First published in The Paper "Thought Market", June 21, 2020.
"The myth of the founding of the nation" may be the most explicit and easiest to see through, but it is also one of the oldest ideological operations: far from the "Han Gaozu cut the white snake" and the Eastern Han Dynasty's theory of prophecy, and near the "Washington cherry tree", this The quasi-political power subjects made mythological beautification narratives of historical events and characters in their initial period, and there are so many historical examples; so that people are accustomed to being widely "fascinated" and lost the sacredness that they originally depended on for survival. The ideological "nation-building myth" generally has two possibilities: a universal historical narrative, which continues to spread in the form of "historical truth", and the mythology degenerates into "empirical" scientificity in the subconscious process, carefully constructed The signifier steals the signified; the other is reduced to a laughing stock due to its own logical defect or changes in the social environment. Not only does it lose its mythology, it becomes a self-destruction of the original ideology.
But no matter what kind of imprint these nation-building myths can leave in history, the above is a kind of late "historical hermeneutics"-the purpose of being constructed is to clarify the need for hermeneutics of why history develops in such a way. After the event of "building a country" is completed, the main body of power will use this to prove the rationality and inevitability of its success. Therefore, the "hermeneutics"-style nation-building myths are generally serious historical narratives: it uses specific historical figures as individual objects, with "historical positivism" as the core logical foundation, and attempts to adopt a "documentary literature" of history. "Sexual writing to build the legitimacy of power-power attempts to reshape the historical events of power seizures into historical sciences that can be widely respected.
At the same time, however, there is another level of "nation-building mythology" that is always hidden under the water-the "justification" nature of the country-building mythology, which can be called "rectification of names" in the Chinese context. The difference between this kind of myth is that it creates an idealistic model of "first mover" rather than late mover, non-historical but futuristic; more importantly, the producers of these "justified" national myths. , By no means those who hold power: because most of the time, the establishment of a "justified" myth is built to change rather than consolidate the original establishment and ideology-we will follow George Freud's Death and the musical "Hamilton" discusses a reconstruction of the myth of the founding of the United States-but before discussing this "non-historical" topic, we still have to start with history.
Zhou Wang is gone, but Zhou Li is new?
In the nearly two thousand years of Confucian studies since the dominance of Confucianism in the Han Dynasty, the problem that has not been circumvented is the uncertainty of the "classical text". The problem before Confucian scholars of the past dynasties is that if Confucianism is to be customized as a "national religion", an orthodox national ideology, there must be a regular, unified, logically self-consistent, and well-structured "classical text." The Western Han Dynasty established the "Doctor of the Five Classics" and established the "Yi", "Book", "Poetry", "Rite" and "Chunqiu" as the "Five Classics"-but experienced the burning of books and Confucianism and the wars of Qin and Han, "Modern Classics" and "Ancient Classics" The dispute completely obscured the sanctity of the "classical text": whether it was passed down through generations of teaching and the "Jinwen Jing" dictated by a doctor of Confucianism is more in line with the original text, or was it the "Guwen Jing" that was later excavated from the underground wall of the courtyard. Is it the classic original appearance? In the era of lack of archaeological means and awareness, this problem is almost impossible to solve through "empirical evidence."
The "Rite" in the Five Classics was a mess at the time. The "Ritual" originally dictated by Dr. Jinbun was considered to be written by Confucius based on the Zhou Dynasty's etiquette system. It has been passed down through the generations and became one of the national classic "Five Classics". However, at the end of the Western Han Dynasty, the scholars Liu Xiang, Liu Xin and his son suddenly proposed that they discovered the book "Zhou Li" that "out of the mountain and rock house wall and reintegrated into the secret mansion, the Confucianism of the Five Schools cannot be seen." The classics left by Gong Zhou himself were sorted out and recorded. They also pointed out that the style of the book "Zhou Li" is divided into six sense organs: "Heaven, Earth, Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter", and the manuscript they found is missing "winter official". According to the style, they learned that "winter official" involves handwork The official system of the manufacturing industry was supplemented by the official handicraft book "Kaogongji" handed down by Qi. Even from the current perspective, the introduction of "Zhou Li" by Liu Xiang, Liu Xin and his sons can be regarded as reasonable, and even the lack of "winter official" is quite "true", which seems to reflect this book from the opposite side. Not forgery. Soon after Wang Mang usurped power and seized the throne, he began to "reform the ancient ways." The detailed record of the minefield system in "Zhou Li" became an important historical basis for Wang Mang's reform. Therefore, the status of "Zhou Li" soared to become an "Ancient Scripture", relying on political power to begin to gain sacredness. The infringement of the classic status eventually became one of the "Thirteen Classics" in the Southern Song Dynasty.
