This article was originally published in the Journal of Modern Chinese, No. 1, 2021
"Love" and "Crowd"
The two aspects of Qian Gurong's "anthropology" and its current significance
Zhu Yu
Summary: Mr. Qian Gurong's "On Literature as Anthropology", published in the May 1957 issue of The Monthly Newspaper of Literature and Art, was classified into the genealogy of bourgeois humanism and "human nature" in the late 1950s for criticism; since the new period, commentators have mostly given "anthropology" a very high evaluation from the aspects of "humanitarian spirit". Dialectically, although the former criticism is crude, it gives the important ideological debate context of the "anthropological" theory, and the latter affirmative evaluation, although it captures some of the ideological interests of the "anthropological" theory, has also become an ideological obstacle as the Enlightenment in the 1980s exposed its own historical limitations. By perusing Qian Gurong's literary and artistic theories written in the 1950s and early 1960s, asking questions about the "emotions" that "literature is anthropology", and placing them in the debate around "emotions" at that time for analysis, we can peel off the conversational value of "anthropology": class emotions and sympathy issues constitute an enduring tension relationship. Secondly, if Qian Gurong's thinking on "typical" is re-read in the context of the shaping of new Chinese literary characters, "anthropology" not only pays attention to the "individual" but also emphasizes the aesthetic purpose of the form of social relations constructed between characters, which is particularly highlighted. It is precisely the two aspects of "emotion" and "multitude" that have the possibility of abandoning the rigidity of the old aesthetics from within, and also have the possibility of positive interaction with current literary creation.
Keywords: On "Literature as Anthropology"; Class Emotion; Sympathy; Social Relations
In Mr. Qian Gurong's writing career, there is a phenomenon that is very intriguing and has been pointed out by those who have knowledge: "In 1956, he was thirty-seven years old when he first wrote "On Literature is Anthropology", and in 1962, when he first published "Character Talk", he was forty-three years old, and soon reached the peak state of his academic career. [1] Qian Gurong once said that "the psychology of not liking to write articles, and even afraid of writing articles, has become an unbreakable habit"[2], but in the mid-to-late 1950s to the early 1960s, he exploded with great energy, breaking through his "habits" under the action of "external forces"[3], which could not help but make people sigh. Although it cannot be simply said that the times have created heroes, it has to be admitted that this is a certain incentive given by the big times (or "external forces"). However, re-reading these core texts leads to a dilemma at the outset: because the concepts of "human nature" and "humanism" were gradually "naturalized" during the Reform period and became, in a sense, hidden neo-dogmas, the discourses that now seem self-evident do not seem to be able to directly arouse strong research interest. In particular, after the Althusserian reflection on "humanitarianism" and the recent rise of the "post-human" issue have been raised, it is somewhat "inappropriate" to talk about "man" in this way. This dilemma also reveals a methodological laziness - simply believing that the "humanistic" theory is on the extension line of the "May Fourth" enlightenment idea, so that it can be smoothly docked to the new period. This linear and arbitrary narrative abandons the slightly crude but dynamic intellectual discourse context of the 1950s and 1960s— the sense of reality of Qian Gurong's discourse is only clearly seen in this context, and the "anthropological" theory itself is "de-historicized". On the contrary, I attach particular importance to the overall context of new Chinese culture-thought that emerged from these theories (even in the late 1980s, Qian Gurong was still quite conscious of the problem of "overall culture"[4]): on the one hand, it avoided retroactively constructing an abstract image of a defender of the new literary ideal from an over-the-top perspective, and on the other hand, it also denied the image of a "bourgeois revisionist" anchored by the great critical tone of the two sides of the same body. At least from Qian Gurong's fragmentary recollections, the starting point and basic ideas of his problems at that time cannot but be said to be within the basic logic of socialist literature and art. [5] As Jameson put it, "all history is contemporary" does not mean that all history is our contemporary history. [6] Merely believing or unconsciously insisting that history is the product of projections from our current positions and tastes is an arrogance that escapes from real history. The so-called history of all history is contemporary history, rather, a law that urges self-reflection, an acknowledgment that historical contradictions can always manifest in the present. In the ensuing discussion, I hope that while perusing Qian Gurong's core text, I will continue to introduce the "contemporary" context in which it is rooted, and try to clarify that only by adopting such a roundabout approach can the current meaning of Qian Gurong's theory be truly revealed.
I. "Anthropology" and "Sympathy"
The emergence of "anthropology" and its associated semantics is a symptom in itself. Over the course of seventeen years, the symptoms are repetitive and tenacious. Qian Gurong's proposition that "literature is anthropology" is also subordinate to the spectrum of this syndrome. In 1957, the Ba people regarded "human feelings" as "something that is common to man and man", "humanitarianism out of human nature". After reading the Articles of the Ba People and refuting them, Wang Shuming still asked: "Why can people communicate and understand each other emotionally in social relations through the medium and help of words and actions?" [8] Although Qian Gurong's so-called "in literary and artistic creation, everything appears in the form of concrete sensibility, everything is treated with people, and the heart is contacted by heart"[9], which is not the same as the previous two in terms of the focus of expression; what they share is undoubtedly similar to the awareness and anxiety of the problem. The objects of its dialogue, both overt and covert, are "class", or rather, an emotional division based on class. The symptoms of "human feelings" and "human nature" are still clearly recognizable in "Several Problems Thought from Evaluation" written by Jin Weimin and Li Yunchu in 1963, that is, the humanity of the so-called new people and heroes. [10] The questions of "human feelings" and "anthropology" can also be regarded as allegories in this sense. The key is to figure out where this symptom is connected.
To put it bluntly, "human feelings" and "human nature" as symptoms are always in a contradictory relationship with "class nature" that is both combined and denied. It implies the need for unity and reconciliation in the process of the Chinese revolution's gradual transition to construction and normalcy. The issue of natural beauty, which began in 1956, focuses on aesthetic discussions, as well as the debate in the field of art on whether landscapes, flowers and birds are class-oriented, are different expressions of this issue. But here, I would like to introduce another more specific way of grasping it, that is, Qian Gurong's "anthropology" idea is first understood within the socialist literary and artistic mechanism. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the urgent appeal for shaping heroic figures has actually been an inherent requirement of the realistic socialist literary and artistic mechanism. [11] If we can take this problem a step further, we can see that the image of the hero is related to a certain core issue of the socialist political and religious mechanism: the shaping of advanced models, and the imitation, study and transformation that follow. The aesthetic perception and ethical-political thinking around the newcomer and the hero will, in principle, not be confined to the field of literature, but rather shape a more universal set of formal rules and narrative grammar. In fact, the structure of heroism, typicality and imitation necessarily requires the effective connection between literary perception and life action, and the reflection and disposal of surplus and redundancy in literary perception. It is in this context that we may understand why the 1958 critique of Qian Gurong focused on "opposing the fundamental proposition of historical materialism in which literature reflects reality". What the critical discourse fears is that Qian Gurong has to some extent loosened the overly direct reflection requirements between literature and reality, thus questioning the generalized political and religious logic and the typical and typical effectiveness of literary expression. The very beginning of On Literature as Anthropology does declare: "Oppose the reflection of reality as the immediate and primary task of literature; in particular, oppose the depiction of man merely as a tool, a means of reflecting reality." [13] At the same time, however, he insisted that "literature should be regarded as a weapon for influencing and educating people". The disagreement between Qian Gurong and the orthodox theory influenced by Soviet literary and artistic theory is not to question the fundamental political and religious orientation of literature, but to ask how literature works. Qian's exposition cannot help but be reminiscent of Zhu Guangqian's view in the aesthetic discussions of the 1950s: the reflective principle of Leninism has no "intrinsic" connection with the concept of aesthetics. [15] This undoubtedly involves thinking about the "mediated" form. How literature and art play a role is actually a difficult problem that needs to be answered by the socialist political and religious mechanism. Therefore, if we carefully analyze the text, we will find that Qian Gurong's conception of "anthropology" in the 1950s involves two levels of problems, first of all, the understanding of "people" touched by "anthropology" is indeed related to some kind of bourgeois modernity. Second, the "anthropology" of literature connects the unique ways in which literature works, which leads to the question of "sympathy."
In the case of the former, the vicious eyes of the critics at the time provided a clue. In this paragraph, Qian Gurong specifically expresses the understanding of "humanity":
Treating people as human beings means maintaining their right to independence and autonomy. For others, it also means that people should recognize and respect each other. Therefore, the so-called humanitarian spirit, on the positive side, is to fight for freedom, for equality, for democracy. On the negative side, it is necessary to oppose the irrational phenomenon of all people oppressing and exploiting people; it is necessary to oppose the system of despotism and slavery that does not regard the working people as human beings. [16]
Critics are dissatisfied with this: in order to escape the term "class thought", Qian Gurong eclectically pulls together various contradictory concepts. [17] This critique regards the right to independence and mutual recognition as bourgeois ideas, and identifies them as opposed to the oppression of all and the exploitation of human beings as proletarian ideals. But conversely, this "chaos" is nothing more than a hint at the tension of socialist modernity itself. The freedom of independence and autonomy, the legal state of equality of mutual recognition of forms, is, of course, the hallmark of bourgeois modernity. But it persists within socialist society and cannot be solved by mere ideological criticism, because its foundation lies in the transitional character of socialist society. Critics of the time often used the rhetoric of "opposites" to easily dismiss the former, but in essence the problems of individuality in socialist society remained stubborn. Therefore, we may grasp it as a problem within socialist modernity, which cannot be simply eliminated and needs to be discarded.
In the case of the latter, the problem of "sympathy" highlighted between the lines of the "anthropological" essay touches on a more nuanced literary mechanism. "Sympathy" first appeared in the discussion of Tolstoy: "Tolstoy originally wanted to belittle Anna as a 'guilty wife', but in the end he 'had to' send her deep sympathy and even praised her." [18] Thus transliterating the triumph of the so-called principle of "realism" to the triumph of "humanitarianism". The root cause of this analysis is: "The real artist never regards his figures as tools, as puppets, but as a person, as a person with certain thoughts and feelings and an independent personality like himself." [19] This necessarily evokes the wording of Hegel's Aesthetics: to keep the object free and infinite. [20] This aesthetic idea of creation without domination and giving the object a certain free status is indeed a concentrated expression of bourgeois cultural leadership. Qian Gurong's more focused expression of "sympathy" focuses specifically on the emotional problems of the reader:
Literary works are originally mainly to express people's feelings of sadness and joy, to express people's longing and yearning for a happy life, and to lament and uneven about unfortunate encounters. It is through the artistic expression of these thoughts and feelings that it fulfils its role as a weapon of the class struggle. ...... Every man must have his own unique life experiences, unique thoughts and feelings, why can't he sing out his personal sorrows? If he sings very sincerely and beautifully, why can't he arouse our love and arouse our sympathy? [21]
This is a secret and important aspect of Qian Gurong's "human science" theory. He seems to be insisting that literature functions under the basic mechanism of sympathy (and its important aspect, empathy[22]). If the humanitarian spirit is the minimum criterion for evaluating literary and artistic works, "sympathy" may be the starting point of the humanitarian spirit itself. This creates a rather interesting connection of ideas. In the history of Western thought, the 18th century is also known as the age of sympathy. Derived from the Greek word συμπ θεια (literally a state of empathy, consisting of the words "of the same kind" and "emotion"),[23] it had a threefold connotation in the 18th century: the mechanism of emotional communication; the substitution of ourselves for the imaginary or rational process of others; the pain of others and the pain of others, and the pleasure of others and their own pleasure. Each of the three has its own source: the compassion that is oriented to infection, empathy, and others, respectively. [24] One of the main points of the Western theory of "sympathy" is that we love or hate not only those things that directly affect us, but also certain things that have no direct utilitarian relationship with us. Thus, in the 18th century, compassion was seen as a force that exerted a restraining effect on self-interest, an emotion that stimulated action and served the reconstruction of social bonds between individuals. Returning to the historical context, the popularity of sympathy in the 18th century was also a response to the rising status of "self-interest" and the weakening of traditional Christian love. [25] Directly translating Qian Gurong's "sympathy" to the theory of sympathy in the West since the 18th century is obviously not true, but the contextual analogy may activate a certain clue. If the rise of the bourgeois concept of sympathy attempted to respond to the reconstruction of social ties after the expansion of the self-interested individual in a secularized situation, then the revival of "sympathy" in the literary discourse of the 1950s and 1960s may have been aimed at the weakness of the class schema in dealing with emotional problems. The latter sympathy, expressed through literary intermediaries, more subtly proposes some kind of social bond reconstruction. It also happens that after the socialist transformation has been basically completed, the question of class antagonism is undergoing some kind of transformation. What the sympathetic wording seeks to bridge is precisely the emotional realm that classiness has demarcated, and it is also an attempt to provide a more flexible and soft addition to the hard class identity and its fixed emotional expression. It is also in this context that Qian Gurong's discourse presents a certain complexity and ambiguity, and the following paragraph involves a strange synthesis of "revolutionary violence" and "sympathy".
Tolstoy...... Violating his consistent doctrine of "resist evil with violence", he sympathized with and praised the revolutionaries' means of violent struggle... He saw that these revolutionaries resorted to such violence "in the danger of losing their freedom, their lives, and all that is precious to all men"; it was only when others treated them with great cruelty that they "naturally adopted the same method which others used against them". Can a true humanitarian object to the actions of these revolutionaries? [26]
Clearly, compassion does not exclude violence, nor does it lose its position. Humanitarianism does not equal weakness or even "hypocrisy" fraternity, and compassion can also lead to revolutionary action. It also suggests that we should not grasp the issue of sympathy here in a simple either-or framework.
Regarding the continuity of ideas between Qian Gurong's "Thunderstorm" series and "Anthropology" papers, although the critics at that time and the researchers today have completely different starting points, their judgments are roughly similar, emphasizing that there is a close correlation between the two. The question is how to grasp this correlation more concretely. Looking at it with "compassion" may open up a way of thinking. Qian Gurong's eight "Character Talks" were written in the late 1950s and early 1960s as four "Zhou Family" (of which "On Zhou Ping" failed to be published[27]), and in 1979, four more were written as "Lu Family". Regarding the motivation for the pen, Qian Gurong once said that it originated from some comments triggered by cao Yu's revised version of "Thunderstorm" in 1959. At first glance, the articles are not very argumentative, but in fact each one touches on the class issue of the character image and the related "sympathy" problem. Although the four Lu family articles were not written until 1979, and it is clear that Qian Gurong has already referred to the revised edition of "Thunderstorm" in 1959, I still want to discuss these eight character theories as a continuous whole. Although the historical situation has changed, the inertia and basic methods of discourse have taken shape, and many ideas cannot but be said to have been planted in the 1960s. More pertinently, we should grasp these eight character theories in terms of the continuity of a socialist culture. In this sense, the "new era" is indeed an opportunity for Qian Gurong to correct the chaos and return to his original intention.
To put it simply, "Thunderstorm" Character Talk " not only takes the class identity of the characters as the basic rules of discourse, Qian Gurong is more concerned with how to distinguish more complex emotional movements in the class nature of the characters (who already have relevant political judgments). In a sense, the strength and difficulty of "sympathy" lurk in the narrative threads of the characters' talks; Qian Gurong, with his extremely subtle brushstrokes, outlines the different levels of sympathy aroused by the characters, as well as the class problems and socio-historical roots behind this strength and weakness. In the four parts of the Zhou family, the most difficult object of analysis is Zhou Puyuan, followed by Zhou Ping. As soon as the article came out, it was accused of "beautifying the bourgeoisie and sympathizing with the bourgeoisie." [28] It must be noted, however, that Qian Gurong's core intention has never changed, that is, to expose Zhou Puyuan's "hypocrisy"; only to say that "hypocrisy" has acquired a more complex expression in Zhou Puyuan. In a seemingly questionable passage, Qian Gurong commented as follows:
Zhou Puyuan's certain nostalgia for Shi Ping not only does not shake our view that Zhou Puyuan is extremely hypocritical, but it is precisely from the nature of his nostalgia and its concrete manifestations that it only deepens our view. ...... Subjectively, he may indeed be very "sincere" and has no intention of deliberately deceiving people. But as an exploiting class, he could not have any truly noble feelings. His first consideration is always his own reputation, his status, his own practical interests. [29]
Qian Gurong's argument here is not some kind of "dangerous addition"—acknowledging Zhou Puyuan's nostalgia for The sincerity of Shi Ping; and in order to blunt the danger of this judgment, he emphasizes his exploitative class character. Rather, he proposed a method of truly grasping the contradiction between personality and class nature contained in "human feelings" with more complicated judgments. In other words, the inherent monotonous correspondence (e.g., class identity = despicable feelings) obscures more complex expressions of class nature, thus losing its own energy in the process of continuous circulation. This complex way of understanding is also preparing for truly transcending "compassion." Based on this clue, we can glimpse that each of the four articles of the Zhou family is based on "sympathy", but each one breaks through sympathy to a certain extent. If Zhou Ping's problem is still on Zhou Puyuan's extension line (still "hypocrisy" and "complexity"), Zhou Chong himself is the embodiment of "sympathy". Qian Gurong's quotation illustrates this characteristic of sympathy, which is largely derived from the May Fourth "blood and tears" literature,[30] but the fate of the characters themselves reveals the limitations of this form of sympathy. Regarding Xuanyi, Qian Gurong clearly pointed out: "Lu Dahai is of course much higher than Xuanyi, and the contradiction between him and Zhou Puyuan can better reflect the contradiction of the essence of society at that time. Even Shi Ping, her persecution is far more important than That of Shu Yi, and her life is more likely to get people's sympathy. [31] However, the reason why Xuanyi is more important and can bear the "Thunderstorm" personality is that she constitutes the driving force of the whole play. The "relational position" of the characters throughout the play balances simple sympathy and complicates the so-called issue of class identity.
