How much can Confucianism do if it seeks fame in a "unified" discipline system?

If Confucianism strives for fame in a "unified" discipline system, how promising can it be?

The old discussion on the first-level discipline of Chinese studies, which has lasted for many years, has not yet settled, and the new discussion on the establishment of the first-level discipline of Confucianism has started again.

According to Phoenix Sinology, on June 1 1, at the seminar "Construction of Confucianism Discipline and Compilation of Confucian Textbooks in China" held by Renaturation College of International Confucianism Institute of Sichuan University, the participating scholars jointly proposed to set up a first-class discipline of Confucianism in China universities, and published the "Initiative on Establishing and Building a Confucian Discipline" (hereinafter referred to as "Initiative"), explaining why Confucianism should set up a first-class discipline and thinking that it is related to people. It can be said that the words are concise, and the righteousness is strict.

There is a passage about the relationship between Confucianism and Sinology: "Sinology is an encyclopedia of China's traditional scholarship, and Confucianism is the backbone of China's traditional scholarship. The establishment of the first-level discipline of Confucianism can greatly promote the construction of Chinese studies. " Among them, the mystery is obscure, but it is obvious: if Confucianism, as the backbone of Chinese studies, is set as a first-class discipline, then Chinese studies, which is integrated with Confucianism and is a "traditional academic encyclopedia", can't be put down by a mere first-class discipline? Need to be higher than the first level of discipline. What is higher than the first-level subject? It can only be a major discipline category.

The 201/edition of the Catalogue of Disciplines for Degree Granting and Personnel Training * * defines three disciplines: philosophy, economics, law, education, literature and history, science, engineering, agriculture, medicine, military science, management, art and so on1,which is of great significance to Chinese studies. If there is, it can be described as killing two birds with one stone, and the pattern has changed greatly!

Before the formulation of the first-level discipline of Chinese studies, the most criticism was that the content was too much and too uncertain, and it was difficult for Shen Li to have a convincing and reasonable explanation. On the other hand, the initiative changed its strategy. On the one hand, Confucianism, which is more qualified in all aspects, was separated and established as a first-class discipline. On the other hand, the factors such as "rich connotation, wide coverage, covering many disciplines and complex system" that originally hindered the development of the first-level discipline of Chinese studies were positively affirmed as the inherent characteristics of Chinese studies.

In this way, all the disadvantages of applying for a first-level discipline have become the advantages of upgrading to a larger discipline category, and the territory under it is no longer what a simple first-level discipline can do, but countless first-level disciplines headed by Confucianism and a huge system of Chinese studies divided by multi-level disciplines. Its verve and pattern are amazing! But apart from sighing, there are still a few puzzles. Chen Zhi is of high quality, but fortunately, he has the ability to teach.

The first is the confusion of the name "Sinology". Since the late Qing Dynasty, the ideological trend of Chinese studies has experienced several ups and downs, all of which have special times, in which the color of "country" is strong and the color of "learning" is light. Some people say that Chinese studies are "the study of the country will not be the study of the country." Although it is hard to hear, it also reflects some facts and shows some embarrassing situations and complicated psychology of people in a specific era. In fact, the so-called sinology is often more paranoid about the country than about learning, which is why sinology has been criticized for a long time. Here, I don't want to investigate the origin of Sinology in an all-round way, but when I think that "Sinology is an encyclopedia of China's traditional scholarship", I suddenly feel an unprecedented absurdity.

Sinology is an encyclopedia of traditional learning in China. The country is naturally China, and learning is naturally traditional learning. Since "Sinology" is "China traditional scholarship", then "China modern scholarship" is definitely not "Sinology". It's no problem to say that "China Modern Academics" is not "China Traditional Academics", but once the name "Guo" belongs to "China Traditional Academics", something absurd but logical happens: "China Modern Academics" is irresistibly reduced to "non-State"! Even more absurd, but equally logical, the one named Guo in China and China, and the one named Guo in China's modern academia, are inevitably split! It is hard to believe that "Chinese studies" actually triggered the spectacle of "two China". I wonder if the defenders of China's traditional scholarship, which stubbornly monopolizes the country, ever expected this result?

Second, the confusion between Confucianism and traditional academic relations. Judging from the arguments given in the initiative, the reasons for advocating the first-level discipline of Confucianism are much more sufficient than those for advocating the first-level discipline of Chinese studies before, emphasizing that "Confucianism has a self-sufficient and complete classical system, a long history of development, rich ideological scholarship, huge literature accumulation, a systematic and complete belief system, daily ethics, practical function of helping others and rich educational experience. And established a unique Confucian discipline system and experience. However, this can not completely solve many problems raised in the dispute over the first-level discipline of Chinese studies.

For example, after Confucianism is set as a first-class discipline, the relationship between other traditional academic contents and Confucianism and its position in the discipline system is a very troublesome problem. In particular, whether Confucianism belongs to the existing category of humanities or the category of "national studies" that may be established in the future is inevitably entangled with the existing category of humanities. How to cut and reorganize the contents of some disciplines will be a very headache. At present, there is no good argument about this.

Article 3 of the initiative mentions that "to build a perfect discipline of Confucianism, we should compile a series of teaching materials including the first-class discipline of Confucianism and two disciplines (such as Confucian classics, righteousness, textual research, rhetoric, political affairs, etc.). ) ",among which, the distribution of the two disciplines is unreasonable. For example, "textual research" is actually a method that runs through all departments of traditional academic research, rather than a specialized knowledge; In the traditional academic classification, "Confucian classics" was originally a big category higher than Confucianism, but it was placed under Confucianism and tied for two disciplines with "textual research", which was originally a learning method. Is this outdated classification the result of "keeping pace with the times" or confusion in a hurry? It's puzzling.

Indeed, Confucianism is rooted in the Six Classics, but the study of the Six Classics is not all Confucianism. In the traditional academic classification, the Six Classics ranks first among the four schools, not because it came from Confucianism, which later occupied a dominant position, but because it came from Wang Guan and was shared by all the pre-Qin philosophers. Ma Yifu's so-called "six arts should be learned from various academic fields" is reasonable. Some scholars say that "the mainstream of Chinese studies is Confucianism, and the core of Confucianism is Confucian classics", which is not impossible; But if, on the other hand, Confucian classics are Confucianism, or just Confucianism, it is absolutely impossible. In fact, this statement is less oriented by Confucian classics, and setting Confucian classics as two disciplines may be related to this orientation. This undoubtedly covered up the truth that the Six Classics originated in Wang Guan and were of the same origin as the pre-Qin philosophers, split the relationship between the philosophers and the Six Classics, and completely turned the study of the Six Classics into a Confucian study, which was contrary to the reality of academic history.

In a word, the conflict between different departments in traditional learning and the existing discipline system caused by the establishment of the first-level discipline of Confucianism will be more complicated and intense than that of the first-level discipline of Chinese studies. However, this is not the problem. The problem is that since it claims to be based on traditional academics, it is necessary to understand and straighten out the internal relations between different departments of traditional academics, so that they can develop together on the basis of their proper places and realize the transformation and coordination with other modern academic categories. However, according to the "Initiative" and other related discussions, it is very likely that the first-level discipline of Confucianism was established to solve disputes and adapt to new disturbances.

Third, the confusion of the "syllogism" view of history. The "Initiative" said: "The economy is not prosperous, it is impossible to gather people's hearts, the culture is not prosperous, and it is impossible to calm people's hearts. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, the class struggle in the first 30 years consolidated the political power, and the reform and opening up in the last 30 years developed the economy. Now should be the third stage of building a cultural power, and the people of China will achieve harmony and prosperity in material wealth and spiritual wealth! " The word "beauty of harmony" is full of the charm of classical Confucianism, which makes people fascinated, but it also makes people wonder whether this syllogism historical view of "consolidating political power through class struggle", "developing economy through reform and opening up" and "building a cultural power" is missing a very important piece. The political system reform put forward by the ruling party in the "second 30 years" was reiterated as "the important content of comprehensive reform" in the "third 30 years", emphasizing that "it must continue to be actively and steadily promoted".

But syllogism doesn't seem to be very interested in this, as if "developing economy" has exhausted all the meanings of "reform and opening up". As long as Confucianism is firmly used to promote "culture" and "transform" the world, the people can be in the realm of "harmony and beauty" But is it really possible? Why did Confucianism suffer extinction in the "first thirty years"? I suggest that the public should be able to observe it. So, is "syllogism" a generalization that is gone forever? Or do you think that as long as you have "power" (political consolidation) and "money" (economic development), you can "be gentle here" and everything will be OK?

