Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Contemporary Chinese Literature: From the Cultural Revolution to the Future (review)

Contemporary Chinese Literature: From the Cultural Revolution to the Future (review) Reviews 237 YibingHuang.Contemporary Chinese Literature: From the Cultural Revolution to the Future. NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2007.x,219pp. $90.00,isbn13:978-1-4039-7982-7;isbn10:1-4039-7982-0. Contemporary Chinese Literature: From the Cultural Revolution to the Futureputs forthaninsightfulandoriginalapproachtothestudyofcontemporaryChinese literature,butisatthesametimemarredwithaglaringtheoreticallapseonitskey operativeconcept:bastard.Thisword,andattimestheterm"culturalbastards,"is usedtocharacterizethosecontemporaryChinesewriterswhohavelivedthrough theMaoera--agroupthatbasicallyincludesthemajorityofChinesewriters whoseworksrepresentthecorpusofwhatisrecognizedascontemporaryChinese literature.Tousesuchaprovocativewordcertainlycanattractattention.However, withoutsufficientlyelaboratingonhowthisword-as-conceptcameaboutinthe contextofmodern/contemporaryChineseliteratureandculture,andwithout teasingoutthemanyimplicationsandconfusionsinherentintheworditself, YibingHuangalsomakesitexceedinglydifficultforthisreadertoovercomethe naggingskepticismwhenevertheauthorevokes"bastards"or"culturalbastards" to discussthegenerationthatsurvivedtheMaoera:CuiJian(b.1961),DuoDuo (b.1951),WangShuo(b.1958),ZhangChengzhi(b.1948),WangXiaobo (b. 1952)--theartistandwritersthatHuangdiscussesindepthinthisbook.To giveamorecomprehensiveview,thelistincludesBeiDao(b.1949),ZhangYimou (b.1951),CanXue(b.1953),HanShaogong(b.1953),GuCheng(b.1956),MoYan (b.1956),YuHua(b.1960),SuTong(b.1963),GeFei(b.1964),andsoon. Incallingthesewritersandartists"bastards"or"culturalbastards,"Huangis atonceclaimingthemtobeillegitimate,false,spurious,counterfeit,andhybrid. Withoutgettingintothemeaningsofeachofthesewordsandtheirpossible implications(andcomplications),weonlyneedtopointouttheirantonymsto immediatelyputHuang'soperativeconceptinjeopardy:legitimate,true,genuine, authentic,andoriginal.Hence,wemustaskthisquestion:Whatqualifiesaslegitimate,true,genuine,authentic,andoriginalcultureorliterature?Or,toputit bluntly,isitevenpossibletodefinesuchacultureorliteraturewithoutfallingback onracialfundamentalismandextremenationalism?Huang,however,seemsto implythatChinesecultureonlybegantobastardizesincethenineteenthcentury asWesternthoughtsandproductsfloodedintoChinaandeventuallyculminated intheMayFourthsociocultural-politicalmovement.Huangcontendsthatthe "newman"whowasconceptualizedbyintellectualstobefreeoftheburdenofthe pastwasinactuality"nothinglessthanan`orphanofhistory'asopposedtoone withacontaminated,impureandillegitimateorigin,thatis,adamned`cultural bastard'"(p.2).TakingLuXun's"AMadman'sDiary"ashisspringboard,Huang continuestoarguethat"thisMadman,theveryfirst`newman'ofmodernChinese literature,suffersfromthediscoveryofhisownrootednessinandcontamination © 2011 by University of Hawai`i Press 238 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.17,No.2,2010 byapremodernhistory."(p.2)Meanwhile,almostsimultaneouswiththepublicationof"AMadman'sDiary,"MaoZedonghaddevelopedhisownvisionofthe Chinesesubject,which"wasaresultofahybridizationofthetraditionalConfucianismwiththenewlyimportedGermanidealismandnationalism"(p.3).This madman­turned­newman­turned­orphanofhistory­turned­bastardprocess,as Huangconcludes,replayeditselfinthepost­CulturalRevolutioneraafterMao's nearlythreedecadesofnationalizingtheChinesesubjecttocreatea"Maoist`new man'"(p.4). Huang'sapplicationoftheword"bastard"thusseemstobemoreofadescriptivefunctionthantooperateasatheoreticalconceptbyanymeasure.Regardless ofhisintendedusage,words,however,doconveyunintendedmeaningstoreaders. InherentinthislineofargumentisthesuggestionthatChinesecultureasawhole wasoncepureandunhybridizedbecausetheso-called(cultural)bastardsobviouslydidnotexistbeforetheMayFourthMovement,oratleastHuangmentions none.Takingthebookasawhole,theideaofbastardorculturalbastardreallyhas lesstheoreticalsignificationthanmerelyapoeticlicensethattheauthorextends toofar.CallingMao'schildren"bastards"isradicalandshockingenough,butto useitasarecurringmotifwithlessthanconvincingconnotationinaseriousand scholarlyworkinevitablymustmaketheentireprojectproblematic.Asidefrom thisconceptualshortcoming,however,therestofthebookisactuallyquiteworth reading. Huang'smainthesisistoarguethatthelegacyoftheCulturalRevolutionhas a muchmoreprofoundimpactoncontemporaryChineseliteraturethanliterary scholarshaverecognized.Huangarguesthat"[theCulturalRevolution]andits legacyhavemarkedcontemporaryChineseliteraturewithnotjustascar,butwith abrandofbastardy"(p.5).BylinkingtheCulturalRevolutionwithcontemporary Chineseliterature,HuangchallengestheestablishednotionthattakestheMaoera, andespeciallytheCulturalRevolution,asarupturesegregatingMayFourth literatureandpost-Maocontemporaryliterature--twoliteraryperiodsthatseem tobearmuchculturalandliteraryparallelism,asmostliteraryscholarshave argued.InspiredbyrecentscholarshipestablishingthetiebetweenthelateQing literatureandtheMayFourthliterature,Huangattemptstobringbackthelegacy oftheCulturalRevolutioninthediscussionofcontemporaryChineseliterature.It isundeniablethatmostcontemporaryChinesewriterswhohavelivedthroughthe MaoerashareapreoccupationwiththeMaoistinheritanceandhavebeendeeply markedbythevariouspoliticalcampaignssuchastheAnti-RightistMovement, theGreatLeapForwardandtheGreatLeapFamine,andtheCulturalRevolution. EvenintheworksofYuHua,SuTong,andGeFei--whowereonlychildren duringthetenyearsoftheCulturalRevolution--theindelibleimpactofthe CulturalRevolutionisseenthroughout.Byestablishingthiscorrelation,modern Chineseliterarydiscoursethusisseenasalongandcontinuousdevelopment Reviews 239 characterizedbysocioculturalandpoliticalchangesindifferenthistorical moments. ToreinstitutetheCulturalRevolutionincontemporaryChineseliterature, HuangexaminestheBildungsromanofeachofhisstudiedwritersduringthe CulturalRevolutionperiod,beittheexperienceoftheRedGuardmovement,the rusticreeducationmovement(shangshan xiaxiang,"goingtothemountains, sendingdowntothevillages"),orasarebelliousschoolkidspendingmuchtime wonderingthestreets.InadditiontothesetypicalCulturalRevolutionexperiences,anothersignificantfactorthatshapedmanyoftheyouthatthattimewas theundergroundliteratureandcultureofdecadence,skepticism,andcynicism thatrancountertotherevolutionaryzealandenthusiasmoftheday(p.32).The earlypoetryofDuoDuo,aprincipalproponentandcontributortotheMisty SchoolofcontemporaryChinesepoetry,exemplifiesanalternativesubjectformationprocessnurturedpreciselybytheundergroundliteratureandculture.Wang Shuo'shooliganwritings,anotherhallmarkofcontemporaryChineseliterary creativity,wereamajorliteraryforceinthe1990s.Hisbrandofhooliganismalso gavehisfictionexceptionalsalabilityinChina'snewmarketeconomy.Butinstead ofagreeingwithcriticslikeJingWang,whoviewstheWangShuophenomenonas somethinguniqueofthe1990s,Huangarguesthereis,infact,adialecticrelationshipbetweenMao'sRedGuardsandWangShuo'shooligans,asbotharerebelsand self-proclaimedmastersoftheday:"[T]heMaoistmastermentalityoftheCultural Revolutionisnowsearchingforafreshstartinanewgenerationof`heroes.'The hooligansor`riffraff 'onceagainshallclaimtheir`vanguard'legitimacyinanew hybridworldofsocialist-capitalism"(pp.70­71).Bybringingbackhistorical perspectivetotheburgeoningheteroglossiaoftheliterarysceneofthe1990s insteadofbeingmesmerizedbyChina'sunprecedentedmarketeconomy,Huang convincinglyarguesthatthebankruptcyofrevolutionaryutopianismoftheCulturalRevolutionwasreplacedbythenewidealismofthereformera.WangShuo's hooligansarebutMao'sRedGuardsreincarnated. ContrarytoWangShuo'scynicalplayfulnesstowardtheCulturalRevolution legacy--asentimentsharedbymanyofhiscontemporarywritersandartists-- ZhangChengzhistandsoutinthismixasasteadfastdefenderofthepastrevolutionaryera.Interestingly,HuangarguesthatZhangChengzhi'srelentlessdefense oftheCulturalRevolutionvis-à-vishisaestheticismisactuallymotivatedby"an unspokenguiltcomplex...toseekanaestheticredemptionandalternativeunderstanding,soastoseparatetheRedGuardasanembodimentofindividualidealism andromanticismfromtheRedGuardasacollectivehistoricalmovement(evenif short-lived)witharecordofviolenceandterror"(p.111).Thequestionofguiltis hardlytalkedaboutwhenitcomestotheatrocitiesthatoccurredduringtheMao years.Withoutexception,boththewriter'sstubbornpursuitoftheunrealized potentialsoftherevolutionarydream(ZhangChengzhi's)andthecritic'sfocused 240 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.17,No.2,2010 discussionofthewriter'ssearchforanewnationalsubjectvis-à-visaHegelian "lyricaltotality"(Huang's)skillfullycircumventtheissueofincrediblehumancost andmassiveinjusticeincurredinthenameofrevolution(p.135). ThelastculturalbastarddiscussedinthisbookisWangXiaobo,whosefiction inthe1990soffersarefreshingandinspiringperspectivetotheunderstandingof theCulturalRevolution.WangXiaobounabashedlyexploresthemostprivateand attimesbizarrehumanemotionsandbehaviorsundertheshiningbeamsofthe bigredsun.Althoughhistory,orthehistoryoftheCulturalRevolution,isvery muchWangXiaobo'spreoccupationinhisfiction,inevitablyhemustreconcileit withtheindividual'sinabilitytotranscendhistoryand,hence,thetyrannyof revolutionagainsttheindividual.AsHuangconcludeshisanalysis,"WangXiaobo, afterall,showshimselftobeoneofthefewcontemporaryChinesewriterswho haveconstantlysuspected--andwithgoodreason--thevirtualnatureofthe individualinhistory,whichoftenhasbeentakenbyothersasapositivereality beyondanydoubt"(p.179).Historyasagrandnotionis,infact,nothingmore thananemptysignifierusedtodisguisethebittertruththatChineseindividuals arebutdispensablepawnsinMao'sgreatdreamofproletarianrevolution. Inhisepilogue,HuangwarnsofthedangerofunderminingorevendismissingtheimpactoftheCulturalRevolutiononcontemporaryChineseliterature, particularlywhenencounteringcertainworksthatdonotfitneatlyinanykindof categoryorlinearviewofliterarydevelopment.Theseworksmaybevoicesthat attempttospeakthroughthesilencesurroundingthelegacyoftheCulturalRevolution(p.188).Inclosing,HuangalsoremindshisreadersthattheCulturalRevolutiondoesnotrepresentanabruptbreakinthelongcourseofChina'sstrivefor modernity,but,instead,theCulturalRevolutionisverymuchapartofthisgrand project. LingchieLettyChen Lingchei Letty Chen is an associate professor of modern Chinese literature at Washington University, specializing in cultural identity politics and cross-cultural studies. © 2011 by http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png China Review International University of Hawai'I Press

Contemporary Chinese Literature: From the Cultural Revolution to the Future (review)

