Why don’t Han people wear Hanfu?

Recently, we have repeatedly seen people advocating for the revival of Hanfu, and even established a number of specialized websites linked to each other - this once again confirms the group polarization characteristics of virtual network connections. Like almost all "revival" events in history, this attempt is actually a re-creation of tradition in the name of revival. It is not a return to the original canon, but an invention of the original canon. In my opinion, its chances of success are extremely low, but more importantly: it is futile because it does not have the meaning it claims.

The revival of Hanfu is somewhat considered a nationalist impulse. However, just like nationalism itself, its ideological roots can only be traced back to the West. Many of Europe's so-called "traditions" are actually far less ancient than imagined, but rather reinventions of the late 19th century because they are "so lacking in precedent that even historical continuity had to be invented." As a national symbol, the Scottish pleated skirt "the name and the skirt itself were not heard before the 18th century" ("The Invention of Tradition"); indeed, it and the bagpipe once existed in a residual form, but they were widely Most Scots regard it as a sign of barbarism. This retroactive invention was "in a sense a protest against England".

Those who advocate Hanfu have undoubtedly given the clothing itself a color of political protest. In a pre-modern society, clothing was often a symbol of race and culture. It is true that Chinese history has always attached great importance to "clothing", but regarding it as a symbol of resistance and perseverance, almost without exception, it occurred in times of drastic political changes. era. The reason is very simple. As a symbol of national self-consciousness, the key is, as Liang Qichao said, "self-consciousness for others." If there is no other who makes one feel a strong sense of oppression, the meaning of this resistance itself will also be lost. It dissolves naturally.

The paradoxical logic of the so-called "revival of Hanfu" is that even if Hanfu is revived, it actually means its decline. There is no standard model of "Hanfu" in the changes of clothing in China's past dynasties, because when it serves as a dominant force, the Han nationality does not need its own distinctive mark. Conscious national self-awareness represents the recognition of equality and even inferiority between oneself and others. Therefore, the key is here: Hanfu, which is now defended as a symbol, seems to satisfy our self-esteem and is a tribute to tradition, but its essence is Under the premise of decline, we should settle for the second best. This is equivalent to admitting to abandoning its own universality and emphasizing relative particularity, as if before the invasion of Western medicine, there was only "medical skill" but no so-called "Chinese medicine". Jin Yuelin once pointed out incisively that when modern philosophy historians study Daoism, they first “treat the problems of European philosophy as ordinary philosophical problems” and secondly treat Daoism “as a philosophy discovered in China.” The logic is the same: the Chineseness we are emphasizing now is no longer universal, which in itself is a kind of surrender and retreat.

Therefore, it is a false question to accuse the Han people of lacking respect for tradition. Before the Opium War, the Chinese did not constitute a nation. They were not part of the world. They were the world in themselves. They were "the world" - as a universal existence, the mark of distinction was absurd and meaningless. The reason is that human beings do not need to declare that they are human beings all the time, because this identity first means targeting a certain object. A psychological survey shows that 95% of black teenagers in the United States mentioned that they are black when answering "Who am I"; however, white teenagers rarely regard "white" as their main identity, and will answer "student" and other social identities, because disadvantaged groups “see minorities as an important characteristic that distinguishes them from other ethnic groups” [1]. In 1964, the term "white Protestant" appeared for the first time in the United States. "The fact that this term is used by others is enough to show that the influence of the traditional upper class in the United States has been greatly weakened, because it implies that they are nothing more than Just another ethnic group” [2]. There used to be many curse words specifically aimed at black people in American English. Later, black people also invented many words specifically to curse white people. This change also indicates the relative decline of white people's status. Carlos Fuentes said: "When you get 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, China did not have a national flag. “The only national flag it knew was used by envoys from vassal countries when paying tribute; the empire itself did not need to distinguish its own national emblem” [3].

It itself does not belong to "being classified", but is outside it. Just as the Japanese royal family does not have a surname, because there is no need for it: as a universal existence, it does not need to be different from other families. The existence of "Sinology" before the Western invasion was also impossible, just as it was impossible to hold a "Western Studies" congress in a world where "Orientalism" congresses were held regularly. Many of the early classics of various ethnic groups, such as the Bible and Shangshu, or place names and clan names, are common names, because they are the only things that exist. Only when the scope is expanded to a certain extent, is it necessary to emphasize the identity of each thing. individual peculiarities. To some extent, this inspired self-esteem and lack of self-confidence are just two sides of the same coin. As Thomas Friedman once said: "Once a leader loses his actual power, he will lose all those symbolic things, such as He scruples and defends the trappings of his office, the personal indignities, etc., because he has nothing but these."

Considering that the Han people do not pay attention to the tradition of "Hanfu" is a shame and a shortcoming. It is a mistake in the current concept: because it does not realize that this lack is not a reflection of the decline of the nation, but it is It is a manifestation of the excessive power of the earlier nation. Just as white Americans don’t have to emphasize having their own “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 usually never considered themselves to be "Turks" - that is not the case for a superior person in Constantinople. It is nothing more than an insult." The acceptance of this idea was a major revolution in the country, which represented not a reshaping of tradition, but a severe and sharp break with tradition [4].

The reinvention of tradition is itself a modern idea, and its background is a group of nationalist countries that are intensifying conflict with each other. Highlighting and defending the symbolic signs of one's own identity is precisely the product of this ideological tension, because the necessity of defense lies in the feeling that what needs to be defended has been violated. The story of Ji Hongchang wearing the "I am Chinese" badge in the United States is often regarded as a patriotic story, but on the other hand, if he did not suffer discrimination, this gesture of resistance would lose its meaning: for example, in a house full of Chinese On the street, someone shouted "I am Chinese!" This scene was inexplicable if not ridiculous.

National consciousness is good, but self-consciousness leads to questioning the symbol itself: What is the purpose of wearing Hanfu? In the era of real Hanfu, the purpose of wearing it is to wear it, no matter why; in the era of conscious initiative, the initiative itself is a reliable sign of its decline. Just as in the heyday of Confucianism, it was the only original text, and those who advocate New Confucianism today cannot avoid this situation: that is, Confucianism is just one of many ideas to choose from. It no longer constitutes a world, but is just a residual, carefully preserved cultural relic; it is no longer the whole of life, but just a certain object that is treated as an object - no matter what attitude is used to treat it.

Many "traditions" themselves are also imported. For example, the cheongsam was always worn by Manchu women. After the Republic of China, it suddenly became the common dress for Han women, while the long robe and mandarin jacket became the national dress for men. The so-called "kimono" in Japan itself is also the Wufu introduced in the Tang Dynasty - the real traditional Japanese clothing is probably the "Guan Touyi" described in "Three Kingdoms". According to the logic of fundamentalism in this regard, in fact, no nation's tradition is entirely its own. Fortunately, it has no time to study it in detail, but only uses it as a means of social mobilization for the "imagined *** unity" That’s all.

This kind of effort to objectify and instrumentalize "traditional revival" was basically unimaginable in a pre-modern society. Just like we all use our mother tongue but cannot understand the grammar of our mother tongue. The "Hanfu Revival" movement calls on people to remember the China of the past, but it clearly tells the truth: it is precisely because of the collapse of China's own traditional international order that "the world" became a country, which made this movement possible. As Levinson said, most of the history of modern Chinese thought was a process of turning “the world” into a country [5]. This movement is just another small ripple at the very end of the process.

Finally, “Forcing people to worship tradition from the bottom of their hearts, or even force people to be nostalgic, will gradually make people question: Does tradition have the advantage of self-promotion?” [5] Of course, this is true. Perhaps not so important, since reviving tradition is merely a tool for social mobilization that strengthens identity. In all such events, "Decline and revival are surprisingly intermingled, for often those who complain of decline are the ones who bring about revival" [6]. Active organizers of events are usually people with extremely sensitive hearts, because only they are the quickest and most aware of the inner squeeze and the need for self-identity.

I sympathize with their efforts but refuse to cheer their cause. Not only because of what I see as flaws in the logic of the movement itself, but also because of its hopeless prospects. In an era where identity and clothing are disconnected, clothing is no longer a symbol of a person's culture and race. In Spengler's words, nation is nothing else but a "spiritual unit", and the meaning of external markers is not is strengthening, but will be diminished.

--------------------------------------------- --------------------------

[1] "Multicultural Perspectives: Research on Values ??and National Identity"

[2] "The Sixties and the End of Modern America"

[3] "History of Imperial China's Foreign Relations"

[4] "The Rise of Modern Turkey" "

[5] Levinson "Confucian China and its Modern Destiny"

[6] "The Invention of Tradition"