Keyword

In contemporary China, the proposal of constructing the Chinese form of Marxist literary criticism, as a form distinctly differed from Russian Soviet and Western Marxist literary criticism after classical Marxist literary criticism, is a pioneering attempt in the study of Marxist literary criticism in China. Does the Chinese form really exist? How does one construct the Chinese form? What are the theoretical qualities of the Chinese form or what are its contributions to the global literary studies? These questions are of great theoretical value and practical significance, and thus, demand answers from Chinese Marxist literary criticism in its research.

1 Rationale of the Existence of the Chinese Form

In global academic criticism, the usage of “form” or “paradigm” to interpret Marxist literary criticism has become one of the most important lenses to study Marxism. Terry Eagleton has classified various forms of Marxist literary criticism: “Very schematically, it is possible to distinguish four broad kinds of Marxist criticism, each of which corresponds to a certain ‘region’ within Marxist theory, and also (very roughly speaking) to a particular historical period. These are the anthropological, political, ideological and economic-modes which in their various intricate permutations go to make up the corpus of criticism recorded in this book” (Eagleton 1996, p. 7).

Specifically, the first is anthropological Marxism, represented by Georgy Plekhanov (Гeopгий Baлeнтинoвич Плexaнoв); the second is political Marxism, represented by György Lukács; the third is ideological Marxism, represented by Louis Althusser; the fourth is economic and cultural Marxism, represented by Raymond Williams and, broadly, British Cultural Studies. Francis Mulhern also emphasizes the “paradigm” aspect of Marxist literary criticism, but, unlike Eagleton’s horizontal and blocky delineation of the form of Marxist literary criticism, he distinguishes three stages of the development of Marxist literary criticism vertically. Mulhern argues, with such cautions kept in view, it is possible to mark a classical or scientific-socialist phase, initiated by Marx and Engels, continuing strongly throughout the later nineteenth century and into the first half of the twentieth; a self-styled critical phase originating in the 1920s, maturing and diversifying over the next three decades and establishing a “norm of heterodoxy” by the 1960s; and then a phase at first pledged to a critical classicism announced in the early 1960s and vigorously propagated in the succeeding decade, but then rapidly and variously redefined under such spacious headings as “materialism” and “anti-humanism,” in a process that continues today (Mulhern 2013, pp. 2–3).

While Mulhern’s anthology describes the latter two phases focusing on Britain and America, what we intend to construct now belongs to another “paradigm” or “phase” of Marxist literary criticism, namely the Chinese form of Marxist literary criticism that differs from the above-mentioned forms.

1.1 Existence of the Chinese Form?

There are two outlooks in the academic community regarding the existence of the Chinese form right now. One view is that Marxist literary criticism has long existed in Chinese literary studies, which is a fait accompli. The other view expresses doubts about the existence of the Chinese form, arguing that classical Marxist literary criticism is nothing more than “broken chapters and stray paragraphs,” so how can Chinese Marxist literary criticism be regarded a “form” (Lu 1991)?Footnote 1 Before discussing and constructing the Chinese form, we need to debate these views.

In response to the first view, we may ask: if Chinese Marxist literary criticism has a self-evident existence, what are its valuable results? What are the substantive differences between Chinese Marxist literary criticism and general literary criticism? Apparently, it is difficult to give a lucid answer. In China, the study of Marxist literary criticism has lagged behind Marxist research in other disciplines such as philosophy, politics, and economics, has not yet developed clear problematic awareness, and lacks both an overall outline of Chinese Marxist literary criticism and an in-depth study and clear proposal of its theoretical qualities; in some cases, it even equates classical Marxist literary criticism with Chinese Marxist literary criticism. This uncertainty directly affects the development of Marxist literary criticism in China and limits the global reach of Chinese Marxist literary criticism. Thus, proposing the construction of the Chinese form can clarify its overall characteristics as well as highlight the contemporary value of Chinese Marxist literary criticism.

For the second view, a more specific discernment is needed. Scholars at home and abroad have discussed whether there is a comprehensible system of classical Marxist literary criticism. Lukács, one of the founders of Western Marxism, in his “Introduction to the Writings on Aesthetics of Marx and Engels” published in 1945, begins by discussing the “peculiar literary form” of Marx and Engels’ literary essays, pointing out that although Marx and Engels never had a monograph on aesthetics or literary art, this in no way means that they did not have an “an organic and systematic view” (Lukács 1971, p. 61) on literary art or aesthetics. René Wellek, who holds a New Criticism position, also argues that, “The body of pronouncements on literature by Marx and Engels is scattered, casual, and far from conclusive. It does not amount to a theory of literature or even to a theory of the relations between literature and society. But the pronouncements are not thereby incoherent. They are held together by their general philosophy of history and show a comprehensible evolution…” (Wellek 1965, pp. 238–239). Wellek is emphasizing the historical materialism that Marx created and upheld in his study of literary issues. Chinese scholars have come to similar conclusions, as represented by Li Zhongyi’s monograph, The Marxist-Engels System of Literary Theory. Starting from Marx’s different ways of mastering the world by human beings, he reveals the characteristics, laws, and systems of literary and artistic thought of classical Marxist writers (Li 1994).

1.2 Chinese Form of Marxist Literary Criticism Versus Sinification of Marxist Literary Criticism

The Chinese form of Marxist literary criticism and Sinification are categories that are related but distinct. The Sinification of Marxist literary criticism (hereinafter “Sinification”) is the foundation and historical context for the formation of the Chinese form, and it is in the pursuit of Sinification that the Chinese form is proposed and constructed. However, as a theoretical framework, the Chinese form differs distinctly from Sinification on many fronts.

The Chinese form differs from Sinification in the nature of the subject. Sinification appears as a receptive, passive subject, while the subject of the Chinese form embodies a more active nature. The former, as the accepting party, focuses on the absorption, digestion, and practice of classical Marxism; its relationship with classical Marxism is one of influencing and being influenced, and in the process of acceptance, it applies Marxist theory to Chinese social reality and literary practices. Surely, variations and transformations are bound to exist, but the basic standpoint is acceptance and application. On the contrary, the latter, as the constructive party, inherits the principles of Marxism, creatively interprets the history and reality of Chinese social and literary activities, and posits theoretical views and propositions rich in their own unique characteristics. The latter’s relationship with classical Marxism is one of creative variation and development, and its subject adopts a constructive posture.

In terms of the type of research, Sinification is developed in the historical process. The research on Sinification emphasizes sorting, analyzing, and summarizing its development process, and the research trajectory is mainly linear, showing the results of different periods in stages. However, the study of Chinese form is a type of theoretical construction presented as a holistic framework, with its specific theoretical foundation, problematic awareness, and theoretical categories. It is primarily done at the logical level, with constructive characteristics, embodied in theoretical exploration and theoretical creation, and this theoretical form is not constant and fixed, but always in the dynamic adjustment of various relationships.

2 The Path of Constructing the Chinese Form

Although scholars at home and abroad have seen the intrinsic connection of classical Marxist literary criticism and made positive conclusions, it is one thing to point out that classical Marxist literary criticism has a relatively complete thought system, and it is another thing to theorize the “form” or “paradigm” of Marxist literary criticism. This task is especially challenging now that the object of research is not only classical Marxist literary criticism, but also the Chinese form of Marxist literary criticism which has evolved over a hundred years and has undergone various tests in China.

To construct the Chinese form that is both Chinese and universal, it is essential to update the research concepts, call for deductive constructions, and broaden research horizons, that is, to compare the similarities and differences of various forms of Marxist literary criticism in the context of globalization. As such, the choice of research paths and methods becomes the starting point for the study of the Chinese form.

2.1 Questioning Historical Descriptions and Generalizations

It is necessary to reconsider the existing research concepts and methods when exploring the Chinese form. Looking back at the study of Marxist literary criticism in China, scholars primarily adopt the research model of literary sociology, through historical description and induction, to sort, analyze, and refine the development process of specific objects. This method has historical clarity and possesses abundant materials, but it is limited to the level of empirical study, a kind of ongoing summary, drifting with the tide and not knowing where to go. While reviewing the materials, we feel strongly that it is difficult to get the whole picture of Chinese Marxist literary criticism by describing its development process only in terms of temporal dimension or diachronic studies; therefore, it is imperative to update the method of studying Marxist literary criticism, that is, to go beyond empirical description, to place the Chinese form in the context of contemporary Marxist knowledge, and to make an overall and holistic systematic examination at the theoretical level with the core categories as the cornerstone. In this way, it will be possible to grasp the nature and characteristics of the Chinese form and to develop an overall differentiation that distinguishes it from other forms. The theoretical construction of the Chinese form can supplement and strengthen the refinement of a series of universal theoretical concepts, which will make it possible and feasible for the Chinese form to dialogue with the world. The value of theoretical research also lies in its ability to not only review the past, but also guide the present, and even plan for the future.

Admittedly, the theoretical abstraction of the research method does not indicate that Chinese literary criticism has never been constructed. As early as 1958, Zhou Yang (周扬) proposed “constructing China’s own Marxist literary theory and criticism system” and expressed his desire to systematize Chinese Marxist literary theory, but this proposition was overshadowed by the long-standing authority of Soviet Marxist literary theory in Chinese theoretical circles. After the 1980s, Chinese scholars began to propose a variety of theoretical ideas about the systematization of Chinese Marxist literary criticism from different logical starting points and perspectives (e.g., literature theory of reflection, literature theory of practice, literature theory of art production, “Literature, It is the Study of Man,” etc.).Footnote 2 These theoretical frameworks conceived by Chinese scholars have provided valuable references for the construction of the Chinese form.

2.2 The Chinese Form and the Study of Differences

Chinese form cannot be produced in an enclosed space. It needs to be constructed through comparison and distinction with other forms of Marxist literary criticism around the world. The study of differences therefore becomes the ideal choice for the Chinese form. Without doubt, the basic principles and knowledge systems of Marxism have imposed a fundamental constraint on every form of Marxist literary criticism, both in China and abroad. Such commensurability constitutes the common basis for the study of differences. The reason why people call some different forms of literary criticism “Marxist literary criticism” is that they all inherit the tradition of Marxist literary criticism to varying degrees. They all wield the basic principles and knowledge system of Marxism as the theoretical basis for discussing literary issues, and use the theoretical views and methods of Marxism to interpret literary activities. At the same time, due to different socio-historical conditions, people are bound to have differing choices and areas of emphases when understanding and applying Marxism to meet the realistic requirements of social practice and literary activities, thus developing a variety of forms of Marxist literary criticism with respective and distinctive characteristics.

2.2.1 The Chinese Form and Classical Marxist Literary Criticism

As mentioned earlier regarding the relationship between the Chinese form and classical Marxist literary criticism, they are related but at the same time distinct. On the one hand, the Chinese form inherits the basic principles and research methods of Marxism; in particular, the classical Marxist idea of human liberation makes up the very core and soul of the Chinese form; on the other hand, the Chinese form is no longer the Marxism of the nineteenth century, the current atmosphere and the problems China faces today differ greatly from those of Marx’s time, and the way in which literary activities are produced has also substantially changed.

The Chinese form emerged in China’s specific historical context, carrying the weight of Chinese people’s life experiences and dealing with China’s realistic problems, while today’s social and literary activities are far from being encompassed by theories such as realist literature and “typicality” of characters. The Chinese form needs to take into account the current status of Chinese literature and culture, rethink the issues that seem to have been settled and the ones that are actually not yet addressed, or even touched by classical Marxism, and foster new developments. For example, regarding the relationship between the superstructure and the economic base, Marx argued, “The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure” (Marx 1987, p. 263). Today, however, the superstructure, including ideology, may probably be way ahead of social change. In addition, the seemingly distinct division between economic base and superstructure is no longer clear-cut today, and science and technology can have a simultaneous dual function, that is, as both productivity and ideology. Another example is that in today’s market economy, literature, especially the literary activities integrated into the culture industry, is backed by or relies on capital, and therefore, the Chinese form should face up to the relationship between literature and capital when re-interpreting and redefining the nature of literature. Today’s literary activities as a process of production have both aesthetic and commodity properties, while the control and profit-seeking nature of capital often contradicts and conflicts with the criticalness and transcendence of art. This requires maintaining vigilance against the hegemony of capital and pursuing the contradictory unity of aesthetic value, social benefit, and economic benefit, while fully considering market factors and understanding market mechanisms. The difference in time and space has changed the specific problems the Chinese form faces as well as the relationship between such problems, and thus has brought about a difference in its overall structure. Therefore, the Chinese form cannot develop without the overall specificity that distinguishes it from classical Marxist literary criticism.