China Review International , Volume 17 (2) – Mar 1, 2010

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/contemporary-chinese-literature-from-the-cultural-revolution-to-the-kwuPeYVPqu

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1527-9367
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Reviews 237 YibingHuang.Contemporary Chinese Literature: From the Cultural Revolution to the Future. NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2007.x,219pp. $90.00,isbn13:978-1-4039-7982-7;isbn10:1-4039-7982-0. Contemporary Chinese Literature: From the Cultural Revolution to the Futureputs forthaninsightfulandoriginalapproachtothestudyofcontemporaryChinese literature,butisatthesametimemarredwithaglaringtheoreticallapseonitskey operativeconcept:bastard.Thisword,andattimestheterm"culturalbastards,"is usedtocharacterizethosecontemporaryChinesewriterswhohavelivedthrough theMaoera--agroupthatbasicallyincludesthemajorityofChinesewriters whoseworksrepresentthecorpusofwhatisrecognizedascontemporaryChinese literature.Tousesuchaprovocativewordcertainlycanattractattention.However, withoutsufficientlyelaboratingonhowthisword-as-conceptcameaboutinthe contextofmodern/contemporaryChineseliteratureandculture,andwithout teasingoutthemanyimplicationsandconfusionsinherentintheworditself, YibingHuangalsomakesitexceedinglydifficultforthisreadertoovercomethe naggingskepticismwhenevertheauthorevokes"bastards"or"culturalbastards" to discussthegenerationthatsurvivedtheMaoera:CuiJian(b.1961),DuoDuo (b.1951),WangShuo(b.1958),ZhangChengzhi(b.1948),WangXiaobo (b. 1952)--theartistandwritersthatHuangdiscussesindepthinthisbook.To giveamorecomprehensiveview,thelistincludesBeiDao(b.1949),ZhangYimou (b.1951),CanXue(b.1953),HanShaogong(b.1953),GuCheng(b.1956),MoYan (b.1956),YuHua(b.1960),SuTong(b.1963),GeFei(b.1964),andsoon. Incallingthesewritersandartists"bastards"or"culturalbastards,"Huangis atonceclaimingthemtobeillegitimate,false,spurious,counterfeit,andhybrid. Withoutgettingintothemeaningsofeachofthesewordsandtheirpossible implications(andcomplications),weonlyneedtopointouttheirantonymsto immediatelyputHuang'soperativeconceptinjeopardy:legitimate,true,genuine, authentic,andoriginal.Hence,wemustaskthisquestion:Whatqualifiesaslegitimate,true,genuine,authentic,andoriginalcultureorliterature?Or,toputit bluntly,isitevenpossibletodefinesuchacultureorliteraturewithoutfallingback onracialfundamentalismandextremenationalism?Huang,however,seemsto implythatChinesecultureonlybegantobastardizesincethenineteenthcentury asWesternthoughtsandproductsfloodedintoChinaandeventuallyculminated intheMayFourthsociocultural-politicalmovement.Huangcontendsthatthe "newman"whowasconceptualizedbyintellectualstobefreeoftheburdenofthe pastwasinactuality"nothinglessthanan`orphanofhistory'asopposedtoone withacontaminated,impureandillegitimateorigin,thatis,adamned`cultural bastard'"(p.2).TakingLuXun's"AMadman'sDiary"ashisspringboard,Huang continuestoarguethat"thisMadman,theveryfirst`newman'ofmodernChinese literature,suffersfromthediscoveryofhisownrootednessinandcontamination © 2011 by University of Hawai`i Press 238 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.17,No.2,2010 byapremodernhistory."(p.2)Meanwhile,almostsimultaneouswiththepublicationof"AMadman'sDiary,"MaoZedonghaddevelopedhisownvisionofthe Chinesesubject,which"wasaresultofahybridizationofthetraditionalConfucianismwiththenewlyimportedGermanidealismandnationalism"(p.3).This madman­turned­newman­turned­orphanofhistory­turned­bastardprocess,as Huangconcludes,replayeditselfinthepost­CulturalRevolutioneraafterMao's nearlythreedecadesofnationalizingtheChinesesubjecttocreatea"Maoist`new man'"(p.4). Huang'sapplicationoftheword"bastard"thusseemstobemoreofadescriptivefunctionthantooperateasatheoreticalconceptbyanymeasure.Regardless ofhisintendedusage,words,however,doconveyunintendedmeaningstoreaders. InherentinthislineofargumentisthesuggestionthatChinesecultureasawhole wasoncepureandunhybridizedbecausetheso-called(cultural)bastardsobviouslydidnotexistbeforetheMayFourthMovement,oratleastHuangmentions none.Takingthebookasawhole,theideaofbastardorculturalbastardreallyhas lesstheoreticalsignificationthanmerelyapoeticlicensethattheauthorextends toofar.CallingMao'schildren"bastards"isradicalandshockingenough,butto useitasarecurringmotifwithlessthanconvincingconnotationinaseriousand scholarlyworkinevitablymustmaketheentireprojectproblematic.Asidefrom thisconceptualshortcoming,however,therestofthebookisactuallyquiteworth reading. Huang'smainthesisistoarguethatthelegacyoftheCulturalRevolutionhas a muchmoreprofoundimpactoncontemporaryChineseliteraturethanliterary scholarshaverecognized.Huangarguesthat"[theCulturalRevolution]andits legacyhavemarkedcontemporaryChineseliteraturewithnotjustascar,butwith abrandofbastardy"(p.5).BylinkingtheCulturalRevolutionwithcontemporary Chineseliterature,HuangchallengestheestablishednotionthattakestheMaoera, andespeciallytheCulturalRevolution,asarupturesegregatingMayFourth literatureandpost-Maocontemporaryliterature--twoliteraryperiodsthatseem tobearmuchculturalandliteraryparallelism,asmostliteraryscholarshave argued.InspiredbyrecentscholarshipestablishingthetiebetweenthelateQing literatureandtheMayFourthliterature,Huangattemptstobringbackthelegacy oftheCulturalRevolutioninthediscussionofcontemporaryChineseliterature.It isundeniablethatmostcontemporaryChinesewriterswhohavelivedthroughthe MaoerashareapreoccupationwiththeMaoistinheritanceandhavebeendeeply markedbythevariouspoliticalcampaignssuchastheAnti-RightistMovement, theGreatLeapForwardandtheGreatLeapFamine,andtheCulturalRevolution. EvenintheworksofYuHua,SuTong,andGeFei--whowereonlychildren duringthetenyearsoftheCulturalRevolution--theindelibleimpactofthe CulturalRevolutionisseenthroughout.Byestablishingthiscorrelation,modern Chineseliterarydiscoursethusisseenasalongandcontinuousdevelopment Reviews 239 characterizedbysocioculturalandpoliticalchangesindifferenthistorical moments. ToreinstitutetheCulturalRevolutionincontemporaryChineseliterature, HuangexaminestheBildungsromanofeachofhisstudiedwritersduringthe CulturalRevolutionperiod,beittheexperienceoftheRedGuardmovement,the rusticreeducationmovement(shangshan xiaxiang,"goingtothemountains, sendingdowntothevillages"),orasarebelliousschoolkidspendingmuchtime wonderingthestreets.InadditiontothesetypicalCulturalRevolutionexperiences,anothersignificantfactorthatshapedmanyoftheyouthatthattimewas theundergroundliteratureandcultureofdecadence,skepticism,andcynicism thatrancountertotherevolutionaryzealandenthusiasmoftheday(p.32).The earlypoetryofDuoDuo,aprincipalproponentandcontributortotheMisty SchoolofcontemporaryChinesepoetry,exemplifiesanalternativesubjectformationprocessnurturedpreciselybytheundergroundliteratureandculture.Wang Shuo'shooliganwritings,anotherhallmarkofcontemporaryChineseliterary creativity,wereamajorliteraryforceinthe1990s.Hisbrandofhooliganismalso gavehisfictionexceptionalsalabilityinChina'snewmarketeconomy.Butinstead ofagreeingwithcriticslikeJingWang,whoviewstheWangShuophenomenonas somethinguniqueofthe1990s,Huangarguesthereis,infact,adialecticrelationshipbetweenMao'sRedGuardsandWangShuo'shooligans,asbotharerebelsand self-proclaimedmastersoftheday:"[T]heMaoistmastermentalityoftheCultural Revolutionisnowsearchingforafreshstartinanewgenerationof`heroes.'The hooligansor`riffraff 'onceagainshallclaimtheir`vanguard'legitimacyinanew hybridworldofsocialist-capitalism"(pp.70­71).Bybringingbackhistorical perspectivetotheburgeoningheteroglossiaoftheliterarysceneofthe1990s insteadofbeingmesmerizedbyChina'sunprecedentedmarketeconomy,Huang convincinglyarguesthatthebankruptcyofrevolutionaryutopianismoftheCulturalRevolutionwasreplacedbythenewidealismofthereformera.WangShuo's hooligansarebutMao'sRedGuardsreincarnated. ContrarytoWangShuo'scynicalplayfulnesstowardtheCulturalRevolution legacy--asentimentsharedbymanyofhiscontemporarywritersandartists-- ZhangChengzhistandsoutinthismixasasteadfastdefenderofthepastrevolutionaryera.Interestingly,HuangarguesthatZhangChengzhi'srelentlessdefense oftheCulturalRevolutionvis-à-vishisaestheticismisactuallymotivatedby"an unspokenguiltcomplex...toseekanaestheticredemptionandalternativeunderstanding,soastoseparatetheRedGuardasanembodimentofindividualidealism andromanticismfromtheRedGuardasacollectivehistoricalmovement(evenif short-lived)witharecordofviolenceandterror"(p.111).Thequestionofguiltis hardlytalkedaboutwhenitcomestotheatrocitiesthatoccurredduringtheMao years.Withoutexception,boththewriter'sstubbornpursuitoftheunrealized potentialsoftherevolutionarydream(ZhangChengzhi's)andthecritic'sfocused 240 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.17,No.2,2010 discussionofthewriter'ssearchforanewnationalsubjectvis-à-visaHegelian "lyricaltotality"(Huang's)skillfullycircumventtheissueofincrediblehumancost andmassiveinjusticeincurredinthenameofrevolution(p.135). ThelastculturalbastarddiscussedinthisbookisWangXiaobo,whosefiction inthe1990soffersarefreshingandinspiringperspectivetotheunderstandingof theCulturalRevolution.WangXiaobounabashedlyexploresthemostprivateand attimesbizarrehumanemotionsandbehaviorsundertheshiningbeamsofthe bigredsun.Althoughhistory,orthehistoryoftheCulturalRevolution,isvery muchWangXiaobo'spreoccupationinhisfiction,inevitablyhemustreconcileit withtheindividual'sinabilitytotranscendhistoryand,hence,thetyrannyof revolutionagainsttheindividual.AsHuangconcludeshisanalysis,"WangXiaobo, afterall,showshimselftobeoneofthefewcontemporaryChinesewriterswho haveconstantlysuspected--andwithgoodreason--thevirtualnatureofthe individualinhistory,whichoftenhasbeentakenbyothersasapositivereality beyondanydoubt"(p.179).Historyasagrandnotionis,infact,nothingmore thananemptysignifierusedtodisguisethebittertruththatChineseindividuals arebutdispensablepawnsinMao'sgreatdreamofproletarianrevolution. Inhisepilogue,HuangwarnsofthedangerofunderminingorevendismissingtheimpactoftheCulturalRevolutiononcontemporaryChineseliterature, particularlywhenencounteringcertainworksthatdonotfitneatlyinanykindof categoryorlinearviewofliterarydevelopment.Theseworksmaybevoicesthat attempttospeakthroughthesilencesurroundingthelegacyoftheCulturalRevolution(p.188).Inclosing,HuangalsoremindshisreadersthattheCulturalRevolutiondoesnotrepresentanabruptbreakinthelongcourseofChina'sstrivefor modernity,but,instead,theCulturalRevolutionisverymuchapartofthisgrand project. LingchieLettyChen Lingchei Letty Chen is an associate professor of modern Chinese literature at Washington University, specializing in cultural identity politics and cross-cultural studies. © 2011 by

Journal

China Review InternationalUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Mar 1, 2010

There are no references for this article.