Globalization and China

Author: Wang Yuanchuan / Country:
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-02-01
Features:
Q: If I remember correctly, this is your second discussion about "the folk." Professor Wang, this topic interests me greatly. Why do scholars like you, who are academically inclined, show such enthusiasm for the folk and affirm them? It puzzles me and amazes me, because for you, it should be normal to completely reject and disdain the folk.
W: First, the folk is the source of intellectual vitality. We all come from the folk; none of us are born into circles of power and authority, or disciples of anyone. Wealth does not last for three generations, nor does thought. Like the Su Dongpo family, few literary giants inherit their talent across generations. Therefore, scholars who draw from the folk bring their childhood and youth memories into their academic work. Thinking within the system does not mean system-bound thinking; it requires considering both the folk and the system.
Second, when in a position of central culture, if one does not look at the other side—I call it the culture of the colonized or the weak, the voices of the weak, even those of the silent majority—such thinking lacks conscience. Therefore, conscientious thinking should take into account the fate of these people. I do not fully agree with today's economists' notion of absolute competition. If competition is all-powerful, that would be extremely dangerous, with severe consequences. Folk thinking is not just an individual task but also brings new feedback and information from the grassroots, preventing one's own thought from becoming rigid.
Q: Do you think that at least in the East, true thinkers or sages are found in the folk, while in the West, that may not necessarily be the case?
W: I don't think it's entirely true. It depends on the scholar's attitude. Some may be in the folk but their hearts are with the authorities; such pseudo-folk thinking is not valid. On the other hand, thinkers within the system who absorb a lot of folk ideas and the voices of the lower classes are perfectly fine. Moreover, a folk stance helps avoid rigidity. Many scholars become overly bureaucratic at a certain point, which I believe is a serious issue worth reflecting on.
Q: You mentioned earlier that the "folk" relates to concepts like center, authority, and the marginal. Professor Wang, the Cox Report from the U.S. recently stated that China has caught up with the U.S. in high-tech and nuclear weapons. Our experimental results are already close to theirs, though they have conducted over a thousand nuclear tests while we have only done forty. From Pentagon data, it seems the gap in cutting-edge technology is about twenty to thirty years, or even ten years. So, in the humanities, how far behind is China compared to the West?
W: This is not very comparable. In the humanities, such as Sinology, the West is far behind China.
Q: Of course, not just Sinology.
W: Not Western studies either, but the entirety of the humanities. After all, "humanities" itself is a Western concept.
W: I'd like to clarify that the standards of the humanities are not as definite as those of the natural sciences. Chinese philosophy is intuitive. In the West, Confucius is seen as an ethicist, but to Chinese people, he is a true philosopher. Confucius said, "Does it harm others? Why ask about the horse?" From this perspective, Confucius embodies benevolence and righteousness. This is intuitive—judging standards based on facts. For example, if a family's house catches fire and the nanny dies, yet they ask, "Did my savings burn?" That is not benevolent or righteous. Unlike the West, which relies on logic to reach conclusions, Chinese philosophy is intuitive and ethical, rooted in life.
Q: So, in terms of depth, breadth, and inclusivity, how far behind is China compared to the West?
W: If before the reform and opening up, China was about half a century behind the West, largely accepting Soviet ideas from the 1930s. But now, there are two views. One is that the gap is still very large, and the other is zero distance—the digital age has allowed Western thoughts to spread globally to China almost instantly. However, you're asking about philosophical depth, not just information synchronization. Personally, I think modern Chinese cultural studies are at least a decade behind their Western counterparts.
Q: But some argue that in terms of artistic concepts and deep philosophy, the gap may be as much as two centuries.
W: I don't think so. Such claims are overly extreme and self-deprecating. For example, the 1980 Nobel laureate, when asked by a Chinese journalist, said that developing the West in the U.S. took nearly two hundred years. Would China need two hundred years too? He replied, no, it would only take twenty to fifty years, because methodologies and approaches have changed. If the gap was half a century before the reform, now a more optimistic view is that it's between twenty to ten years. Many methods have been adopted almost simultaneously.
Q: You mean elite thinking.
W: Then it's already very close. So, Chinese elite thinkers often feel isolated in this secularized era.
Q: But I find that current elite thinking in China is often stuck in interpreting and introducing Western culture, without forming its own theories or systems.
W: Perhaps. In the 20th century, at least in the West, there were life philosophy, phenomenology, existentialism, and hermeneutics. Why hasn't China yet produced a major school of thought with significant influence?
W: Yes, there are many reasons, but largely, it's due to absolute egalitarianism and the lack of freedom of thought.
Q: This suggests that academia has yet to form a basic discourse system, even the foundation for one. Can the process of building such a foundation, forming a system, and reaching an authoritative peak be achieved in ten or twenty years? I also notice that China has a genetic issue—the current generation may seem more open-minded, but they inherit many shortcomings, and the next generation will inherit even more. Generations pass, and the spread of these shortcomings is not shrinking but expanding. Is this a serious problem?
Individual Identity and Globalization
W: This issue should be viewed from two sides. The West is now a theory-exporting country, constantly sending its peak-era thoughts to the Third World through "theoretical travel," and China can only passively receive them. However, there have been significant breakthroughs in recent two decades. We have almost fully absorbed a century of Western thought. Although complete translation collections are rare, many ideas or fragments have been translated. In this stage of translation and introduction, the academic community needs to spend a lot of time introducing thoughts holistically. In the West, a scholar studying Heidegger doesn't casually discuss other topics besides him. China also needs such specialists. However, I still believe that as China largely translates and absorbs Western thought, it will gradually produce its own new ideas—a synthesis of Chinese and Western thought—and in ten to twenty years, a batch of original thinkers will emerge. We have a turning point—the Cultural Revolution delayed us by ten years. The generation suppressed for a decade and enduring much hardship may produce new ideas and thinkers. Moreover, I believe we will move from "importationism" in the 20th century to "exportationism" in the 21st century.
Q: Actually, what I mean isn't backwardness. In terms of the depth, connotation, and inclusivity of classical thought, we are clearly on par with, or even surpassing, the West. Yet the harsh reality is undeniable—we have been passive, subjugated, and colonized, at least since over a century ago. And now, even in the post-colonial era, we seem to accept this. Is there a clear way to avoid or resist this? How can we maintain our national confidence in classical thought?
W: This is a broad question. When discussing superstructure, we must also consider material conditions. The Wall Street Journal calls China a "showpiece China." They see Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen, where people wear Western suits, but in poorer, rural, and marginalized areas, they see people wearing straw sandals.