Last night we started with “exposing and criticizing” someone, and talked about a lot of issues. It was quite interesting, but unfortunately TSP did not participate, and I don’t know how to make a chat transcript. So let me just sort out my own views on some of the issues we discussed yesterday.
First, there is the question of moral cultivation. I think that no matter whom one is facing, or what situation one is in, some basic moral cultivation should be maintained. Of course, we can say that in some specific circumstances, when emotions run high, saying something excessive or doing something excessive is understandable. But this “understanding” cannot become a way of excusing oneself. I think that a person with a decent level of cultivation should be fully capable of maintaining the necessary calm in any situation. Even if one may harbor resentment or contempt in one’s heart, at least outwardly one can maintain a relatively peaceful and harmonious relationship. That too is a sign of cultivation; this is by no means hypocrisy, but a very good form of self-restraint. I feel that when we cannot yet reach the state of “doing whatever one wishes without transgressing the bounds,” it is a very good choice to take the initiative and use some external norms to cultivate one’s mind and character. For example, set a rule: “Under no circumstances curse people or use foul, vulgar language.” That rule is neither huge nor trivial, especially for boys. Starting from small rules is, in a sense, a rather pragmatic method. At first one may be holding oneself back only on the lips, while inside still burning with anger; but once one has continuously and proactively restrained oneself, these external efforts can indeed gradually influence one’s inner cultivation. After one gets used to restraint, in fact it becomes genuinely not so easy to flare up inwardly either. This kind of cultivation work, moving from the outside inward, is effective at least in my own experience. Of course, whether excessive restraint may bring about repression is something that varies from person to person. In any case, as an observer, one can understand and sympathize with impulsiveness and excess; but when reflecting on oneself, one always needs to examine oneself, and there is no need to find reasons to excuse oneself.
But the reason someone raised this question was actually not to excuse himself, but to lead into another question, namely the question of the “lower strata.” Many of our intellectuals today generally have a certain naïve imagination, blindly sympathizing with the people at the bottom—these people at the bottom suffer discrimination, oppression, injustice, and so on—and those intellectuals assign themselves the mission and responsibility of rescuing the people at the bottom. This sense of mission and responsibility is of course very good, but the problem is that the “people at the bottom” in many intellectuals’ minds are not real, concrete objects, but abstract objects. They often imagine themselves as spokespeople for the lower strata, yet have no firsthand understanding of that lower stratum. And when they really come into contact with some ordinary people from the lower strata, they in turn despise them for their coarseness and shallowness. Here, that “imagination of the lower strata” is in fact an abstract concept built up for the intellectual’s own ideals. This is reflected both in our present-day Westernizing camp, which shouts about democracy and freedom, in intellectuals who plead the case for migrant workers and other disadvantaged groups, and in vulgar communists. In many cases, the intellectual’s speaking for the lower strata is not initiated through a genuinely deep sympathy and shared feeling that penetrates into the lower strata, but instead does the reverse: it turns the abstract “people at the bottom” into the “spokesperson” for his own views, positions, and ideals. For example, when we talk about democracy, about universal suffrage, about letting the people hold power, and so on, these claims are often precisely the idealized things that intellectuals themselves want, but they often fail to consider: first, according to the people’s own wishes, what exactly is it that they urgently want—those illusory political rights, freedom of speech, and so forth, or rather a life free from worries about food and clothing, self-sufficiency and contentment? Second, if the people are really allowed to govern, is that in fact a good thing or a bad thing for them, and for the country as a whole? For instance, in a family, if I am an immature child, I let my parents handle planning and decision-making, let the mature ones make the decisions and bear responsibility, and as long as my thoughts can be heard by my parents, and I myself have a tendency to strive upward, isn’t that very good? Children who are not yet mature, the elderly who no longer shoulder responsibility: if they entrust decision-making power to the “head of the household,” then everyone is harmonious and happy, with no question of anyone’s rights being oppressed. If in a family we let the children make the decisions and be the masters, and the parents also have to view everything through the child’s way of thinking, would that really be a harmonious family? …This involves some politically contentious topics. Although my own views certainly have absolutely no reactionary meaning, it is still not suitable to say too much.
On politics, we also talked about topics such as the Cultural Revolution and Reform and Opening Up. I am very unfamiliar with modern and contemporary history, so I do not dare say much either. Here I will only mention two small points that these topics brought to mind. First is the understanding of historical figures: one must not only look at some of their statements and modes of action in technical or operational terms, but also sympathetically enter into the historical context of their time, understand their intellectual background, feel the confusion and problems they faced, and grasp the purpose and intention behind what they said and did. Then, when we return to their actual words and deeds, we can have a more comprehensive and deeper understanding. Second is the question of “rupture.” I think the reason China, since the Cultural Revolution, has not collapsed in the way the Soviet bloc and Eastern Europe did is very much related to the Communist Party’s successful maintenance of continuity in its self-identity. Since it was also carrying out reform, China did not seek to negate its predecessors the way it treated Stalin and Khrushchev; and likewise, when it was reforming, as events like 1989 show, the Communist Party did not deny its own legitimacy when putting forward new economic plans, nor did it negate the original road and ideal.
Later we talked about education as well, though not very much. Education may be the topic on which I personally first formed some independent opinions. Back in middle school, when the school was making a big push for “quality education,” I thought about many questions and wrote many articles about them. As everyone knows, ever since middle school almost all my diaries, weekly entries, sketches, and so on have been argumentative essays; education seems to have been the topic I wrote about most. Of course, by now the views I held then have become somewhat faded in my memory… First of all, it must be said that the current state of education in China is very unsatisfactory. This can be discussed from three angles; this was my division when I was in middle school. (I’ve noticed that when I discuss things I often use a sentence as an introductory quotation, “That’s why I’ve always said…” The listener may find that annoying, but it is true that whenever what I want to discuss is one of my consistent views, I habitually use such a lead-in. This shows that the view I am expressing is indeed something I have said before; I only hope the listener will forgive me for emphasizing the continuity of my position.) Some of the views below are in fact not much different from what I thought in middle school; it is only that now I place more emphasis on considering the overall influence from parents to the social environment, and have added some new insights. First, from the school’s side: on the one hand, schools educate students to be practical in their studies, to be honest in dealing with others, not to pursue vanity, not to obsess over gains and losses, fame and fortune, and so on; yet when the banners of “quality education” and “reducing the burden” are raised, the school itself sets an example for students of pursuing vanity and caring about fame and profit. Looking at it now, this responsibility cannot really be blamed on the school alone, because the whole society’s standards of evaluation and ways of handling affairs are all extremely superficial. As for teachers, today’s teachers often lack the sacred sense of “being a model for others” and the sense of mission. The worst teachers treat teaching as a task; going to class is like completing an errand. In the end, they say everything they are supposed to say, collect their wages, and that’s the job done. Slightly better teachers treat teaching as a “profession” and “dedicate themselves to their post.” They are serious and responsible in completing the work, but they are still content with simply “teaching everything that needs to be taught” so that students can get good grades, and that is all. The best teachers, namely those who can be friends with their students, treat teaching as a kind of “life.” Being with such teachers is relaxed and pleasant, and one can also learn many things not found in textbooks. But whether one treats being a teacher as a hard job, a profession, or a life, one still has not truly regarded the teacher as the sacred identity of “teacher.” There are far too few teachers who can genuinely embody the “dignity of the teacher’s way” through both word and deed. Of course, this is not entirely the teachers’ fault either; they too are affected by the impetuousness of this society. But I think there are many small things teachers could at least do. For example, at the minimum, they should insist on “the unity of knowledge and action” in front of students. To give a small example: if a student is late, the teacher should criticize him for being unpunctual and lacking discipline, but if the teacher himself wants to drag out the class, there is no room for discussion. This is to teach conduct and discipline as mere external rules, while lacking the awareness of “setting an example by one’s own conduct.” The third point, when discussing parents, has to be reversed. For example, if a teacher makes a student stand in punishment for several hours, then from the standpoint of educational method, there is of course something inappropriate about it. But children often do not begin with complicated thoughts; punishment can allow a child to reflect on his mistakes on his own initiative. However, once the parents learn about it, that becomes a different matter altogether: then they will say the teacher is using corporal punishment, disrespecting students, and so on. The teacher becomes the object of criticism, while for the child, self-reflection is weakened, and the teacher’s authority is also weakened. In this way, imperceptibly, these impetuous things also enter the child’s mind. What do I mean by impetuous things here? — I mean precisely that attitude of taking “economics” as the measure of all relationships. Under that attitude, the teacher becomes a wage earner, and the relationship between teacher and student also becomes one of power and obligation: I paid tuition, you drew a salary, so you must serve me! If a teacher occasionally needs to be strict, that is only to replace me, the parent, in disciplining the child. Teachers often stand before parents in fear and trembling, while among the three parties—school, teacher, and parent—the parent becomes the strongest. Parents lose respect for teachers, and naturally it also becomes very difficult to require students to respect teachers.
January 12, 2006
最新评论
-
Chong 2006-01-13 14:10:36
I am that “someone.” Sigh.
Although afterward I may blame myself for my words and actions at the time—this kind of injurious way of doing things is wrong no matter how you look at it—I do not regret it. Because that is the truly alive, truly real me. I wonder if you have seen 《TITANIC》; there is an interesting scene in it where a handsome young man teaches a noble lady to spit. What an uncivilized act that is. And yet it is also purely a manifestation of life’s ceaseless vitality. The relationship between “literary refinement” and “substance” cannot be simply abstracted. Should one cultivate oneself in ordinary daily practice? Of course one should! But one must also be careful not to let restraint turn into bondage. Of course, these are only some thoughts I have derived from this, and they do not constitute a defense of my own behavior.
If this matter is to become a moral accusation, I have never tried to evade that moral accusation. And what our conversation was doing was never trying to evade such an accusation either, but rather to discuss the matter as it is, analyzing each side’s psychology and behavior, and how this reality affects those so-called lofty ideals of ours.Morality is a subject that needs to be discussed cautiously, especially for people like us who have not gone through any real trials. People often accuse the batch around Feng Zushi of having moral problems, and what is even more surprising is the sense of moral superiority they do not know where they got it from, or on what it was built. I think that if we are going to talk about morality, the first thing to eliminate is precisely this sense of moral superiority. One must keep reflecting on oneself in the posture that the other’s evil is also at the same time a part of ourselves. Be reasonable and understanding— for example, after being able to grasp the feeling of being discriminated against and insulted, one can still hold fast to one’s convictions. That goes a step further than simply talking about what one “ought” to do.
From your discussion of moral cultivation, you might want to look at the difference between Mengzi and Gaozi regarding “not being moved.”
Since it is a reason, it must have its rationality. Explaining the reason does not mean one is evading responsibility. Rather, it means explaining the complexity of a specific event, and what one intends to show is precisely those parts that are omitted in the process of abstraction when we think abstractly. In fact, if we turn around and look at it, there are many presuppositions in our conversation, such as reason being above emotion, such as preserving coexistence being above the individual, and so on.
There is another important aspect to the imagination of the lower strata: it is that those who imagine them see themselves as the saviors of the lower people, as messiahs.
Gu: I feel that on these issues we have no real contradictions. Everyone is just discussing the matter as it is. I did not say you were wrong or anything. Saying “expose and criticize” was obviously a joke. I was simply placing the emphasis on discussing the question of self-restraint. At that time, of course, you were a real, vibrant you; but what I wanted to say is that if you were to maintain restraint all along, that too would likewise be a real, vibrant you. Restraint is also a virtue; restraint does not mean hypocrisy. That is what I wanted to emphasize. And later I immediately wrote, “But the reason someone raised this question was actually not to excuse himself, but to lead into another question,” so I made it very clear that you had not the slightest intention of excusing or sophistically defending yourself.
As for “moral superiority,” it is obvious that what we say about you and those people criticizing Feng Zushi is completely different. Setting aside the fact that I had not the slightest intention of accusing you, even if we occasionally accuse each other, it is entirely out of friendly exchange. Your pointing out my shortcomings is helpful to me, but those people’s fixation on the details of an old acquaintance is of no benefit to anyone. As for “moral superiority,” if, for example, I need to point out one of your problems, then I will inevitably have some sense of moral superiority in a certain sense. This is not to say anything about those moral issues themselves, but rather that I have discovered them and am actively restraining myself from them; only then do I have the qualification to criticize and self-criticize. If I did not even have this minimal “superiority,” then I would not even be qualified to self-criticize, because when I self-criticize, I must at the same time constrain and improve myself. Only when I have full confidence that I can make improvements do I count as having the qualification to self-criticize. Doing evil by day, repenting by night, and continuing to do evil the next day is obviously rather meaningless. This moderate sense of moral superiority, as long as it is confined to “morality”—that is, a necessary confidence in the “moral law,” rather than “superiority of the self,” a blind confidence in oneself—should not be entirely unacceptable, should it?
As for the presuppositions of moral discussion, “reason above emotion” is indeed necessary. Regarding reason and emotion, this is a question in the theory of human nature, and one must first make clear what human nature actually is. As for “preserving coexistence being above the individual,” I do not think that is a necessary presupposition. For example, from the perspective of Lu–Wang xinxue, or from the perspective of Kant’s obedience to the absolute moral command within, or from the perspective of the so-called ethics of “benefiting others through self-benefit,” we can all treat ethical action as self-realization of the individual, as preserving the individual’s dignity, as developing the individual’s nature, and so on. These angles can all place preserving the individual before preserving coexistence when discussing morality. -
Chong 2006-01-13 14:11:11
So TSP turned out to be Taishi Po, sigh again… -
Li 2006-01-13 20:12:47
Got it. From now on, wherever you guys go, I’ll follow along; or wherever you guys go, I’ll go there with a listening device.
What was the occasion? Who was the little insect biting?
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply