Wang Di: Some responses to the criticism of Street Culture

The English version of Street Culture was published by Stanford University in 2003, the Chinese translation was published by the Chinese University Press in 2006, the second Chinese edition was published by the Commercial Press in 2013, and the third edition will soon be published by Peking University Press. One of the reasons for the book's widespread response is that I think it is that there has been a major change in China's cities, and many old cities are disappearing day by day, which is causing concern. Although I studied Chengdu in the late Qing Dynasty and early Republic of China, the conflicts between national and local cultures, elite cultures and popular cultures involved in it are actually the problems we face today, and they are questions that we must answer when we study modern social history, cultural history, and political history. Although the study of the lower classes and daily life is still not in the mainstream in China, it has been recognized by more and more scholars and readers. I am particularly pleased to see that more and more young scholars have joined this camp, and Street Culture has played an active role in promoting the downward direction of Chinese historical research.

Since the publication of this book, there have been many book reviews in both Chinese and English academic circles, and reading these book reviews has also been a process of encouragement, inspiration and self-reflection for me. "Street Culture" has also aroused discussions in the academic and reading circles on some issues, and I will further elaborate on some of the issues that have been discussed a lot, especially those related to the real society that I have been thinking about in the past 20 years. Some of the ideas were formed or refined after the publication of the book, and some were based on discussions with scholars or interviews with the media.

Jin Jun argues in "What is the Public??—A Discussion on Wang Di's Chengdu Studies": "Wang Di only emphasizes the distinction between popular culture and elite culture and blurs the position of the state, which weakens the power of the state or political power in the transformation of public space." (Reading, 2022, No. 12, p. 17) This criticism is fair. It is true that in this book, the state is only a hidden force in the back, and if I talk about the state, at most the role of the police in the foreground, it is obviously not enough to discuss the impact of state power on urban society. The role of the state is not fully represented in the foreground in this book, mainly because I focused on the interaction and conflict between local social elites and citizens when writing this book. If the state discusses it too much, it may divert the focus of the book. Of course, I'm constantly thinking about how I can handle this relationship better. In other words, it is possible to focus on the conflict between elites and masses, elite culture and mass culture, and at the same time to better address the role and influence of the state in it. However, it may also be an attempt to compensate for this shortcoming, and I later gave a relatively comprehensive discussion of the role of the state and its impact on public space in Teahouses: Public Life and Microcosm in Chengdu, 1900-1950. Here, I would like to take this opportunity to further elaborate on the relationship between urban social autonomy and state power in the book "Street Culture".

The twentieth century was a process of expanding state power and shrinking social space, and the autonomy and autonomy of citizens were weakened. In the past, there were people's own organizations in both urban and rural China, such as the Youth Protection Association for crop watching, the Red Gun Society for self-defense, the Land Society for neighbors, the Charity Hall for charity, the Guandi Society for the community, and secret social organizations such as Paoge. But they all disappeared one by one under the control and crackdown of the state. When only the power of the state apparatus remains, when the state has some resources, it is inevitable that there will be an "involution of political power". As the power of the state expands, and there are more and more officials, it is necessary to increase the income to hire more people. So what is the way to increase income? That is, the burden on the people will be heavier when taxes are levied, but the management capacity and level of the state have not been improved correspondingly, and even decreased.

Pre-modern Chinese cities were almost always autonomous, with local elites, gentry, and common people running the community, with officials playing a limited role. In Chengdu, it was not until 1902 that a police apparatus was established and began to perform some of the initial functions of the municipal government. It was not until 1928, after the Kuomintang unified the whole country, that the city government was established. Following the example of Japan and the United States, the government required the government to set up police to manage the city's traffic and sanitation, and even where and when small traders could set up their stalls, and the Nationalist government was also promoting this process. In the process, traditional social organizations have been weakened, and state power has penetrated into local societies. However, the problem is that no matter how big a government is, if it does not rely on citizens, society, social organizations, and the public sphere, it will not be able to take care of all aspects of society, especially in a country with a large population and a vast territory like China, and the state will not be able to solve all problems.

In order for a city to be effectively managed, it should involve the society, which includes citizens and various social organizations. The government should not be afraid of the widespread appearance of urban social organizations. In Chinese history, such as the Qing Dynasty, social organizations were largely in cooperation with the government, which is one of the reasons why the Qing Dynasty ruled for more than 200 years. The view that as long as social organizations develop, they will confront state power and plot against them is not in line with historical facts and is harmful in real society. In fact, the more prosperous the social organization, the greater the help the government will receive, and the society will be more stable. With the development of the public sphere, human agency will be mobilized and able to actively participate in the management of society, as well as cultural and economic activities, otherwise, society will shrink. Every chain in society is connected, and when a chain is artificially severed, it can have very serious consequences.

Throughout the twentieth century, governments tried to regulate cities according to a uniform model, and as a result, Chinese cities gradually became a one-size-fits-all model. For a city, whether it is the management of the city, the culture of the city, or the appearance of the city, diversity is its life. I mentioned in "Street Culture" that public space and public life are the most powerful expressions of local culture, so how does the personality of the place shape the street and public culture? From a historical point of view, the city has a higher degree of regionality and closure in the past, while the modern society has a higher population flow, all of which will affect the culture of a city. Of particular importance are the models introduced for the development of the modernization process, including standards, as well as the establishment of hygiene, management, functional departments, etc., which have gradually changed the internal and external appearance of cities. Since modernization is an irreversible trend, in the past, we could see the local characteristics of various regional cultures in the streets, markets, temples, etc., but now almost all cities in China are gradually becoming homogeneous. As a result of urban redevelopment, the Plaza Avenue replaced the side streets and alleys, thus cutting off the basis for the survival of street culture.

Under the current system, the state has a huge influence on the development of a city, and regulation is the main means in the construction of modern cities, including the public ownership of urban land, which also gives the green light for urban demolition and construction. This kind of ultra-modernist planning cannot be fully said to be a Chinese characteristic, and the French architect Le Corbusier (Le Corbusier) in his "Shining City" comprehensively expressed his urban vision of "big is beautiful", even if it is not in harmony with the original city, and even the new plan completely replaces the original city. China's urban planning almost reflects the characteristics of Le Corbusier's modernization: rapid transit, urban boulevards, and the division of the city into commercial, residential, industrial, and other functional areas. However, this kind of grand vision of the city has caused great harm to the culture of the city in the process of urban development.

In fact, there are many ways to develop cities. For example, the American urban planning theorist and historian Lewis Mumford (Lewis Mumford) believes in his "History of Urban Development" that a city should be alive, just like an organism, there is life and death, and culture is its lifeblood, and he emphasized that it should be developed according to the cultural context of a city. Jane Jacobs's "The Death and Life of America's Big Cities" goes a step further, arguing that the old neighborhoods that have already taken shape do not need to be demolished or completely renewed, but are gradually refined for the community in urban construction, and the center of consideration is the convenience and safety of residents' lives, rather than the grand and beautiful buildings and streets. Standardization, as a myth, is the result of an over-superstitious belief in the power of the state, the ideology, culture and policy of a single system, and as a result, the whole society has become more and more homogeneous, rigid and lacking in vitality. James Scott's The Nation's Perspective is a wake-up call that an overly superstitious belief in a certain force often ends up with the opposite of what people expect. Therefore, we need to mobilize more of the whole force of society and the participation of citizens, so that a city and a country can function normally. In the final analysis, the more spontaneous organizations there are, the healthier the development of society.

I emphasize that the daily life is not to abandon the grand narrative, but to keep a certain distance from the grand narrative, because the macro often does not see the individual. From a macro perspective, we can see a distant view, just like standing on the top of a high mountain or looking at a city in the clouds, how can we appreciate the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of individuals in the city? In the study of history, we should attach importance to people as individuals, and not always look at people as groups; "people" and "masses" are all group concepts, but they are all composed of individuals. A person's joy, anger, sorrow, and happiness are all related to one's own experience, so historical research should be concerned about the fate of the individual. If the demands of the individual are ignored, then the so-called group is just an empty word. In the past historical narratives, when an emperor or hero wanted to create history, he was full of pride, but those people who were coerced into it were likely to be rivers of blood, hundreds of people were ruined, and thousands of lives were turned to dust. Who still remembers their names and their stories? Isn't it a question that historical research should reflect on when ordinary people, who account for the vast majority of the population, disappear without a trace in history? To study some small problems, in fact, there can be a big issue behind them, and the most direct thing is how to treat individual people, and even I think how to treat individuals is the touchstone to test whether we really care about the fate of the people.

There are two views of history in historical writing: the imperial view of history and the view of everyday history. In the former's view, the history of a country should revolve around dynasties and emperors, and the people have little value in writing. But I think that ordinary people and everyday routines that go on and off every day, because they involve the vast majority of the population that they face on a daily basis, deserve at least the corresponding attention of historical research. In fact, it is not only about how we view history, but also about how people perceive themselves. When we take a closer look at history, we will find that those emperors and heroes did more destruction, damage to the economy and culture. And our civilization has developed to this day by thousands of ordinary people. I would also like to emphasize that, in fact, every ordinary person, everything he or she does every day in his or her daily life is the greatest contribution to this society, and he or she deserves to enjoy his personality, dignity and rights. Those in power want to keep the people's lives on a daily basis, not tossing them over and over again.

Writing about everyday life is not an easy task, because it is almost not recorded in historical sources. Everything in the past becomes "history", and there is another kind of "history", which is the history we write—reconstructing history through limited information, field investigations, etc. Reconstructed history can never fully reproduce the past, and the farther away we are from history, the more limited we are. Moreover, the materials we can rely on now are only a very small part of history itself, and if we want to reconstruct history on the basis of such a small amount of data, to what extent do they restore history itself? Although in many cases when we write history, we need to use "historical imagination" to fill in the gaps in the materials, but this filling must have a historical basis. Historians are not philosophers, nor novelists, but must be deduced under rational logic. And the writer must tell the reader that this is a reasonable speculation on the part of the author after making use of limited information, and that it is only a possibility, not history itself.

With regard to the information, I do not think that once you find it, you can use it casually. Because there is a great deal of uncertainty in the materials, how far are the stories told in them from the real history? How can we analyze them through these texts? In the past, I thought that finding archives, newspapers, periodicals, and diaries was equivalent to finding history, but now I don't think so, these records are just a kind of text, and the text must be placed in the historical environment of the time, and the connotation can only be presented after analysis.

The lack of information is indeed a problem for the study of ordinary people and daily life, but the use of literary materials is a possible way. I believe that writers and novelists writing about the lives of their contemporaries is a kind of historical record. Chinese novelists have a tradition of collecting styles, such as going to the countryside to experience life and recording the people and things they come into contact with, which is a kind of historical record. In fact, the record of history is not necessarily more true than literature. Historians also have their own limitations and prejudices, in the past, historical writing was fond of big narratives, and the biggest problem was the lack of individuals, and ordinary people had no place, so historians should not look down on literature too much. In Metahistoriography, the American historian Hayden White discusses the commonalities between historical writing and literary writing, as well as the internal structure of romantic drama, comedy, tragedy, and satire. Traditional historiographical training disapproves of the use of literary sources, but I increasingly disagree with that. Mo Yan's novel Fatigue of Life and Death describes the land reform movement more than any historical writing I have ever read about the land reform movement, and Lu Yao's Ordinary World describes the life of peasants on the Loess Plateau in the seventies of the twentieth century. Therefore, literature can be used to supplement the lack of historical details, there is actually no separate gap between history and literature, history must be literary, and literature must have a sense of history. When there is no historical material, literature can be carefully selected to fill in the missing parts.

[Street Culture: Public Space, Lower-class People, and Local Politics in Chengdu (1870-1930), Third Edition, by Wang Di, Peking University Press, 2023]