Universal Dream, National Dreams and Symbiotic Dream Reflections on Transcultural Generativity in China–Europe Encounters1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
[JCCP 1.1 (2015) p39-76] ISSN 2040-0837 Universal dream, national dreams and symbiotic dream Reflections on transcultural generativity CCPN 1 in China–Europe encounters Shuo Yu Abstract: The China–Europe encounter is regarded as an auto-process of interpretative configuration which gradually forms a certain self-system that possesses sufficient transcultural generativity to communicate, understand, interpret, and go beyond the original sources of the one and the other. Its continuation depends on a degree of hetero-identity, and with the contributions of a ‘double agent’ this historical encounter has created a third kind of shared spiritual commonwealth which belongs to China and Europe. The article demonstrates a flow of history in a scrolling picture: 16th–18th-century ‘holy men’ in encounter with a spontaneous awakening to question universal values, accepted or rejected; 19th–20th-century ‘heroic men’ in encounter, accompanied by combats betweenGLobal sovereign states; the later 20th-century ‘economic men’ in encounter, sniffing out cultural differences and dominated by quantitative thinking after the end of the Cold War (Yu 2001); and the 21st-century emerging ‘ecological men’ who encounter a general planetary crisis. Echoing the topology of encounters in the common history of China and Europe are three historical dreams: the 17th–18th-century universal-value dream, the 19th–20th-century national-state dream, and the 21st-century human symbiotic dream. It first analyses the intensive interactions between 1. I would like to express my gratitude to CCPN Global’s voluntary researcher and translator Dr Guoxin Xing and Ms Chengqian Guo who translated this article from Chinese into English, and to Ju Tang, my assistant, who translated the revised second half of this article; thanks also go to Mr Nick Prendergast, Drs Ellie Mayger and Thomas Clarke, Associate Professors Xiaoying Zhang and Associate Professor Limei Gou who edited and proofread its English versions; Professors Qian Yufang and Guo Aimin and Ms Siqi Wang proofread its Chinese version; especially Professors Stephan Feuchtwang, Martin Albrow, Sam Whimster and Chu-Ren Huan, for their academic advice and corrections; and my assistants Daisy Tang Ju and Tang Yuen Ha’s efforts in sorting out and revising references and manuscript. Words cannot express my thanks toward Proferssor Xiangqun Chang and editorial team of JCCP, for without their great help this article could not exist. Finally, I would like to dedicate this article to the memory of my beloved mother, who passed away while I was revising it. Journal of China in Comparative Perspective《中国比较研究》 © CCPN Global 全球中国比较研究会 40 Shuo Yu China and Europe during the period of the ‘Chinese Rites Controversy’ in the 17th and 18th centuries. She puts forward the concepts of transcultural generativity and a shared spiritual historical common wealth. It then skips the second encounter to draw parallels between the first great debates on seeking universal values 300 years ago and the current criticism of universal values by the ‘awakened Lion China’. The author applies the concept of liminality to treat the cross-field of China–Europe encounters as a non-structure and a permanent transition. She points out an interesting fact: the Communist Party CCPNof China adopted from Europe has turned a ‘short-term’ liminal transition into a ‘long-term’ structure. She refers to the ‘total history’ of the Annals and calls for a common Europe–China transcultural history. In the last section she forms a contrast: the universal values of 300-year-old Enlightenment thought with the ‘Chinese values’ advocated in the great propaganda of the ‘China dream’. Finally, the author suggests that, faced by today’s reality of vital interdependence, a dream of national prosperity could only come true by admitting the reality of a sole human community, and metamorphosing itself into a symbiotic dream of the Earth.2 Keywords: Transcultural generativity, cultural cross-fields, liminal flexibility, liminal space, permanent transition, agent of in-between, China–Europe Encounters, symbiotic dream Introduction GLobal Why do we need to project far back in time to clip a piece of history? The past is a call from the outside, a call to a combination with the present time, their living-together and their coexistence. It is a call from the past itself to be seen again and again by different eyes in order to help us better understand our current world. Gilles Deleuze told us: ‘The memory could never evoke and recount the past if it had not already formed at a time when the past was still present, so in order to come’ (Deleuze 1985: 72). A history is the weaving of a tripartite relation: ‘the past is a former present, and future, a present to come’ (Deleuze 1985: 354). What then is the heritage of 500 years of encounters between China and Europe? Why did people stubbornly carry on with the centennial ‘Rites Controversy’ between the two Eurasian poles? What are the value and motivation behind it? What are the features of cultural and intercultural cross-fields? What kind of power games and representational strategies did double agents play in a liminal zone? How should researchers today move 2. Interestingly, the Communist Party of China’s report at the 18th Congress promotes socialist core values, which include universal values: prosperity, democracy, civility, harmony, freedom, equality, justice, rule of law, patriotism, dedication, integrity (honesty and trust), and kind- ness. These can form a major part of a symbiotic dream. Transcultural generativity in China-Europe encounters 41 away from the modern national diplomatic standpoint and get back to the human historical scene? This article tries to adopt a transcultural approach of historical anthropology to draw a topology of three China–Europe encounters. Besides the usual chronological way of describing dates and events, a series of new conceptual tools has been used as map makers in this article. These include such concepts as double agent or ‘agent of in-between’ (d’entre-deux), multi- identity, liminal flexibility, fuzzy border effect, cross-fields of encounter, CCPNinterpretative configuration, principle of distance, historicity, mirror effect, power games, representational system, communication strategies, proactive misunderstanding, positive misunderstanding, and transcultural generativity… (Yu 2001). The China–Europe encounter is regarded as an auto-process of interpretative configuration which gradually forms a certain self-system that possesses sufficient transcultural generativity to communicate, understand, interpret and go beyond the original sources of the one and the other. Its continuation depends on a degree of hetero-identity, and with the contributions of ‘double agents’ or agents of ‘in-between’, this historical encounter has created a third kind of shared spiritual commonwealth which belongs to China and Europe. The article demonstrates a flow of history in a scrolling picture: 16th–18th-century ‘holy men’ in encounter with a spontaneous awakening to question universal values, accepted or rejected; 19th–20th-century ‘heroic men’ in encounter, accompanied byGLobal combats between sovereign states; the later 20th-century ‘economic men’ in encounter, sniffing out cultural differences and dominated by quantitative thinking after the end of the Cold War (Yu: 2001); and the 21st-century emerging ‘ecological men’ who encounter a general planetary crisis (Yu 2007: 119–121; 2009). Echoing the topology of encounters in the common history of China and Europe are three historical dreams: the 17th–18th-century universal-value dream, the 19th–20th-century national-state dream, and the 21st-century human symbiotic dream. An interesting mismatch is that the 21st-century China dream is more like a spent force of the 19th–20th-century national dreams as demonstrated in the documentary The Rise of the Great Nations (《大国 崛起》).3 It would be a great contribution to humanity if the promotion of the current China dream were to lead to a symbiotic dream. Part I of this article will try to analyse the intensive interactions between China and Europe during the period of the ‘Chinese Rites Controversy’ in the 17th–18th century, keeping in view the questions at the beginning of this article. In Part II the author will skip the second encounter to draw parallels between the first great debates on seeking universal values 300 years ago and the current criticism of 3. Ren Xuean et al. (2006) The Rise of the Great Nations (任学安等:《大国崛起》), 12 episodes of historical documentaries, produced by CCTV, Beijing. 42 Shuo Yu universal values by the ‘awakened Lion China’.4 Faced by today’s reality of vital interdependence, the final point is to realize that, for any national dream to prosper, it must metamorphose itself into a planetary symbiotic dream. I. Attraction of heterogeneity and universal imagination: the French ‘China complex’ and the Chinese ‘France complex’ Besides political and diplomatic narratives praising ‘China’s Dream’, let us explore a phenomenon that we could call the French ‘China complex’ and the CCPNChinese ‘France complex’ (Yu 2001). To reflect the current discourse, in the place of ‘complex’ we can use the term ‘dream’. Such mutual dreams occurred between the two heterogeneous countries sited at the two poles of the Eurasian continent, resulting from imagination of and attraction to an ‘exotic land’ or an ‘Other’ in an anthropological sense. This also reflected a historicity of ‘the New World’ adventure. The difference is that the French have been looking for and spreading universal dreams (religious, rational or humane), whereas the Chinese have been emphasizing a dream of unification (cultural, historical or political) under the sky (tianxia 天下). The French tradition of universal values can probably be traced back to Rabelais and Montaigne, the two great humanist thinkers. The generation of Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire took Imperial China (a brilliant civilization without monotheism) as a model for launching a secularization campaign based on liberty, equality and fraternity.5 These universal values have been gradually recognized andGLobal accepted by all mankind over the past 250 years.