Of the four lu family chapters, I think the most interesting thing is to discuss Lu Dahai. "Sympathy" is also directly linked here to the class question again. Qian Gurong quoted a 1978 interview with Wang Chaowen by Cao Yu, which is quite interesting: "In "Thunderstorm", I wrote a Lu Dahai, which is a worker, of course, very unusual, very immature, but I sympathize with this person, and even admire this person. [32] Qian Gurong's subsequent comment was: "If the author had not deeply sympathized with and admired this man, he would never have been able to write Lu Dahai as he is now." [33] He believes that Cao Yu's revised version of "Thunderstorm" was very successful in changing Lu Dahai's lines, and could even be said to make up for the weaknesses in the original modeling. He was very impressed by the sentence "This account should be clearly calculated." The sympathetic relationship between Cao Yu and Lu Dahai is reminiscent of the "sympathetic" relationship between Tolstoy and the revolutionaries discussed in the "anthropological" treatise. The problem of sympathy and class entanglement has to be said to be the most insightful expression in the idea of "anthropology", and the rethinking of the problem of character image building will lead to an aesthetic problem that transcends the simple emotional dimension.
Beyond Sympathy: The "Multitude" in Literature and Its Social Poetics
Qian Gurong once said that he liked Lu Xun's novels and Cao Yu's plays, but he talked very little about Lu Xun's novels, but instead had a long discussion on essays. [34] It is no exaggeration to say that the center of gravity of Qian Gurong's interpretation of literary works is Cao Yu's "Thunderstorm". This is probably no accident. Because "Thunderstorm" shows a state in which the contradictions and conflicts between the characters are fierce, but the distribution of the characters' pen and ink is relatively balanced. If "sympathy" can be regarded as an expression of the minimum standard of Qian Gurong's "anthropological" thought, then the ultimate expression of this idea essentially points to a different kind of poetics of social relations:
Therefore, the character is typical, not because the writer reveals his class essence; nor does the typical meaning of the work exist only in the typical character himself. The character is typical because of the variety of people and things gathered around him; but because through his activities he unfolded a broad picture of social life, summarizing the intricate social class relations of that epoch. And the typical meaning of the work should not be found only from the individual characters in the work, but should be found from the whole picture constituted by the work and the general movement of life revealed. ...... A Q... Without his relationship with Wang Hu, Xiao D, Wu Ma, as well as Zhao Taiye, fake foreign devils and other people, where did the typicality of Ah Q come from? [35]
"Typical" and "class essence", and even related to "the nature of social power", stem from the influence of Soviet literary theory. [36] In the post-Stalin era, there was already debate within the Soviet Union on this issue, and in 1956 there was a wave of discussion in China around "typical". [37] Qian Gurong's discourse can be said to be rooted in this. The typical problem is by no means a simple literary and artistic issue, but a key point related to the socialist political and religious mechanism. There is a close correlation between the experience of socialist practice and the shaping of public opinion by heroic figures and the portrayal of characters in literature. Surprisingly, Qian Gurong's view disassembles the "natural" connection between the typical and the individual characters, and understands it in the context of the relationship between the characters. In this way, the typical person as an individual is replaced by a "typical meaning" expressed by a group portrait of a group of characters or the social relations of "many" people. This should have been Qian Gurong's basic understanding of literary character building at that time. Also written in the 1960s, Tube Voyeurism puts it this way:
Through this specific and organic connection between the character and the environment, what people see is not only individual characters, individual life scenes, individual phenomena, but also see many other people and other life phenomena around this character, see the law of interconnection and connection between them, and see the essence of certain social phenomena. Therefore, the key here, that is, whether or not we can write a typical character with both unrepeatable personal characteristics and broad social significance, lies in whether we can truly and concretely write about the profound and organic connection between the character and the environment; whether we can make his character and the surrounding environment in a unified and inseparable relationship of interdependence and mutual influence. [38]
Qian Gurong's vision obviously goes beyond individual characters, but cares about "relationships"; not only the relationship between people, but also the specific and organic connection between characters and the environment. Thus, the literary work itself constitutes a miniature universe, the meaning of which is not embodied in a single character, but is always expressed in "a unified and inseparable relationship of interdependence and mutual influence". This brings us to the cultural and political issue of the distribution of socialist anthropological figures. The attempt to portray heroes is closely related to a theocratic-imitation mechanism, the management strategies and governance methods inherent in this socio-religious-imitation, as well as a series of ethical incitement and political psychology issues. Although modern literary practice has its own origins and contexts, new Chinese culture always hopes to guide it to a more ambitious overall political and religious framework; and then extract legitimate emotional appeals and political energy from literary creation and literary reading, and feed back into the reproduction of social relations. The "poetic" idea of the overall social relationship between characters and characters, characters and environments emphasized by Qian Gurong, the first thing that is evoked is probably not a simple division of emotions and heroic characters highlighted in the foreground and become a typical state of imitation. In fact, the eight "Character Talks of "Thunderstorm" itself constitute a meaningful "intertextual" relationship, which is a demonstration of the poetic critical vision of this social relationship.
