Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2018, Vol. 50 Issue (5): 572-582    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00572
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
 对水稻理论的质疑: 兼新论中国人偏好整体思维的内外因
 汪凤炎
 (南京师范大学 道德教育研究所, 暨 心理学院, 南京 210097)
 Questioning the Rice Theory: Also on the internal and external causes of Chinese preference for holistic thinking
 WANG Fengyan
 (Institute of Moral Education Research and School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China)
全文: PDF(517 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要  Talhelm等人认为种植水稻与种植小麦有重大差别, 所以, 中国水稻文化与小麦文化是两种不同类型的文化:南方的水稻文化更倾向于东亚文化, 北方的小麦文化看起来更像西方文化。“水稻理论”视角颇新颖, 但能否成立有待检验。以整体思维为例, 用“水稻理论”解释中国人偏好整体思维的缘由时存在两个矛盾:一是南宋之前的多数中国人虽长期生活在小麦区, 但他们的思维方式却主要是整体思维, 几乎没有分析思维, 且整体思维至迟到春秋战国时期已炉火纯青; 二是目前无足够的可靠证据证明种植小麦的中国北方在文化上看起来更像西方, 并且北方人擅长的同样是整体思维。这两个矛盾证明“水稻理论”解释不通。其实, 促成中国古人崇尚整体思维最可能的外因是:先人从长期的治水经验尤其是从鲧治水失败而大禹治水成功的一反一正事例中直观、真切地看到了天人密切相关理念、顺应自然和通盘考虑(整体思维的雏形)在成功解决复杂问题时的重要性; 促成中国古人崇尚整体思维最可能的内因是蕴含阴阳思维的阴阳学说、蕴含五行思维的五行学说和蕴含阴阳五行思维的阴阳五行学说的提出与被认可, 它们为中国人如何运用整体思维提供了一整套完整的思维运作方式。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
汪凤炎
关键词  整体思维 水稻理论 治水 阴阳学说 五行学说 阴阳五行学说    
Abstract: Based on the significant differences between rice and wheat cultivation, Talhelm et al. (2014) divided the Chinese culture into two types, respectively: rice culture and wheat culture. The former is closer to East Asian culture, and the latter to Western culture. Although the “Rice Theory” provides a novel perspective, it remains to be tested before it’s established. For example, why is holistic-thinking prevalent in China? The “Rice Theory” argues that agricultural types result into cultural differences. Specifically, a long history of rice cultivation should make people live in the rice area more interdependent and thus prefer holistic-thinking, while that of wheat cultivation should make people live in the wheat area more individualistic and thus prefer analytical-thinking. Although the “Rice Theory” provides a new perspective in explaining the differences between rice culture and wheat culture and the prevalence of holistic-thinking in China, the real reason for Chinese, especially ancient Chinese, preferring holistic-thinking may not be a long history of rice cultivation. This paper focuses on explaining this new theory in details. Two contradictions come out when explaining Chinese preference for holistic-thinking by the “Rice Theory”. (1) Before the Southern Sung Dynasty (1127-1279), the majority of Chinese, who lived in wheat-growing area for a long time, used holistic-thinking, barely with any analytic-thinking. Moreover, the holistic-thinking had already reached a high degree no later than the Chhun Chhiu and Warring States Period (770-221 BC). (2) There is no firm evidence insofar to support that the wheat-growing northern Chinese are more culturally Western, no sufficient evidence to support that northerners were more analytical than southerners, or southerners were more holistic than northerners. In fact, northerners are also good at holistic-thinking. The founders and main representatives of “the hundred schools of thought” in pre-Qin period, who have largely influenced Chinese culture and holistic-thinking mode after the Qin and Han dynasties (221-220 BC), were mostly from the northern wheat region. Overall, these two contradictions suggested that the “Rice Theory” was invalid. The external reasons for the prevalence of holistic-thinking in China is probably the enlightenments and inspirations derived from flood control practices, especially the contrast between Yu’s success and Gun’s failure in flood control, which made the Chinese ancients intuitively realized the importance of the harmony between man and nature, and thus considering beings comprehensively (the prototype of holistic-thinking) in solving complicated problems. And the internal reasons is probably the proposal and acceptance of the Yin-Yang theory which contains the thought of Yin-Yang, the Five Elements theory which contains the thought of Five Elements, and the combined Yin Yang-Five Elements theory which contains the thought of Yin-Yang and Five Elements. They provide a complete set of thinking methods to utilize the holistic-thinking for Chinese. Due to the logical and systematic explaining of the birth, growing, sickness and death of the universe, these theories were regarded the rule of thinking by ancient Chinese. They also promoted ancient Chinese to use the holistic, dynamic, and self-adaptive thinking model to explain manifold natural and social phenomena. To sum up, (1) the “Rice Theory” is invalid to explain preference of holistic thinking among Chinese, due to its lack of cultural and ecological validity. (2) It is the flood control practice together with the Yin-Yang thinking, Five Elements thinking, and combined Yin Yang-Five Elements theory that lead to the holistic thinking of ancients Chinese. Insofar, the habit of using holistic thinking to understand and solve problems by Chinese is indestructible.
