Beyond Murderous Dialectics: On the Heritage of Paradoxical Thinking in Maoism
This essay has been inspired by the writings of the contemporary Neo-Confucian philosopher Mou Zongsan and the German sinologist Wolfgang Bauer. It assumes that the power of Mao Zedong’s thought sprung from its ability to systematically subordinate the transformative philosophy of the classical Book...
Published in: | Asian Studies |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakulte / Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts
2019
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/8057 https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2019.7.1.37-54 |
id |
ftuniljubljanaff:oai:ojs.revije.ff.uni-lj.si:article/8057 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Journals of Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana |
op_collection_id |
ftuniljubljanaff |
language |
English |
topic |
Mou Zongsan Mao Zedong paradoxical thinking Wolfgang Bauer dialectics dialektika paradoksalno mišljenje |
spellingShingle |
Mou Zongsan Mao Zedong paradoxical thinking Wolfgang Bauer dialectics dialektika paradoksalno mišljenje HEUBEL, Fabian Beyond Murderous Dialectics: On the Heritage of Paradoxical Thinking in Maoism |
topic_facet |
Mou Zongsan Mao Zedong paradoxical thinking Wolfgang Bauer dialectics dialektika paradoksalno mišljenje |
description |
This essay has been inspired by the writings of the contemporary Neo-Confucian philosopher Mou Zongsan and the German sinologist Wolfgang Bauer. It assumes that the power of Mao Zedong’s thought sprung from its ability to systematically subordinate the transformative philosophy of the classical Book of Changes to the Marxist model of revolutionary class struggle. If dialectical thinking requires thought to think against itself and thereby be able to continuously change itself from the inside, Mao seems to have been a master of dialectical thinking. One of the intellectual impulses for the Great Cultural Revolution was the radically unsentimental judgement that, in order for the socialist revolution to succeed, it was necessary to erase the ancient Chinese legacy of paradoxical thinking, and that this was a precondition of the possibility of Mao’s Sino-Marxist discourse. But the enormous power that Mao’s thought derived from the tension between revolutionary heroism and transformative flexibility revealed itself as self-destructive. Mao tried to fight against the failure of his revolutionary vision and the possibility that the wisdom of paradoxical thinking and the classical heritage of China could, finally, gain the upper hand in the ongoing struggle for modernization. From this perspective, this essay touches upon a contradiction, which can be understood as the principle contradiction of contemporary Chinese philosophy: the contradiction between the defence of Sino-Marxism as the ideological foundation of a “socialism with Chinese characteristics” on the one hand, and the renaissance of traditional culture and classical learning on the other, which entails a powerful challenge to this very foundation. Navdih za esej prihaja iz razmišljanj sodobnega neo-konfucijanskega filozofa Mou Zongsana in nemškega sinologa Wolfganga Bauerja. Osnovna predpostavka eseja je, da je moč Mao Zedongove misli izvirala iz sposobnosti, da transformativno filozofijo klasične Knjige premen sistematično podredi marksističnemu modelu revolucionarnega razrednega boja. Če dialektično mišljenje v končni fazi zahteva od misli, da misli proti sami sebi in s tem neprestano spreminja samo sebe od znotraj, se zdi, da je bil Mao mojster dialektičnega mišljenja. Ena od intelektualnih pobud za Veliko proletarsko kulturno revolucijo je bila radikalno nesentimentalna sodba, da je za uspeh socialistične revolucije nujno izbrisati staro dediščino paradoksnega mišljenja in da je to predpogoj za možnost Maovega sino-marksističnega diskurza. Vendar pa se je neznanska moč, ki jo je Maova misel črpala iz napetosti med revolucionarnim heroizmom in transformativno fleksibilnostjo, izkazala za samodestruktivno. Mao se je poskušal boriti za svojo revolucionarno vizijo in za možnost, da bi lahko modrost paradoksnega mišljenja in dediščina klasične Kitajske nazadnje prevladali v nenehnem spopadu za modernizacijo. S tega stališča se ta esej dotakne težave, ki jo lahko razumemo kot temeljno protislovje sodobne kitajske filozofije: protislovja med obrambo sino-marskizma kot ideološkega temelja »socializma s kitajskimi značilnostmi« in renesanso tradicionalne kulture in klasičnega učenja, ki predstavlja velik izziv temu temelju. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
HEUBEL, Fabian |
author_facet |
HEUBEL, Fabian |
author_sort |
HEUBEL, Fabian |
title |
Beyond Murderous Dialectics: On the Heritage of Paradoxical Thinking in Maoism |
title_short |
Beyond Murderous Dialectics: On the Heritage of Paradoxical Thinking in Maoism |
title_full |
Beyond Murderous Dialectics: On the Heritage of Paradoxical Thinking in Maoism |
title_fullStr |
Beyond Murderous Dialectics: On the Heritage of Paradoxical Thinking in Maoism |
title_full_unstemmed |
Beyond Murderous Dialectics: On the Heritage of Paradoxical Thinking in Maoism |
title_sort |
beyond murderous dialectics: on the heritage of paradoxical thinking in maoism |
publisher |
Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakulte / Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts |
publishDate |
2019 |
url |
https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/8057 https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2019.7.1.37-54 |
genre |
sami sami |
