Ambivalence toward tradition rages on

A 300-year-old primer for youngsters has sparked a new blaze, embroiling several prominent scholars and their legions of supporters whose smoldering sentiments toward Chinese tradition are a reminder of the conflicts between efforts to reconnect with our past and the drive for modernity.

The ancient text in question is Di Zi Gui, which Yang Zao described in his Tencent online column as "spiritual smog". Literally "Standards for Being a Good Pupil and Child", its string of three-character verses was intended for children to learn by rote and used as instructions for daily behavior. In recent years, it was revived by some educators as a classic of Chinese culture.

Yang, a scholar with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, is not the first one to protest against the reinstatement. Some parents have been alarmed by the choice of this textbook even though it never received official sanction. The gist of their arguments is, this booklet teaches children to be docile and obey authorities, not to question them and develop independent thinking.

It is based on Confucius' words in his famous Analects: "A student should show filial piety at home and respect people outside, behave prudently and trustfully, love all universally, and draw close to sages. While he has energy to spare, he should study edification by the sage."

The problem is, says Yang, youngsters are drummed home their restrictions, but never their rights. As for the literary quality of the text, it is very "low" on the echelon of classics. Hardly a classic, but a regular student manual from the Kangxi era (1661-1722), he insists.

Proponents contend that Di Zi Gui teaches rules and civility. "I don't see any connection between rules and servility," writes Shao Jian, a professor with Nanjing Xiaozhuang University. "The past century of repelling our own tradition has stripped us of good manners and we can no longer live up to the title of 'a nation of good etiquettes and protocols'."

Much of Di Zi Gui sounds like common sense, or enlightened parenting in any culture. There is no way one can fault morals such as "Don't toady to the rich; don't be arrogant to the poor" or "When using other people's things, one must clearly ask. If one doesn't ask, then it is stealing." There are also the practical codes of conduct, such as brushing teeth after getting up and washing hands after using the toilet.

The point of contention is one's attitude toward the elder, or the figure of authority in general. Should the respect be unconditional? There is a hidden paradox within the text: While filial duty includes unconditional respect, it says at one point, "If I feel my parents are wrong, I may advise them to change."

Some of the passages of Di Zi Gui reminds me of Polonius, the busybody counselor whom Hamlet calls "tedious old fool" and accidentally kills.

His fatherly advice to his son Laertes could fit perfectly into the Chinese book of manners and disciplines. "When taking and giving, making the terms clear is most important. Better to give more and take less." For all I know, Polonius could have said that.

Contact the writer at raymondzhou@chinadaily.com.cn