Chapter 14 The Context of Modernity and the Belief Forms of Intellectuals
Faith is one of the basic elements in the structure of existence. No matter what the believer believes in (God, fate, money, or nothingness as a philosophical concept), belief, as an act of survival, has the structure of existence on the body. For this reason, modern sociology Arguments have been provided (Weber, M.Sheler, P.Berger, D.Bell).The particularity of intellectuals' belief lies in that it is not only a life behavior type, but also a cultural discourse type, and the belief is expressed through the discourse activities of the humanities-literary arts.This article attempts to examine the changes of the beliefs of modern Chinese intellectuals in the context of modernity from the perspective of cultural sociology. The same belief situation: the trend of individualization and pluralism of belief.
1. The tension between the modern landscape and the dualistic landscape between China and the West
"Modernity" is a crystalline concept that indicates the transformation of the overall social-cultural structure: the transformation of agricultural social structure to industrialization and then technological-informational social structure brings changes in cultural forms and meaning concepts, while social structure changes Transformation may be the result of some kind of concept change.The transformation of socioeconomic structure, individual mind structure, and text concept structure are the three main facets of the crystalline concept of "modernity".The formation of intellectuals as a social class is the result of the transformation of modern society. It refers to people who take the sale of knowledge as their profession. Their activities constitute the public space for cultural discourse.
The social and cultural event marked by modernity is actually a major change unseen in the history of human society and culture in three thousand years, which has triggered unprecedented tension in discourse: the rupture of the traditional meaning of speech.This rupture was also decisive for the West.Modernity is the common fate of Chinese and Western traditional meanings.
The centuries-old discourse tension between anti-tradition and upholding tradition in intellectual circles is a symptom of the modernization process, and it appears as a vertical discourse tension in the West: tradition and modernity.In the context of Chinese, discursive tension presents a double tension, vertical and horizontal: not only the conflict between tradition and modernity, but also the conflict between Chinese and Western cultural organisms. "Great changes unseen in three thousand years" originally referred to the invasion of European and American culture into the body of Chinese culture in the Chinese context.Cultural nationalism regulates the belief determination of Chinese intellectuals in the modernization context, and contemporary Confucian scholars do not see that the Confucianism they defend is in the same modern dilemma as the Christianity they attack or resist.When modern Chinese-language Christian intellectuals spread the doctrine of Christ, they also spread their words in the domain of social transformation and national cultural crisis.The difficulties of Christianity in the context of modernity have also been underappreciated.
2. Exegese and modernity of faith discourse
The power of traditional discourse rests on the canon.The first symptom of discursive tension in the process of modernization is scriptural skepticism or fundamental reinterpretation of scriptures.The Bible to European culture and the Six Classics to Chinese culture are both the blood of meaning discourse texture, European culture and Chinese culture share a long-standing hermeneutic tradition, and modern meaning discourse language changes all occur in the hermeneutic register .Although the incident of doubting scriptures, whether in the history of Confucian classics or biblical hermeneutics, has existed since ancient times, it has never been cut off since the formation of classics.However, in terms of the nature and methodology of the incidents of doubting the scriptures, the incidents of doubting the scriptures in the past hundred years are not the same as those in the past.The accumulation of modern knowledge, the political stratification of intellectuals and the power transformation of conceptual texts are all important opportunities.
The high form-criticism of the Bible in the 19th century and the demythological project of R.Bultmann in the 1940s are two fundamental turns in biblical hermeneutics ; Confucian hermeneutics had two fundamental shifts in speech at almost the same time: the debate between modern and ancient Chinese classics in the late Qing Dynasty (Zhang Taiyan) and the "Ancient History Discrimination" movement initiated by Gu Jiegang in this century.
The fundamental shift in the way of interpreting the scriptures of Bible studies and Confucian classics consistently points to the historical documentation, de-sanctification and de-monopoly of scriptures. The trend of thoroughly doubting the ancients in the "Ancient History Discrimination" movement is not absent in biblical studies.The appearance of the crisis of faith in modernity in the Chinese context is no later than in Europe.
The fundamental shift in the study of Confucian classics was not the result of the invasion of Western learning.When the dispute over modern and ancient Chinese classics occurred in the late Qing Dynasty, the introduction of Western learning into the body of Han culture had just begun, and the achievements of modern European humanities literature had not been borrowed.Although Gu Jiegang claimed to appeal to rational authority, the implementation method of doubting the ancients was mainly the original method of Confucian classics (Liu Zhiji, Zheng Qiao, Zhang Xuecheng, Yao Jiheng, Cui Dongbi).
The fundamental shift in the way of interpreting scriptures in Bible studies and Confucian classics is largely the spontaneous result of their respective ways of speaking in the transformation and oppression of modern society, although in the Chinese context, the social basis of this transformation and oppression is European and American The act of capital accumulation (colonial expansion) in the course of modernization.The turn of the way of biblical interpretation is triggered by humanistic history, and humanistic history itself grows out of the body of Christian culture.The parent source of knowledge is ancient Greece, and the parents of the Christian cultural fabric are the Hebrew cultural organism and the Greek cultural organism.As for the debate over late Qing, modern, and ancient Chinese Confucian classics, it is a historical result of the evolution of Confucian classics in the transformation of society's modernity.What can be asked is whether there would have been a debate over late Qing, modern, and ancient Chinese classics without the invasion of the body of Han culture by Western political actions.This is not a post-historical question, but a question that can be answered through a historical-sociological investigation of its mechanism,
The problem raised here is: the fundamental turn of the interpretation of scriptures indicates the formation of intellectuals as an independent social stratum and the modern transformation of belief discourse. .In modern society, the form and essence of intellectual people's beliefs are increasingly separated from popular beliefs.
3. Positioning of individual beliefs of intellectuals:
The same fate of Christian faith and Confucian faith in the discourse of modernity is: the loss of exclusive status.This is an autogenous consequence of the modern discourse turn of biblical hermeneutics in which the two beliefs are rooted.
The loss of the supremacy of Christianity and Confucianism is an internal change.Modern atheism's attack on Christian beliefs is not decisive to the loss of the monopoly of Christian beliefs, just as the tension between Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism is not decisive to the loss of Confucianism's monopoly.After the documentation of DF Straus's interpretation history, E·Troeltsch dismantled the absoluteness of Christianity from within theology.The dismantling of Confucianism's exclusiveness was first carried out by Confucian classicist Zhang Taiyan.
The loss of the supremacy of a certain faith is not the same as the loss of credibility.Zhang Taiyan was still, and even later became more faithful, a follower of Confucian faith, and Trolz was still a Christian and a theologian.The loss of exclusiveness shows the belief context of modernity—the modern transposition of multiple belief forms and the belief statements of intellectuals: the individuality of confession behavior is enhanced.
In the context of modernity, the appearance of multiple "isms" is substantive, and both modern European intellectuals and modern Chinese intellectuals are placed in the discourse reality of multiple "isms". The variety of "isms" is the phenomenon expression of the individual beliefs of modern intellectuals.The expansion of selfhood and self-understanding has structural identity with social differentiation in the process of modernization.The so-called individualism is one of the main aspects of modernity, and it is also shown in the phenomenon of "isms".However, from the perspective of the overall structure of society, there is no sociological factual basis for the extent to which various "isms" have left the intellectual class and entered other social classes (general citizens, workers, peasants).Intellectual forms of belief can no longer dominate those of the general public, intensified by social stratification in the progress of modern society.In this regard, the real field of "isms" is actually quite narrow.The mentality of intellectuals who think they are spokespersons for the masses is an illusion.Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine "ism" from cultural sociology.
4. The tension between nationalism and Marxism
Due to the intertwining of the modern transformation of Chinese society and the issue of national self-improvement, cultural nationalism has always been the potential regulation for Chinese intellectuals to find their individual beliefs.National responsibility has to a considerable extent inhibited the expansion of the individuality of Chinese intellectuals. On the other hand, the ideological full power of historical rationalism in the mainland register for more than forty years has in turn inhibited the individuality of national responsibility.
Marxism was originally a modern interpretation theory in the process of modernization, but in the context of modern Chinese, it has evolved from individual beliefs to ideological full-power discourse.The social mechanism of this evolution has not yet been clarified sociologically.However, this article is not concerned with the social mechanisms of this evolution, but with its consequences.
Since Marxism is a Western theory after all, the ambiguity between its symbols and Chinese cultural symbols is obvious.The full power of Marxism in the mainland Chinese context strengthens the tension between tradition and modern discourse that inevitably arises in the process of modernization in a peculiar way: on the one hand, it connects traditional On the other hand, it weakens cultural nationalism in its own foreign form, even though political nationalism itself was the motive for adopting Western historical rationalism.
The relationship between nationalism and Marxism in the process of China's modernization is very complicated.Marxism, as a German critical theory of modernization, has been turned into social practice by some intellectuals in China, and this intellectual-social behavior itself is driven by nationalist motives.But Marxism has a universal appeal, and nationalism combined with Marxism continues the traditional Chinese political Confucianism, and its form deserves further review.
V. The Tension Between Nationalism and Individualism
Overburdened national commitment is the traditional character of Chinese intellectuals, and this character is shaped by Confucian personality theory: in the process of modernization, although Confucianism is resisted, individualism is favored, and even contemporary Confucianism is close to the Confucian heart. The learning route stays friendly with this.Yet this proximity itself still presents itself as a gesture of cultural nationalism.The difficulties encountered by Chinese society in the process of modernization and transformation have made it difficult for Chinese-speaking intellectuals to shed the burden of national commitment.
Since the process of modernization requires and will inevitably strengthen individualism, and the appeal of the nation-state will inevitably strengthen nationalism, nationalism and individualism constitute the tension field of the belief orientation of contemporary Chinese intellectuals.This tension field is a traditional Confucian-Taoist tension relationship in form, but it is modern in essence.The value implication of individualism is no longer the Taoist outlook on life, but the individualism of modern Europe that is advancing simultaneously with modernization.
Once the power discourse of historical rationalism, which is the discourse of ideological power, declines, the individuality of belief discourse will be doubled, so that the modern belief context—pluralism cannot be rejected. It can already be seen that: Chinese knowledge The context of molecular belief positioning has been consistent with the context of European intellectuals to a considerable extent—the privatization of beliefs and the pluralization of belief contexts.
6. The Context of Multiple Beliefs and Individual Beliefs
Even if Marxism no longer serves as an ideological social power, it does not mean that it has lost its appeal to individual intellectuals as a sociological theory or a philosophical outlook on life.The combination of ideal criticism and moral passion in Marx's theory with social science is still the object of personal belief of some Chinese intellectuals (even dissidents).
Similarly, any meaning-belief system, including Christianity, is difficult to obtain a legal status in an open and free Chinese cultural context.
The various "ism" trends of thought that emerged in the mainland in the mid-1980s indicated that a multi-belief context had already taken shape.Various "isms" or belief systems form a dialogue relationship of equal competition, and the individual absoluteness of belief is established in the register of pluralism and relativity, which is exactly the belief form of modernity.
One of the signs of the transformation of traditional belief forms into modern belief forms is: the belief style has changed from collective to individual, that is, the privatization of belief.This is a religious subjectivism: individuals freely choose their beliefs and are responsible for them, but do not impose their beliefs on anyone else.Faith becomes a purely individual affair, appearing only as an interlocutor in the public discourse.Diversified belief contexts may lead to complex individual beliefs: Taoist Christians or Confucian Christians have actually appeared among contemporary Chinese intellectuals.Sociologist T. Luckmann has conducted in-depth research on multi-faith behavior and privatization in Europe in his book "Invisible Religion".As far as the Chinese context is concerned, the difference lies in: In traditional Chinese society, the religious social system has never reached the autonomous organizational system like Christianity in European society.The emergence of the issue of privatization of beliefs is only possible when Chinese society has undergone a complete transformation of the social system—as can be seen, this transformation is quasi-religious, and its far-reaching influence on Chinese discourse is still inestimable of.
In the mid-1980s, spontaneously formed academic groups of intellectuals emerged in mainland China, with different academic purports and discourse orientations.Importantly, members of these groups do not share the same beliefs: nihilists, liberals, Marxists, Christians, Confucians and Taoists can cooperate without hindrance.
Contemporary European and American theology is already discussing the theological issues of multi-faith. The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church recognized the self-sufficiency of other religions. Approaches to explaining multireligious beliefs.This is indeed a new picture for European culture with more than 2,000 years of Christian tradition.
From the point of view of traditional Chinese religions, the multi-religious pattern has always existed (Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism). Although the rejection of heresies has also extended to social and political behaviors from within, because the political social institutions of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism are not all-powerful. Yes, diversity actually exists.The multi-religious pattern was not interrupted until historical rationalism as a meaning-belief system established a totalitarian social system.
7. Chinese Intellectuals and the Language of Christian Faith
As early as the May Fourth era, certain intellectuals had expressed their individual Christian intentions, which slowly spread in literature, art, and philosophy.Although this individual Christian intention has not completely freed itself from national commitments, it has gradually entered the individual register of existentialism.
Due to the individuality of the intellectuals and the uniqueness of the way of belief (emphasis on reflection), the language of their beliefs is also different.
From the perspective of historical form, the language styles of Christian belief are gradually divided in the process of modern culture: church style, literary style (in a broad sense) and academic style.The church-style belief language is the original biblical style, and has a strong sectarian color, while the literary style is almost symbolic (poems, novels, prose, paintings, music, etc.), so it is more free and casual.The academic belief language is the result of the neutralization of modern humanistic education, and the so-called "university theology" has emerged, which is characterized by the humanistic scientificization of belief statements and anti-examination.This is more obvious in Europe and America.
In Chinese university education, neither Christianity nor Confucianism occupies the public domain of university education, but is limited to the scope of research institutes.It's about tradition.Once the social legal status of the people's ideology in the university is removed, and the humanities of the university are truly neutral, a pattern of multi-belief will be formed.
Since the church-style belief language has not gained substantial speech space in the Chinese environment, it is conceivable that the extension of the literary or academic-style Christian language in the contemporary Chinese environment.
In the multi-belief context of modernity, the contextual ethics of belief is very important, and its ethical principles are: tolerance and mutual understanding.Not only among the different expressions of Christian belief, but also between various belief expressions (Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and various modern secular humanism beliefs), a relationship of tolerance and mutual understanding should be established to jointly build public beliefs The discourse space, although the individual discourse of belief may be dogmatic, does not have the legitimacy of political, social and legal appeals.The tension between the statement of individual beliefs and the context of multiple beliefs will of course lead to some decisive issues—especially ethical issues, but this is exactly the so-called persistent problem of postmodernism.Approaching this problematic requires several stages of steps before it can be effectively dealt with.
Cambridge, USA, September 1992