Monday, April 08, 2019

哈佛紀念五四百年 4/12-13會議談中國與世界



APRIL 12 @ 9:30 AM - APRIL 13 @ 5:30 PM


CGIS South, Tsai Auditorium (S010)
1730 Cambridge St 
Cambridge, MA 02138 United States

Full Program (with Abstracts)

Hosted by Harvard University
Organized by Harvard University & Wellesley College
Sponsored by: the Chiang Ching-Kuo Center for Sinology; National Taiwan University; the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard; the Harvard University Asia Center; the Harvard-Yenching Institute; and the Harvard Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations
APRIL 12, 2019
1730 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
CGIS-South Building, Tsai Auditorium
Welcome Remarks
David Der-wei Wang 王德威 (Harvard University)
Opening Remarks
Michael Szonyi 宋怡明 (Harvard University)
Keynote Speech
Rudolf Wagner (University of Heidelberg)
“Reconstructing May Fourth: The Role of Communication, Propaganda, and International Actors”
Introduced by Zhaoguang Ge 葛兆光 (Fudan University)
Coffee Break
Forum I: May Fourth and Cultural Mutation
Chair: Hsiao-t’i Li 李孝悌 (City University of Hong Kong)
Michael Hill (College of William and Mary)
“May Fourth and the Limits of Comparison” (五四时期与比较研究的界限)
At the end of the nineteenth century, intellectuals in Beijing, Cairo, Shanghai, and Beirut grappled with problems that were strikingly similar: How could the local written language transmit modern knowledge? How could classical learning be reconciled with “modern” (understood as Western) thought? What was the role of traditionally educated people in new educational and media institutions? And what authority should be granted to those who could translate and import modern knowledge? My current project investigates the surprising points of connection between two moments in history that are ordinarily seen as discrete, if not unique in world history. My talk will discuss the intergenerational conflict carried out by writers of the New Culture and Mary Fourth period and writers associated with the Diwān group in Egypt against their respective opponents. In their rejection of what they saw as older, hopelessly excessive and ornamented styles, these writers recast the work of the intellectual in ways that bear important resemblance to one another. Through a comparative analysis of these two movements, scholars might see new opportunities for understanding the May Fourth period beyond East Asia and beyond the East/West axis of comparison.
Tsuyoshi Ishii 石井剛 (The University of Tokyo)
What Did They Protest against? –– On the Possibility of the Reinterpretation of “Li” () in “May Fourth” Discourse
Lu Xun designated the feudalistic moral which he strongly opposed as “cannibalistic lijiao”. As a consequence of this, “lijiao” (禮教), or the Confucian moral code, became one of the central targets for criticism in the “May Fourth” New Culture Movement. “Li” in “lijiao” has been understood as a traditional moral convention system which oppressed individual human subjectivity and which was utilized by authoritarian governmental powers––even within the Republican era. However, recent research conducted by Michael Puett demonstrates an alternative interpretation of the concept that redefines it as a practice that possesses the power to transform mundane life. His unique interpretation invites us to re-examine the “May Fourth” discourse on “li” from alternative aspects. It also bears mentioning that a number of radical re-evaluations of “li” emerged contemporaneously with the New Culture Movement; some of which ought to be reconsidered alongside Puett’s interpretation. This paper will focus on discussions found in the monthly Guogu 國故 journal, and demonstrate how the authors provided new views on ancient meanings of “li”. In particular, it will shed light on how we can recognize in these views a clear academic lineage which stems back to 18th century evidential scholarship, and how this lineage came to undergird modern revolutionary thought that emerged in the early 20th century. Through this analysis, this paper will demonstrate a new side to the “May Fourth” Movement that could be conceived of as a “ritual revolution.”
鲁迅曾经将其所极力反对的封建道德称做“吃人的礼教”,使得“礼教”成为“五四”新文化运动中最主要的批判对象之一。“礼”概念作为一个传统道德因循系统,人们往往认为它压抑个人的主体性,也因此威权主义的政治权力也利用它为压迫人的工具。即使在民国时期仍为如此。但是,普鸣(Michael Puett)最近的研究给我们展示了“礼”概念的另类诠释,把它重新界定为一种实践模式:是拥有力量能够改变日常生活的实践。普鸣的独特解释可让我们试图从不同的侧面考量“五四”话语中的“礼”概念。同时,我们也应该关注一些“礼”概念的颠覆性新诠释也在新文化运动时期曾出现过,且其中也有些可以参考普鸣的诠释进行再思考的例子。本文将对《国故》月刊中的讨论加以关注,并描述该刊作者如何对“礼”的古义赋予了新的观点。特别是,本文将回溯18世纪的考据学,证明他们承接着其学术脉络,从而指出这条脉络实际上为20世纪早期的现代革命思想提供了理论基础。通过如上分析,本文将作为新的“五四”运动观提出“五四”作为“礼的革命”的观点。
Paola Iovene 叶纹 (University of Chicago)
“May Fourth @ 10: Looking Backward from 1929” (“五四十年)
This paper explores how the May Fourth looked like in 1929. Given the complexity of the May Fourth as a sociopolitical, cultural, and media process, I will look at how it was reimagined and its legacy contested in fictional and critical writings appearing ten years after the student protests of 1919. Tentatively, my discussion will focus on the “fake new” in Mao Dun’s novel Hong (Rainbow) and its critical reception. Scholars have long questioned the unity, coherence, and even the existence of the May Fourth as a movement, as a literary trend, and as a set of concepts or beliefs. Building on their work, I suggest that internal contradictions, hesitation, and self-critique were central to how 1920s writers dealt with the revolutionary potential of the May Fourth. Realism itself, one of the styles with which writers experimented at the time, was an expression rather than the overcoming of doubt. While this might not be a new insight per se, the point is to remember that the May Fourth went through denial and critique before being canonized as a pivotal moment in China’s modern literary history. Much scholarly work has gone into detailing the modernities that anticipated the May Fourth, on the one hand, and the strategies whereby radical intellectuals silenced their predecessors and opponents, on the other. New insights might emerge by looking at how the May Fourth itself was attacked by those most closely associated with it, in its immediate “post.”
Forum II: Revolution and Utopian Politics
Chair: Jie Li 李潔 (Harvard University)
Pu Wang 王璞 (Brandeis University)
“The May Fourth Mobility: Travel Writing, World Making, and Utopian Geography
(五四的流动性: 旅行书写,创造世界与乌托邦地理)
The May Fourth New Culture Movement was about mobility: the intellectual, cultural and ultimately sociopolitical mobility it unleashed, as is well known, led to a dramatic era of revolutionary mobilization. There was yet another dimension of mobility: the May Fourth generation was a generation that constantly travelled, in search of the “other” place, better place, and no place (that is, utopia as both eu-topia and u-topia), and left a wealth of travel writings that deal with this constant transit and search. In this presentation, I draw attention to the May Fourth mobility in the most literal sense of “movement” as traveling, and focus on the May Fourth tradition of travel literature as a form of making sense of the world and imagining utopian politics. The first trajectory I will follow is from Liang Qichao’s critique of European modernity in Ou you xin ying lu (Impressions from travels in Europe) to Zhou Zuoren’s essayistic account of his visit to Japan’s quasi-socialist commune Atarashiki-mura (New Village, established by Saneatsu Mushanokōji in Kyushu). In parallel to this was a literature in search of Soviet Russia, from Qu Qiubai’s E xiang ji cheng (Journey to the starving land) and Chi du xin shi (Record of the Heart in the red capital) to Hu Yuzhi’s Mosike yinxiang ji (Impressions of Moscow, 1931). I aim to show that May Fourth travel literature was premised on a cosmopolitan politics and responded to an urgency of reimagining global modernity. This new dynamic initiated an impassioned and enlightened search of utopian geopolitics in revolutionary Chinese literature and culture.
流动性向来是五四新文化运动的题中之意:众所周知,它所释放的知识、文化以及社会政治的流动性, 引领了一个属于革命动员的戏剧性时代。与此同时,流动性的另一面向却未能得到充分重视:五四一代是不断旅行的一代,不断求索“他方”,一个更好的所在,或不存在的异乡(所谓乌托邦“utopia”, 既是极乐之邦”eu-topia,”亦是乌有之乡”u-topia”)。他们留下了旅行书写的丰富遗产, 探讨永恒的过境与追寻。本文将把注意力投向字面意义上的“移动”——旅行的流动性,聚焦通过旅行书写理解世界、想象乌托邦政治的五四传统。我所要追踪的第一条线索,是从梁启超批判欧洲现代性的《欧游心影录》到周作人记叙他访问日本“新村” (武者小路实笃在九州创立的半社会主义公社)经历的散文。与此并存的,是一系列探寻苏俄的文字,从瞿秋白的《饿乡纪程》与《赤都心史》到胡愈之的《莫斯科印象记》(1931)。本文力图说明,五四旅行文学以世界主义政治为前提,回应了重新想象全球现代性的急迫需求。这一新的思想动态启动了中国革命文学文化中一次兼具澎湃热情与启蒙诉求的追寻乌托邦地缘政治之旅。
Andrew Rodekohr 若岸⾈ (Wake Forest University 維克森林⼤學)
Worlding May Fourth: Qu Qiubai’s Critique of Modern Chinese Literature
Of the prominent May Fourth writers and literary critics, Qu Qiubai was one of the rare few who actually participated in the protests in 1919. Qu would go on to become the most sophisticated Marxist literary theoretician in China and even served briefly as leader of the Chinese Communist Party. Following his political downfall, Qu devoted himself to questions on the role of literature in the context of revolutionary politics. One the primary targets of Qu’s forceful critique was the very legacy of the May Fourth Movement, which he viewed as irredeemably “Europeanized” and a failure of the literary elite to create literature for the masses. In this presentation, I attempt to trace the connections between Qu’s physical involvement in the May Fourth demonstrations of 1919 and the development of his later critique of the literary movement it spawned. In particular, I examine Qu’s complicated relationship with mass politics and literary criticism alongside his own end-of-life articulation of his own literary identity as a wenren, a figure of traditional Chinese literatus. Qu, in this way, manifests a critical self-awareness that situates modern Chinese literature in the incomplete process of becoming Chinese.
瞿秋⽩作為重要的,為數不多的參加1919年五四運動的,五四⽂學批評家及作家。 在中國他成為了⾒多識廣的⾺克思⽂學理論家,甚⾄短暫地擔任了中國共產黨的領導。隨著他政治上的衰敗,瞿秋⽩致⼒於審視⽂學在⾰命政策中的⾓⾊。瞿秋⽩的強有⼒評論的重要目標之⼀是五四運動的遺產,他認為五四運動的遺產被不可輓回地“歐洲化”了,並且⽂學精英為⼤眾創作⽂學是⼀種失敗。在講演中,我會嘗試追尋瞿秋⽩在1919年五四運動的切⾝參與與他後期⽂學批評發展的產⽣之間的聯繫。特別要分析瞿的主要政治觀點和⽂學批評以及他在⽣命後期將⾃⼰的⽂學⾝份定位為中國的傳統⽂⼈之間的關係。從這點看來,瞿顯⽰了他在“⽣成”中國⽂學未完成的過程中的⾃我批評意識。
Xiaojue Wang 王晓珏 (Rutgers University)
“Feng Zhi and the Poetics of Landscape in May Fourth Literature”
This paper examines modern Chinese literature’s engagement with the poetics of landscape and how it mediates and meditates on the relationship between human beings and things, poetry and nature, physical and metaphysical worlds. I first compare various May Fourth writers’ renditions of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s nature poems to consider their notions of the cosmos, nature, and landscape poetry. I will then discuss Feng Zhi (1905-1993)’s 1940s reflections in wartime Kunming on issues including the romantic notion of landscape and its antipastoral counterpart, the mutual formation and transformation between the poetic self and nature, the poetic figuration and signification of nature, and the rhetoric of temporality in landscape poetry.
Weijie Song 宋伟杰 (Rutgers University 罗格斯大学)
“Shamanistic Narrative, Fragmentary Redemption: Imagining Northeast China Beyond the Great Wall” (的历史,残缺的救赎:关外,飞地,东北想象)
How do we explore the geographical and territorial dimensions of May Fourth Movement and its legacy? How do we understand the recent return of superstition narrative and shamanistic performance within and without the framework of May Fourth enlightenment and revolution? This paper examines Northeast China (Dongbei, Manchu, Manchuria, and Manchukuo) as an aesthetic and ideological heterotopia and “non-place” beyond the Shanhai Pass and the Great Wall evidenced in the Twenty-First Century literary and cinematic representations. By focusing on the methods of imagining Dongbei envisioned and practiced by distinctive writers (Chi Zijian, Liu Qing, Shuang Xuetao, Zheng Zhi, Jiang Feng, and Ban Yu), and maverick film directors (Wang Bing, Fruit Chan, Zhang Meng, Han Jie, Diao Yinan, Hu Bo, and Cai Chengjie), I inquire into their connected and bifurcated shamanistic narrative and/or fragmentary redemption, as well as their subtle and intricate entanglements with the May Fourth tradition and its discontents.
如何思考“五四”传统及遗产的地理分布与地域形态?在 “五四”运动“启蒙”与“革命”的话语之内与之外,怎样理解近期迷信叙述、萨满表演的归来及其涵义?本论文探讨当代文学电影中作为关外、飞地、“非”地的东北,既是叙述和记忆的对象,也是想象与再现的场景。通过解读若干特立独行的作家(迟子建、刘庆、双雪涛、郑执、蒋峰、班宇等)、以及先锋电影导演(王兵、张猛、陈果、韩杰、刁亦男、胡波、蔡成杰等)的东北想象,笔者试图辨析他们相关亦分叉的文字、影像路径——书写并展演有“灵”的历史,残缺的救赎——从而探讨二十一世纪有关东北的文学、电影图景,及其与“五四”思想斩不断理还乱的纠葛与变异。
Coffee Break
Forum III: May Fourth and the West
Chair: Ha Jin 哈金 (Boston University)
Olga Lamová (Charles University, Prague)
“From periphery to periphery – the beginnings of ex libris in China”
(从边缘到边缘 - 中国藏书票的开端)
Since 1980s ex-libris (cangshupiao 藏書票) has been a popular form of art and art-collecting practice in China. Despite of that it remains at the margins of literary and cultural history of modern China. The paper will look for the beginnings of the ex-libris practice among May Fourth generation writers in early 1930s around the Xiandaijournal, tracing the introduction of the art from Europe via Japan, and its conceptualization in relationship to domestic tradition of book collecting. It will also touch upon the marginality of ex-libris in China at that time, unlike its broad popularity in Japan. The case will be framed in three sets of more general issues: 1) uneasy relationship between domestic tradition and the impulses coming from the west; 2) self-positioning of the May Fourth generation authors vis-à-vis Chinese tradition and western modernity, including ways of legitimizing a new practice; 3) the travel and circulation of western ideas in East Asia. The last issue also touches upon the often-neglected diversity of the notion of “the west”, generally understood through the centers in Europe and U.S., as it will point out to important presence of impulses from European periphery.
Jingling Chen (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne)
“Under the Greek Sunshine: Zhou Zuoren in May Fourth”
This paper looks into Zhou Zuoren’s unique position in the New Culture Movement through reflecting on his translation of the Greek poet Theocritus’s work and his literary thought associated with his admiration for the Greek antiquity. Zhou first joined force with the New Youth cultural reformers in 1918 when he published “A New Translation of an Old Poem,” a vernacular free-verse rendition of Theocritus’s Idyll 10, in addition to a short introduction. This piece demonstrates Zhou’s commitment to a literary revolution that first of all focuses on the usage of a new vernacular literary discourse. This commitment was combined with his earlier efforts to seek a revolution in thought together with his elder brother Lu Xun.
On the other hand, Zhou Zuoren’s choice of translating Theocritus also shows his more sophisticated cultural thought that points to a richer meaning of literature than merely serving the purposes of the Enlightenment, revolution, and the change to the nation’s intellectual outlook. In the ancient Greek poet’s idylls, Zhou Zuoren believed that he found the “real spirit of the Greek”—a combination of worldliness and aestheticism—that would teach a life responsible and dignified in this-world, for the Greek and the Chinese alike. During the May Fourth period, Zhou Zuoren was one of the few intellectuals who felt compelled to appreciate the joys of the daily life, the pleasure of writing about it, and the strength of a national literature that is deeply seated in folklore and folklife.
本文針對周作人對古希臘詩人谛阿克列多思”(Theocritus 今譯忒奥克里托斯)的翻譯、對古希臘的崇拜及其有關的文學思想的研究,而重新審視周在五四新文化運動中的特殊地位。
Xiaolu Ma 马筱璐 (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology香港科技大学)
“Translingual Negotiation and Concession: Relay Translation of Turgenev’s Stories in New Youth” (跨语际协商与让步:《新青年》中屠格涅夫小说的转译)
This paper focuses on the early translations published in New Youth, one of the leading periodicals in the New Culture Movement in China. While extant research mostly focuses on this journal’s iconoclastic and radical arguments that prepared the way for the May Fourth Movement in 1919, this paper examines the period before Chen Duxiu, the founder of New Youth, raised the banner of literary revolution. By interrogating the concealed history of relay translations of fiction, especially translation of Turgenev’s stories by Chen Gu, published in New Youth, this paper unfolds various approaches Chinese translators took in presenting Western culture—sometimes involving unexpected processes of localization due to Japanese mediation. Specifically, I argue that the early translations in New Youth formed an interstitial space of hybridity where writers negotiate among different visions of transcultural syntheses.
3:50 – 4:10
Coffee Break
Roundtable I: May Fourth Isn’t Yesterday
Chair: Catherine Yeh (Boston University)
Xia Xiaohong                 (Peking University)
Chia-ling Mei                 (National Taiwan University)
Hsiao-t’i Li                     (City University of Hong Kong)
Dai Yan                         (Fudan University)
Wen-ching Li                 (Nagoya University)
Aki Tsumori                   (Kobe City University of Foreign Studies)
6:30 – 9:00
Symposium Dinner (Participants only)
APRIL 13, 2019
Keynote Speech
Chen Pingyuan 陳平原 (Peking University)
“From ‘Touches of History’ to ‘Exercises in Thought’: My Views on May Fourth and May Fourth Studies” (触摸历史思想操练”——我看五四以及五四研究)
Introduced by Olga Lomová (Charles University, Prague)
Coffee Break
Forum IV: May Fourth and Korea and Japan
Chair: Leonard K.K. Chan 陳國球 (Hong Kong Institute of Education)
Zhaoguang Ge 葛兆光 (Fudan University)
“From ‘Imperial Realm’ to ‘National Territory’: Japanese Aggression and Chinese Responses to the Question of “Sovereignty” before the May Fourth Period”
This essay first discusses an article titled "The Future of China" by Japanese thinker Kazumi Ukita (1860-1946). In the few years before the May Fourth Movement, the explosion of discussions regarding China’s preservation and fragmentation in Japan alarmed and shocked Chinese society, from laymen to elite intellectuals. The historical era extending from the late Qing Dynasty to the beginning of the Republic of China was a critical moment for China’s transition from traditional imperial territory to the sovereignty of the modern state. Therefore, the focus of the political and academic debates shifted from “self-strengthening” during the late-Qing to the “preserving national territory” in the early Republican period. In the years before the May Fourth Movement, the awakening of modern Chinese consciousness regarding the frontiers was inseparable from the pressure of the Japanese political aggression. The resources for understanding the history of the four ethnic groups were also closely related to Mongolian studies in Japan. The complicated relationship with Japan was a source for the idea of ​​"national salvation" before the May Fourth Movement.