It is said that the "Zhou Li" excavated from the "Mountain Rock House Wall", if it was really made by Zhou Gong, would be 800 years old when it was discovered by the Lius and his sons-but this book has never been recorded in the pre-Qin period. Appeared. Therefore, "Zhou Li" was inevitably attacked by the "Jinwen" school, and it was once considered a "false book". However, in the study of Confucian classics in the past two thousand years, most Confucian scholars still believed in its historical authenticity for various reasons. Made by Zhou Gong. The seemingly "blind faith" judgment of the scholars has been partially supported in today's archaeological research: with the contemporary reading and textual research on the unearthed inscriptions, it has been confirmed that "Zhou Li" does contain a lot of primitive Western Zhou Dynasty. Historical data-that is to say, although from the textual research of the writing process, "Zhou Li" could not be written by Zhou Gong himself, but by scholars in the late Warring States period and even the early Western Han Dynasty, the "Zhou Li" did have a large number of The historical materials handed down are for reference.
Why is the classicity of "Zhou Li" of "wrong origin" maintained, from the father and son of Liu family, to Zheng Xuan, the master of classics, to "Siku Abstract" and then to "Zhou Li Zhengyi"? "Have you been stuck for a long time?" One of the main reasons is that compared with "Rituals", "Zhou Li" is obviously more complete and rich, with exquisite structure. It really shows a perfect picture of Zhou Dynasty system in all aspects and without omission. The administrative divisions of the Zhou dynasty in "Zhou Li" are very neat. The capitals established on the "earth" are divided into "Nine Ji", and nine concentric circles are built with a radius of 500 li; and there are six "townships" outside the capital. ", each has five levels: state, party, clan, lu, and bi; besides six townships, there are six "suburbs", and each is divided into five levels: neighbor, li, 酂, mi, and county. The well-field system recorded in "Zhou Li" almost divides all the land in the world into "well fields" of similar area, equal size, and consistent structure. The corresponding official system is divided into six officials of "world spring, summer, autumn and winter". There are parallel five elements of "golden, wood, water, fire, earth" in the specific level of each official...Speaking of which, the answer is ready to come out: Are the etiquette systems, administrative divisions and official systems of the Zhou Dynasty recorded in "Zhou Li" true ? Given the level of social development at that time, it was unlikely. But is it perfect in terms of structural establishment? Yes, it not only has a sense of beauty in structure, but also combines the Confucian ideals of governing the country with the grace of form: "Zhou Li" can be compared with Plato's "Ideal State" in terms of ideality and aesthetic value; in terms of structure and system On the basis of the construction, it can even be compared with Hegel's philosophical system-it is probably impossible to be the current historical situation when the Western Zhou Dynasty was first established, but it is almost a set of idealized ancient Chinese "worldview design books": no wonder Wang Mang and even later generations of Confucian scholars love Zhou Li. This is the perfect temptation of Confucianism's ideal of "self-cultivation and governance of the country, peace of the world".
We can imagine such a picture: a group of Confucian scholars in the late Warring States period collected fragments of books passed down from the Zhou royal family from various places, and with the ideal of governing the country, they began to construct with the mentality of "creation". In fact, it has never been so in history. The "Zhou Li" that has appeared in a complete structure: only by exhausting all the documents that can be seen, and then bringing a serious and cautious "brain supplement", China can have such an "ideal country" plan after hundreds of years of troubled times. Book. If we enter this level of configuration, it is entirely conceivable that these scholars understand that they are not restoring and archeological "Zhou Li" 800 years ago. They clearly know that these words written in the name of Zhou Gong are intended for future rulers. Provide a blueprint for the system.
By the time scholars finished this book, the Zhou royal family might have been put out by the iron hoof of the Qin State-and the Zhou king was gone, and Zhou Li was new. This "Zhou Li" has become the political, economic and cultural system established by the feudal dynasty of China for two thousand years. A classic that must always be referred to. It is undoubtedly a kind of "country myth" that came from the periphery of power and only faces the future: institutional ideals that did not exist in history, put on the cloak of "pre-existing", and finally became a belief style that lasted for thousands of years. exist. They created an imaginative and perfect national spiritual system, which was not self-interested and entrusted to hundreds of years ago, and was able to construct the "China" ontology that would be a model for later generations.