Fourth, the confusion of "the strong position of western culture". The "Initiative" said: "In the past hundred years, due to the strong position of western culture, we must have what the West has in discipline construction, but we dare not have disciplines that the West does not have, resulting in the system design of traditional disciplines in China being almost completely replaced by the western discipline system. 2 1 century, China's cultural renaissance has become an irresistible trend of the times, and it is imperative to build a discipline system, academic system and discourse system with China characteristics, China style and China style. " There is no doubt that the current subject system in China is indeed the product of long-term accumulation under the influence of western learning since modern times. It is generally true to say that "the traditional disciplines in China are almost completely replaced by the western discipline system in system design", but it is also not true to say that "we must have some western disciplines, but we dare not have them".

First of all, "We will have what the West has"? As long as we compare our subject categories with those in the west, we will not only compare the names, but also compare the connotations. I believe that the sentence "We will have what we have in the West" will never be so reasonable. Such as "theology", do we have it? For example, do we have a "classic" that some scholars regard as a reference benchmark for Shen Yi-level disciplines?

Secondly, "we dare not have a subject that the west does not have"? The answer is also obvious: no! Is there a universally established first-class discipline of Marxism in the West? Are there any subjects of ideological and political education? The fact is, from discipline construction to discipline connotation, "we" never seem to be afraid of being different from the West in pursuing and highlighting China characteristics; In the core values that run through the discipline system, "we" have always dared to challenge "the strong position of western culture".

"Initiative" makes "we" look like a little woman who has always only understood the West and never dared to cross the line. Going back more than 60 years from now, and going back to the late Qing Dynasty, there are historical documents of the discipline, so what is it? For a long time, many people in Confucian/China academic circles have mentioned "the strong position of western culture" and criticized it as the chief culprit of the deconstruction and status degradation of the traditional academic system. This argument is the result of repeated deduction, which is a specious fallacy and has become an indisputable truth.

The inventors and bewitched followers of discourse seem to have overlooked a basic fact, that is, the concept of "Sinology" is not inherent in China, but is imported from Japan. Zhang, Liang Qichao, Wang Guowei, Liu and others. It was Yu Yingshi who first put forward the concept of "Sinology" and advocated the study of China's "Sinology", which was also solemnly pointed out by. "Although they made a sharp contrast between" Sinology "(or" quintessence of Chinese culture ") and the western academic system, they did not mean to resist" Western learning ". Later, another generation of Hu Shi advocated the scientific method of "sorting out national heritage". Compared with Zhang and Liang, their methods are different, but their purposes are basically the same, and they are all seeking the convergence of "Western learning" into China.

Therefore, citing "western learning" and combining it with "Chinese studies" is actually their conscious pursuit. In their view, the introduction of "western learning" is a good thing to "add vitality to Chinese studies" (Liang Qichao's words). The reason for this is that it is difficult to cope with all kinds of problems brought about by the great changes in the world only by China's inherent knowledge. That is to say, the dissolution and reconstruction of China's inherent academic system actually stems from the internal needs of China society itself, and the newly emerging "Western learning" was borrowed as a reference tool only because of the right time and the right place, and was not imposed on China by any external force.

However, as Yu Yingshi said, in the process of academic transformation in China since the late Qing Dynasty, when the academic and educational circles in China have completely accepted the western natural science system and abandoned their own original one, the humanities research still inherits the original academic system with a long history and is separated from the western humanities and social sciences. Even after "Western humanities and social sciences have penetrated into China's academic and educational system", this special scene has not changed substantially. For example, he said, "A person who has received professional training in the history of philosophy in the West can never transfer all his experience and experience in studying the history of western philosophy to the study of China's philosophy, or even work on China's philosophical texts immediately. He must also accept a set of traditional academic training in China, especially Confucian classics and sub-studies, otherwise he will be at a loss in the face of a lot of information about China. " Since the late Qing Dynasty, the process of China's academic transformation has therefore shown an "obvious trend", that is, "Chinese style and western use" have helped each other. Yu Yingshi also said: "If the above trend can continue, there will be new development in the situation of" learning from China and the West and prospering. "

Regrettably, however, just as we entered the "first 30 years" mentioned in the initiative, "the combination of Chinese and Western" unexpectedly entered the stage of "decline means both sides lose". Western humanities, social sciences and ethnology disappeared from China at the same time. All the studies on China's history, literature and thoughts used to belong to the category of "national heritage", but now they are all included in the Soviet-style branch system. ".