I am afraid that the tension between literary creation and literary criticism is also involved here. The position and function of the critic are different not only in different political systems, but also in different literary-aesthetic-configurations of the same political system. The actual practice of literary creation has its own production trajectory, especially in New China, the actual configuration between writers and life practice is quite unique, and the language resources and formal strategies they expropriate are not single, and the ideological spectrum of the writer himself is far from consistent, so it shows characteristics that cannot fully fit the political and religious mechanism. But the critic's approach to criticism is clearly more intrinsic to this mechanism. The critical discourse focuses too much on the main characters, over-emphasizes the priority and even uniqueness of class division, and hastily introduces external perspectives to "penetrate" and requisition the details of the text, which is to a large extent a compression of the political and religious potential of the literary work itself, and at the same time teaches the reader a certain reading method that is not smart. In the "Character Talk" on Zhou Ping, Qian Gurong rarely put up a polemical posture and objected to the two readings:
When dealing with characters like Zhou Ping, it is often easy to have two simplistic attitudes. One is to focus only on some manifestations, showing excessive credulity to his so-called "sincerity" and so-called "unavoidable bitterness", and thus unduly forgiving him and sympathizing with him. There is also a kind of starting from the essence of his thoughts, starting from the essence of his thoughts, hating and abhorring him, believing that everything he says and does is despicable and hateful, so he scolds him, without further exploring the social roots of the character formation of this character, and discovering the profound typical meaning of this image. [39]
The former can be said to be an abstract sympathetic attitude, based on a declassified human setting, while the latter is a political-moral criticism that obliterates intermediaries, and Qian Gurong rejects both. His response also entraps the poetics of the social relations of the above-mentioned "masses": the evaluation of Zhou Ping needs to be compared with Zhou Puyuan, "They not only have a complementary side (they are all members of the decaying exploitation team), but also a side that is opposed to each other (in Zhou Ping there is something that is not in harmony with the decaying exploiting class). [40] It can therefore be said that Qian Gurong gave critics the task of teaching reading and poetics. There is also a profound idea of cultural governance, in which literature probably does not necessarily have to be the same as other practices: the slowdown in reading, the emphasis on formal intermediaries, the agitation of perceptual experiences brought about by complexity, can itself be effectively incorporated into the socialist socio-religious mechanism through the intermediary of criticism. In this sense, one of Qian's few papers written in the 1960s, "Writer Critics and Criticisms," is particularly significant. It is precisely in that era of more conscious totality that the so-called "bridge role of the critic"—explaining the author's intentions, pointing out the life with which the work identifies, and translating the complex aesthetic configuration of literature—has instead stimulated its relevance in education-transformation—at least responds to how to evaluate the good among the bad, and the bad sometimes appear less bad. [41]
III. Conclusion
If Qian Gurong's "anthropology" and its related expositions are placed in the context of the seventy years of new China's literature and culture, the plain views will also be transformed into dazzling and powerful insights. In the first thirty years, Chinese literature was basically in a theocratic-imitation aesthetic mechanism (although there are still many folds within this mechanism that are worth analyzing), and in the next forty years, we have gradually witnessed the decline of this mechanism, and the differentiation and transformation of the original "politics and religion" (such as the active intervention of the market), accompanied by a certain transformation of the mode of social production and the change of the "human" concept. In the first thirty years, the "sympathy" problem and class schema implied by Qian Gurong have always been in an interactive relationship of confrontation and compromise, and literary figures always need to win a dominant identity force in the process of undertaking class confrontation and dialogue; but the flow of emotion (including the characters and the reading effects they inspire) cannot be completely erased, but will form a meaningful addition. In the last forty years, "sympathy" lost its most crucial stipulation of class character, and to some extent lost its opponent and became more abstract, and literary figures were deflected from their class positions. In this way, literary characters not only distance themselves from the political and religious-imitation pedestal of the original heroic figures, but also get rid of the poetic structure of the social forms composed of characters and characters and characters and characters and environments emphasized by Qian Gurong. The characters are increasingly transformed into "free" subjects (or broken emotional nodes) on the inside, and the human being and the external environment constitute a kind of more rigid and insoluble opposition. In this sense, Qian Gurong's two propositions of "human science" have become urgent at the moment. "Sympathy" still needs to test its own possibility and impossibility in the face of the social class position; at the same time, it also needs to activate a poetics of the relationship between characters and characters, between characters and the environment, so that literature, in its fundamental sense, returns to the display of the social situation/form itself. And this great poetic attempt is precisely the aesthetic preparation for Marx's so-called "man is the sum of all social relations."
[This article is the phased result of the General Project of the National Social Science Foundation of China "Seventeen Years of Research on the Aesthetic Genealogy of Literary Character Images in the Context of Criticism History" (No. 18BZW159).] ]
The pictures in the text come from the Internet, if there is any infringement, please contact to delete
About the Author
Zhu Yu, Ph.D., co-trained by East China Normal University and New York University, associate professor of modern and contemporary Chinese literature at the College of Letters, Shanghai University. His research interests include 20th-century Chinese literature and thought, as well as critical theory and aesthetics. He presided over the General Project of the National Social Science Foundation of China, "Research on the Aesthetic Genealogy of Literary Character Images in the Context of Criticism in the Context of Historical Criticism in Seventeen Years", and has published many papers in core journals such as Literary Criticism, Literary and Art Studies, and "Modern Chinese Literature Research Series". The new book,Socialism and "Nature", was published by Peking University Press in October 2018.
exegesis:
[1] Xia Wei, "Decoding Qian Gurong's "Student Response Model": An Epigenetic Interpretation of Pairs", Southern Literature, No. 1, 2009.
[2] Qian Gurong, "Tell Me About Myself", in Scattered Life, Shanghai Education Publishing House, 2001, p. 291.
[3] For the term "external forces", see above. We probably shouldn't understand the problem of "external forces" here from the binary opposition structure of inner adherence to external forces. In addition to the so-called administrative and political hints and demands, this "external force" should include the sense of liberation and the encouragement brought by the "double hundred" to intellectuals to speak freely. More importantly, the relationship between "inside" (subjectivity) and "outside" (political and cultural mechanisms) actually operated in that era cannot be grasped by the current popular understanding, and the intellectuals' sense of identity with the new China and even the sense of urgency to intervene must be ignored.
[4] Qian Gurong: "[Literature] It is again a form of expression of the overall culture. ...... From this point of view, literature and other cultural forms can not only communicate, but at the same time, the existence and performance of literature to some extent have to be subject to the influence of the overall culture. See Qian Gurong and Wu Jun, "Multiple Variations: Literature and Politics, Humanity and Class: Dialogue on Modern and Contemporary Chinese Literature," Jianghuai Forum, No. 3, 1989.
[5] Qian Gurong: "In my self-criticism [referring to Qian Gurong's criticism of the article "On Literature is Anthropology", in the "Outline of Self-Criticism of An Article" written in 1957, Qian Gurong tried to force myself to accept the views of some critics at that time. But on the whole, my attitude is still serious, and I really want to check my mistakes and seriously explore some problems; I am by no means blindly accommodating and blindly following the wind. See Qian Gurong: "An Outline of Self-Criticism in Yiwen", Literary and Art Studies, No. 3, 1980. It is worth noting that the edition published in 1980 actually did not fit the name, because Qian Gurong deleted the self-critical part of the original manuscript, but the editor still used the original topic, resulting in some misunderstandings in acceptance. Referring to Qian Gurong: "I originally wanted them to publish the whole text as they were, together with the 'self-criticism' section. After reading it, the editorial department felt that some of the self-criticism parts were quite 'left'... I had no choice but to adopt the old method of the symposium on literary and art theory criticism, remove the self-critical part of the original manuscript, and only publish the 'ideas at that time' part of it. ...... Another topic was drafted and sent. However, the editorial department believed that the newly proposed topic could not summarize the whole text, so it still used the original title. Because of the tight time for publication and the lack of time to seek my opinion, this article has become a "self-criticism outline" without 'self-criticism', which makes the reader inexplicable, which is a deep regret for me. "Qian Gurong: About", New Literature Series, No. 1, 1981.
[6] Fredric Jameson,The Political Unconscious(London: Routledge, 1983), p.2.
[7] Ba Ren: "On Human Feelings", Newport, No. 1, 1957.
[8] Wang Shuming, "On Human Feelings and Human Nature", Newport, No. 7, 1957.
[9] Qian Gurong, "On "Literature is Anthropology"," Literary and Art Monthly, May 1957 issue.
[10] Jin Weimin and Li Yunchu, "Several Issues That Come to Mind from Evaluation," Wen Wei Po, October 19, 1963.
[11] For example, the discussion of new heroes and figures was widely launched in 1953, the discussion of new heroes and the real story of real people in 1959, and the discussion and criticism of the spirit of the times and the image of heroes in 1964.
[12] "Preface", Edited by the Editorial Department of The New Literature and Art Publishing House: On "Literature as Anthropology" Critique Collection, First Collection, Shanghai: Shanghai New Literature and Art Publishing House, 1958 edition.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Qian Gurong, "On 'Literature as Anthropology'"," Literary and Art Monthly, May 1957 issue.
[15] See Zhu Guangqian, "How Aesthetics Can Be Both Materialistic and Dialectical", Aesthetics Discussion Collection, Vol. 2, Beijing: Writers Publishing House, 1957.
[16] Qian Gurong, "On "Literature is Anthropology"," Literature and Art Monthly, May 1957 issue.
[17] Yao Wenyuan, "Commenting on Mr. Qian Gurong's HumanitarianIsm (1958)", A Collection of Literary and Art Ideological Controversies, Writers Publishing House, 1965 edition, p. 296.
[18] Qian Gurong, "On "Literature is Anthropology"," Literature and Art Monthly, May 1957 issue.
[19] Qian Gurong, "On "Literature is Anthropology"," Literary and Art Monthly, May 1957 issue.
[20] See Hegel, Aesthetics Volume I, translated by Zhu Guangqian, Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1979 edition, p. 147.
[21] Qian Gurong, "On "Literature is Anthropology"," Literature and Art Monthly, May 1957 issue.
[22] For "empathy", see Eric Schliesser, "Introduction: On Sympathy", Eric Schliesser ed. Sympathy: A History(Oxford and NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2015), p.1. "Empathy is a word constructed in the 20th century, corresponding to the German Einfühlung, meaning to enter into the perceptions and emotions of another person."
[23] Eric Schliesser,“Introduction: On Sympathy”,Sympathy: A History, p.3.
[24] Ryan Patrick Hanley,“The Eighteenth-Century Context of Sympathy fromSpinoza to Kant”,Sympathy: A History,p.172.
[25] Ibid,pp.175-177, p.183.
[26] Qian Gurong, "On 'Literature as Anthropology'"," Literature and Art Monthly, May 1957 issue.
[27] Qian Gurong, "Characters Talk About Afterwords", Loose Life, pp. 265-266.
[28] Qian Gurong, "Characters Talk About Afterword", Loose Life, p. 265.
[29] Qian Gurong, "Character Talk", Literary Review, No. 1, 1962.
[30] Qian Gurong, "A Spring Dream in the Summer":Talking about Zhou Chong," in Three Kinds of Qiangu Rong, Henan University Press, 2008, p. 49. Zhou Chong: "She [Si Feng] has a simple heart, she knows the joy of living, she knows sympathy, she understands that labor has meaning." And "I thought [Lu Dahai and other workers] that these people were working for their own group of people, and we should be sympathetic." ”
[31] Qian Gurong, "Character Talk", Literary Review, No. 1, 1962.
[32] Qian Gurong, "Character Talk: Sifeng, Lu Dahai, Lu Gui", Literary Review, No. 6, 1979.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Qian Gurong: "The Artistic Characteristics of Lu Xun's Essays", Lu Xun Research Yearbook (1979), written in March 1961 and changed to June.
[35] Qian Gurong, "On 'Literature as Anthropology'"," Literary and Art Monthly, May 1957 issue.
[36] In 1956, The generally questioned discourse in China was Malenkov's "Summary Report on the Work of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Brazzaville) at the Nineteenth Party Congress": "Typical is not only the most common thing, but also the thing that fully and most acutely expresses the essence of all social forces. According to The Understanding of Marxism-Leninism, the typical is by no means a statistical average. Typicality is consistent with the essence of a certain socio-historical phenomenon; it is not merely the most universal, frequently occurring and ordinary phenomenon. Consciously exaggerating and prominently portraying an image does not exclude typicality, but more fully explores and emphasizes it. Typical is the basic scope of the expression of party spirit in realist art. The typical problem is a political one at all times. See The Russian and Soviet Literature Research Office of the Department of Russian Language, Peking University, ed., On and On Its Ideological Trends, Peking University Press, 1982, pp. 2-3.
[37] For related papers, see Li Xifan: "Questioning typical new theories" (Xingang, No. 6, 1956), Wang Yu: "Typical and Party Spirit" (Yanhe, No. 8, 1956), Lin Mohan: "Preliminary Understanding of Typical Problems" (Wenyi Bao, No. 8, 1956), Zhang Guangnian: "Typical Art and the Essence of Society" (Wenyi Bao, No. 8, 1956), Chen Yong: "Some Issues Concerning the Characteristics of Literature and Art" (Wenyi Bao, No. 9, 1956), And The Ba Ren: Typical Problems Follow Feelings (Literature and Art Daily, No. 9, 1956) and so on.
[38] Qian Gurong, "Pipe Peeping Speculation", Literature and Art Daily, No. 3, 1963.
[39] Qian Gurong, "Oh, You're Your Father's Son"—Talking about Zhou Ping, in Three Kinds of Qiangu Rong, p. 36.
[40] Ibid., p. 45.
[41] See Qian Gurong, "Writer, Critic, Criticism," Shanghai Literature, No. 7, 1962.
▲Swipe up and down to view comments
If you like this article, welcome to share it to the circle of friends
Commenting is now turned on
(Public account editor: He Zhuolun, Department of Chinese, East China Normal University)