Twenty-three: Confucius will be my Epitaph

I wrote this last time I was in China -- in 2006. It seems to fit with the other pieces I have written on this more recent trip so I reuse it here

Confucius will be my Epitaph

King Crimson

would be my epigraph!

or Walt Whitman:

Do I contradict myself?


Very well then I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

– Song of Myself

A student in the audience put up his hand and asked me what the essence of American identity was. He had somewhat missed the point of my lecture, which had argued that there was no single essence. But, he thought, culture must have its particular essence. “For example,” he said, “in China, the essence of our culture is Confucius. We are all bound together by this philosophy.”

I had two answers in my head when he said this. One was to accept what he said about China and the Chinese and just reiterate the points that I had made about the United States, where, I maintained, there were things – events, perceived threats, experiences, social development, etc. – that might lead Americans to come together around certain beliefs, but that these are not trans-historical and they are subject to change as different things – events, perceived threats, etc – lead the country and the American people in more diverse and/or different directions.

The other response, though, would have been to gesture towards what in a way I was trying to do in my lecture. For, while I was talking about the United States and American identity, I had one eye on getting the members of my audience, about 150 Chinese undergraduate and graduate students at a prestigious university, to wonder about their own identity, and whether in fact it is reducible to any one thing. I am hoping my point got across to some of the audience, it clearly had not done so in the case of this student, though I am thinking that his need to reiterate “the essence” of Chinese culture was in itself a grappling with the confusion that derived from wondering about another society where there, at least according to this guest lecturer, there might be no such essence.


And, if I had taken this question head on – and if I had had the time available to me (this question had come at the end of a long session) – then I would have turned to Barbara J. Fields and I would have been off to the races. Why Fields? People may no longer remember an excellent essay she wrote in Festschrift for C. Vann Woodward, an essay that is most definitely Fields’ legacy to the study of the American South and American history generally (“Ideology and Race in American History,” in J. Morgan Kousser and James M. McPherson, eds., Region, Race and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward, Oxford, 1982: 143-177). The essay was one that built on Woodward’s assault on the notion that race and racism ought to be the organizing principles on which the study of the American South should be based, and his lifelong endeavor to establish a non-Marxian class analysis in its place. Fields analyzed this difference in detail and endeavored to show that ideology was a more complex set of ideas than those who talked about race understood, and that it was therefore impossible to reduce the history of the U.S. South to a single notion like race.

One of the things that Fields did, which would have come in so handy for me as I was standing in that lecture hall, was to talk about ideology as comprising a hierarchy of ideas and values that people believed in, a hierarchy that was subject to change under different social conditions. So racism on its own could not comprise an entire ideology, although there might be a racist ideology, one that brought together a set of ideas, the fundamental weight of which was determined by racial prejudice. But racial prejudice would be one part of the ideology and it would be modified by other factors, so that in certain conditions these other factors might cause people to act seemingly in opposition to their prejudice.

One might think, then, of two different communities in the American South that might look almost identical with the same members of the communities holding the same set of beliefs and sharing an ideology comprised of the same elements – let’s say, gender beliefs, class practices, racial prejudice, regional norms, relations to the means of production, religion.

In one community this sets of beliefs might be ordered (in terms of importance) in one way, while the other they might be organized differently, thus:

Community A                                                 Community B

racial prejudice                                                     religion

     |                                                                           |

gender beliefs                                                  gender beliefs

     |                                                                           |

class practices                                                  class practices

     |                                                                           |

regional norms                                      relations to means of production

     |                                                                           |

relations to means of production                     regional norms

     |                                                                           |

religion                                                           racial prejudice

A certain set of events that happened to Community A, let’s imagine, led racial prejudice to be heightened. A high level of tension surrounding the sexual relations between a white women and a black man led to a lynching and racialism became the order of the day. In Community B, where they had heard of these events in A but had not experienced anything similar, they happened to be going through a religious revival of sorts, and while the churches were strictly segregated, there was some on-going charitable work being undertaken by the white churches on behalf of the black. Community C, meanwhile, was witnessing the squeezing of both black and white farmers by the wealthy landowners and merchants, who were coming together to fight the elite politically. 

As one can tell, with the same elements, one can write many (his or her) stories.

Let us jump back to the would-be present, if you will, in China.

In this classroom, I turn to the blackboard, grab my chalk, and ask my class what are the elements of Chinese identity that they have witnessed or learned about in their schooling. I would perhaps coax this out of them. I would say: “Obviously, Confucius, would be one, right?” Nods, all round. “Well, can we add Chairman Mao and Maoism to the list?” Fewer nods, but after a few students who may belong to the Party assert themselves there is general agreement that he and his philosophy should be added. “Well, does that mean we can also add Marx?” Less certainty here, because while the students have all been required to take classes in Marx, they have, simply because the course is required, seen the course more as a chore and have not really learned all their lessons as well as one might have wished – speaking purely as a teacher, of course! But, since this is a required part of their curriculum, they are willing to give this to me. I rush to the board and put it up there before they can stop me. 

Now I say to them, “Well, I have talked to a lot of different students while I have been here, and I have noticed that some have grown up in the city all their lives, while others have come to university and for the first time have just left their small villages. Can I then suggest that we put up a category ‘urban/rural’ to add to our list? Two students, who just the previous day have had a heated discussion between themselves but in my presence about the relative benefits of rural and urban living, smile and assert that yes, indeed, this should be included. 

Then, I push yet another gambit. “How about regional differences? I have talked to different students and some extol the virtues of the South over the north, some have looked askance at the northeast and have suggested that they want to go live in the southwest. What’s going on here? Can we include regional variation on our list?” Yes, yes, yes, I hear. 

“OK, well are there more than just regional variations here? Are there different ethnic types in these regions, so that perhaps we could have a category of ethnicity?” Mmmm, less certainty here.  As I am speaking, I am thinking of a recent work by Dru Gladney, called Dislocating China, and, of course, there is Homi Bhabha’s Location of Culture that provides the theoretical underpinning for the work on China.*** Gladney’s work interrogates the notion of a single Chinese identity by looking at the Muslims and other ethnic minorities that inhabit the country. “Well, ok,” I continue, “I know that there are so-called minority populations in different locations, so shouldn’t we include something that allows us to register them in our hierarchy? I mean, perhaps, some people who have lived near these groups have a different feeling about them, than those people who have had no interaction with them. Perhaps, too, there are fundamentals between people in the mainstream and these people.” Oh, alright, if you insist, my audience seems to suggest.  Hey, I’m getting good at this, I say to myself; this is a lot of fun.

“OK, you’ve given me a lot so far, and you have given me Confucius at the outset, but are all Chinese practicing the beliefs and philosophy of Confucius? What about the religious practices of Tibetans, for example? Are there no Muslims and Christians in China? Didn’t I just hear that people were being instructed by Party officials to watch out for Christian evangelicals selling their wares – sorry, I am being facetious, I mean promoting their religion, of course?” Mmmm, perplexed looks. “Do Chinese Christians fit within Confucianism?” More such looks. “Oh, alright, let’s move on. “

“How about wealth? We are in a Communist society, after all, but is everyone earning the same from the same kind of work? Clearly not. You students here seem to be better heeled – sorry that’s an old English expression, meaning wealthy – than the people operating the elevators or standing by the door dressed in traditional garb to welcome customers to a restaurant. It seems to me that there is less division in this country than elsewhere perhaps, and certainly less poverty in the city than in most I have been to, but there must be some kind of status division and tensions over these, so shouldn’t a category that reflects these be added to our list. What do you think?” There seems to be growing tension here from some who feel less comfortable about where this is going. I write “status” up on the board anyway.

“And surely there are other things we might consider. How many of you,” I say, “have relatives or friends who are living abroad?” A surprising number put up their hands. “OK, call out some of the places where these people are. “England, and they don’t like it.” “Oh, ok,” I smile. “Denver, Colorado.”  “Paris.”  “Toronto.”  “Algiers.”  “Wow!” I say, “I never thought that that country would be included.” And the list continues with a number of surprises, and every continent on the globe included. “Well,” I say, “how does your interaction with those people and your knowledge about their experiences make you different from someone who hasn’t had those interactions and experiences or has had them with other people who have visited other places? And, if and when they return do they act differently from those who remained in China?” “Well I don’t ever want to go abroad,” one of them yells. Another says more quietly, “I’d like to visit Canada, I’ve heard it’s a pretty nice place.”

I opt at this stage not to talk about party affiliation, and not to return to Marx and Mao, as I feel that this might complicate matters as we move down the direction of globalization. Instead, I say to them, “Well, the Olympics is coming to the United States, and it is bringing in its train even more globalization than before. Do you think that is going to affect everyone in this room the same? If not, can we include globalization as one of the elements we need to take into consideration as we consider Chinese identity?” General assent.

“Well, this board is pretty much covered, isn’t it?” I seem to have scribbled all over it. “Is there anything else that we might want to consider?” One young woman who had been looking a bit disgruntled said,“You haven’t even mentioned gender. Haven’t you even noticed that 70 percent of the students sitting in this room are women?” I look knowingly, and say that indeed I had noticed this, otherwise how would I have been able to put these thoughts into her head since she is my invented character – and being rude to a professor is un-Chinse also, I suggest, reaching for some irony! “However,” I say, “I was waiting for someone to mention it, and I am very glad that you did so. “Oh,” she says, and she looks much happier now.

I then begin to play with all the categories ordering them in different ways to suggest that there might be alternative identities that could emerge within China. Following up on the student’s intervention, I suggest that gender may be an important aspect of identity to focus on. “For,” I say, “do not Maoism and Confucianism have conflicting views of the roles of women in society -- while Mao tends in the direction of equality, Confucius tends towards a stricter hierarchy with women subordinate to men? Perhaps it is the case, then, that the greater the degree of equality between men and women, the greater the felt need to turn to Confucius, in order to compensate men (at least rhetorically) for the loss of real status. As such, the rapidity of change occurring in modern China, the pushing towards greater social equality between the sexes in a crucible of globalization, may be leading to a new emphasis on Confucius. But if this is the case the other elements on the hierarchy of identities (as we are now describing it) makes this Confucianism qualitatively and substantively different from an earlier form – even while the outward appearance is the same.” 

“So, then,” I say, looking distinctly pleased with myself, “what is it that is the essence of being Chinese? Is this really always the same? Does it unite you with someone living in Chinatown in Toronto, or suburban Detroit, or Algiers, or Paris, or Bangkok? What does Mao have to say about Confucius? Shouldn’t the essence here be Communism? Is the essence as you say really Confucius? Is everybody confused yet? I hope so, because that is how you need to be. Welcome to modernity. May you enjoy the ride!  Or to quote from King Crimson:

            Confusion

            will be my epitaph.

            If we can make it,

            we can sit back and laugh.

            But I fear tomorrow

            I’ll be crying,

            Cryyyyyyy-ing……”

***Dru C. Gladney, Dislocating China: Reflections on Muslims, Minorities and Other Subaltern Subjects (London: Hurst & Co., 2004); Homi K. Bhabha, Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994).