What is My Construction...

I had started this piece with the intention of finishing, but as it were, I think it no longer quite appropriate.

One can have a moral view, an understanding of right and wrong, but once it is declared, expounded, and preached, hypocrisy is inevitable.

I am not a moral philosopher.

What is my Construction? Part 1: Introduction

"This Culture of Ours":-- the Chinese intellectual tradition, civil society in America, Columbia's core curriculum and my life?

This Culture of Ours is Peter Bol's translation of the Chinese expression siwen 斯文 , which in modern Chinese usually is understood as something akin to the daintily literary, belles-lettres, and the nice, refined manners of a cultured gentleman, but more often than not the mannerism expected of a well-bred young woman. This is not what Peter Bol had meant in his translation, as we can see. He is speaking of something else altogether, the vision of civilization and life, the understanding of one's role in this world that had been debated by those we would call in our modern lexicon, the Confucians.

I have been asked here and there questions to the effect of, "are you religious?" "what do you believe in?" "do you think they are more Chinese or more American?" I could never responsibily answer any of these questions, mainly because the expectation is a short one word answer, but invariably, whatever one word answer I give would misconstrue what it is I am trying to represent. In our discourse, in the way we answer these things, religion is a set of prescribed doctrines in accordance with an established ecclesiastical organization; what one believes is a semi-coherent -ism, an ideology of life and world that identifies the fundamental values of our being; and whether one is of one country, of one nationality, of one ethnicity prescribes a set of cultural values and practices, dictated by anything from some vague idea of tradition coupled with the manner with which one eats food. None of these categories do justice to the variety and complexity with which inviduals constructs their interiorities and certainly the ways in which they situate themselves in the world-- or even, how they construct the world around them.

Construction and the Post-Modern Confucian

Construction is a decidedly post-modern concept and one that is useful for the exercise of understanding the big questions of culture, identity and world-view. Construction is the process by which an individual psyche interacts, organizes and interprets the phenomenonlogy of experience, it is the way of fixing an ontology amdist the interplay of sense expreience, moral value and emotional reactivity. Construction is the process of narrative, the process of situating, the process of interpreting, the process of understanding--- construction by definition constructs constructs, but that these constructs are constructed, and by defintion can be deconstructed, do not detract from their "realness."

What is your construction? It is perhaps that question that I will be more willing to answer over the three that I mentioned before. But even so, I woudl find it difficult to do so and doubly reluctant to address it. After all, my own construction is but one in many-- what vaunted vanity must it take to undergo such an exercise? Furthermore, constructions shift, constructions change, constructions are deconstructed and reconstructed-- a building built will slowly be replaced, one wall, one floor, one pipe at at time-- is it still the same building? To answer it aloud, to put it in writing, is to grant this construction that only exists in a specific moment in space-time an after-life that outlasts itself. In writing, I am fixing the terms by which this construction, this identity will be understood. That sort of fixity is threatening-- thirty years from now, when I re-read this, I will inevitably feel the tyranny of the past, an imposition of truth, an imposition of vision from an age that is no longer relevant, yet irrevocably eternal. As written, the Word is unchangeable; as written, this version, this expression forces posterity, whether it is the posterity of man's future or one's personal future, to cast its own formulations in the terms of the past. It is for this reason that the Chinese (or more specifically and generally, all those who had a stake in this siwen) were so concerned with the power and legacy of their own writing.

I spoke of writing as an exercise in self-construction, and I projected myself in thirty years pestered by the tyranny of my own thoughts in the present. This is also the tyranny of tradition. The tyranny of the past. Once conscious, once aware, once one reads or recites and resusciates it, it must be dealt with. It must be deferred, discussed, rejected, thought about and written about--- and by that process it is transmitted. The irony of tradition is, the harder one tries to break away from it, the stronger in looms before you.

What is my construction? My construction is decidedly Chinese, it is very Confucian, but it is very Buddhist, but it is one that could not exist without having drawn from the product of my own intellecutal tempering in the most self-consciously Western institutions in "the West." The puzzle is complex, and it is one that I do not undrestand completely, nor is it one, I think, that I neccessarily should. One's true motivations remain hidden from view, but who knows what purpose I hope to gain from writing this-- do I indeed wnat to fix myself vis-a-vis the past, in terms of the future?

What is my construction? I'll start with Confucianism. One can pick up any book from the library or the bookstore and read about what Confucianism is. Confucianism is a lot of things. It's misogynistic, traditional, pedantic, oppressive and really old. But it's also a construct. It is something that exists not as a coherent object the sum, average, mean and aggregate of a whole web of constructions that interact with each other. As a meme, as a concept, as an ideology, it exists in the minds of people, it exists in the pages of books and scrolls and, it is neccessarily unstable. People have tried to pin it down, and it is an important pursuit for intellectual and social historians, moral philosophers and sociologists.

But it matters little for my own purpose what Confucianism "is"-- it matters only what I can draw from it, what I have drawn from it, what my Confucianism is. The question remains whether an individual, and a self-consciously individualistic appropiration of an -ism that so many people have so many different stakes mean can even constitute a version of that -ism. Why call it Confucianism at all, if I have chosen to so haphazardly reject and accept certain elements? Do I mean to change what Confucianism is for others? Do I mean to narrate my own space in a longer intellectual and cultural history?

This goes back to the notion of constructing, and why we construct-- and so the answers to thsoe questions should be clear. I am situating myself and understanding myself, engaging with a past that cannot be cast aside, once it is made aware.

What is my construction? It is Confucian. But let me first say what it is not. It is not the Confucianism that binds feet, believes that women should stay home, that believes we must bow down to authority, recite the Book of Odes, and enforce strong class distinctions. It is not the Confucianism that believes in strict rituals according to the practices of the Sage Kings in order to strictly enforce propriety, gender norms, and with it, a sense of cultural normativity and a monolithic vision of civilization.

Then what is it, if it is not that? The Confucianism that I speak of is the following:

A) It is a way of seeing the world that is profoundly humanistic, one that centers the role of the individual in terms of his and her involvement in his or her society. Confucianism eschews the supernatural, the eschatological and anything that is beyond the grasp of rational understanding. As a footnote, one must understand that the Confucian tradition as such, as differentiated the role of men and women according to normativities of gender. I feel no pressure to adapt the sexism of Confucius, the produced pre-industrial gender normativity of a paternalistic heteronormativity in 21st century America (New York).

B) It is a way of understanding the role of knowledge, a moralized understanding of the acquisition of knowledge,, a moralized understanding of its implementation. Knowledge is not solipsistic-- it cannot be endlessly self-referential. Knowledge is also inherently moral, and its exercise is tied to morality. One could argue that the Chrisitan opposition to stem cell research is an example of the moral application of knowledge, but keep in mind the Confucian eschews the eschatological-- morality is a human morality-- it is not divinely inspired, it is not divinely wrought, it is not imposed by some indifferent being. It is a humanistic morality, whose moral good is understood in terms of benefit to the human experience. I am for stem cell research and eating animals.

Furthermore, in understanding the purpose of knowledge as moral, the Confucian vision excludes the pursuit of knowledge for self-advancement. It is not for social status, for wealth or for fame.

C) It is a way of understanding an individuals role in society in according to the efforts he or she must apply in self-fulfillment and self-actualizing. It is a vision of life that demands contemplation, introspection and reflection. Contemplation of the world and how it works; introspection into one's own moral character and psychology; a reflection of how the world affects oneself and how one affects the world.

D) It is a political philosophy that calls for responsible governance and an active and healthy civil society (to the chagrin of Chinese Emperors and the CCP). It had tempered and counteracted the deprecations of despots in the past. It understands the role of state as inherently moral, one that has an activist role in promoting the livelihood of its citizens, protecting their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Poverty, disease, suffering and violence are all the neccessary challenges of government. The promotion of education and knowledge through public education, supporting NGOs and citizen initiative would fit right in to the Confucian vision of state. It is one that rejects the glorification of war and rule by oppression, that would decry the elimitation of dissent through intimidation and violence. It would be appalled at the widespread possession of firearms by citizens in America and the policing of the internet by the CCP.

I can only think of four major aspects for the time being, and other things will come up as time goes on, I'm sure. But for now, and for the next few days, I'll address each of these topics in turn, in detail. The Confucianism I am describing would probably sound very distant from the Confucianism they learned about in world history, and rightly so. I make no pretense in saying that this is what Confucianism "is" or even what it "should be," but rather the ideas, ways of thinking and visions of the world and the individuals in it that form an important part of how I see and understand myself and my place in society and the world I see.

One might argue or take me to task for dissecting a school of thought and picking what I like throwing away what I do not-- but I wonder exactly who it is I am violating by butchering Confucianism. I don't eat every part of a pig, why must I eat every part of a school of thought? Are we so mindless and feeble that we must transfer a whole body of text, interpretation and institutional practices in its entirety to make use of it? For this reason, I will say, Confucianism once institutionalized becomes everything that I reject in it: anachronistic morality, textual pedantry, social oppressiveness and ritual orthodoxy. We have enough of those things already in this world.

夏休み

私は今年の夏休みに韓国（かんこく）へ漢文（かんぶん）を勉強にいる予定だ。中国語を話すことができるが漢文は中国語とちがい。そして韓国で使う漢文は中国で使う漢文とちがい。漢文は英語でClassical Chineseだ。でも今韓国で漢文はあまり使わない。私は中国古代の漢文を読めるけど韓国の漢文をちょっとちがいから勉強しなければいけない。これは漢文で書いてあるウィキペディアだ。
私は六月二十二日から七月二十四日まで韓国にいる予定だ。その時、韓国にもいおうと思っているひとがいるか？でも、私はソウルにいないつもりだ。私はソンナム(城南）しへいく。そこはソウルの近くのまちだ。
それから中国へ父と弟にあいにいく予定だ。私たちはいっしょうに黄山（こうざん）に登るつもりだ。黄山は中国の安徽省（あんきしょう：Anhui Province)で一番有名な山だ。その山はとても綺麗で人気がある。

私の思い出（わたしのおもいで）

春に私の高校のにわでさくらがたくさん開花した。でもこうこう四年生の時の前に毎年きれいな花が注目しなかった。だぶん、あの時に私は春のはなのいみがわからなかった。十六歳ぐらいの少年は落花の悲しさがわかる理由がなかった。

でも四年生のとしにさくらをみてからきもちがわるくならった。あのまえの夏に私は九歳にはじめて中国へかえった。あのなつに私はお爺さんと住んでいた。

お爺さんは学問がすごいひとだ。あの時、お爺さんは八十歳でも毎朝早く起きてから本を読んだり文章を書いたりした。私はお爺さんの静かな生活を変えた。昼ごはんをたべったときお爺さんといつも中国のバイチュウを一杯飲んだ。それから中国語の漢詩についてはなした。

あの時の前に中国の詩を読んだことがあっても、おぼえても漢詩のいみがぜんぜんわからなかった。

中国の詩にさくらがあまりなくても中国の詩人もはるのはなについて話した。漢詩にらっかが人生はみじかいとシンボライズする。毎日お爺さんの生活を見ていてとしを取っひとでも学生のわたしより頑張って勉強したと思いた。私は爺さんに聞いた。お爺さんは年をとった人も習うことがあると説いた。

アメリカへかえった時私のせいかつも変えた。それから頑張って勉強した。わたしのおもいではこうこうの庭にあるさくらをみてはじめてらっかのかなしさがわかった時だった。

伊勢の旅行

私は先週にちちやおとうとと日本へ行った。ニューヨークから東京まで十三時間がかかった。でも私たちは東京にと一日だけいた。あそこでなにへもしないた。じょっと残念だった。

東京の皇居（こきょ：Imperial Residence）へ入ってはいけませんが

皇居の庭にはいてもいい。でも、月曜日だったから庭がやすみた！

それから、飛行機とふねと電車で伊勢（いせ）へいった。私たちは伊勢の小さい町、鳥羽（とば）で遊びました。でもちちはまいにち会議（かいぎ）があったからあまり遊びられなかった。

鳥羽のうみがとてもきれなかった。

そして神社（じんじゃ）がたくさんあった。

鳥羽に水族館（すいぞくかん：Aquarium)がある。おもしろいどうぶつがたくさんあった。みんなさん、これをみたことがある？

伊勢の神社の中で伊勢神宮（いせじんぐう）が一番ようめいだ。伊勢神宮は二つのところだ。とても大きかった！

역사와 책임

지난 주에 프랑스의 경매 회사에 1860년에 청제국(淸帝國)의여름 행궁(行宮)에서 배앗은 청동기가 두 개 출현했다.  1860년에는 청국이 영국과 프렁스하고 제 이차 아편 전쟁(Second Opium War)중이었는데 함풍(咸豊)황제와 조정은 북경을 수비할 수 없었기 때문에 열하(熱河)로 도망갔다.  영국 군대의 수령 ( James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin; Lord Elgin)은 중국이 영국 포로를 고문한 것과 죽인 것에 대한 복수를 하기 위해서 처음에는 자금성 (紫禁城)을 약탈하고 방화하려고 하다가 그 대신에 여름 행궁을 파괴했다. 