Key wordsholistic-thinking    Rice Theory    flood control    Yin-Yang theory    Five Elements theory    Yin-Yang and Five Elements theory
收稿日期: 2017-08-10      出版日期: 2018-03-31
中图分类号:     
  B849: C91  
基金资助: 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地2016年度重大项目(项目批准号:16JJD880026)。
通讯作者: 汪凤炎, E-mail: fywangjx8069@163.com     E-mail: E-mail: fywangjx8069@163.com
引用本文:   
汪凤炎. (2018).  对水稻理论的质疑: 兼新论中国人偏好整体思维的内外因. 心理学报, 50(5): 572-582.
WANG Fengyan. (2018).  Questioning the Rice Theory: Also on the internal and external causes of Chinese preference for holistic thinking. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(5), 572-582.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00572      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2018/V50/I5/572
[1] 杨群 张积家. 正字法深度对汉族、维吾尔族大学生汉字词命名的影响[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[2] 郝叶芳 王争艳 董书阳 刘斯漫 武萌 卢珊. 儿童早期的母亲生活压力对其5岁行为问题的预测效应:链式中介分析[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[3] 刘贵雄 王余娟 买合甫来提.坎吉 贾永萍 郭春彦. 联结再认中双语者第二语言记忆优势效应[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[4] 侯楠 彭坚. 恩威并施、积极执行与工作绩效——探索中国情境下双元领导的有效性[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[5] 宋潮 邢怡伦 王建平. 失独父母创伤后应激障碍的症状特征及预测因素[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[6] 徐岚 陆凯丽 崔楠. 享受当下,还是留待未来?——时间观对跨期决策的影响[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[7] 黎晓丹 丁道群 叶浩生. 身体姿势启动的内隐权力感对公平决策的影响[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[8] 王晓田. 用行为经济学应对不确定性:拓展有效助推的范畴[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[9] 孙莎莎 李小兵 李宝山 刘承宜 黄敏儿. 正念提升身心健康的机制:来自HRV自相似证据[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[10] 张丹丹 蔺义芹 柳昀哲 罗跃嘉. 厌恶与恐惧面孔的记忆编码、保持、提取[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[11] 李美佳 庄丹琪 彭华茂. 基于问题解决式的类比推理的老化:表面相似性和结构相似性的作用[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[12] 王志丹 周爱保 张荣华 卜梦瑾 李玉雯 王海静 Rebecca Williamson. 中美儿童基于物体重量归纳推理的跨文化比较[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[13] 孙雅晨 张汉其 李勇辉 薛贵 何清华. 一味坚持还是灵活变换:换牌频率的神经结构基础和认知机制[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[14] 李卫君 刘梦 张政华 邓娜丽 邢钰珊. 口吃者加工汉语歧义短语的神经过程[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[15] 胡路明 苏晶 魏柳青 张学民. 多目标追踪中基于运动信息的分组效应[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn