Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T16:06:17.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ch'ü Ch'iu-pai and the Chinese Marxist Conception of Revolutionary Popular Literature and Art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Paul G. Pickowicz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is now generally agreed that the intensity and magnitude of social commitment witnessed in China's revolutionary literary movement of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s is unparalleled among literary movements of the modern period. Accordingly, an increasing amount of scholarly attention is being directed to the general problem of the relationship between literature and revolution in China. Unfortunately, however, our overall conception of the scope of this revolutionary activity remains exceedingly narrow. One reason for this may be that for many scholars the subject of literature and revolution immediately brings to mind the dynamic, but familiar, New Culture literary revolution and the May Fourth generation of westernized revolutionary writers. As a result, discussions on literature and revolution normally dwell on the literary activities and views of a familiar cast of literary intellectuals featuring Lu Hsün, Kuo Mo-jo, Mao Tun and a variety of new players “introduced” from time to time. Unhappily, this pre-occupation with revolutionary elites and the western culture which so profoundly inspired them tends to obscure the role of a second and equally important force on the revolutionary literary and cultural scene, the diverse popular literary and artistic movement.

Type
Research Article
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 70 , June 1977 , pp. 296 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For the details of publication of these and other relevant essays see Ching-t'ang, Ting and Ts'ao, Wen (eds.), Ch'ü Ch'iu-pai chu-i hsi-nien mu-lu (A Chronological Bibliography of Ch'u Ch'iu-pai's Writings and Translations) (Shanghai: Jen-min ch'u-pan she, 1959)Google Scholar.

2. This is not to say that the question of the relationship between writers and the masses had not been discussed earlier or that spontaneous movements “to the people” had not included some literary figures. As early as 1903 in an essay entitled “On the relationship between fiction and people's sovereignty,” Liang Ch'i-chao had expressed a profound interest in using popular culture as a means of promoting the growth of the “new citizenry” destined to save the nation. In his introduction to Ta-chung wen-i lun-chi (Peking: Pei-ching shih-fan tahsüeh ch'u-pan she, 1951)Google Scholar Ting Yi points out that during the May Fourth upheavals of 1919, the labour movement of 1925–26, and the Northern Expedition individual left wing writers helped organize evening schools for workers and participated in movements to the countryside designed to arouse the peasantry. The question of popular literature and art was also raised during the debate on the nature of revolutionary literature waged in Shanghai in 1928 and discussed in greater detail at a special conference on the subject sponsored by the League of Left Wing Writers in the Spring of 1930. In any event, Ch'ü clearly regarded all these efforts as exceedingly superficial and almost totally inadequate.

3. What I am referring to here is not the absence of western Marxist treatments of the unique problems of the non-western literary and cultural scene, for that is understandable, but rather the failure of western Marxist aesthetics to treat popular literature and art of the pre-revohitionary period very seriously at either the theoretical or practical level.

4. Ch'ü's detailed critique of the literary left wing, a subject which cannot be treated in this essay, is contained in a variety of articles including “O-hua wen-i” “Europeanized literature and art,” 5 May 1932, and “‘Wo-men' shih shei?” (Who's 'We'?), 4 May 1932, contained in the Peking, edition of his collected literary writings, Ch'ü Ch'iu-pai wen-chi, 4 vols. (Peking: Jen-min wen-hsileh ch'u-pan she, 1953–1954)Google Scholar (hereafter referred to as CCPWC).

5. For a fairly complete Mst of theoretical writings on Marxist aesthetics available in Chinese translation in the 20s and 30s see Schneider, M. E., “Perevody trudov po markistskoy estetike v Kitaye v 20–30ye gody,” Norody Aziyi i Afrika, No. 5, 1961, pp. 188–94Google Scholar.

6. By the use of terms such as “bourgeois literature” Ch'ü was, of course, referring in a very general way to Chinese literature influenced by modern western literature, particularly literature of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Thus he generally assigned modern Chinese writers to the category of westernized petty-bourgeois intellectuals, a category to which Ch'ü himself belonged. For a full discussion of Ch'ü's analysis of the failings of the May Fourth literary revolution see Pickowicz, Paul G., “Qu Qiubai's critique of the May Fourth generation: early Chinese Marxist literary criticism,” in Goldman, Merle (ed.), Modern Chinese Literature in the May Fourth Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977)Google Scholar.

7. I have rejected “mass literature” as an acceptable translation of the Chinese term ta-chung wen-i. Use of the term “mass” also makes concepts such as tachung-hua enormously difficult to translate (“popularize” is obviously better than “massify”) and the term “literature” does not give the full flavour of the concept wen-i. “Popular,” as Ch'ü used the term, obviously implies “popular among the masses.”

8. On his views concerning the romantic left and its elitist conception of “proletarian” literature see Ch'ü's, “Ko-ming ti lan-man-t'i-k'o—Hua Han ch'ang-pien hsiao-shuo ‘Ti-ch'üan’ hsü” (Revolutionary romantic—an introduction to Hua Han's Spring), 22 04 1932Google Scholar, in Ch'iu-pai, Ch'ü, Luan Tan (Random Shots), (Shanghai: Hsia she, 1949), pp. 313–17Google Scholar.

9. “Lu Hsün tsa-kan ch'uan-chi hsü-yen” (Preface to The Miscellaneous Writings of Lu Hsün), 8 April 1933, in Lu Hsün tsa-kan ch'uan-chi (The Miscellaneous Writings of Lu Hsün) (Shanghai: Ch'ing-kuang shu-tien, 1933), in CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 994Google Scholar.

10. “Ta-chung wen-i ti wen-t'i” (The question of popular literature and art), Wen-hsüeh yüeh-pao (Literature Monthly), No. 1 (10 06 1932)Google Scholar; in CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 887 (hereafter referred to as “Wen-t'i”). My complete translation of this essay and one other, “‘Wo-men’ shih shei?,” appear in a special issue of the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars on “The developmen of revolutionary literature in China,” Vol. 8, No. 2 (01–03 1976), pp. 45–52Google Scholar.

11. “Wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 886.

12. “P'u-lo ta-chung wen-i ti hsien-shih wen-t'i” (The real questions of proletarian popular literature and art), Wen-hsüeh (Literature) (25 April 1932), in CCPWC, Vol. II, pp. 855–56 (hereafter referred to as “Hsien-shih wen-t'i”).

13. “Hsien-shih wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 874.

14. “Tsai-lun ta-chung wen-i ta Chih Ching” (Another discussion on popular literature and art in reply to Mao Tun), Wen-hsüeh yüeh-pao (Literature Monthly), Vol. I, No. 3 (15 09, 1932)Google Scholar;in CCPWC, Vol. II, pp. 898 and 900 (hereafter referred to as “Tsai-lun”).

15. “Wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 891.

16. “Wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 892.

17. Ruhlmann, Robert, “Traditional heroes in Chinese popular fiction,” in Wright, Arthur F. (ed.), The Confucian Persuasion (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1960), pp. 142–43Google Scholar.

18. Shao-ch'ang, Wei (ed.), Yüan-yang hu-tieh p'ai yen-chiu tzu-liao1 (Research Materials on the Mandarin Duck and Butterfly School) (Shanghai: Wen-i ch'upan she, 1962), pp. iii–vGoogle Scholar.

19. Link, Perry, “The mandarin duck and butterfly school” (unpublished seminar paper, History Department, Harvard University, 1972), p. 1Google Scholar.

20. It is likely that personally Ch'ü was more attracted to the “traditional” forms as opposed to the modern “commercialized” forms, although there was considerable overlap between the two.

21. “Hsien-shih wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, pp. 872–73, and “‘Wo-men’ shih shei?,” CCPWC, Vol. II, pp. 875, 878.

22. “‘Wo-men’ shih shei?,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 877.

23. “Wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 886.

24. “Hsien-shih wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, pp. 856, 863; “Wen-t'i,” p. 885; “Ta-chung wen-i ho fan-tuei ti-kuo-cho-i ti tou-cheng” (Popular literature and art and anti-imperialist struggle), Wen-hsüeh tao-pao (Literature Guide), No. 5 (28 09 1931) in CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 913Google Scholar. In contrast to the modern cinema, the hsi-yang ching was a form of technically crude street cinema in which three or four individuals at a time might peer through separate eyepieces to a watch a brief “moving” picture. Hsuan-chuan refers to poetic Buddhist sermons delivered in the street vernacular in order to explain religious doctrine in simple, entertaining language.

25. “Wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 890.

26. “O-hua wen-i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 883.

27. “Wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 887.

28. “Hsüeh-fa wan-sui!” (Long live the literary warlords), 10 June 1931, CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 596.

29. “Tsai-lun,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 907; “Wen-t'i,” pp. 888–89.

30. “Hsien-shih wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 858.

31. “Wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 889.

32. “Wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 889. As a leader of the cultural movement among peasants at the Kiangsi Soviet several years later, however, Ch'ü became much more flexible on the question of peasant language.

33. “Hsien-shih wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 857; “Tsai-lun,” pp. 908–909.

34. “Hsien-shih wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 855.

35. “O-hua wen-i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 884.

36. “Tsai-lun,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 909.

37. “Tsai-lun,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 900.

38. “Hsien-shih wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, pp. 857–58, “Tsai-lun,” p. 910.

39. “Hsien-shih wen-t'i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 874.

40. “Ou-hua wen-i,” CCPWC, Vol. II, p. 881.

41. “Ts'ai-lun,” CCPWC, Vol. II, pp. 899–900, 909.

42. Quoted in Lukács, Georg, Writer and Critic and Other Essays (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1971), p. 65Google Scholar.