Author: Wei Yingjie
The late American sinologist Joseph Levenson once said in his famous work "Confucian China and Its Modern Fate": "Now it is the museum curator rather than the creator of history who is looking after Confucius." His meaning was that, in mainland China during the 1950s and 60s, Confucius no longer had any stimulating effect on traditionalists because all traditional things had been shattered, leaving Confucius to belong only to history.
This famous judgment, at least as seen now, has become outdated. Nowadays, a public sacrificial craze is sweeping across the entire country, with figures like the Yellow Emperor, Yan Emperor, Dayu, Confucius, Laozi... being brought out for worship. The ancestors are no longer sleeping in museums but have become hotly contested treasures in more than one place. For example, Xinzheng in Henan Province and Huangling in Shaanxi Province are competing to host sacrifices to the Yellow Emperor, two places in Shanxi Province are arguing endlessly over which is the "hometown of Emperor Yao," and throughout history, the figure described as "like a dragon" - Laozi - has been coveted byLintao County in Gansu Province, Luyi County in Henan Province, Guoyang County in Anhui Province, and Luoyang City in Henan Province.
How should we view this new wave of复古 (retro) trends carried out under the banner of promoting traditional culture?
Firstly, behind all these phenomena, there is always the ambiguous shadow of local governments. Just as a certain place openly proclaimed in a banner "Taoist Holy Land, Investment Hot Spot," the secret of "culture sets the stage, economy sings the play" has already been revealed in this open battle for traditional resources. This point does not need further elaboration.
Secondly, this retro movement - although merely nominal - also reflects a certain kind of cultural crisis currently existing. As Levenson described, the revolutionary tide of the first half of the twentieth century overthrew Confucius, severing its precious historical continuity and sense of identity. Under the backdrop of economic reform, a modern-conscious cultural form has yet to be formed, allowing traditional ideologies to resurface. It is worth noting that the role played by local governments in this regard precisely indicates that the ideology they should uphold has been intentionally or unintentionally forgotten and abandoned.
Thirdly, precisely because this public sacrificial craze is not truly about inheriting and reviving traditions but is instead driven by strong utilitarian motives, its result will inevitably be: after being knocked down or sent into the museum, tradition is once again pulled out by the hand of the economy and subjected to "corpse flogging." In other words, whether it's the "overthrow Confucius shop" of the early 20th century or today's "culture sets the stage, economy sings the play," the harm done to tradition is not substantially different. The former could be called "beating with a stick," while the latter is no less than "praising to death."
Finally, from historical experience, this current wave of retro trends will likely leave behind no valuable cultural heritage - be it material or intangible.
Professor Li Ling proposed that ancient relics can be categorized into three types based on their historical reliability: one type is genuine relics, another type is renovated or reconstructed relics, and the last type is purely fake relics (as seen in the book "Shuo Gu Zhu Jin"). So-called fake relics are those created now "to manufacture antiques for the future." This phenomenon has existed since ancient times but has become particularly rampant today. For instance, the tombs of the two emperors and the Yellow Emperor’s tomb are not real relics. To be fair, just like forged books, they are not entirely without value when viewed from later generations, but their significance lies in the era when the forgery was made. For example, upon investigation, the "tombs of the two emperors" were actually Neolithic settlement sites, so their historical value lies in the latter rather than the so-called "tombs of the two emperors." However, the current rush in various places to build "statues of gods," expand "ancestral temples," and conduct public sacrifices is not purely out of antiquarianism or revivalism but rather aimed at developing tourism economies. This fate seals the destiny of related buildings and derivatives to be short-lived. These fake relics may still exist decades or even a hundred years from now, but it is difficult to ensure that they won't turn to ashes hundreds or thousands of years later. Whether imitating ancient styles or reviving them, they will inevitably reveal the spirit and style of the era they belong to. Therefore, what future generations can experience through these "revival products" will probably only reflect a restless era spirit. This public sacrifice craze, calculated for utility, is all that future generations will see.
In summary, retro is nothing but a facade, public sacrifices are all about economics, and the most lamentable thing is that after the craze subsides, all that remains is a pile of garbage.