Abstract
Despite its long history as an esteemed code of moral learning in China, Confucianism has been condemned since the 1920s as a relic of feudalism and a stumbling block to modernization. During the May Fourth New Culture Movement (1916–1923) and the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) when totalistic iconoclasm was at its height, Confucianism was blamed for everything that had gone wrong in the country. From Lu Xun’s sarcastic novels to the Red Guards’ campaigns to ‘smash the four olds’, Confucianism was the prime target of cultural critique and a major symbol of national shame. In particular, it was identified as the source of three forms of injustice in imperial China: autocracy, elitism, and patriarchy.1 Although recently Confucianism has enjoyed a robust revival in the guise of ‘culture craze’ (wenhua re) and ‘national learning craze’ (guoxue re),2 it is still considered by many as a doctrine designed to support a stable political order, a hierarchical society, and a patrilineal family structure. This image of Confucianism has been reinforced in recent years by the campaigns to build ‘a harmonious society’ in China, where the term ‘harmony’ (hexie) is clearly drawn from the Confucian classics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The list of publications on the totalistic iconoclasm of the May Fourth New Culture Movement and the Cultural Revolution is huge. For the most important, see T. Chow (1960) The May 4th Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press);
Y. Lin (1979) The Crisis of Chinese Consciousness: Radical Anti-Traditionalism in the May Fourth Era (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press); and
E. J. Perry and X. Liu (1997) Proletarian Power: Shanghai in the Cultural Revolution (Boulder: Westview).
For a summary of the contemporary Confucian revival, see J. Makeham (2008) Lost Soul: ‘Confucianism’ in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
See F. W. Mote (1989) The Intellectual Foundations of China (New York: Knopf).
W. Th. de Bary (1983) Liberal Tradition in China (New York: Columbia University Press).
W. Th. de Bary (1967) ‘Chinese despotism and the cConfucian ideal: A 17th century view’, in J. K. Fairbank (ed.) Chinese Thought and Institutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp.163–203.
See B. A. Elman (2000) A Cultural Histoty of Civil Service Examinations in Late Imperial China (Berkeley: University of California Press).
See W. Tu (1992) Rujia chuantong de xiandai zhuanhua (Confucian tradition and its modern transformation) (Beijing: Zhongguo guangbo dianshi chubanshe), pp.173–233. In his book, Tu uses ‘Confucian China’ (rujiao zhongguo) to refer to state Confucianism and ‘Confucian spirit’ (rujia jingshen) to refer to radical Confucianism.
For a list of Zhang Taiyan’s publications in Minbao, see H. Zhu (1985) Tongmeng hui de geming lilun-Minbao gean yanjiu (The Revolutionary Theory of Tongmeng Hui: A Case Study of Minbao) (Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiu yuan jinshisuo), pp.339–41. From his arrival in Tokyo in 1906 to the folding of the journal in 1910, Zhang’s essays appeared in every issue of Minbao except issue 18, which was published while he was ill.
See T. Zhang (1908), ‘Bo zhongguo yong wanguo xinyu shuo’ (A rebuttal to adopting world language in China), Minbao, 21, 49–72; Guocui xuebao, 41 (1908), 405–13; 42, 523–40.
See Wei Yi [Liu Shipei] ‘Bian manzhou fei zhongguo zhi chenmin’ (A treatise on the Manchu being non-Chinese), Minbao, 14 (1907), 39–111; 15 (1907), 35–62; 18 (1907), 1–25.
For a list of Liu Shipei’s writings published in Guocui xuebao, see Y. Wang (1974) Yingyin guocui xuebao jiukan quanji suoyin (Index to the copied set of Guocui xuebao) (Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan), pp.157–9, 160–3. Note that from 1905 to 1906 Liu Shipei published his writings in Guocui xuebao under the name Liu Guanghan.
For a biography of Chen Qubing, see W. Liu and A. Yin (eds.) (2002) Nanshe renwu zhuan (Biographies of members of Southern Society) (Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe), pp.314–20.
For a list of Minbao and Guocui xuebao writers who joined the ‘Southern Sodety’, see X. Wang and T. Yang (eds.) (1995) Nanshe shi changbian (Full Version of Chronicles of the History of the Southern Society) (Beijing: Zhongguo renmin daxue chubanshe), pp.39, 47. For a study of the influence of the members of the ‘Recovery Society’ on Minbao, see H. Zhu, Tongmeng Hui di geming lilun, pp.25–32, 227–318.
T. Yang and X. Wang (eds.) (1995) Nanshe shi changbian (An Extended History of Southern Society) (Beijing: Zhongguo renmin daxue chubanshe), pp.83–6, 101–3.
Zheng Shiqu reminds us that in the early 1900s guocui had a special meaning. The term might have been a loan word from the Japanese kokusui, but the term referred not only to ‘the preservation of national essence’ in general, but also to preserving a particular kind of Chinese cultural heritage that would help the 20th-century Chinese fully integrate into the modern world. As Zheng points out, the goal of the Guocui writers was not to turn the clock back to a bygone era, but to move China forward by revitalizing a selected Chinese cultural heritage. See S. Zheng (1997) Wanqing guocui paiwenhua sixiang yanjiu (The National Essence Group of the late Qing: A Cultural and Intellectual Study) (Beijing: Beijing shifan daxue chubanshe), pp.111–39.
Deng Shi (1905) ‘Guoxue weilun’ (A preliminary discussion of national learning), Guocui xuebao, 2, sheshuo, 1a–6b.
Deng Shi (1905) ‘Guoxue tonglun’ (A general discussion of national learning), Guocui xuebao, 3, sheshuo, 1a–9b.
Huang Jie (1905) ‘Guocui xuebao xu’ (A preface to Journal of National Essence), Guocui xuebao, 1, 1a–4a.
For a discussion of anti-absolutism and anti-Manchuism in Guocui xuebao, see Zh. Tang (1989) Jindai jingxue yu zhengzhi (The Classical Studies and Politics of the Recent Age) (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju), pp.316–25.
Liu Guanghan [Liu Shipei] (1905) ‘Zhoumo xueshu shi zongxu’ (The preface to a study of the history of late Zhou learning), Guocui xuebao, 1, xuepian, 4b–12b;
Liu Guanghan (1906) ‘Guxue chuyu guanshou lun’ (On ancient learning being originated from officials), Guocui xuebao, 14, xuepian, 5a–8b, 15, 1a–10b.
Deng Shi (1908) ‘Guocui xuebao disan zhounian zhudian xu’ (A preface to the celebration for the third anniversary of the Journal of National Essence), Guocui xuebao, 38, sheshuo, 1a–2b.
Xu Shouwei (1905) ‘Lun Guocui wuzu yu ouhua’ (National essence not a barrier to Europeanization), Guocui xuebao, 7, sheshuo, 1a–4b;
Deng Shi (1905) ‘Guxue fuxing lun’ (On reviving the ancient learning), Guocui xuebao, 9, sheshuo, 1a–4b.
Huang Jie (1905) ‘Huang shi: juaner’ (History of the Yellow Race: Section 2), Guocui xuebao, 3, 1a–7b.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Tze-ki Hon
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hon, Tk. (2014). Radical Confucianism: The Critique of Imperial Orthodoxy in Guocui xuebao (1905–1911). In: Dessein, B. (eds) Interpreting China as a Regional and Global Power. Politics and Development of Contemporary China Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137450302_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137450302_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-49697-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-45030-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Intern. Relations & Development CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)