At this year’s Two Sessions, CPPCC members Li Hanqiu, Wei Minglun, and others proposed that China’s Teachers’ Day should be changed from the current September 10 to September 28, Confucius’s birthday. Once again, the topic of Confucius and China’s Teachers’ Day has drawn people’s attention.
In fact, Taiwan adopted Confucius’s birthday as Teachers’ Day quite early, and on the mainland the call to change Teachers’ Day is by no means something that only became lively at this year’s Two Sessions. Last September, Mr. Hu Xingdou, professor of economics at Beijing Institute of Technology (peace ambassador of the Global Peace Alliance, council member of the World Chinese Exchange Association), initiated and submitted a “Proposal to designate the birthday of Confucius, the world’s number one educator, as Education Day or New Teachers’ Day,” which was widely reprinted online and had a considerable impact; and in September the year before last, the renowned scholar Professor Zhang Liwen, at the launch ceremony of Renmin University of China’s “Confucius Culture Month” and the “Conference Commemorating the 2,555th Anniversary of Confucius’s Birth,” formally called for Confucius’s birthday to be made China’s Teachers’ Day. In Wang Dasan’s interview with Old Zhang, it was also mentioned that during that year’s Two Sessions, members such as Li Hanqiu had already put forward related motions…… At this year’s Two Sessions, it was nothing more than bringing up an old matter again.
Why not set China’s Teachers’ Day as September 28? Then why is China’s Teachers’ Day September 10? In fact, since 1931 our country has had four different dates set for Teachers’ Day—the earliest was in 1931, when educators Tai Shuangqiu, Cheng Qibao, and others gathered at National Central University in Nanjing, issued a declaration calling for “improving teachers’ remuneration, safeguarding teachers’ work, and enhancing teachers’ self-cultivation,” and spontaneously decided on June 6 as Teachers’ Day, also called Double Six Day, which had a certain influence in various parts of the country; later, the Nationalist government established August 27 (lunar calendar), Confucius’s birthday, as Teachers’ Day in 1939; after the founding of the PRC, the Central People’s Government first restored June 6 as Teachers’ Day; and in 1951, when the National Education Trade Union was founded, education workers were recognized as part of the working class, and May 1 International Labor Day was declared to be “at the same time Teachers’ Day.” One can imagine that, because this day lacked any special feature for teachers, the result of its implementation was not ideal. Later, under the influence of “leftist” thinking, teachers were not valued, and Teachers’ Day in practice no longer existed.
It was not until the Sixth National People’s Congress in 1985 that, in order “to mobilize the whole society to respect teachers, raise teachers’ status, and improve teachers’ working and living conditions. In order to further enhance teachers’ political status and social status, create a social atmosphere of respecting teachers and valuing education, respecting knowledge, and respecting talent, and promote the development of the educational cause,” the establishment of Teachers’ Day was proposed by the State Council and approved by the Congress. Only then did today’s China’s Teachers’ Day come into being.
From the above background, we can see that the establishment of Teachers’ Day marked the restoration of respect for teachers’ status in China. The re-setting of Teachers’ Day at that time arose from the urgent need to promote the social ethos of respecting teachers and valuing education, respecting knowledge, which had been damaged by the Cultural Revolution. As for which specific day Teachers’ Day was set on, that was not important,
So why September 10? The reason is quite simple—“because at the very start of the new school year, activities to respect teachers and value education can begin, creating a good atmosphere for teachers to teach well and students to study well. At the same time, there are fewer nationwide holidays in September, making it convenient for all sides to concentrate time in organizing activities and highlighting publicity and reporting.” In fact, this was precisely the common feature of many other holidays established in China at the time, such as National Defense Education Day, and so on—the emphasis was on the convenience of publicity and education, while the choice of date was often merely casual and did not need any historical connection or anecdote.
In other words, strictly speaking, Teachers’ Day on September 10 is not a “holiday” at all. One meaning of “holiday” is a “traditional day of celebration” or “anniversary,” and September 10 has no meaning of “commemoration” whatsoever. The current Teachers’ Day can at most be said to be a “season” for teachers, a “critical juncture” or “hinge point” for teachers’ publicity, but it does not contain the “jie” of “holiday” in the sense of “festival”! Looking at the circumstances at the time, establishing a holiday was certainly out of urgent need; however, because there was a need, could one simply stop caring about the symbolic meaning behind the holiday? Looking back now, that particular choice was indeed somewhat rash and impetuous!
The West also has many holidays created out of “need,” such as Mother’s Day, but Mother’s Day—the second Sunday of May—was actually the death anniversary of the mother of the holiday’s original initiator, Ana Juruif! This shows that even for many dates that seem to have no special anecdote, if one pursues them, one can often find meaning in them. Yet when China establishes holidays, it not only often does not consider “meaning,” but sometimes deliberately avoids “meaning”! For example, National Defense Education Day: why doesn’t China, like the United States and other countries, conduct national defense education on a “day of national humiliation”? To put it plainly—why not choose September 18? Or at least any other date with commemorative significance, but instead choose the third Saturday of September? (Note: September 18, 1931, was a Friday.) Choosing a weekend was also, originally, for the sake of “facilitating activities in schools and society,” but later it was discovered that because schools were on holiday, it was basically impossible to “carry out activities” effectively, and there were also many calls to change National Defense Education Day.
The issue of National Defense Education Day is somewhat similar to that of Teachers’ Day. So why not choose September 18 as National Defense Education Day? The reason for setting Teachers’ Day on September 10 can still be “convenient for publicity,” but the Saturday for National Defense Education Day is clearly “inconvenient for publicity,” so why not respond to the call and change it to September 18? In fact, this is precisely a deliberate avoidance of “meaning”—the “three selection criteria” proposed when the date was being reviewed were “it should have educational significance,” “it should not be directed at any one country,” and “it should be convenient for schools and society to organize and carry out activities.” Among these, the first and third items, like the establishment of Teachers’ Day and various other holidays, indicate that the main purpose of setting a holiday is “education” and “publicity,” while the second item is precisely meant to “avoid meaning”! If “September 18” were chosen, it would probably imply hostility toward Japan, so it cannot be chosen!
This is our way of thinking—we only demand publicity effects; as for symbols, anecdotes, origins, the less entangled the better! Just imagine if the creation of America’s “Mother’s Day” were placed in China, it would certainly not be accepted—why should a national holiday be set by the death anniversary of some ordinary person’s mother? Under our way of thinking, this is hard to understand. If it were to be set in China, even if the initiator’s proposal were adopted, it would probably have to be changed to another date to avoid suspicion!
The issue with Teachers’ Day is similar. Our way of thinking is to fear getting entangled with symbolic things; it is best not to have any “meaning,” because once “meaning” is involved, things become troublesome—unless it is something like Women’s Day or Labor Day, whose “meaning” is not “dangerous” (for example, commemorating some workers’ movement), while other kinds of “meaning” are better left alone! “Confucius’s birthday”—the “meaning” behind this date is simply too great; we can’t afford it!
Caring about results and immediate gains, while looking down on “meaning” and symbolism—this is the characteristic way of thinking of our era! From the establishment of “holidays,” we can see our own restlessness. Yet in the long run, can these holidays that ignore “meaning” really maintain the “effect” of publicity and education? Sooner or later people will reflect on these “rootless” holidays and trace the meanings behind them. To establish a holiday merely for the sake of celebrating a holiday is similar to the “Christmas” and “Valentine’s Day” that we “borrowed” from the West; however, those “borrowed” holidays are for entertainment, and there was no need from the outset to care about their “meaning.” But Teachers’ Day is not an entertainment holiday, much less a carnival; “meaning” is necessary for it! If one wants to publicize “meaning,” how can one avoid “meaning”?
References:
http://news.enorth.com.cn/system/2006/03/04/001247806.shtml
http://www.confucius2000.com/confucius/ykzdcwzgjsj.htm
http://www.qglt.com/bbs/ReadFile?whichfile=39394&typeid=43
http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/4106554.html
http://www.e-economic.com/info/3653-1.htm
http://www.pladaily.com.cn/item/zgmb/200110/txt/05.htm
March 11, 2006
Latest Comments
- Gu
2006-03-14 18:50:13
Self-note: I wrote this article because I saw the related piece written by classmates from the 2005 cohort for Xin Cai, and I found the prose unbearably cloying. So I tried resolutely to criticize it and refuse to publish it. But since I was no longer an editor of Xin Cai, and they had also worked quite hard to put that piece together, after all it was a rushed assignment. If I were to strike at their enthusiasm and, on top of that, do nothing myself and simply criticize that article, it would seem a bit like the kind of “standing while talking without back pain.” Others would ask: if that article is no good, then what should be done?—I have always disliked “destroying without building,” but that article really could not be used. Someone had to step forward and criticize it. Since I wanted to firmly reject that article, I put together a piece myself. The point was not to get Xin Cai to publish it, but to ensure that I had a reasonably good basis for criticizing that manuscript.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply