An Interpretation of the “Spirit of Peking University” — Lecture Six in the “Youthful Peking University, Youthful Yanyuan” Series on the History and Present Condition of the University
Speaker: Wu Guosheng
Lecture time: Wednesday, November 28, 2007, 7:00–9:00 p.m.
Lecture venue: Lijiao 109
I went an hour early to grab a seat, only to discover that there were in fact very few people attending, so there was absolutely no need to reserve one.
Compared with Mr. Wu’s lecture of the same title three years ago, the audience this time was pathetically sparse. Mr. Wu said this might have something to do with the decline in people’s attention to “spirit” as an issue, though in fact it probably still comes down to publicity and organization~
Compared with the last time, this lecture was also not quite as effective; Mr. Wu clearly seemed somewhat underprepared. Fortunately, though, he did not simply repeat what he had said before. Even though I had already been influenced by Mr. Wu through various channels beforehand, this time I still gained some new things; dragging my half-disabled body to the lecture was still well worth it~
I often ponder these four characters, “the spirit of Peking University,” especially recently, after the demolition of “Sanjiaodi,” when I was discussing this “spirit” with others. At the time, I said that by “the spirit of Peking University” I meant nothing more than the spirit of “freedom of thought and inclusiveness,” and since freedom and inclusiveness are in fact one and the same thing, in the final analysis it is simply a spirit of freedom. Listening to Mr. Wu today, I suddenly came to realize that this “freedom” is spirit itself: there is no spirit that is not free, and no freedom that is not spiritual. “Spirit” is precisely the foundation on which Peking University stands.
It sounded a bit Hegelian: as if Peking University were precisely the embodiment of “Spirit.” If not the “World Spirit,” then perhaps the spirit of China.
When we speak of the “spirit of Peking University,” we often ask: what “kinds” of spirit does Peking University have? And in the end we can sum them up in a long list: the spirit of national survival, the spirit of patriotism, the spirit of democracy and science, and so on. But this spirit is not that spirit; if “the spirit of Peking University” is analyzed and deconstructed in this way, it simply withdraws from view, leaving behind only a few empty slogans.
I remembered that back when we were organizing a themed Youth League Day activity on “Studying the Spirit of the Long March,” I put together a report in which I wrote about our heated discussion of what the “spirit of the Long March” was (in fact, we just chatted for a while on QQ). At the time, one classmate said: “The connotations of the spirit of the Long March cannot be abstractly and comprehensively summarized by just a few words like courage, tenacity, or solidarity. The Long March is not a fable; it is an ‘event.’ It presents spirit before our very eyes in living form.” I thought this was well said. So too, the so-called “spirit of Peking University” cannot be summed up by a few words such as patriotism, democracy, and freedom; Peking University itself is that living “spirit.”
Of course, we still have to ask: where is the spirit of Peking University? Where are we to feel it, and how are we to inherit it?
I think the first transmitters of spirit are “people”: namely, generations of Peking University people, who, through their contact with Peking University teachers and predecessors, receive their guidance by word and example, subtly and imperceptibly, and thus allow this “spirit” to be passed down from generation to generation.
Second, “spirit” hides within those symbols and emblems—for example, the two characters “Peking University,” for example, “one tower, one lake, one picture,” for example, “Sanjiaodi.” These things themselves, and the history they carry, are also transmitting “spirit.” Even if those histories and “cultural relics” are preserved in the university history museum, displayed in glass cases, they remain a link connecting us to history; but it is even better to leave them there, so that they are both historical and perpetually present realities. Even if their functions have changed greatly, even if they have even become “ruins,” they still possess power, and this power enables people to remain in touch with history.
In other respects, Mr. Wu mentioned the “ivory tower,” “cultural aristocrats,” and so on; I had already been infected by Mr. Wu with these ideas long ago, so I don’t want to say too much about them here.
As for the meaning of the university, Mr. Wu questioned the notion that “universities cultivate useful talents for society.” Mr. Wu mentioned that Peking University will tell you that “human potential is infinite.” Whether one says a university cultivates “intellectuals” or “cultural aristocrats,” the meaning of the university probably ought to be the cultivation of people’s self-awareness as free human beings. Of course, all this is to speak of ideals; in reality, universities are already embedded in the operating mechanism of this society, so many things are simply beyond one’s control. But through my experience at Peking University, I believe the outlook is still worth being optimistic about. Peking University remains that place where the most radical and the most conservative coexist — it has not truly degenerated into a “microcosm of society,” and the especially poor social adaptability of Peking University students is proof enough of that.
November 28, 2007
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply