I think I should explain a little bit more about the picture for this site. The key idea is that different presentations of Confucius represent different knowledge/power relationship. While there's a Catholic Church to regularized the image of how Jesus 'should' looks like (and of course there's controversy about the racial representation), there is no such institution to regulate how Confucius 'should' look like....until recently.
In 2006, the China Confucius Foundation announced a standardized image of Confucius (see Chinese news release here). The rationalize is that it'll help to propagate Confucian Culture to the non-Chinese audience. According to the General Secretary of CCF, Mr. Shuhua Zhang, 'Confucius is the representative of Chinese history and culture. His teaching is getting acknowledged by people from different part of the world. Thus, different images of Confucius may create obstacle to established an legitimated representation of Confucius' . ( "孔子是中国的历史文化名片，他的学说正被越来越多不同地域的民众所关注、认同，而孔子形象不统一，不利于树立世界范围内公认的孔子形象。”)
But then, who has the power to say which Confucius image to use?
Well, legitimacy seems is coming from Confucian scholars, historian, artists and the offspring of Confucius (the Kong's family). Or, this is what the CCF 'thinks' that where the legitimacy should be coming from. However, if we get to understand the background of CCF, a quasi-government organization (receive financial support from the central government of the PRC), that's a whole different story.
Putting the political agenda aside, if we just look at it as a cultural issue, the image of Confucius raise series of interesting questions on representation. Lionel M. Jensen's book Manufacturing Confucianism(1997) had an in depth account on the Western construction of Confucius and Confucianism. While the West gained the power to define the culture of the 'Others' through imperialism and colonialism, it is an interesting twist to see how the Chinese government is regaining its power to define what Confucianism is about. Not to say that they had successfully done so, but when the issue of 'how to present Confucius to the global audience' became an issue, and the fact that the government is actually putting in resources to deal with it, that is something interesting.
In 2006, the China Confucius Foundation announced a standardized image of Confucius (see Chinese news release here). The rationalize is that it'll help to propagate Confucian Culture to the non-Chinese audience. According to the General Secretary of CCF, Mr. Shuhua Zhang, 'Confucius is the representative of Chinese history and culture. His teaching is getting acknowledged by people from different part of the world. Thus, different images of Confucius may create obstacle to established an legitimated representation of Confucius' . ( "孔子是中国的历史文化名片，他的学说正被越来越多不同地域的民众所关注、认同，而孔子形象不统一，不利于树立世界范围内公认的孔子形象。”)
But then, who has the power to say which Confucius image to use?
Well, legitimacy seems is coming from Confucian scholars, historian, artists and the offspring of Confucius (the Kong's family). Or, this is what the CCF 'thinks' that where the legitimacy should be coming from. However, if we get to understand the background of CCF, a quasi-government organization (receive financial support from the central government of the PRC), that's a whole different story.
Putting the political agenda aside, if we just look at it as a cultural issue, the image of Confucius raise series of interesting questions on representation. Lionel M. Jensen's book Manufacturing Confucianism(1997) had an in depth account on the Western construction of Confucius and Confucianism. While the West gained the power to define the culture of the 'Others' through imperialism and colonialism, it is an interesting twist to see how the Chinese government is regaining its power to define what Confucianism is about. Not to say that they had successfully done so, but when the issue of 'how to present Confucius to the global audience' became an issue, and the fact that the government is actually putting in resources to deal with it, that is something interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment