By Ye Kuangzheng (叶匡政) 
Economic Observer Online
Nov 4, 2011
Translated by Zhu Na
Original article: [Chinese]  

The city of Beijing recently issued a new slogan that they say represents the "Beijing Spirit" (北京精神), in total there are eight Chinese characters that roughly translate into patriotism, innovation, inclusiveness and moral strength (爱国、创新、包容、厚德). 

It was reported that this slogan was settled on after an 18-month process that involved close to 3 million citizens voting on the issue. The news reports appeared to be emphasizing the length of the process and the number of votes in order to show how important and representative the new slogan was. 

As expected, the Beijing Evening News featured a commentary that praised the slogan as being "yet another great fruit of Beijing's spiritual homeland," and how it was a "the latest manifestation of the wisdom" of the Beijing people.

Forgive my shallowness, but no matter how hard I look, I can't make out the "wisdom" of this 8 character slogan. It's indistinguishable from your regular corporate motto. Indeed, there appear to be a few corporate slogans that are much better at "manifesting wisdom" than these 8 characters.

The way I see it, this is just a variation on the recent fashion of giving cities a nick name. Perhaps the light-hearted puns used to refer to the cities of Yichun and Hefei that has led to a lowering of the reputation of "city slogans", and Beijing thought it might as well try and out do the competition, and just go ahead and announce their so-called "Beijing Spirit."

All cities, big or small, have a spirit, but to rely on the proclamation of government to define what that spirit is - that's not so common. This appears to be something unique to our time of "cultural innovation."

If there are people who want to proclaim what the "Beijing's Spirit" is, well good for them, but to spend so long and to finally arrive at these 8 characters, i don't think this shows that Beijing has spirit, on the contrary, it exposes the emptiness of "Beijing's spiritual homeland."

Obviously, "patriotism, innovation, inclusiveness" can apply to any city, such as Shenzhen and Guangzhou - can anyone really say these cities are not patriotic, innovative or inclusive? Let's not comment on "patriotism" or "innovation," let's focus our attention on "inclusiveness." As a out-of-towner (外地人) who's been living in Beijing for over 10 years, this word has a lot of emotional connotations for me. 

In recent years, Beijing's "inclusiveness" has ranked far behind that of Guangzhou and Shenzhen - let's not even raise the issue of the restrictions placed on outsiders who want to purchase a house or car in the city, or the clearing of the city's basement slums and the demolishing of the schools for the children of migrant workers, even when it comes to issuing "residence permits" Beijing lags behind many other cities. 

For a city like this to talk of being inclusive, is like the famously miserly literary figure Grandet boasting about generosity –and makes the city a laughing stock. 

The claim of "good virtue" or "moral strength" (厚德) makes even less sense. It brings to mind when Emperor Qin Shi Huang, hoping to set up a monument to his great achievements and virtue, ordered the Confucian scholars to write the inscriptions in place of himself. When people proclaim their own "good virtue," it's generally seen by others as being an indication that they actually lack morals.
Throughout history, they've been a few famous cities that do really have their own spirit, but it derived more from the interpretations of those who came after and definitely wasn't something that local government officials announced and boasted about.

When we speak of ancient Rome, we often call to mind the colesseum and an imperial culture; when we think of ancient Athens, we will talk about their tragic dramas and reverence for freedom. 

This is also the same for China's ancient cities. Chang'an (长安) in the prosperous period of Tang Dynasty had a famously open and inclusive cultural atmosphere; the cities of Suzhou and Hangzhou during the Ming and Qing Dynasty were home to a thriving popular culture that emphasized quiet seclusion and contemplation. When we talk about a city's "spirit," were simply refering to what makes this city culturally different from others, or the unique shared cultural memory of the city's residents.

By analysing the spirit of such famous cities, it's clear that beyond differences of material cultural such as architecture, clothing and diet, at a deeper level, it is the difference in the pursuit of cultural values that really matters. Some of these cultural values derive from cultural traditions, some derive from religious culture. For example, the city features of Tehran display Islamic religious and cultural values, thereby displaying huge differences from some Christian European cities.

