requestId:68753c2f4a2434.93724274.
Triple differences in the order of the Money-Mu
Author: Ren Yan Du Lihao
Source: Author Author Authorized by Confucian Network, Original from “Confucian Research” No. 6, 2024
Abstract: The Empire is the main reflective topic of Money-Mu
Abstract. He proposed disagreements on the empire on three levels. First of all, it is a historical perspective. Mo Mu opposed the use of imperial to refer to traditional China. He combined historical retelling to distinguish the differences between the Eastern Empire and the Chinese nation in the state of a country. The second is the theoretical perspective. Money understands the national situation problems in a unified perspective, replaces the dichotomy of empire and ethnic nations in a unified and multi-state order, and tries to provide a comparative framework that dispels the central doctrine of the East. Finally, on the world level, Mo Mu proposed a nationalist strategy. On the one hand, he should contemplate the crisis of nationality and civilization in China, and think about the reconstruction of a large country. On the other hand, he asked for the imperial era beyond world politics to establish real conditions for the rebirth of the whole country. The three interact with each other, wearing a large-scale logic that opposes the empire and replaces arrangements with harmony, forming an anti-imperialist theory that is more systematic, providing unhelpful reference for the current beyond the empire myth.
Keywords: Empire, National Nationality, National Money Mu
Author: Ren Jing, Ph.D. in Humanities, professor and doctoral supervisor of the Institute of International Relations of the Chinese National Studies, the purpose of the important seminar is to Chinese political tradition and historical politics; Du Lihao, a doctoral student of the Institute of International Relations of the Chinese National Studies, the purpose of the important seminar is to history of political thinking, political theory, and world politics.
In recent years, the empire has become a new trend in the research and development of the domestic academic community, and the so-called “Emperor of China” has caused even more enthusiasm. Especially the new Qing historian Ou Tingde published “Is Traditional China an Empire?” Since the article 》, [1] this problem has gained widespread attention from scholars in history, philosophy, law, politics and international relations, but existing discussions often fall into the branches and scatter. This is because the problem of “Empire of China” is not just a naming problem that refers to traditional China by empire, but includes three myths: first, it is the determination of the national form of history, that is, how should we understand the national form of modern China, especially how to put it in the perspective of global history and relatively civilized civilization to understand? Can the imperial paradigm win over this mission? The second is the establishment of the way to establish a modern China, that is, can China’s modern path be engraved as an ancient and modern transformation from the empire to the ethnic country? If the binary framework and linear evolution are not sufficient, how should we understand the inauguration process of modern China? Finally, there is the supply of world political lens resources. Under the ideological landscape of “rethinking China”, the whole country has developed vitality from the perspective of contemporary times. But domestic students take it for two opposite purposesImperialization: First, suppress the national community as knowledge of nature, and then absorb it into the imperial system. [2] Second, recognize the general temperament of the country in the field of civilization theory, but also to empire its universal empire. [3] Considering that world politics has not yet truly entered the imperial era, how can the empire-made nation make a contribution to building a new order of fantasy world? If we want to go to the imperial spirit, how should it be expanded at the moment? This is a problem that the nation’s rebirth cannot avoid. The three layers of intercourse are connected to each other and cooperate with the complete meaning of the myth of the Empire. Moreover, this myth cannot be solved in isolation at each level and then combined as the overall foundation. Instead, it must be countered with systematic thinking, otherwise it will separate the internal relationship between the divergence levels, and at the same time it will also eliminate the internal relationship between historical China, modern China and world politics.
As the main reflective topic of his learning, Mo Mu’s thoughts on the empire cover the above three aspects and form a more integrated statement, or perhaps it can be used to inspire the myths of the empire.
1. Dedication to the history of dedication: the correction of the “Chinese Empire Discussion”
The practice of using the empire to refer to the modern Chinese dynasty has long been seen in the civil history community. Among them, although Mo Mu made the faces of critics of the “Chinese Empire” clear to contemporary scholars, his understanding of the empire was not clear from beginning to end and correct, but included two aspects of common and change: the former refers to his Qin and Hanzhong<a The comparison between the country and the Roman Empire was the same in his life works, but there was no fundamental change in the most basic nature. The latter said that he once called the Western Zhou Dynasty a "feudal empire". Later, through constant reflection and revision, it slowly merged with the non-imperial Chinese theories after Qin and Han.
No way to see the unchanging side first. As early as the quotation of “National History”, Yu Mu compared Qin and Han and Roma, and took a step further in the later works such as “A Briefing of the History of Chinese Civilization” and “Blind Words in Late School”. In his opinion, there are differences in the state of the two, which is important in three aspects:
First of all, there is the difference between external clothing and centripetal condensation. Mo Mu pointed out, “Roma stretches its strength in all four circles with one central part. Europe, Asia, and other countries are not in the three continents, and are governed by the strength of one central part. … The Qin and Han are united in a unified state, and do not use the power of one central part to subdue the surrounding area. In fact, the outstanding strength of the four central part is coordinated to form a center. … The so-called excellent strength is often spread from the whole society without being restricted. , lively transformation. Therefore, his mission of building a country was in the center, not the surrounding area. “[4] In his opinion, the founding of Rome extended its power outward with one central unit, subdued the four sides and strengthened the rule. Thus, the process of expanding the space from the middle to the four sides, and building the process of political control system between the four sides was needed. Therefore, it was necessary to start with force; but the founding of Qin and Han was the center of the four sides., the middle combines the four directions, and the four directions continue to “centerally condense”. [5] Mo Mu placed the latter in the social growth and academic thinking evolution of the noble tribe and common people below the late Zhou Dynasty. He believed that the reason why Qin and Han were able to create a large country was not the result of pure politics or military struggle, but the intention of adapting civilization evolution was to guide the four regions and people gathered in the central group and cooperated with the influence and gathered under the unified civilization system. Therefore, its spatial promotion and expansion process shows a unique appearance with the imperial form.
The second is the difference between the differentiated and decomposition of the bodyto keep a monthly price. Mo Mu believed that Roma was accomplished by patronizing, so the opposition between those who were patronized and those who were patronized in a strong manner, and the different ethnic groups could not consolidate differences and build a nation together; in the near future, there was no level of division between the common people and the noble race, and the situation and society were also opposed, and it was not impossible to form a body, which led to the dispersal trend within the empire. During the Han Dynasty, China not only completed the basic foundation of national integration and national integration, but also combined the answers and discussions between the Central and the Four-way Association. Participants – Jiabin Hehe, the two levels of common people and noble tribes have gradually melted from opposition. The development of the system has further opened up the channels between the authorities and society, and the authorities and the people can contact each other in one go. In “A Brief Discussion on the History of Chinese Civilization”, Mohist also judged Roma and Qin Han by the Empire and the Nation, pointing out that “the Eastern habits called Roma the Empire. If China in Han Dynasty decided not to be called one country.” [6] In “Blind Words in the Evening School”, he even used a one-piece expression to understand the difference between the two. Money criticized the Roman Empire for “everyone has their own lives, but they are not unified, and they cannot be integrated into one body”, so they cannot be calle TC:
發佈留言