The World of the Future

未来世界

Introduction

Wang Huning

Note: The following translation is taken from Politburo Standing Committee member Wang Huning’s 1991 book, America Against America. It is one of several excerpts of this book translated by the Center for Strategic Translation. A general introduction to the book, as well as links to the other excerpts, can be found here.

Wang Huning toured the United States four decades after the founding of the People’s Republic of China. From the vantage point of 1989, Chinese communism had yet to live up to its revolutionary promise. Socialism had not brought wealth or ease to the Chinese countryside. Maoism had turned on its own: the resulting violence left millions dead and tens of millions bitter and disillusioned. Chinese intellectuals and politicians were convinced that a better set of tools for sustaining growth and order must exist. Wang Huning found those tools in the United States.

In America Against America, Wang attributes American peace and prosperity to America’s reliance on “soft governance” [软性治理]. In contrast to top-heavy and coercive methods of control which unduly “increase the burdens and responsibilities of the political and administrative institutions” beyond what they can bear, soft governance maintains order through “economic, cultural, customary, and legal means.”¹ Wang’s examples of American soft governance are wide ranging. He finds soft governance in the activities of the state (such as tax incentives or drivers’ licenses), among civil society (such as school entrance exams or professional association standards), and in the marketplace (such as credit reports or shareholder returns). Institutions like these empower “the basic domains of [American] society to become self-organizing systems.”² However, the most important components of America’s self-organizing systems are the most difficult to consciously create. These are the shared values, attitudes, and habits that cause the many to act in concert without the need for any external coordination by the few. Wang suggests that it is through culture and tradition that the selfish strivings of millions of self-interested individuals gain coherence and direction.

Wang thus devotes a large chapter of America Against America to dissecting the cultural mores of the American people. Two sections from this chapter are translated below.³ The chapter from which they are drawn ranges widely across American life, touching on everything from American attitudes towards sex to the disenchanted frame that Americans use to understand the natural world. Throughout this discussion, the mentality of Wang’s American hosts is contrasted—sometimes explicitly, more often implicitly—with the mentality of Wang’s countrymen. Wang sees an especially sharp contrast between the Chinese and American approach to continuity and change. “To Chinese people,” Wang writes in another section of America Against America, “the idea of innovation is in opposition to tradition, and it is not easy to counteract thousands of years of tradition.”⁴ The Americans, in contrast, have perfected a paradox: in the United States radical change is itself a stable tradition.

This is Wang’s favorite explanation for the St. Louis Gateway Arch, the space shuttle Discovery, and the other extraordinary works of engineering that he encounters in the United States. For Wang, these structures are concrete manifestations of the American obsession with novelty. He understands America’s technological dynamism less as the outcome of a few brilliant scientific minds at work than as the byproduct of dispositions broadly shared across the nation. Wang suggests that technological progress is not just a matter of inventing new technologies but accepting them. National dynamism requires a broad mass of people who eagerly embrace perpetual change as part of their daily lives.

Wang offers several hypotheses for the origin of this trait: Americans are the descendants of pioneers who settled a vast frontier. Scientific naturalism comes easy to a people who have long equated the exploitation of nature with national success. America is a nation of atomized individualists. Adopting the newest fads—or better yet, inventing the newest fads—allows Americans to distinguish themselves from peers otherwise treated equal. But most important of all, the American people are possessed by a “spirit of futurism” [未来主义精神]. Everywhere Wang looks he sees evidence of this futurist mentality. Science fiction is America’s characteristic genre. The Pentagon pours money into the development of speculative military platforms. The schematics of American city planners project decades into the future. The American university system treats the education of individual students as an investment in the world of tomorrow.

For Wang, futurism is the sole force in American life capable of moderating the imperatives of the marketplace. Many passages in America Against America describe how capitalist competition commodifies everything it touches.⁵ America’s commodity economy forces Americans to emphasize material interests over intangible values, private profit over public triumph, and quick schemes over long term ventures. The pragmatic ethos of the market place and the optimistic ethos of the futurist thus form a “contradictory dichotomy” at the heart of American culture. “One seeks value from the present moment and the other from the future.” The pull of the future is strong. In America “one rarely finds a force that can overwhelm'' the pragmatic ethos of the marketplace—yet “the ideas of futurism are powerful [enough]” to do so. Wang believes that American greatness is sustained by the allure of the world to come. How could the United States “maintain its status… in today’s highly competitive world” without “concerning itself with the world of the future?” Thus Wang concludes that American hegemony could not have been built solely by the egoist incentives of the marketplace. The drive to build a better future is thus both “a fundamental component of the general spirit of [American] society” and “a driving force [behind American success] that cannot be replaced by any other force.”

It is strange to read passages like these in 2023. When Wang Huning wrote America Against America it was common for Chinese intellectuals to condemn Chinese culture as myopic, backward, and resistant to change.⁶ Today it is American intellectuals who condemn their country as a land of stagnation.⁷ The last three decades of Chinese life have been a story of unceasing transformation. Many of the traits Wang described as characteristic of the United States are now associated with China. Few countries boast more grandiose public works or bizarre architectural marvels. Few societies are so dominated by a cutthroat commodity economy. Few nations so eagerly adopt the latest innovations in consumer tech. China is even home to the 21st century's most famous science fiction writer.

The question is whether these traits are here to stay. “What is most important,” Wang argues in an earlier section of America Against America, “is whether [cultural] forces can become a cultural gene: a tradition. Regardless of the factors that are conducive to social development, if these factors do not become a tradition, they will not become deeply rooted in a society.”⁸ What is not deeply rooted will not last.

Today Wang Huning must hope that China’s culture of transformation has grown deep roots. The plans of the Politburo, which direct the Communist Party of China to “prioritize technological advancement over growth,”⁹ seem to depend on it. It may be too early to tell one way or another. Only one generation of Chinese have grown to adulthood since Wang Huning published his book. Time will prove whether Chinese techno-optimism blossomed only as a temporary byproduct of an expanding economy, or whether it has been successfully embedded as a cultural gene deep in the Chinese psyche.

‍

1. Wang Huning 王沪宁, Meiguo Fandui Meiguo 美国反对美国 [America Against America] (Shanghai: Shanghai Wenyi Chuban She 上海文艺出版社 [Shanghai Humanities Publishing Co.], 1991), 258.

2. bid., 15.

3. These occur on pages 73-80 and 107-113 of the original text.

4. Ibid., 6. For an English translation of this passage, see Wang Huning. “Uncertainty Created by America,” trans. Leah Holder, Center for Strategic Translation, October 2023.

5. In addition to the excerpt translated below, see Wang, Meiguo Fandui Meiguo 美国反对美国 (America Against America), 10-15, 124-30, 106, 164-169, 179-185.

6. For extensive examples, see Chen Fong-ching and Jin Guantao, From Youthful Manuscripts to River Elegy: The Chinese Popular Cultural Movement and Political Transformation 1979–1989 (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1997), passim.

7. E.g., Ross Douthat, The Decadent Society: How We Became Victims of Our Own Success (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2020); J. Storr Halls, Where is My Flying Car (New York: Stripe Press, 2021).

8. Wang, “Uncertainty Created by America.” See also Wang’s discussion of “political genes” in Meiguo Fandui Meiguo, 55-59.

9. This phrase is Ruihan Huang and Joshua Henderson's characterization of the newfound Chinese approach. See Ruihan Huang and Joshua Henderson, “The Return of Technocrats in Chinese Politics,” Macro Polo, 3 May 2022. For more on the logic of this new approach see the CST glossary entries NEW DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT and NEW DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.

Author

Wang Huning

王沪宁

original publication

America Against America

美国反对美国

publication date

January 1, 1991

Translator

Aaron Hebenstreit

Translation date

November 2023

Tag term

New Development Concept

新发展理念

Xi Jinping introduced the New Development Concept, alternatively translated as the New Development Philosophy, to guide China’s development strategy in an age of declining growth rates. Presented shortly before the Thirteenth Five Year Plan in 2015, the express aim of the New Development Concept is to reorient Chinese economic planning away from narrow GDP growth targets and towards what Xi Jinping calls “high quality development” [高质量发展]. From a macroeconomic perspective, the New Development Concept aims to boost China’s economic growth on the long run by addressing the structural challenges inherent in China’s development model; from a social perspective, it aims to temper popular discontent with pollution, inequality, and other negative byproducts of growth pursued at all costs; and from a geopolitical perspective, it aims to transform China into the global leader in science and technology, paving China’s ADVANCE TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE WORLD STAGE.

The roots of the problem set tackled by the New Development Concept stretch back to the early Reform Era. Shortly after the death of Mao Zedong many party leaders concluded that economic growth was the key to restoring China’s national strength, the Party’s international standing, and the loyalty of the Chinese people. After more than a decade of experimentation proved the value of this logic, General Secretary Jiang Zemin would codify it as the Party’s “basic line” during the “INITIAL STAGE OF SOCIALISM,” declaring in his 1997 Political Report to the 15^th National Congress that “We have no choice but to make economic construction the central task of the entire Party and the whole country. All other work is subordinated to and serves this task.... The key to the solution of all of China's problems lies in our own development” (Jiang 1997). For two generations the entire machinery of the Chinese party-state served the demands of this mantra.

The results of the Party’s unfaltering pursuit of development were extraordinary: the living standard of the average Chinese person increased by twenty-six times in real terms during the four decades between 1978 and 2018, while China’s share of the global economy climbed from 2 percent to 16 percent over the same period (Yao 2020). The main drivers of the fantastic growth of this era were government investment in fixed capital assets and strong foreign demand for cheap Chinese goods. This meant that despite its undeniable achievements, the growth model of the Reform Era came with a prepackaged expiration date. Chinese economists long predicted that climbing Chinese wages would eventually price China out of many export markets. They also understood that there are limits to the number of roads, sewers, skyscrapers, and railways any country—even a country as large as China—can build before additional capital investments provide diminishing returns. It was only a matter of time before China would be forced to either adopt a new growth model or accept economic stagnation.

The Great Recession marked this transition point: the financial crisis lowered global demand for Chinese goods, forcing the Chinese state to power through the emergency with a massive stimulus spending spree. This spending package saved China from recession at the cost of stagnating returns on capital investments and a sharp accumulation of debt on local government balance sheets. To make matters worse, a shrinking surplus labor pool pushed up production costs in China, making Chinese goods less competitive in the global market just as global demand began to recover. Henceforth the Chinese economy would require new sources of growth if China was to attain the long-term development goals that party leaders had set for it.

The CENTER understood these problems well. In 2013, Xi cataloged a series of problems facing China’s development in the Third PLENUM of the 18th CENTRAL COMMITTEE:

Unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable development remains a big problem. We are weak in scientific and technological innovation. The industrial structure is unbalanced and the growth mode remains inefficient. The development gap between urban and rural areas and between regions is still large, and so are income disparities (Xi 2014, p. 78).

The key to surmounting these challenges, Xi maintained, was widespread recognition that the Chinese economy had entered a “new normal” [新常态]. The halcyon days where Chinese economic planners could rely on high-speed growth were over; medium-high speed growth must be the new norm. This would require China to adjust its economic strategy. At the Central Conference on Economic Work in 2014, Xi warned cadres that in this new environment “economic restructuring will be painful but is unavoidable.” He assured cadres that restructuring would mark the beginning of a what he called a New Development Stage [新发展阶段] where China would transition to “to a [development] model that is more advanced, better structured, and with a more complicated division of labor” (Xi 2017, p. 255).

The New Development Concept was introduced to guide development planning in this new stage. Presented in 2015 in tandem with the Thirteenth Five Year Plan, the concept directs cadres to prioritize five qualitative outcomes over quantitative measures of growth: economic development must be innovative [创新], coordinated [协调], green [绿色], open [开放], and shared [共享]. Scientific and technological innovation lay at the center of this new development approach. The New Development Concept presumes that the global economy sits on the cusp of a technological revolution. Whichever nation invents, introduces, and controls these emerging technologies will determine the course of global economic development in the decades to come. However, “inadequate capacity for innovation is [China’s] Achilles’ heel,” Xi remarked during a study session of the Thirteenth Five Year Plan. “Innovation-driven growth has become the pressing demand for China’s development. Therefore, I stress repeatedly that innovation is development; innovation is the future” (Xi 2017, p. 223). In response to this call the PRC rolled out multiple techno-industrial policies—the most famous being “Made in China 2025”— between 2015 and 2017. All attempted to push the industrial foundations of the Chinese economy up the global value chain.

Parallel to this push towards the technological frontier was a drive to cut away unproductive parts of the existing industrial base. The stimulus package that powered China through the Great Recession also saddled the Chinese economy with wasteful overcapacity in state-run industries like steel and coal. Reforming the Chinese growth model meant taking the axe to these industries—and stomaching the costs of a short-term GDP slowdown to do so. The Center signaled its willingness to stomach those costs in a 2016 series of People’s Daily articles penned by an “authoritative personage” (rumored to be Liu He, then head of the highest economic policymaking body, the Central Economic and Financial Leading Group) outlining the “supply side reforms” [供给侧改革] required by the New Development Concept.

In reference to the growing debts incurred by local governments and state owned enterprises, the People’s Daily wrote that “a tree cannot grow to the sky; high leverage carries high risks.” The old growth playbook no longer worked: “economic stabilization relies on the old method, which is investment-driven, and fiscal pressure in some areas has added to possibilities of economic risks” (Wright 2023). To reduce these risks the State Council passed a series of measures for supply-side structural reform. The primary target of these reforms were so-called “zombie enterprises,” state-owned enterprises that were not generating enough profits. Parallel measures sought to reduce financial risks posed by a poorly regulated banking sector and crackdown on industries responsible for large-scale industrial pollution.

Up until 2018 or so, the New Development Concept could be understood primarily in these terms. The concept would guide China towards a growth model driven less by state investment in infrastructure and more by domestic demand for Chinese goods. It would do this through an industrial policy tailored to support Chinese firms working on the technological frontier while slowly diminishing the role that unproductive sectors of the economy, which relied on lax regulation or expensive state subsidies to survive, played in China’s future development. However, under the pressure of a grueling trade war, the threat of foreign export controls, and a global pandemic, both the stated aims and means of the New Development Concept began to shift. Party leaders began framing the New Development Concept in terms of China’s “economic security” [经济安全]. Security concepts previously associated with the TOTAL NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM began to be deployed alongside those associated with the New Development Concept. The Central Committee officially endorsed this marriage of Chinese economic and security strategy in the 5^th plenum of the 19^th Party Congress. The plenum readout declared that “the integrated planning of development and security” [统筹发展和安全] should henceforth be recognized as a core tenet of development planning (Central Committee 2021). Today it is common for party leaders to not only call for innovative, coordinated, green, open, and shared development, but “secure” development as well.

Now the stated aim of the New Development Concept is to guide the Chinese economy towards what Xi Jinping has dubbed a NEW DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. This is a schema of self-sufficiency: if successful, the Party leadership will rely on domestic consumers to power the Chinese economy and on a homegrown scientific-industrial complex to power China’s technological advance. This will prevent Chinese development from being held hostage by HOSTILE FORCES. These goals are not too far afield from the original aims of the New Development Concept—what has changed is less the ultimate aims of Xi’s development program than the urgency with which the Party must pursue it. What was once a strategy for making China wealthier, more equal, and less polluted is now described to cadres as a strategy that will “decide our state’s capacity for survival” (Office of the Central National Security Commission 2022).

New Development Pattern

新发展格局

The new development pattern—sometimes translated by Chinese state media as the new development dynamic—describes a proposed structure for the Chinese economy that was first introduced to the Party in the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic and subsequently adopted as a guiding principle in the China’s Fourteenth Five Year Plan (2021-2025). As a blueprint for China’s future development, the new development pattern imagines a country whose economic growth and technological progress is not dependent on fickle global markets or foreign HOSTILE FORCES. While urging China towards self-reliance, the new development pattern is not a call for autarky. Instead, Xi Jinping instructs cadres to engineer a pattern of growth where “the domestic cycle is the mainstay, with the domestic cycle and international cycle providing mutual reinforcement.” (Xi 2022, p. 178). Under this “dual cycle” or “dual circulation” [双循环] formula, China is expected to contribute to and benefit from global markets even as it transitions towards an economic model whose near-term growth primarily flows from domestic demand for Chinese goods and whose long term promise rests on China’s indigenous capacity for scientific and technological innovation.

Chinese economists first began characterizing China’s economic development in terms of “large scale cycles” [大循环] in the era of Deng Xiaoping. In 1987 Wang Jian, an economist then working for the State Planning Commission, proposed that China’s future growth could be best guaranteed by securing a place in the “large-scale international cycle” of trade and capital. Burdened with decaying heavy industry and a surplus pool of labor, Wang argued that China could reverse these trends by developing light industries like textiles and consumer appliances. The slogan “two ends extending abroad, with a high-volume of imports and exports” [两头在外, 大进大出] captured the logic of the proposed development pattern. Under this schema, Chinese firms would first purchase raw materials for production from foreign markets (one of the two “ends extending abroad”), exploit China’s surplus labor to manufacture goods at low cost, and then sell the finished products in the global marketplace (the other “end” of the slogan). Trade would occur at volumes high enough to accumulate foreign exchange, which in turn could be used to purchase the new machinery needed to revitalize China’s out-of-date heavy industries. Enmeshing China in the “large-scale international cycle” of trade and capital flows outside of China would thus create a virtuous cycle of climbing wealth and growing industry inside China.

This strategy was openly endorsed by General Secretary Zhao Ziyang; under his successors Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao the integration of the Chinese economy with the global market would continue apace. There was a quiet geopolitical calculation behind this development strategy. The “two ends extending abroad” approach took economic interdependence as a prerequisite for China’s continued growth. This required a period of time where China could safely leverage the gains of integration without provoking opposition from foreign powers alarmed by its growing strength and wealth. Party leaders concluded that globalization would offer China such a PERIOD OF STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY—a period they predicted would last through the first two decades of the 21st century.

These predictions proved prescient: globalization's assigned role in Chinese economic growth was downgraded as the 2010s came to a close. Two developments would undermine the choice position of global integration in Chinese development planning. The first was a waning commitment to economic growth as the be-all and end-all of the Party’s work. When Xi Jinping came to power, the negative consequences of the Party’s growth-at-all-costs mindset were apparent: noxious pollution, rising class tensions, regional wealth disparities, massive debt on local government ledgers, and a ubiquitous culture of corruption all undermined the Party’s quest for national rejuvenation. To address these problems Xi Jinping incorporated a new intellectual framework for economic development inside the Thirteenth Five Year Plan (2016-2020). This framework, dubbed the NEW DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT, instructed cadres to prioritize “high quality development” [高质量发展] over narrower metrics of GDP growth. The concept called for the Party to achieve these aims by transitioning away from growth driven by fixed asset investments and cheap foreign exports to growth driven by domestic consumption and high end manufacturing at the edge of the technological frontier.

Parallel to these changes in development philosophy was the transformation of Chinese security theory. Under the auspices of Xi Jinping’s TOTAL NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM, Chinese security officially began to blur existing distinctions between hard and soft power, internal and external threats, and traditional dividing lines between the worlds of economics, culture, and diplomacy. From this viewpoint, emerging problems in any of these domains might threaten the Party’s hold on power and thus must be viewed through the lens of regime security. Viewed from this perspective, the economic gains that international integration promised must be balanced against increased exposure to hostile forces from the outside world.

These two streams—economic planning and security strategy—began to merge as American export controls and tariffs placed pressure on the Chinese economy. The high-tech development strategy envisioned by the New Development Concept assumes access to crucial technological components that Chinese firms do not yet have the capacity to manufacture. Party leaders began to worry that without the capacity to manufacture these components at home, China’s ADVANCE TO THE CENTER OF THE WORLD STAGE might be held hostage by hostile foreign powers. These anxieties were only reinforced by the dramatic drop in global demand for Chinese goods and equally dramatic rise in global anti-China sentiment caused by the 2020 pandemic. The lesson was clear: the PERIOD OF STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY was closing. Chinese development was dangerously dependent on foreign powers. In this environment China could no longer afford a development pattern that prioritized economic growth and global integration over self-reliance.

“We have become more aware that security is a prerequisite for development and development guarantees security,” Xi concluded in a Politburo study session in October 2020. “Our country is exposed to the risk of various problems and dangers now and in the future, and risks – both foreseeable and unforeseeable – are on the increase” (Xi 2022, p. 133). To mitigate these risks, China needed to “integrate the planning of security and development” [统筹发展和安全].

In April 2020 Xi Jinping laid out what a “secure” development pattern must look like. Chinese development can no longer take the “large-scale international cycle” as its foundation. Instead, the Party must construct a “large-scale domestic cycle” [国内大循环] to serve as the mainstay of future growth, with the “international cycle” [国际循环] serving as a supplement. As much as possible, planners should locate both the materials used as inputs for Chinese manufacturing and the consumers of China’s manufactured goods (the “two ends extending abroad” in the old slogan) within China’s own borders.

This development strategy has both macroeconomic and security rationales. Chinese observers note that from a macroeconomic standpoint, raising domestic consumption promises to right an economy that has long been described as “unbalanced.” As Chinese wages rise and the labor supply shrinks, China can no longer maintain a growth model premised on low-end manufacturing for the global market. Intentional investment in emerging technologies and key strategic industries is one route around the feared “middle income trap.” It is also a way to escape technological dependence on hostile foreign powers. Xi Jinping describes the drive for technological self-sufficiency as “vital to the survival and development of [the] nation” (Xi 2021, p. 204). By reshoring technological supply chains, as well as key economic inputs like food and energy, the new development pattern promises to secure China against sanction or blockade.

However, the new development pattern is less a bid for autarky than a plan for “hedged integration” with the global economy (Blanchette and Polk 2020). Chinese economists expect that rising Chinese consumer demand will fuel economic growth for exporters across the globe; if China successfully pushes forward the technological frontier, Chinese firms expect to export their new products to every corner of the earth. As one manual designed to teach cadres about the strategy concludes: “Constructing a new development pattern is... a forward-looking gambit for seizing the initiative of future growth.” The ultimate goal of self-reliance is not to cut China off from the world, but to make China more central to it. If realized, the new development pattern will “allow us to attract essential resources from across the globe, become powerful competitors in a fierce international competition, and become a powerful driving force in the allocation of the world’s natural resources” (Office of the Central National Security Commission 2023).

‍

2.标新立异

可以说，美国人在价值观念上仍是一个相当保守的民族，象性解放、摇滚乐、嬉皮士、同性恋、颓废、种族平等的观念，至今仍没有被全部美国人所接受。不少人仍持着老式的价值观。在政治方面尤其如此，传统的价值观依然占主导地位。共和党连续在总统选举中取胜，也可以说是这种倾向的一种表现。老百姓在评价政治领袖时、依然持着非常传统的标准，民主党骨干哈特因有桃色事件而不得不退出总统竞选，奎尔虽然当选为副总统，是沾了布什的光。不少人谈起奎尔就摇头，说他在学校中成绩不好，服兵役只去国民警卫队，没有经验，是靠了其有钱的爸爸走红的。

不少东方人想当然地认为，在美国这样一个性解放的国度中，男女关系不会构成什么问题，但在政治领域中往往构成重大问题。在西方世界均一样。美国人在政治上遵循建国之父的观念，大体不变。整个体制也在维持这套观念，排斥其他观念，从这点来说，美国人趋向保守。

矛盾的是，美国人又是世界上最善于标新立异的民族。这个民族存在一种奇特的现象：大众既接受最古老，最悠久的东西，又乐于接受最新颖、最奇特的东西。这个社会有着比其他社会更多的发明创造，有着比其他社会更大胆、更勇敢的设想。最近几年，美国人发射了航天飞机，提出了星球大战计划，1988 年底展出了样式别出心裁的 B2 轰炸机。在小发明上，美国人也相当出色。走进大的百货商店，可以找到各式各样的商品，用于各种不同的目的。

一方面是具有保守性，另一方面具有创新性。这里面似乎有些矛盾。这个矛盾表现在不同的领域中。美国人在价值领域中往往是保守的。但在技术领域中，却追求标新立异。技术领域中再大胆的设想都会得到赞同。有一些美国人在一块偏僻的地方建造了一个模拟的太空城，准备招募志愿者在里面封闭地生活两年，竟然很快完工了。如果明天有人提出在大西洋上造一条高速公路从美洲通往欧洲，或者在太平洋上造一条高速公路，从美洲通往亚洲，不会被认为是疯狂，而会被认为是一个了不起的想法。

运用人的能力去征服自然是美国传统的价值之一，于是在这里创新与传统并不矛盾。创新的过程就是遵循传统价值的过程。这个过程中异想天开的特性往往仅限于物质和技术领域。在物质和技术领域中，美国人准备接受一切。美国的历史发展和科技进步造就了这种心理状态。

我在圣路易市参观拱门（Gateway Arch）时，反复思考这个问题，想从中找出美国人标新立异的原因和作用。

圣路易市的拱门是世界上数一数二的，大约有 630 英尺高，将近两百米，全部由不锈钢制成。高高矗立，在阳光和蓝天下银光闪闪，十分雄伟。拱门的跨度也在两百多米开外，整个拱门就象一个特大的银色彩虹出现在密西西比河畔。拱门下面是杰佛逊国土扩展纪念馆，纪念美国十九世纪上半叶的托马斯•杰弗逊总统推进开发西部运动。拱门内有电梯，游客可以从下面一直来到拱门顶，拱门顶处有十米长的通道，有些窗口，可以鸟瞰圣路易市的全景。电梯从拱门的两条腿里上升或者下降。这真是一个奇特的设想。设计者是芬兰籍的美国建筑师Fero Saarinean，他的设计于1947年在全国性征稿中取胜。后由技术和工程人员于1963年开始建造，1965年完工。

建造工艺也别具一格。这么高的建筑物，也没有搭什么脚手架。从两条腿造起，吊车就架在两条腿上。造高一点，向上爬一点。两条腿按事先的计算凌空造起，在顶部逐渐靠拢，最后合拢。整个过程，从设计到建造都是标新立异的。但人们接受了，并造了出来。我也怀疑：会不会有人问造此物有何用？能否创收？为什么不造一个传统的纪念碑式样的？谁敢保证能成功？

密苏里州另一个体现美国人标新立异精神的建筑是 Fulton 学院的教堂，Fulton 是一个举世闻名的但不起眼的小地方。其闻名是 1946 年二次大战硝烟消散不久，英国首相温斯顿•丘吉尔在这里发表了著名的演说，曰“铁幕”已经降下，将东西方割裂开来。东西方之间的冷战从此开始。“铁幕”成为西方描绘苏联东欧国家的常用词。

这个地方有一所教堂；从外表上着，教堂很不起眼，与美国数不清的教堂相比，没有什么特别之处。但这是一个别有风味的教堂。主要原因在于建筑这所教堂的石头均从英国运来。这原是英国的一所教堂，建于十二世纪，1677年全部改建。二次大战期间被炮火严重摧毁，剩下的只有残垣断壁、石头和十二根石柱。二战之后，教堂一直是废墟，这时威斯敏斯特学院纪念委员会提出将这些石头搬至密苏里来，建为学院的教堂和温斯顿·丘吉尔纪念馆。1965年开始动手，七百吨的石头跨越大西洋，共花去300万美元。美国总统哈里·杜鲁门为教堂奠基。1969年完工。

这的确是美国人标新立异精神的一种典型体现。会不会有人问：为什么不就地取材？这要增加多少开支？哪里没有石头，要跨越大西洋去运这些破石头？

此仅为美国人标新立异的两个例子。我们还可以举出其他很多例子：爱荷华市的篮球场可容纳上万人，但在地面看只有一层楼那么高，体育馆整个地陷在地层下面。爱荷华大学法学院的建筑，赤膊的钢骨水泥，大圆顶，只有一些小窗，活象一个军事工事，如果作战，我看不那么容易攻破。美国人可以想出在一座大山上雕刻五位总统巨大无比的头像。华盛顿的无名英雄纪念碑，高耸入云，光秃秃的，类似埃及式的柱子。越战纪念碑，为一堵黑色的墙，上面刻有每位阵亡者的名字。家具店出售流行的水床，床垫子是差不多一尺高的水垫子，躺上去柔软无比，水还能加温和减温。电影中有最奇特的想象，《E.T.》、《星球大战》、《超人》、《第三类接触》等。最近推出的 B2 轰炸机，没有尾翼，整个就象一对翅膀，与传统的飞机式样迥然不同。服饰更是千奇百怪，新衣服，十分昂贵，买来时就被加工得破破烂烂，据说工艺十分复杂。在科技领域，美国人的标新立异精神更是硕果累累，如此等等，举不胜举。

当然，有时标新立异走到了极端，上面说的新破烂服装便是一例。另外，如有人造些超豪华的轿车，奇大无比，内有厨房、游泳池、高尔夫球场、电话、电视等各类设施。恐怕只有极少数人能享受了，有时候走在大街上，可以看到一些人的头发完全竖起来，爆炸式，或剃个阴阳头。有的公共场所挂着几块破铁皮，谓之现代雕塑。对于一些现代艺术，不少人不敢享用。

不论怎样，在技术上和物质领域中追求标新立异的精神，是这个社会发展的一股重要动力。科技进步和经济发展都是由这种精神推动出来的。既然说美国人在价值上有较大的保守性，为什么他们又成功地保护并推进了这种创新精神呢？

其一，对价值和技术、物质有明确的区分界限，价值涉及道德领域或公共领域，应当考虑到大部分人的倾向。后一领域属私人领域，标新立异是私人在这个社会上的砝码。要得到社会的承认，就要与众不同。政治历史没有提供其他社会具备的先决条件，如贵族、血统，人人均要依靠成功和创造。实际上，价值领域中的保守倾向保证了技术和物质领域的创新，使社会在一个有序的范围内创新。

其二，价值取向上的保守没有形成对技术和物质创新的特别束缚（不能说一点没有）。美国人从欧洲来到新大陆，本来就是在赤贫之地与自然的斗争中、在战胜自然中成长起来的，这成为美国传统中的一个固定价值。承认这类创新和接受这类创新，本身就是维护传統。

一方面，美国人的观念似乎将技术和物质部分排除在价值范围之外，认为技术就是技术，物质就是物质。技术和物质创新是价值创新以外的东西，它们会充实传统价值。有些社会的文化没有这样明确的区分，社会一统，各类东西均与价值有关，这往往容易掣肘技术和物质进步。

另一方面，传统价值的核心均很抽象，如自由、平等，追求幸福。于是，技术和物质创新可以被认为是自由的一种体现，接受创新可以被认为是平等的一种表现。

其三，社会的机制逼人创新。之所以说是逼，是因为如要取胜不能不创新。有两个机制逼人创新。一是金钱至上，任何人、任何团体要取得金钱，或得到更多的金钱，都必须与众不同，必须不断推出更新的东西来吸引人们和社会。

二是充分富裕和发达。社会的充分富裕和发达，使人们在较高的层次上趋于平均化，没有特别的创造便不能出人头地。水涨船高，人人都在追求创新，创新以获得金钱，创新以获得自我，创新以获得社会承认。要取胜，就得更上一层楼。

其四，“大国虚荣心”促使美国人标新立异。“大国虚荣心”不一定是好东西，但在促进创新方面有一定的作用。美国人自小就在“美国世界第一”的氛围下成长起来，大部分人均相信“美国世界第一”的说法。越是走向高科技，人们越要追求世界第一的倾向。这一心理的确促使美国人做出许多举世公认的创造。同时，也往往造成错觉，美国人老子天下第一的想法已碰了不少壁。但其促进创新的功效是存在的。

其五，社会上占统治地位的个体论也间接作用于创新。标新立异往往意味着某种形式的个体论。任何标新立异，首先是一种独特的、与众不同的设计。这种设计要求个人较少考虑他人意见和他人的要求。标新立异表示某种个性。有的大型创造不是一个人的创造，但最后可以分解为诸多个人的创造，是他们个性的总和。个体论使人们具有较强的个性，容易追求标新立异。在与之相反的文化氛围中，标新立异在个人的心理上和社会的接受上都要难一些。个体论对社会和谐有消极作用，但它也以某种方式作用于人和社会。

其六，传统价值中的民主成分，促成人们选择创新，接受创新。美国人乐于接受创新，说得俗一点，往往善于起哄，一个新东西出来后，如不说好，就有可能被认为最不民主或没有文化修养。好象有的人看抽象派的画，不敢说不好，生怕人家笑话。不过，许多人真心赞同标新立异。他们接受成功者，接受有不同想法的人。标新立异者往往享有特殊的名誉和尊敬。

一个社会的发展，离不开创新精神。创新精神的发扬，需要社会鼓励和接受标新立异。同时，对任何社会来说，价值的延续也都必不可少，否则社会稳定无以为继。问题是如何把价值延续与技术和物质创新划分开来，使价值延续保证后者的发展，又使后者的发展加强价值延续和传递。从这点看，标新立异的氛围能否形成，在很大程度上并不是技术和物质问题，而是价值本身的属性问题。

9.未来世界

美国人的心态是一种复杂的综合，有时甚至令人觉得是那样的矛盾。流行的看法是：自詹姆士和皮尔士发展了实用主义哲学之后，这个民族便成为一个最讲究实用的民族。实用主义的观念和“兑现价值”的要求渗透在美国精神的每一个角落里。

所谓实用主义，体现在气象万千的社会生活和人的行为中，就是讲究一切都要达到有用、实效、实际的目标，而排斥虚无縹渺，可望不可即或似有若无的价值标准。在当代美国，这种精神又具体化为“金钱至上”，以眼见金钱为实用主义的验金石。任何事务，只要能 make money（挣钱），就具有压倒一切的价值。Make money，在某种程度上，已成为实用主义在现时代的本质。

在社会当中，当然有相当一部分人仍在奋斗，追求政治的、道德的、伦理的、宗教的、社会的或哲学的价值。但大部分往这些领域中从事工作的人，都没有那样多的理想色彩。

大选当头、不少人为两党出汗马之力，但绝不是为了信仰，而是因为他们受雇于这些政党，拿了别人的钱就得替别人做事；在政府部门中，那样多的官员，大概不会有太多的人时时在思念美国人的理想，他们完成本职工作，是因为这只是工作，绝无“铁肩担道义”之类的责任感；在福利机抅中，人们热心地照顾穷人、残疾人，但很难说他们每一个人都是因为体恤社会下层人和穷困的人才这样做，而是因为这是工作，因为有人 pay（付钱）；大学教授著书立说，在课堂上慷慨激昂，批评政府，针贬时弊，呼吁变革，但大多数教授们只把这个作为工作，并没有那样多的人具有知识分子的使命感和责任感，他们认为这是 Job，这是一种工作，难得有“家事国事天下事，事事关己”的感觉……如此等等，不一而足。这里仅仅说明，实用主义如何主导着美国人的精神和社会，尤其是在这个认钱不认人的社会中。

另一方面，不可忽略，也令人奇怪的是，社会又充斥着另一种精神，我姑且称之为“未来主义”。在这个物欲横流的社会上，难得有什么力量能够压倒实用主义。然而，未来主义的观念却具有特别强大的吸引力和诱惑力。因此，在这个社会的一般精神中，未来主义也构成一个基本核心。别的观念难以说服大家，但未来主义的观念是强而有力的。

所谓的未来主义，就是指目前没有直接作用，但将来会发生作用的东西，无论是具体物质，还是抽象的观念，或一种状态。这样看就会发现实用主义和未来主义是一对矛盾，一个追求现时现刻的价值，另一个追求未来的价值。但这两种精神的确主导着这个社会，所以说是一种复杂的综合。

我们可以来看一下关于未来主义精神的实例：

在政治方面，可以看一下 1983 年的总统大选。布什和杜卡基斯的一个热门论题就是二十一世纪的美国，或者二十一世纪的世界与美国。美国能否保持它目前在世界上的地位？面对来自日本和欧洲的挑战，以及可能来自中国的挑战，美国将何去何从？苏联及东欧国家对美国形成全方位的挑战，美国又当如何抉择？两党在争取选民时，无不谈到自己的政策方略将如何使二十一世纪继续成为美国的世纪，他们认为二十世纪是美国的世纪。如今已有人谈二十一世纪将是日本的世纪或中国的世纪。布什常常说，二十一世纪将是美国世纪。这种口号是颇蛊惑人心的。尼克松 1987 年写的新书《1999：不战而胜》，其中反复出现的基调就是美国在未来如何取胜，未来美国会遇到仟么威胁，美国应如何选择对策等，立时成为畅销书。可见，这种关切不仅在于政治家、而且在于大众，不然以此作为拉选民的战略便不会成功。

在军事方面，美国人也有较强烈的未来主义的情感。在未来战争、战略、武器研究方面，美国一直十分关注，投下重金。耗资百亿的星球大战计划，是一种未来主义主导下的产物。这项计划，在很多人看来是一种奇想，但美国人决意认真地付诸实现，以对付未来可能出现的新一轮战略武器竞争。这一计划之所以引起轩然大波，引起朝野争论不休，其中潜在的一个因素就是实用主义精神与未来主义精神的冲突。在军备发展方面，未来主义精神大多数情况下占居上风。加之军火工业界大都支持未来主义，因为有利可图。尽管他们自己可能都是地地道道的实用主义者。最近推出的 B2 轰炸机，也是这种未来主义的典型反映。在战略要冲的发展上，占主导地位的是未来主义，而非实用主义，尽管表面上看是实用主义的。在尼加拉瓜、菲律宾、中东的冲突和波动中，美国政府的态度，大多基于未来主义的战略思想。

在科技发展方面，美国人更加讲究未来主义。在基础理论、天体物理、生物科学、化学等基本领域，未来主义的观念极其兴盛。人们常说，理科在美国大学中钱最多。这些钱都是从学校以外的基金会或什么机构搞来的。为什么这些机构愿意大笔大笔地投资，主导思想乃是着眼于未来。最近美国宣布搞一个世界上最大的对撞机，总长度为 80 公里，听起来是惊人的项目。但着眼于未来，美国人决定拨款建设。在电脑方面，美国人也着眼来来，各公司均投下大笔资金发展最新型号。环境保护，在这个社会中引起空前关注，大众对这个问题有前所未有的共识，成为主导政府政策的一个基本力量。没有未来主义的精神，这种共识是难以形成的。

在城市建设方面，未来主义的印记更深。无论是在只有几万人口的小城市爱荷华，还是在有一千几百万人口的大都市纽约，未来主义在城市建供的设计中具有举足轻重的地位。城市规划的方案，要想取胜并付诸实现，有一项必须留神的条件，这就是在未来几十年中这项设计将会变得怎么样？会变成城市进一步发展的障碍？还是城市进一步发展的桥梁？在许多城市中，高速公路、地铁、楼宇、住宅的设计和建设均有着对未来世界的考虑。例如纽约的国际贸易大厦，上面是高高屹立的雄伟建筑，下面的世界更是惊人，有巨大的地下层，有地铁、火车等通往纽约各地以及毗邻的州。设计师在设计时就考虑到未来城市发展的需要。在不少城市，很多住房均具有五十年以上甚至百年的历史，但至今仍然不显得破旧或狭小，一幢幢的小楼，经过装修，依然是十分可观的住房。这是不可多得的资源，如果当时都造五年或二十年要被淘汰或变得不能居住时房子，那么住房也不可能达到今天这样的水平。未来主义，在城市建设上，表现为百年大计。

在人才教育方面，未来主义也显而易见。美国人懂得，未来的世界是今天的儿童和年轻人的世界。他们能否应付这个世界的挑战和未来世界的挑战？所谓“儿童的天堂”，讲的就是儿童在这个社会受到全面的照顾，以便他们迎战未来。大学教育也是如此。取得今天这样的成就和地位与大学教育不可分割。教育的成功是维持和发展一种社会制度最强大的力量。无论这个社会制度是什么性质的，教育不成功，都难以维持。在应付未来世界方面，政府和大学均花了极大的气力。

未来主义精神，体现在诸多方面。因此不能简单而论，把这个社会统统打成实用主义。不言而喻，实用主义占主导地位。问题是要弄明白，为什么这个社会滋生出如此强烈的未来主义？这两种精神又是如何协调的？美国传统的精神一直是实用主义。从第一批移民踏上这块领土，开始在这块新发现的土地上建立家园和与自然作斗争，就必须讲究实用主义。这里没有那么久的文化传统，没有那样多的哲学思想，也没有那样多的金钱和财富供人们从事想入非非的事。要生存，就得讲究实效。早期移民形成的这种精神，随着这块广大领土的开发，不断衍续下来，成为这个社会的主导精神。

另一方面，自二十世纪以后，美国逐渐卷入国际社会，而一跃成为世界上首屈一指的泱泱大国。二次大战后，美国成为头号强国。几十年的历史，使美国人产生一种强烈的心理：“我们是世界第一。”维持这种地位，成为这个民族的一种共识，要在今天这个竞争激烈的世界上维持“老大”的地位，自然而然要选择未来主义，不如此便会落伍。“世界第一”心理对未来主义的促逬，是潜移默化的，恐怕这里难以下个精确的定论。但如果一个国家处在世界第一的地位上，不想如何不被他人超过，如何在各个方面领先于他国，自然会被淘汰。

若从个人心理上深究之，美国人跟随未来主义也许和每个人觉得未来太没有保障有关。美国人在就业、社会生活、婚姻、教育等方面，很难说有哪项事物是终身保障的。在美国的制度下，个人难得有政府的终身保障，唯一的可能是社会保险，那也得有工作才能亭受，个人不能寄托于家庭、父母、朋友、私人企业甚至政府，个人只能寄望于未来有一个更好的或者不比现在更糟糕的社会环境，使个人有更好的或者不更糟糕的谋生余地，进而有过更好生活的更好的或者不更糟糕的条件。从每一个社会分子来说，未来的不确定感是个人信仰未来主义的重要动力。

在这里，实用主义和未来主义既有冲突又有综合。在综合的时刻，是两股思潮都认为有利有益的时刻。在冲突的时刻，便是两者意见相左的时刻。这个社会在很多问题上发生的冲突和争执，大凡与这两种精神的异同有关，当然这是一个更深层次的冲突。在不少情况下，人们信仰未来主义，往往来自实用主义的思考，在另一些情况下，人们信仰实用主义，又是来自未来主义的思考。

这块土地的发展，与这里的人们对未来世界的关注不可分开。关注未来世界的人可能出于诸种目的，如想称霸世界有之，想推进世界的发展有之，或者出于个人的动机有之，但是这种关注都将会成为一个社会发展中的一种观念和精神，它带来的推动力量是其他力量不能替代的。广而言之，任何民族只有关注未来世界，并找到自己在未来世界将有或者将争取到什么地位，才能真正找到发展之路，以及一个广阔博大的眼界。

‍

2. Departing From Convention¹

It can be said that Americans remain a fairly conservative people in terms of their values. Concepts such as sexual liberation, rock music, hippies, homosexuality, hedonism, and racial equality are still not accepted by all Americans, many of whom cling to old-fashioned values. This is especially true in politics, where traditional values still dominate. Successive victories by the Republican Party in presidential elections can also be understood as a manifestation of that tendency. Ordinary people continue to hold to very traditional standards when evaluating political leaders. Gary Hart, the backbone of the Democratic Party, had to withdraw from the presidential campaign because of a sex scandal² and Dan Quayle, though he was elected vice president, was [only elected by] riding on the coattails of George H. W. Bush.³ Many folks shake their heads at the mention of Mr. Quayle, saying that he did not do well in school and that for military service he only ever served in the National Guard. They claim that he had no experience and that he rose to prominence because of his wealthy father.

Many people from the East take it for granted that in a country as sexually liberated as the United States, [sexual] relationships between men and women should not pose any problems. However, they often do create major problems in the political sphere. This issue is the same across the West. In politics, Americans adhere to the ideas of the founding fathers, which have remained largely unchanged. Indeed, their entire system maintains that set of [founding] ideas to the exclusion of others, and in that respect, Americans tend to be on the conservative side.

Yet Americans are, paradoxically, the most adept people in the world at being novel and original. This is a peculiar phenomenon among these people: the great bulk of the population accepts not only the oldest, most time-honored things, but also delights in the newest and most exotic. This society has more inventions, and bolder and braver visions, than any other. In recent years, the Americans have launched the Space Shuttle⁴ and introduced the Star Wars program,⁵ and in late 1988, unveiled the B-2 bomber, which has a completely unique appearance.⁶ Americans are also quite remarkable when it comes to more mundane inventions. When you walk into a large department store, for example, you will find a wide variety of items used for many different purposes.

They are both conservative and innovative at the same time. This seems to be something of a contradiction which manifests in different areas of [American] society. Americans tend to be conservative in their values, yet pursue novelty and originality in technical fields, where it is often the most audacious ideas that gain their support and approval. There is a group of Americans who built a mock space city on a remote piece of land and are preparing to recruit volunteers to live there for two years sealed off [from the outside world].⁷ It was completed surprisingly quickly. If tomorrow someone were to propose building a highway across the Atlantic Ocean from the United States to Europe, or a highway running across the Pacific Ocean all the way to Asia, it would not be considered crazy. On the contrary, people would think this was an amazing idea.

Deploying human capabilities to conquer nature is one of the values of the American tradition. Thus, in this case, innovation and tradition do not stand in contradiction to each other. The process of innovation is one that abides by traditional values. The nature of this process, where the wildest of possibilities can be imagined, is often limited to the physical and technical realms, areas in which Americans are prepared to accept anything. America’s historical development and technological progress have engendered that state of mind.

I reflected on this question over and over again while visiting the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri. There I tried to figure out the causes and consequences of American originality.

The Gateway Arch is among the world’s tallest arches. It is approximately 630 feet high (nearly 200 meters) and is made entirely of stainless steel. Towering over the city, it shimmers in the sunlight and the blue sky, a majestic sight to behold. The arch spans more than 200 meters and takes on the appearance of an oversized silver rainbow on the bank of the Mississippi River. Below the arch is the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, commemorating President Thomas Jefferson and his efforts promoting the development of the western part of the United States in the first half of the nineteenth century. Inside the arch are elevators that bring visitors from the ground all the way up to the top, where a ten-meter walkway with windows offers a bird’s eye view over the city of St. Louis. The elevators ascend and descend inside the two legs of the arch. It was truly a peculiar idea. The designer was the Finnish-born American architect Eero Saarinean, whose design was the winner of a national call for submissions held in 1947. Technical and engineering staff began construction in 1963 and completed the arch in 1965.

The process of building the arch was also quite unique, as there could be no scaffolding for a building of that height. The two legs were built from the ground up, with cranes attached to each one. The cranes built the legs higher and higher as they climbed them. The legs were built skyward according to prior calculations, gradually coming together near the apex and finally being joined to form an arch. The entire process, from design to construction, was novel. But people accepted it and they built it. I suspect that people might have asked: What is the purpose of such a building? Can it generate income? Why not build a monument in the traditional style? Who can possibly guarantee its success?

Another building in Missouri that exemplifies the American spirit of originality is the church at the college in Fulton, a world-famous but unassuming little place. It is well-known for the fact that in 1946, shortly after the smoke of World War II had cleared, [Fulton] was the location of a famous speech given by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, in which he stated that the “Iron Curtain” had now descended, dividing East and West. Thus began the Cold War. “Iron Curtain” became a term commonly used in the West to refer to the Soviet Union and countries in Eastern Europe.

There is a church at this location, which, from the outside, is really quite unremarkable. It is nothing special compared to the countless other churches around the country. However, this church has a distinctive charm about it. The main reason for this is that the stones used to build the church were all brought over from England. It was originally an English church constructed in the twelfth century and then completely rebuilt in 1677. It was severely damaged by bombing [raids] during World War II, and all that was left of it was rubble, stones, and twelve stone pillars. After the war, with the church still in ruins, the Westminster College Memorial Committee proposed moving the stones to Missouri to build the college’s chapel and a memorial to Winston Churchill. Ground was broken in 1965 and 700 tons of stone were transported across the Atlantic Ocean at a cost of $3 million. [Former] President Harry Truman himself laid the cornerstone for the chapel, which was completed in 1969.

This was certainly a quintessential expression of the American people’s spirit of originality. Perhaps some might question: Why didn’t they just use local materials? How much did this add to the cost? How could it be that there were no stones available and they had to ship broken ones across the Atlantic?

In fact, these are just two examples of the American way of originality. Many others can be cited. The basketball arena in Iowa City can hold more than 10,000 people, but at ground level it appears to be only as high as a one-story building since the entire structure is sunk beneath the earth. The College of Law building at the University of Iowa is a bare steel and concrete structure with a large dome and only a few small windows. It looks like a military fortification that I imagine would be quite difficult to breach in combat. Americans are capable of conceiving of an idea like carving colossal sculptures of the heads of five [sic] presidents on a large mountain. The towering Washington Monument is bare and resembles an Egyptian obelisk.⁸ The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a black wall with the names of the fallen soldiers from that war. Furniture stores sell waterbeds, which are quite popular. The mattress is a water-filled cushion about a foot thick. It’s incredibly soft to lie on, and the water inside can be heated and cooled. Films are a product of the most peculiar imaginings: just think of E.T., Star Wars, Superman, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The recently deployed B-2 bomber has no empennage. The whole thing simply looks like a pair of wings, which is quite different from the shape of a conventional airplane. When it comes to clothing, things are even stranger. New clothing is very expensive, but some clothes are [worn] in tatters right from the time of purchase. They say that the manufacturing process is quite complicated. In the field of science and technology, the American spirit of originality has been even more fruitful. The examples are simply too numerous to list.

Of course, sometimes their departure from convention is taken to extremes, one such case being the new-fashioned raggedy clothing mentioned above. Then there are the people who build ultra-luxury cars, gigantic as can be, with interior kitchens, swimming pools, golf practice setups, telephones, televisions, and other types of amenities. There may be only a very few people able to enjoy such things. Sometimes, walking down the street you may see people whose hair is done up in rigid spikes, afro-styled, or even with half of it shaved off. There are public places where a few pieces of broken metal are hung up and they call it modern sculpture. With some modern art [installations], many people are afraid to even enjoy it.

In any case, the pursuit of novelty and originality in the technical and physical realms is a real driving force in the development of this society. This is the spirit that drives technological progress and economic development. Now, given that Americans are so conservative in their values, how have they succeeded in protecting and advancing this spirit of innovation?

First, let us clearly distinguish values from technology and the material world. Values relate to the realm of morality or the public sphere and should take into account the inclinations of the majority of the population. The technical and physical, on the other hand, are private. Novelty is a standard by which private individuals in society are measured. To be recognized in [American] society it is important to stand out from everyone else. [As America’s] political history does not provide the preconditions that other societies have [for distinction], such as nobility and lineage, everyone depends on success and creativity [to distinguish themselves]. In fact, the tendency toward conservatism in values guarantees innovation in the technological and material realms, enabling society to innovate within an orderly context.

Second, [Americans’] conservative value orientation has not placed particular constraints on technological and material innovation (though one cannot say that there are none at all). Americans came to the New World from Europe. At the beginning they found themselves in a barren land, struggling against nature; in their victory over nature, they grew. That became a fixed value in the American tradition. Thus recognizing and accepting innovation is, in itself, upholding tradition.

On the one hand, Americans conceive of the technological and material components [of life] as standing outside of the scope of values. They consider the technological and the material to be just that—technological and material. That type of innovation [technological innovation] occurs in addition to any innovation in values; both enrich traditional values. There are societies where the culture is not so clearly differentiated [from material conditions], where there is social uniformity and where all kinds of things are associated with values. That often tends to hinder technological and material progress.

On the other hand, the core of traditional values are abstractions. These include concepts such as freedom, equality, and the pursuit of happiness. As a result, technological and material innovation may be considered an expression of freedom, and the acceptance of innovation a sign of equality.

Third, the mechanisms of society force people to innovate. I say “force” because in order to win, one cannot afford to not innovate. There are two mechanisms that compel people to innovate. One is the supremacy of money. Any person or group who wants to obtain money, or make even more money, must be differentiated from others. They must introduce new things continuously in order to draw in and attract people and society.

The other [mechanism] is general prosperity and development. When a society reaches a general level of affluence and development, [social distinctions disappear as] people tend toward a wealthier average, meaning they cannot set themselves apart without extraordinary creativity. Boats rise with the tide.⁹ Everyone is pursuing innovation: innovation for money, innovation for self-actualization, innovation for societal recognition. To win, one must always strive for the next level.

Fourth, “great power vanity” prompts Americans to pursue novelty and originality. Such vanity is not always a good thing, but it does have a role to play in promoting innovation. From a young age, Americans are raised in an atmosphere where “America is Number One.” It turns out that most people believe in the claim that their country is, globally speaking, at the top of the pecking order. The closer people get to high-end technology, the more they tend to pursue that top status. Indeed, that mentality has led to many world-renowned American creations. At the same time, it has also created illusions [for the Americans] and they have run into some significant challenges because of this idea that they are the best in the world. However, one cannot deny its efficacy in promoting innovation.

Fifth, the dominant individualism in society also has an indirect effect on innovation. Being novel and original often implies some form of individualism, and any departure from convention means, first and foremost, a unique design that stands apart from the rest. Such a design requires an individual to give less consideration to the opinions and demands of others. Novelty and originality represent a certain type of personality. Some large-scale creations are not the work of a single person, but in the end can be broken down into the creations of many individuals, the sum of their respective personalities. Individualism imbues people with a strong sense of [their own] personality and a tendency to seek [their own] original departure from convention. In a diametrically opposed cultural atmosphere, it is more difficult for individuals and society to accept originality. [Granted], individualism has a negative effect on social harmony, but it also still affects people and society in unique ways.

Sixth, the democratic component of traditional values encourages people to [innovate] and to accept innovation. Americans take pleasure in accepting innovation. And, to put it more bluntly, they are really good at jeering at those [who don’t fall in line]. When the latest novelty comes out, anyone who doesn’t celebrate it may well be considered less democratic or less culturally refined. A parallel may be drawn to the viewing of an abstract painting: some dare not say anything bad about it for fear of being laughed at. That said, many people do genuinely approve of departure from convention. They accept those who are successful and those who think differently. People who dare to depart from convention often enjoy a special degree of reputation and respect.

The development of a society is inseparable from its spirit of innovation. To make full use of that spirit, society must encourage and accept those who are willing to look beyond the conventional. At the same time, the perpetuation of values is essential to any society; otherwise, social stability becomes difficult to sustain. The question is how to separate continuity in values from technological and material innovation. The former ensures the development of the latter, while the development of the latter also strengthens the continuation and transmission of values. From that point of view, whether an atmosphere of originality will form is, to a large extent, a question of the nature of the values themselves rather than a technological or material issue.

9. The world of the future

The American mentality is a rather complex synthesis, sometimes even a paradoxical one. The popular view is that since the development of the philosophy of pragmatism by William James and C.S. Peirce,¹⁰ the American people have come to put a particular emphasis on practicality. The concept of pragmatism and the requirement to “deliver value” permeate every part of the American spirit.

That pragmatism, reflected in ever-changing social life and human behavior, means that everything must achieve useful, practical, and realistic ends, while standards of value that are indiscernible, unattainable, or seemingly non-existent are rejected. In the contemporary United States, such a spirit is made more concrete by the expression “money first”, whereby quick financial gain is the litmus test of pragmatism and anything that makes money has an overpowering value. In a way, making money has become the essence of pragmatism in the current age.

In the midst of society, of course, there is a significant portion of the population that continues to struggle in pursuit of political, moral, ethical, religious, social, or philosophical values. However, most of the people who work in those fields do not have much of a penchant for ideals.

Come election season, [you find] many people are working for the two parties, but never for their beliefs. Being employed by the political parties they must work for those whose money they are taking. In government departments where so many officials are employed, it is likely that very few of them are constantly pining for the American ideals. They do their jobs because it is just that—a job. They have nothing close to a sense of responsibility for “carrying morality and righteousness on one’s shoulders.” People working in social welfare institutions are eager to take care of the poor and the disabled. Still, it is difficult to say with certainty that they all do so out of sympathy for the lower rungs of society or the poor. Rather, it is because this is work and they receive a paycheck for doing it. University professors author books and make impassioned speeches in the classroom, criticizing the government, lamenting the ills of the day, and calling for change. Yet most professors view it merely as part of their jobs, with very few taking on an intellectual sense of mission and responsibility. At the end of the day, it’s just a job, and nothing more. The idea that “matters of the family, the state, and the world all concern the individual”¹¹ and other such sentiments are rare. This is merely an illustration of how pragmatism dominates the American spirit and American society–a society which privileges money over people.

On the other hand, it cannot be overlooked–and it is rather curious–that there is yet another spirit that pervades society, which I would call “futurism”. In this overly materialistic society, it is rare to see a force that can overwhelm pragmatism. However, [here] the idea of futurism carries a particularly strong appeal and allure. Thus futurism also makes up a fundamental component of the general spirit of [American] society. It may be difficult to win hearts with other ideas, but [here] the ideas of futurism are powerful.

To me, futurism refers to something that has no direct effect at the moment, but will have an effect in the future, whether that something be a tangible object, an abstract concept, or a state of being. From this viewpoint, it becomes clear that pragmatism and futurism are a contradictory dichotomy, with one seeking value from the present moment and the other from the future. Yet [both] of these two spirits do, in fact, dominate [this] society. This is why I say [American society] is a complex synthesis.

Let us next review a few examples of the futurist spirit.

On the political front, one need only look at the 1983 presidential election. A popular topic for Bush and Dukakis was the United States in the 21st century, or the world and the United States in the 21st century. Could America maintain its current status in the world? What path should the U.S. take in the face of challenges from Japan and Europe, and possibly China? With the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe having challenged America on all fronts, how should it approach its choices? Both parties, in their quest to win votes, talked about how their policies and strategies would ensure that the 21st century would be an American century, just as they believed the 20th century was an American century. Already, some say that the 21st century will be the century of Japan or of China. It is often claimed by President Bush that the 21st century will be an American century; such sloganeering is really rather demagogic in nature. In Richard Nixon’s 1987 book, 1999: Victory Without War, recurring themes are how America will win in the future, what types of threats the country will encounter in the future, and which strategies it should deploy in response. It was an instant best-seller. Clearly, these concerns are shared among politicians and the general public alike; otherwise, this would not be such a successful strategy for attracting voters.
‍

When it comes to the military, Americans also hold rather strong ideological sentiments about the future. The United States has been devoting extraordinary attention to, and investing heavily in, war, strategy, and weapons research in preparation for the future. The tens of billions of dollars spent on the Star Wars program is a result of the dominance of futurism. To many, the program seems to be nothing more than a fanciful idea. However, the Americans are determined to implement it in earnest against the possible future competition in the strategic arms race. The program led to an uproar and endless rounds of debate across both political parties. One potential reason for this [uproar] was that this was a clash between the spirits of pragmatism and futurism. In arms development, the spirit of futurism has prevailed for the most part. Moreover, the arms industry is, on the whole, in favor of futurism because it is profitable, despite the fact that [people in the arms industry] themselves might all be pragmatists to the core. The recently introduced B-2 bomber is a typical reflection of that futurism. Despite appearances that pragmatism would be the driving ideology at the crossroads of strategy, futurism is the one that became predominant. With regard to the conflicts and volatility of Nicaragua, the Philippines, and the Middle East, the approach of the U.S. government is, for the most part, based on futurist strategic thinking.
‍

The American mentality on technological development is [even] more futurist. In fundamental domains such as basic theory, astrophysics, biological sciences, and chemistry, belief in futurism is thriving. It is often said that the sciences enjoy the most financial support in American universities, with the money coming from outside foundations or other institutions. [The reason why] those organizations are willing to invest so much money this way is that their guiding philosophy is oriented toward the future. The United States recently announced that it would build one of the world’s biggest particle colliders.¹² At a total length of 80 kilometers, it sounds like an astonishingly large project. But with an eye to the future, the Americans decided to allocate the funding and construct it. They are also looking to the future in computers, with companies investing huge sums in the development of the latest models. Environmental protection has garnered unprecedented attention and public consensus [on the need for environmental protection] now exists where it did not before. The issue has become a fundamental force guiding government policy. Such a consensus would be difficult to forge in the absence of the futurist spirit.
‍

Futurism runs even deeper when it comes to urban construction. Whether in Iowa City, a small city of just a few tens of thousands, or New York, a metropolis of more than 10 million, futurism plays a decisive role in urban architectural design. To ensure the successful implementation of any urban planning program, one important condition must be met: What will become of the design over the subsequent decades? Will it become an obstacle, or a bridge, to further development of the city? In many cities, highways, subways, buildings, and homes are designed and constructed with the future in mind. The World Trade Center in New York, for instance, is made up of majestic buildings standing tall in the sky, with the world below them even more impressive. There are enormous underground levels with subways and trains with service to all parts of New York and the neighboring states. The designers, in performing their work, took into account the future needs of the city. In a great number of cities, many of the housing units are more than fifty years old, some even more than a hundred years old. To this day, however, they still do not appear dilapidated or overly cramped. Small buildings, upon renovation, still make for impressive residential housing. They are an invaluable resource, to be sure. If all of the homes built at that time were going to become obsolete or uninhabitable in five or twenty years’ time, then housing could not have reached the level it has today. Futurism manifests itself in urban construction in the form of grand projects inspired by long-term, strategic thinking.
‍

Futurism is also evident in the education of talented individuals. Americans understand that the world of the future belongs to the children and young people of today. Will they be able to meet the challenges of the present and those of the world of tomorrow? The expression “children’s paradise” [used in China in reference to American society], refers to the comprehensive manner that children are cared for so that they are able to meet the future head-on. The same is true of their university education. The achievements and [global] status of the United States today is inextricably linked to their university education. Educational success is the most powerful force in maintaining and developing a social system. Whatever the nature of a society’s institutions, they would be difficult to maintain without success in education. Governments and universities alike have expended a great deal of effort to take on the world of the future.
‍

The spirit of futurism is reflected in many aspects [of American society], and therefore, one must not oversimplify [this society] by branding it as entirely pragmatic. It goes without saying that pragmatism enjoys a dominant status. So, the question is: why has this society given rise to such a mighty futurism? And how do [Americans] reconcile those two spirits? The spirit of the American tradition has always been one of pragmatism. Indeed, from the moment the first settlers set foot on the territory to begin building homes and struggling with nature in their newfound homeland, there was a special need for pragmatism. [In this land] there was no deep-rooted cultural tradition, very little philosophizing, and not much money or wealth to enable people to indulge their imaginations. To survive, they needed to prioritize practicality and tangible results. That spirit, borne of the early settlers, was carried on as the vast territory of the country was developed and has come to find its place as the guiding spirit of this society.

On the other hand, the United States gradually became more involved in the international community beginning in the 20th century and leapt into the role of a leading world power. After World War II, the country became a great power second to none. The intervening decades have since forged a strong American mentality of “we are number one in the world.” Maintaining this status has become America’s [national] consensus. In order to maintain their status as the “top dog” in today’s highly competitive world, they naturally opt for futurism, as doing otherwise would result in the country losing its lead. The “number one in the world” mentality exerts a subtle and gradual influence on the promotion of futurism, so it is perhaps difficult to draw precise conclusions here. Yet [we can at least say that] if a country that occupies the highest position in the world fails to consider how to stop other countries from surpassing it and how to remain in the lead in all aspects, it will naturally result in obsolescence.

If one deeply examines their personal psychology, Americans' futurist mindset could have [something] to do with the uncertainty everyone feels about the future. Whether viewed in terms of employment, social life, marriage, or education, it is hard to say that any [aspect of American life] comes with a lifelong guarantee. Under the American system it is rare for the government to guarantee anything for the entire life of an individual, with the possible exception of social security, which, of course, requires having a job. Individuals are unable to entrust their care to family, parents, friends, private enterprise, or even government. All they can do is hope for a future where the social environment, chance to earn a living, and living conditions are better than–or at least not worse than–the present. From the perspective of any member of such a society, a sense of uncertainty about the future is an important motivation for believing in futurism.

And therein lies the conflict between and the synthesis of pragmatism and futurism. The moment of synthesis occurs when both tides of thought find [something] favorable and beneficial. The moment of conflict occurs when they are at odds with each other. The conflicts and disputes that appear in [American] society over many issues are generally related to the similarities and differences between the two spirits. Of course, that conflict runs on a deeper level. Then again, in many cases, people often believe in futurism for pragmatic reasons, while in other cases, they believe in pragmatism, but from futuristic thinking.

The development of this land is inseparable from the concerns its people have for the world of the future. Their concerns about that world may be a product of various purposes and intentions, such as the desire to become the world’s hegemon, the desire to advance global development, and various other personal motivations. Nevertheless, these concerns will become a shared belief and spirit in social development of the society. They generate a driving force that cannot be replaced by any other force. Generally speaking, any nation must concern itself with the world of the future and understand what status it will have, or strive for, in that world. Only then can that nation truly find a path to development and an expansive, far-sighted vision.

‍

1. The phrase biāoxīn lìyì [标新立异] is used repeatedly in the Wang’s text. The phrase can be used both as an adjective and a noun; it describes all attempts to depart from existing conventions and travel untrodden paths. It thus connotes both the offbeat and the original. Depending on context, this translation renders biāoxīn lìyì variously as “novel/novelty,” “original/originality,” and “unconventional/departure from convention.”

2. Gary Hart (b.1936) served as a representative of Colorado in the United States Senate from 1975 to 1987. He was a front-runner of the Democratic presidential nomination for the 1988 election but had to withdraw his candidacy when journalists uncovered an extra-marital affair Hart had on the campaign trail.

3. Dan Quayle (b. 1947) was George H. W. Bush’s running mate in the 1988 presidential election. Lampooned as a lightweight by the media, Quayle was often questioned on his relative lack of experience by reporters and opponents on the campaign trail. During the 1988 presidential campaign a Washington Post expose revealed that Quayle had relied on family influence to join the National Guard in lieu of being drafted for service in the Vietnam War. See Michael Isikoff and Joe Pichirallo, “Qualye Was In Line To Be Drafted,” Washington Post, 20 August 1988.

4. The Space Shuttle Program was the fourth human spaceflight program run by NASA, operating between 1981 and 2011. The space shuttles were the first reusable crewed space vehicles that made multiple flights into orbit and then landed upon reentry. At the time Wang published America Against America they embodied the cutting edge in space technology.

5. The Strategic Defense Initiative, nicknamed the Star Wars Program, was a proposed missile defense system that Ronald Reagan announced to the American public on March 23, 1983. SDI proposals included a wide array of advanced weapon concepts, including lasers, particle beam weapons, and orbiting missiles. None of these technologies were successfully developed before the program was terminated in 1993.

6. The B-2 Spirit is a strategic stealth bomber designed by Northrop Grumman. The platform’s maiden flight was in 1989; the strange shape of the bomber is intended to reduce its radar cross section, allowing the B-2 to penetrate standard air defenses.

7. This is a reference to Biosphere 2, an earth system research facility located in Oracle, Arizona. Constructed between 1987 and 1991, the facility was designed to test the viability of a closed ecological system to support human life in outer space. Notably, funding for the project was entirely private.

8. In the Chinese text Wang describes this as the “Washington monument to the unknown heroes.” He is likely conflating the Washington monument with the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington, VA.

9. Or more literally, “As the tide rises, so does the boat.” This idiom refers to any situation where a part follows the trendline of a larger whole.

10. Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) and William James (1842–1910) are among the first generation of American philosophers who developed the school of pragmatism in the 1870s. This school of philosophy views language and thought as tools for prediction, problem solving, and action, rather than describing, representing, or mirroring reality.

11. “Matters of the family, the state, and the world all concern the individual” is a popular Chinese couplet that dates to the twelfth century.

12. Wang refers to the Superconducting Super Collider, whose 54 mile circumference promised to be the largest in the world. The project was canceled in 1993 after $2 billion had been spent on its initial construction.

‍

2.标新立异

我在圣路易市参观拱门（Gateway Arch）时，反复思考这个问题，想从中找出美国人标新立异的原因和作用。

9.未来世界

我们可以来看一下关于未来主义精神的实例：

在政治方面，可以看一下 1983 年的总统大选。布什和杜卡基斯的一个热门论题就是二十一世纪的美国，或者二十一世纪的世界与美国。美国能否保持它目前在世界上的地位？面对来自日本和欧洲的挑战，以及可能来自中国的挑战，美国将何去何从？苏联及东欧国家对美国形成全方位的挑战，美国又当如何抉择？两党在争取选民时，无不谈到自己的政策方略将如何使二十一世纪继续成为美国的世纪，他们认为二十世纪是美国的世纪。如今已有人谈二十一世纪将是日本的世纪或中国的世纪。布什常常说，二十一世纪将是美国世纪。这种口号是颇蛊惑人心的。尼克松 1987 年写的新书《1999：不战而胜》，其中反复出现的基调就是美国在未来如何取胜，未来美国会遇到仟么威胁，美国应如何选择对策等，立时成为畅销书。可见，这种关切不仅在于政治家、而且在于大众，不然以此作为拉选民的战略便不会成功。

在军事方面，美国人也有较强烈的未来主义的情感。在未来战争、战略、武器研究方面，美国一直十分关注，投下重金。耗资百亿的星球大战计划，是一种未来主义主导下的产物。这项计划，在很多人看来是一种奇想，但美国人决意认真地付诸实现，以对付未来可能出现的新一轮战略武器竞争。这一计划之所以引起轩然大波，引起朝野争论不休，其中潜在的一个因素就是实用主义精神与未来主义精神的冲突。在军备发展方面，未来主义精神大多数情况下占居上风。加之军火工业界大都支持未来主义，因为有利可图。尽管他们自己可能都是地地道道的实用主义者。最近推出的 B2 轰炸机，也是这种未来主义的典型反映。在战略要冲的发展上，占主导地位的是未来主义，而非实用主义，尽管表面上看是实用主义的。在尼加拉瓜、菲律宾、中东的冲突和波动中，美国政府的态度，大多基于未来主义的战略思想。

在科技发展方面，美国人更加讲究未来主义。在基础理论、天体物理、生物科学、化学等基本领域，未来主义的观念极其兴盛。人们常说，理科在美国大学中钱最多。这些钱都是从学校以外的基金会或什么机构搞来的。为什么这些机构愿意大笔大笔地投资，主导思想乃是着眼于未来。最近美国宣布搞一个世界上最大的对撞机，总长度为 80 公里，听起来是惊人的项目。但着眼于未来，美国人决定拨款建设。在电脑方面，美国人也着眼来来，各公司均投下大笔资金发展最新型号。环境保护，在这个社会中引起空前关注，大众对这个问题有前所未有的共识，成为主导政府政策的一个基本力量。没有未来主义的精神，这种共识是难以形成的。

在城市建设方面，未来主义的印记更深。无论是在只有几万人口的小城市爱荷华，还是在有一千几百万人口的大都市纽约，未来主义在城市建供的设计中具有举足轻重的地位。城市规划的方案，要想取胜并付诸实现，有一项必须留神的条件，这就是在未来几十年中这项设计将会变得怎么样？会变成城市进一步发展的障碍？还是城市进一步发展的桥梁？在许多城市中，高速公路、地铁、楼宇、住宅的设计和建设均有着对未来世界的考虑。例如纽约的国际贸易大厦，上面是高高屹立的雄伟建筑，下面的世界更是惊人，有巨大的地下层，有地铁、火车等通往纽约各地以及毗邻的州。设计师在设计时就考虑到未来城市发展的需要。在不少城市，很多住房均具有五十年以上甚至百年的历史，但至今仍然不显得破旧或狭小，一幢幢的小楼，经过装修，依然是十分可观的住房。这是不可多得的资源，如果当时都造五年或二十年要被淘汰或变得不能居住时房子，那么住房也不可能达到今天这样的水平。未来主义，在城市建设上，表现为百年大计。

在人才教育方面，未来主义也显而易见。美国人懂得，未来的世界是今天的儿童和年轻人的世界。他们能否应付这个世界的挑战和未来世界的挑战？所谓“儿童的天堂”，讲的就是儿童在这个社会受到全面的照顾，以便他们迎战未来。大学教育也是如此。取得今天这样的成就和地位与大学教育不可分割。教育的成功是维持和发展一种社会制度最强大的力量。无论这个社会制度是什么性质的，教育不成功，都难以维持。在应付未来世界方面，政府和大学均花了极大的气力。

‍

2. Departing From Convention¹

I reflected on this question over and over again while visiting the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri. There I tried to figure out the causes and consequences of American originality.

9. The world of the future

Let us next review a few examples of the futurist spirit.

On the political front, one need only look at the 1983 presidential election. A popular topic for Bush and Dukakis was the United States in the 21st century, or the world and the United States in the 21st century. Could America maintain its current status in the world? What path should the U.S. take in the face of challenges from Japan and Europe, and possibly China? With the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe having challenged America on all fronts, how should it approach its choices? Both parties, in their quest to win votes, talked about how their policies and strategies would ensure that the 21st century would be an American century, just as they believed the 20th century was an American century. Already, some say that the 21st century will be the century of Japan or of China. It is often claimed by President Bush that the 21st century will be an American century; such sloganeering is really rather demagogic in nature. In Richard Nixon’s 1987 book, 1999: Victory Without War, recurring themes are how America will win in the future, what types of threats the country will encounter in the future, and which strategies it should deploy in response. It was an instant best-seller. Clearly, these concerns are shared among politicians and the general public alike; otherwise, this would not be such a successful strategy for attracting voters.
‍

When it comes to the military, Americans also hold rather strong ideological sentiments about the future. The United States has been devoting extraordinary attention to, and investing heavily in, war, strategy, and weapons research in preparation for the future. The tens of billions of dollars spent on the Star Wars program is a result of the dominance of futurism. To many, the program seems to be nothing more than a fanciful idea. However, the Americans are determined to implement it in earnest against the possible future competition in the strategic arms race. The program led to an uproar and endless rounds of debate across both political parties. One potential reason for this [uproar] was that this was a clash between the spirits of pragmatism and futurism. In arms development, the spirit of futurism has prevailed for the most part. Moreover, the arms industry is, on the whole, in favor of futurism because it is profitable, despite the fact that [people in the arms industry] themselves might all be pragmatists to the core. The recently introduced B-2 bomber is a typical reflection of that futurism. Despite appearances that pragmatism would be the driving ideology at the crossroads of strategy, futurism is the one that became predominant. With regard to the conflicts and volatility of Nicaragua, the Philippines, and the Middle East, the approach of the U.S. government is, for the most part, based on futurist strategic thinking.
‍

The American mentality on technological development is [even] more futurist. In fundamental domains such as basic theory, astrophysics, biological sciences, and chemistry, belief in futurism is thriving. It is often said that the sciences enjoy the most financial support in American universities, with the money coming from outside foundations or other institutions. [The reason why] those organizations are willing to invest so much money this way is that their guiding philosophy is oriented toward the future. The United States recently announced that it would build one of the world’s biggest particle colliders.¹² At a total length of 80 kilometers, it sounds like an astonishingly large project. But with an eye to the future, the Americans decided to allocate the funding and construct it. They are also looking to the future in computers, with companies investing huge sums in the development of the latest models. Environmental protection has garnered unprecedented attention and public consensus [on the need for environmental protection] now exists where it did not before. The issue has become a fundamental force guiding government policy. Such a consensus would be difficult to forge in the absence of the futurist spirit.
‍

Futurism runs even deeper when it comes to urban construction. Whether in Iowa City, a small city of just a few tens of thousands, or New York, a metropolis of more than 10 million, futurism plays a decisive role in urban architectural design. To ensure the successful implementation of any urban planning program, one important condition must be met: What will become of the design over the subsequent decades? Will it become an obstacle, or a bridge, to further development of the city? In many cities, highways, subways, buildings, and homes are designed and constructed with the future in mind. The World Trade Center in New York, for instance, is made up of majestic buildings standing tall in the sky, with the world below them even more impressive. There are enormous underground levels with subways and trains with service to all parts of New York and the neighboring states. The designers, in performing their work, took into account the future needs of the city. In a great number of cities, many of the housing units are more than fifty years old, some even more than a hundred years old. To this day, however, they still do not appear dilapidated or overly cramped. Small buildings, upon renovation, still make for impressive residential housing. They are an invaluable resource, to be sure. If all of the homes built at that time were going to become obsolete or uninhabitable in five or twenty years’ time, then housing could not have reached the level it has today. Futurism manifests itself in urban construction in the form of grand projects inspired by long-term, strategic thinking.
‍

Futurism is also evident in the education of talented individuals. Americans understand that the world of the future belongs to the children and young people of today. Will they be able to meet the challenges of the present and those of the world of tomorrow? The expression “children’s paradise” [used in China in reference to American society], refers to the comprehensive manner that children are cared for so that they are able to meet the future head-on. The same is true of their university education. The achievements and [global] status of the United States today is inextricably linked to their university education. Educational success is the most powerful force in maintaining and developing a social system. Whatever the nature of a society’s institutions, they would be difficult to maintain without success in education. Governments and universities alike have expended a great deal of effort to take on the world of the future.
‍

‍

1. The phrase biāoxīn lìyì [标新立异] is used repeatedly in the Wang’s text. The phrase can be used both as an adjective and a noun; it describes all attempts to depart from existing conventions and travel untrodden paths. It thus connotes both the offbeat and the original. Depending on context, this translation renders biāoxīn lìyì variously as “novel/novelty,” “original/originality,” and “unconventional/departure from convention.”

2. Gary Hart (b.1936) served as a representative of Colorado in the United States Senate from 1975 to 1987. He was a front-runner of the Democratic presidential nomination for the 1988 election but had to withdraw his candidacy when journalists uncovered an extra-marital affair Hart had on the campaign trail.

3. Dan Quayle (b. 1947) was George H. W. Bush’s running mate in the 1988 presidential election. Lampooned as a lightweight by the media, Quayle was often questioned on his relative lack of experience by reporters and opponents on the campaign trail. During the 1988 presidential campaign a Washington Post expose revealed that Quayle had relied on family influence to join the National Guard in lieu of being drafted for service in the Vietnam War. See Michael Isikoff and Joe Pichirallo, “Qualye Was In Line To Be Drafted,” Washington Post, 20 August 1988.

4. The Space Shuttle Program was the fourth human spaceflight program run by NASA, operating between 1981 and 2011. The space shuttles were the first reusable crewed space vehicles that made multiple flights into orbit and then landed upon reentry. At the time Wang published America Against America they embodied the cutting edge in space technology.

5. The Strategic Defense Initiative, nicknamed the Star Wars Program, was a proposed missile defense system that Ronald Reagan announced to the American public on March 23, 1983. SDI proposals included a wide array of advanced weapon concepts, including lasers, particle beam weapons, and orbiting missiles. None of these technologies were successfully developed before the program was terminated in 1993.

6. The B-2 Spirit is a strategic stealth bomber designed by Northrop Grumman. The platform’s maiden flight was in 1989; the strange shape of the bomber is intended to reduce its radar cross section, allowing the B-2 to penetrate standard air defenses.

7. This is a reference to Biosphere 2, an earth system research facility located in Oracle, Arizona. Constructed between 1987 and 1991, the facility was designed to test the viability of a closed ecological system to support human life in outer space. Notably, funding for the project was entirely private.

8. In the Chinese text Wang describes this as the “Washington monument to the unknown heroes.” He is likely conflating the Washington monument with the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington, VA.

9. Or more literally, “As the tide rises, so does the boat.” This idiom refers to any situation where a part follows the trendline of a larger whole.

10. Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) and William James (1842–1910) are among the first generation of American philosophers who developed the school of pragmatism in the 1870s. This school of philosophy views language and thought as tools for prediction, problem solving, and action, rather than describing, representing, or mirroring reality.

11. “Matters of the family, the state, and the world all concern the individual” is a popular Chinese couplet that dates to the twelfth century.

12. Wang refers to the Superconducting Super Collider, whose 54 mile circumference promised to be the largest in the world. The project was canceled in 1993 after $2 billion had been spent on its initial construction.

Cite This Article

Wang Huning. “'The World of the Future' and 'Departing From Convention.'” An excerpt from America Against America. Translated by Aaron Hebenstreit. San Francisco: Center for Strategic Translation, 2023.

‍

Originally published in Wang Huning 王沪宁, Meiguo Fandui Meiguo 美国反对美国 [America Against America]. Shanghai: Shanghai Wenyi Chuban She 上海文艺出版社 [Shanghai Humanities Publishing Co.], 1991: 73-80; 107-113.

‍

copy to clipboard

The World of the Future

Author

Wang Huning

original publication

America Against America

Tag term

The World of the Future

Author

Wang Huning

original publication

America Against America

Tag term

The World of the Future

Author

Wang Huning

original publication

America Against America

Tag term

The World of the Future

Author

Wang Huning

original publication

America Against America

Tag term

The World of the Future

Author

Wang Huning

original publication

America Against America

Tag term

未来世界

Author

Wang Huning

王沪宁

original publication

America Against America

美国反对美国

publication date

January 1, 1991

Translator

Aaron Hebenstreit

Translation date

November 10, 2023

Introduction

‍

1. Wang Huning 王沪宁, Meiguo Fandui Meiguo 美国反对美国 [America Against America] (Shanghai: Shanghai Wenyi Chuban She 上海文艺出版社 [Shanghai Humanities Publishing Co.], 1991), 258.

2. bid., 15.

3. These occur on pages 73-80 and 107-113 of the original text.

4. Ibid., 6. For an English translation of this passage, see Wang Huning. “Uncertainty Created by America,” trans. Leah Holder, Center for Strategic Translation, October 2023.

5. In addition to the excerpt translated below, see Wang, Meiguo Fandui Meiguo 美国反对美国 (America Against America), 10-15, 124-30, 106, 164-169, 179-185.

6. For extensive examples, see Chen Fong-ching and Jin Guantao, From Youthful Manuscripts to River Elegy: The Chinese Popular Cultural Movement and Political Transformation 1979–1989 (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1997), passim.

7. E.g., Ross Douthat, The Decadent Society: How We Became Victims of Our Own Success (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2020); J. Storr Halls, Where is My Flying Car (New York: Stripe Press, 2021).

8. Wang, “Uncertainty Created by America.” See also Wang’s discussion of “political genes” in Meiguo Fandui Meiguo, 55-59.

9. This phrase is Ruihan Huang and Joshua Henderson's characterization of the newfound Chinese approach. See Ruihan Huang and Joshua Henderson, “The Return of Technocrats in Chinese Politics,” Macro Polo, 3 May 2022. For more on the logic of this new approach see the CST glossary entries NEW DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT and NEW DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.

‍

2. Departing From Convention¹

I reflected on this question over and over again while visiting the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri. There I tried to figure out the causes and consequences of American originality.

9. The world of the future

Let us next review a few examples of the futurist spirit.

On the political front, one need only look at the 1983 presidential election. A popular topic for Bush and Dukakis was the United States in the 21st century, or the world and the United States in the 21st century. Could America maintain its current status in the world? What path should the U.S. take in the face of challenges from Japan and Europe, and possibly China? With the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe having challenged America on all fronts, how should it approach its choices? Both parties, in their quest to win votes, talked about how their policies and strategies would ensure that the 21st century would be an American century, just as they believed the 20th century was an American century. Already, some say that the 21st century will be the century of Japan or of China. It is often claimed by President Bush that the 21st century will be an American century; such sloganeering is really rather demagogic in nature. In Richard Nixon’s 1987 book, 1999: Victory Without War, recurring themes are how America will win in the future, what types of threats the country will encounter in the future, and which strategies it should deploy in response. It was an instant best-seller. Clearly, these concerns are shared among politicians and the general public alike; otherwise, this would not be such a successful strategy for attracting voters.
‍

When it comes to the military, Americans also hold rather strong ideological sentiments about the future. The United States has been devoting extraordinary attention to, and investing heavily in, war, strategy, and weapons research in preparation for the future. The tens of billions of dollars spent on the Star Wars program is a result of the dominance of futurism. To many, the program seems to be nothing more than a fanciful idea. However, the Americans are determined to implement it in earnest against the possible future competition in the strategic arms race. The program led to an uproar and endless rounds of debate across both political parties. One potential reason for this [uproar] was that this was a clash between the spirits of pragmatism and futurism. In arms development, the spirit of futurism has prevailed for the most part. Moreover, the arms industry is, on the whole, in favor of futurism because it is profitable, despite the fact that [people in the arms industry] themselves might all be pragmatists to the core. The recently introduced B-2 bomber is a typical reflection of that futurism. Despite appearances that pragmatism would be the driving ideology at the crossroads of strategy, futurism is the one that became predominant. With regard to the conflicts and volatility of Nicaragua, the Philippines, and the Middle East, the approach of the U.S. government is, for the most part, based on futurist strategic thinking.
‍

The American mentality on technological development is [even] more futurist. In fundamental domains such as basic theory, astrophysics, biological sciences, and chemistry, belief in futurism is thriving. It is often said that the sciences enjoy the most financial support in American universities, with the money coming from outside foundations or other institutions. [The reason why] those organizations are willing to invest so much money this way is that their guiding philosophy is oriented toward the future. The United States recently announced that it would build one of the world’s biggest particle colliders.¹² At a total length of 80 kilometers, it sounds like an astonishingly large project. But with an eye to the future, the Americans decided to allocate the funding and construct it. They are also looking to the future in computers, with companies investing huge sums in the development of the latest models. Environmental protection has garnered unprecedented attention and public consensus [on the need for environmental protection] now exists where it did not before. The issue has become a fundamental force guiding government policy. Such a consensus would be difficult to forge in the absence of the futurist spirit.
‍

Futurism runs even deeper when it comes to urban construction. Whether in Iowa City, a small city of just a few tens of thousands, or New York, a metropolis of more than 10 million, futurism plays a decisive role in urban architectural design. To ensure the successful implementation of any urban planning program, one important condition must be met: What will become of the design over the subsequent decades? Will it become an obstacle, or a bridge, to further development of the city? In many cities, highways, subways, buildings, and homes are designed and constructed with the future in mind. The World Trade Center in New York, for instance, is made up of majestic buildings standing tall in the sky, with the world below them even more impressive. There are enormous underground levels with subways and trains with service to all parts of New York and the neighboring states. The designers, in performing their work, took into account the future needs of the city. In a great number of cities, many of the housing units are more than fifty years old, some even more than a hundred years old. To this day, however, they still do not appear dilapidated or overly cramped. Small buildings, upon renovation, still make for impressive residential housing. They are an invaluable resource, to be sure. If all of the homes built at that time were going to become obsolete or uninhabitable in five or twenty years’ time, then housing could not have reached the level it has today. Futurism manifests itself in urban construction in the form of grand projects inspired by long-term, strategic thinking.
‍

Futurism is also evident in the education of talented individuals. Americans understand that the world of the future belongs to the children and young people of today. Will they be able to meet the challenges of the present and those of the world of tomorrow? The expression “children’s paradise” [used in China in reference to American society], refers to the comprehensive manner that children are cared for so that they are able to meet the future head-on. The same is true of their university education. The achievements and [global] status of the United States today is inextricably linked to their university education. Educational success is the most powerful force in maintaining and developing a social system. Whatever the nature of a society’s institutions, they would be difficult to maintain without success in education. Governments and universities alike have expended a great deal of effort to take on the world of the future.
‍

‍

1. The phrase biāoxīn lìyì [标新立异] is used repeatedly in the Wang’s text. The phrase can be used both as an adjective and a noun; it describes all attempts to depart from existing conventions and travel untrodden paths. It thus connotes both the offbeat and the original. Depending on context, this translation renders biāoxīn lìyì variously as “novel/novelty,” “original/originality,” and “unconventional/departure from convention.”

2. Gary Hart (b.1936) served as a representative of Colorado in the United States Senate from 1975 to 1987. He was a front-runner of the Democratic presidential nomination for the 1988 election but had to withdraw his candidacy when journalists uncovered an extra-marital affair Hart had on the campaign trail.

3. Dan Quayle (b. 1947) was George H. W. Bush’s running mate in the 1988 presidential election. Lampooned as a lightweight by the media, Quayle was often questioned on his relative lack of experience by reporters and opponents on the campaign trail. During the 1988 presidential campaign a Washington Post expose revealed that Quayle had relied on family influence to join the National Guard in lieu of being drafted for service in the Vietnam War. See Michael Isikoff and Joe Pichirallo, “Qualye Was In Line To Be Drafted,” Washington Post, 20 August 1988.

4. The Space Shuttle Program was the fourth human spaceflight program run by NASA, operating between 1981 and 2011. The space shuttles were the first reusable crewed space vehicles that made multiple flights into orbit and then landed upon reentry. At the time Wang published America Against America they embodied the cutting edge in space technology.

5. The Strategic Defense Initiative, nicknamed the Star Wars Program, was a proposed missile defense system that Ronald Reagan announced to the American public on March 23, 1983. SDI proposals included a wide array of advanced weapon concepts, including lasers, particle beam weapons, and orbiting missiles. None of these technologies were successfully developed before the program was terminated in 1993.

6. The B-2 Spirit is a strategic stealth bomber designed by Northrop Grumman. The platform’s maiden flight was in 1989; the strange shape of the bomber is intended to reduce its radar cross section, allowing the B-2 to penetrate standard air defenses.

7. This is a reference to Biosphere 2, an earth system research facility located in Oracle, Arizona. Constructed between 1987 and 1991, the facility was designed to test the viability of a closed ecological system to support human life in outer space. Notably, funding for the project was entirely private.

8. In the Chinese text Wang describes this as the “Washington monument to the unknown heroes.” He is likely conflating the Washington monument with the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington, VA.

9. Or more literally, “As the tide rises, so does the boat.” This idiom refers to any situation where a part follows the trendline of a larger whole.

10. Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) and William James (1842–1910) are among the first generation of American philosophers who developed the school of pragmatism in the 1870s. This school of philosophy views language and thought as tools for prediction, problem solving, and action, rather than describing, representing, or mirroring reality.

11. “Matters of the family, the state, and the world all concern the individual” is a popular Chinese couplet that dates to the twelfth century.

12. Wang refers to the Superconducting Super Collider, whose 54 mile circumference promised to be the largest in the world. The project was canceled in 1993 after $2 billion had been spent on its initial construction.

‍

2.标新立异

我在圣路易市参观拱门（Gateway Arch）时，反复思考这个问题，想从中找出美国人标新立异的原因和作用。

9.未来世界

我们可以来看一下关于未来主义精神的实例：

在政治方面，可以看一下 1983 年的总统大选。布什和杜卡基斯的一个热门论题就是二十一世纪的美国，或者二十一世纪的世界与美国。美国能否保持它目前在世界上的地位？面对来自日本和欧洲的挑战，以及可能来自中国的挑战，美国将何去何从？苏联及东欧国家对美国形成全方位的挑战，美国又当如何抉择？两党在争取选民时，无不谈到自己的政策方略将如何使二十一世纪继续成为美国的世纪，他们认为二十世纪是美国的世纪。如今已有人谈二十一世纪将是日本的世纪或中国的世纪。布什常常说，二十一世纪将是美国世纪。这种口号是颇蛊惑人心的。尼克松 1987 年写的新书《1999：不战而胜》，其中反复出现的基调就是美国在未来如何取胜，未来美国会遇到仟么威胁，美国应如何选择对策等，立时成为畅销书。可见，这种关切不仅在于政治家、而且在于大众，不然以此作为拉选民的战略便不会成功。

在军事方面，美国人也有较强烈的未来主义的情感。在未来战争、战略、武器研究方面，美国一直十分关注，投下重金。耗资百亿的星球大战计划，是一种未来主义主导下的产物。这项计划，在很多人看来是一种奇想，但美国人决意认真地付诸实现，以对付未来可能出现的新一轮战略武器竞争。这一计划之所以引起轩然大波，引起朝野争论不休，其中潜在的一个因素就是实用主义精神与未来主义精神的冲突。在军备发展方面，未来主义精神大多数情况下占居上风。加之军火工业界大都支持未来主义，因为有利可图。尽管他们自己可能都是地地道道的实用主义者。最近推出的 B2 轰炸机，也是这种未来主义的典型反映。在战略要冲的发展上，占主导地位的是未来主义，而非实用主义，尽管表面上看是实用主义的。在尼加拉瓜、菲律宾、中东的冲突和波动中，美国政府的态度，大多基于未来主义的战略思想。

在科技发展方面，美国人更加讲究未来主义。在基础理论、天体物理、生物科学、化学等基本领域，未来主义的观念极其兴盛。人们常说，理科在美国大学中钱最多。这些钱都是从学校以外的基金会或什么机构搞来的。为什么这些机构愿意大笔大笔地投资，主导思想乃是着眼于未来。最近美国宣布搞一个世界上最大的对撞机，总长度为 80 公里，听起来是惊人的项目。但着眼于未来，美国人决定拨款建设。在电脑方面，美国人也着眼来来，各公司均投下大笔资金发展最新型号。环境保护，在这个社会中引起空前关注，大众对这个问题有前所未有的共识，成为主导政府政策的一个基本力量。没有未来主义的精神，这种共识是难以形成的。

在城市建设方面，未来主义的印记更深。无论是在只有几万人口的小城市爱荷华，还是在有一千几百万人口的大都市纽约，未来主义在城市建供的设计中具有举足轻重的地位。城市规划的方案，要想取胜并付诸实现，有一项必须留神的条件，这就是在未来几十年中这项设计将会变得怎么样？会变成城市进一步发展的障碍？还是城市进一步发展的桥梁？在许多城市中，高速公路、地铁、楼宇、住宅的设计和建设均有着对未来世界的考虑。例如纽约的国际贸易大厦，上面是高高屹立的雄伟建筑，下面的世界更是惊人，有巨大的地下层，有地铁、火车等通往纽约各地以及毗邻的州。设计师在设计时就考虑到未来城市发展的需要。在不少城市，很多住房均具有五十年以上甚至百年的历史，但至今仍然不显得破旧或狭小，一幢幢的小楼，经过装修，依然是十分可观的住房。这是不可多得的资源，如果当时都造五年或二十年要被淘汰或变得不能居住时房子，那么住房也不可能达到今天这样的水平。未来主义，在城市建设上，表现为百年大计。

在人才教育方面，未来主义也显而易见。美国人懂得，未来的世界是今天的儿童和年轻人的世界。他们能否应付这个世界的挑战和未来世界的挑战？所谓“儿童的天堂”，讲的就是儿童在这个社会受到全面的照顾，以便他们迎战未来。大学教育也是如此。取得今天这样的成就和地位与大学教育不可分割。教育的成功是维持和发展一种社会制度最强大的力量。无论这个社会制度是什么性质的，教育不成功，都难以维持。在应付未来世界方面，政府和大学均花了极大的气力。

About

Contact

The World of the Future

Introduction

1. Wang Huning 王沪宁, Meiguo Fandui Meiguo 美国反对美国 [America Against America] (Shanghai: Shanghai Wenyi Chuban She 上海文艺出版社 [Shanghai Humanities Publishing Co.], 1991), 258.

2. bid., 15.

3. These occur on pages 73-80 and 107-113 of the original text.

4. Ibid., 6. For an English translation of this passage, see Wang Huning. “Uncertainty Created by America,” trans. Leah Holder, Center for Strategic Translation, October 2023.

5. In addition to the excerpt translated below, see Wang, Meiguo Fandui Meiguo 美国反对美国 (America Against America), 10-15, 124-30, 106, 164-169, 179-185.

6. For extensive examples, see Chen Fong-ching and Jin Guantao, From Youthful Manuscripts to River Elegy: The Chinese Popular Cultural Movement and Political Transformation 1979–1989 (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1997), passim.

7. E.g., Ross Douthat, The Decadent Society: How We Became Victims of Our Own Success (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2020); J. Storr Halls, Where is My Flying Car (New York: Stripe Press, 2021).

8. Wang, “Uncertainty Created by America.” See also Wang’s discussion of “political genes” in Meiguo Fandui Meiguo, 55-59.

2.标新立异

9.未来世界

2. Departing From Convention1

9. The world of the future

6. The B-2 Spirit is a strategic stealth bomber designed by Northrop Grumman. The platform’s maiden flight was in 1989; the strange shape of the bomber is intended to reduce its radar cross section, allowing the B-2 to penetrate standard air defenses.

8. In the Chinese text Wang describes this as the “Washington monument to the unknown heroes.” He is likely conflating the Washington monument with the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington, VA.

9. Or more literally, “As the tide rises, so does the boat.” This idiom refers to any situation where a part follows the trendline of a larger whole.

11. “Matters of the family, the state, and the world all concern the individual” is a popular Chinese couplet that dates to the twelfth century.

12. Wang refers to the Superconducting Super Collider, whose 54 mile circumference promised to be the largest in the world. The project was canceled in 1993 after $2 billion had been spent on its initial construction.

2.标新立异

9.未来世界

2. Departing From Convention1

9. The world of the future

6. The B-2 Spirit is a strategic stealth bomber designed by Northrop Grumman. The platform’s maiden flight was in 1989; the strange shape of the bomber is intended to reduce its radar cross section, allowing the B-2 to penetrate standard air defenses.

8. In the Chinese text Wang describes this as the “Washington monument to the unknown heroes.” He is likely conflating the Washington monument with the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington, VA.

9. Or more literally, “As the tide rises, so does the boat.” This idiom refers to any situation where a part follows the trendline of a larger whole.

11. “Matters of the family, the state, and the world all concern the individual” is a popular Chinese couplet that dates to the twelfth century.

12. Wang refers to the Superconducting Super Collider, whose 54 mile circumference promised to be the largest in the world. The project was canceled in 1993 after $2 billion had been spent on its initial construction.

Cite This Article

Related Articles