Social Contract Theory: Three Literary Writings
Why should human beings establish a country, create laws, form an institutionalized society, and begin a collective life? This question is even more difficult to answer than discussing what the Zhou Dynasty was like in 1046 BC. As a kind of "knowledge archeology", it has a paradox: discussing the emergence of institutions, the only thing with empirical significance is "words." The original institutional construction has been completed-we cannot verify the establishment of the system in an era without words. We can only explore the evolutionary process from a basic point of "falling from the sky". The reconstruction of the "origin" is impossible.
Therefore, when "social contract theory" has become the mainstream hypothesis in the study of mainstream Western political systems, anyone actually realizes that if the "social contract" is to be applied to concreteness, this scenario is simply absurd: we should How to imagine that a group of primitive humans under the "state of nature" suddenly realized "to build a country" like apocalypse, everyone gathered together and started a meeting, discussed a detailed "social contract" for everyone to sign and confirm, everyone They all clearly know their rights and obligations, and part of their rights are transferred to a systemic system, announcing the establishment of a state system-but this is indeed Hobbes, John Locke, Rousseau and other political philosophers We show us the picture. Here, a kind of "justification"-style nation-building myth was born naturally: faced with the question of how the nation was established, the writers of the nation-building myth did not have any historical evidence, historical figures and events, and did not want to protect it. The interpretation pressure of the existing political system. They created the "social contract theory", not so much as explaining history, but more literally constructing an ideal state system belonging to a new class; such a strange picture is a metaphor: It is a metaphor for the time course of primitive humans who gradually invented the system through long-term practice. It is also a model: When the North American independents met in Philadelphia to formulate the constitution, it could make all the founding fathers who attended the meeting feel clear.
It must be realized that early "academic research" is difficult to separate from literary writing. "Neutral and objective" was an extravagant desire only in terms of narrative discourse at that time. The differences between the writings of Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau’s "social contract theory" myths can naturally be found in their life experiences and social environment. Their "social imagination" must have a strong era. Imprint. Hobbes, who personally participated in the British bourgeois revolution in 1644, could only have dark imagination and feelings about the state of war and human nature. In the chaos of war, the "Leviathan" in Hobbes's writing points to order. Strong appeal. In his "state of nature" picture, human nature finds it hard to see hope, selfish, despicable, and engages in unrestricted vendetta fights for profit. Therefore, the scene of the signing of the "social contract" is actually a peace talks between all parties to the war. The purpose of mankind's establishment of a country is to find an order that ends war and protects peace. And how to ensure peace in such a natural state of "anyone against anyone"? Hobbes believes that only the authority that has the power to suppress everyone is enough. Therefore, his description of this "peace talk" is that each participant transfers part of his power to the "sovereign". Such a "national" personality integrates all powers, and this person enacts laws. , To establish authority, everyone is unified under this country-yes, after all, Hobbes is a kingly party. In fact, the phrase "I am the country" of the French "Sun King" Louis XIV is by no means empty rhetoric, but is supported by Hobbes' theory.
John Locke is completely opposite to Hobbes in terms of political views. He believes that Hobbes's views are a kind of authoritarian philosophy. The "state of nature" he proposed in "On the Government" is much more gentle: the primitive society in his vision is a kind of commercial society, and people are not in a state of war, but "a state of peace, goodwill, and mutual help." , Do what they do, understand their rights and obligations, and live together in peace. However, because of the frequent commercial activities, property disputes will inevitably occur-therefore the "social contract" meeting that Locke constructed is an internal meeting of the business guild. The purpose is to avoid the intensification of commercial conflicts and establish business rules to ensure all Everyone can comply. Therefore, at this time, the subject of the transfer of power is the "limited government", and their responsibility is to distribute the rights and obligations of each person, to ensure the state of peace and the normal operation of commercial activities-therefore, once the government's work is unsatisfactory, attend the meeting The person can change the government according to the contract. A few years later, when the revolutionaries of the "Glorious Revolution" drove out James II with Locke's "On Government", we saw the realization of Locke's "Social Contract Theory": a myth that believed that human nature is gentle and peaceful. , What naturally bred is a bloodless revolution.