Again using the example of Athens, it became a famous city because it fully recognized the value of the individual. Pericles wrote: "happiness depends on being free, and freedom depends on being courageous." In other words, the existence of Athens was achieved by the realization of individual freedom and happiness. As each individual strived to achieve his or her own goal, at the same time, they were also giving expression to the spirit of the city.

During the Ming and Qing Dynasty, Suzhou and Hangzhou were probably the cities with the most unique spirit. There was a saying that "above there is heaven, on earth there is Suzhou and Hangzhou" (上有天堂，下有苏杭). On the surface, Suzhou and Hangzhou were most famous for their entertainment, popular culture and their garden scenery. But deep down, the most unique aspect was actually the culture of seclusion (隐逸文化) embodied in local scenery and people. Only when one cultivated the values of isolation and of rejecting the mainstream, when one could appreciate the simples pleasures of garden scenery, birds and fish, only then would the vulgarity of the elaborately carved and colorfully embellished architecture of the capital be apparent. 

In the view of Manchurians during the Qing Dynasty, the culture of the peoples living in the area to the south of the middle and lower reaches of the Yangze River (江南文化) had the strongest cultural characteristics typical to Han Chinese. To the Manchu's rigid and strict culture, the spirit and culture of the cities in this region were a kind of threat themselves. 

We can probably say that since 1949, any Chinese citiy that once had its own unique spirit, has gradually lost its distinguishing features. On the surface, this is because the openness of modernization puts a distance between a city and its residents. But from a deeper historical perspective, most cities lost their spirits due to overarching depletion of social values. For historical reasons, during the first 30 years of the People's Republic of China, social values were totally taken over and managed by the government. We used sinified Marxism and a revolutionary mindset to completely replace the value system of Chinese society which had originated from traditional culture and religions. 

Therefore, the state ideology (国家意识形态) became the only legitimate source of social values. Over these 30 years, not only were all connections between the public and their cultural traditions and religions severed, but to an even greater extent, it cut off the source of urban cultural values. Although after the '80s the government loosened control on social values, the idea that government dictates social values is an idea that runs through the current political system. The state doesn't have one specific philosophy or ethical foundation, so power and wealth have come to play a central role in defining spirit and values. 

It's obviously nothing but empty words for a city with no unique value system to seek to form their own city spirit.
 
All that those who manage a city can really do to influence a city's spirit is to construct institutions that support the city's culture. If our goal is to awaken the residents' self-identification with their city, we need to change to a cultural system which allows all city residents to widely participate, we need to do more than simply pull out meaningless slogans.

If the residents of a city just treat themselves as docile subjects, then naturally they won't have much enthusiasm to get involved in the affairs of the city. The best urban culture system is, of course, to allow city residents their autonomy - only when residents possess unconditional rights, that is, the freedom for citizens to organize social groups and to express their opinions - only then is it possible that a public life and a cultural model that is compatible with local traditions can gradually take shape.

A city's spirit is a manifestation of it's inner culture and the formation of cultural and spiritual traditions is a slow and complex process that requires a long time to mature. It definietely can't be quickly throwing together by putting out a few slogans and organizing some events. Only when all a city's residents are sincerely proud of and confident in their city, will the city's spirit really take shape.
As the old Chinese saying goes, if you're poor, no matter if you're in the midst of a teeming city, no-one will pay attention to you, but if you're rich no matter if you're in the middle of the forest, you'll find it hard to avoid others (穷在闹市无人问，富在深山有远亲).

Once a city has its own distinctive spirit and culture temperament, the writers and scholars will naturally come up with a suitable way of describing the city and the public will spontaneously give their assent. 

For city managers, the challenge of how to construct a system that allows all residents to participate and to ultimately form their own city culture and spirit, this is an issue that is really worth worrying about.

If every resident is able to feel the benefits from every small step in the progress of a city, then a city's spirit will have a firm foundation. It's foolish to attempt to rely on a few empty slogans to try and mold our own city spirit.