당시는 청국의 행정 기관은 주로 자금성이 아니었고 황가 (皇家)의 주요한 거처가 와 정부 기관이 행궁에 있었다.  그래서 이 행궁의 파괴는 청국 정권에게 작은 손해가 결코 아니었다.  여름행궁의 여러 궁우 (宮宇)중에 제일 유명하던 것은 원명원(圓明園)이었다.  그 것은 건륭(乾隆)시기에 건조한 궁전으로서서양식 건축 양석과 중국과 만주 양석을 혼합하여 서양에 온 예수회 (Society of Jesus)의 건축사들이 설계하였다.  1860에 Lord Elgin의 명령하, 영국 군대가 원명원을 완전히 파괴하였다.  그 뿐만 아니라 황궁의 많은 보물이 그 때부터외국으로 유실되었다.  부전자전이라더니 Lord Elgin 의 아버지(Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine)는 그리스서에 Parthenon의  조각을 배앗던 사람이었다)

프fkd스의 경매 회사에 출현된 청동기는 즉 원명원의 보물이었다.  그 청동기는 하나가 토끼의 머리이고 하나가 쥐의 머리이다.   원래 원명원의 십이지의 두 개이었는데 남은 10 개가 중국의 Poly 박물관에 있다.  중국 정부가 중국에서 유실된 문물의 귀국을  주장하면서 이번 경매를 반대하기 때문데 프랑스 정부에게 이 번 경매를 금지해 시키라고 요구했다.  그런데 경매회사에 의하면 그 청둥기를 다른 사람에게  법적으로 구매해서 경매를 금지할 이유가 없다고 했다.  그리고 당시에 아무리 무리하게 얻었지만 Lord Elgin의 죄가 경매 회사의 책임이 아니다고 했다.  

그렇지만 많은 중국 사람들이 화소원명원(火燒圓明園)이라는 사건은 아직 국치(國恥)로 간주하고 있다.  인터넷의 어느 조사에 의하면 89%이상의 사람은 그 청동기가 중국의 국보이기 때문에  직접 중국으로 귀환해야하고 경매를 반대하는다고 했다.  8%만 그 경매가 합리되니까 금지도 못하다고 했다. 물론 이 조사는 잠석한 사람의 국가를 화긴할수 없기 때문에 중국 사람밖에 그렇게 생각하지 않는 것이 아닌 가능성도 있다. 그래도 중국사람은 국치를 중시한 역사적인 기억을 갖고 있는 것을 충분히 보이는다.

문제의 하나는 기억이다.   기억이 헷갈리면 안 되고 너무 민감하면 문제도 생길 수 있다.  서양국가의 박물관에 다른 나라에서 온 문물이 몇 가지만 있기는 것이 아니다.  그리고 중국에서 온 것만 아니고 국치라는 것을 갓고 있는 나라 중에 중국은 하나만 이다.  역사를 길게 보면 보물을 약탈한 적이 있는 국가는 19에 서양나라만 아니었다.  그리고 역사적인 죄악이나 포악중에서 문물의 약탈과 궁궐의 방화는 별로 심하지 않았다.  죄를 끝까지 추구(追究)하면 죄가 없는 국가가 없을 것이다.  

그런데 국가와 개인의 관계가 무엇인가?  물론 Lord Elgin이 영제국을 대표해면서 한 일은 영국은 책임이 있었지만 지금도 갖고 있는가?  언제까지 이런 책임을 갖일 수 있는가?  예를들면 중국인은 1966-1976때의 문화대혁명 (文化大革命)시기에 Tibet에서 한 일의 책임을 떠말지않았다.  원인의 하나는 중국 논담에 그 역사에 대한 지식이 없고 다른 원인은 당시 정권을 갖고 있던 사람이  지금의 영도인이지 아니라도 또같은 중국 공산당이다.  

그런데 그 청동기 두 개에 대한 이야기가 twist가 하나 있다.  South China Morning Post 의 기사 "Ransacking History in the Name of Nationalism"에 의하면 그 청동기들을 배앗은 사람은 Lord Elgin이 아니었다.  도광 (道光; 함풍 전의 아버지) 황제의 황후가 이 청동기 12 개를 너무 싫어하더니  숨겨해 시켰다.  그래서 당시 원명원을 파괴하고 나서 중국 약탈자가 배앗은 가능성도 있었다.

蘇州市の拙政園

これはわたしが２００７ねんに中国へ行ったりょこうの時にとったしゃしんだ。中国の蘇州市（そしゅうし）でとった。蘇州市は上海（シャンハイ）のちかくにある町だ。人口（じんこう:population)が２３３まんぐらいだけと中国の町であまり大きくない。

蘇州市は園林（えんりん：Chinese style gardens)いちばんゆうめいだ。このしゃしんは蘇州市いちばん大きい園林、拙政園（せつせいえん）でとった。拙政園のいみ（Meaning）は拙劣な政治人（せつれつなせいじじん awkward/clumsy official)の園林だ。えいごでGarden of the Humble Administrator)

しゃしんは三月にとってからきのうえははながない。園林の四月は三月よりきれいだ。あの時にはながたくさんある。なつもけいれいけどあたたかい。
しゃしんのうしろのたかい塔（とう：Pagoda）をみる？しかし、あの塔は園林の中じゃない！中国人は借景（しゃっけい）だといい。借景のいみはかりたふうけいだ。おもしろいね？