I have been thinking a bit more about my earlier post on postmodern Confucianism.  And here’s a question: why on earth would the editors of People’s Daily open up this kind of conversation?  Don’t they realize that bringing postmodernism into the revival of Confucianism will work against the state’s efforts to rationalize its modernization project?

    Let me unpack the assumptions behind these questions.  It seems to me that, by definition, postmodern theory denies not only the morality but also the very possibility of large-scale, universalizing, modernizing endeavors.  It takes Marx’s famous dictum, "all that is solid melts into air," and makes it an inescapable historical dynamic, instead of merely a transitory feature of capitalism.  There is no "end" to history in postmodern theory, there is no ultimate victory of socialism over capitalism nor the realization of something called "communism."  History has neither an end nor a beginning, it has only flux and plurality and "play."

    It would follow, then, that any invocation of postmodernism must be antagonistic not only to general notions of modernizing progress but, most devastatingly and specifically, to Marxist notions of modernizing progress.  Just look at what the synthesis (can I use that word here sans its Hegelian overtones?) of postmodern theory and Marxist theory gets us: Empire.    Now, Hardt and Negri’s book is an interesting one (I have actually inflicted upon hapless undergraduates) but if they see Europe’s welfare-state socialism as "decadent," then they would most certainly see China’s Leninist-capitalism as beyond the pale.  The "multitude" cannot be contained, much less led by, the Chinese Communist Party.

    If this is the case, then, why would the editor’s of the People’s Daily ever want to endorse (and I assume publication on their editorial page is an endorsement of sorts) a line of thinking that would lead directly to a rejection of the Leninist-Marxist basis of Party legitimacy and the generally modernist orientation of state ideology?  And why do this in the context of Confucian revival?

    There are at least two answers I can think of off the top of my head.

    First, this might be seen as some sort of endorsement of China’s  New Left.  For that to be the case, however, the editors would have to believe that the New Left concern with addressing growing economic and social inequalities, its critique of capitalism and its reliance on the use of state institutions to achieve social justice are somehow related to a postmodern political project.  I just don’t see the connection.  Postmodernism has made its way into Chinese intellectual circles, but its focus, as would be expected, has been more deconstructive than ameliorative.  I do not see postmodernists as social democrats in Derridian clothing.

    So, if that is what the PD editors are thinking, they may just be wrong.  Which leads us to a second possibility: they just don’t know what an invocation of "postmodern" entails.  This seems plausible to me.  I mean, have they read Fredric Jameson?  Maybe.  But maybe not.  I suspect they picked up on Professor Tian’s statement that to engage with the postmodern, Confucianism would have to "go global;" that is, it would have to be open to and flow along with global currents of cultural exchange.  That is certainly an aspect of the postmodern.  But, what the editors do not seem to realize, is that a just as powerful element of the postmodern is its corrosive effect on centralized authority, universalizing ideology, and modernist narratives of progress.

    To be most blunt: a postmodern China would have no reason to lay claim to Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang.