Discussing the “Forbidden Starbucks” professionally and rationally

A blog post from CCTV's anchor irritated the waves. The interview with many big corporate presidents and celebrities host the emotions of the Forbidden City. He thinks that “Starbucks in the Imperial Palace” is a dregs of Chinese traditional culture. In his personal name, he issued a protest statement to the president of Starbucks. Starbucks moved out of the Forbidden City.

In fact, many visitors to the Forbidden City must have noticed this Starbucks. In the famous symbol of traditional Chinese culture, erecting a signboard of global modern commerce is indeed dazzling. It is not unreasonable to demand that it move away. However, according to some people's point of view, Starbucks is a symbol of a foreign and non-decorative food culture, so it is not suitable for such a “holy” place in the Forbidden City. Is it a local, large-scale school? Is there a restaurant company in Yazhitang that has the power to enter the Forbidden City?

The controversy over Starbucks in the Forbidden City should actually return to the question of how traditional culture survives in modern commercial societies. With the modernization of China, the current situation of the lack of traditional cultural protection is already very serious. A large number of modern commercial symbols have appeared around a large number of historic sites. The two have co-existed in an uncoordinated manner, and even the latter impregnated the space of the former. This is a problem that all Chinese people are worried about.

However, the answer to this question is not unique. In countries all over the world, the phenomenon of harmonious coexistence between traditional culture and modern business is not uncommon. Even in China, the transformation of Xintiandi in Shanghai Shikumen in the previous stage has also been recognized by many artists. If we want to protect the purity and integrity of the Forbidden City, then apart from Starbucks, should many of the commercial sales stalls in the Forbidden City be reasonably disposed of? The key to this problem lies in the fact that we must use a specialization rather than an emotional approach to discuss this issue, which is inherently highly professional.

What we want to discuss is not whether or not Starbucks should be stationed in the Forbidden City. It is a question of how traditional cultures get along with commercialism. This time, Starbucks is just a sign of beverages.

The Forbidden City is one of the core symbols of traditional Chinese culture. In the process of the development of Chinese culture and the way to the world, this symbol itself carries too many things beyond culture. This phenomenon is not uncommon in today’s discussion of China’s development. When we extend the topic of traditional cultural protection beyond the topic, people will often be lost in memories and fears of historical scars, or immersed in the satisfaction of their own history. At this time, even if Starbucks moves away, "Berke" or "Lee Buck" will come again. Under the guidance of this kind of public opinion, cultural protection agencies and responsible persons are also prone to indignation due to their emotional circumstances and it is difficult to grasp the true meaning and connotation of cultural protection.

On the other hand, when we were confronting the Forbidden City and Starbucks, we were still ignoring another issue of public welfare and profitability. The Forbidden City has great cultural value. This cultural value is a public good for the entire society. And engaging in commercial activities around a public-welfare symbol has itself benefited from its charity value. The administrator of the Forbidden City may wish to ask: How much profit does the Starbucks of the Forbidden City derive from the charity value of the environment in which it is located, and how much of the profit it receives in the Forbidden City has been nurtured in the cultural protection of the public interest?

If the relationship between the two is seriously out of balance, then this is also a black hole in cultural protection.

How to maintain the integrity and originality of traditional culture in a modern commercial society is a proposition we have discussed for many years. How to maintain the independence and dignity of a nation’s traditional culture in the context of globalization is also the proposition we have discussed for many years. But these two propositions do not overlap in the event that Starbucks should move away from the Forbidden City. If we simply put Starbucks in the Forbidden City as "a foreign hawker offends the dignity of the heavens," then it is both disrespectful to traditional Chinese culture and disrespect to global business rules. What's more, we may wish to review the fact that Starbucks was stationed in the Forbidden City that year, I am afraid that the Chinese themselves.