On Ideology and Academic Thought Discussion with Mr. Yu Yingshi

Zhang Rulun

I.

Ten years ago, Mr. Yu Yingshi wrote "Ideology and Academic Thought" and later on, he explicated the minutes of a symposium an this article, producing another one entitled: "Again an Ideology and Academic Thought" . The two articles advance an important question, i. e. , the relationship between ideology and academic thought. In an age when ideology spreads unchecked and keeps affecting, misrepresenting or passing academic thought, it is of unusual significance for the emergence and development of academic thought to distinguish or do justice to the relationship between it and ideology.

While acknowledging that thought and ideology are tied in innumerably ways, Mr. Yu Yingshi emphasizes that either of them has its own relatively independent sphere. Behind thought's possession of the nature of "independent existence" is the reason that "academic thought not only has its own relatively independent sphere and objective foundation but also forms an ever-continuing tradition. The close relationship between thought tradition and academic tradition fundamentally guarantees the relative independence and objectivity of thought. The Western natural sciences, social sciences , philosophy and so an are not open to being wantonly shoved about by others because they are knowledge systems with strict discipline and have their respective objective standards to examine the truth or falsehood of knowledge. Extrinsic interference either out of political motivations or social requirements or other reasons cannot completely destroy the intrinsic law of the development of a certain scientific subject after all though they can affect the development within a short period of time. " "Every thought tradition with a distant origin and a long development , at least compared with its own cultural tradition, contains some truths and values that can withstand the test of the time. Therefore, although thoughts change with times and mirror times in moderation, yet they simultaneously surpass times and cannot be completely defined by times. And speaking from the long historical perspective, the significance of their surpassing times is more important, more fundamental than that of their mirroring times . . . . The character of thought tradition in surpassing times makes academic thought fundamentally differ from ideology. "E1~ Therefore, "An equal - sign cannot be freely drawn between academic thought and ideology. "(2) "One cannot absolutely simplify academic thought as pseudo- ideology, i. e. , the derogatorily - sensed ideology. "~33 These points of view, I should say, are very correct for the most part.

However, since ideology and academic thought are tied "in innumerable ways" , it is obviously not enough to get into shape the relationship between them only by emphasizing the independence of academic thought. In the matter of the "innumerable" connections of ideology and academic thought , Mr. Yu only says in his two articles that "academic thought is always mingled with the ingredients of ideology and the latter cannot be completely without the basis of the former, either. "(43 He also says, "The society forever needs a certain ideology while the lively ideology is often combined with the latest academic thought of the time. "(5) "Academic thought is the indispensable foundation for ideology. "(6) This is, in fact, only partial description of the phenomenon of ideology and ideology itself , but does not explain why the two have the "innumerable" connections as well as how and why they take place, let alone explains the nature of the connections. On the contrary, owing to his rather general terms in describing the phenomenon of ideology, he cannot explain the relation between academic thought and ideology in a very detailed and clear - cut way but gets a seemingly self - contradictory conclusion instead. For example, an the one hand he says, "ideology and academic thought cannot be entirely carved out in practice, "(73 but an the other hand he continues almost instantly "there is an evident demarcation line between academic thought and ideology to be divided, "(83 and illustrates with the example: the biggest characteristic of the history of the Chinese modern thought is that "academic thought and ideology are explicitly divided into the two. "(9~ Thus, not only is the relationship between ideology and academic thought not expounded in a convincing way but it seems that the author himself finally invalidates his original argument. Dialectically speaking, because he failed to explain fully the relationship between academic thought and ideology, his explanation of either of the two's "relatively independent spheres" is not quite clear. This is of course first because a very complicated question is involved, just as Mr. Yu puts it "this question cannot be solved by one or two articles and even challenges one or two large - volume books. "(There is no hiding the fact that the author' s division of the notions of academic thought and ideology seems some what careless or inexact , so his interpretation of the similarities and differences of the two's natures cannot be up to expectations.

