In addition, the exclusive eat melon masses, scholars like rural Sohu Culture Channel zngay

In addition, the exclusive eat melon masses, scholars like rural Sohu culture channel lead: in contemporary discourse, gradually replaced the rural villages, it is not only a kind of idioms on the change, but also reflects the rural social form and organization seems to be Chinese slowly disappear from the situation. Different from the rural areas, the village not only bears the economic and social functions of a certain settlement, but also has the cultural significance. In traditional Chinese society, the countryside is more like a well run autonomous unit. Since the modern times, several revolutions and reforms have almost destroyed the autonomous units with cultural connotations. However, the countryside should be abandoned in this era of change? The last century, a group of Liang Shuming and Fei Xiaotong as the representative of scholars raised the rural reconstruction movement, one side is too radical damage to the modern reflection, is also trying to get a new Chinese development path from the tradition, and realize the subject of cultural heritage. This effort continues today, in the humanities of the Peking University Institute of Social Studie in 2016 organized the "rural construction and practice of art" symposium, Qu Jing Dong, Wang Mingming and the scholars of rural reconstruction to carry on his views in the contemporary. Different from the last century, now we are beginning to face new problems, and the rural crisis has not improved with the development of the economy, but into a more dangerous situation. What impact has the market brought to the countryside? Is it possible to save the country? How to understand the role of the village in global capitalism? These issues need to be re discussed. The localization of the language is from the West moved to Wang Mingming: Discussion on rural scholars often emphasize etiquette, it makes me think of the Americans He Weiya wrote: "Huairou far to China in the British Macartney etiquette conflict", great controversy, but as far as I understand, it still has some enlightenment on the theory. He believes that the reason why there is a contradiction between the emperor and Macartney mission, because the Qing Dynasty was still in the imperial Chinese traditional etiquette, while Britain has produced great changes. The most important requirement of the British mission was to give them free trade. I find it fascinating that He Weiya pointed out that in eighteenth Century, the free trade was actually an illusion, because it was a condition of national power. So the power of the state is a contractual condition to guarantee the foreign trade of britain. Why do you want to mention this? If the British, these requirements mean to make China into modernization has become a part of the world, although the emperor Qian Long opposed, did not accept this stuff, today we have completely accepted the western modernization of free trade and national power dual requirements. There was a lot of talk about modernization, if from rural construction to reflect, in response to modernization, I believe there should be substantial contents of these two aspects, is to free trade and some strong penetration of national social reflection. We talk about etiquette, is that it is not the same as these two things, this is the first point I want to mention..相关的主题文章:

Edit