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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

patriarchy, imperial authority, and the civil service examination system were all deployed within theconcept of the system of enfoeffment, the ideal of the Three Dynasties, and the internal framework ofthe theory of the differentiation between rites/music and institutions, their implications cannot beencompassed by what the modern social sciences regard as institutional problems. If we put the birthof the Song notion of Heavenly Principle together with the Confucian view of history, we find that theincreasing importance of the former in the Confucian world bears a close relationship with SongConfucians’ observations on historical change: the Three Dynasties embodied a world of rites/music, aworld where morality and ethics were completely integrated with rites/music, and their narratives wereidentical; there was thus no need for an ontology that transcended rites/music in order to provide itsmoral legitimacy. On the other hand, the period after the Three Dynasties constituted a world of a“differentiation of rites/music from institutions,” such that institutions as such could no longer providethe moral legitimacy offered by rites/music and an account of institutions could be the simpleequivalent of an account of morality. Morality, therefore, had to resort to an ontology beyond the realworld or its institutions. This differentiation also exhibited itself in the transformation of the categoryof things (wu): in the world of rites/music, things not only embody “everything” (wanwu), but alsorepresent the norms of rites/music with the result that things and principle (li) are completely united.In the world in which the Song Confucians had come to be situated, however, rites/music haddegenerated into institutions without moral implication—they were simply material or functional.Consequently, the moral implications of things in a world ruled by rites/music had been sloughed offand Principle could be revealed only by the practice of investigating things (gewu).Therefore, the understanding of the birth of the concept of Heavenly Principle cannot beseparated from an understanding of the Confucian understanding of historical change. In the book, Iplace particular emphasis on analyzing the concept of “the propensity of the times” (shishi), sinceChinese—or Confucian—historical consciousness bears a special relationship with this notion. ii Timeis a core domain of modern Western thought; it evolves in a linear fashion, is teleological,homogeneous, and empty. Nineteenth-century Europe experienced a change in its view of historywhereby historical entities achieved identity with the temporal; the result of this fusion was thathistory became imbued with teleology. My criticism of Hegelianism in the introduction to The Rise ofModern Chinese Thought expands upon this point. [p. 6] The narrative of modern nationalism is alsocentered on this epistemology of time, with national subjectivity also built upon it. Thus, my use ofthe concept of “the propensity of the times” is meant to reconstruct the epistemological framework ofhistorical narrative. From the Confucian perspectiveconsciousness of “the propensity of the times,”like the concept of time, is related to the conceptualization of history as well as to historicalconsciousness, but it does not proceed in a linear fashion, nor is it empty. It is, rather, an account ofthe natural unfolding of history and its internal dynamics, an unfolding not dependent upon anyteleology. Purpose inheres in the searches conducted by people caught up in historical change forvalues (such as Heavenly Principle, rites/music, and those of the Three Dynasties) incorporated intoour daily lives and practices. In Song thought, “the propensity of the times” became in inner matter,and the concept of “the historical manifestation of Heavenly Principle” (lishi) is representative of thismove toward interiority. “The propensity of the times,” however, was not exclusive to Song learning,as variations on it can be found in both Gu Yanwu’s and Zhang Xuecheng’s studies of the Confucianclassics, as well as in their historical research.Like other intellectual categories, “propensity” (shi) is a very old idea, but both “the propensity ofthe times” and that of its “historical manifestation” took on a special significance in Song thought. Inconsidering the totality of social or historical change, Neo-Confucians paid particular attention to thedifferentiation of rites/music from institutions without passing any simple value judgments on eitherterm, regarding this differentiation as the result of historical change. On the one hand, they yearnedfor the rites/music of the Three Dynasties, even as they held high the banner of Heavenly Principle onthe other. Why, then, was their appeal for a return to antiquity translated into a call for the abstractcategory of Heavenly Principle that was also embodied as individual moral practice? Lacking ahistorical perspective, there is no way to connect these two. In fact, the differentiation of rites/musicfrom institutions is not the Song Confucians’ own expression, but my summary of their varioushistorical narratives. But isn’t the demarcation between the Three Dynasties and the eras that followedLitteraturhuset Tlf.: +47 22 95 55 30Wergelandsveien 29 Fax: +47 22 95 55 310167 Oslo, Norway post@litteraturhuset.no
how they basically understood history? Qian Mu’s and Chen Yinke’s interpretations of the differencebetween rites/music and institutions in their accounts of Sui and Tang dynasty history have influencedmy conclusions. The context of my explanation of “the differentiation of rites/music frominstitutions,” however, is different from the one within which they were working. Qian Mu faultsChen Yinke for creating a problem by not distinguishing rites/music from institutions in his analysis,criticizing Chen for assigning to the category of institutions that which should rightfully belong torites/music.Yet, since there was no such clear separation between rites/music and institutions in the pre-Qinperiod, we may ask whence came Qian Mu’s binary? From the opposite perspective, since in the post-Song context rites/music and institutions were taken as two distinct categories, we can ask why ChenYinke fails to distinguish them in his study of medieval history. As we know, Chen Yinke deeplyidentified [p. 7] with the beliefs of Song Confucianism, but he was an historian who, in the same waythat traditional Chinese historical narratives contain their own theories of history, never failed toincorporate his own historical ideas into his narratives. Thus, conflating rites/music with institutionsor dividing the two from one another it is not a simply factual matte. Many historical writings proceedon the basis of taking this split of rites/music from institutions as a historical reality, and in studies ofthe Northern and Southern dynasties and the Sui-Tang period this differentiation is probablynecessary. Regardless of whether it is Chen Yinke failing to mark the difference or Qian Mu making adistinct separation between them, they both reflect a historical view derived from a post-Songperception of historical change. Why, then, are rites/music and institutions sometimes seen as notbeing different from one another while at certain other times it seems imperative to divide them?From the perspective of the Confucian tradition, this dialectic of integration and separation bears aninternal relationship with Confucianism, and with Confucius’s representations of the collapse ofrites/music in particular. In this sense, the differentiation of rites/music from institutions is a questionof historical viewpoint rather than one of historical fact; it is a question of from what perspective andfrom what value system one narrates history. Although we can describe the differentiation as ahistorical process, we must simultaneously understand that this historical process unfolded as anhistorical judgment from a particular perspective. It is also in this sense that both Song Confuciannarratives concerning the practices of restoring patriarchy and the well-field system, as well as theircriticism of the civil service examination system and harsh laws and punishments, constitute anevaluation via the rites/music of the Three Dynasties of the new institutional practices under a centraladministration. The demarcation between the Three Dynasties and later periods, and the antithesisbetween rites/music and institutions, have direct political implications, implications that are not simpleand straightforward, but are rather deeply imbued with the Heavenly Principle worldview.In my opinion, we are interpreting Chinese history from within when we discuss theestablishment of Heavenly Principle and we take up from the internal historical perspective ofConfucianism the issues summed up by modern historians in the categories of economic, politicalinstitutional, cultural, and philosophical history. In this view, things now taken as purely economic orpolitical issues cannot be explained as simply economic or political matters in other historicalcontexts. For example, the ideas of centralized administration and enfeoffment constitute organicparts of the intellectually integrated world of Confucianism, and it is only within this conceptual arenathat the real world and the changes in it take on significance and can be grasped. This internalperspective is produced through a process of ceaseless dialogue with modern times.Methodologically, the dialogue not only allows us to interpret modern times through antiquity, orantiquity via antiquity, nor does it simply allow us to see antiquity with a modern eye, but provides theopportunity for a dialogue to translate this perspective into a vehicle of our own introspection. Byobserving the demarcation between the Three Dynasties and the later period, and the differentiationbetween rites/music and institutions, we can also see the limitations of our own knowledge.[p. 8] Empire and Nation-State in Historical NarrativesSince The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought developed its discussion of enfeoffment andcentralized administration from a Chinese historical perspective, why, then, discuss the matter ofLitteraturhuset Tlf.: +47 22 95 55 30Wergelandsveien 29 Fax: +47 22 95 55 310167 Oslo, Norway post@litteraturhuset.no
Page 1 and 2: Chinese Literature Week November 14
Page 3: From the Northern to the Southern S
Page 7 and 8: transition; their historical relati
Page 9 and 10: political structures and cultural i
Page 11 and 12: values, and should thus be kept dis
Page 13 and 14: It is precisely at this point that
Page 15 and 16: sovereign state in a new world syst
Page 17: WANG HUI (2004) Xiandai Zhongguo si

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?