Li Weiwu

The year 2014 marks the 95th anniversary of the May Fourth Movement. As a landmark event in Chinese history, its significance has continued to prompt reflection and debate among Chinese intellectuals for nearly a century.

In the years immediately following the breakout of the movement, Chinese intellectuals generally had little debate on the impact of the May Fourth Movement. Even scholars who took completely different stances on the New Culture Movement held similar views toward the May Fourth Movement.

Composing a letter to “Overseas Comrades of the Kuomintang” in January 1920, Sun Yat-sen wrote “Ever since students at Peking University initiated the May Fourth Movement, every typical patriotic youth has adopted revolutionary thinking, and is preparing for the future revolutionary cause... Domestic public opinion has sounded in unison with the students. New publications have been launched by passionate young people. This kind of new culture movement is indeed an unprecedented change among today’s Chinese intellectuals.” In the 1930s, Chinese intellectuals began taking different opinions on the movement. Broadly, these stances can be divided into three categories.

The first is that of Chinese Marxists represented by Mao Zedong. On the 20th anniversary of the May Fourth Movement, Mao Zedong published “The May Fourth Movement” and “The Direction for Youth Movements”. An important participant in the movement and a major leader of the CPC, Mao praised the movement highly in “On New Democracy”, observing that “its outstanding historical significance is to be seen in a feature which was absent from the Revolution of 1911, namely, its thorough and uncompromising opposition to imperialism as well as to feudalism.” The liberals, represented by Hu Shi, offered a second opinion. Hu Shi attributed this sort of fracturing within the New Culture Movement to the influence of the May Fourth Movement. In his view, the latter interfered with the natural development of the New Culture Movement, ultimately stymieing its effectiveness. A third opinion takes an even more extreme stance against the May Fourth Movement, and has been embraced by Mainland Chinese scholars during the last three decades, including both liberalist and cultural conservatives. The former group departs from Hu Shi’s interpretations, but takes his objections even further by advocating that the movement not only hampered the New Culture Movement, but altogether misled the course of Chinese history.

In recent years, the “the regressive May Fourth” interpretation, claiming that the whole movement interrupted China’s enlightenment and therefore constitutes a regression, has become prevalent. Why have these differing viewpoints emerged? Some say this is the result of inadequate knowledge, or a lack of respect for historical facts. In fact, historians have long conducted very thorough research on the movement. Evaluating its aftermath and merit is not merely about establishing the historical facts of the movement, however, but also about reflecting on the direction in which China should move.

The May Fourth Movement was not just a tremendous patriotic movement started by students; it helped spread Marxism throughout China for the first time. The CPC, the leading pioneer of the Chinese working class, entered the historical stage, bringing monumental changes to China for the following 95 years. The significance of the movement continues to be revealed gradually as Chinese history progresses.

The contrasting viewpoints express more than diverging academic interpretations; they are directly related to the choices China makes regarding its future path and its social institutions. While we certainly need vigorous academic debate, we cannot make disruptive mistakes in our choices.

 Li Weiwu is a professor from the School of Philosophy at Wuhan University.
 
The Chinese version appeared in Chinese Social Sciences Today, No. 582, April 10, 2014

Translated by Jiang Hong

Revised by Charles Horne