2.2.2 The Chinese Form and Western Marxist Literary Criticism

The Chinese form and Western Marxist literary criticism are quite different. In an era of globalization, both China and the West confront similar problems, and the problems studied by Western Marxist literary criticism can be enlightening in the context of China. However, there are also striking differences between Chinese and Western Marxist literary criticism due to the contrast in social systems, historical conditions, cultural conditions, and other factors.

Western Marxism emerged and developed in Western capitalist societies, whose inheritance and revision of Marxism constitute a “break” from classical Marxism.Footnote 3 Western Marxism shifted the focus of its research from class and revolution to culture and technology, with cultural criticism as its core concept. Western Marxist literary critics have conducted in-depth examination and analysis of Western social ideologies and cultural phenomena, and their theoretical views are often profound and unique, cautioning people against and to be vigilant of contemporary Western capitalist society. Besides, the critique of Western Marxism is full of redemption, and some Western Marxists have a strong utopian complex, which are important differences between them and postmodernist theorists. In Western Marxism, literary criticism becomes a thought weapon to shatter “the permanent validity of things as they are” (Engels 1995, p. 357).

Although Chinese Marxism is in the same era as Western Marxism, China’s specific historical traditions and social patterns are far beyond the ability of Western Marxist literary critics to appreciate and grasp. The Chinese form has to focus on and address new problems happening in the ground of China. To study the cultural development of contemporary Chinese society through the lens of Western Marxist criticism would be like trimming the feet to fit the shoes, and it is inevitable that some cultural or literary activities with unique local characteristics may be excluded because they do not conform to Western theoretical guidelines. In this sense, the Chinese form is more subjective and inclusive compared to Western Marxist literary criticism. In China, Marxism, as the dominant discourse of mainstream ideology, plays a leading role in social, political, and cultural activities. Chinese Marxism is always open to different discourse systems and knowledge, enriching and improving itself through dialogue and exchange with heterogeneous theoretical discourses. Moreover, Chinese Marxism takes a constructive attitude toward social problems, often approaching the problems with a positive outlook. However, it is necessary to be alert to the fact that the mainstream ideological status of Marxism may in some cases also make Chinese Marxist literary criticism lose its proper insight and sensitivity to social phenomena as well as its pungent critical strength, failing to create necessary and positive tension between Marxist literary criticism and some social and literary phenomena.

3 The “Problématique” and Overall Characteristics of the Chinese Form

In the history of Chinese Marxist criticism, the theoretical formulation of Marxist literary criticism varies greatly in academic circles. Not only does it encompass different understandings at different stages, but also different understandings and interpretations of the same concept and category. Therefore, it is not easy to refine and construct the theoretical qualities of the Chinese form on the basis of these theoretical formulations. Furthermore, it is vital to find the appropriate entry and structure of the study to establish the internal connections of the Chinese form as a whole and to grasp the research objects and problems.

3.1 “Problématique”

To strengthen the inner connection of the Chinese form, we borrowed the concept of “problématique”Footnote 4 and gave it a unique interpretation to explore the organic unity of the structure of the Chinese form.

The term “problématique”Footnote 5 is used to express “the particular unity of a theoretical formation and hence the location to be assigned to this specific difference…” (Althusser, 1969, p. 32). Borrowing this term, the Chinese form highlights three methodological properties. First, a problématique has an overall specificity, and it is a systematic way of asking the world questions. In a problématique, several questions constitute interrelated problem clusters, and each problem is considered in the context of the problématique as a whole. Moreover, a problématique has a standardizing and constraining effect on a particular theoretical form, that is, “everything depends on a question which must have priority over them: the question of the nature of the problematic which is the starting-point for actually thinking them, in a given text” (Althusser 1969, p. 68). This holistic differentiation is what is sought by the organic nature inherent in the construction of the Chinese form. Second, a problématique is a form in motion, and it emphasizes the complex connection between the problem and the historical process, and does not exclude the study of the specific environment and generation mechanism within which the problématique arises. In other words, a problématique is not limited to unfolding at an abstract level, but is also profoundly grounded in the historical context, and the problématique is generated as a result of the combined force of external and internal factors of literature. This thus distinguishes the problématique in Chinese form from formalism and structuralism that emphasize only internal and synchronic studies. Third, in a problématique, the distinguishing features that make up different theoretical forms are original, and such original research is what makes the construction of the Chinese form valuable. Therefore, the introduction of “problématique” establishes a correlation between the various questions within the Chinese form, and by virtue of this concept, not only can a sense of integrity be obtained in way of thinking and research, but also a clear understanding of the theoretical qualities and structural features of the research object. Furthermore, the introduction of “problématique” affords a discursive tool for distinguishing among various forms of Marxist literary criticism, which is conducive for understanding the overall characteristics of these forms more clearly.

3.2 The Overall Characteristics of the Chinese Form

In the following research, many theoretical propositions with Chinese characteristics will be presented, such as the “people,” “nation,” “politics,” and “praxis,” as well as “technology,” “capital,” and “value judgment” that are closely relevant to today’s reality. These basic categories and realities echo and constrain each other. The “people” constitute the starting point and the destination of the Chinese form; “nation,” “politics,” and “praxis” are all related to the “people”; “nation” and the “people” are in the same structure; the greatest “politics” is to satisfy the material and spiritual cultural needs of the “people”; and the “value judgment” of writers, texts, and their creation tendencies is also based on safeguarding the fundamental interests of the people. All these above issues are interrelated and refer to each other. There is an intricate and intertwined relationship between “nation” and “politics,” “politics” and “praxis,” “praxis” and “technology,” as well as “technology” and “capital.” These concepts and issues coexist within the Chinese form in the form of question clusters, constitute the problématique of the Chinese form with the aim of achieving the happiness of the “people” and the revitalization of the “nation,” and present the overall theoretical qualities of the Chinese form.

The overall characteristics of the Chinese form should also include its practical character and dialectical spirit. The practice here is not focused on the philosophical level, but emphasizes its execution. The Chinese form is not ivory tower scholarly activity, nor is it merely academic discourse; it emerges from the tide of social change in China and is tested by the concrete social practice. The practicality of the Chinese form is manifested in its guiding and leading functions in literary and aesthetic activities, and even spiritual production as a whole. Also, the Chinese form introduces integrity and dichotomy into literary criticism. It not only inherits the Chinese traditional spirit of harmony, incorporating relevant perspectives, methods, and concepts of literary activities into its problématique, but also views the unity of opposites in a dialectical and rational way of thought, notably emphasizing the mutual transformation of opposites, thus forming a holistic vision and an open, critical vantage point to look at literature.

The construction of the Chinese form is characterized by its unfinished character. Needless to say, in the course of historical and present development, the Chinese form has encountered obstacles and errors, and the ability to correct them demonstrates the wisdom and courage of the Chinese form. Additionally, the unfinished character is also reflected in the exploration of the future of Chinese literary criticism. The Chinese form is established on the land of China and oriented to the future, and it will unceasingly adjust itself and produce new theories and categories as society develops and the times change.

Last but not least, it should be emphasized that the Chinese form should be a unified form of universality and particularity, and that its theoretical achievements should manifest both its own national characteristics and global universality, because particularity without universality is simply meaningless. In the global literary world, instead of being restrictive or exclusive, the Chinese form will be compatible and interweaved with other forms of Marxist literary criticism. Marxist literary criticism in the world today is a mixed bunch. Chinese scholars shoulder a greater responsibility to show the world the actual achievements of the Chinese form, to participate in the world literary dialogue through the construction of the Chinese form, and to convey the answers of Oriental scholars to those major theoretical questions put forward by Marxist literary criticism. To pursue a higher goal, the Chinese form should provide a more reasonable model of criticism, and to this end, we will make unremitting efforts.