On the Question of Quoting Authorities
I would never deny the importance of basic reading of the literature, and I certainly would not oppose making citations in an article; my own style of writing places quite a strong emphasis on quotation. But writing is one thing, discussion is another. At first I mistakenly thought that the text written in ZW’s class was aimed at our earlier discussion, and so I reacted with displeasure. If it was only written as a private note to himself, then of course there is no problem. In discussion, even in scholarly discussion, the ultimate purpose of citing the classics is either to explicate another person’s view or to support one’s own. It should be noted that citations involving concepts and definitions ought to be handled with caution. When those thinkers use certain concepts and words, they have their own particular lines of thought, considerations, and contexts, and in the discussion currently under way our lines of thought and contexts may be entirely different; we have the right to understand these words differently, or may simply be using them in their everyday sense. After all, the meanings of those words belong originally to language, not to some particular discipline, and even less to a few scholars. This is not only in response to ZW’s present problem, but also includes, for example, ZW’s earlier criticism of others and his even earlier criticism of me, which gives one the impression that words such as “system,” “state,” “community,” “politics,” and “culture” have all become professional terms of philosophy, and that one must summon certain philosophers to explain them. That seems rather overbearing. Moreover, different philosophers use those words in very different ways. For example, the “historicism” spoken of by Popper and Kuhn are two completely different things; there is no unified standard for the use of terms. If I am discussing Popper’s philosophy, then of course using some other interpretation of “historicism” would be wrong; but when discussing general topics, at most one can accuse me of not having sorted out the concepts I am using. To accuse me, by citing authorities, of using the concept incorrectly is inappropriate. I have always believed that the “final authority of interpretation” over concepts and words should rest with the speaker himself. Others may keep pressing until the speaker either makes his case coherent or falls into confusion, but one should not take the usage of some authority as the standard for how words are to be used.
On “Topic,” “Discipline,” and “Science”
If ZW’s text merely meant to express that politics cannot be studied as a positive science, and that politics is not an isolated object of study or field of research that can be abstracted out, then this claim is unquestionably one I support. The problem is that ZW brought in Lévi-Strauss and insisted on saying that politics is not a “field” or a “discipline.” Pursuing what “field” or “discipline” means eventually just leads to the claim that these refer to natural-science-like fields and ways of dividing knowledge. But rather than saying that treating politics as a discipline is the result of the influence of modern positive science, it would be more accurate to say that the understanding of the word “discipline” itself has changed under the influence of modern positive science. The question I raised was this: political science has existed for a very long time. ZW added that indeed there was “political science” already in Aristotle, but that it was different from the present-day kind of knowledge organized as a discipline. I then pointed out that in antiquity political science existed as a “topic”; political science as a discipline does not mean that its object of study can be separately abstracted, but rather that politics, as a “topic,” formed a relatively independent body of knowledge. I mentioned that there is no strict boundary between “topic” and “discipline,” and at that point ZW interrupted me. Let me now continue this point: first, the concept of “discipline” comes from the West; in ancient China there was no notion of dividing knowledge into disciplines. The Chinese classification of “Classics, History, Philosophers, and Collections” was based on the identity of the author and the form of writing, and never on the object of study. But the division of knowledge according to fields of research has existed in the West since ancient times. For example, Aristotle gave a complete system of disciplinary classification according to differences in the objects of study (including the two parts of theoretical and practical studies, with theoretical science further including natural philosophy, mathematics, theology, and so on). Pythagoras also divided mathematics into four branches: arithmetic (study of absolute discrete quantity), music (relative discrete quantity), geometry (static continuous quantity), and astronomy (moving continuous quantity). Although most ancient thinkers were generalists, and the word “specialist” is a product of modern disciplinary differentiation, the division of “disciplines” is nothing new. Moreover, as for the fact that there is no clear boundary between “topic” and “discipline,” in English the word “subject” can in fact refer to both concepts at once—it can mean “topic,” “theme,” “course,” “discipline,” as well as “field of study,” and so on (although another, more traditional word for “discipline” is discipline, which also carries the meaning of order and training; when dividing knowledge by problems and fields, subject is probably more appropriate, but even discipline does not imply something like “science.” When the study and discussion of a subject deepens to a certain level, becoming horizontally an activity of a group (order) and vertically a sustained enterprise of transmission (training), it becomes a discipline, I suppose). In addition, the word “field” also has the meaning of “topic,” as well as the meanings of “wilderness,” “vision,” “arena,” “stage,” and so forth, yet it uniquely does not have the meaning of “territory” or “domain.” If the claim is that politics cannot be an isolated and determinate area of study (with a clearly defined owner of the land, fixed borders, and so on), then I agree; but the word “field” does not originally carry the meaning of a clearly demarcated boundary. We say that modern people often understand “field” as “territory,” and “discipline” as “science” (that is, a science divided into branches), but all one can say is that this modern understanding of fields and disciplines is problematic; one cannot say that politics as a field is wrong or that political science as a discipline is inappropriate.
