Thoughts after reading the history of ancient Chinese culture

The rise of cultural history is a rebellion against the traditional historical paradigm. The basic connotation of "culture is humanization" determines that cultural history is destined to center on human activities and creations, and on the all-round development of human nature.

From the transition from "dynastic politics" historiography to cultural history at the beginning of the century, to the transition from "class struggle" historiography to cultural history in the late 1970s, the study of cultural history over the past century has followed a zigzag path.

Discovering the essence and seeking resources from traditional Chinese culture is also an inevitable choice in China's modernization process.

The focus of cultural history from beginning to end is to explore how a nation’s national character (including the nation’s psychological structure, personality tendencies, ways of thinking, and some stable concepts accumulated over a long period of time) is generated, accumulated, integrated, and finalized in history and reality.

How does this national character penetrate into all areas of national culture and make it show national characteristics.

As history is about to enter the threshold of a new century, the study of Chinese cultural history is about to complete its century-long journey.

This temporal synchronization is no coincidence. In fact, the study of a century of cultural history is intrinsically and deeply connected with the changes in Chinese society over the past century.

The transformation of historical paradigm The history of China in the 20th century is a process of transformation from traditional society to modern society.

From the early 20th century, when China's modernization began, to today, all changes, turmoil, and conflicts in Chinese society, as well as all changes in China's political system, transformation of economic structure, renewal of ideology, and reorganization of cultural patterns, are included in the larger framework of modernization changes.

Within, they can regain interpretation and value meaning under the grand theme of modern transformation of traditional society.

Simultaneously with this process, the wave of "historical revolution" has strongly impacted the old ways of traditional history. One of the important contents is the shift from the traditional old historiography centered on dynastic politics to the people-centered cultural history.

This is a transformation of the historical paradigm.

In the traditional historical paradigm, historians are interested in the replacement of dynasties and the political behavior of rulers, and the entire purpose of historical research is to provide "information" for the emperor's political rule.

The rise of cultural history is a rebellion against the traditional historical paradigm. The basic connotation of "culture is humanization" determines that cultural history is destined to center on human activities and creations, and on the all-round development of human nature.

To this end, it cares about human life styles, social systems, social organizations and moral customs, the existence and value of individuals, the characteristics and growth trajectory of national spirits, and the mutual influence and exchange of cultures of various ethnic groups.

Such an interest and focus is consistent with the trend of history and the trend of the increasingly elevated status of human subjectivity.

It was against this background that the study of Chinese cultural history in the twentieth century began.

Liang Qichao, the pioneer in the study of cultural history, sharply criticized that "old history is all about political affairs but not about culture" and that old history is "just a genealogy of twenty-four surnames."

On the other hand, he called for: "The history of Chinese literature can be made, the history of Chinese race can be made, the history of Chinese wealth can be made, and the history of Chinese religion can be made. How many more can be made like this?" Drawing people's attention to cultural history

Research.

In 1921, Liang Qichao planned to write a multi-volume history of Chinese culture and made a detailed outline. Although this idea was not realized in the end, his courage, vision and the research structure of Chinese cultural history were heartfelt.

admiration.

With Liang Qichao at the forefront, criticizing old historiography and advocating cultural history became important contents of Chinese historiography in the first half of the twentieth century.

For example, when Liu Yizheng clarified the motivation for writing "Chinese Cultural History", he said: "The history of our country when Shi Heng was ill is a genealogy of the emperor, which cannot express the changes and progress of the national society." "My book wants to dispel this confusion, so it is written by the emperor.

Most of the dynasties and national wars are omitted, and only those that express the spirit of the nation are extensively searched and listed." Wang Yunwu also pointed out in "Compilation of Chinese Cultural History": "The works of our country's scholars.

, all tend to be biased towards the temple system, and are called high-level books. The trivial details about the palace and the palace are enough to express the culture of the common people, and they are all ignored." His original intention of compiling "Chinese Cultural History" was to correct this.

A flaw.

Gu Kangbo's "History of Chinese Culture: Preface" expresses the same view: "The function of history is to study its culture. The so-called history of Gu Wu country only records the rise and fall of the past dynasties, and does not pay attention to the advancement and retreat of culture, which would cause outsiders to

It is unfair to say that our country has no history. The twenty-four historians are the genealogies of the twenty-four surnames. However, the historians of our country are slaves of one dynasty and one surname. It is not a pity that this is not the case.

The research on cultural history in the first half of the century was full of conscious awareness of the transformation of historical paradigm, that is, from historiography centered on emperors to historiography centered on national culture.

Regrettably, after 1949, due to a one-sided understanding of the process of human civilization, the history of class struggle formed a kind of historical hegemony. In such an atmosphere, the depression and silence of cultural history was inevitable.

A turning point in history occurred in the late 1970s, with the convening of the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, ushering in a new era.

As the party's central work shifts from "taking class struggle as the key link" to "taking economic construction as the center", the study of cultural history has attracted people's attention again.