From Academic Nitpicking to a =New Culture Movement＇： How Newspapers Turned Academic Debates into the Center of ~May Fourth＂

Abstract In early 1919, people like Hu Shi and Chen Duxiu were regarded as members of an ivory-tower ＂academic faction＂ （xuepai）, embroiled in a debate with an opposing ＂faction.＂ After the May Fourth demonstrations, they were praised as the stars of a ＂New Culture Movement.＂ However, it was not obvious how the circle around Hu Shi and Chert Duxiu was associated with the May Fourth demonstrations. This link hinged on the way in which newspapers like Shenbao reported about the academic debates and the political events of May Fourth. After compartmentalizing the debating academics into fixed xuepai, Shenbao ascribed warlord-political allegiances to them. These made the Hu-Chen circle look like government victims and their ＂factional＂ rivals like the warlords＇ allies. When the atmosphere became hostile to the government during May Fourth, Hu Shi＇s ＂faction＂ became associated with the equally victimized May Fourth demonstrators. Their ideas were regarded as （now popular） expressions of anti-government sentiment, and soon this was labeled the core of the ＂New Culture Movement.＂ The idea and rhetoric of China＇s ＂New Culture Movement＂ in this way emerged out of the fortuitous concatenation of academic debates, newspaper stories, and political events.     

Wholeness and individuality: Revisiting the New Culture Movement,as symbolized by May Fourth

Abstract

The May Fourth New Culture Movement was a “convergent historical movement,” as well as a movement with a central purport and an intrinsic wholeness. The image of a homogeneous May Fourth formed unintentionally, and was also constructed by contemporaries and later generations. By examining the connections between the 1911 Revolution and the New Culture Movement from a more macroscopic perspective, exploring whether the latter was in fact a response to external impact or a self-awakening, observing how the debate over new versus old in the early Republican era developed to the point of a “culture” war, how the two-sided efforts for radical reforms reconciled destruction and construction, the interaction between the student movement and the New Culture Movement, and other aspects, thus examining the legacy of the New Culture Movement via perceptions in the post–May Fourth era, we can see that May Fourth has become a symbol of the New Culture Movement.     

Was the enlightenment a continuous process from the late Qing to the May Fourth period?

ABSTRACT

Intellectual development from the late Qing to the 1911 Revolution and then to the May Fourth New Culture Movement was generally a continuous process despite various ambivalent and hesitant zigzags. Within this overall continuity, new elements became salient. The new policies promulgated by the republican government soon after the success of the 1911 Revolution created an institutional legacy that gave previously marginal ideas enough legitimacy to enter the mainstream. Changes in “background culture” also resulted in many new themes associated with May Fourth, though these themes were ostensibly similar to those in the late Qing period. The enlightenment of May Fourth endowed the “future” with positive values so that a future-oriented perspective became a fashionable trend in this period.     

甲午战争前后东亚海权与海防的较量及其影响

一场甲午战争,使东亚海权格局剧变,由此构成中日两国命运变化的历史拐点。战前,中日两国面对西方殖民扩张的相同遭遇,展开了近30年的海军现代化建设,并在互为敌手的竞争中日益凸显于以英国为主导的东亚海权格局之中。然而,不同的战略选择决定了不同的命运,甲午战争用血与火诠释了海权与海防的本质区别及其决定性影响。正因为战败后的中国已完全置身于东亚海权格局之外,再次陷入有海无防的境地,导致海权得以坐大的日本推行"大陆政策"更加有恃无恐,在列强瓜分中国的狂潮中走上独霸东亚之路。     

