Chapter 5 the word bureaucracy

Interviewer: Blog China Time: April 19, 2007 The term "officialism" that you are promoting now does not seem to have as much influence as "hidden rules". I feel that "officialism" cannot give people a sense of enlightenment. Do you yourself recognize this? I don’t think so. I think unspoken rules are closer to our daily life and confusion. Officialism is more abstract and far away from our daily confusion. The frequency of use of “officialism” is definitely not as good as “unspoken rules”.But in terms of helping our understanding of the world and life, "officialism" and "hidden rules" have the same depth and function. They both find a precise concept and reveal a neglected important feature of our life and society.

: Can you say that "officialism" is to explain the historical changes and complicated phenomena in Chinese society from a more macro perspective? Yes, I just want to talk about China's two thousand years of history, from the Qin and Han Dynasties to the Republic of China to the present, what kind of society is it like.Existing concepts, such as feudal society, imperial autocratic society, and bureaucratic capitalist society, I think these concepts are not accurate enough.Before the Qin and Han Dynasties, you can say that it was a feudal society, and the feudal aristocracy had the final say; What is the difference between the social forms after the aristocrats have the final say" and "abolishing feudal titles and establishing prefectures and counties"?

Imperial despotism is obviously more accurate than feudalism, but in history there is often a phenomenon that "government orders do not go out of Zhongnanhai". What rules are prevailing outside of "Zhongnanhai"?Who made these rules? Use your "officialism" to explain Chinese history, saying that China's feudal society had ended by the Qin Dynasty, but history textbooks still refer to Qin and Han as feudal society. If this concept is not corrected, what harm will it do? They do not have a correct understanding of Chinese society.There will be serious problems with the view of history and the world.For example, we say that the emperor and officials are located in the superstructure, while landlords and farmers form the economic base.The superstructure serves the economic base, that is to say, the emperor and officials serve the interests of the landlord class. Is this actually the case?Just the opposite.The official group uses the word "shepherd" to describe the relationship between the government and the people. Are the cattle and sheep serving the shepherds, or the shepherds serving the cattle and sheep?If the theoretical framework is reversed, historical facts cannot be explained.I think the word "feudalism" deviates from the historical facts of China, and it is full of loopholes when studied deeply.This theoretical framework of superstructure and economic foundation itself cannot accurately explain various phenomena in Chinese history.Not only is the concept problematic, but the theoretical framework on which the concept is based is also problematic.

Nor does it help us understand reality. The concept of feudalism has a much deeper understanding than the Confucian concept of etiquette and law. It at least recognizes that there are different class interests and class conflicts in society.But what is the main class?The history of China has always been that the government forced the people to rebel. There were very few "landlords who forced the people to rebel".If we do not discuss factors such as natural disasters, population, and foreign invasion, but only talk about the various relationships within the society, then the core and key to explain the rise and fall of each dynasty is the government's coercion and civil rebellion and the government's infighting.

Furthermore, since the official group is so important, can it be called a class?Classes are defined in the relationship of production, and the official family belongs to the superstructure, but it is deeply involved in various economic activities, and even directly organizes production. This has been the case since the era of "On Salt and Iron".Then, should the concepts of class, economic base and superstructure also be re-examined based on China's historical facts?After reviewing, some concepts have been modified, so should the theoretical framework also be modified?The so-called moving the whole body with one hair is a big move, which is related to our view of history and the world.

According to your understanding, the feudal society we are talking about since the Qin and Han Dynasties is the "officialism" society. Guanjia has three meanings in ancient Chinese.The first level is the emperor, who has the final say and formulates royal laws; the second level is the yamen, which is the interests of various places and departments, and various laws and regulations are formed according to the interests of their respective departments; the third level is individual officials, Various "hidden rules" have formed around them.These three subjects are all officials, they both cooperate and have their own interests, forming a dynamic structure of legislation and regulations, and they have the final say on the whole. The "officialism" system is the basic structure in which various "hidden rules" grow secretly.

When you study history, you pay special attention to the refinement of concepts. What kind of consideration is this for? A concept is a grasp of reality and various phenomena and facts. If the concept is wrong, it means that you do not really understand your research objects and their interrelationships. If a few important concepts are wrong, the entire theoretical system will go wrong.If you can't pass this level and can't accurately describe the various facts, it will be difficult to investigate the various relationships in depth. Do you emphasize conceptual innovation? I don't emphasize the innovation of concepts, I only pursue accuracy.Don't invent new ones if you have an accurate concept.Of course you can create new theories, new perspectives, and discover new relationships between concepts.I emphasize this innovation.Why write so many papers without new insights?

But in the eyes of general readers, it may feel that "officialism" lacks innovation, so it is difficult to have a deep impression on it, and everyone will remember the "hidden rules" as soon as they hear it. As soon as you say "hidden rules", you suddenly understand, because this concept just explains your confusion.If what confuses you is other issues, for example, you have been investigating how China is different from the West and the Western Zhou Dynasty for two thousand years. When you are confused, you suddenly see the concept of "officialism"—yes For me, the impact and shock brought by this concept is no less than "hidden rules".What people pay attention to is different, the place where their thoughts are blocked is different, and the concepts that cause spiritual shock are naturally different.This varies from person to person.

Although Wu Si said in an interview that "the popularity of the word unspoken rules has certain negative effects", "hidden rules" can undoubtedly be regarded as a milestone discovery-however, behind the discovery of "hidden rules" The deeper question is: what kind of system and framework should the "hidden rules" play a role in?How can we curb the "hidden rules" play a role?Although Wu Si did not mention it in his book, but this time, he said it. When you described "what is the nature of society in contemporary China", you used the term "capitalism-officialism". If you use your concept to explain the United States, what stage is it in?

The concept we use now is "capitalism", but is the United States a country where capitalists have the final say?Following the May 1 strike in Chicago, the American working class took to the stage of legislative regulation.Labor unions in the United States are now very powerful, and the working class can influence legislation to a large extent. This is certainly a fact; in addition, the self-proclaimed middle class in the United States controls a large number of votes and has a strong influence on legislation and various major decisions. If these people, including blacks and women, are the masters of the country to a certain extent, and can use their votes to influence legislation and decision-making, it cannot be said that the United States is a country where the bourgeoisie has the final say, so the concept of capitalism is not relevant. precise.There is a term "people's capitalism", although it is also problematic, but it is much more accurate than "capitalism".More precisely, it can be called capital-democracy.

How does "officialism" compare to capitalism? "Capitalists have the final say", which can be called capitalism.When talking about European history, everyone agrees that the development from feudalism or autocracy to capitalism is a historical progress, because capitalists are more productive than kings, nobles and bureaucrats.The despotism before the French Revolution was similar to the officialism in China.A better society is: not only capitalists have the final say, but trade unions and peasant associations can also play a role-a society that leans to the left is similar to democratic socialism, and a society that leans to the right is similar to people's capitalism, which is definitely better than pure capitalism, more People can have the final say.The biggest problem with bureaucracy is: the power of the bureaucracy is unrestricted and continues to expand, the interests of the people are violated more, and finally the government forces the people to rebel, completing a standard cycle of "officialism".This is a costly way to restore balance. Are "officialism" and "hidden rules" the same concept? are closely related. "Hidden rules" describe a set of rule systems that really work. Because they violate the laws and morals at that time, they must appear in a hidden form.It is usually built around the individual official as an agent.But how can "hidden rules" work within a larger system and framework?If within a democratic framework, it is subject to all kinds of supervision from top to bottom, as well as the supervision of the common people, the scope for it to play a role is very small.But in the "officialism" system, everyone is an agent, and everyone is not the master, and there is no master in the world. A very striking phenomenon in the "ism" system. I understand what you said just now. If we in China want to curb the role of "hidden rules" as much as possible, the direction is also a process of democratization. When I pursue the "hidden rules", I usually find a kind of "legitimate right to harm" behind the "hidden rules".For example, if I harm you, what should you do, go to petition?The chances of the petition being successful are slim.For example, you spent 2,000 yuan but the matter has not yet been resolved, but I caused you to lose only 1,000 yuan.At this time, the "hidden rules" came into play, everyone swallowed their anger, and I could do whatever I wanted within this scope.If everyone is in charge of their own affairs, for example, if you elect a member of parliament or a representative, you may only need to make a phone call, without spending 2,000 yuan to petition, and someone who can influence the fate of officials may come out to fight for you , Once officials are dishonest, they may lose their hats.In addition, if the newspapers and periodicals can fully relax their speech, then as long as your story is newsworthy, someone will publish it. In short, if I knock you 1,000 yuan, you only need to spend 200 yuan or two hours to solve the problem.How big is the space for "hidden rules" at this time?It will never have room for a thousand dollars, at most two hundred.From the original one thousand to two hundred, the "hidden rules" may still exist, but you have a low-cost means to deal with the "legitimate right to harm". There are various cheap and effective countermeasures to monitor the channels of the government. Manage officials like servants, and you can really be the masters of your own country. Democratization is the fundamental way to eliminate or curb the function of "hidden rules". That's right. Since you proposed the concept of "hidden rules", many books under the banner of "hidden rules" have appeared on the market.Some people say that these books have played a role in fueling the "hidden rules" of the industry. What do you think of this phenomenon? If the "hidden rules" of any industry can be explained clearly, it will be valuable and helpful for people to understand life.Of course, some people may have chosen a title of "hidden rules", which is actually very superficial. They may deceive readers. Readers need to turn over a few more pages to identify them, and don't spend unreasonable money on counterfeit and shoddy products. As for whether the popularity of the word "unspoken rules" will encourage "unspoken rules"-for example, I am an official who has just entered the officialdom, and I have a strong sense of idealism. Once various "unspoken rules" come, I will I may resist, unwilling to join forces, that is to say, the "hidden rules" are smooth, but I have encountered obstacles here.But after I read the book "Unspoken Rules—True Plays in Chinese History", I found that everyone is like this, and it has been like this since ancient times, so my determination to resist may be weakened. Find your own justification.In this sense, "Unspoken Rules—A Real Play in Chinese History" has a negative effect. It reduces the resistance and resistance in the process of "hidden rules" and also reduces your inner resistance. But everything has pros and cons, there are few things that are purely pros and no cons, and there are few things that are purely pros but not pros. The disadvantages of "Unspoken Rules—A Real Drama in Chinese History" are now clear, but what about the advantages?The advantage is that you can see where the root of the disease is, find the root of the disease and then prescribe the right medicine. For example, to curb the expansion of the "legitimate right to harm", you must use democratic medicine to treat it.Moral education is a temporary solution, and system innovation is a permanent solution. "Unspoken Rules—A Real Play in Chinese History" is not good for treating the symptoms, but good for the root cause. Have you explicitly suggested ways to curb "hidden rules" in a book or article in the past? No, I'm just talking about how the "hidden rules" came about.When describing Chinese history, you cannot prescribe a prescription for it.Prescribing a prescription for democracy may also be the wrong medicine.For example, you said that you want to establish a democratic system in the Ming Dynasty, but the peasants had little contact with the outside world, and they did not have the need to supervise the government-the so-called demand for the ability to pay in economics is really a need to spend money and work on it; if it is a If you criticize entrepreneurs or trade unions, you will urgently need to supervise the government.In a small peasant society where there is a mess of scattered sand, it is inexplicable for you to prescribe a prescription for democracy. So have you prescribed medicine for the present and the future? I am prescribing medicine for the present, which means that I have jumped out to advocate democracy, which means that I have a very strong tendency.When discussing China's current problems and future prospects, I am willing to directly express my own inclinations and propositions. I am indeed advocating democratic constitutionalism.But from the perspective of writing history, the very strong tendency conflicts with a fair and objective attitude. You can describe what kind of structure you see and where the root is through the facts, but you jump out and say that democracy can solve the problem , that is "political propaganda".I don't like any kind of political propaganda mixed in with historical statements.Not to mention you promote claims that go beyond the possibilities offered by history. This task is left to the readers of those "hidden rules" to complete. I think they naturally lead to logical conclusions. Some people say that you "focus on ancient China in your history research, but point your finger at modern society", do you think that is the case? It cannot be said that it is completely pointing to modern times. My current interests and vision will definitely affect my view of history.What I watch and what I pay attention to, why I take it out and write about it in detail, all have something to do with reality.But if you use history to explain things purely for the purpose of explaining reality, this is not exactly the case. A lot of history has its own uniqueness, which is very interesting in itself. For example, I calculated the investment and income of the Great Wall of Ming Dynasty, mainly out of curiosity.In addition, certain things have always existed throughout the ages, and there is actually not much difference between writing about ancient times and writing about contemporary times. There is a word that people mention a lot now, that is, "original sin". There have been discussions about "original sin of private entrepreneurs" before. What do you think are the similarities between the two concepts of "hidden rules" and "original sin"? The "hidden rule" is first a rule, and secondly "hidden" because it violated the laws and legitimate standards at the time.For example, during the big contract period, the farmers in Xiaogang village divided the land according to their fingerprints, and they did it quietly. No one should spread the word about it. established a rule.This is a standard "hidden rule" because it contradicted the Constitution at the time, and it was not only illegal but also a crime.But how do you rate this matter?The law that the peasants are fighting against has its own problems. It is a law that makes the Chinese people suffer. : That is to say, the "hidden rules" formulated by these farmers have positive effects. Yes, there are positives, you could say it's "original sin", they're well aware of that, and they're ready to go to jail.But because the big set of rules and the constitution itself are wrong things, who do you say is guilty?Now let’s talk about whether the capitalists have original sin. The original township enterprises and private enterprises inevitably violated the law and discipline, and even violated the constitution, because China is a socialist country with a planned economy and public ownership, which eliminates private employees.Private enterprises are exploitative, and township and village enterprises will inevitably interfere with and undermine state plans. All private enterprises are suspected of violating the law before the constitutional amendment affirms their legal status, but this is a legal issue, not a private enterprise issue.They created a lot of wealth and neither stole nor robbed other people's things. They may use the back door to bribe officials, but at this time, if you are in their position, you will find that sometimes you have to do this.If they do business, they're dead.This kind of original sin was forced out, and it is a result of an even more unreasonable "officialism" system. Instead of calling it original sin, it is better to call it a crime of coercion, and some can even be regarded as self-defense.Of course, some people are too defensive, and still commit crimes when they can not commit crimes. Officials and businessmen collude to commit crimes together, because the benefits outweigh the risks. At this time, in this sense, you say that he has original sin, or more precisely, continued crimes. I admit.But when discussing the problem in this scale, it is better to say that this is a problem of some people, and it is condoned by the system with low crime risk and high profit.It would be too simple and crude to collectively refer to the original sin of a class. Are "unspoken rules" a Chinese characteristic? I don’t think so. If you look at the history before the French Revolution in 1789, extortion by officials was also common.But Britain is not. Britain has never been a "official" society, where the nobility and the king check each other, while France was not much different from China before 1789.Looking at Russia again, if you look at "Past Events and Thoughts" written by Herzen, if you change the names of places and people in it, you will feel that this is China, the late Ming or late Qing, and it is even more barbaric than the Ming and Qing. The history craze is a phenomenon in the past two years, so what is the reason for the history craze?Wu Si said, "Talking about reality and talking about five points will reach the boundary, but talking about history can be more fully expressed."However, not all talk about history can be fully expressed. For example, the proposal of "punishing traitor speech" that attracted widespread attention during the "two sessions" of the country a few years ago may be uncomfortable for historical researchers. "The result of curbing free research and expression is that our nation keeps repeating mistakes," Wu Si expressed concern about this. In recent years, "historical fever" has become a phenomenon.Do you usually watch TV dramas with historical themes? I never watch serials.It's too long, and I can't bear to spend so much time. I don’t know if you have noticed the history craze on the Internet: “Internet history craze” mainly focuses on the historical events during the early days of the founding of New China, the Anti-Japanese War, and the Civil War between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, which is different from the history craze in academia. I know the history craze on the Internet, including book selling and TV drama history craze, you can't see it or not.But I don't know what they are talking about, what they are discussing. There are relatively more people studying the history of the Ming Dynasty, including you, who also study the history of the Ming Dynasty. Does this mean that the history of the Ming Dynasty has more similarities with contemporary society? I have this idea when I study the Ming Dynasty, and I don’t know what other people think.If you study the Qing Dynasty, you will find that there is a huge difference between the Qing Dynasty and the present—the Qing Dynasty was ruled by a foreign race, with tribal rule factors, but there is no such thing now.To study the Qing Dynasty and deal with this problem well, such a factor will be added, but the Ming Dynasty did not have this factor.In addition, the system of the Qing Dynasty was basically inherited from the Ming Dynasty.Therefore, the Ming Dynasty can see clearly and save trouble.Another important reason is that there are endless historical materials of the Qing Dynasty. At any time, others may dig up a file and say that what you said is wrong, and I have newly discovered historical facts here. During the "Two Sessions" a few years ago, someone suggested that the National People's Congress legislate to "punish traitor speech."If such a law is passed one day, do you think it will be a disaster for some people who study history? How does he define a traitor? For example, Yuan Weishi may be a traitor in his eyes because Yuan Weishi summoned the soul of the invaders. so excessive?Why do I feel that Yuan Weishi is a traitor, but he is a bit suspected of a traitor.Yuan Weishi emphasized our own problems when discussing the Boxers. You can disagree with Yuan Weishi’s point of view, but you can’t say that someone is a traitor just because he emphasized his own faults and briefly mentioned the crimes of the foreign party. If this is the case, everyone should study and find the problem. Where the root of the root is, it will be severely curbed.What will be the result of our curbs on free research expression?The result is that our nation keeps repeating mistakes, the common people suffer accordingly, and the whole nation suffers accordingly.So I think this claim is a bit of a traitor. ——So it means transposition experience, don't do to others what you don't want to do to others, it's not a fun game to put a shit bowl on someone's head.This kind of competition is very destructive and not constructive. We have competed for a long time before, and the more we compete, the less promising we become. Besides, who are "we" to emphasize our own faults?Is it the Manchu ruling group?Is it a traitor to speak for them?Wu Sangui helped the Qing Dynasty, and he was called a traitor back then.If you speak for the Manchu Qing ruling clique, or for Wu Sangui, is that considered traitorous speech?These standards are too difficult to grasp.In fact, when evaluating Wu Sangui objectively, does he contribute a lot or do a lot of harm?Are we taking advantage of him now or are we being harmed by him?These questions are not easy to clarify. What do you think? Depends on what you emphasize.Emphasis on morality?Whose morals?territory?whose territory?Furthermore, is it better to unify China or to compete among multiple countries in Europe?Who is it good for when?Taking it a step further, do you think it is good now and you will think it is good in the future?Every step of the way encounters issues that provoke debate.I am not in favor of imposing moral judgments, especially present-day moral judgments, on historical figures.For the moral judgment at that time, you might as well make an objective description, and don't jump into it yourself. That is to say, if Wu Sangui is really a traitor, if I want to defend him, I can’t say that I am a traitor, otherwise I can’t do it as a lawyer, because lawyers often defend criminals. Yes, don't easily call others a traitor just because of what they said, and punish them. This is a dangerous tendency, and it will ultimately be detrimental to the Chinese nation. Behind the current history craze, is it because people have a tendency to go back to the past, or is it because of practical reasons that people avoid talking about reality and find feelings from history? For me, history itself is interesting, and history can greatly expand one's horizons.In addition, if you talk about reality, you will reach the boundary when you talk about five points, and you will not foul when you talk about history and nine points. You can express it more fully. Do you usually pay attention to current affairs or social reality issues? Major events will be followed. What kind of thing is a big deal in your eyes? All matters related to system changes are major events, such as the case of Cui Yingjie, where the conventional practices of urban management and the rights of small traders collided, and human lives were lost. Whether the boundaries of the division of interests are reasonable has caused disputes, and boundary adjustments may also occur. I think it's a big deal.In the case of Sun Zhigang, the abolition of a system that some people love and others fear is also a major event; the agricultural tax is also abolished, these are major institutional changes; rural primary and secondary schools are really going to start compulsory education, which is also a major event.These things will strongly affect China's urbanization process, and China's appearance will therefore undergo major changes. As a well-known historian, do you have any words to send to your peers, or those young researchers who are interested in history? The level of the peers is very high, I have nothing to say to them (laughs).A lesson can be taught to young history lovers: first of all, don’t let others lead you by the nose, what is history like, you go to the most primitive historical materials, read the articles of the ancients, for example, read the "Historical Records" Biography, reading novels, "Three Words, Two Beats", ... Read the poems, essays, letters, and memorials of the ancients. In this way, you will have a first-hand feeling about the society and people's mentality at that time. It was as if he had been alive at the time.Once you have a basic feeling, you can judge whether other people's narration is correct, and if you don't feel right, you can find out what went wrong. Do you encourage them to refine concepts the way you do? If good concepts can be extracted, it will be a great thing to improve the level of theoretical thinking in China. It is very pitiful for a nation without theoretical thinking, and people feel that the overall level cannot improve.Of course, I think this is a very difficult thing. It's very difficult for you to do this step. And take risks.When you create concepts, you may improve the efficiency of future communication, but you first create barriers in language communication. People don’t know what this word means, and they think that this guy is just like Lu Xun mockingly creating other people’s bad ideas. understand the word.I often have this worry - am I doing something nasty?Therefore, I only create concepts when I have no choice but to find a suitable word to express them clearly. When creating, I try to borrow the foundation of the predecessors as much as possible. Do you have any worries about the concept of "officialism"? No.First of all, "guanjia" is a long-standing word in ancient Chinese, which is not difficult to understand.Secondly, the concept of "officialism" comes from a strong dissatisfaction with the existing concept - I think this is a widespread dissatisfaction, whether feudalism, capitalism or imperial absolutism, is not accurate enough when describing China's history and current situation , and using "officialism" is much more accurate.All the concepts I have seen so far are not as good as "officialism". If you can't say it well, please point out a more accurate one. I am willing to use a more accurate one.In the end, concepts are alive, and life, death and development have to go through the elimination and selection of everyone. My mentality is: do your best and obey the destiny.