In the new culture movement, is it a total denial of traditional culture?

Is the impact of the New Culture Movement on China's traditional culture a merit or a crime? So far, there have been many lawsuits. Like any historical event, we should reflect on the new culture movement again and again, find out the truth and learn something useful. However, three popular misunderstandings in recent years are not conducive to truly understanding the true nature of this movement, and it seems necessary to clarify them.

First, is the premise wrong?

The basic premise of the impact of the new culture movement on traditional culture is Confucius' way, especially Confucianism with the three cardinal guides as the core is not suitable for modern life. In Chen Duxiu's words: "In fact, the essence of Confucius is to sort out the systematic ethical theory among the ancestors of Confucianism ... Although its ethical theory is not feasible in this world, it is really famous in the feudal era of patriarchal society. Those who are dissatisfied with us regard it as an ethical theory that is not suitable for modern society, but it still dominates people's hearts today and thinks it is a huge obstacle to the progress of civilization. "

The popular view in recent years is that this premise cuts off modernity and tradition and obliterates the modernity contained in tradition and Confucianism.

It is true that modernity and tradition are inseparable. After years of discussion, many scholars, including the author, have repeatedly pointed out that the leaders of the New Culture Movement not only did not "completely oppose tradition", but also made outstanding achievements in "creatively transforming tradition". Hu Shi's "sorting out the national heritage" saved many ancient thoughts and thinkers from annihilation, and pushed folk literature such as unpretentious novels into the mainstream of China literature. Lu Xun fused ancient and modern China and foreign countries in one furnace, casting masterpieces such as The True Story of Ah Q. Even Chen Duxiu, regarded as the most radical westernization theorist, affirmed the virtues of "gentleness and honesty, courtesy and integrity".

; Moreover, the tradition is reinterpreted, and diligence, honesty and trustworthiness are regarded as "the key to saving the country" 3; No matter whether his claim is to the point or not, it is enough to prove that he is by no means "completely anti-tradition" or cutting off tradition. As for Liang Qichao, the ideological leader of an important school of the New Culture Movement, as early as after the coup of 1898, he began to clean up the tradition, absorb new knowledge, integrate China and the West, and wrote an indelible page for realizing the "creative transformation of tradition", which is an indisputable historical fact.

The focus of the question is whether the impact on the medieval ideology represented by Confucianism was unnecessary in the historical environment at that time.

In the view of the leaders of the New Culture Movement, in order to establish the harmony between freedom, equality and truth, it is necessary to eliminate the deep-rooted patriarchal ideology with the three cardinal guides as the core, which is incompatible with freedom and equality. The "Provisional Covenant Law" has clearly stipulated that "all people in the Republic of China are equal", but in real life, rigid traditions bind people's thoughts like a curse. Without criticizing the three cardinals, more and more China people will find it difficult to grow into modern citizens with independent personality, thus losing the solid ideological foundation of democracy, democracy and system, and Yuan Shikai will inevitably be resurrected. This is not to cut off the tradition, but to clean up the dead wood and branches in the tradition that are not suitable for modern life.

Therefore, whether Confucianism contains modernity or even a panacea for treating modern diseases is another kind of problem that scholars should calmly discuss. Even scholars who hold a positive attitude towards this point almost all think that the elements that hinder freedom and equality embodied in the ideology with the Three Cardinal Principles as the core should be eliminated.

In my opinion, this elimination will inevitably bring two effects: first, the collapse of the three cardinals and the corresponding patriarchal ideology; Second, it doesn't matter whether the surplus Confucianism (or other China traditional thoughts) subordinate to freedom and equality is the original intention of pre-Qin thinkers, or whether it is wise to learn from the past or both. Because this academic problem should not have a unified conclusion. At the same time, in the modern society where the relationship between freedom and equality has been established, citizens have their own needs for various concepts; One more idea leads to one more color, which is colorful and pleasing to the eye. Why not?

Second, have you wronged your opponent?

Critics believe that it is not enough for thinkers to be salty and new, to break the old and innovate, to be sharp-edged and to be wronged during the New Culture Movement. Kang Youwei, especially Du Yaquan, is a typical example of being wronged by the sages.

It is true that even if Kang teamed up with Zhang Xun to hold Puyi's little friend to the dragon chair, he was also planning to establish a constitutional monarchy. "Reform" is not completely unfounded. However, although the restoration farce didn't last long, dozens of imperial edicts, such as "Virtual Jun * * * and" drafted by Kang, were all just "not necessary to read" in the end. The consequences of Pandora's fertilized egg opening are unpredictable. Take Kang's open letter to the President and Prime Minister on September 20, 2006 as an example. It is written clearly in black and white. 19 16 declares that the world is:

"Although I traveled to four states in three weeks, after thirty countries, I read foreign books every day, and I also returned to them. In Confucius' research, I used the Spring and Autumn Annals to break the prison, the Book of Changes to admonish 350 people, the Book of Changes to communicate with Yin and Yang, and the Doctrine of the Mean to communicate with the Doctrine of the Mean. However, I used the Book of Filial Piety as a thief, and I used the university to cure ghosts, half of which. Freedom of belief, freedom of thought and speech and personal belief are indispensable. But the conclusion is that with the help of the government, "take Confucius as the great religion, enter the constitution, and clearly worship Confucius again"! And regard Confucius as the "soul of the country"!

Can a free and democratic modern country, even a constitutional monarchy, tolerate such ideological constraints? The New Culture Movement lashed out at Kang, aiming at safeguarding freedom of thought, speech and belief. Chen Duxiu said:

"Confucianism can be defined as the state religion and joined the Constitution. If it takes effect, what will happen to the equal rights of Buddhists and Taoists? If it doesn't take effect, isn't the national law a joke? The integration of politics and religion will lead to endless disputes in the country. "

"It is particularly absurd to add the theory of self-cultivation to the constitution, compared with making Confucianism the state religion. Because the state religion is not good, but there are precedents. As for who education should be based on, there are provisions in the constitutional provisions, which can be described as a big joke of all countries. "

Criticizing Kang Youwei is to expose the absurdity that he wants to build a semi-authoritarian country that cancels freedom of thought, speech and study (if there is enough economic freedom). Obviously, this is a serious ideological debate, and it is an equal and free debate, so there is no need to be harsh.

The debate between Chen Duxiu and Du Yaquan is complicated, but it is not a hegemonic war without right and wrong or even bullying others by force.

Du Yaquan (1873-1933)1904 joined the Commercial Press, and was the editor-in-chief of Oriental Magazine from191-1920. He devoted his life to education and publishing and made great contributions. He pays attention to the development of ideological and cultural thoughts, and he is an advanced intellectual who leads the trend of the times in most years. During the New Culture Movement, there was an argument with Chen Duxiu and others about how to treat Chinese and western cultures. As some scholars have pointed out, Chen Duxiu's views are biased, such as exaggerating the role of utilitarianism, ignoring academic independence and the significance of learning for academic sake, and so on. However, Du Yaquan's three main or unique viewpoints made him deviate from the historical journey:

1. "Integration" theory based on Chinese civilization.

Based on the theory of "Chinese culture is western", he thinks that "Western fragmented civilization, such as money scattered on the ground, is consistent with my inherent civilization." His rope is nothing more than the book of sages and the great end of famous education. In his view, this is a "country" that cannot be discarded, but "the loss of the country" ... the cause of the country's death. This fantasy of "unifying" China and even the world civilization by "teaching in the name of discipline" shows that his modern society is based on freedom of thought and speech.

Fear of multiculturalism. He said:

"Advocates of today's doctrine, suffering from the integration of inherent civilizations, can't abuse the right of competition to seek extravagant tricks, but rely on western concepts to disturb them. This is the so-called group of Sun Shuaio, which is not conducive to the existence of the country, but has trapped us in chaos. If we want to get rid of these teachings, we still hope that the devil will lead us to heaven. Devil, devil, you are going to die. "

The "unification" was successful, the "devil" was eliminated, and the "country" of "Confucian classics" once again reigned as the king in the world. Such a unitary world is naturally beautiful.

2. Replace the modern market economy with the economic purpose of China's inherent natural economy.

In Du Yaquan's view, the western market economy with the purpose of chasing profits and satisfying desires is not desirable: "Our economic purpose is to meet the needs of life, not to lack information ... Although the means of developed economy have not improved much for thousands of years, it cannot be said that it has no drawbacks, but the purpose of western society is not to meet the needs of life, but to meet the needs of life." He called the purpose of China's traditional economy "self-sufficiency", while he called the purpose of western economy "giving people enough". In the same issue of Oriental Magazine, which caused a heated debate with Chen Duxiu, the preface of Craft Magazine was published, which fully expounded his economic proposition:

"If you want to give people enough things, you can't avoid invading and interfering in other countries because of technology. World peace cannot be guaranteed ... so I think that giving people enough technology should be disgusted; Self-sufficient technology should be advocated ... First, it should be limited to what is necessary for human life (such as spinning and paper making). All sensory arts and crafts that encourage luxury should be rejected. Second, anything that can be made by hand should not be replaced by machinery ... Third, ... advocate domestic products and don't stop at the low price of imported products ... Fourth, our country pays attention to craftsmanship and doesn't take it as a shortcut to get rich by speculation. When we always have a sense of public morality, we have an obligation to read ... "

Developing economy according to these propositions will lead to a closed, stagnant and dying China in the East of the world. This is an inseparable part of its "unified" culture based on the inherent "country" and integrating Chinese and western cultures.

3. Save the world with China culture.

From the perspective of the world, the theory of salvation of oriental culture has a long history. After the outbreak of World War I, a noticeable small trend has also formed in China, and Du Yaquan has also participated in it. He said:

"... our country's inherent civilization for thousands of years must not be destroyed by the new western civilization that has emerged in the past 100 years ... Modern western scholars have gradually deepened their understanding of the eastern civilization ... The old civilization of China 5,000 years ago will flow into the west, and the new civilization of the twentieth century will emerge. "

The 20 th century is coming to an end, and this prediction has not come true; 2 1 century, under the impact of globalization, dreams come true, even more slim. This trend of thought appears repeatedly in China. The objective condition is that capitalism is not an ideal world, and the world war exposed its evil side. China, an ancient and great intellectual country, is waiting for an opportunity because of its brilliant subconscious.

Du Yaquan grew up in a chaotic transition period between the old and the new. Some researchers, including the author, have repeatedly pointed out that he has absorbed many new ideas from the west and confirmed that he is by no means stubborn and conservative. But we have to face up to the fact that after the outbreak of World War I, he entered a period of ideological confusion different from the previous period. Please listen to what he himself said:

"The end of this world war is actually the period when the old civilization died and the new civilization came into being. The old civilized man is a modern civilization based on the competition of rights, while the new civilized man is a civilized man based on justice and fairness. But this is the case in Europe. If we say it in China, it will be easy for the new civilization to die and the old civilization to revive. Covering our country today, the struggle for rights is a new civilization, and justice and humanity are old civilizations. The turmoil in China in the past 20 years has been dominated by the struggle for power. All of them have benefited from this so-called new civilization and are the same as the bane of European and international turmoil. "

The unmistakable message is: bid farewell to rights and competition and return to tradition. This is a big change.

Underestimating the self-renewal, self-adjustment and self-development of capitalism is an important knowledge of Marxists in contemporary countries. 13 This self-renewal ability, which has been repeatedly miscalculated by Marxists and Eastern cultural salvation theorists, comes from the civil rights and competition that Du Yaquan will resolutely abandon.

Both socialism and capitalism are undergoing reform and adjustment. At the beginning of this century, Lenin has affirmed that capitalist countries have socialist factors. As we are about to bid farewell to the 20th century, the mutual penetration and integration between socialist countries and capitalist countries is an irreversible reality and an increasingly strong trend (economic globalization is an indisputable fact). Most people of insight admit that civil rights and competition are indispensable opportunities in modern society, no matter what the surname of society and capital is, whether in the East or the West. For a thinker, Du Yaquan's refusal on this key issue is a great mistake. From this perspective, Chen Duxiu and the New Culture Movement represented the correct side of history in the debate.

Where did Du slip away? In 19 19, he described his ideal personality emotionally: "Being thrifty about things, being thrifty about life, being strict with himself and not stingy with others, he is an ancient gentleman in China and a new figure in the world." Throughout his life, he dared to learn new knowledge, supported and advocated democracy and harmony, and hated the spread of science and technology, the development of publishing and education. His words and deeds are consistent, and he is indeed a gentleman with high morality and "ancient style". However, he lived in an unpredictable historical turning point at home and abroad, and lacked the penetrating power of a great thinker to penetrate ancient and modern China and foreign countries. Facing the chaos at home and abroad, such as war, social inequality and moral anomie, his vision was obscured by the national complex and the illusion of traditional culture, and his thought of spreading western learning to the east and saving the world with eastern culture took advantage of it.

Third, did it lead to the establishment of "closed" and "May 4th ideology"?

Please look at the following paragraph:

"Any movement that requires progress, especially the movement that requires revolution as a means of progress, must have the power to unite the masses, and the ideology advocated by the' Chiris Code' type characters is naturally indispensable for uniting the masses because of its systematic, closed and moral appeal. However, due to its own closeness, it is often isolated from modern knowledge and even common sense; Therefore, reforms or revolutions supported by extremely high-intensity ideology often make major mistakes and bring major disasters. "

For various revolutionary organizations in modern China, this is a very useful warning to the world. But not "any movement demanding progress" necessarily has a "closed" ideology, which is another hypothesis to be verified. Let's see how the author continues to write:

"Anthropologist Kiel (Clifford

Geertz) correctly pointed out that when a society has a social and political crisis and culture has a cultural crisis due to disorientation, then ideology is most needed. "

This statement can be regarded as a well-founded statement, but it also has too absolute defects. Because it excludes the possibility that many theories, schemes and schemes confront each other in the crisis and constantly improve and modify their own ideas in the struggle. This kind of logical error conceals the openness of pluralistic coexistence that often appears in the modern society of freedom and democracy.

The ensuing inference is also the author's own conclusion, which is more noteworthy:

"In the May 4th period of the warlord melee, there was no political order and no social and cultural order. People are in a triple crisis of politics, society and culture. At this time, high-intensity ideology is most needed to deal with their crisis. "

"It is precisely because the traditional order has collapsed and the political, social and cultural crisis is extremely serious in the May Fourth Movement that any thought can not escape the fate of ideology in the process of' systematization'."

Therefore, the author shouted loudly: "We should remove the ideological barriers of the May 4th Movement"!

This is the text published in the last ten years. Published in Hong Kong, just a stone's throw away. Not long ago, the author was lucky enough to read it. This old saying is worth revisiting, because in the past ten years, the accusations against the May 4th Movement have been similar, and no one has responded to it.

I think the main weakness of these seemingly plausible words is that they all say "what should it be"-an inference based on a scholar's judgment; What is lacking is "truth"-an analysis of the local specific situation at that time. The author keeps saying that "high-intensity ideology is most needed" or "ideology is inevitable", but does not specifically answer which "closed" ideologies have emerged.

During the May 4th Movement, there were serious crises, mainly political crises and cultural crises.

Politically, first, democracy is imperfect and even trampled on; The second is the warlord melee. The countermeasures of the leaders of the new culture movement are to stimulate and cultivate citizens' awareness of rights, safeguard the rule of law, and resolutely oppose the military unification policy of the northern and southern warlords. To say "closed" ideology is not difficult to find among militaristic warlords or warlord groups, but it has nothing to do with the New Culture Movement. The latter is not a political organization and has no ambition to rule the country. What they persistently advocate is nothing more than freedom, democracy and the rule of law, and they advocate it according to the usual interpretation of western mainstream culture, without adding "China characteristics" or its original content. This is the most open proposition. How can there be a closed ideology?

In the field of culture, there is indeed a crisis that ideology and culture cannot meet the needs of democracy and system. However, it should not be ignored that the embryonic form of modern educational and cultural system had already existed at that time. Universities based on academic freedom and independent newspapers and publishing systems based on freedom of speech play a very important role in social life. It is within this institutional framework that the New Culture Movement operates. Pluralism, freedom, persuasion. Although there have been violations of freedom of speech, intellectuals and relevant people dare to fight openly, and there is no "total dictatorship". Under such a cultural system, the new culture movement can be said to be an unorganized and loose school of cultural thoughts, but it is similar in thought and goes its own way in free discussion. They resolutely oppose similarities and differences, ideological unity, tyranny of the majority or one person, and take independence of personality and freedom of thought as the basic starting point. Youth magazine announced loudly at the beginning of its publication: "I have brothers and sisters, and I support myself;" I have a tongue, I like myself and I don't like myself; I have brains and believe in myself; Never admit the sins of others, and never dominate me or enslave others. Guy thinks he is independent and above his personality. All actions, all rights and all beliefs can only be obeyed by his own inherent intelligence, and there is no reason to blindly obey others. " 16 this is a movement of freedom of thought, and none of its leaders tried to establish a closed ideology (individual leaders later participated in the creation of political parties, which went beyond the scope of the new culture movement).

. It is far from the historical facts to describe this free thought movement as a closed ideology.

By the way, the public's accusation that the New Culture Movement hindered the pursuit of freedom because it aimed at the country's prosperity is also unfounded in history. There are all kinds of patriotic movements. The New Culture Movement summed up historical experience and took human rights and science, democracy and science as the only way to save the country. The basic appeal of science is rationality; The basic contents of human rights and democracy are individual freedom and the corresponding rule of law and constitutionalism. It is not serious to condemn the New Culture Movement for not attaching importance to individual freedom.

The New Culture Movement has indeed impacted the traditional culture, but this impact is an opportunity for the rebirth of China culture, not an end. In modern society, culture is diverse, and China culture can only adapt to this pattern if it is baptized with the old and the new. The modern culture of modern society is worldwide, and any ancient culture will be doomed to decline unless it washes away the colors of freedom, equality, democracy, rule of law and rationality stifled by its closed patriarchal autocracy.

Do you love the traditional culture of China? Please pay tribute to the new culture movement that has gone through hardships for rejuvenation!