Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume 2

by Wm. Theodore de Bary

  I hope that all high-level leading personnel, in disciplining their sons and daughters, should set an example for the whole Party. They should never allow them to use their family connections to gain power and profit and become privileged characters.

  Strengthen thought and political work, and uphold the authority of the thought and political work department.

  Recently, the secretariat has discussed the problem of strengthening thought and political work; in my view this is absolutely necessary. We are the ruling party and are currently in a new stage of development; how we effectively carry out intellectual construction and organization work is of great consequence.

  At present, some people, including some members of the Communist Party, have forgotten the ideals of socialism and communism and have forsaken the goal of serving the people. Pursuing private advantage, they have become “money-mad,” disregarding the interests of the nation and the masses, even violating the law and discipline. It’s just like all those phenomena so frequently reported by the press—speculation and fraud, corruption and bribery, illicitly gained wealth and consorting with foreigners with no regard for national or individual dignity.

  These problems are related to our letting up on thought and political work and weakening the function and authority of the thought and political work department; we should thereby draw a lesson.

  All levels of party organization should conscientiously take on propaganda and political work.

  [From Chen Yun wenxuan 3: 349–353—RL]

  NEW DEMANDS FOR CHANGE AND DEMOCRACY

  FANG LIZHI: DEMOCRACY, REFORM, AND MODERNIZATION

  Fang Lizhi, an astrophysicist at Science and Technology University, Hefei, Anhui, became famous for his frank and trenchant criticism of the post-Cultural Revolution regime. Arguing from scientific method, he sought to analyze China’s problems and debunk the ideological dogma of the regime. His ideas express the thinking of Chinese students and intellectuals during the 1980s and make a clear argument for more power and responsibility to be placed in the hands of intellectuals. Fang seeks an end to state control of intellectuals and the return of the freedom that intellectuals enjoyed during the May 4 period.

  The following are excerpts from Fang’s best-known speech, delivered to an audience of about three thousand students and faculty members at Shanghai’s Tongji University on November 18, 1986. Many of the remarks in this speech were later singled out for criticism by the Communist Party as examples of bourgeois liberal thought.

  Our goal at present is the thorough modernization of China. We all have a compelling sense of the need for modernization. There is a widespread demand for change among people in all walks of life, and very few find any reason for complacency. None feel this more strongly than those of us in science and academia. Modernization has been our national theme since the Gang of Four was overthrown ten years ago, but we are just beginning to understand what it really means. In the beginning we were mainly aware of the grave shortcomings in our production of goods, our economy, our science and technology, and that modernization was required in these areas. But now we understand our situation much better. We realize that grave shortcomings exist not only in our “material civilization” but also in our “spiritual civilization”—our culture, our ethical standards, our political institutions—and that these also require modernization.

  The question we must now ask is, What kind of modernization is required? I think it’s obvious to all of us that we need complete modernization, not just modernization in a few chosen aspects. People are now busy comparing Chinese and Western culture—including politics, economics, science, technology, education, the whole gamut—and there is much debate over the subject. The question is, do we want “complete Westernization” or “partial Westernization"? Should we continue to uphold the century-old banner of “using Western methods but maintaining the Chinese essence” or any other “cardinal principle"? Of course, this is not a new discussion. A century ago, insightful people realized that China had no choice but to modernize. Some wanted partial modernization, others wanted complete modernization, and thus they initiated a debate that continues down to the present day.

  I personally agree with the “complete Westernizers.” What their so-called complete Westernization means to me is complete openness, the removal of restrictions in every sphere. We need to acknowledge that when looked at in its entirety, our culture lags far behind that of the world’s most advanced societies, not in any one specific aspect but across the board. Responding to this situation calls not for the establishment of a priori barriers but for complete openness to the outside world. Attempting to set our inviolable “essence” off-limits before it is even challenged makes no sense to me. Again, I am scarcely inventing these ideas. A century ago people said essentially the same thing: Open China up and face the challenge of more advanced societies head-on, in every aspect from technology to politics. What is good will stand up, and what is not good will be swept away. This prognosis remains unchanged.

  Why is China so backward? To answer this question, we need to take a clear look at history. China has been undergoing revolutions for a century, but we are still very backward. This is all the more true since Liberation, these decades of the socialist revolution that we all know firsthand as students and workers. Speaking quite dispassionately, I have to judge this era a failure. This is not my opinion only, by any means; many of our leaders are also admitting as much, saying that socialism is in trouble everywhere. Since the end of World War II, socialist countries have by and large not been successful. There is no getting around this. As far as I’m concerned, the last thirty-odd years in China have been a failure in virtually every aspect of economic and political life.

  Of course, some will say that China is a big, poor country, and therefore that progress has been hard to come by. Indeed, our overpopulation, our huge geographical area, and our preexisting poverty do contribute to our problems. This being the case, some say, we haven’t done badly to get where we are today.

  But these factors by themselves don’t completely account for the situation. For every one of them you can find a counterexample. Take population, for example. While our population is the world’s largest in terms of absolute numbers, our population density is not. China has about 750 persons depending on each square kilometer of arable land, while Japan has about twice that, some 1,500 persons per square kilometer. Why has Japan succeeded while China has not? Our initial conditions were not that different; after the war, their economy was nearly as devastated as ours. Why have we not prospered like Japan? Overpopulation alone does not explain this. . . .

  We need to take a careful look at why socialism has failed. Socialist ideals are admirable. But we have to ask two questions about the way they have been put into practice: Are the things done in the name of socialism actually socialist? And, do they make any sense? We have to take a fresh look at these questions, and the first step in that process is to free our minds from the narrow confines of orthodox Marxism. . . .

  I’ve always had the feeling, even though we claim that Marxism embraces all contributions to civilization down through the ages, that when you really get down to it, we’re saying that only since Marx has anyone known the real truth. Sometimes even Marx himself is tossed aside, and all that counts is what’s happened since Liberation. Everything else is treated very negatively. Anything from the past, or from other cultures, is denigrated. We are very familiar with this attitude. When a historical figure is discussed, there is always a disclaimer at the end: “Despite this person’s contributions, he suffered from historical limitations.” In other words, he wasn’t quite of the stature of us Marxists.

  This is typical. When scholars of other races or nationalities make great discoveries, we’ll say that they’ve done some good things, but due to the limitations of their class background, thus-and-so. In one area after another, it is made to appear that only since Liberation have truly great things been accomplished. This is parochial and
narrow-minded in the extreme. What became of embracing the contributions of other cultures? We see ourselves towering over the historical landscape, but the fact is, nothing can justify such a claim. Only religions view their place in history in this fashion. . . .

  Democracy is based on recognizing the rights of every single individual. Naturally, not everyone wants the same thing, and therefore the desires of different individuals have to be mediated through a democratic process, to form a society, a nation, a collectivity. But it is only on the foundation of recognizing the humanity and the rights of each person that we can build democracy. However, when we talk about “extending democracy” here, it refers to your superiors “extending democracy” for you. This is a mistaken concept. This is not democracy.

  “Loosening up” is even worse. If you think about it, what it implies is that everyone is tied up very tightly right now, but if you stay put, we’ll loosen the rope a little bit and let you run around. . . . In democratic societies, democracy and science—and most of us here are scientists—run parallel. Democracy is concerned with ideas about humanity, and science is concerned with nature. One of the distinguishing features of universities is the role of knowledge; we do research, we create new knowledge to develop new products, and so forth. In this domain, within the sphere of science and the intellect, we make our own judgments based on our own independent criteria.

  This is the distinguishing characteristic of a university. In Western society, universities are independent from the government, in the sense that even if the money to run the school is provided by the government, the basic decisions—regarding the content of courses, the standards for academic performance, the selection of research topics, the evaluation of results, and so on—are made by the schools themselves on the basis of values endemic to the academic community, and not by the government. At the same time, good universities in the West are also independent of big business. This is how universities must be. The intellectual realm must be independent and have its own values.

  This is an essential guarantee of democracy. It is only when you know something independently that you are free from relying on authorities outside the intellectual domain, such as the government. Unfortunately, things are not this way in China. I have discussed this problem with educators. In the past, even during “the seventeen years” [1949 to 1966, the era before the Cultural Revolution], our universities were mainly engaged in producing tools, not in educating human beings. Education was not concerned with helping students to become critical thinkers, but with producing docile instruments to be used by others. Chinese intellectuals need to insist on thinking for themselves and using their own judgment, but I’m afraid that even now we have not grasped this lesson. . . .

  Knowledge must be independent from power, the power of the state included. If knowledge is subservient to power, it is worthless. . . . When it comes to our fields of knowledge, we must think for ourselves and exercise our own judgment about what’s right and wrong, and about truth, goodness, and beauty as well. We must refuse to cater to power. Only when we do this will Chinese intellectuals be transformed into genuine intellectuals and our country have a chance to modernize and attain real democracy. This is my message to you today.

  [From Bringing Down the Great Wall, pp. 157–159, 161–162, 167, 171–173]

  FANG LIZHI: “REFORM AND INTELLECTUALS,” TALK GIVEN IN 1986

  At present, the biggest problem of the reforms is the lack of theoretical studies. We are still in a country where ideology decides everything. If the theoretical problem[s] are left unsolved, the reforms have no hope of success. Also, no one has studied our economic problems from the viewpoint of modern economics. The level of discussion at our highest-level economic conferences is no more profound than everyday conversation, and it amounts to no more than the presentation of general problems. Among the older generation of revolutionaries, there is not one who understands economics.

  I believe we intellectuals must have a strong sense of social responsibility. In this regard, European intellectuals are far more committed than those of America. They are conscious of a historical duty to pay attention to and discuss world affairs. They believe that anyone who merely understands his own occupation can be called a technician or specialist, but never an intellectual. Intellectuals must assume certain responsibilities and duties. We too must have this consciousness as intellectuals, since we hope at least that the Chinese nation will not be cast aside by history. . . .

  Freedom, democracy, and human rights are [the] common heritage of humanity, and they do not belong only to the bourgeoisie. What I want to emphasize is this: freedom, democracy, and human rights have to be fought for; if we don’t fight, they will never arrive on their own.

  [From China Spring Digest 1, no. 2 (March/April 1987): 30–34]

  FANG LIZHI: “THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF TODAY’S INTELLECTUALS,” SPEECH GIVEN AT BEIJING UNIVERSITY, NOVEMBER 4, 1985

  As intellectuals, we are obligated to work for the improvement of society. Our primary task in this regard is to strive for excellence and creativity in our chosen professions. This requires that we break the bonds of social restraint when necessary. In keeping with Chinese tradition, creativity has not been encouraged over the past three decades. It is a shame that, as a result, China has yet to produce work worthy of consideration for the Nobel Prize. Why is this? We should reflect upon this question and take a good look at ourselves.

  One reason for this situation is our social environment. Many of us who have been to foreign countries to study or work agree that we can perform much more efficiently and productively abroad than in China. . . . Foreigners are no more intelligent than we Chinese are. Why, then, can’t we produce first-rate work? The reasons for our inability to develop to our [full] potential lie within our social system. Therefore all of us, when considering our social responsibility, should dedicate ourselves to the creation of a social environment that allows intellectuals to fully utilize their abilities and encourages productivity in their work. . . .

  Lately the state has been promoting idealism and discipline. [Its] idea of idealism is simply that we should have a feeling of responsibility toward our society. Of course, our goal should be the improvement of society, but it shouldn’t be some utopian dream a million years down the road. (Applause.) Scientists like myself, who study the universe, cannot see that far into the future. What is much more important is to identify problems that exist now and try to solve them and to identify problems that will beset us in the near future that we might be able to minimize or avoid. . . .

  What is the real reason we have lost our ideals and discipline? The real reason is that many of our important party leaders have failed to discipline themselves. I will give you an example: There was recently an international symposium on particle accelerators. Both Taiwan and mainland China were represented. In my mind, of course, the participants should be scholars and experts who are directly involved in this kind of work. But in the Chinese delegation of over ten people there was only one from our university. Many of those sent had no qualifications in physics and no familiarity with accelerators. Is this considered “observing discipline"? Among those attending was Beijing vice-mayor Zhang Baifa. I have no idea what he was doing there. (Loud laughter.) If you are talking about discipline, this is an excellent example of what it is not. (Applause.) And this kind of breakdown of discipline is the same thing as corruption. (Loud applause.) In the future, as you learn more about our society, you will find that this sort of corruption is very commonplace. If we are really serious about strengthening discipline, we should start at the top. (Applause.) . . .

  We Communist Party members should be open to different ways of thinking. We should be open to different cultures and willing to adopt the elements of those cultures that are clearly superior. A great diversity of thought should be allowed in colleges and universities. If all thought is simplistic and narrow-minded, creativity will die. At present, there are certainly some people in power who
still insist on dictating to others according to their own narrow principles. They always wave the flag of Marxism when they speak. But what they are spouting is not Marxism. . . .

  We must not be afraid to speak openly about these things. It is our duty. If we remain silent, we have failed to live up to our responsibility.

  [From China Spring Digest 1, no. 2 (March/April 1987): 34–38]

  LI XIAOJIANG: “AWAKENING OF WOMEN’S CONSCIOUSNESS”

  Although the Chinese Communist Party’s commitment to improving the lot of Chinese women was never complete and less than claimed, it could point to a certain record of accomplishment. With the new emphasis on practicality in the eighties, however, the party and government lessened efforts to advance women. Some reforms inadvertently reduced women’s access to education and participation in the workforce. As a result, some earlier gains were lost and new problems appeared. Li Xiaojiang, a professor of Chinese at Zhengzhou University and chair of the Women’s Studies Research Center, analyzes the situation in 1988.

  The “Report on Work” of the Thirteenth Party Congress clearly lays out the theory of the first stages of socialism: so-called reform, including reform of political structures, is intended first and foremost to advance the development of society’s productive forces. The congress initiated improvements in economic efficiency in order to realize more quickly the transformation of our country from impoverishment, to relative comfort, to prosperity. It also attacked the bureaucracy of the political world, the dogmatism of the theoretical world, the egalitarianism of the economy, and the apathy of the individual. It proposed a realistic approach to reform and true economic competition. These goals, sought after but unrealized for many years, are well and good—but they threaten women. In the spirit of realism, we are impelled to face squarely the issue of biology and childbirth for women in social production. In actual economic competition, the facts that the quality of women as workers is inclined to be low and that they have a dual role evidently make women and the enterprises that employ them less competitive.