There is no doubt that to study the relationship between ideology and academic thought, one has to define in principle their notions first of all but his definition should be the description of their natures rather than general delimitation. The two are often lumped together because of their "innumerable connections" . Therefore, it is very hard for us to distinguish one from the other if we do not first find out their respective essence that is most striking and differs from the opposite side. For the sake of convenience, we had better begin to discuss the definitions of the two made by Mr. Yu. Mr. Yu defines "thought" as "all results of principles, fundamental and systematic studies and the reflection an certain ` phenomenon' or ` reality' . "(11~ This definition is correct except for accuracy. For one thing, it is not difficult to judge whether the official philosophy of Nazi and of some countries is thought or ideology though it accords with the standard of "results made through principled, fundamental and systematic studies and reflections". For the other thing, such writings as "Lun Yu" (The Analects of Confucius) , the Buddhist chant entitled "Pu Ti Ben Wu Shu" (The Attainment of Buddhahood is made in a natural way) written by Liu Zu Huineng and "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" seem to be at variance with the above Standard, but are out - and - out thoughts.

Now, let' s See Mr. Yu' s definition of ideology. After "epitomizedly examining some modern arguments an ideology" , Yu defines ideology generally as "ideology exists in every culture or society and is a collective consciousness directly with a bearing an cultural or social order. "(12~ This definition, however, is a little careless as can be seen clearly. Isn't such collective consciousness "directly with a bearing an cultural or social order" as the consciousness that traffic regulations should be observed and criminals should be punished by law a kind of ideology? In his "Again an Ideology and Academic Thought" , Mr. Yu adds that the "ideology" he mentions in his "On Ideology and Academic Thought" roughly has two different connotations. [13) One is what Marx called "pseudo - consciousness" while the other is the "actively - sensed" ideology whose main function is "to convince general people (or some communities) so as to lead to common social actions. "(14~ But the question is that any ideology has its social function, otherwise it cannot be called ideology. Nazi ideology is undoubtedly "pseudo - consciousness" but the shocking social function it performed is similarly doubtless. Obviously, open to discussion is Mr. Yu' s argument that "this kind of `ideology' (with social function) cannot purely be regarded as the derogatory `pseudo - consciousness' . It simultaneously includes the ingredients of what Geuss calls `narrative consciousness' and `active Sense'"C15~"To show direction and stir up social actions" is but the neutral description of the social function of ideology, with which it is not enough to affirm the active sense of ideology. Whether or not ideology is active depends an the concrete effect it exercises an the concrete thing and the result it produces under the concrete social and historical conditions, which cannot be lumped under one head. The statement that ideology "must be able to represent the common interests and will of the great majority in the society"(16) apparently conflicts with the fact. Ideology forever refers to the specific ideologies of a certain political party, or class, or group, or status or profession, and there has never been an ideology commonly shared by the whole people (or by the majority) , which has generally obtained among scholars studying ideology. Even Marx only says that the dominant consciousness at a certain time is the consciousness of then ruling class. But this notwithstanding , it always appears as the consciousness an behalf of the interests of the whole society and this is why we call ideology "pseudo - consciousness" . Any society embodies various ideologies which are incisively expounded in Mannheim' s "ideology and Utopia". Therefore, principally speaking, ideology is unlikely to really stand for the common interests and will of the majority in the society but only to claim as such or to be thought of as such.

Perhaps Mr. Yu may say that his ideology which can represent the common interests and will of the majority in the society just refers to the "open" mainstream ideology in the democratic society. According to him, "the formation of the mainstream ideology can be created through the long - term rational discussions by the intelligentsia. It represents a kind of social common view. "(17) In contrast to "the closed" ideology that "distorts the real social circumstances to the greatest degree" , the mainstream ideology in the free society must reflect social reality as fully as possible and an the other hand it is relatively open to academic thought. [18~ But if ideology can reflect social reality as fully as possible, then it cannot be called ideology. The cause of people's distinguishing between ideology and academic thought just resides in their essential dissimilarities at this point. Noncongreunce of ideology with reality is the classic definition made by Mannheim. (19~ This definition, seriously obtained by Mannheim after his detailed analysis of various ideologies, is generally accepted by those who are engaged in the discussion about ideology because it has basis of facts and academic theory. Mannheim holds that one cannot take into account the reality appropriate for a specific circumstances and attempt to ponder over them with inappropriate scopes so as to cover up reality. This knowledge is ideology. C2°) If this point is ignored, it is indeed very hard to distinguish ideology from academic thought or scientific knowledge. As regards whether or not the mainstream ideology of the free society is relatively open to academic thoughts, the facts known to some people can make us clear. Even Russel, as a kinsman of the emperor and the authority in academic circles, not only lost his teaching posts an both coasts of the Atlantic because of his thought' s not being included in the mainstream ideology, but also was tried at court for several times and finally imprisoned. Darwin was closed the door upon for long by British and American universities for the same reason. Even in American first - class universities, the educational thought of Dewey - - the philosopher with the greatest originality, was not accepted by the mainstream ideology, either. On the contrary, the mainstream ideology in American universities can be said to run counter to Dewey's thought. (21) It is not strange that modern French thinkers of the first class such as Sartre, Levi - Strauss, Foucault, Fonck, Lacan and Derrida are all formidable critics of the existing ideology. Therefore, it is unimaginable that French mainstream ideology keeps open to their thoughts. As a matter of fact, the "open" ideology of the free society is only a kind of myth and imagination of ideology. This accounts for the Western thinkers' special sensitivity to and their most formidable criticism of the ideology problem.

On the basis of the above definitions of "thought" and "ideology" , Mr. Yu epitomizes the relationship between academic thought and ideology as follows: "academic thought is always mingled with the ingredients of ideology and the latter cannot be completely without the basis of the former, either. "(22~ This is of course all right but only to be left oversimplified. However, we would beg to differ from Mr. Yu's opinion when he actually understands academic thought as the basis for ideology, describes their relationship with that between "Ti" (body) and "Yong" (function) and hence holds that academic thought is "Ti" - - "the first meaning" and "the upper -class culture" or "high - grade thought" while ideology is "Yong" - - "the second meaning" and "lower-strata culture" or "popular thought". As a historian, Mr. Yu of course knows the Chinese academic tradition that " ` Ti' and `Yong' are uniform" ; "complete ` Ti' is `Yong' and complete `Yong' is ` Ti' " . As a matter of fact , essentially speaking, "Ti" and "Yong" are really "two sides of the coin" rather than two matters with different natures. Later an in the history, Zhang Zhidong advocated that "the Chinese learning should be regarded as the mainstay while the Western learning is the appliance. " Although he also employed the words "Ti" and "Yong" in his statement mentioned above, yet he was straying from their traditional meanings. No matter how enlightened he was, Zhang could not go as far as to consider "the Chinese learning" and "the Western learning" as the same thing with the same origin. But from Mr. Yu' s articles, it seems that he is not employing the two notions - -"Ti" and "Yong" in the sense as Zhang Zhidong put them. Mr. Yu obviously thinks that academic thought is the source of ideology, "the latter is something permeated through the former thought it always appears as the vulgarization and distortion of the former. "[231 Such statements as "the ideologies that can be provided in Marx' s works . . . . "[24) , "the studies an Confucian classics have also presented actively -sensed ideologies at various times"(251 and "academic thought is the indispensable Basis for ideology"(261 show that the author understands academic thought as the source of and basis for ideology, i. e. , the latter is derived from the former and is the "popularization" of the former. Then, isn't ideology to be understood as "popularized" academic thought? Maybe, Mr. Yu's original idea was not like that. This is because he does insist that academic thought and ideology be divided in notion. However, we can hardly avoid the above conclusion when we read the sentence that " the highest achievements made in these spirit fields (referring to religion, morality, philosophy, literature and art - - author's note) belong to what I call academic thought but as long as these achievements are popularized and accepted by ordinary people, they will become the so - called ideologies"(273 And the statement that "ideology has to begin with the studies an things" may more easily make people feel that "`Ti' and `Yong' are uniform" in the relationship between academic thought and ideology. These versions, as a matter of fact, do confuse the dividing line between the two. For example , to explain that the same academic tradition may always infiltrate into different (even mutually-conflicting) ideologies, Mr. Yu points out that Zhu Xi's thought of Li Xue (a Confucian school of idealist philosophy) could either be distorted and vulgarized by the official ideology or could be taken over for sharp criticism by Dai Zhen (a thinker and scholar in the Qing Dynasty - - translator' s note) . But can we say that Dai Zhen developed Zhu Xi' s thought through "vulgarization" by Dai into another ideology, conflicting with the official ideology though? If we understand Dai Zhen' s criticism of and attack against the official ideology as a kind of ideology and if we consider the succeeding and developing relationship in which Zhu Xi's thought affected Dai Zhen and this academic tradition was further succeeded and deve
loped by Dai as academic thought's infiltration into ideology, then, not only the Chinese modern thinking history but also the entire Chinese thinking history will become the history of ideology.

