Although Darwin proposed evolution only in the biological context, this hypothesis has been appropriated by many humanities and social scientists to explain social phenomena. Yan Fu's "The Evolution of Heaven" is translated and interpreted from the British anthropologist Thomas Huxley's interpretation of Darwin's thought in the social field. After the publication of "The Theory of Heavenly Speech", "Darwinism" became one of the dominant Western "isms" in China, and Hu Shi's name came from the meaning of "survival of the fittest"; Lu Xun, who had just turned seventeen, in the Nanjing Mining Road School, also "ate dumplings, peanuts, and peppers as usual as soon as he had time, and read "Heavenly Speech"; Liang Qichao was also a thinker who believed in "Darwinism", and he believed that Rousseau's theory of "natural human rights" should give way to evolutionary thought. The interpretation of the "theory of evolution" by these thinkers has led to the law of "survival of the fittest" that regards power as an axiom and only the strong have the right to survive, which has a profound impact on Chinese society. "Survival of the fittest" has impacted the Chinese tradition with "virtue" as the core, and the values of "two cannot be both, and sacrifice life for righteousness" have been challenged for thousands of years, and morality has since been placed after the priority of survival.
Although the "evolutionary" trend of thought is of great practical significance to China, which has been frequently invaded in modern times, the excessive belief in "evolutionary theory" tends to slide into social Darwinism, providing a theoretical basis for authoritarianism and totalitarianism, fascism, imperialism and other behaviors. At the same time, the resulting creed of "backwardness is to be beaten" has also spawned the view that there are only "zero-sum games" and "laws of the jungle" in the national game, and does not believe in moral codes of conduct and the possibility of win-win cooperation. In a 1912 speech, Sun Yat-sen criticized the flaws in the concept of "survival of the fittest": "Before the twentieth century, the European countries invented a new doctrine of survival competition... From this point of view, it is a barbaric learning... Although the power of sincerity is in line with the evolution of heavenly evolution, axioms are difficult to lose to the conscience of talent. ”
In his book China and Darwin, the American historian Pu Jiamin studied how Darwin's theory of evolution has been accepted and misread in modern China, and why concepts such as "natural selection, survival of the fittest" and "survival of the fittest" have gradually become self-evident "laws". Pu concludes in the book: "What Darwin did to China was mixed. Darwin both liberated China and partially refrained it. With the permission of the publisher, Interface Culture excerpted the passages to entertain the readers on the 140th anniversary of Darwin's death. In addition to this book, the American scholar Schneider's Biology and Revolution in Twentieth-centruy China (2003) explores the relationship between biology and the Chinese revolution, which can also be used as an interesting addition to this topic.
China and Darwin
Translated by Zhong Yongqiang
Jiangsu People's Publishing House 2009-05 Struggle and "Group"
Written by | [Mei] Pu Jiamin translation | Zhong Yongqiang
The inspiration of Yan Fu's expression lies in the Darwinian doctrine of "struggle for survival" and its gloomy corollary of "natural selection". Yan Fu coined two Chinese words to express these concepts: "material competition" and "natural selection". "Competitors of things," Yan Fu explained, "things compete for their own existence." The Chosen One, save it and plant it as well. By merging the two into one, Yan Fu created a new four-word idiom—"natural selection of things"—to refer to these two influential social Darwinist slogans.
Yan Fu then explained these two terms more comprehensively: "It means that the people's things are in the world, and they live side by side, and they eat the natural benefits of heaven and earth, and then they are constructed by the connection, and the people's things and things are competing for their own existence." Its beginnings are also the struggle between the species and the species, the group and the group, the weak are often the strong flesh, and the fool is often the wise servant. And if it has its own existence and the relics of the seed, it will be strong and tolerant, quick and clever, and the most suitable for its time and place. ”
However, "controversy" is a pejorative meaning in Chinese. The Confucian Xunzi firmly believed that "contenders are also woes." The Taoist Lao Tzu was also preaching "indisputable virtue." Thus, by celebrating the struggle, Darwin contradicted the Chinese classics. Yan Fu realized this, because it was from this aspect that he himself questioned the classics, and he also anticipated the attacks of the conservatives. In the process of harshly rebuking the saint, Yan Fu had clearly criticized Xunzi's remarks, although he was quite clever in restraining himself and did not name Xunzi. Now, he began to meet the challenge of Taoism, attacking the idea that the true "Tao" lies in negativity, that is, "everyone knows ... Weak is better than strong."
The Theoretical Resistance of the Taoists to Darwin's "Revelation" as anticipated by Yan Fu was not a moral resistance. They are strategic resistance, because Taoist doctrine is also a philosophy of "survival.". Taoist doctrine is entirely biased toward La Fontaine's reeds rather than his oak trees. On a philosophical level, Lao Tzu was a judo enthusiast. Lao Tzu's tao is "judo", but it is still the way to win, the way to survive. Thus, "the Taoist view is not that it is useless to be aggressive, but that they are not beneficial to oneself." Yan Fu echoed this view, writing: "The guest is called 'the dead of the strongest'... But not enlightened... Inherent in its origins... If you are good at protecting its strength, the strong will survive for a long time, and if you do not use its softness well, then the soft will die quickly. ”
"The words of the male and female of the old clan," he continued, "because of the magic of the divine wisdom, the use of micro-power, not the 'do not listen to everything' also ... How can Tiangu reduce the cold for the non-weavers and the hunger for the non-cultivators? Therefore, by defending Lao Tzu, Yan Fu warned Chinese (this admonition was supported by Darwin): everyone must persist in the struggle.
Yan Fu bronze statue and Heavenly Speech Stone Carving (Source: Visual China)
This revelation, along with its "scientific support," is appalling. But it's just as exciting — because most Chinese intellectuals expect to fight. If Darwinism had been introduced to China in an era of peace without internal or external troubles, it might have immediately sparked a moral uproar somewhat similar to the ongoing "odium theologicum" that once resounded throughout the West. But in the atmosphere after the Sino-Japanese Sino-Japanese War, people's traditional moral aversion to the word "contention" was temporarily set aside.
However, "perseverance in resistance" is not pure revelation in Darwinian terminology. Even in this initial introduction, Darwinism, once introduced, opens Pandora's box of esoteric and annoying questions. Yan Fu touches on most of these amazing things in "The Original Strength", although he fails to ask these things thoroughly. Schwartz aptly refers to "The Original Strength" as the preface to all of Yan Fu's thoughts. It can also be aptly called the preamble to the general chinese thought of the next 30 years. For, with extraordinary foresight, Yan Fu has identified almost all major theories, and his contemporaries will discuss them, and in the end they will be red-faced.
The first and foremost issue is solidarity. Yan Fu asked, "Yuan Qiang?" "Solidarity is strength." But instead of using a later translation of the Western idiom, "Unity is strength," he expressed this belief by cleverly rewriting one of Xunzi's words. As we have seen, Kang Youwei also quoted this sentence, and many others will also quote this sentence later: Yan Fu said, "Xun Qingyan, people are more precious than beasts, and they are also able to gather people." ”
Note that this was not Xunzi's intention. Xun Zi said that the reason why people are "the most noble in the world" is because people have "righteousness." Man is strong only because "righteousness" binds him together in a close group. Xunzi's point of view is first and foremost a moral point of view. Like all true Confucians, when Xunzi talks about "strength," he is talking about "moral cultivation." However, although unity is not the root of "strong", it is still a manifestation of "strong", "there is no doubt about it." "Groups" are indeed a sine qua non of human life, and man's ability to have "groups" makes people stand out. Apparently, Xun Zi was not at all moved by the observations of amateur naturalists, that things are clustered in groups, because he seemed to believe that only human beings could truly "gather." Kang Youwei borrowed this argument in his article on "self-improvement", and Yan Fu also chose this classic view to support Darwinism.
However, it is not only that. When Yan Fu discovered Xunzi's wonderful phrase "group", he realized with extraordinary understanding that because of the uniqueness of this term, it can become the perfect slogan of Darwinism in Chinese society in general. For if there is anything that is common to almost every Darwinist in Chinese society, it is the preference for the "group" as an important factor in the struggle for survival.
"The Theory of Heavenly Speech" ((English) HuxLey's Theory; Yan Fu Da Ti. 24th year of Qing Guangxu (1898 AD), Collection of the National Museum of China] (Source: Visual China)
If China does not act as a whole, the consequences will be catastrophic: "If the husband and wife need to be embarrassed and each of them will fight for their own selfishness, then their group will be discouraged." In order to meet the people of the generals, and to meet the people who are fierce and wise and patriotic, the small will be humiliated, and the large will perish. Thus, yan fu introduced the naturalist Darwin in just a few paragraphs, and immediately jumped into the realm of social Darwinism: the current world is not only a world of national wars, but also a world of organisms, and between social organisms "in a world of competition, in which only the fittest can survive."
So how can a social organism become adaptable, healthy, and strong? The only way is to cultivate three kinds of popular strength: people's strength, people's wisdom, and people's morality--"one is the strength of blood and gas, the second is the strength of wisdom and wisdom, and the third is the strength of virtue and benevolence." Of course, Yan Fu's "people's strength, people's wisdom, and people's morality" is equivalent to what Spencer said of the three abilities: physique, intelligence, and morality. All these capacities must be nurtured before a nation can become safe and carefree.
At first glance, it seems that the moral connotations of Spencer's scientific analysis of the powerful will become the applicable law of "Confucian" China. Indeed, rather peculiarly, the Confucian revivalist Kang Youwei would not have included morality in his analysis of the powerful, for he merely acknowledged that "the powerful are strong and the intellect is strong." This fact is very strange, because Kang Youwei's analysis is clearly based on the above-mentioned Xunzi passages, in which the root of human strength is said to lie not in its physique and "know-how", but in morality. This, of course, is a unique Confucian view that justice is power, that virtue is at work, and that it is the "tao" to peace and prosperity. Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi all firmly believed that by virtue, the weak and small nation could not only survive, but also defeat the enemy. By virtue alone, people can rule the world.
Neither Kang Youwei nor Yan Fu quotes this part of Xunzi's view, probably because they no longer believe it. In fact, they make the opposite point: virtue itself is not enough. Both physical strength and spiritual strength are indispensable. Doing nothing and relying on the moral force of "doing nothing" is a waste of time. Even quoting the more pessimistic and slightly contradictory Confucian maxim is in vain: "You cannot have both, and you can sacrifice your life for righteousness." "Survival is the only problem, and that is China's survival. It is legitimate, even moral, to ask individuals to give up their lives for China. But it is inconceivable to demand that China give up its life for the sake of morality, that it uphold justice at all costs, that it uphold its integrity and allow the barbarians to run amok. At least Yan Fu didn't think about it that way, because he wasn't aware of "this dilemma." China's survival is also a moral issue. It is this question that defines the true concept of morality.
The Beagle's journey has an important place in the history of scientific expeditions. When Darwin published On the Origin of Species, he opened: "When I was a naturalist on the Beagle, I was really shocked by some phenomena. (Source: Visual China)
Yan Fu used the word "virtue" to refer to public-spiritedness. Public morality is selfless dedication to the "group" (selfless dedication is necessary for the self-preservation of the "group"), but the public morality can make the physical strength and the spiritual strength effective. Therefore, the so-called "suitable" thing is suitable for the "group" thing. This is the most "natural" because, as Yan Fu said, "The words of the Westerners have taught the political and legal system, and they take the living things, each of which protects its own life as the first great law, and the protection of seeds is secondary." And when the supreme being is compared with the seed, it is necessary to give up the birth to save the seed. If self-preservation is the first law, then why "give up one's life to preserve one's seed"? Yan Fu did not answer this question, but such self-sacrifice is a "law of nature", it is appropriate and reasonable, and it is the unshirkable responsibility of the individual.
Yan Fu was convinced that the survival of China was a natural and sacred cause, so he could not imagine the possibility that in the pursuit of such a cause, the group might go astray and prompt morally minded individuals to oppose the cause. It is precisely because of this view that Yan Fu can so easily say that China only needs to "take the power of the people, wisdom, and morality as the standard." Whatever can be advanced is three, and whatever can be retreated is three, and all that can be retreated is appropriate. He did not mention the possibility of a confrontation between the three. He did not even mention the usual conflict between "force" and "virtue." At the very least, he didn't admit that it might be a means of not having it both ways. But he also did not shout: "Right or wrong, this is my motherland." (My country right or wrong.) He couldn't imagine his country sliding into the wrong.
If someone accuses Yan Fu of preaching this view — that is, he can do whatever he wants for the sake of the end, for the sake of survival needs — then Yan Fu may be shocked. Compared with Darwin, Yan Fu was not a ruthless and hard-hearted social Darwinist in temperament. In a letter to his mentor sir Rayl, Darwin said: "I saw a very good satirical skit in a newspaper in Manchester that said that I had proved 'might is justice', so Napoleon was right, and so was any swindler. Yan Fu would have agreed with Darwin's consternation (or humor) in this letter. He wouldn't have taken this "satirical skit" too seriously, as Darwin did. But, like Darwin, Yan Fu would have felt the need to clarify that what Darwin had proved was not what the satirical sketch claimed.
In fact, Yan Fu has not yet discovered or begun to deal with the philosophical dilemma inherent in this unpleasant possibility. Yan Fu enthusiastically accepted Spencer's moral connotations, which were part of the power of the group. This fact shows that Yan Fu did not recognize this confusing problem: morality gave birth to social Darwinism. Until then, the kind of morality that could greatly suppress social Darwinist ideas had not been foreseen.
Excerpts from the second chapter of China and Darwin, "The Appearance of Darwin", have been deleted from the original text and published with the permission of the publishing house.