Interpretation of "Bringing Doctrine"

Interpretation of "Bringing Doctrine"

The article "Bringing Doctrine" is selected from "Qijieting Essays", which is one of the famous articles in Mr. Lu Xun's essays, and is a classic article in Chinese textbooks for high schools and secondary vocational schools.

In the 1930s, some erroneous ideas of retro-retrograde and total Westernization appeared in the cultural circles of our country, and the left-wing literary and art teams carried out discussions on issues such as the popularization of literature and art and the new and old forms of literature and art. Many people have shown some wrong thinking and confused understanding on how to deal with foreign cultural heritage. In order to clarify fallacies, criticize the inheritance of cultural heritage, and promote the healthy development of revolutionary literature and art, Mr. Lu Xun put forward the idea of ​​opposing "retreatism" and "sending away doctrine" and advocating "bringing doctrine", absorbing the essence of foreign cultural heritage and eliminating the dross .

The scientific attitude of "bringing doctrine" is Mr. Lu Xun's basic view on foreign cultural heritage. Lu Xun made a clear and profound statement in the article "Bringing Doctrine" about why "bringing", what "bringing-ism" is, and how to "bring it".

In this article, why "bring it" and "how to get it" are the main content of the article.

The full text can be divided into three parts.

The first part (paragraphs 1-4), begins with criticizing the "closed doctrine" and "sending doctrine", and discusses why the "bringing doctrine" should be implemented.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 point out that at that time some people blindly advocated "sending" instead of "bringing". The author pointed out that before the Opium War, China practiced "closed-doorism". Sending to the Doctrine” listed three related “study ideas”: sending an antique to Paris for exhibition, holding a few old and new paintings to Europe to “promote national glory”, and sending Mei Lanfang to the Soviet Union to promote “symbolism”. The example of "art" shows that we lack the spirit of "bringing" from two aspects of history and reality. On this basis, the transitional conjunction "but" is used to elicit the author's point of view and reveal the current problems of people: "No one has said: bring it according to the etiquette of 'reciprocity'." This is a powerful discussion of the implementation of "bring Doctrine" necessity. What needs to be made clear here is that, in essence, both the "send-out doctrine" and the "closed-doorism" are self-proclaimed and boastful of an ancient civilization.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 discuss the serious harm of only knowing "sending" but not "bringing". The author makes an analogy with Nietzsche’s self-proclaimed being the sun, who just gave and didn’t want to get, and some people at that time who insisted on “sending” instead of “taking”; It is true that "sending" can show one's "richness" and "magnanimity", but natural resources are limited, and the poorer and weaker they are as they are sent, so they will be more and more insulted and degraded. The more you humble yourself to others. Of course, from "I just want to advocate that we should be more stingy, besides 'sending away', we have to bring it back, for the sake of 'bringing away'" it can be seen that the author does not completely deny "sending away", the author criticizes only Knowing the behavior of blindly "sending" but not knowing "bringing" does not completely negate the meaning of "sending". The author also pointed out the difference between "throwing" and "throwing": "throwing" generally does not have any bad motives or purposes. And "throwing to" refers to purposeful and malicious output. From the perspective of the harm of "send-out doctrine", these two paragraphs show that "send-out doctrine" cannot be pursued blindly, otherwise, like "closed-doorism", the country will become more backward, poor and weak, and will be bullied by imperialist powers.

The second part (paragraphs 5-6) positively proposes the implementation of "bringing doctrine" and its meaning. At that time, some people were advocating "sending", but the author advocated "bringing", which was out of fashion, so he said "too unmodern". To be clear, here the author makes a special distinction between "bringing" and "sending": the "bringing" of the "bringing doctrine" advocated by the author is purposeful and principled; "Send here" is a kind of aggression. The British opium, German waste guns, French incense powder, and various small things in Japan listed in the article are actually a kind of economic aggression, and American movies are a kind of cultural aggression. . The author clarifies the meaning of "bringing doctrine" on the basis of distinguishing "bringing" and "sending", especially emphasizing that "bringing" is completely different from "sending". is not to be confused.

The third part (paragraphs 7-10) discusses how to implement "bringing doctrine".

Based on the clarification of the difference between "bring" and "send" in the second part above, the author uses the causal word "so" to naturally lead to "use your brain, let your eyesight, and take it yourself", Connecting the past and the future, it not only explains the difference between "bringing" and "sending", but also establishes the basic principles for the "bringing doctrine" to be further explained.

Here, the author uses the "big house" as a metaphor to vividly explain how we should use the viewpoint of "borrowing" to inherit cultural heritage.

The "big house" here is a metaphor for foreign cultural heritage. The author uses the three wrong attitudes of poor young people who have acquired a "big house" as a metaphor, and compares them with the correct method of "bringing doctrine". The attitudes and methods of "bringing-offists" towards foreign cultural heritage are completely different from those of "cowards" (not daring to touch), "sluts" (total negation), and "waste" (total acceptance). , That is to say, when dealing with foreign cultural heritage, we must analyze it with our own minds, identify it with our own eyes, and acquire it with our own hands. To be clear, the author also uses vivid metaphors to explain the method that the "bringing-in" should treat foreign cultural heritage correctly: the essential part of foreign cultural heritage, which is as beneficial as shark's fin, should be eaten like radish and cabbage. They should be eaten and absorbed in the same way; the essence and dross of opium should be sent to the pharmacy for proper disposal; the dross of bongs and lamps should be destroyed in addition to being sent to the museum.

Finally, the 10th natural paragraph summarizes the full text. Re-emphasize the point of "bringing"; clarify the specific measures to deal with foreign cultural heritage: "either use, store, or destroy"; clarify the effect of "bringing doctrine": "The owner is the new owner, and the house will also be It will become a new house"; pointed out the personal qualities that "used doctrine" should have, that is, "calm, brave, discerning, and unselfish"; at the end of the article, it reiterated the importance of implementing "used doctrine" to further strengthen the center of this article The argument reveals the fundamental reason why "bringing doctrine" must be practiced: "One cannot become a new man without what is borrowed, and literature and art cannot become new literature and art without what is borrowed."

In short, the article starts with the "retreatism", and then leads to the "send-out doctrine". After the author deeply exposes the essence and harm of the "send-out doctrine", the author naturally brings out the "bring-in doctrine". The article first breaks down and then builds up. With the help of examples, comparisons, analogies, metaphors and other demonstration methods, it vividly tells us the principles, attitudes, methods and personal qualities that should be adopted to treat foreign cultural heritage correctly. People cannot become new people by themselves if they are borrowed, and literature and art cannot become new literature and art by themselves if they are not borrowed.”

2