It's another year, what they have to say about the Confucius Birthday?

It had been four years since I first follow on the reports about the worship of Confucius' Birthday on 28 September. The high point, I have to say, was still 2007. The vibe was extremely strong back then -- not only because of the fact that it was my 'fresh' and 'new' discovery of this bizarre return of Confucianism in post-reform China. The context was different back then -- it was the year before the Olympics, and the state is working so hard to recreate Confucius as the cultural symbols for the nationalistic 'sports' event (they announced the five-selected-verses from the Analects as one of the slogans for the Olympics). The UNESCO was established in 2005 but actually presented the award for the first time in 2007, also added the excitement for this 'international' event. But above all, the direct funding from the Central Government sponsoring the rituals and 'upgraded' that as 'state event' , I believe, explains the significance of the event.

Journalists and scholars had a lot to say about the ritual in 2007. From the 'vacuum of Marxism' to the 'return of Confucianism', everyone has their opinion to raise even though no one can tell us (back then, at least) how the revival of Confucianism is ACTUALLY HAPPENING among the people. What happened outside of the ritual hall that only invited special guests were allowed to participate? (since I've tried to find a way to get 'inside' but failed to do so, with my foreign-graduate-student-with-no-connection status -- why the pity-the-student card doesn't work for me?).

2008, the vibe was still high. It's just few weeks after the Olympics, tourists are still lingering around China and it's one of the must-go 'cultural event'.

2009, mmm, I don't remember I see much report on that anymore, especially in the out-of-China media. That was the year when I tried to get access to the ritual in Qufu but failed to do so.

2010, what they have to say about the ritual? Up to now I still haven't found anything report on the Qufu rituals yet. I saw news about the Taiwanese rituals, performed by the President Ma Yingjiu (and then, people outside fighting for the 'wisdom brushes' for calligraphy, not quite sure where the transcendent power is coming from that granted the 'wisdom', since it's just a 2 minutes-segment in the evening news). And the Guardian has this report -- and it focuses on the resume of rituals in the Beijing Confucius temple and not the large cultural event in Qufu. But other than that, it seems that the 'Confucian teacher' and the scholar of Confucianism has nothing new and exciting to tell us. The narrative remains the same for the past few years -- state need new symbols for legitimacy; rapid social change created yearning for new ethical and moral guidance/anchor; it's something 'rooted' in Chinese people's mind and it's about time for it's return...

The kind of reporting is still remaining at the superficial level -- scratching the surface, highlighting the visual and the meta-narratives (which almost became too convenient to make as it had been the same for the past few years) without actually telling us the complexity of the revival of Confucianism in China more than 'the musician' who found it not that personally appealing. I know it's 'just' a newspaper report, but isn't it about time to develop some more insight into the phenomenon?

Picture of Children reading the Analects of Confucius at the Confucius worship in Tianjin from the Xinhua News. (source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-09/28/c_13534300_4.htm)

'Confucius school' vs. 'Confucian school'

Reported by the China Youth Daily on 20 Jan 2010, one student dead and two went missing during a TV shoot in Wenchang, Southern part of Hainan province in China. 100 students from a local middle school were recruited to appear as extras in a TV drama that commerocate the 60th anniversay of the 'liberation' of Hainan Island. A big wave came in when they were shooting in the water, and 10 students got carried away.

What's added more to the story, as I found out in another report from the Apple Daily from Hong Kong, is that these students were recruited from the local 文昌孔子學校 (Wenchang Confucius School) . It is suspected that the principle, Liu Debing, had received RMB2500 from the production team and talked the students into working as extras. (report from Apple Daily attached below). So the paper says that this is example to satirize the effort that the Chinese government using Confucianism to reinstate the ethic order for the country.

When I see report like this, it reminded me the first question that I encountered when I think seriously about the revival of Confucianism in China -- how much it is are state-driven? and what they had actually done to drive it? Did the state encourages school like 'Wenchang Confucius School' to establish? If so, why the Shanghai Meng Mu Tang had been called as illegal schools and shut down by the government? It is strange to me that during my fieldwork in China, there are so many principals of Confucian school who complained about how difficult it is to start a school with classic-reading as the key syllabus, but then, Confucius school like this one in Wenchang can have a well-equipped campus (check their school website ) and have no trouble with the authority. The message is mixed, does the state want the Confucian education or not?

I use the term 'Confucian school' as a category in my analysis of classic-reading education movement in China. I use that to describe the kind of government-approved privately funded school that adopt the Confucian pedagogy and aim to nurture children's academic and language ability through classic-reading,and also focusing on children's character development and behavioral changes. But they are not 'Confucius school' per se because although Confucian classic plays a major role there, other classics including the Daoist and Buddhist one, are also playing an important role. None of the Confucian schools that I researched about use 'Confucius' as the school name, but term 'classic' (jindian 經典) is occasionally used. I assume that by calling themselves a 'Confucius school' and highlight the exclusiveness of Confucianism is not actually what most of the activists in the children classic-reading movement (兒童讀經運動) (which is highly associated with the revival of Confucianism movement) wanted. And it's large due the the historical and cultural baggages that the term 'Confucianism' had been carrying since the May Fourth Movement or the so-called 'Chinese Enlightenment' period.

I want to say something about this, not because I am a supporter of the conservative reform of classic-reading education. I have the same questions and suspicion about this movement (see how I am still calling it a 'conservative reform'?) , but during the process of researching about it in China, visiting schools and programs and interviewing teachers and parents, I found that this is something more complicated than simply a movement that fueled with state conspiracy (not to say that it is not there). To implement the 'actual' classic-reading program and the Confucian pedagogy is such an intensive work that one has to ask why parents and teachers want to go all the way to find an alternative education for their children? why it is so important for them to do that that even when it is extremely inconvenient and entails conflict with the authority (e.g. withdrawing students from the official school system)? To me, a big group of parents and teachers are making 'conscious choice' for their children that they think it is something better for their children. And that is the reason why we really to look careful, what this whole idea of revival of Confucianism and Confucian education really means.

I prefer to think that social agents are something more than just a subject of the state, even though they are subjugated under a strong authoritarian one in this particular context. They are (and should be) the one who make social changes possible, even though in the way that we do not like, prefer, or expected.

Source: The Apple Daily

Date: 21 January 2010

拍劇紀念中共佔據海南 60年　被轟「拿人命做獻禮」
海浪捲走臨記學生

2010年01月21日

為紀念中共佔據海南 60周年，海南省與中央電視台合作拍攝電視劇《解放海南島》，並請了當地 100多名中學生充當臨記，扮演解放軍由海上登陸搶灘的場面。不料，突如其來的大浪將 10多名「解放軍」捲走，致一死兩失蹤。當局一度出動直升機搜尋但無果。內地網民怒轟當局「拿三條人命做獻禮」！

《解放海南島》被視為中共佔據海南 60周年（中共 1950年 6月 5日佔領海南島）的獻禮片，被喻為政治工程。全劇 30集，總投資逾千萬元（人民幣．下同）。據悉，劇集拍攝期間雖出了人命，但劇組未受影響，拍攝工作仍在進行中。

事發在上周五（ 15日）下午約 3時半，當時劇組人員正在文昌市的大澳灣拍攝解放軍搶灘登陸的鏡頭。 100多名來自當地孔子中學的學生，個個準備就緒。但沒有一個學生察覺，這時的海底已經發生了很大變化。在 10多名學生的前方，海底已形成了一個很深的沙坑，由此產生的暗流正在海底猙獰旋轉。當同學們靠近沙坑的時候，身後一個大浪打來，部份學生開始東倒西歪。緊接着再一個大浪打來， 10多名同學全被捲入海中。
「當時，大澳灣的風特別大，浪特別高，海水特別凉，同學們被組織起來排成數個隊列，走到齊腰深的海水中。劇組的攝影機架在沙灘上，同學們要迎着鏡頭從齊腰深的海中衝向岸邊。」大難不死正躺在病床上的付冬冬回憶說。

事故發生後，劇組和所有參演的學生都慌了神，大家迅速開始自救。雖有多名同學被當場救出，但仍有一些學生不見了蹤影。文昌市公安局在接報後，迅速趕到現場。最終一人經搶救無效死亡，兩名學生失蹤，多名受傷的學生被送院救治。次日，直升機在海面上盤旋搜尋失蹤學生，但一無所獲。死亡和失蹤的三人均屬中五生。

校長收錢挑選男生拍攝

「怎麼會這樣啊？」失蹤學生的家長隨後被帶到了大澳灣，他們由當地政府的工作人員攙扶着，邊走邊哭着說。有獲救的學生指，校方和劇組選人時，除身高有要求，也不問會不會游泳、有無身體不適，且參加拍攝首日，他們主要負責扛道具，做苦力。
更令人感到氣憤的是，該校校長劉德斌事後被揭發曾收取攝製組 2,500元，但沒有入公賬。他現已被拘留。
海南省委宣傳部事後禁止當地媒體報道。但北京媒體千里迢迢前往當地採訪而揭露事件。有網民怒斥當局罔顧人命，「《解放海南島》播出當日，中央電視台應該下半旗向三位學生致哀！」而海南當局迄今未回應事件。
《中國青年報》/本報記者

盡論中國：命都敢賣　還怕賣學生？

2010年01月21日

在中共總書記胡錦濤欽點為主旋律作品的電影《孔子》即將上畫之際，海南文昌市孔子中學爆出人命醜聞：校長只收了 2,500元，就把 100多位學生賣給電視劇《解放海南島》劇組當臨時演員，結果造成學生一死兩失蹤。校長如此無恥地出賣學生，對當局大張旗鼓地宣傳孔子、期望重塑公眾道德，無疑是一大諷刺。

熱捧孔子　難喚回社會道德感

胡錦濤主政以後，曾針對利慾薰心的社會問題掀起多次政治運動，包括針對中共黨員的「保先」（保持黨員先進性）及針對公眾的「八榮八恥」。「保先」要求黨員人人過關，但結果落個「保先」不如「保鮮」的笑話；「八榮八恥」被封為新時代的道德指針，大學要開專題講座、中小學要納入課堂教育，甚至要求傳唱「八榮八恥」歌，但結果諸如「以腰纏萬貫為榮、以一貧如洗為恥；以二三四奶為榮、以一條光棍為恥」的調侃，遠比胡錦濤「以服務人民為榮，以背離人民為恥；以艱苦奮鬥為榮，以驕奢淫逸為恥」的訓話流傳更廣。
當局不着力於政治制度的改革，以約束、制裁官員的貪腐行為，從而確立社會規範和公眾道德觀，反而樂於搞政治運動、樂於宣傳政治口號，與其說是要倡導正確的人生觀、道德觀，不如說是要吹捧領導人，走的是「一句頂一萬句」、萬民表態效忠的造神舊路。結果，貪官越打越多，民間鋌而走險、為錢賣命的事件越來越多，福利院賣孤兒、醫院賣病人、學校賣學生，屢見不鮮。
中共近年熱捧孔夫子，極盡宣傳之能事，僅是海外孔子學院已辦了近 300間，一方面是試圖向世界宣揚中國文化，以孔子的睿智、和平形象，緩和西方的中國威脅論，另一方面則是試圖倡導儒家的禮義廉恥和忠孝君臣觀念，作為強化統治的工具。但是，文昌孔子中學校長的行徑說明，當局到處大打孔子的旗號，根本無力喚回社會的道德感、無力挽回社會走向墮落的趨勢。

電郵： China@appledaily.com

(李平)

Confucius protrayed in Chinese Movies

In 2009, one of the most 'eye-catching' events that highlight the revival of Confucianism could be the release of the movie 'Confucius'. The Hong Kong actor Chow Yunfat plays the role of Confucius. I am still looking forward to the releasing of this film in the US, so that I'll have the chance to see it. ( <The Confucius>, directed by Hu Mei)

In September, I went back to Hong Kong to see a showing of another movie about Confucius directed by Fei Mu, one of the leading film directors of China before 1949. The film was lost for decades and had recently been restored by the Hong Kong Film Archive.

I am not a film aesthetic person nor a film critic. However, what interested me are the socio-historical context and how it related to the cultural and social symbolic meanings of these two films. I am all ready for serious work for comparison, but I can only do that when I have the chance to see the 2009 version of 'Confucius'.

To look at the historical context, 1938-40 when Fei Mu's version was being made and released, China was still in the middle of WWII with Japan. The message of yearning ( for peace; for a 'savior' for the nation; for 'restoration' of the 'values') and condemning (war; traitors; the fall of morality) were not subtle at all in the movie. And it made so much sense once you look at it together with the historical context.

2009 -- China is 'rising' to be one of the largest economic powers in the world. There is no war (at least, not for the Chinese). Yet, Do they still need a 'savior' to salvage their declining morality? if so, is Confucius the person to do so? I doubt it. Not that I disagree that the Confucius is lack of the cultural capital to do so (and his possibility being transformed into the ultimate moral symbols for the nation by those who are able to). I just don't see that the current regime (who also control the film industry, btw), will allow Confucius to be transformed as such role in a movie. And by 'such role', I mean, a sacred sage for the nation.

The sacredness of Confucius in Fei Mu's version can be found at the very beginning of the film -- in which the birth of Confucius was being narrated together with the birth of Jesus and Buddha. Throughout the film, Confucius always dominated in the 'sacred' places among his students (on top of the hill; on top of teaching altar etc) and the kind of suffering they experienced together after Confucius decided to travel around and preach his teachings is (to me, at least) highly resembled the kind of master-disciple sufferings that we read in the bible story. A normal citizen was being tortured and killed, and he cried out 'Oh Heaven*! Please send a sage to save us the people!'. And this sacred role of the Confucius is further reinforced towards the end of the film, with a song dedicated to Confucius that says 'Confucius, Confucius, the Great Confucius! your teachings will be passed on for thousands of generations, and it will be around in this world'.

Portraying the sacred does not make Confucius 'other-worldly', after all, he is still human. In fact, in Fei Mu's version, the story of Confucius continue -- he failed his preaching work, returned home, and suffered the loneliness of aging (when most of is disciples left and only his grandson had stayed with him). He did not got raised up to the Heaven by the supernatural power and left this world, he stayed here and suffered just like all of us. And that probably added the sacredness to the morality that he preached, as he had stood firm to it with his life.

I wonder how the same story will be told in the 2009 version. Or, would it be a 'same' story at all. Can these sacredness still exist? I seriously doubt it. The meaning of 'being religious' had been transformed drastically since 1949 in China. The inferiority of being religious is not just condemned by the elitist intellectuals of the Chinese Enlightenment era that highly influenced by secularism, but it is administratively challenged under the atheistic regime. Marxist scholars, including the recently deceased and former chairperson of the Institute of World Religions in the Chinese Social Science Academy Ren Jiyu, had identified that Confucianism is a religion. Therefore it is as problematic as the other religions and required strong administrative order (if not complete destruction, like what happened during the cultural revolution) to control it. As Julia Ching states, 'Marxist scholars have shown sensitivity for discerning religious directions and sentiments in tradtional philsophical teachings. Presumably, this effort is motivated by the insistence on atheistic humanism, accompanied as this is by the need t osearch out religious trends if only to manipulate or oppose them' (Ching 1990: 126).

Since sacredness easily give people (especial social scientists like US!) the impression of 'religious' (and does constitute the quality of being religious, sociologically speaking), it is alarming to have too much of it. So what kind of 'Confucius' they will portray in the movie? or to put it in a profane way, will Confucius have an affair with Nanzi in the movie? I can't wait to see!!

More reviews of the 2009 Confucius:

http://twitchfilm.net/news/2009/12/new-trailer-for-confucius-hits-all-the-right-notes.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgiM1ubNCYc -- Trailer

Reference:

Ching, Julia. 1990. Probing China's Soul: Religion, Politics, and Protest in the People's Republic. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Where is the revival?

This is the time to recap what I've been doing so far. I had conducted multiple interviews and participant observations in the past few weeks. Although I had identified certain area that I want to look into, the question of how to locate the revival is still a crucial one.

This point is confirmed by one of the activist I interviewed. He used 'boiling water' as a metaphor to describe the situation about the revivalism now. Without the support of the government and the obscure treatment from the media, which make it difficult to observe what's going on here now in China in terms of the revival. Like the bubbles in boiling water, things are keep changing and transforming every minute and it is hard to describe/ pin-point what is the current status is like.

For instance, in terms of learning about Confucian classics. Different groups who are doing it in different ways, have different purpose in mind and do it in different ways. There are private Shishu, which charges a lot for summer camp and extra-curriculum classes on reciting and reading the classics. There are also rural full-time schools that only teaches Confucian classics and serves as the only education institute in the area. And of course, there's free/ volunteer classes provided by individual and group. And when they talk about 'classics', the definition is also varied : some only refer to the Four Books (Confucians classics), some include classical literature, and some even include English classical literature.

Things could be even more complicated in terms of worshiping Confucius. I don't think that we can see this worship as a worship of deity/god at all. It is more appropriate to understand this as a symbolic political rituals. Two things I need to understand is the purpose of doing that for the state; and also the purpose of doing that as an individual.

I feel that there's revival. As one of the interviewee told me that 'yes, the government and the media had talked a lot about it. But they can only talk about it because there's this kind of interests from the people!' But to describe it what exactly had revived and how it is reviving, I'll still need more research and thinkings to sort it out!