The Birth of Twentieth-Century Chinese Literature

Revolutions in Language, History, and Culture

Yu Gao, Guicang Li

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781137565297
• eBook ISBN: 9781137559364
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Languages
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This study makes a linguistic case for the twentieth century revolution in Chinese language and literature. It offers a history of reform and change in the Chinese language throughout the country's history, and focuses on the concept of 'baihua', a language reform movement championed by Hu Shi and other scholars which laid the foundation for the May fourth New Literature Movement, the larger New Culture Movement and which now defines modern Chinese. Examining the differences between classical and modern Chinese language systems alongside an investigation into the relevance and impact of translation in this language revolution - notably addressing the pivotal role of May Fourth leader Lu Xun - this book provides a rare insight into the evolution of the Chinese language and those who championed its development.

© The Author(s) 2018

Yu GaoThe Birth of Twentieth-Century Chinese Literaturehttps://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55936-4_1

Begin Abstract

1. Division of Literary Periods, Theory, and Awareness of Problems

Yu Gao¹

(1)

Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China

End Abstract

There are few academic disciplines to parallel that of Modern Chinese Literature in regard to the speed of development from its inception to its present scope and range, its achievements and influence, thanks to the endless creative efforts of scholars and researchers in initiating and establishing this field as a worthy academic discipline, and in absorbing from other fields a scientific methodology and liberal stance. Nevertheless, its rich achievements are not without problems and flaws, which are presented in this book along with other considerations and assumptions about research perspectives, literary periods, and theoretical frameworks.

1 Research Perspectives

Extremely complex, richly connotative, and profoundly multifaceted, Modern Chinese Literature as a literary phenomenon calls for diverse research methods and perspectives. In his “Transcendence Through Retrospection: Reflections and Analysis on the ‘Cultural Spirit’ During the May Fourth Movement,” Huang Manjun observes that there are four basic concepts for evaluating the “New Culture” over the past seven decades, namely, “1, the political and ideological conception on the significance of the May Fourth Movement; 2, the cultural conception on its implications on thought-making, and human liberation; 3, a loose conception that transcends politics, enlightenment, and pan-ideology; 4, a modern Confucian conception that evaluates the May Fourth Movement holistically” (389–394). These four could be critical approaches or theoretical perspectives. The first is political, the second is cultural, and the third a modern Western theoretical one, which differs from the other two, and has become more popular and influential as Western modernist and postmodernist ideas have begun to prevail since the 1990s. The fourth, a traditional Chinese perspective, unlike the third, is conservative. Other critical perspectives are equally applicable for examining and exploring issues concerning the “New Culture Movement”¹ during the May Fourth Movement,² if we accept what philosophical hermeneutics and reception theory argue as ways to interpret texts. Nevertheless, it is historically untrue and absurd to claim that the “New Culture Movement” was postmodern in nature or that it contained postmodern cultural movements, which is not to dismiss the validity of postmodern perspectives in examining that cultural movement. Similarly, although the “New Culture Movement” was essentially opposed to traditional Chinese culture, this does not mean we cant take a traditional approach to examining the movement.

Never an isolated social phenomenon, literature is closely related in varying degrees to politics, economy, and culture in a particular society, which essentially determines the nature and content of that particular literature. Therefore, political, liberal humanist, and cultural approaches—the so-called “external methods”—are adopted in literary studies, and have produced profound results. Besides, as a special social phenomenon, literature has its own intrinsic structures and own ways to develop, so it is fair, just and necessary to objectively and historically describe and analyze literary works, which is, in a sense, even more basic than the “external methods.” Meanwhile, it is also necessary to apply new literary theories to interpret literary works or literary history. In fact, there are abundant examples of research on literature from psychological, philosophical, aesthetical, anthropological, and religious perspectives. Theories give depth and serve as a tool for thinking, which enables us to conduct more thorough and comprehensive research.

Amid a dazzling display of analytical methods, perspectives, and theories as seen in studies of modern Chinese literature, I believe that a linguistic approach based on the philosophy of language is not only new but is also capable of filling a theoretical gap.

It is a fact universally acknowledged that modern Chinese literature started with the baihua literary movement, which is a literature written in baihua or modern Chinese. Even so, I have to ask: why did the baihua literary movement of the late Qing Dynasty not initiate the birth of a new literature? What was there during the May Fourth Movement that brought forth modern Chinese literature? What is the internal relationship between modern Chinese and modern literature? How does modern Chinese language shape and determine on a deeper level the qualities of its literature? Inspirational answers to these questions are yet to come from either the field of linguistics or of literary studies. Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi launched the New Literature Movement to complement the baihua movement as they viewed language as an instrument. But, on what grounds are we to differentiate between what they promoted and similar baihua movements in ancient times? What is the relationship between language reforms and literary revolutions? Neither Chen nor Hu provided solid theoretical explanations or deep explorations of these questions due to their limited language theories and the academic environments of their times.

The scarcity of linguistic approaches to the studies of modern Chinese literature results from the separation of disciplines and from the impoverished state of research in the philosophy of language in China. Traditionally, both Chinese and Western conceptions view language as an instrument that expresses ideas and feelings. The instrumental conception actually gives language a dependent and less important position, and therefore, dashes the possibility of taking a linguistic approach to the exploration of ideas and spiritual issues. Of course, there has been a tradition of studying language issues in literary texts, but it is not the same as taking a linguistic approach to interpretations of literary texts. The former treats language as a formal structure, focusing on styles, figurative devices, and writing skills, therefore, yielding the terrain of literary studies to that of stylistics and philology. If language is indeed a mere instrument, it cannot occupy a place of much importance in studies of literature, simply because there is not much to say about such a trivial issue. The twentieth century is marked by fast and great developments in the fields of linguistics and philosophy of language, with an audible impact on social sciences. One of the major characteristics of the modern philosophy of language is its emphasis on the correlation between language and thought, which are believed to be so inseparable that language can be thought, worldview, and the home of existence. It even goes on to say that it is not the person that speaks but the language that speaks for the person, that discourse is power, and that there is an intrinsic connection between language and national character. Completely new interpretations are possible if, along the line of modern philosophy of language, we review the theories on modern baihua during the May Fourth Movement, the baihua Literature Movement, and internal relations between modern Chinese and its literature. Unfortunately, there are hardly any applications to be seen of the achievements of linguistics to the study of modern Chinese literature. Even if there are little touches its philosophical depth is not apparent. Such a realization prompts me to re-examine and re-elucidate the complex issues of how modern Chinese literature formed and what are its characters and qualities, with help from the remarkable research in traditional linguistics and modern philosophy of language, so that a sort of research deficiency in this field might be made up. Such an approach is not only of paramount importance, but is also an alluring prospect, and will, I hope, open a new vista for, and enact some dynamism in, the field of modern Chinese literature.

A double significance will be generated when we take a linguistic perspective to the study of the genesis of modern Chinese literature. First, the New Literature Movement during the May Fourth Movement was essentially a language reform movement, as was the New Culture Movement of the same time, because it was the language reform endeavor that initiated the literary and cultural movements, and because the modern transformation of Chinese culture and literature was determined by that of the vernacular language (baihua). In this sense, a linguistic approach is ontological, and historical. Second, to review the emergence of modern Chinese literature from the perspective of modern philosophy of language means taking a new perspective to examine the New Literature Movement. Language is an issue of disproportional complexity. We use language and deal with language issues on daily basis, but we are ignorant of its complex mechanisms. During the period of the May Fourth Movement, linguistics in both China and the West was just a fledging field. The successful language reform eventually led to the success of the New Literature and New Culture Movements. While Hu Shi, Chen Duxiu, and others had some perception of the power of language, they could not identify the real reasons for the source of this power without an adequate theoretical knowledge of language. However, it is now a totally different scenario owing to the tremendous progress and achievements twentieth-century linguistics has made, especially in the philosophy of language, which has extended a palpable influence on all fields of social sciences, and changed not only what questions we choose to research but also the way to raise questions. The linguistic impact on social sciences studies is as Copernican theory was to astronomy. Studies in literature and literary history will be transformed when we explore literary issues from the angle of language philosophy. A linguistic interpretation of the emergence of modern Chinese literature is not merely a historical issue, but also a methodological one, a philosophical one, and an issue of perspectives, hence, a new concept of, and a new model of research on, topics related to the New Culture Movement and New Literature Movement.

2 Periods of Time Division

Historical approaches prevail in the field of modern Chinese literature, so the concept of periods of time is capable of defining and confining the field at any stage. Consequently, much effort has been devoted to the factor of time in studies of literature from its formative years up to the present. For instance, Qian Jibo’s History of Modern Chinese Literature, Zhu Ziqing’s An Outline of New Chinese Literature, Wang Zhefu’s History of the New Chinese Literature Movement, Li Helin’s History of the Literary and Artistic Trends in the Recent 20 Years, Ren Fangqiu’s History of Modern Chinese Literature, Modern Chinese Literature from 1917 to 1949 by Qian Liqun and others, History of Contemporary Chinese Literature edited by Wang Qingsheng , “On 20th-century Chinese Literature” by Huang Ziping and others, History of Literary Movements of the Recent Four Centuries edited by Chen Bohai and others, are all important works that focus on the history of modern Chinese literature. Such terms as “modern,” “contemporary,” “new literature,” “twentieth-century literature,” “from 1917 to 1949,” “recent twenty years,” and “recent four centuries,” are used not only as time units, but also as basic concepts. To be specific, they define periods of modern Chinese literature, and can be understood as a means of generalizing and standardizing what this literature is in regard to its time frame. However, an apparent problem lies in such generalization and standardization, that is, homogeneity overwhelms difference and diversity, which generates some epistemic significance on quality, but has little epistemic significance on the genesis of modern Chinese literature. Whether they cover twenty years, thirty years, a century or four centuries, what characterizes the abovementioned works is the emphasis on the sameness of the literature within the time periods as regards general qualities. It is also justifiable to assert that such an emphasis actually “blunts” the importance of time periods.

Dividing a time period by the principle of difference and transitional processes is both possible and practical, as shown by Hu Shi in his Chinese Literature of the Recent Fifty Years and Huang Zizhan in his History of Chinese Literature of the Recent Three Decades. Spanning fifty years or thirty years, their time periods suggest a sense of transition. Hu’s fifty years roughly cover the period from 1872 to 1922, a seemingly odd division, because it stretches from the premodern to the modern period, covering only a few years in the modern age. Determining the starting point of modern Chinese literature is important for understanding the significance of the genetic epistemology of modern Chinese literature, as Jean Piaget would claim. In this sense, Hu Shi’s Chinese Literature of the Recent Fifty Years remains seminal for understanding how modern Chinese literature developed and how Chinese literature was transformed from its classical form to its modern form. Hu’s fifty-year period reflects his criteria, logic, and principle of intrinsic unity, which is especially meaningful for the field of modern Chinese literary studies, where there is no fixed way to determine its periods. It seems that dividing periods of time hinges on our own idiosyncratic self-consciousness, understanding, and interpretive efforts.

It is hard to overestimate the significance of understanding the genetic epistemology of modern Chinese literature. Genetics, as a key category in psychology, has close ties with epistemology and essentialism in philosophy, and aims to explain knowledge by tracing its origin, which I would name a “theory of epistemic origin” (see my article “Critique of the Theory of Epistemic Origin”). The conception of such a genetic origin indicates a strong historical consciousness, allusive to Western historicism. The theory of genetic epistemology attempts to study knowledge on the basis of its history. Jean Piaget in his The Principles of Genetic Epistemology avers that “What the genetic epistemology proposes is discovering the roots of the different varieties of knowledge, since its elementary forms, following to the next levels, including also the scientific knowledge” (17). Genetic epistemology is concerned with cognitive processes and development stages. By virtue of this theory, the question of how Chinese literature evolves from its classical form to its modern one is a prerequisite for studies of Chinese literature. I borrow Piaget’s term for its historical relevance; therefore I attempt to explain the formalization of this new literature with a genetic focus. Clearly, theories of genetics are not the equivalent of genetic epistemology, or of the history of genetics, nor are they about pure theoretical issues or questions about literary history, but their application can articulate the historical causes of the birth of modern Chinese literature.

For contemporary relevancy in regard to the theory of genetic epistemology, I disagree with those who advocate the “ultimate end of the genetics of modern Chinese literature,” not only because history is the continuation of reality, but also because history more or less sheds light on current debates. It is vain to boast that we can determine the qualities and characteristics of modern Chinese literature by tracing its origin, but knowing about the whence and whither can illuminate our understanding of current reality. As the literary centennial transformation continues to be a debated issue, an exploration of “the genetics of modern Chinese literature” not only attempts to demystify some history, but also provides lessons that merit our attention to the engaged discussions of similar topics. In a sense, it is about both history and the present. With this in mind, I propose to reevaluate Chinese literature from the late premodern period to the early modern period, a time span of about fifty years, as Hu Shi did in his book.

A number of scholars focus their studies on late premodern literature, while others are concerned with early modern literature. No scholar has yet combined the two periods in their critical engagement. Furthermore, there has been no effort to apply theories of linguistics and genetic epistemology to the studies of Chinese literature of this particular period. Reflecting his recognition of twentieth-century literature as a whole, Qian Liqun advanced the term “twentieth-century literature,” which is surely significant in breaking up the disciplinary barriers between modern and contemporary Chinese literature, and will inspire academic interest in studies of the history of Chinese literature. Yet what underlines his terminology is his attempt to determine the qualities and historical place of modern Chinese literature by focusing on the literary spirit that flowed throughout the twentieth century. He invested no interest in defining how this literature took its form in the first place.

In his History of Literary Movements of the Recent Four Centuries, Chen Boha...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. Division of Literary Periods, Theory, and Awareness of Problems
• 2. Language Reform and the Transformation of Modern and Contemporary Chinese Literature
• 3. Critique of Baihua Writing Theory
• 4. The Baihua Movement and Ideological Revolution
• 5. Foreignization and Assimilation: Translated World Literature and Modern Chinese Literature
• 6. Nothing but Culture: The Pen War Between Hu Shi and the Conservative Xueheng School
• 7. Lu Xun’s View of Language, His Writing, and Its Relation to Modern Chinese Literature
• 8. Hu Shi and Lu Xun: Pioneers of Modern Chinese Literature
• Backmatter