In the Analects (Lunyu 論語), there is a line that goes as follows:
“The master said, ‘If names are not rectified, then what is said will not obey/follow [true meaning], and if what is said does not obey/follow [true meaning], then affairs cannot be accomplished.’” 子曰：「名不正，則言不順；言不順則事不成」
The idea here is that people can attach agreed upon, and accurate, meanings to words, and that from time to time people need to “re-do” this because reality changes, and/or people’s understanding of reality changes, and when this happens, the terms that they had been using no longer match reality, so they have to “rectify names” (正名) so that words can more accurately depict reality.
This is a point that the Swiss linguist, Ferdinand be Saussure, both agreed with and challenged in the early twentieth century when he argued (and I’m simplifying his ideas here) that the relationship between words, or what he called “signifiers,” and the ideas they referred to, or what he called “the signified,” was arbitrary and did not remain stable over time.
So Confucius and Saussure agreed that the relationship between words and their meanings was not stable, but Confucius felt that from time to time people could stabilize that relationship by “rectifying names.” Saussure, on the other hand, (I think) would have argued that one could never succeed in doing that because the relationship between words and their meanings is arbitrary, and that therefore people will always understand words in different ways.
I agree with Saussure that we can’t completely control how people understand words, but I also agree with Confucius that we nonetheless need to at least try to make an effort to use words that reflect what we understand of reality as clearly as possible, and that as our understanding of reality changes, we need to “rectify” the words we use to talk about reality.
So maybe we could combine the ideas of Confucius and Saussure and talk about the “rectification of signifiers.” The idea here is that we need to “rectify” words so that we can more accurately express what we understand, but that we also acknowledge that words as “signifiers” (in Saussure’s sense), are never stable, and that there will always be people who will understand them differently from the way that we use them.
With that in mind, let’s look at the signifier, “Việt.” The area of the world where the modern nation-state of Vietnam is located has undergone many changes over the past 3000 years. Many people understand this, but none of us, I would argue, have accurate words to describe this.
If, for instance, we use a single term to refer to people in the area of the Red River Delta over the course of those 3,000 years (such as “Việt”) then we get a sense of continuity. However, it is obvious that tremendous changes occurred over that period as well. Isn’t that also important to recognize?
Contemporary Vietnamese scholars sometimes add the term “ancient” (cổ) to a term like “Việt” to talk about the “ancient Việt” (Việt cổ). This indicates change, because the “ancient Việt” had to change to become the “modern Việt,” but it also emphasizes continuity as well – everyone is “Việt.”
As far as we can tell, however, “Việt/Yue” is a term which people from outside the region gave to numerous peoples who lived in an area that today covers much of southern China and extending into northern Vietnam. We don’t have evidence to support the idea that people in the Red River Delta in the first millennium BC actually called themselves “Việt.”
So why should we call them that? When we include the term “Việt” in a name that we give to the people in the first millennium BC (such as Lạc Việt or người Việt cổ) we indicate continuity and a direct connection with the present. But what is it that continued? What is the connection?
Certainly not language or culture. Those both changed dramatically, so much so that I can’t think of a “signified” that the “signifier,” “Việt,” can refer to across that long period of time other than blood. But is blood really that important? If so, why and how?
In the end, I have no idea what to call people in the Red River Delta at various points in history. I do think that we should use multiple names to indicate how people changed culturally, linguistically and socially over time, but in creating such names we will also give the sense that these changes were much clearer and more comprehensive than they probably were (for instance, if we create names based on what we know about how the elite changed, we will run the risk of implying that everyone changed at that same time in that same way).
As problematic as that is, I still think it’s worth trying. Because although we now understand that the relationship between “signifiers” and the “signified” is much more complex than Confucius did, I still think he was right in thinking that if we don’t make an effort to try to agree upon what words indicate, then we simply can’t communicate with each other. And it is clear that there were too many changes in the past for a single signifier to capture.
If I am reading your entry accurately, the main point of this blog is to find an alternative term to call the people(s) who inhabited in the areas around the Red River Delta in somewhat the first millennium BCE (BTW, I have no idea of archeological studies of this area.) It looks like that you doubt the continuity of those early peoples with the people we know today as Vietnamese. That would be fantastic to see a “Harappan” hypothesis in this area.
But “continuity” can be another topic to look at. I absolutely agree that you can use multiple words to calls people who have ever resided in the area around the Red River Delta. I think for anyone who seriously look at this history, s/he eventually can’t be that ignorant to hold that there was a set of people who called themselves/ were called “Viet” and those people are the same as Vietnamese today.
Meanwhile, I think the more important task is to use terms you would coin into a new narrative that demonstrates a better understanding of history of those peoples. When there is such a narrative, people would naturally learn how to use new terms.
I also would love to know about the connections between those people whose names should be distinguished, I think.
Finally, there is a history of how some certain groups of peoples in the world today have attempted to maintain that they are whatever Viet.
This issue is eventually not significant to Vietnamese history. What might be somewhat significant of this issue is that it allows us to see an example/ a way that residences of a region would construct themselves in a stream of history.
I don’t think that an entire population “disappeared” and was replaced by another. I think the break in continuity has more to do with cultural change, but the cultural developments that led to cultural change in the Red River Delta were ultimately tied to cultural practices that were not indigenous to the Red River Delta. So the movement of peoples is also important, but I don’t think that there was anything like a total population replacement.
When I’ve read that quotation that you cite I’ve seen a political, even governmental subtext. To rectify means that the experts in charge do the serious work of clarifying meanings. They need to do this because the non-experts have been lax or negligent in their use of words, or, because they require a given meaning of a word to do their work of governing others. Or more subtly, so people accepting these meanings self-govern their behavior in the interests of those who govern.
In the case of Việt that work seems to have been accomplished at some point. However, if one further scrutinizes the term and its meaning in the context of the existing knowledge of the past, one finds that its scaffolding is wanting. To what good political end would it be to rectify this term today? It’s a normal human condition to seek myths that confirm an idealized self-image.
It’s interesting that the Vietnamese are happy to puncture American myths – Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the US is translated as Lịch Sử Dân Tộc Mỹ – The History of the American People/Nation.
http://www.vinabook.com/lich-su-dan-toc-my-m11i40879.html
It is a dominant condition of doing history today to look critically at the knowledge that has passed through time — and when that’s done one finds out that things are never as simple as they seem. And that the myths of any culture are not as often beautiful or real as everyone thought. But a critical look is fascinating none the less, and forces us to reach a maturity in understanding ourselves and each other.
Yea, you’re right. Confucius wasn’t interested in “rectifying names” for the sake of academic clarity. It was about ruling over people.
And you have a good point, if “un-rectified names” serve the interests of the powers that be, and the interests of academics are not high on anyone’s list, then why bother with rectifying anything?
What you say here though – “a critical look is fascinating none the less, and forces us to reach a maturity in understanding ourselves and each other” – is right on target, regardless of what politics might be involved.
If we are not critical, then we end up with things like “exceptionalism.” As a student, I was taught that the Vietnamese have been a nation since the beginning of time and have done nothing but fight off foreign invaders for thousands of years. After later learning about nationalism and how it has influenced the way that people view the past, I came to realize that there is no “nation” on the planet that has existed that long, and that all nations are “invented” to at least some degree, and that all modern nations are indeed “modern.” So if we have to keep talking about “Vietnam” this way, then we are talking about “Vietnamese exceptionalism” and any time we talk about “exceptionalism” we are talking rubbish.
I always found that view of the past to be exceptionally boring. If that view of the past is really true, then there is nothing more to say. In which case, I’d rather study about Botswana, or Saudi Arabia or any other part of the world that has a complex history, because the story of a “nation” that has existed for 2000+ years is a story of. . . nothing interesting, because there is nothing historical about it.
Like you, I think I’m more interested in finding out about things that enabled us to “reach a maturity in understanding ourselves and each other.”
I am not quite sure that I understand dustofthewest’s comment correctly. And I also do not grasp quite well what leminkhai responds below. As I have followed this blog for a while, sorry that I am interrupting a bit here. Just want to know if I am understanding the conversation accurately.
It seems to me that dustofthewest’s comment includes three points, political, historical, and myth aspects of whatever terms used in the scholarship that leminhkhai criticizes. It it correct, isn’t it?
In this case, I don’t understand why politically imposed meanings of a term are not under the same category as myth. In attempt to understanding a term or an event in the past, the historian definitely approaches a given issue with a purpose different from the politician or the myth-maker. While myth-makers (including politicians) look at the past and understand it for the purpose of their work in the present, historians attempt to get closest to what happened as it did.
Simply put, it is crucial to distinguish these two kinds of approaches to the past; the myth-maker’s and the historian’s. It doesn’t make sense to me to say that the myth-maker’s accomplishment should be taken into consideration as a somewhat excuse for the failure of the historian in the case of Vietnam that leminhkhai talks about.
I don’t think that Tây Bụi is excusing anyone. He is explaining why at a political level certain ideas would not change over time, but in saying that “a critical look is fascinating none the less, and forces us to reach a maturity in understanding ourselves and each other,” I think he is saying that the job of historians is to question and be critical.
Thanks for clarifying.