On the Question of “Anti-Globalization”
A classmate raised the point that, regarding globalization, one should not rush to declare oneself at the outset: I support globalization; I oppose globalization; and so on. On this point I agree. I agree that globalization is a fact, an established trend (although there are also commentators who oppose this view). The most crucial question is not whether globalization should happen, but rather: globalization has happened! What are we to do?
Still, I can state my position in advance: I am “anti-globalization.” The word “anti” here is similar to that in “anti-science,” chiefly meaning “reflection” and “self-examination.” Philosophy is never something meant to sing praises. In particular, with things that are fashionable or trending, reflection is all the more necessary. Moreover, I personally regard this trend of globalization as a flood, one that will inevitably sweep away certain important things. Of course, when facing a flood the best solution cannot be to “block” it; no one can resist the tide of globalization. The purpose of reflecting on it is to figure out its appearance and origins, to understand where it comes from and where it is going, and how much silt lies hidden beneath it. Only then can we guide it more effectively, and perhaps even make use of this surging flood to generate electricity or something, which would be even better.
The deepest impact brought by globalization may not be political or economic, but rather one involving ways of thinking and value orientations. For example, we can see that the examples those classmates listed in support of globalization—such as the fact that GDP growth rates in southern countries are by no means lower, or that globalization has hastened the collapse of despotism—are in fact manifestations of the homogenization of values. Why should the numerical value of GDP be regarded so highly? Why has wealth become the main standard by which value is measured, if not the only standard? Why has despotism become so notorious? These value judgments and logics were not originally universal, and the unification of values itself also has a process of “globalization.” And the media of globalization are the main force driving the unification of values; of course, so-called “scientism” is also an important factor.
October 25, 2006
Latest comments
- zw
2006-10-26 10:06:04
It should be said that the two of us did not have any major disagreement in viewpoint during yesterday afternoon’s discussion; the problem may have been that I did not clearly distinguish the boundary between “discipline” and “science.” I was indeed a bit hot-tempered in the afternoon; I’m truly sorry. Looking back now, it was all rather inexplicable—I don’t know where I got such a big temper during the discussion, sigh…
ps: what I mentioned in the afternoon was Leo Strauss, the American political philosopher, whereas the Lévi-Strauss you mentioned is the French structuralist philosopher and anthropologist. These two are often easily confused. Hehe. - 古
2006-10-26 10:14:47
I’m illiterate! I really did see something called Leo and something called Lévi, but I always thought they were different transliterations of the same name… I was thinking that this Strauss fellow had quite a broad jurisdiction… The key point is that I haven’t read the works of either of them, shame~~
- zw
2006-10-27 11:59:45
Little Gu, I checked: the midterm review for the principal’s fund is sometime between March and April next year. Don’t panic! Hehe
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply