Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Reviews 217 within China itself and by China-born scholars, including many of the authors here, has reinforced this isolation of Chinese politics from the rest of the field. Increasingly, China is studied in much the same way that “Americanists” in U.S. universities study American politics, namely without any comparative grounding. As the editors note, “the Chinese case does not have a large impact on the field” (p. 5). Given the other challenges, this suggests a need for some strategy of research that deals with the tradeoffs of cross-national research.e Th authors are probably divided on this issue. However, the final word of the volume goes to Kenneth Lieberthal, who issues a battle cry for the old sinology of area studies, qualitative research, middle- or low-level theories, and policy relevance. His stand is unfortunate because it tends to bury the debate rather than highlight it. Indeed, Lieberthal’s own chapter shows the costs of sinology’s isolation. He cites a claim that “entrepreneurs in China do not, as was the case in modern Western history, seek to challenge the regime” (p. 276) to justify the singular focus on China. Yet this claim itself is a comparative one, and notably one that is not widely accepted any longer among students of Western democratic history. More widely, scholars of Latin American politics, for instance, find strong parallels with today’s middle class in authoritarian China and those of Latin America in their authoritarian periods, showing the potential of fruitful comparisons. One of the great unresolved challenges for the study of China’s politics is for sinologists to get out of the hutong more oen. ft Given the emotional and personal investment it takes to become a China specialist, this remains a daunting task. Bruce Gilley Bruce Gilley is an associate professor of political science in the Mark O. Hate fi ld School of Government at Portland State University. Xiaoming Chen. From the May Fourth Movement to Communist Revolution: Guo Moruo and the Chinese Path to Communism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. xi, 156 pp. Hardcover $60.00, isbn 978-0-7914-7137-1. © 2011 by University of Hawai‘i Press Guo Moruo is one of the leading literary figures in modern China. He is a major scholar of Chinese archeology, a foremost expert on jiagu wen (oracle bone script) and jin wen (bronze inscriptions), a well-known historian, a talented poet, a 218 China Review International: Vol. 17, No. 2, 2010 playwright, and a prolific writer. His publications include seventeen volumes of Moruo wenji (Literary works of Moruo), thirty-eight volumes of Guo Moruo quanji (The complete works of Guo Moruo), and numerous other publications, with more than ten million words in all his published works. In 1999, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences ranked him number one among the thirty-four most renowned Chinese scholars, and hundreds of books have been published in China about his life and his academic achievements. Guo, however, is also one of the most controversial figures. Because of his heavy involvement in the Communist government aer ft 1949, many question his personal integrity and the quality of some of his works aer ft 1949, especially aer ft the Cultural Revolution.e Th controversy over Guo led to intensive debates and even lawsuits in China in the late 1990s. Probably for a similar reason, Guo has not been an attractive subject in the West. While hundreds of books on Guo have been published in Chinese, only a few studies in English are exclusively on Guo’s life or works, among which, Xiaoming Chen’s monograph From the May Fourth Movement to Communist Revolution: Guo Moruo and the Chinese Path to Commu- nism is, so far, the most important. e Th book oer ff s a comprehensive description and systematic analysis of Guo’s early conversion from a Confucianist to a Com- munist aer ft the May Fourth Movement in 1919. Through this relatively short but condensed study, Chen presents convincing arguments about why Guo was attracted to the Communist ideas and how he could follow the Communist teaching without totally abandoning his beliefs of Confucianism. Through detailed analyses of Guo’s writing, Chen explains, step by step, the change in Guo’s thinking and his eventual conversion to what Chen calls a “Confucian Communist” (p. 52), Guo’s synthesis of Confucianism and Marxist Communism (pp. 101–107). Chen’s framework of analysis, which separates the four main orientations of Confucianism, “xiushen 修身 (morally cultivate the self ), qijia 齊家 (regulating the family), zhiguo 治國 (managing the state), and ping tianxia 平天下 (harmonizing the world),” is innovative and convincing, providing a key to understand Guo’s conditional acceptance of the Communist theory (p. 3). As one of major representatives of the May Fourth movement, or a “May Fouthian” (p. 7), Guo vehemently opposed qijia or lijiao 禮教 (religion of rituals) part of Confucianism, but remained loyal to other cannons of Confucianism, such as xiushen, zhiguo, and especially ping tianxia. Guo seemed to be convinced, accord- ing to Chen, that the “cosmopolitanist” worldview expressed in the Communist ideas would come together without much problem with the “Confucian cosmo- politanist perspective” (p. 2), or more specifically, the concept of datong 大同 (great harmony), which, according Chen, was one of the most important converg- ing points of the two worldviews in Guo’s understanding of Confucianism and Communism (pp. 86–90). On the level of managing the state, Guo believed that the “Confucian concept of rule ‘by men of virtues,’ ” was not “contradictory to Marxism, because Marx recognized the importance of having ‘proletarian coun- Reviews 219 tries’ before the cosmopolitan Communist ideal is achieved” (p. 101). Neither did he see much conflict “between his ideal of individual freedom and the Communist collective goal of emancipating the whole of mankind” (p. 87). He did not even see the two “diverge greatly on the family issue,” because “Marxist Communism is not against ‘filial piety’ or ‘family’ ” (p. 101). All this explains why in Marxism Guo “finally found a modern scientist way to realize the dream of Confucius,” who as Guo suggested, “was only a premodern ‘utopian socialist’ ” (p. 87). e Th book, however, is not just about Guo’s conversion to Communism. Chen clearly indicates that his description of Guo’s modified understanding of Marxism/
China Review International – University of Hawai'I Press
Published: Mar 1, 2012
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.