     At the end of this paper, I try to put forward the argument it is legitimate for previous scholarship to use "enlightenment" and "national salvation" to describe the May Fourth Movement. I only suggest reversing the order of "enlightenment" and "national salvation." In other words, the May Fourth Movement was triggered by the combination of national sentiments and new cultural enlightenment.
Satoru Hashimoto橋本悟 (University of Maryland 馬里蘭大學)
“Reverberations of the May Fourth in Japan” (五四在日本的迴響)
The Treaty of Versailles handed a political victory to the nascent state of Japan, and the immediate response of the Japanese public opinion to the May Fourth Movement was generally denunciatory and loaded with calls for protecting the hard-won “national interests” from the protesters. However, Japan’s political win in post-World War I international relations also meant that the nation had become fully complicit in the very injustice of imperialism with which it had grappled in its ongoing quest for modernization. This ironic contradiction made the May Fourth resonate with certain Japanese intellectuals as a call for self-reflection on Japanese modernity in particular and, above all, for a structural critique of modernity in general. My paper is an attempt at gleaning such reverberations in both pre- and post-1945 Japan. It especially focuses on works by Yoshino Sakuzō (1878-1933) and Takeuchi Yoshimi (1910-77) and explores how the conceptual and affective implications of the May Fourth were disseminated in their writings.
BoGyeong Lee (Kangwon National University)
“The New Era and Its Affects: The March First Sympathy and the May Fourth Shame”
Intellectuals in Korea and China named the year 1919 as the New Era. The name helped to define the March First and the May Fourth movements, which became benchmarks for the advance of modernity in both countries. This essay explores how “affect” inspired the collective movements in the context of a broader hope for the New Era. Texts for my analysis include newspaper and magazine articles, Yi Kwangsu’s novel Mujŏng (The Heartless, 1917) and Lu Xun’s short story “Kuangren riji” (A Madman’s Diary, 1918). The Chinese intellectuals viewed the March First movement with a sense of shame, whereas the Korean intellectuals sympathized with the Chinese students struggling for the May Fourth movement. Sympathy and shame are the two major forms of affect found respectively in The Heartless and “A Madman’s Diary.” The Koreans in the colonial state developed a sense of national solidarity by expressing sympathy for the weak, which ultimately led them to organize a peaceful movement based in a broader love for humanity. On the other hand, a feeling of shame for their divided homeland inspired the Chinese to grapple with tradition and establish a new culture.
Younghwan Park 朴永煥 (Dongguk University韓國東國大學)
“The Tragic Life of Independence Activist and Businessman Og GwanbinHis Role in the
‘105 People Incident’, the ‘March-First Movement’, and His Exile Period in Shanghai”
(獨立運動家兼事業家玉觀彬悲劇的一生——“105人事件“3.1運動”, 上海亡命時期為中心)
Og Gwanbin (1891-1933), a Korean independence activist, was sentenced to jail by the Japanese colonial government for his involvement in “105 People Incident”, a predominantly Christian nationalist movement in 1911. This movement had laid the bedrock for the "March-First Movement" of 1919 for national independence. After he became disengaged from the "March-First Movement" group due to his previous convictions, Og rushed to Shanghai as an exile where he got involved with the Korean interim government. Afterwards, Og converted to Buddhism and became a disciple of Master Taixu. Their collaboration aimed at the reformation of Buddhism, while Og’s medical company Fo Ci (佛慈) commercialized the improvement of the Chinese medicine adapting scientific methods of refining treatments. However, Korean anarchist clique suspected Og of espionage for the Japanese and assassinated him in public. His complicated life was overshadowed by changing identities: from Korean nationalist to Chinese citizen by choice, from Christian agitator to Buddhist reformist, and from independence activist to suspected traitor of his native Korea. Foregrounding Og Gwanbin’s changing roles, this paper aims to reconcile partisan debates between Chinese and Korean scholars, each claiming the resourceful innovator for their nation.
Lunch (CGIS-S030)
Forum V: May Fourth and the Sinophone World
Chair: Chia-ling Mei 梅家玲 (National Taiwan University)
Josephine Chiu-Duke 丘慧芬 (The University of British Columbia)
“The May Fourth Liberal Legacy in Taiwan” (五四的自由遺產在台灣)
This essay discusses how the May Fourth liberal legacy, with democracy being one of its most advocated slogans, was carried forward in Taiwan through the efforts of the Free China Bi-monthly, but my focus is on the efforts of Yin Haiguang and his student in their pursuit of liberal democracy. Calling himself “the son of the May Fourth,” Yin advocated liberal democracy as the only way to resist the then dictatorial rule within Taiwan and the threat of totalitarian rule from without.
Although the tragic fate of Yin Haiguang and the Free China magazine did not bring victory for the May Fourth liberal ideals, Yin’s liberal ideals resurfaced in the works of his student Lin Yu-sheng. Since 1980, Lin has modified, clarified, and corrected many of Yin Haiguang’s ideas and understanding of liberal democracy. He has also given a sophisticated interpretation of some of the basic values pertinent to the development of liberal democracy. His interpretation is such that he can be regarded as the first intellectual who put forward a coherent system of arguments for liberal democracy that continues the May Fourth liberal legacy. This is not only crucial to the establishment of liberal democracy in the Sinophone world, but also relevant to the development of other democratic societies.
Eitetsu Ko (Ying-che Huang) 黃英哲 (Aichi University, Japan)
“Revisiting Cultural Genealogy: May Fourth's Circulation and Continuation in Taiwan”
        As a symbol of democracy, new science culture, and new baihua literature, the May Fourth movement is also a significant token of Chinese cultural, political and social transformations. In recent years, Taiwan has intended to include it in the discussion of Republican memories.
        In the early Japanese colonial period, the Beijing Normal University study-abroad student Zhang Wojun had said, “Taiwan's literature is a branch of Chinese literature. As influences and changes take place in the mainstream, it goes without saying that the branch is subsequently influenced and therefore changes.” “But ever since Taiwan was subjugated by Japan, it has been a completely different world as the circulation of Chinese books became inconvenient. And this gap only deepened over time. There came the introduction and advocacy of the May Fourth movement, and the movement became one of the many branches of the Taiwanese stream.” Wu Yongfu, the Taiwanese writer who attended Meiji University in Japan at that time, recalled in the post-war era: “Many people like to stress the influence of China's May Fourth movement on Taiwanese literature during the Japanese occupation, but they overemphasize it and I cannot agree; at least, when we were publishing Formosa(a literary journal founded by Taiwanese students in Tokyo), we weren't influenced by it.”
        This presentation attempts to recount how the May Fourth movement appeared in Taiwan during Japanese occupation, as well as how it was continued and adapted in Taiwan's cultural reconstruction in the early days of retrocession.
Chia-Cian Ko 高嘉謙 (National Taiwan University)
“Woodcut and Warrior: The Legacy of Lu Xun's Woodcuts and Miscellaneous Writings in South Seas” (刀刻與戰士:魯迅在南洋的木刻與雜文遺產)
        On October 19, 1936, as the news of Lu Xun's death spread, the artistic and literary circles of Singapore and Malaya sank deep into mourning. Among the group, Malayan artist Dai Yinlang (1907-1985) published a woodcut portrait of Lu Xun in Singapore newspaper Nanyang Siangpau to pay homage to the late writer. In the woodcut world, Dai Yinren's succession of Lu Xun's spirit represents another inheritance of Lu Xun's spiritual legacy in Singapore and Malaya. Between the years of 1931-1935, Dai Yinlang studied Western arts at the Shanghai National Academy of Art and keenly felt the popularity of Chinese woodcuts as well as Lu Xun's support for young woodcut artists. In the early days of his return to Nanyang to promote woodcut and comic arts, he exhibited a profound woodcut spirit -- "depicting the multi-faceted conflicts of reality through the sharp touch of his knife," echoing Lu Xun's teachings from afar. Besides exposing the cruelties of society, Dai Yinlang's woodcuts are also close to people's daily lives and incorporated expressions of Nanyang’s landscapes and local flavors; his art records reality, subtly embodying what Lu Xun calls "the soul of the modern society."
        Besides woodcuts, the legacy of Lu Xun's spirit has left considerable impact on Malayan Chinese miscellaneous writings and essays. The important local literary scholar Fang Xiu is exclusively keen on Lu Xun's militant and critical miscellaneous writings, and subsequently called for "militant essays" in the 50s to bridge wartime art and literature, as well as to echo Malaya's independence from the British Empire in 1957 by paying attention to the native land at the present moment. Lu Xun's death helped to foster anticolonial resistance movements among the Chinese in Singapore and Malaya; they responded to China’s anti-war efforts, the British occupation of Singapore and Malaya, as well as calls to build an independent nation during the Cold War era. There have been countless commemoration ceremonies for and special journal issues on Lu Xun's death in the past decades in Singapore and Malaysia; Lu Xun's integrity and militancy is his most distinct spiritual legacy. From the prewar woodcuts to the postwar militant essays, the May Fourth role model and Left-wing spirit embodied by Lu Xun occupy a unique and significant place in the nationalistic consciousness of Singapore and Malaysia’s Chinese communities.
1936年10月19日魯迅病逝消息傳出,新馬藝文界陷入悼念的氛圍。其中馬來亞畫家戴隱郎(1907-1985) 於新加坡創刊主編的《南洋商報‧文漫界》,以個人創作的魯迅木刻畫像,向逝世不久的魯迅致敬。在木刻世界裡,戴隱郎對魯迅木刻精神的繼承和跟隨,代表了魯迅精神遺產在新馬的另一種傳承。戴隱郎曾於1931-35年間到上海國立藝專學習西洋美術,感受中國木刻風潮與魯迅對青年木刻藝術家的支持。他返回新馬推廣木刻和漫畫之初,他透露的木刻精神底蘊,「藉尖銳的刀觸,去劃出現實的諸般矛盾面」,遙遙呼應魯迅的教誨。除了暴露社會殘酷面,戴隱郎的木刻貼近大眾的現實生活,接引南洋風土與地方色彩的表達,寫實兼記錄,隱然表現魯迅指稱的「現代社會的魂魄」。
除了木刻,魯迅精神遺產在馬華雜文與散文領域影響甚鉅。當地重要文史工作者方修,獨尊魯迅的戰鬥性與批判性雜文,進而於50年代高呼「戰鬥的散文」,接軌抗戰文藝,也呼應馬來亞1957 年獨立建國,著眼眼前鄉土的此時此地。自魯迅離世,直接鼓動了新馬華人社會從響應中國抗戰、新馬淪陷,以及戰後冷戰氛圍下抗英反殖民的獨立建國力量。新馬兩地數十年無數的魯迅逝世週年紀念會和紀念專號,魯迅的硬骨與鬥爭形象是最為鮮明的精神遺產。從戰前的木刻藝術,到戰後的戰鬥散文,魯迅代表的五四典範和左翼精神,在新馬華人民族意識裡佔據了獨特而深刻的意義。
Hok-yin Chan 陳學然 (City University of Hong Kong 香港城市大學)
“May Fourth” in Hong Kong: Local Voices in Commemorating a National Event”
It is well known that the May Fourth Movement was full of ambiguity and tension. On the one hand, the term refers to a one-day incident where thousands of students marched through Beijing on the May Fourth of 1919 to protest the unequal treatment of China in the Versailles Settlement. On the other hand, the same term signifies a decade-long movement, from 1915 to 1925, to promote “science” and “democracy” by changing the Chinese language, the Confucian tradition, and the patriarchal family structure. Because of its multiple meanings, different groups commemorate the May Fourth for different reasons. Sometimes, opposing groups use the commemoration to contest for power, discursively or politically.
In this paper, I will focus on how the educated elite in colonial Hong Kong had used the commemoration of May Fourth to express their local voices. Started immediately after the May Fourth incident in 1919, every year there was a commemoration of the May Fourth in Hong Kong, sometimes in the form of public gatherings and often on the pages of newspapers and magazines. In these commemorations, we see the creativity of the Hong Kong educated elite in transformation the remembering of the May Fourth into a critique of national and local politics. Their creativity, I argue, rested in their ability to use the rhetoric of national salvation to address pressing local issues, such as racial hierarchy, the colonial structure, and the identity of Chinese residents. In this fusion of the local and national narratives, we see the dynamic process of constructing and reconstructing the “May Fourth memory” that lasts to the present day.
Coffee Break
Forum VI: Contesting the May Fourth Anew
Chair: Karen Thornber (Harvard University)
Leonard K.K. Chan 陳國球 (Education University of Hong Kong)
“The Shape of the New Culture Movement in Hong Kong” (新文化運動的香港身影)
This presentation focuses on Yuan Zhenying’s (1894-1979) contribution to the “May-fourth New Culture Movement”, It suggests that Yuan’s advocacy of Ibsenism, anarchism and socialism, as well as his competence in foreign languages were the result of his upbringing in Hong Kong under British rule.
Carlos Rojas 羅鵬 (Duke University)
“Tradition and Diaspora: From Lu Xun to Ng Kim Chew”
Published in 1924, Lu Xun’s short story “Benediction” (Zhufu 祝福) describes the quasi-autobiographical narrator’s return to the town of Luchen, which he regards as his “native place” (guxiang 故鄉)—though he immediately notes that “although I call it my native place, I had had no home there for some time.” Meanwhile, just over ninety years later, in 2015, Malaysian Chinese author Ng Kim Chew 黃錦樹 published a short story with the same title, which opens with a similarly curious homecoming scene—in which the adult narrator arrives in Kuala Lumpur from mainland China, bringing her father’s ashes back to the country that he had viewed as his homeland but to which he had be prevented from returning for the latter half of his life. Taking these two identically-titled stories as its starting point, this paper will reflect on the status of concepts of homeland and tradition within May Fourth discourses, together with the subsequent diasporic circulation of those discourses themselves.
Mingwei Song 宋明煒 (Wellesley College)
“Can We Read ‘A Madman’s Diary’ as Science Fiction? The Literalness in Science Fiction and A Cognitive Alternate to Realism”
The question I asked here does not demand an answer that either defines “A Madman’s Diary” as science fiction or not. My inquiry aims at an unconventional reading of Lu Xun’s story as a text that tells us what differentiates science fiction from the mainstream realism of modern China. Science fiction used to be considered as the opposite of realism; but the recent revival of the genre claims that science fiction is a sort of realism, a hyperrealism that augments the sense of reality. For example, Han Song’s novels illuminate the invisible reality of contemporary Chinese society, and create a surreal vision of augmented reality that challenges the popular belief in a series of ideas that construct conventional knowledge about realty, ranging from epistemology to psychology to ideology. Han Song actually learns from Lu Xun, who was an early advocate for science fiction before the May Fourth, not only through rewriting Lu Xun’s literary themes such as cannibalism, iron house, saving children, etc., but he also reconstructs Lu Xun’s literary techniques as some basic principles for science fiction. “A Madman’s Diary” contains two conflicting views on reality: based on the literalness of the madman’s discourse, China is a nation of cannibalism; but conventions veil the literalness with various cultural symbolism, so Confucianism could make cannibalism (if there is any) a benevolent part of a civilized life. Science fiction is a literary genre whose grammar, rhetoric, and style are built on the literalness of it scientific, technological discourse. It leads to an inconvenient revelation of deeper truth beneath the surface reality. In “A Madman’s Diary,” if readers choose to believe the madman’s words, they have to go through a cognitive correction about the accepted ideas of the tradition; for them, the reality is no longer the familiar associated with organic society, but instead a cognitively estranged world that shows to them the inconvenient but necessary truth about the world. In other words, the literalness in science fiction paves way for a cognitive alternative to conventional realism. Still this paper does not provide a conclusive statement about the generic nature of “A Madman’s Diary,” but it is my hope to use this famous example to provoke reflections on the poetics of science fiction as a subversive, cognitively alternative literature vs. the mainstream realism as a law-making, truth-claiming literature. Readers have to go through a cognitive corrective in order to come to the revelation about the truth of the world, as “A Madman’s Diary” and many contemporary Chinese science fiction have shown to us. In this sense, although May Fourth saw the disappearance of SF as a genre, its groundbreaking literary work “A Madman’s Diary” outlines the unique poetics of the new wave of Chinese science fiction that prevailed one hundred years after the May Fourth.
Carlos Yu-Kai Lin 林毓凱 (University of Pennsylvania 賓州大學東亞系)
“‘May Fourth Studies’ and Its Contemporary Challenges” (五四研究在美國的興起與衰落)
The question about how to interpret the nature of May Fourth Movement has been at the center of many debates concerning the development of Chinese history, culture, and politics. Yet the studies of “May Fourth” had met with new challenges in the twenty-first century due to a number of reasons. First, the movement became a subject of studies in the U.S. in the 1960s, in which scholars began to inquire into the nature and rise of Chinese communism. A key question debated at the time is whether the movement is responsible for, or analogous to, Chinese Cultural Revolution. The rise of “May Fourth studies” is thus essentially a reaction to the Cold War in the 1960s and 70s, a political situation that is very different from today’s world. Second, many slogans and key ideas once associated with the movement such as anti-imperialism, anti-traditionalism, science and democracy had gradually lost their critical edge in reflecting as well as addressing the political reality of contemporary China, which is no longer a small and weak nation struggling for survival but a formidable power on a global stage. The ethos of patriotism and nationalism that the movement once embodied thus lost its necessity under the new circumstances. Third, the recent trend of Sinophone studies have also challenged the literary paradigm laid by the May Fourth writers. While the former embraces the value of dialects and articulates a de-centered perspective on Chinese culture at large, the latter envisions a standardization and nationalization of Chinese language and literature. The ultimate different visions of the two discursive paradigms thus warrant our consideration. In face of these challenges, I argue that the primary task for intervening “May Fourth studies” is to designate a set of new keywords to reshape and redefine the field. It is also imperative to perceive and present May Fourth Movement as not only a cultural-political symbol of China, but also a relatable example of modern knowledge production that can be used and reflected upon in other fields of studies.
Coffee Break
Roundtable II: From May Fourth to the Beyond
Chair: Ellen Widmer (Wellesley College) & David Der-wei Wang (Harvard University)
Kyle Shernuk, Jessica Tan, Tu Hang, Dingru Huang, Fangdai Chen, Jannis Chen, Peng Hai, Michael O’Krent, Yingchun Fan, Nan Qu, Joel Wing-Lun, Casey Stevens
Dinner Reception (participants only)

An international symposium to celebrate and reflect upon the monumental legacy of China’s May Fourth movement.
Chan, Leonard K.K.
Chan, Hok Yin
Chen Jingling
Chen Pingyuan
Chiu-Duke, Josephine
Dai Yan
Ge Zhaoguang
Hashimoto, Satoru
Hill, Michael
Hockx, Michel
Iovene, Paola
Ishii Tsuyoshi
Ko Cia-cian
Ko Eitetsu (Huang Ying-che)
Lee, BoGyeong
Li Jie
Li Wen-ching
Lin, Carlos Yu-Kai
Lomova, Olga
Ma Xiaolu
Mei, Chia-ling
Park, Younghwan
Pu Wang
Rodekohr, Andrew
Rojas, Carlos
Song Mingwei
Song Weijie
Thornber, Karen
Wang, David
Wang Xiaojue
Wagner, Rudolf
Widmer, Ellen
Xia Xiaohong
Yeh, Catherine
The event is sponsored by the following institutions: the Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange, the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University, the Harvard University Asia Center, and the Harvard-Yenching Institute.
This event is open to the public.


April 12 @ 9:30 am
April 13 @ 5:30 pm


Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies


CGIS South, Tsai Auditorium (S010)
1730 Cambridge St 
Cambridge, MA 02138 United States

No comments:

Post a Comment