Three Persons Hall and Group Speech Records: Evidence Science Forum. Volume 11

Author: He Jiahong
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2006-07-01
Features: During the 1970s when I worked as a farmer in the "Beidaiguang" region, I learned a Chinese idiom from the peasants: "A dog with horns—foreign-style." In that closed era, we didn’t truly understand what "foreign-style" meant; we only vaguely felt that it was something entirely different from us. Therefore, anything that seemed strange to us, anything we didn’t like, could all be called "foreign-style," carrying a clear sense of disdain. Later, with China’s "Reform and Opening Up," foreign influences entered more, and Chinese people had more opportunities to go abroad. We discovered that many "foreign-style" things were actually better than Chinese ones, so we began to promote, learn, introduce, and imitate them, including both tangible and intangible aspects. I don’t approve of simply labeling this trend as "foreign admiration," nor do I believe those who praise "foreign-style" are blindly praising the "moon of foreign countries," because foreign things have indeed advanced Chinese society. However, I also admit that if we really saw a foreign dog grow horns today, we would no longer scoff at it or find it strange; instead, we would consider it a valuable foreign dog. In short, society is changing, and people’s thoughts are changing as well. After the era of self-satisfaction and outright rejection of "foreign-style" has passed, recognizing and pursuing it has become a fashion in many areas of social life. Is this a good thing? I don’t know.
In the early 1990s, while studying in the United States, I learned a word from my American friends: "AMERICANA," meaning "things with American characteristics," which can also be translated as "American-style." Later, during a "U.S. Law Summer Session" held in China, I improvised an English word: "CHINE.SANA," meaning "things with Chinese characteristics," also known as "Chinese-style." At the time, many people, including the American professor, thought the word was creative and worth promoting. However, I only made it up on the spot and soon forgot about it. As the saying goes, "The river flows east for thirty years, then west for thirty." With the passage of time and the turn of centuries, the ideological trends of the Chinese people have undergone subtle changes. From vigorously promoting and even blindly "American-style" as the epitome of "foreign-style" to seriously reflecting on and re-evaluating the value of "Chinese-style," this seems to represent the intellectual trend of the Chinese people entering the new century. As a result, excavating local resources and promoting traditional Chinese culture have once again become fashionable slogans. A film titled A Chinese Divorce made the term "Chinese-style" a popular phrase, sparking discussions and reflections among people, as well as follow-up efforts from scholars. We then saw films like A Chinese Wedding and books such as A Chinese Management, among others. Recently, I even saw in the newspapers the term "Chinese-style saving family" used to describe things like "selling oneself to save one’s mother" or "buying a kidney to save one’s father." Indeed, in the above contexts, the term "Chinese-style" carries both positive and negative connotations, as well as both praise and criticism. I have no intention of exploring the precise meanings or appropriateness of these expressions. I only want to point out that the popularity of this term to some extent reflects the local cultural awareness of the Chinese people.
Today, we are facing the opportunities and challenges of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. To seize these opportunities and meet these challenges, to build China into one of the most developed and beautiful countries in the world, we must, on one hand, diligently learn advanced foreign science, technology, and social management experiences, and on the other hand, seriously study China’s current social realities and traditional culture. To solve China’s social problems, we must start from China’s actual conditions and consider its cultural traditions. Foreign success stories and classic works cannot provide us with ready-made answers. Of course, traditional Chinese culture contains both good and bad elements, both essence and dross, but discarding the dross and promoting the essence is the fundamental task of studying traditional culture. This is also the natural path for us to build a "Chinese-style" modern rule-of-law state.
After discussing national affairs, let me now turn to something more personal—running a forum. Since collaborating with the China Procuratorial Press to publish the first volume of Evidence Forum in 2000, we have now published ten volumes by the end of 2005. Thanks to the support of authors, publishers, and readers, this professional journal has gained a good reputation both in academia and in practice. However, in this ever-changing era, we can only survive and thrive by continuously updating and striving for excellence. Therefore, starting with the eleventh volume, Evidence Forum will appear with a fresh new look to readers. We hope our revision will be well-received. Here, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the leaders and editors of the China Procuratorial Press, as well as all members of the original editorial board of Evidence Forum.
Additionally, with the support of Deheng Law Firm, we held ten "Evidence Forum" lectures at Renmin University of China in 2004, which were very well attended by both faculty and students inside and outside the university. In 2005, we transformed the forum into a more lively and interactive three-person discussion format, strengthening the interaction between speakers and audiences. The ten sessions were almost fully booked, with an atmosphere of great enthusiasm. The success of the forum was due to both the academic expertise and personal charm of the guest speakers, as well as the careful planning and organization by faculty and students from the Law School of Renmin University. Whether it’s a written forum or a verbal one, I believe there should be criticism and counter-criticism. Forums should involve debate, the collision of ideas, and the clash of viewpoints, because such exchanges can spark brilliant insights and improve the skills of both parties. Since ancient times, only by fostering a diversity of schools and encouraging competition among scholars can we achieve academic prosperity and cultural flourishing.
However, I also have a slight concern, because criticism can sometimes lead to division in academia or even conflict between scholars. In China’s legal circles, there have been cases where academic disputes escalated into personal attacks, even turning scholars into "enemies," which clearly contradicts the original purpose of advocating academic criticism. This made me think about the way criticism is conducted. Generally speaking, "Chinese-style" criticism is subtle and tactful, starting with basic affirmation before offering specific criticism, and proceeding from abstract praise to concrete critique. Its cultural foundation lies in rational thinking and the philosophy of harmony. When criticizing others’ views, we often first consider their reasonable aspects before analyzing their flaws. In traditional Chinese culture, the idea of "harmony" holds a very important position. Criticism should not harm harmony, and confrontation should not damage peace.
This led me to think of traditional Chinese martial arts competitions. Although competitions aim to determine superiority and matches to decide winners, they are fundamentally different from military confrontations, which do not require a fight to the death but instead focus on exchanging skills and adhering to the rule of "stop at a point." True martial arts masters participate in competitions and matches to improve their skills and promote the spirit of martial arts. Especially those who uphold martial arts ethics do not seek to defeat others completely or utterly humiliate them. Instead, they often show restraint, ending the match before the audience can clearly see a winner, with the loser already acknowledging defeat with respect. This is the essence of traditional Chinese martial arts.
From my limited perspective, "American-style" criticism is generally straightforward, direct, and seeks to deliver a powerful blow and achieve a decisive rejection. Its cultural foundation is likely rooted in critical thinking and the ideology of individual struggle. During my time studying in the United States, I noticed that American legal education places great emphasis on cultivating students’ "critical thinking" habits, as this is also the basic mindset of lawyers in an adversarial legal system. Regardless of the views presented by the other party, they first look for flaws or weaknesses and then organize evidence to refute and attack. Lawyers in court aim for victory in litigation, regardless of whether their own claims are reasonable or just. Additionally, American society has a cultural tradition that values individual struggle. "American-style" heroes are often those who rise from the bottom of society through personal effort, regardless of the path they take. These cultural elements likely greatly influence Americans’ way of thinking when they criticize.
During my time in the United States, I often watched a TV show called "Firefight," where hosts and guests debate political issues—also known as "quarreling"—with such intensity and passion that it truly opened my eyes. Their quick minds and sharp words were also truly astonishing. In early November 2005, I was invited to Southwest University of Political Science and Law to give two academic lectures—one for graduate students in the afternoon and another for undergraduate students in the evening, at different campuses, which felt a bit like "rushing from one place to another." After the afternoon lecture, following the custom of the host, three professors on stage offered comments. Professor Zou Mingli and Professor Guan Guangcheng spoke first, offering some criticism after a few complimentary words. Although their language was somewhat vague, their intentions were clear, and the audience benefited from their remarks, achieving a harmonious and pleasing atmosphere—typical of "Chinese-style" comments. Then, Professor Long Zongzhi, to maintain the forum’s "spirit of debate," gave a critique-focused comment. He first criticized my lecture as "too popular and lacking depth," then pointed out that my speech had "errors in attribution and insufficient rigor." At first, Professor Zongzhi’s comment seemed "American-style," but upon closer examination, I felt it still fell under the category of "Chinese-style." For one thing, he also praised comprehensively before offering criticism, and for another, his critique was still filled with tactful goodwill.
First, my fundamental goal in scholarship is to make it accessible. Whether in writing or teaching, I strive to use language that the audience enjoys to explain profound legal principles. For this reason, I often jokingly call myself a "populist legal scholar." Second, one of the characteristics of my scholarship is "mixing and matching." This likely stems from my early exposure to criminal investigation and forensic technology, as many of the scientific techniques used in these fields are "mixed and matched" from other disciplines. Thus, I developed a habit of "mixing and matching." In higher terms, this is called "skillfully borrowing and transplanting," or "generalizing from specific cases and integrating knowledge." For example, the prefaces I write for each issue of The Scholar’s Tea House often have a "mixing and matching" flavor. Professor Zongzhi and I have known each other for many years and have engaged in numerous "online dialogues," so he knows me quite well. Although he may not agree with my research methods or academic views, after hearing his comments, I said, "Long Zongzhi is the only one who truly understands me." I suddenly realized. Perhaps this is the kind of "Chinese-style" forum we should advocate. Despite direct criticism, intellectual collisions, viewpoint clashes, and verbal exchanges, because the critics are well-intentioned and the criticized are tolerant, the debate remains orderly, the confrontation follows rules, and the forum maintains overall harmony.
At the beginning of the new year, I was invited to host a six-episode special program titled "Legal Lecture 2006 New Year Special" on Channel 12 of China Central Television. As a special host, I said the following in the opening remarks of the last episode: "In traditional Chinese culture, there is a character I particularly like—it’s the character for peace, ‘he.’ This character not only embodies profound philosophical thoughts but can also form many beautiful phrases. For example, nature values harmony, humanity cherishes peace; the world seeks peace, ethnic groups desire harmony, society strives for harmony, and families aim for happiness. The sky is harmonious, and the weather is favorable; the earth is harmonious, and the grains are abundant; people are harmonious, and their spirits are vibrant; families are harmonious, and all affairs prosper." This should also be the ideal we pursue in hosting forums.
This volume of Evidence Forum has transformed the 2005 "Deheng Evidence Forum" three-person discussions into written form, and each guest speaker has carefully refined the language. Additionally, we have invited young scholars to comment after each topic. Forums are places for exchanging skills and ideas, and they should not be based on seniority. Therefore, having younger scholars critique senior ones, or students challenge teachers, is also a scholarly spirit that forums should promote.