Image Credit: Max Xiong
by Zuo Hancheng
Read the Faculty Introduction.
At my high school in Shanghai, many teachers and students accused those who celebrated Western festivals, like Christmas, of threatening traditional Chinese culture. In classes and public speeches, they would constantly discourage students from taking part in such celebrations. They seemed to assume that the “cultural invasion” from the West is overwhelming our own cultural elements that have been passed on from generation to generation. From their perspective, celebrating Western festivals not only misguides young Chinese people towards uncontrolled consumerism and excessive entertainment, but also makes them gradually lose their sense of traditional Chinese virtues, especially filial piety.
Despite my studying at the culturally diverse New York University Shanghai, as a Chinese citizen, it is still difficult for me to ignore anti-Western culture demonstrations claiming to be protecting the cultural authenticity of the Chinese nation, especially when considering my previous experience in high school. In my view, the anti-Western movement has a noticeably negative influence in China.
However, during the celebration of the Mid-Autumn Festival at NYU Shanghai, I saw none of our international students holding cards with slogans and boycotting that Chinese festival. Why should traditional Chinese students boycott cross-cultural festivals when international students at NYU Shanghai are embracing them, enjoying mooncakes (月饼) and learning calligraphy at cultural exchange events offered by the Chinese Language Program? Are Western festivals necessarily a threat to our national culture? Does the protection of our national culture require opposition to the introduction of elements of other cultures? Or would these students’ claims only reflect what James Rachels, an American ethical philosopher, calls “the prejudices of our society” (35)?
After explaining the “serious shortcomings” of cultural relativism, in “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” Rachels turns to its “genuine insight” (35). Although we “have learned to reject […]some types of conduct,” chances are “there is nothing evil about” them, and our previous judgments may “reflect the prejudices of our society” (35). Indeed, western festivals are the elements from another culture, but that does not necessarily mean that they are “evil[s]” that would threaten the survival of our own culture (35). One may dress as a Santa Claus on Christmas, but that would not hinder him or her from following the traditions of our culture, including wearing hanfu on Spring Festival, drinking xionghuang (雄黄酒) during the Dragon-boat Festival (端午), or making mooncakes on Mid-Autumn Festival.
Moreover, considering the fact that Spring Festival is also used for shopping carnivals, Western festivals do not necessarily have more consumerist characteristics than Chinese ones. Even if Western festivals are no longer celebrated, young Chinese people would still create festivals like double-eleven (November 11th) to satisfy their hunger for shopping and entertainment. Therefore, Western culture may not be entirely to blame for the “evil” of over-consumerism and over-entertainment, and such phenomena may well be the result of the high-pressure lifestyle of the young population.
From my perspective, a Chinese citizen should not be condemned for celebrating Western festivals, since exchanges with cultures that are different from one’s own not only are not harmful to one’s own culture – at least not when negative factors in the process of such exchanges are avoided – but also may facilitate the further development of it.
In “The Politics of Recognition,” Charles Taylor, a Canadian political philosopher, develops the concept of “dialogicality,” which refers to the state of being in constant dialogue with one’s culture and society (34). This, from my perspective, plays a significant role in keeping the elements of a culture that would be helpful for future development of its people (and others as well, probably) vital and alive. He explains how “[our] identity crucially depends on [our] dialogical relations with others” (34). Indeed, Taylor’s text is a rich and instructive one, and his idea also gives me insight into the dynamicity of culture. The identity of individuals is constantly shaped by “interaction with others,” and that is also the case for other cultures. Since, as philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah suggests, we live in “a single web of trade and a global network of information” (87), it is inevitable we will engage in dialogue with other cultures; otherwise we may perhaps gradually adopt attitudes of isolationism, which has historically brought a series of tragedies to China.
Indeed, some may argue that conflicts or other undesirable incidents might occur during such dialogues, and I do admit that many individuals have abandoned their own culture wholesale due to consumerist propaganda. But from my perspective, preserving one’s own culture and celebrating others’ are not conflicting with, or exclusive to each other. I believe that as long as one is preserving and protecting these inspiring values and educational practices in his or her culture, dialogue with other cultures would definitely facilitate the further development of one’s own. As the Chinese saying goes, “the jade may be refined from stones coming from other hills” (他山之石，可以攻玉). For instance, Buddhism originated in India, but no one would deny that many Buddhist festivals, like the birthday of Buddha, are now among the most important traditional Chinese festivals. Besides, according to Bellenir’s “Confucian Today,” the “Zen style of meditation” actually promoted the formation of the School of Mind (心学) founded by Wang Yangming (王阳明), a school of Neo-Confucianism. If we refuse to engage in dialogue with other cultures, our own culture may not prosper as well.
Dialogue among cultures is important to their past, present and future vitalities. So are the values underlying cultures that facilitate such cultural exchange. In addition to the many concrete examples of cultural practices mentioned above, I would like to introduce a more abstract definition of culture, that is, as a “set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization” (Merriam-Webster, emphasis mine). We might consider values and attitudes to be the very foundation of cultures. Therefore, one who wants to keep a culture vital should prioritize the vitalization of its values and attitudes that are sure to facilitate the overall development in the predictable future. Otherwise, other aspects of culture, including customs and traditions, as the expressions of certain values and attitudes and in nature, would collapse as well. You rong nai da (有容乃大), which means tolerance and open-mindedness, as a form of expression of the word ren (仁) at a universal level, is a value or attitude that is not only a part of the very basis of Chinese culture today, but also gives us insight in the very idea of cosmopolitanism, or global citizenship.
In “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,” Martha Nussbaum argues that extreme “Bande Mataram,” which means “Hail motherland” in English, would “bring a curse” to one’s motherland (1). She then illustrates the benefits of cosmopolitan education to a nation: “The defense of shared national values […] requires appealing to certain basic features of human personhood that obviously also transcend national boundaries. So if we fail to educate these children to cross these boundaries in their minds and imagination, we are tacitly giving them the message that we do not mean what we say” (Nussbaum 8). From one perspective, the rejection of dialogue among cultures is the equivalent that we have abandoned the national values that advocate such dialogues.
In China, particularly, if students are told that they should boycott certain cultural practices merely because they originate from a foreign land and that they should refuse to support the dialogues between our culture and other cultures, they would begin to doubt the credibility of the educators who taught openness and tolerance. Moreover, the fact is that Chinese culture itself consists of different ethnic groups, and the unity among them has been heavily dependent on the conversations happening between them. The refusal of many Chinese nationalists to hold dialogues between cultures “subverts […] even the values that hold a nation together,” thus destroying almost everything they claim they are protecting (Nussbaum 2). In addition, if those values have been undermined, then the ways of expression, including etiquette, architecture, and dress, will probably disappear as well. If you take a close look at the hanfu many Chinese nationalists wear, it is easy to find parts of the dress that are not made of silk. In other words, their dress code does not reflect the “Chineseness” they advocate at all!
From my perspective, the key to keep traditional Chinese culture vital is to maintain its connections to the past and prepare it for future challenges. For example, Sun Zhongshan joined the traditional Chinese clothing style with the Western suit to create the Zhongshan suit (Wu). As Wu states, “The Zhongshan suit has strong symbolic meanings according to Sun Zhongshan’s design concept of the Republic of China. The four pockets represent four virtues (benevolence, loyalty, probity and shame), the five bigger buttons symbolize the separation of five powers (administration, legislation, jurisdiction, examination and supervision)” (Wu). By combining Chinese virtues with Western political concepts, Chinese clothes with Western styles, Sun Zhongshan rejuvenated traditional Chinese values to facilitate the democratization of China.
By pointing out the importance of the vitality of a culture I am not making a cultural essentialist argument, but am struggling to preserve the cultural elements that are beneficial or useful for future development. Consider the fact that culture is so dynamic that it may seem to be hardly possible for anyone to safely conclude what exactly is its foundation or authentic identity. Boycotting Western culture would not promote the prosperity of traditional Chinese culture. Instead, such an unconsidered movement would perhaps undermine some of its elements that are valuable for the progress of future development. It is the dialogues between cultures that keep a culture vital and alive.
As a matter of fact, Chinese culture is now expanding through cultural exchange right here at NYU Shanghai. Every year, the NYU Shanghai Chinese Language Program, an academic initiative aiming at equipping international students with Chinese linguistic skills and basic knowledge about Chinese culture, holds events on Chinese festivals, including Mid-Autumn Festival and Lantern Festival. During these events, mooncakes and dumplings are provided, calligraphy is taught, and traditional games are played. Besides that, NYU Shanghai has already opened several Chinese Arts Classes, where international students can learn Chinese Calligraphy, traditional Chinese Painting, and traditional Chinese instruments like erhu (二胡).
In the meantime, Confucian Academies around the globe are also promoting traditional Chinese customs and virtues overseas. A Chinese citizen would not regard this as a cultural invasion, would she?
Works Cited
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. “Education for Global Citizenship.” Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2008, 83-99.
“Culture.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Accessed 28 Nov. 2015.
Bellenir, Karen. “Confucianism Today.” Religious Holidays & Calendars. Omnigraphics, Inc., 2004. Credo Reference. Accessed 28 Nov. 2015.
Nussbaum, Martha. “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism.” The Boston Review. 1 Oct. 1994. Accessed 28 Nov. 2015.
Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill Inc., 1999, 20-36.
Taylor, Charles. “The Politics of Recognition,” in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton UP, 1994, 25-44.
Wu, Annie. “Traditional Chinese Clothes – Tang Suit, Qibao, Zhongshan Suit.” Chinahighlights, Accessed 2 Feb. 2017.