20 2011 Opening speech by Prof. Wang Hui ... - Litteraturhuset

sovereign state in a new world system. This “Confucian universalism” is, in fact, nothing other than acircuitous modern manifestation of the idea of “general truth.”The relationship between universalism and the modern nation-state, or nationalism, involves thesame logic. Since the late Qing, the epistemic structure of this universalism has been preserved, whilethe Confucian garb in which Kang Youwei invested it has been completely stripped away. Thelegitimacy of the modern nation-state is based on knowledge of this universalism and its logic fortaxonomy, while the institutions of the modern nation-state rely on the institutions of this universalismand the division of labor among them. Regardless of whether it the concept of sovereignty, or thejustifications made by various political power-sources for their own legitimacy, or the historical ideaof evolution and progress, or the rationality of institutions and theories supported by this historicalconcept, none of these can be independent from this universal knowledge. The establishment ofmodern nation-states is correlated with an anti-historical epistemological framework, and althoughnationalist knowledge often appeals to “history,” “tradition,” “origins”—that is, to culturalparticularism—its basis is this new epistemology and intellectual genealogy. Therefore, to discussintellectual system and discourse today is in effect to talk about a new type of political legitimacy. Adistinctive feature of nationalism is the ability to traces its own beginnings, whether that be ancestorveneration or cultural origins, but these more “ontological,” “original,” or “particular” forms ofknowledge are generated by the new epistemology and its intellectual framework. So this newepistemology was not a product of “ontology” or “origins” per se, but rather the “ontology” or“origins” required by the epistemological structure of the nation-state. [p. 22]It is not enough, however, simply to point out the constructed nature of nationalist knowledge orto engage in its deconstruction to be able once and for all to effect a permanent solution to theproblems it poses; this is wishful thinking. Even as nationalism is producing its own “ontology” or“origins,” it is also appealing to mass mobilization: it is here that those who “take the initiative” (zijuezhe) strive to unite their thinking about the nation’s fate under a given “propensity of the times”(shishi) with the values to which they have dedicated themselves. For example, the Chineserevolution, as a sweeping social movement, a national liberation movement of rare scale and depth,took in a number of historical elements that cannot be encompassed within the category ofnationalism; nationalism cannot cover everything about twentieth-century China. Thus, a critique andnegation of nationalist knowledge cannot be equated with a simple refusal to acknowledge anextremely rich and complicated historical process. If we acknowledge that modern China is built onthe foundation of Qing dynasty history, can the modern China produced by the revolution beadequately described via nationalist knowledge? And by the same logic, in what sense can theChinese revolution be depicted as a “national revolution?” The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought doesnot study the 20 th- century Chinese revolution in any depth, but the inquiry outlined above shouldprovide a few avenues for reconsidering modern China.In other parts of the book I bring up the matter of “anti-modernity modernity.” The third volume,General Truth and Anti-General Truth (Gongli yu fan gongli), analyzes the thought of Yan Fu, LiangQichao, and Zhang Taiyan, particularly the different ways they go about questioning modernity: thesedoubts were not total, but rather inhered within their very pursuit of modernity. To be sure, there aregreat differences in the depth and the ways of thinking of these individual thinkers. For example, YanFu approached Western positivism through the teachings of Zhu Xi, translated and justifiedevolutionism through study of the Book of Changes and historiography, and touched upon the problemof freedom in Western thought through the theories of Laozi. His translations and interpretations ofWestern thought, however, in themselves constitute dialogue with, adjustment to, and tension withWestern thought. Liang Qichao became familiar with Western political and religious knowledgethrough New Text Confucianism and the teachings of Wang Yangming, translated and introducedmodern European theory of science, German theories of the state, the philosophy of Kant, James’spragmatism and his theory of religion. But his thinking also is imbued with critical reflection oncapitalism, a utilitarian system of education, and the sense of a crisis of values. Zhang Taiyan was themost radical of the three, providing a systematic and intense critique of modernity from the standpointof the consciousness-only school (weishi xue) of Buddhism and Zhuangzi’s theory of seeing all thingsLitteraturhuset Tlf.: +47 22 95 55 30Wergelandsveien 29 Fax: +47 22 95 55 310167 Oslo, Norway post@litteraturhuset.no