| A balance between tradition and modernization |
|
|
|
| Features | |
| Friday, 17 September 2010 | |
|
Mid-autumn festival, the day for family reunion in the Chinese culture, is a time for celebration and reflection for those of us who live abroad. A special get together with carefully prepared food is an exciting tradition that we look forward to year after year. But as the dinner party draws to an end, the realization that another year has slipped by while China is undergoing rapid transformation often brings a feeling of bittersweet alienation.
This year, the Meridian Society has hosted a mid-autumn festival dinner debate to explore the right balance of tradition and change in modern China. Despite the serious tone of the motion “This House believes that the destruction of China’s traditional built environment in the name of modernisation is an unjustifiable sacrifice”, the casual atmosphere of the New Loon Fung restaurant and the humour of the speakers made the evening delightful for its guests.
Affirming the motion were Lord Donald Hankey, a cultural heritage expert who has worked on many architectural projects in China, and Linda Chung, a Lib Dem councilor in Camden.
Donald started his speech by explaining the modernisation of the West after World War Two, which reduced old tradition and identity and must not be copied by China. He said: “I am astounded by the achievements of China’s development in the last 30 years, but I believe that it is crucial to preserve cultural and iconographical aspects of the Chinese landscape.” He argued that the Chinese are seduced by the fantastic opportunities of this age, but challenges have already emerged, such as its new labour force, the outcome of the one child policy and the traditional integration that no longer takes place. “But as a society China must achieve more cohesion and harmony, otherwise it will be made to pay the price of not caring enough about its founding values”, reflected in “weakened identity, reduced historic meaning, destroyed kinship, and a speed of change faster than we can adapt.”
Linda too explained the risk of destroying history and identity for short-term economic benefits. Residing abroad since a young age meant that China’s cultural landscape has been an important place where she would search for a part of her identity. Furthermore, her experience of contributing to Camden’s planning has taught her the importance of balancing changes and tradition in a way that provides residents the best lifestyle. Her experience of helping to create the best environment for Hampstead has made her hope that China can achieve the same for its citizens.
Speaking against the motion were Chung-Min Pang, a civil engineer who has worked on many economics and international development projects in China, and Hugo de Burgh, a professor of media studies at Westminster University.
Chung-Ming began his speech by explaining that when it comes to the built environment, we tend to be extremely emotional. “But we need to be less sentimental, less romantic and more practical,” he said, “The issue is not whether built environment should be protected but at what cost.
“Secondly, we look back at history, culture and heritage when our economy is strong. China is experiencing an unprecedented rate of growth today, so in 30 years time its arts and culture will also flourish. During the Qing dynasty, China lost two opium wars and its economy suffered. Its Old Summer Palace was burnt down and much cultural heritage was lost.” While it is true that economy is not all that matters, Chung-Ming’s point that an economically weak country would have no capacity to protect its culture is rather valid.
His supporter Hugo further advanced the argument that China should have a forward looking attitude. In particular, he believes that China should emphasise change, new ideas and new thoughts, and build on its history. Secondly, Hugo argued that what works should be implemented and maintained, “Why preserve if you can create something smarter and better?” Thirdly, he compared China to a virgin with no time to lose - it has already achieved an economic miracle but with such a large population one minor mistake can put many people back into poverty.
A vote before the debate showed that more people agreed with the motion, but a subsequent vote revealed that the audience believed Chung-Ming’s team to have made the more convincing argument. Did Chung-Ming’s team win purely from eloquence of speech and logic of argument? The equally insightful and intriguing content communicated by all four speakers suggest otherwise.
It seems that a motion which champions culture and heritage would be automatically considered as unquestionably right. However, China is currently in a delicate process of redefining its history and culture and it is not difficult to point out that holding onto a romantic past in such a situation is a lost battle.
Cultural heritage is memory from every age including the current one. Despite China’s five thousand years of history, creations in the last century like Chairman Mao’s photo at Tiananmen, or, the international settlement zone in Shanghai, have already become heritage that we treasure dearly. As China enters a new age of unprecedented change, landmarks left of this age will inevitably become traces of memory in the not too distant future.
Modernisation does not always equal destruction. Many Chinese historical sites cannot be preserved without maintenance and adaptation. Adaptation is transforming the old into a practical modern solution. For example, the Old City of the Lijiang tourism district changed many houses into shops, restaurants and hostels, allowing visitors from all over the world to learn China’s heritage. Some argued that the entire zone has become commercialized and consequently lost its uniqueness, but on the contrary the keen search for heritage by tourists has forced the houses to maintain their historical significance, while income generated from tourism kept this maintenance sustainable. This form of heritage renovation is currently taking place all over China, but much of it would have been impossible without destroying some aspects of the old.
While physical presence of heritage sights is a reminder of identity, the loss of culture is an inevitable process. The great Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi once said that much of China’s history is already lost, even though he lived around 300 BCE. If this is so, what we salvage today is peripheral to China’s heritage in its entirety. Preserving heritage in its entirety is also unpractical because many heritage sites are not recognised as heritage until they are destroyed. For example, we are currently in the process of destroying the majority of pavilions after the end of Expo without a second thought, but if these pavilions are preserved for another few hundred years, they could become a protected heritage site.
Built environment is always in an inevitable state of construction, destruction, maintenance, and destruction for both China and abroad. While no-one can disagree with the concept of cultural protection, transformation and modernisation done in a considerate, environmentally friendly and economically sustainable way seem to be the more practical way for China to move forward.
But some history will never be lost, such as the tradition of celebrating mid-autumn festival year after year, which is deeply ingrained in our identity and allows us to share China’s heritage with friends from all over the world.
Cecily Liu
|
|