genre_facet |
sami sami |
op_source |
Asian Studies; Vol. 7 No. 1 (2019): From Hegel to Mao and Beyond: the Long March of Sinicizing Marxism; 37-54 Azijske študije; Letn. 7 Št. 1 (2019): From Hegel to Mao and Beyond: the Long March of Sinicizing Marxism; 37-54 2350-4226 2232-5131 10.4312/as.2019.7.1 |
op_relation |
https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/8057/8489 https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/8057 doi:10.4312/as.2019.7.1.37-54 |
op_rights |
Copyright (c) 2019 Fabian Heubel http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 |
op_rightsnorm |
CC-BY-SA |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2019.7.1.37-54 https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2019.7.1 |
container_title |
Asian Studies |
container_volume |
7 |
container_issue |
1 |
container_start_page |
37 |
op_container_end_page |
54 |
_version_ |
1766186743593172992 |
spelling |
ftuniljubljanaff:oai:ojs.revije.ff.uni-lj.si:article/8057 2023-05-15T18:14:03+02:00 Beyond Murderous Dialectics: On the Heritage of Paradoxical Thinking in Maoism Onkraj morilske dialektike: O paradoksnem mišljenju in maoizmu HEUBEL, Fabian 2019-01-31 application/pdf https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/8057 https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2019.7.1.37-54 eng eng Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakulte / Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/8057/8489 https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/8057 doi:10.4312/as.2019.7.1.37-54 Copyright (c) 2019 Fabian Heubel http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 CC-BY-SA Asian Studies; Vol. 7 No. 1 (2019): From Hegel to Mao and Beyond: the Long March of Sinicizing Marxism; 37-54 Azijske študije; Letn. 7 Št. 1 (2019): From Hegel to Mao and Beyond: the Long March of Sinicizing Marxism; 37-54 2350-4226 2232-5131 10.4312/as.2019.7.1 Mou Zongsan Mao Zedong paradoxical thinking Wolfgang Bauer dialectics dialektika paradoksalno mišljenje info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion 2019 ftuniljubljanaff https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2019.7.1.37-54 https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2019.7.1 2021-08-08T10:20:52Z This essay has been inspired by the writings of the contemporary Neo-Confucian philosopher Mou Zongsan and the German sinologist Wolfgang Bauer. It assumes that the power of Mao Zedong’s thought sprung from its ability to systematically subordinate the transformative philosophy of the classical Book of Changes to the Marxist model of revolutionary class struggle. If dialectical thinking requires thought to think against itself and thereby be able to continuously change itself from the inside, Mao seems to have been a master of dialectical thinking. One of the intellectual impulses for the Great Cultural Revolution was the radically unsentimental judgement that, in order for the socialist revolution to succeed, it was necessary to erase the ancient Chinese legacy of paradoxical thinking, and that this was a precondition of the possibility of Mao’s Sino-Marxist discourse. But the enormous power that Mao’s thought derived from the tension between revolutionary heroism and transformative flexibility revealed itself as self-destructive. Mao tried to fight against the failure of his revolutionary vision and the possibility that the wisdom of paradoxical thinking and the classical heritage of China could, finally, gain the upper hand in the ongoing struggle for modernization. From this perspective, this essay touches upon a contradiction, which can be understood as the principle contradiction of contemporary Chinese philosophy: the contradiction between the defence of Sino-Marxism as the ideological foundation of a “socialism with Chinese characteristics” on the one hand, and the renaissance of traditional culture and classical learning on the other, which entails a powerful challenge to this very foundation. Navdih za esej prihaja iz razmišljanj sodobnega neo-konfucijanskega filozofa Mou Zongsana in nemškega sinologa Wolfganga Bauerja. Osnovna predpostavka eseja je, da je moč Mao Zedongove misli izvirala iz sposobnosti, da transformativno filozofijo klasične Knjige premen sistematično podredi marksističnemu modelu revolucionarnega razrednega boja. Če dialektično mišljenje v končni fazi zahteva od misli, da misli proti sami sebi in s tem neprestano spreminja samo sebe od znotraj, se zdi, da je bil Mao mojster dialektičnega mišljenja. Ena od intelektualnih pobud za Veliko proletarsko kulturno revolucijo je bila radikalno nesentimentalna sodba, da je za uspeh socialistične revolucije nujno izbrisati staro dediščino paradoksnega mišljenja in da je to predpogoj za možnost Maovega sino-marksističnega diskurza. Vendar pa se je neznanska moč, ki jo je Maova misel črpala iz napetosti med revolucionarnim heroizmom in transformativno fleksibilnostjo, izkazala za samodestruktivno. Mao se je poskušal boriti za svojo revolucionarno vizijo in za možnost, da bi lahko modrost paradoksnega mišljenja in dediščina klasične Kitajske nazadnje prevladali v nenehnem spopadu za modernizacijo. S tega stališča se ta esej dotakne težave, ki jo lahko razumemo kot temeljno protislovje sodobne kitajske filozofije: protislovja med obrambo sino-marskizma kot ideološkega temelja »socializma s kitajskimi značilnostmi« in renesanso tradicionalne kulture in klasičnega učenja, ki predstavlja velik izziv temu temelju. Article in Journal/Newspaper sami sami Journals of Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana Asian Studies 7 1 37 54 |