stepping on Chinese satin shoes, using a fountain pen, writing Chinese characters, talking about "Westernization", and in the end I have a few percent of "total Westernization", which could have been a problem. There was no intention of "eclectic reconciliation", just for the convenience of application. I am confident that my robe and satin shoes and Chinese characters do not violate my principle of "full universalization".
I have watched the discussions of friends recently, and there are quite trivial arguments, such as "seeing women take off their hats", whether "seeing men should also take off their hats"; such as we "can eat cabbage", whether our diet should also be completely Westernized; these things should not be a problem in my opinion. People should "fully" learn to be polite in communication with each other; diet and living should pay "full" attention to hygiene and nourishment: this is enough.
Second, the word "wholesale" is avoided, and sympathetic sponsorship can be easily obtained. For example, Mr. Chen Xujing said: "Since Mr. Wu Jingchao can recognize more than ten-twelfths of Western culture, then what Mr. Wu is different from the total Westernization theorists is probably a fraction of a centimeter." I think that instead of hoping that others will sacrifice the "whole thing" to tie us down, we ourselves should abandon the literal "whole" to include all those who are in spirit or principle in favor of "full Westernization" or "radical Westernization." In my opinion, under the principle of "full globalization", Wu Jingchao, Pan Guangdan, Zhang Foquan, Liang Shiqiu, Shen Changye... Of course, Mr. Zhu is our comrade, not an enemy. Since they put forward the three criteria of "enriching the people's lives, developing the livelihood of the people, and striving for the survival of the nation," and these three things are precisely the latest tools and methods of world culture that must be fully adopted, then we can welcome the ten professors after the "general reply" to be our comrades on these three points.
Third, we cannot but admit that a strict quantitative "total Westernization" is not easy to establish. Culture is only the way the people live, and everywhere cannot be free from the constraints of the people's economic situation and historical habits; this is what I have said before about cultural inertia. Although you believe that "Western food is more hygienic", in fact, you must not expect everyone to eat Western food and use knives and forks instead. Moreover, Western culture does have many elements of historical inheritance, and we are not only intellectually reluctant to adopt them, but in fact we will never adopt them in their entirety. Although you say that Christianity is much more advanced than our Taoist Buddhism, in fact there are one or two hundred sects of Christianity, and they themselves slander each other. If we say, "We might as well adopt the spirit of its religion," it is not "total." On these issues, it is a matter of controversy to say "total Westernization," but it is not a problem to say "full universalization."
Seeing this, I wonder what the cultural discussants think?
The image comes from the Internet, if there is infringement, please contact to delete.