I am sure that Mr. Yu will not expect there to be such a conclusion. In fact, the very value of Mr. Yu's two articles, in my opinion, lies in the fact that his theory is different from some wide - sense ideological theories of the West that sum up all the things belonging to thought and cultural field under ideology, which in fact equals the negation of the relative independence of academic thought. It is the indispensable prerequisite to the independent development of academic thought and its keeping critical of ideology to insist an distinguishing between academic thought and ideology and to maintain the relative independence of academic thought. But in discussing the similarity and difference of academic thought and ideology as well as their relationship, Mr. Yu fails to present their fundamental differences. Instead, quoting from Geertz, he thinks and hopes that academic thought provides source - -rational basis for ideology. However, Geertz takes the two as connected but completely different things. Ideology makes manifold assertions of experiences upon social status and direction whereas science (common sense when without scientific knowledge) sets value an them. Science (i. e. , academic thought) first is to understand the social functions of ideology (for example , what are they? How do they work? And what have brought about them?) and then to criticize them - - forcing them to surrender to reality. "The existence of the important tradition to scientifically analyse social problems is one of the most effective guarantees against ideological extremism because the tradition provides for this political imagination absolutely reliable positive knowledge source which it respects and gets benefits from. "(29) It is very clear that Geertz doesn't consider academic thought (science) as the basis for ideology. In essence, he maintains that so long as reliable scientific knowledge is present, ideology - - a political imagination - -cannot be very far away from what is normal. It serves as a role of criticism and check.

Two questions are to be asked: Isn't it that because academic thought and ideology are tied in innumerable ways they can only be divided in notion but "in fact there is not a clear-cut distinction between them" and objectively there are not "such two eye-catching entities separately an display there"? Isn't there an essential difference between the two just because there is something of each in the other? As regards the first question, Mr. Yu's answer is positive but mine is negative. If actually there don' t exist the two cultural phenomena - - ideology and academic thought, then, what is the ultimate ground for notion division? Probably nobody will understand "Zhuang Zi" , "Shuo Wen Jie Zi" or Aristoteles' "Poetics" and like as ideologies but haven' t they obviously existed there for several thousand years as pure academic thoughts? On the other hand , who an earth will take McCarthyism and something like that as academic thought? Indeed, not a few ideologies have grounds of academic thought but many haven' t at all. The ideology of the primitive civilization for example, was based perhaps an myth, sorcery and the primitive religion and like, and could not at all contain the ingredients of academic thought. Therefore, academic thought may not be "an indispensable basis for ideology" . They may not have natural connections. Why academic thought is distorted or transformed into an ideology will have to be attributed to the social requirements and social functions of ideology and this is just where the real mystery of ideology lies. As concerns the second question, Mr. Yu's answer, I think, is negative. But unfortunately his negative intention is not very clearly expressed in his articles in which he only repeatedly insists an separating the two. Nevertheless, to really divide the two, we shall have to probe deep into and clearly point out their essential differences. Otherwise, in handling their relationship, we shall unavoidably bring about some misunderstanding intermixture and finally make the inde

(TO BE COMPLETED)