From the above, it can be seen that although "Western learning" is strong, there are other reasons for the disintegration and reconstruction of China's original academic system. "Western learning" is not only the culprit of destroying tradition, but also the target of the real "culprit" together with "Chinese studies". In such a painful history, the "initiative" passed easily with the words "class struggle to consolidate political power". Therefore, the tragedy of "the combination of Chinese and Western" in the past 30 years is attributed to "Western culture" that has been isolated for a long time. What is the reason?

Fifth, the confusion about the necessity of "great unification" discipline system planning. When it comes to China's cultural tradition, the biggest one is that "rites and music were conquered by the emperor". No matter what the wave of "Westernization" is, it is difficult to change the stubborn domination of this "unified" habit on people's psychology and thinking mode. It can be said that it has been implanted into the blood and evolved into a gene, which is deeply rooted. Although "unified" planned economy has been replaced by market economy in theory, it still exists in practice. In other aspects of public life and private life, especially in the field of academic education, the "great unification" model remains the same.

As far as academics are concerned, all academics must be brought into the Wang Guan system, their birthright should be determined, and then they should be reasonable and legal, otherwise they will be regarded as heretics or marginalized. Scholars outside the system are like a "nameless and nameless" and homeless dissatisfied housewife, looking forward to "birthright" is like looking forward to Yun Ni in the drought. For some so-called "mainland neo-Confucianists", such as those who recently advocated that "China must be re-Confucianized", their self-orientation may also be that they have been divorced but never abandoned their sadness and longed for a second time. Now I see that the heart-broken man changed his mind, as if his long-cherished wish had come true. He was so happy that he cried and was full of ugliness, and he wanted to find his birthright. The distortion of servile personality under the system of "great unification" is nothing more than this.

In fact, subject categories are planned by the state administrative organs in a unified way, and it is unreasonable not to classify them. People in Sinology/Confucianism often talk about the squeezing of traditional academics by the western discipline system, but they don't know that the allocation of western disciplines and related courses is not planned by the state administrative organs in a unified way, but is independently adjusted by different academic groups and educational institutions. It is common to divide, combine and rebuild, and it is not an obstacle to academic development like China.

When criticizing the classification of Chinese studies as a first-class discipline, Mr. Liu Zehua once said: "Our opposition to the classification of Chinese studies as a first-class independent discipline does not mean that we are opposed to the study of Chinese studies. Academic development is rooted in independent thinking and free spirit. No one can force people to study or not to study. This is especially true for the study of Chinese studies. The establishment of platforms, experimental classes, academic groups and conferences for the study of Chinese studies in universities and some research institutions is conducive to deepening the study of Chinese studies and is worth popularizing. Both research institutions and universities should have such academic distribution rights, which are internal affairs and' household registration autonomy'. " This theory is very!

Whether and in what sense it is necessary to plan a "unified discipline system" presided over by the state administrative department is a question worthy of re-examination. One of the great advantages of the debate on the first-level discipline of Sinology/Confucianism is that it pushes the necessity and importance of re-examining this issue to people's eyes. Academics can be independent, and it is reasonable for scholars to choose what to learn and what not to learn; What subjects should be offered and what subjects should not be offered are decided by academic groups and institutions of higher learning. Learning is based on problems, the world problems are diverse and complex, and the vast universe has endless mysteries. If scholars don't strive to break the unified discipline system, strive for academic independence, research freedom and education independence, and only focus on the "name" in the discipline system, then all nameless and undivided research societies will not die out?

The author supports Sinology/Confucianism research, does not oppose Sinology/Confucianism education, and even welcomes the revival of Sinology/Confucianism. However, with the greatness of Chinese studies/Confucianism, how much can we achieve by seeking "birthright" in the cracks of the unified system of rigid dogma and fighting for men and women in the snail corner?

What's more, the "Initiative" mentioned the intention of "promoting Confucian textbooks and Confucian knowledge to enter the national education system as soon as possible". No matter how good Confucianism is, this kind of appeal that always wants to push hard with power is a frightening thing, which just shows that the proponent is not confident in the charm of Confucianism itself.

At the time of writing this article, I have searched the old and new versions of the catalogue of degree awarding and personnel training. Appropriately, some Confucians hailed the proposal to establish a first-class discipline of Confucianism, which is comparable to "strengthening" Confucianism. Looking at the "directory" in front of me, it suddenly turned into a stack of harem concubines roster. I don't know how many people laugh and worry!