On August 12, 2009, Li Yuming, deputy director of the State Language Committee and director of the Department of Language and Information Management of the Ministry of Education, said that according to the results of repeated discussions in the academic circles, the Ministry of Education decided not to restore traditional Chinese characters in principle, putting an end to the dispute over simplification and simplification of Chinese characters for some time. On the same day, the Ministry of Education publicly solicited opinions from the public on the newly formulated Chinese Characters List for General Norms (draft for comments), which instantly caused another round of debate: The Chinese Characters List for General Norms not only restored 5 1 variant characters, but also planned to "reshape" 44 Chinese characters and adjust their writing methods. In this regard, a website conducted an online survey, and most of the netizens expressed their opposition.
An interesting phenomenon is that in many cultural fields, the pursuit path of "elegance" and "profundity" by cultural elitism often corresponds to the complex packaging of content structure. Traditional Chinese characters are an example, as are the tendency of colloquialism and obscurity in the creation of new poems. Does complexity in form necessarily mean elegance and profundity in connotation? This is self-evident. Just like the relevant rules of the game in other social fields, the open game about the right of cultural interpretation and cultural discourse has positive significance. The question now is, how to make this game process present the most authentic mainstream cultural appeal and restore the most widely representative cultural ecology, instead of elite thinking, cultural monopoly under closed doors or self-centered cultural and technological improvement?