Why don't Han people wear Hanfu?

Recently, people have repeatedly advocated the revival of Hanfu, and even set up a number of interconnected special websites, which once again confirmed the group polarization characteristics of virtual series networks. Like almost all the "revival" events in history, this attempt is actually a re-creation of tradition in the name of revival. Instead of going back to the original code, we invented the original code. In my opinion, its chances of success are extremely low, but more importantly, it is futile because it does not have the claimed meaning.

Reviving Hanfu is regarded as a nationalist impulse, but just like nationalism itself, its ideological roots can only be traced back to the West. Many so-called "traditions" in Europe are actually far from being as old as imagined, but were re-invented at the end of 19, because "there is such a lack of precedent that even historical continuity needs to be invented". As a national symbol, the Scottish pleated skirt, "the name and the skirt itself-had never been heard of before18th century" ("traditional invention"); Indeed, it once existed with bagpipes in residual form, but it was regarded as a symbol of barbarism by most Scots. This retrospective invention, "in a sense, is a protest against England."

Advocates of Hanfu undoubtedly endowed the clothing itself with such a color of political protest. In pre-modern society, clothing is often a symbol of race and culture. It is true that China has always attached importance to "clothing" in history, but regarded it as a symbol of resistance and persistence, which almost happened in an era of political upheaval. There is a simple reason. As a symbol of national consciousness, the key, as Liang Qichao said, lies in "consciously doing it for him and for me". If there is no other person who makes him feel strong and oppressed, the meaning of this resistance itself will naturally disappear.

The paradox logic of the so-called "Hanfu revival" is that even if Hanfu is revived, it actually means its decline. There is no standard pattern of "Hanfu" in China's clothing changes in past dynasties, because when it is a dominant force, the Han people do not need their own distinctive signs. Conscious national consciousness represents the recognition of equality and even inferiority with others, so this is the key: Hanfu, now defended as a symbol, seems to satisfy our self-esteem and pay tribute to tradition, but its essence is to settle for second best under the premise of decline. This is equivalent to giving up a person's universality and emphasizing relative particularity, just like before the invasion of western medicine, there was only "medical skill" and there was no so-called "Chinese medicine". Jin once pointed out brilliantly that when studying Taoism, the historians of modern philosophy first "regarded the problems of European philosophy as ordinary philosophical problems" and then "regarded Taoism as a philosophy discovered in China". The logic is the same: China, which we emphasize now, is no longer universal, which in itself is a kind of submission and retreat.

Therefore, it is a false question to condemn the Han people for not respecting tradition. Before the Opium War, China people did not constitute a nation, it was not a part of the world, it was the world itself, it was the "world"-as a universal existence, the conspicuous symbol was absurd and meaningless, just as human beings did not need to declare themselves as human beings at any time, because this identity first meant targeting an object. According to a psychological survey, 95% black teenagers in the United States mentioned that they were black when answering "Who am I"; However, white teenagers rarely regard "white" as their main identity, but answer social identities such as "student", because the disadvantaged groups will "regard ethnic minorities as an important feature that distinguishes them from other ethnic groups" [1]. 1964, the word "white Protestant" first appeared in the United States. "This word will be used by people, which shows that the influence of the traditional American elite has been greatly weakened, because it implies that they are just another ethnic group" [2]. In American English, there used to be many swearing words specifically aimed at blacks, and later blacks invented many words specifically aimed at whites, which also hinted at the relative decline of the status of whites. Carlos Fuentes said: "When you receive a bill in California to vote to make English the official language of California, it only means one thing: English is no longer the official language of California."

Before the late Qing Dynasty, there was no national flag in China. "The only national flag it knows is used when the envoys of the servant countries pay tribute; The empire itself does not need to distinguish its national emblem "[3]. It does not belong to the "secret" itself, but outside it. Just like the Japanese royal family has no surname, because it is unnecessary: as a universal existence, it does not need to be different from other families. Before the western invasion, the existence of "China Studies" was impossible, just as it was impossible to hold "Western Studies" conferences in a world where "Orientalism" conferences were held regularly. Many of the early classics of various ethnic groups, such as the Bible and history books, or place names and surnames, are generic names because they are the only ones. Only by expanding the scope to a certain extent can we emphasize the individual particularity of everything. To some extent, this stimulated self-esteem and lack of self-confidence are just two sides of the coin. As Thomas Friedman once said, "Once a leader loses real power, he will haggle over all those symbolic things, such as clothes representing his position and personal insults, and try his best to defend them, because he has nothing else."

It is wrong to regard Han people's ignorance of the tradition of "Hanfu" as a shame and regret, because it fails to realize that this lack is not the embodiment of national decline, but the embodiment of the earlier nation being too strong. Just as white Americans don't have to emphasize their "national costumes" or "white music". This sense of nationalism is usually a response to a crisis. For example, in the Turkish Empire before modern times, its residents never considered themselves "Turks"-that was an "insult" to a gentleman in Constantinople. Accepting this idea is a major revolution of the country, which represents not the remolding of tradition, but a sharp and decisive break with tradition [4].

Rebuilding tradition itself is a modern concept, and its background is a group of nationalist countries with intensified contradictions. Highlighting and defending this status symbol is the product of this ideological tension, because the necessity of defense lies in feeling that what needs to be defended has been violated. The story of Ji Hongchang wearing the "I'm from China" badge in the United States is often regarded as a patriotic story, but on the other hand, if it is not discriminated against, this rebellious gesture will lose its meaning: for example, in a street full of China people, someone shouts "I'm from China!" This scene is puzzling, if not absurd.

National consciousness is good, but it also leads to doubts about the symbol itself: what is the purpose of wearing Hanfu? In the real Hanfu era, the purpose of wearing is to wear itself, not why; In an era of initiative, advocacy itself is a reliable sign of its decline. Just like in the heyday of Confucianism, it was the only original book, but today the advocates of new Confucianism can't avoid this situation: Confucianism is just one of many alternative ideas. It no longer constitutes a world, but just a relic and carefully preserved cultural relic; It is no longer the whole of life, but just an object to be treated-no matter what attitude to treat it.

Many "traditions" are also imported. For example, cheongsam was worn by Manchu women, and suddenly became the uniform of ordinary Han women after the Republic of China, while robes and mandarin jackets became the costumes of national men. The so-called "kimono" in Japan is also a kind of Wu costume introduced from the Tang Dynasty-the real traditional Japanese costume, which is probably the "penetrating costume" described in the History of the Three Kingdoms. According to the fundamentalist logic in this respect, in fact, no nation's tradition is entirely from itself. Fortunately, it has no time to study it, and only regards it as a social mobilization means of "imagining * * *".

This kind of effort to objectify and put the "traditional revival" into practice is basically unimaginable in the pre-modern society. Just like we all use our mother tongue, but we can't understand the grammar of our mother tongue. The "Hanfu Revival" movement called on people to remember China in the past, but it clearly stated a truth: It was because of the collapse of China's own traditional international order that the "world" became a country that this movement became possible. As Joseph Richmond Levenson said, most of the history of modern China thought was a process of making the "world" a country. This movement is just another small fluctuation in the final stage of this process.

Finally, "forcing people to worship tradition from the heart, or even forcing people to be nostalgic, will gradually make people wonder: does tradition have any merits to boast about?" [5] Of course, this may not be so important, because reviving tradition is only a tool to strengthen identity and mobilize society. In all these events, "decline and revival are surprisingly mixed together, because often those who complain about decline are the ones who bring revival" [6]. The active organizers of activities are usually extremely sensitive people, because only they can realize a sense of inner squeeze and the necessity of self-identity fastest and deepest.

I sympathize with their efforts, but refuse to cheer for their cause. Not only because of the logical loopholes in the movement itself, but also because of its hopeless prospects. In the era when identity is divorced from clothing, clothing is no longer a symbol of one's culture and race. In Bingler's words, a nation is just a "spiritual unit", and the meaning of external symbols is not increasing, but decreasing.

-

[1] multicultural perspective: a study of values and national identity

[2] "1960s and the end of modern America"

[3] "History of Foreign Relations of the Chinese Empire"

[4] "The Rise of Modern Turkey"

[5] Joseph Richmond Levenson's Confucian China and its modern destiny.

[6] "Traditional invention"