article

Chinese scholarship has been influenced by the deconstructive postmodernism inspired by Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard. The situation began to change when constructive postmodernism, initiated by John Cobb Jr. and David Ray Griffin, was introduced to China. The translation and publication of the Chinese version of The Reenchantment of Science (ed. David Griffin, SUNY, 1995) was the turning point. At this time, Chinese scholarship learned that there is another type of postmodernism, constructive postmodernism.

Some major repercussions of the translation and publication of the Chinese version of The Reenchantment of Science were reported by Wenyu Xie (Cf. “Translating Process Thought Into Chinese” Process Perspectives, Spring, 1997). Here, I wish to contribute some new details.

One year after the book was published, Zhihe Wang, the editor of the Chinese version of The Reenchantment of Science, was invited by the annual conference of the Association of the Philosophy of Nature (nationwide in China) as a keynote speaker. To his surprise, almost all the participants had read the book and spoke highly of it. After the conference, Wang was invited to lecture at several major universities. In these lectures, he introduced constructive postmodernism, which seemed to impress the audiences. At some universities, professors began assigning the book to their graduate students on their “must-read” or reference list. For instance, Professor Qiquan Gui from Wuhan University even bought some copies of the book for his graduate students and held a seminar to discuss the book. Professor Guoqing Ji (Heilongjiang University) and Professor Xiaoting Liu (Harbin Normal College) expressed appreciation for the book’s methodology, and emphatically recommend this book to their graduate and undergraduate students.

In November 1996, Studies in Dialectics of Nature invited ten scholars to discuss the book. Comments provided by four of the respondents were published in the journal (No. 1, 1997). The main points of these four commentaries were as follows: Entitling his article “Hope for New Science,” Prof. Guangbi Dong, (Chinese Academy of Science), comments that the spirit of The Reenchantment of Science is very positive in its efforts to transcend scientism and anti-scientism and that it opens a new angle for perceiving the physical world. The article also praises the effort to construct a new science by combining modernity and premodernity. Another respondent, Zhuya Mao, described the value of constructive postmodernism as a new perspective. A third article, by Liu Bin's (China Science & Technology University), points out that this is the first book which studies science from the point of view of postmodernism. This author sees it as a positive sign that the book is widely read and cited in Chinese scholarship. The fourth article, “Critique of Technology and Postmodern Scientific View,” was written by Prof. Lianghua Gao (Qinghua University). He perceives both constructive postmodernism and traditional critical theory of technology as inspired by Heidegger, Horkheimer, and Marcuse, and he sees them as consistent. He appreciated the constructive postmodernist's works in building postmodern relationships between human individuals, between individuals and society, and between individuals and nature, by absorbing the achievements of a critical theory of technology.

At the same time, Social Sciences Abroad (No. 3, 1996) published a book review by Prof. Hongqi Zhang, “Transcending and Returning.” The review calls the translation project of the SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodernism Thought a significant work, for it offers Chinese readers an introduction to constructive postmodernism. In Zhang’s view, postmodern science is both transcendent and returning: to transcend modern physics is to return to the reenchanted world and the reenchanted science. Zhang concludes that, theoretically, the open and holistic thinking displayed by The Reenchantment of Science is very inspiring.

Zhihe Wang has also completed a Dictionary of Postmodernism. Included in the dictionary are many entries concerned with constructive postmodernism, such as “constructive postmodernism,” “postmodern science,” “postmodern teleology,” “Whitehead,” “process theology,” “founders of constructive postmodern philosophy,” “Center for Process Studies,” “Center for Postmodern World,” etc. The book contains one million words and will be published by China Central Compilation & Translation Press.

With the passage of time, studies in constructive postmodernism in China are continuing to develop. Some analytical discussions of constructive postmodernism have appeared in Chinese journals. I will provide a brief introduction of these developments.

Zhihe Wang has published several articles: “On Three Forms of Postmodernism” (Social Sciences Abroad No. 1, 1995), “Another Postmodernism” (the introduction of the Chinese edition of The Reenchantment of Science, 1995), “Postmodernistic constructive Dimension” (China Social Sciences No.1,1997), “Postmodernism and Constructivity” (the introduction of a Chinese edition of Spirituality and Society: Postmodern Vision, 1998.) In these articles, he systematically introduces constructive postmodernism to Chinese scholarship. In addition, he inquires into the relationship between constructive postmodernism and deconstructive postmodernism. Wang emphasizes the valuable contribution of constructive postmodernism, describing its most significant asset as the development of a new way of thinking that helps to expand our horizon and inspire our creativity.

Wang also describes common points between constructive and deconstructive postmodernism. First, both of them are discontent with modernity and try to overcome it. Secondly, both of them remind us of our responsibility for continued concern for the existence of humans and nature. Foucault once said that he liked “curiosity”^{^[1]} because curiosity arouses our concern for things existing and possible and it causes us to sharpen our perceptions of reality. Constructive postmodernism develops this kind of curiosity through promoting our concern for others, for nature, for past, and for future. But why must we be concerned about others? Foucault did not provide an answer, but constructive postmodernism gives an answer―the world is organic. The relationship between individuals and others is internal. Therefore, people will feel a sense of kinship with other species, which are viewed “as having their own experiences, values, and purposes.”^{^[2]} Thirdly, both constructive and deconstructive postmodernism promote creativity. According to the constructive postmodernism, “creativity” is “an essential aspect of our natures”(David Griffin).^{^[3]} Rorty also tries to develop is the picture of the self as one who is to generate and invent.^{^[4]} Lyotard also encouraged people to seek for chance, especially the chance of creation. Fourthly, both regard the “principle of liberty” as “the highest principle.”^{^[5]} Wang's conclusion is that in the face of the strong modernistic worldview, it is advisable for constructive postmodernism to ally with deconstructive postmodernism.

Some scholars have studied the relationship between constructive postmodernism and traditional Chinese culture. Prof. Meijun Fan from Beijing Normal University inquired into the relationship between the constructive postmodernism and Zhuang Zi, a great Chinese ancient thinker. Her studies in “The Postmodern Implication in Aesthetics in Zhuang Zi” indicates that, first, there is something common between the postmodern sense of oneness with nature implied by the constructive postmodernism and the thought of unification of humankind and nature in Zhuang Zi. According to Griffin, “postmodern persons do not feel like aliens in a hostile or indifferent nature. Rather, they feel at home in the world.”^{^[6]} In Zhuang Zi, we read this: “To become together with nature and feel oneness with nature is a lofty aesthetic realm.” Secondly, both constructive postmodernism and Zhuang Zi undermine the complacency and parochialism of human beings. Zhuang Zi says, “I am in the world, just like a little stone and a little tree in a mountain.”

In her book, Contemporary Interpretation of Traditional Chinese Aesthetics (China Social Sciences Press, Beijing, 1997), Prof. Fan compares Whiteheadean organism and the Chinese traditional holistic consciousness reflected in the notion of “harmony is beauty.” Further, she offers an extensive discussion of the similarities and differences between ecological consciousness in traditional Chinese aesthetics and the ecological consciousness of the contemporary West. Her conclusion is that the organic holistic consciousness that both Whitehead and ancient Chinese thinkers convey is significant to our lives in that it helps us to overcome the fragmentation of modern thinking, to overcome the division between humanity and nature, individual and individual, male and female, soul and body, as well as other divisions of this kind in our life.

Dr. Linghong Kong (Zhongshan University, Guangzhou) has also explored the relationship between constructive postmodernism and the work of Zhuang Zi in an article, “Constructive Postmodernism and the Thoughts of Zhuang Zi” (Journal of Seeking Truth No. 3, 1998). He points out several points in Zhuang Zi that are similar to constructive postmodernism, such as the criticisms of conquering nature, of analytic thinking, and of dualism. For example, Zhuang Zi considers humankind to be in harmony with nature. He shares the same concern for nature as postmodern thought, expressing this in the concept of “a complex garden to be tended, respected, harvested, and loved.”^{^[7]} There are many other scholars studying the relationship between the constructive postmodernism and the Chinese traditional wisdom. Such as Liu Kui's (NanJing University of Science and Technology) “Paradigm Alternative and Postmodern Organism” and Zhong Cai 's (Nanjing University) “Postmodern Sciences and Chinese Traditional Scientific Thought.” (These two articles are not yet published.)

Other scholars are beginning to consider the relationship between constructive postmodernism and contemporary Chinese culture, Chinese postmodernization, and the relationship between constructive postmodernism and theology. Prof. Yuheng Wang, in his article, “Some Discussions on Postmodern Philosophy” (Academic Trends, No. 6, 1998), shows great appreciation for Griffin's preface of the Chinese version of The Reenchantment of Science, specifically Griffin’s attitude concerning the postmodernization of China. Prof. Baowei Zhu (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) has devoted himself to the study of Whitehead's process thinking. His article, “Organism Event Value: Whitehead's Organism” (Field-Being No. 2, 1996) has exercised some influence in Chinese scholarship. Prof. Xinping Zhuo (The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) published an article with a title “Postmodern Movement and the Response of Theology” (Journal of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Graduate College No. 3, 1997), in which he brings to light the relationship between constructive postmodernism and contemporary theology. He envisions the fundamental transition in postmodernism from destructiveness to constructiveness, from negativeness to positiveness, from pessimism to optimism, and recognizes the contribution by constructive postmodernism in this transition. Finally, Prof. Yuehou Qu and Jie Yu's co-wrote an essay, “Development of Process Theology in the 20th Century” (Social Sciences Abroad, No. 4, 1998). The article traces the development from process theology to the constructive postmodernism.

The story seems endless. There are an increasing number of scholars interested in and involved with constructive postmodernism. As we fulfill our translation project, we can expect a greater and wider impact on Chinese thinking. So far we have translated and published two other books―Spirituality and Society (David Griffin, ed.) and Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (John B.Cobb and David Griffin). Founders of Constructive Postmodern Philosophy has also been translated and is ready for publication.

^{^[1]} Foucault,Michel. Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings,1977-1984.translared by Alan Sheridan and others; edited with an introduction by Lawrence D.Kritzman.(New York: Routledge,1988).

^{^[2]} Spirituality and Society: Postmodern Visions, ed. David Ray Griffin, State University of New York, 1988, p.15.

^{^[3]} Frederick Ferre, “Religious World Modern Science,” in The Reenchantment of Science, ed. David Ray Griffin, State University of New York Press, 1988.

Cf. David Griffin, “Peace and Postmodern Paradigm” in Spirituality and Society, State University of New York Press, 1988, p.148.

^{^[4]} Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton University Press,1980.)

^{^[5]} G.B. Madison, The Logic of Liberty, Greenwood Press, 1986.

^{^[6]} Spirituality and Society: Postmodern Visions, ed. David Ray Griffin, State University of New York, 1988, p.14.

^{^[7]} Frederick Ferre, Religious World Modern Science, in The Reenchantment of Science, ed. David Ray Griffin, State University of New York Press, 1988.