The political commentary on May Fourth in 1950s Hong Kong and Taiwan

Abstract

“May Fourth” has long been considered a turning point for modern China, resulting in continuous heated discussion on the topic since the 1920s. These discussions not only reexamine culture but also have political intent. Many recent scholars have discussed the “ideologization” of May Fourth from the perspective of “memory politics.” They argue that “May Fourth discourse” was not only used to understand and recapture the past, but also to help one’s own cherished values occupy a core position in modern Chinese history, thus using historical interpretation to create a compass for China’s future that conforms to historical tides. From the four great philosophies of modern China, the Nationalists and Communists have incorporated May Fourth into the “Three People’s Principles” and “New Democracy,” respectively. Liberals held up democracy and science as a need for China’s future, and made efforts to propagate and practice democracy in Hong Kong and Taiwan after 1949. As for New Confucians who had continuously criticized May Fourth for being anti-tradition, they supported traditional values but also believed that democracy and science were a “priority and necessity for China's cultural development,” and hoped to use the spirit behind this ideal. They along with liberals criticized the Nationalist and Communist autocracy for departing from May Fourth ideals, and especially noted how May Fourth created fertile ground for the rise and expansion of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), “resulting in the growth of the Communist Party,” and the Nationalist government’s move to Taiwan. After 1949, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and the Guomindang (GMD) Nationalist Party he led primarily assessed the May Fourth Movement by synthesizing the views of the liberals and New Confucians. They highlighted the slogans of saving the nation, ethics, democracy, and science to promote ethical education and “national spirit education” as top-priority cultural policies. The focus of this article is to examine how liberals and New Confucians used the topic of May Fourth to criticize the CCP and GMD in Hong Kong and Taiwanese political commentary magazines during the 1950s (approximately 1949–1960). It also explores how the GMD synthesized liberal and New Confucian views to lay out their own position. This discourse shows how May Fourth had diverse interpretations under the context of conflict between the liberals and the New Confucians as well as Nationalists and Communists. The criticism of the ideologization of May Fourth in recent years is actually an important turning point in the scholarly study of May Fourth.     

The rise and fall of “individualism” before and after the May Fourth Movement

Abstract

“Individualism” was one of the most important philosophical trends in the May Fourth era, heavily influencing youths seeking personal liberation and independence. However, not long after the May Fourth Movement, positive associations with individualism gradually receded. Compared with devotion to “nation” or “society,” the quest for individual independence was repeatedly criticized as almost synonymous with “selfish.” There were two reasons for this: first was opposition stemming from a traditional Chinese respect for collectivism; second was that individualism had become the theoretical basis for private capitalist production following the First World War and its founding values were coming under increased scrutiny. As the Second World War unfolded, the fight for survival benefitted the promotion of collectivist values and the idea of social organisms. Individualism declined and eventually became supplanted by a heavily politicized form of collectivism.     

A study of the origins of the Chinese communist movement from a new perspective – The History of the Establishment of the Chinese Communist Party by Ishikawa Yoshihiro

From around the time of the Opium War to the May Fourth New Culture Movement, democracy in China advanced through four stages. Originally it surfaced as a germ of rough ideas gleaned from imported knowledge; from there, democracy transpired gradually via various avenues towards a more sophisticated level in the period from the Second Opium War until before the Sino–Japanese War of 1894–1895 and meanwhile a number of individuals favoring utilitarianism opted for a constitutional monarchy as a way of making the nation strong. Then, following the Sino–Japanese War 1894–1895 until prior to the 1911 Revolution, when manifold Western ideas of democracy penetrated China, people embarked on somber discussions about what kind of democratic system China actually needed to adopt. During the years between 1912 and the May Fourth New Culture Movement, people initially rushed to build democratic politics but afterwards began to examine the ideologies and social structures that demonstrated compatibility with democracy. By the time the May Fourth Movement emerged, people hardly disagreed on the sense of democracy that they understood. After the May Fourth Movement people mainly focused their attention on the question of true and false democracy or the matter of what type of democracy harmonized best with national conditions in China.     

“Neither Ākhūnd nor Fukulī”: Munāzirah and the Discourse of Iranian Modernity

Iranian modernity has chiefly been examined in the context of a dialectical antagonism between “traditionalists” and “modernists”—the main categories comprised of related sub-headings such as “Islamist” versus “secular,” “reactionary” versus “revolutionary,” and “regressive” versus “progressive.” Following this binaristic approach, Iranian adaptations of modernity have often been (de)historicized as a theatre of national “awakening” resulting from the toils of secular intellectuals in overcoming the obstinate resistance of traditional reactionaries, a confrontation between two purportedly well-defined and mutually exclusive camps. Such reductionist dialectics has generally overwritten the dialogic narrative of Iranian modernity, a conflicted dialogue misrepresented as a conflicting dialectic. It has also silenced an important feature of Iranian modernity: the universally acknowledged premise of the simultaneity and commensurability of tradition with modernity. The monāzereh (disputation or debate) is the account of the interaction between rival discourses that engaged in opposing, informing, and appropriating each other in the process of adapting modernity. Narrativizing the history of Iranian modernity as the conflict between mutually exclusive binaries overlooks its hyphenated, liminal identity—a narrative of adaptation rather than wholesale adoption, of heterogeneity rather than homogeneity, of dialogics rather than dialectics. The monāzereh is the account of modern Iranian histories.     

The neighbor as mirror: Representations of the Korean March First Movement in modern Chinese discourses of nationalism

Abstract

The outbreak of the Korean March First Movement in 1919 was followed by intensive reporting and commentary in Chinese media, presenting striking images of the brutality of the Japanese colonizers, the resolve for independence among the Korean people, and the concept of national self-determination. The March First Movement provided the Chinese people with a vivid example of the transformation of the abstract concept of “universal principles” into the practice of “national self-determination,” and strengthened consciousness of “national independence” among the Chinese people. Over the ensuing two or three decades, the “March First Movement” gradually seeped into the Chinese nationalist movement and discourses on national liberation, playing the role of “the neighbor as mirror,” and continuing to provide both positive inspiration and negative reference points for the Chinese people following the path of national independence. This linkage and interaction between “weak nations” aids in understanding the modern Chinese nationalist movement, as well as the mechanisms for development of the national independence movements among colonized peoples which swept across the globe in the early 20th century.     

The Prison and Power in Colonial Korea

This article explores the dynamics of the colonial prisons constructed by the Japanese and the power they wielded and projected as a dual project of modernisation and colonisation in Korea. Japanese colonialism and its disciplinary power made colonial prisoners docile subjects by utilising the mechanisms of close surveillance, scientific correction and ideological conversion while excluding and oppressing political offenders as “imperial others” through the exercise of cruel corporal punishment. The article offers an in-depth analysis of colonial modernity in Korea by examining how colonial power operated throughout the birth and evolution of the modern prison, and the mechanisms through which it governed Korean subjects in its prison system.     

SCHOLARSHIP AND PERIODIZATION

Davis argues that the familiar periodization dividing European history into medieval and modern phases disguises a claim to power as a historical fact. It justifies slavery and subjugation by projecting them onto the “feudal” Middle Ages and non‐European present, while hiding forms of slavery and subjugation practiced by “secular” modernity. Periodization thus furnishes one of the most durable conceptual foundations for the usurpation of liberty and the abuse of power. In part I, devoted to “feudalism,” Davis traces the legal, political, and colonial struggles behind the development of the concept of “feudal law” in early modern France and England and unravels just how that concept hides colonial oppression while justifying European sovereignty. In part II, devoted to “secularization,” she demonstrates the failure of twentieth‐century critics of “secularization” like Carl Schmitt, Walter Benjamin, Karl Löwith, Hans Blumenberg, and Reinhart Koselleck to break out of the limits imposed by the medieval/modern periodization. Part II concludes with a look at conceptual alternatives in the writings of Amitav Ghosh and the Venerable Bede. Three limitations of this book are worth mentioning. It traces the political history hidden by the concept of “feudalism,” but does not trace the political history hidden by the concept of “religion.” It offers no answer to the question of how to break the link between scholarship and politics without ending up in a logical impasse or reinforcing the link. It does not address the possibility that answering this question may require breaking with the terms of professional historical inquiry. Perhaps the question could be answered in terms like those that led Wittgenstein to characterize his Philosophical Investigations as remarks on the natural history of human beings.     

折中的“重估”

“重新估定一切价值”(Transvaluation of all Values),在1919年被胡适用以概括“新思潮的根本意义”,成为新文化运动的重要口号。该口号的提出本有特殊语境。一战后的中国思想界有了新的趋向,尊西趋新、反传统已不再具有类似“政治正确”的独尊地位,原本被尊崇的“欧化”、被否定的“国故”都面临重估。在此背景下,《新青年》派与《时事新报》同人关于“外国偶像”与“固有文化”的争论,成为傅斯年、胡适调整表述的契机,促使他们使用更折中、开放的口号——“重新估定一切价值”“整理国故”来回应对方质疑,并容纳多元的新派。在这一情境中提出及流行的“重新估定一切价值”具有多重属性:胡适在表述上统合种种不一致的新思潮,又暗藏其对中西文化的主张,并针对新兴的“主义”;因其开放性,它在流传中更被不同地理解与使用。这一口号的多重性体现出历史上的五四新文化运动比以往认知的更为丰富。     

1. PRETEXTURES OF TIME

Textures of Time is a rich and challenging book that raises a host of important and hard questions about historical narrative, form, and style; the sociology of texts; and the core problem of ascertaining historical truth. Two that pertain to the book's main claims are of special interest to nonspecialist readers: Is register or style—“texture”—necessarily and everywhere diagnostic of “history”? Does a new kind of “historical consciousness” emerge in south India beginning in the sixteenth century, indeed as a sign of an Indian early modernity?Textures is not the first book to argue that historical discourse is constitutively marked by a peculiar style, but the claim is beset by difficulties that scholars since Barthes have detailed. Rather than textures of time—accounts of what really happened in history—what these works offer us may be only pretextures of time, textualized forms of a human experience that make claims about its degrees and types of truth through representations of various states of temporality. Instead of assessing, then, whether these works are history or something else like “myth,” we might ask whether they invite us to transcend this very dichotomy, to try, that is, to make sense of historical forms of consciousness rather than to identify forms of historical consciousness. As for modernity, nothing in south Indian historiography from 1500–1800 remotely compares to the conceptual revolution of Europe. But why should we expect the newness of the early modern world to have been experienced the same way everywhere? Modernity across Asia may have shown simultaneity without symmetry. Should this asymmetry turn out to reveal continuity and not rupture, however, no need to lament the fact. There is no shame in premodernity.     

The May Fourth Movement as interpreted by the Chinese intelligentsia of the 1930s

Because of its intricate nature, the May Fourth Movement is bound to have been interpreted from a variety of angles with the passage of time. During the 1930s, the circle of Chinese intellectuals developed a diversity of interpretations that viewed the May Fourth Movement as, for example, a movement for personal liberty, an anti-feudal movement, a bourgeois cultural movement, or a movement of a quite complex character. In the meantime there also appeared the analogy of the May Fourth Movement to the Renaissance and Enlightenment. These interpretations – and analogies as well – actually imply the interpreters' own mentality and signify their own thinking. The concept of the May Fourth Movement conceived by one school of interpreters often changed with the actual needs of that school and hence turned out to be inconsistent. Nonetheless, the notions of the May Fourth Movement as fleshed out by different schools might also be seen to have something in common. Interpretations of this nature informed the essence of the May Fourth Movement and, to a further extent, displayed the trajectory and trend of history.     

Jihadism au rebours: Orientalism and Occidentalism for a Counter‐Hegemonic Liberation Theology

Following its colonial project, Western Europe imposed a political and cultural understanding of state nationalism and religious homogeneity on the entire world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In parallel with this twofold process, “Religious Nationalism” emerged during the Cold War, affecting the Middle East and framing an updated Abrahamic version of religious supremacism: Wahhabi Islam, the Iranian Revolution, and Israeli Orthodox Judaism were politically backed, becoming the frontrunners of a new Global‐Religious narrative of conflict. This article aims to critically analyse the Western‐Islamic manipulation of “Jihadism” as an artificial and fabricated product, starting from the “deconstruction” of Jihad–Jihadism as an anti‐hegemonic narrative. The anti‐colonial “Islamic” framework of resistance to the Empire (United States) has effectively adopted the same colonial methodology: using violence and sectarianism in trying to reach its goals. Is the Islamic Supremacist “narrative” more influenced by Western thought than by a real understanding of Islam? At the same time, this article aims to stress the historical reasons why the Arab world has been artificially affected by a peculiar form of “Religious Revanchism” which can be understood only if O. Roy's Holy Ignorance dialogues with Steve Biko's Consciousness in emphasising the need for an updated Islamic Liberation Theology.     

The Unfolding of Unreason: Javad Tabatabai's Idea of Political Decline in Iran

Javad Tabatabai, a leading theorist and historian of political thought in Iran, has presented a controversial theory regarding the causes of the decline of political thought and society in Iran over the last few centuries. His ideas on Iranian decline have affected the intellectual debates on modernity and democracy currently underway in Iran. Tabatabai's career-long research has revolved around this question: “What conditions made modernity possible in Europe and led to its abnegation in Iran?” He answers this question by adopting a “Hegelian approach” that privileges a philosophical reading of history on the assumption that philosophical thought is the foundation and essence of any political community and the basis for any critical analysis of it as well. This article critically engages with Tabatabai's ideas of “crisis,” and “decline” by challenging his exposition of the Persian tradition.     

Colonial exhibitions,hybrid architecture,and the interpretation of modernity in the Dutch East Indies

To gain more economic profit and strengthen its colonial power, the Dutch brought Western technologies and products to their colonies and organized colonial exhibitions, modeled on the successful international exhibitions in Europe. This article analyzes colonial exhibitions in the Dutch East Indies and the ways that Dutch architects used various local architectural forms for those ephemeral events to attract visitors and to modernize the colony. The empirical case study discusses hybrid architecture in the Dutch East Indies at three events: Pasar Gambir of Batavia, Jaarmarkt of Surabaya, and the 1914 Semarang Colonial Exhibition. Through analysis of archival and historical documents, I argue that the use of local architectural forms in colonial exhibitions helped the colonies to adapt to modernity and created places where local people could practice a Dutch lifestyle and create their own idea of modernity.     

Reviving China: Urban Reconstruction in Nanchang and the Guomindang National Revival Movement, 1932–37

This paper, the first examination of the urban reconstruction of Nanchang, headquarters of the New Life Movement during a period of “National Revival” from 1932–37, presents a fresh understanding of the Guomindang (GMD) New Life Movement. By framing the Nanchang urban reconstruction as an integral program of the New Life Movement, it challenges the established wisdom of the Movement’s mere focus on disciplining Chinese population without any agenda to materially transform Chinese life. By examining GMD engineering efforts to construct public infrastructure, this essay testifies to the Movement’s concrete impact on urban residents. In doing so, it offers a new conceptualization of the New Life Movement as a distinctive moment of Chinese modernity during a process of constructing new urban space in China’s interior cities. This paper also brings to light the ignored connection between the New Life Movement and the historical and ideological context of the GMD National Revival Movement. As the GMD leaders believed, a “new Nanchang” would regenerate a stable national culture and identity as a critique of capitalist modernization. By calling attention to the logic of overcoming modernity, the paper resituates the New Life Movement into cultural revival movements worldwide.     

A Transnational Feminist Critique of Queer Tourism

This article frames queer tourism through two lenses. First, I explore how queer tourism and queer spatiality occlude questions of gender and efface the varied modalities of travel, tourism, mobility, and space/place–making activities of women, especially with respect to queer women and lesbians. Second, I point out the neocolonial impulses of all queer travel by highlighting the colonial history of travel and tourism and the production of mobility through modernity, and vice versa. Following M Jacqui Alexander’s (1997) claim that white gay capital follows the path of white heterosexual capital, how are queer women, queers of color, and postcolonial lesbian and gays also implicated in this process? Through these questions I propose to think about queer tourism and space through theories of intersectionality. In other words, how do we acknowledge and theorize “difference” in queer spaces? How do multiple identities, intersectionality, and social differences make the construction of queer space impossible?     

Gender,Risk and Micro‐financial Subjectivities

Abstract: This article analyses the gendered contradictions of microfinance's celebrated “double bottom line” of social and financial impact. The example of microfinance is used to illustrate the gendered and colonial constructions of “risk” and “responsibility” that underpin neoliberalism and its gendered paradoxes. After revisiting the discursive critique of these terms, I draw on how indigenous women participating in a microfinance institution in Bolivia describe their experience to suggest how gendered ideas of risk and responsibility are framing their negotiation of and resistance to the market. While the gendered and colonial construction of risk creates dynamics that perpetuate indigenous women's exclusion from the market, the terms of the resistance and use of the intervention also challenge feminist critiques of neoliberal governmentality developed mostly with reference to advanced modernity and welfare regimes.