Your presentation of the two approaches shows that the analytical method reflects modern demands and the holistic grasp is a product of an earlier epoch. Now that appreciation of holistic, right-hemisphere knowledge is making a comeback, there should be room for it without denying the validity of the low-context, logical approach. I wonder how such a plural or integrative stance would be implemented in language learning.
Just as modernism constructs and postmodernism dissects, I feel there is always a natural oscillation between holistic and logical approaches. It is never a strict dichotomy, but rather an integrative approach, as you said.
Taiwan is one of the last places where traditional Chinese characters are still in everyday use — making it the best place in the world to learn them as a living script, not a museum piece.
"On the mainland, a fascinating reversal is attempting to take shape. Recognizing the spiritual and cultural void left by decades of radical modernization and the Cultural Revolution, the state has recently sponsored a massive revival of “Guoxue” (国学, National Studies). There is a top-down push to reintroduce traditional culture, poetry, and Confucian ethics back into the public sphere."
This is really fascinating. With the revival of Guoxue, the performative nature of old culture, and "It’s hard reconstruct the holistic beauty using the very tools that separated it" -- what do you see as a compromise? You have touched on this in other articles, regarding the structure of modern Chinese versus classical and how that impacts on thinking processes.
Do you see a way to not so much reverse the trend but to develop a more fluent education system that is able to develop deeper philosophical depth and develop abilities to perceive the "气韵" of classical pieces? Or do you consider the internet age is piecemealing so much and changing the way we think there is little hope for that?
I’m actually quite optimistic about this. Think about the European Renaissance, even when a tradition feels completely severed for hundreds of years, the essence remains waiting to be rediscovered. As long as these classical works possess true value, they will inevitably revive in some format, at the right time.
I would argue that the analytic vs holistic approaches are not mutually exclusive. The mainland approach equips students to be both analytical and holistic in reading the classics. Just my view as an external observer, neither mainland nor Taiwanese.
I've often ben struck by the way that many Taiwanese seem to despise the simplified characters as ugly, illogical and an assault on traditional culture, especially when, as you mention, it was the Nationalists that started trying to simplify the characters in the 30s, and the Japanese also came up with their own simplification of the kanji after the war.
Taiwanese people and their pawns frequently slammed us for being culturally "fake" when I was growing up in America, repeatedly. Now I know that it comes from their own cultural programming and is just as fake.
Back in the 1920s, the KMT was restructured under the guidance of the Comintern, turning it into a Leninist organization operating a party-state apparatus. You could argue the true ideological divergence didn't happen in the late 40s, but rather in the early 2000s.
The recent year debates in Taiwan over the Classical Chinese curriculum are rooted in the fact that it was originally heavily emphasized to position as the 'guardian' of Chinese culture. After the lifting of martial law in 1987, Taiwan entered a process of nation-building. Distancing themselves from a broader 'Chinese' identity and reducing the dominance of Classical Chinese is part of identity building.
Your presentation of the two approaches shows that the analytical method reflects modern demands and the holistic grasp is a product of an earlier epoch. Now that appreciation of holistic, right-hemisphere knowledge is making a comeback, there should be room for it without denying the validity of the low-context, logical approach. I wonder how such a plural or integrative stance would be implemented in language learning.
Just as modernism constructs and postmodernism dissects, I feel there is always a natural oscillation between holistic and logical approaches. It is never a strict dichotomy, but rather an integrative approach, as you said.
Thank you very much for this article.
Exactly what I hoped you might explain to outsiders sometime, and here it is.
Great.
Thank you.
Taiwan is one of the last places where traditional Chinese characters are still in everyday use — making it the best place in the world to learn them as a living script, not a museum piece.
"On the mainland, a fascinating reversal is attempting to take shape. Recognizing the spiritual and cultural void left by decades of radical modernization and the Cultural Revolution, the state has recently sponsored a massive revival of “Guoxue” (国学, National Studies). There is a top-down push to reintroduce traditional culture, poetry, and Confucian ethics back into the public sphere."
Times really goes by turns!
This is really fascinating. With the revival of Guoxue, the performative nature of old culture, and "It’s hard reconstruct the holistic beauty using the very tools that separated it" -- what do you see as a compromise? You have touched on this in other articles, regarding the structure of modern Chinese versus classical and how that impacts on thinking processes.
Do you see a way to not so much reverse the trend but to develop a more fluent education system that is able to develop deeper philosophical depth and develop abilities to perceive the "气韵" of classical pieces? Or do you consider the internet age is piecemealing so much and changing the way we think there is little hope for that?
I’m actually quite optimistic about this. Think about the European Renaissance, even when a tradition feels completely severed for hundreds of years, the essence remains waiting to be rediscovered. As long as these classical works possess true value, they will inevitably revive in some format, at the right time.
The classical works do indeed possess true value, there are many who haven't forgotten that. I'm glad you are optimistic.
I would argue that the analytic vs holistic approaches are not mutually exclusive. The mainland approach equips students to be both analytical and holistic in reading the classics. Just my view as an external observer, neither mainland nor Taiwanese.
Agreed. It’s less of a strict dichotomy and more about a difference in emphasis.
I've often ben struck by the way that many Taiwanese seem to despise the simplified characters as ugly, illogical and an assault on traditional culture, especially when, as you mention, it was the Nationalists that started trying to simplify the characters in the 30s, and the Japanese also came up with their own simplification of the kanji after the war.
Amazing stuff. Not too often there is an open war on culture, important to remember this effort failed.
Taiwanese people and their pawns frequently slammed us for being culturally "fake" when I was growing up in America, repeatedly. Now I know that it comes from their own cultural programming and is just as fake.
Back in the 1920s, the KMT was restructured under the guidance of the Comintern, turning it into a Leninist organization operating a party-state apparatus. You could argue the true ideological divergence didn't happen in the late 40s, but rather in the early 2000s.
I recall hearing about a trend in Taiwan of denying being Chinese. How does this sit with the 文言文 debate and its ties to traditional Chinese culture?
The recent year debates in Taiwan over the Classical Chinese curriculum are rooted in the fact that it was originally heavily emphasized to position as the 'guardian' of Chinese culture. After the lifting of martial law in 1987, Taiwan entered a process of nation-building. Distancing themselves from a broader 'Chinese' identity and reducing the dominance of Classical Chinese is part of identity building.