Decades later, in France, where the Great Revolution was about to take place, Rousseau absorbed the theories of Hobbes and Locke and put forward his own "Social Contract Theory." Rousseau, who has strong confidence in human nature, describes the "state of nature" as utopian: it is a paradise without any status, property, or spiritual inequality-except as an individual, it is difficult to live alone. In Rousseau's writings, the "social contract" meeting is a mutual assistance meeting for mankind. The purpose of everyone is to protect each other and create a common force to protect each individual participating in the meeting. In other words, Rousseau believes that the "state of war" is more of a state of struggle between man and nature, and the birth of a country started in the process of uniting mankind to fight against nature. In the subsequent American War of Independence, he needed to fight. The writer became a British colonizer from nature; similarly, Hobbes’ writing was accompanied by the restoration of the British royal family, while Locke’s writing was accompanied by the victory of the Glorious Revolution, no matter what the circumstances were the "social contract theory" "These are the myths of the founding of the nation that the ancients refer to the present: in the end, the entire world, regardless of race, culture, or region, regards the "social contract theory" as the initial vision for the establishment of a nation. It is a collective illusion and literary writing that is empirically completely "utopian", but at the same time it is also the eternal pearl of human spiritual heritage-as Yuval Harari said, "story" is the driving force for human progress. .
"Hamilton: An American Musical" and a "New America"
In 2015, "Hamilton: An American Musical" made contemporary drama fans who missed the blowout period of classic musicals in the 1980s feel the shock of experiencing the birth of a revolutionary masterpiece. In just a few minutes of opening, audiences like Obama can realize that "I have never seen such a good-looking musical", and after only a few shows, the entire musical theater industry has understood the greatness of an upcoming history book. The work was born: "Hamilton" represents a new era, not only in art, but also in ideological category-if the American "national myth" we talked about before belongs to the expedition of the Puritans and the pioneer of the colony History belongs to the "Social Contract Theory", while "Hamilton" writes a brand-new American "national myth". The history of American independence under this myth is completely different from any previous narrative.
As the United States gradually incorporates the "contemporary spirit" of the country of immigrants, the melting pot of multi-ethnic cultures, and the land of freedom for all mankind into the national spirit, the traditional historical narrative of American independence has encountered an obvious embarrassment: First, the United States is independent. The war is a revolutionary war within a purely white race. In this narrative pursuing freedom and independence, there is no racial topic; second, the American political system and freedom concepts that were initiated under the influence of "Social Contract Theory", It has nothing to do with women, people of color, and it also bears the shadow of slavery-the founding fathers who are considered to have created a free country, from Washington, are all slave-holding master slave owners, and it seems that they rarely show The willingness to give slaves freedom. Of course, due to the limitations of the times, it is impossible for the United States in the 21st century to look back on the "not enough progress" of the founding fathers, but it is necessary to create a new "national myth" that completely replaces the original narrative. NS.
But such a demand is obviously under pressure from history: as a country that has strong continuity and has always remained strong, it is obviously not feasible to deny part of the country’s history: General Robert Lee, the widely acclaimed combat hero in the Civil War, was because of it. The slave owners, who led to the overthrow of statues in various places by black rights groups, prove that the traditional "historical hermeneutics" is powerless-then only the "justification"-style new founding myth can solve this problem: this At that time, it seemed to be the biography of Alexander Hamilton, the founding father of the United States, and it seemed to be the "main theme" art of the history of the American War of Independence, "Hamilton". Starting from the subconscious mind of the creator Lin-Manuel Miranda, a magnificent wave began. The writing of myths: Since the original myth of the founding of the country is outdated, we will write a new one-historical truth is no longer important compared with the spirit of the times, and it is completely possible to retreat to the second line.
Of course, this does not mean that Lin-Manuel Miranda’s creation abandons historical truth—on the contrary, the writing of this work has a strict historical basis. It is adapted from the historian Ron Cherno’s "Hamilton "Biography", even each scene can neatly correspond to the chapters of the original book. What Lin-Manuel Miranda adapted was not historical facts. What changed was not the signified reality, but signifiers, naming and external symbols: what he created was a section of the United States that conforms to historical facts, but the characters involved have been completely changed. History of the founding of a country. It all started from the similar "hometown" of Lin-Manuel Miranda and Alexander Hamilton: Hamilton is a descendant of the white immigrants of the French in the Caribbean, and Miranda is a Puerto Rican born and raised in the Caribbean: then, if in fact , Hamilton, like Miranda, is also a minority immigrant who came to New York from the Caribbean to make trouble? Hundreds of years ago, Hamilton and the fathers of the nation wanted to establish a free country composed of white immigrants from all over Europe. Today, the United States is a diverse country composed of immigrants from all over the world and ethnic groups. This is the beginning of a comparison and a new mythological writing:
Hamilton is played by Miranda of Puerto Rican origin, and his wife Eliza is played by Asian actors; Washington, the Earl of Lafayette, John Lawrence, Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson and other "fathers" are all of African descent. Played by black actors, blurring Lafayette’s “French” status as “immigrants”, highlighting the important role of “immigrants” in the construction of the United States, and focusing on aggravating the role of the black division led by John Lawrence, making them a hundred years ahead of schedule Become a representative of the political aspirations for the elimination of slavery; the establishment of a large number of LGBT roles, crossing the historical world in terms of orientation; the three sisters of Schuyler are played by African Americans, Asian Americans and Latin Americans, emphasizing their roles The contribution of socialites to feminist awareness and social welfare; the only "villain" in the whole play, King George III of the United Kingdom is played by the only white actor in the whole play, and a "revolutionary team" composed of ethnic minorities fights against white people. The narrative of the leading British colonists is very clear on the stage...Finally, the core music style of the whole play is contemporary hip-hop rap. Its script has a large amount of information, gorgeous words, exquisite structure, and moving narrative. It is a thorough 21st century. The face-to-face "story of the founding of the United States" has completed a complete replacement of the signifier on the basis of not departing from the historical reality: "Hamilton" created a "new America", and its establishment is not only about freedom, democracy and independent struggle, but also It was even flawless in terms of anti-colonialism, gender issues, ethnic minorities issues, and slavery issues. In 1776, when the traditional nation-building myth was devastated by the progress of contemporary ideas and concepts, it was replaced with a pure white body. In 2015, which can be regarded as a model for later generations, a kind of "justification" work ensured the greatness of this country, and at the same time, the existing defects lost their meaning through alternative symbolic exercises.
Lin-Manuel Miranda and the crew of "Hamilton", through the dual revolution of musical theatre art and the myth of the founding of the United States, driven by unconscious artistic creativity, they clearly used to abandon the past history and take the initiative to welcome the future. Attitudes, declarations, and the "Old America" are clearly distinguished-this is not difficult to explain. Vice President Mike Pence, who holds a conservative stance on the right, went to the theater to watch the show. Si's are not welcome. But at the same time, the historical rigor of "Hamilton" and the continuation and sublimation of the traditional American spirit of "young, scrappy and hungry" make the work even "deviant", but it has become the darling of the American national theme culture. The new "myth of the country" created by the peripheral subjects of power has already entered the room-and just after "Hamilton" finally announced the time period in which it was released in the form of video recording and can be watched by a wide audience, the death of George Floyd The largest African-American affirmative movement triggered by decades has swept the world: We are a little aware that the "rewriting" of the history of the founding of the United States in "Hamilton" has not only subtly changed the "Why" of "America" at the spiritual level. Because it is, it has become the forerunner of the "New America" in the practical sense under the trend of the times.
Most of the time, the "justification"-style myths of founding a country also appear in the form of "historical hermeneutics." Past historical events are just their handy materials. If the scientific coat of historical hermeneutics is torn off, it will show more. It is an ideal historical theological prediction: it may not be successful in explaining the work of the past, but it has shaped the future that has not yet occurred; its interpretation of history may be divorced from reality, but it guides the actual historical trend; It is precisely because of its strong "mythology" that its existence and status will not be directly affected by historical reality, but as an ideal and utopian picture, it will have a long-term impact on the process of human history. There is no doubt that the Confucian scholars who wrote "Zhou Li" thousands of years ago, the dazzling minority actors on the stage, and even the revolutionary teachers with utopia and heaven on earth, they all resonate in their hearts through time and space. , Are all telling a modern mythological principle that human beings have in common, and are eternally intoxicated in it: explanations are gray, and prophecies and ideals will last forever.
In the 21st century, history is no longer a science, history is a kind of literature—also a kind of theology; history gradually degenerates into a kind of religion, because it slowly has nothing to do with facts, and finally only ushered in signified carnival and will Victory.
View more about Hamilton reviews
