Dialectical Thinking: Chinese vs. Western Style
dialectics
A method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent contradictions. The contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing interaction.
Dialectical Thinking: Chinese vs. Western Style
As written by Richard Nisbett (2003) in "The Geography of Thought" (p. 27):
"In place of logic, the Chinese developed a type of dialecticism. That is not quite the same as the Hegelian (or Western) dialectic in which thesis is followed by antithesis, which is resolved by synthesis, and which is "agressive" in the sense that the ultimate goal of reasoning is to resolve contradiction. The Chinese dialectic instead uses contradiction to understand relations among objects or events, to transcend or integrate apparent oppositions, or even to embrace clashing but instructive viewpoints. In the Chinese intellectual tradition there is no necessary incompatibility between the belief that A is the case and the belief that not-A is the case. On the contrary, in the spirit of the Tao (道) or yin-yang principle, A can actually imply that not-A is also the case, or at any rate soon will be the case. ("物極必反") Dialectical thoght (Chinese version) is in some ways the opposite of logical thought. It seeks not to decontextualize but to see things in their appropriate contexts: Events do not occur in isolation from other events, but are always embeded in a meaningful whole in which the elements are constantly changing and rearranging themselves. To think about an object or event in isolation and apply abstract rules to it (as in Western intellectual tradition) is to invite extreme and mistaken conclusions. It is the Middle Way that is the goal of reasoning."
Similarly, as written by Kaiping Peng and his colleagues (2006) in "Naive Dialecticism and the Tao of Chinese Thought" (p. 256):
"However, we have to point out that there is a fundamental difference between Chinese naive dialecticism and the commonly understood dialectical thinking in Western thought. In Western intellectual domains, dialectical thinking usually refers to three levels of analysis, including dialectic dynamic at the societal level (e.g., Hegelian or Marxist dialectics (馬克思)), dialectic argumentation at the level of interpersonal discourse, and dialectical integration at intrapsychic level. Importantly, Chinese naive dialecticism is different from all three types of Western dialectical thought. Western dialectical thinking is fundamentally consistent with the laws of formal logic, and aggressive in the sense that contradiction requires synthesis rather than mere acceptance. The key difference is that Chinese naive dialecticism does not regard contradiction as illogical and tends to accept the harmonious unity of opposites....... Western dialectical thougt, particularly the Marxist dialectic, treats contradiction as antagonistic. As Lenin wrote in the Philosophical Notebooks, the unity of opposites is only temporary, transitory, and conditional. Equilibrium and harmony are only temporary; conflict, contradiction, and the struggle of opposing tendencies are permanent."
Therefore, Chinese (naive) dialecticism is very different from the commonly known Western dialecticism. (I wish that scholars had coined a different term for Chinese pattern of thought, because Western dialecticism is so ingrained in people's mind when the term dialects is used.) Ironically, Chinese communism follows the Western Marxist dialectic rather than Chinese traditional dialectic. Therefore, "清" "算" "鬥" "爭" (many bad consequences happened in the height of Chinese communism in the name of "struggle of classes") may be blamed on the Western Marxist/Lenin dialecticism rather than Chinese naive dialecticism.
References
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently and why. New York: Free Press.
Peng, K., Spencer-Rodgers, J., & Nian, Z. (2006). Naive dialecticism and the Tao of Chinese thought. In U. Kim, K. S. Yang., & K. K. Hwang (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context (pp. 247-262). New York: Springer. 15
CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION 1
1 Tongbian: A Chinese Strand of Thought 22
2 Marxism in China: Initial Encounters 49
3 Tongbian in Preliminary Reading of “Dialectics” 72
4 Qu Qiubai’s Reading of Dialectical Materialism 89
5 Popularizing Dialectical Materialism 108
6 Ai Siqi: Sinizing Dialectical Materialism 129
7 Mao Zedong: The Mature Formulation of Dialectical
Materialism 146
Conclusion: Marxian Dialectics after Mao 178
Notes 190
Glossary 210
Bibliography 241
Index
About the Author
As you can see
from my previous post, I began to read and review this book in October 2008. My
initial conclusions about is ideological bent remain unchanged. Here is what I
have to say upon having just re-read its final chapter.
Conclusion: Marxian Dialectics after Mao
Because of the
tradition of Chinese communalism, Chinese neoliberalism has been absorbed into
Chinese socialism, thus altering Western liberalism. Various traditional
Chinese social and legal concepts are summarized. Citing Hall and Ames, the
author argues that Confucianism lives on in the contemporary Chinese
incorporation of capitalism. There is no inherent contradiction between Chinese
capitalism and socialism. Again, tongbian or continuity is emphasized. Hence, via
a metaphysical reading of Chinese intellectual and political history, the
author’s ideological fraud is completed.
Hall and Ames
are far from alone in exploiting the exoticism of the Orient and glorifying its
conservative organicism—its notion of metaphysical harmony—as a putative
antidote to the perceived alienation, individualism, and disharmony of the
West. In this they are in harmony with the obscurantist peddlers of the East.
This is ideological charlatanism at its worst, and all the more disgusting in
light of the reality of neoliberalism today.
What remains to
be gleaned from this book, minus its unacceptable argument, is the factual
content of the development of Marxist philosophy in China, in its absorption of
foreign sources and the ideas of its indigenous thinkers. In lieu of reviewing
this in detail now, to give a flavor of the content, I append my raw notes
below.
Tian, Chenshan. Chinese
Dialectics: From Yijing to Marxism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005. x, 237 pp.
Chapter 2: Marxism in China: Initial Encounters
Japanese
influence
51-2: socialism, Marx, Liang
53: Marx & Nietzsche. Modern Socialism: 1st Marxism
55-6: Sun Yat-sen & skipping historical stages
56-7: 1st translation of Marx & Engels
58: earliest debate
59-60: anarchism
60: introduction of diamat
61: workers & women, idealism & materialism
62: Heraclitus
63ff: Hegel
Chapter 3: Tongbian in Preliminary Reading of
“Dialectics”
72ff: bianzheng: etymology –> dialectics, via
Japanese
76: Liang viz. Heraclitus
79: maodun = complementaries, not contradiction.
Cai [……?] – Hegel
80: Hegel: essentialism
81: Hegel’s secularized Trinity
81-2: Cai’s translation of Hegel
82: Bhaskar’s definition of dialectic
83: Engels problematic. Deep structure of western thought. Bianzhengfa: diamat
Chapter 4: Qu Qiubai’s Reading of Dialectical Materialism
88: Chinese
Marxism not interested in understanding philosophy of histomat
Qu Qiubai brought back Marxism from USSR –> dialectics. No access to young
Marx, Western Marxism
91: Qu dependent on 2nd International & Soviet Marxism, but called himself
a student of Marxism
93: Qu as a Chinese had different priorities. See continuity through
differences –> Sinification
94ff: Qu: diamat is philosophy of continuity/correlation. Humanity in continuity
with physical world. Like Yi Ching[?]. contra religion & teleology. Bian: change as continuity.
100: tongbian [……?] dualistic western concepts (BS!),
e.g. base & superstructure [Chinese correlative thinking]
Chapter 5: Popularizing Dialectical Materialism
Qu formulated
system of diamat 1923-1927. 1927-1937: various popularizers, link to
traditional Chinese philosophy. Diamat all the rage. Zhang Dongsun
(anti-diamat) vs Ye Qing.
109ff: Zhang vs Hegel & Marx. Confused concept of negation –> class
struggle
111: Ye: “dialectics negates philosophy and confirms science”. Materialism
absorbs idealism. Dialectic as evolution.
114: Li Da’s translation of A Textbook on Dialectical
Materialism influenced Mao (1937). Dialectical and Historical
Materialism (Mitin et al). 1st systematic interpreter of Marx.
115: Li: 1st to consider Marx’s 1844 mss –> key concept of praxis. Diamat:
epistemology & praxis based on one another
116: Wu Liangping: base & superstructure
117: Zhang Ruxin on Hegel
118-9: Shen Zhiyuan vs Ye Qing. Shen popularizer, translated Mitin.
120: Chen Weishi: proposed Sinification.
Problem [my objections]:
1. aware of dissensions within Marxism [?]
2. Marxism interpreted by USSR, diamat
3. adapted to Chinese conditions—flexibility
4. but book focuses on metaphysics—limited to diamat & tongbian
5. comparison of Chinese[?] & diamat based on metaphysical generalizations
about the difference & assumption that everything be deducible from
metaphysics
Chapter 6: Ai Siqi: Sinizing Dialectical Materialism
Ai Siqi
polymath.
130: as translator
132: translated Mitin & Stalin. Ai the master philosophical educator.
131: Mao vs Ai on contradiction
133: Ai as popularizer, philosophy as practical
134: Ai’s method of exposition, counterexamples.
135: conversion of Western discourse into Chinese context (BS!?)
136: Ai sophisticated in Western learning but did not distinguish between
method & social realm
137-8: Ai’s & Mao’s Sinification program. BS: continuity with Chinese
tradition (philosophical as well as sociopolitical)
139: Lukacs viz. Engels controversy alien to tongbian
140: critique of Lenin’s Materialism and
Empiriocriticism
Chapter 7: Mao Zedong: The Mature Formulation of
Dialectical Materialism
143: criticizes
Stalin, even more strongly Chinese than others
144: Mao’s thought in practice led to victory: BS. Ollman on internal
relations.
145: Mao read Lenin, Dewey
146: Mao at Dewey lecture; studied Hegel
147: Mao’s voracious philosophical reading was all from Chinese translations of
Russian texts
150-1: Mao conversant with classics, interested in Confucianism, Daoism
152: Mao knew Chinese classics
153: Mao not fond of Confucius, but found dialectics in him. Emphasis on the
active
155: dialectics & classics
156: diamat as continuity
158: on contradiction
160: doing continuous with thinking
161: voluntarism
163: propaganda BS for Mao. Mao vs Engels
164-6: Mao vs Stalin
Book Description
Publication Date: May 2005 | ISBN-10: 0739109227 | ISBN-13: 978-0739109229
Dialectical thought is at the core of Karl Marx's work and all subsequent attempts to build on his legacy: Marxism. And, arguably, Marx's special departure into dialectics represents an anomaly in that tradition and all of Western philosophy. Marxism finds its philosophers in the academy; in trade unions; in former soviet states; in industrial and non-industrial nations and this makes it distinct from all other modern philosophies. It is certainly the most international modern philosophical movement. Chinese Dialectics From Yijing to Marxism is an unparalleled investigation into the conversation between Western Marxism and Chinese, or Eastern Marxism. An autochthonous version of Marxism persists in China coming to fruition through the work of Mao Zedong. Chenshan Tian contends that the conversation between Eastern and Western Marxism results in a striking feature of dialectics that pervades the everyday thinking and speech of ordinary persons in China. No study to date has undertaken the task of tracing the development of Marxism in China through it's ancient philosophical texts. This book is absolutely essential reading in the disciplines of comparative political theory, philosophy, and Asian studies.
Special Offers and Product Promotions
Editorial Reviews
Review
This book will make a significant contribution into the field of Chinese philosophy and Chinese intellectual history....I would require my undergraduate and graduate students in philosophy to read it....The last chapter is very unique and gives a timely warning about Chinese style of liberalism. (Robin Wang, director of Asian and Pacific studies and professor of philosophy, Loyola Marymount University)
Chenshan Tian's brilliant study forces us to rethink conventional accounts of the reception of Marxism in East Asia, particularly in China. Drawing on untranslated Chinese primary sources, Tian convincingly argues that the integration of major Marxist concepts occurred within the larger intellectual and cultural framework of Chinese tongbian philosophy. This book is a major contribution to the growing discipline of comparative political theory. (Manfred B. Steger, Illinois State University and Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology)
By drawing in detail on a long and powerful tradition in Chinese philosophy, this book shows that the conventional understandings of Chinese Marxism demand careful reconsideration. It turns out, indeed, that getting this straight casts new light on current debates. An important book. (Peter T. Manicas, director, Interdisciplinary Studies Program, University of Hawai'i at Manoa)
Chenshan Tian's book is an important contribution to the study of Chinese dialectical materialism. His argument that Marxist dialectics was received in China through the lens of
tongbian or 'continuity through change' is well-sustained. Concise, insightful, and excellent in scholarship. (Chenyang Li, professor and Department Chair, Philosophy, Central Washington University)
This is a most welcome monograph drawing upon both philosophy and political science to make explicit what has only been hinted at by our best interpreters of modern China. In this rigorously reasoned analysis, Tian Chenshan crafts a subtle yet compelling argument that the dialectical sensibilities of Chinese Marxism are distinctively Chinese, informed as this 'modern' Marxist way of thinking is by persistent cosmological assumptions recovered from the canons of Chinese philosophy, especially the
biantong dialectic endorsed by the
Book of Changes (Yijing). (Roger T. Ames, professor of philosophy, University of Hawaii)
An important contribution to the study of Chinese dialectical materialism. . . . Tian Chenshan's book on this much-neglected topic is indispensable for those who want to understand the intellectual history of China. (
Journal Of The Royal Anthropological Institute)
Chenshan Tian's book is a rare combination of excellent comparative philosophy and critical depth. It is analytically keen and extraordinarily informative about the geography and heritages of political philosophy. (Michael J. Shapiro, Professor of Political Science, University of Hawai'i)
About the Author
Chenshan Tian is special programs coordinator, Center for Chinese Studies, University of Hawaii.
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
4/08 학습할 기사
[PDF]www.uri.edu/iaics/.../24%20Jianglong%20Wang.pdf
이 페이지 번역하기 By examining the text of the Chinese classic, I Ching (spelled as Yi Jing in. Chinesepin ... dialectical relationship between opposition and fellowship via conflict. 24 Jianglong Wang.pdf
cultdialectics.pdf
04/15일 기사
[PDF]Culture, Dialectics, and Reasoning about Contradiction
www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/cultdialectics.pdf
이 페이지 번역하기 dialectical thinking is a form of folk wisdom in Chinese culture: Chinese preferred ....One of the first mandatory books for literate ancient Chinese was the Yi Jing. /I-Ching(The Book of Changes), in which the principle of contradiction is clearly.
www.academia.edu/.../Cultural_Differences_in_Use_...
이 페이지 번역하기 Roughly, dialectic thinking can be defined as a cognitive procedure which ... The results of these studies showed that participants of Chinese descent were more ...
Marx's dialectics according to David Harvey
Dialectics is a concept that is crucial to understand the Sociocultural Theory. A clear explanation of it is not easy to find, though.
One of the best explanations of dialectics that I have found is in David Harvey's
A Companion to Marx's Capital. (One thing I enjoyed most this summer was to read the chapter of commodity of
Capital. If you can read Japanese, please go to my blog article on commodity (
http://yanaseyosuke.blogspot.jp/2012/08/blog-post_14.html).
In the book, Harvey claims that understanding Marx's dialectic method is crucial.
One of the most important things to glean from a careful study of Volume I is how Marx's method works. I personally think this is just as important as the propositions he derives about how capitalism works, because once you have learned the method and become both practiced in its execution and confident in its power, then you can use it to understand almost anything. This method derives, of course, from dialectics, which is, as he points out in the preface already cited, a method of inquiry "that had not previously been applied to economic subjects" (104). He further discusses this dialectical method in the postface to the second edition. While his ideas derive from Hegel, Marx's "dialectical method is, in its foundations, not only different from the Hegelian, but exactly opposite to it" (102). Hence derives the notorious claim that Marx inverted Hegel's dialectics and stood it right side up, on its feet. (Harvey 2010: 11)
In what immediately follows the above, Harvey makes it clear that Marx's dialectics is to understand "processes of motion, change and transformation."
There are ways in which, we'll find, this is not exactly true. Marx revolutionalized the dialectical method; he didn't simply invert it. "I criticized the mystificatory side of the Hegelian dialectic nearly thirty years ago," he says, referring to his critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Plainly, that critique was a foundational moment in which Marx redefined his relationship to the Hegelian dialectic. He objects to the way in which the mystified form of the dialectic as purveyed by Hegel became the fashion in Germany in the 1830s and 1840s, and he set out to reform it so that it could take account of "every historically developed form as being in a fluid state, in motion." Marx had, therefore, to reconfigure dialectics s that it could grasp the "transient aspect" of a society as well. Dialectics has to, in short, be able to understand and represent processes of motion, change and transformation. Such a dialectical method "does not let itself be impressed by anything, being in its very essence critical and revolutionary" (102-3), precisely because it goes to the heart of what social transformations, both actual and potential, are about. (Harvey 2010: 11)
Harvey goes on to explain how Marx's dialectics is different from Hegel's and the version of Marx we tend to believe in.
What Marx is talking about here is his intention to reinvent the dialectical method to take account of the unfolding and dynamic relations between elements within a capitalist system. He intends to do so in such a way as to capture fluidity and motion because he is, as we will see, incredibly impressed with the mutability and dynamics of capitalism. This goes against the reputation that invariably precedes Marx, depicting him as some sort of fixed and immovable structuralist thinker. Capital, however, reveals a Marx who is always talking about movement and the motion - the processes - of, for example, the circulation of capital. So reading Marx on his own terms requires that you grapple with what it is he means by "dialectics." (Harvey 2010: 11-12)
One example how Marx's dialectics works is seen when he explains the dual aspect of 'value'of the commodity:
use-value and
exchange value.
Let us reflect a moment on the structure of this argument. We begin with the singular concept of the commodity and establish its dual character: it has a use-value and an exchange-value. Exchange-values are a representation of something. What is it a representation of? A representation of value, says Marx. And value is socially necessary labor-time. But value doesn't mean anything unless it connects back to use-value. Use-value is socially necessary to value. There is a pattern to this argument, and it looks like this:
(Harvey 2010: 22)
NB: This figure is modified. The original figure has USE-VALUE at the top of the triangle.
The dialectics is not about causality, at least uni-directional causality. It is about codependent relations that requires its constituents
at the same time.
How has Marx's dialectical method been working here? Would you say that exchange value, or use-value cause ...? This analysis is not causal. It is about relations, dialectical relations. Can you talk about value without talking about use-value? No. In other words, you can't talk about any of these concepts without taking about the others. The concepts are codependent on one another, relations within a totality of some sort. (Harvey 2010: 33)
We may be too familiar with the notion of uni-directional causality, particularly those of us who were trained, and keep ourselves trapped, in the simple experimental research designs. Uni-directional causality has been seriously challenged by the complexity theory. And the complexity theory is not alone in challenging our modern Orthodoxy of uni-directional causality. Marx's dialectics, a method that has been greatly misunderstood and transfigured, must be properly understood so that we have a better understanding of this world, in which we live and have hope.
http://yosukeyanase.blogspot.jp/2012/08/marxs-dialectics-according-to-david.html
다음 PDF에서 자본론 상품장 설명 참조
[PDF]digamo.free.fr/dhcompa.pdf
A COMPANION TO MARX S CAPITAL the Media College of the University of the Poor in New York and the Media. Mobilizing Project in Philadelphia, were given ...
The new dialectic and Marx's Capital - Chris Arthur
This book consists in part in a study of dialectical motifs in Marx’s work, and in part in further developing these themes in the context of a new tendency that has emerged in recent years, which is variously labelled ‘the New Dialectic’, ‘New Hegelian Marxism’ or ‘Systematic Dialectic’.
This book both argues for, and demonstrates, a new turn to dialectic. Marx's "Capital" was clearly influenced by Hegel's dialectical figures: here, case by case, the significance of these is clarified. More, it is argued that, instead of the dialectic of the rise and fall of social systems, what is needed is a method of articulating the dialectical relations characterising a given social whole. Marx learnt from Hegel the necessity for a "systematic" development, and integration, of categories; for example, the category of 'value' can be fully comprehended only in the context of the totality of capitalist relations. These studies thus shed new light on Marx's great work, while going beyond it in many respects.