Keyword

In the theoretical construction of the Chinese form, the theoretical conception of the “people” deservedly constitutes the primary and focal point. Admittedly, throughout the history of Marxist literary criticism, the people is not unique to the Chinese form; however, it is in the Chinese literary criticism that it becomes one of the most frequently used terms. In the system of Chinese Marxist literary criticism, the concept of the people is simultaneously the starting point and the destination of the Chinese form. It is the pivotal concept that best presents the theoretical qualities of the Chinese form, and thus can be regarded as the contribution of the Chinese form to global literary criticism.

What is “the people”? It is a concept that seems to be clear on the surface but gets complicated when inquired into more deeply. This vital concept has not been systematically probed in Marxist theoretical studies, perhaps because the classical Marxist writers prioritized the issues of class and ideology. However, for constructing the Chinese form, we should clarify the concept of the people, in order to understand and grasp its rich and concrete connotation in the development of Marxism.

1 Classical Marxist View on People

Even though Marx and Engels did not extensively discuss the concept of the people in their revolutionary career, it does not mean that Marx and Engels did not deal with this issue. In fact, they mentioned this concept many times in their works. In 1843, in his “Introduction to ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law’,” young Karl Marx wrote: “The people must be taught to be terrified at itself in order to give it courage. This will be fulfilling an imperative need of the German nation, and needs of the nations are in themselves the ultimate reason for their satisfaction” (Marx 1975b, p. 178). The concept of the people is mentioned three times in this passage, and the awakening of the people is presented as the decisive force for the realization of their realistic needs. Subsequently, Marx and Engels defined and explained the connotation of the people with various dimensions in the same period.

1.1 Marx and Engels on the People

In the Western tradition, the concept of the people was used in the writings of Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece, as well as those of Cicero in ancient Rome. Cicero put forward a famous slogan—“To them the safety of the people shall be the highest law” (Cicero 1998, p. 284).However, by the people they meant mainly slave owners and free people, not including slaves. The modern concept of the people emerged in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and was used by Milton in England, Rousseau in France, German Romantic theorists, and Russian anarchists. Milton refuted Claudius Salmasius’ “Defense of the King” with his book A Defense of the People of England:

Or if God gives people into slavery whenever a tyrant is more powerful than his people, why may he not likewise be said to set them free whenever a people are more powerful than their tyrant? Shall the tyrant claim his tyranny as something received from God and we not claim our liberty likewise from him? (Milton 1991, p. 117)

Here, he affirmed the right of the English people to fight for their liberty. And Rousseau and others had a dual view of the people, claiming that, on one hand, all power comes from and belongs to the people, and on the other hand, seeing the problems of blindness, ignorance, or weakness of will in the common people.

1.1.1 Marx and Engels’ Connotation of the People

The meaning of the concept of the people has evolved after the eighteenth century, and some European statesmen began to notice the role and force of the people in historical development. Marx and Engels endowed the concept of the people with fresh nuance, and they defined and explained the connotation of the people at different levels and scopes. In 1847, Engels clearly pointed out the composition of the people in his article “The Communists and Karl Heinzen”: “…the people, in other words to the proletarians, small peasants and urban petty bourgeoisie” (Engels 1976, p. 295).This suggests that Engels had already seen that the people were constituted by multiple classes. In 1871, Marx had high praise for the magnificent feat of the people of Paris in “The Civil War in France”: “The self-sacrificing heroism with which the population of Paris—men, women, and children—fought for eight days after the entrance of the Versaillese, reflects as much the grandeur of their cause…” (Marx 1986a, p. 348). The people here means the revolutionary masses opposed against the old rulers, who not only belong to the majority of society, but are the main body of the revolution, and they are engaged in the great cause of overthrowing the old world and creating a new one. Marx refers to the concept of the people several times in this article:

That the revolution is made in the name and confessedly for the popular masses, that is the producing masses, is a feature this Revolution has in common with all its predecessors. The new feature is that the people, after the first rise, have not disarmed themselves and surrendered their power into the hands of the Republican mountebanks of the ruling classes, that, by the constitution of the Commune, they have taken the actual management of their Revolution into their own hands and found at the same time, in the case of success, the means to hold it in the hands of the People itself, displacing the State machinery, the governmental machinery of the ruling classes by a governmental machinery of their own. (Marx 1986b, p. 498)

In “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” published in 1884, Engels reviewed the organization of the “The popular assembly” of the ancient Greek clans and tribes. He wrote: “...that the people, men and women, stood in a circle around the council meetings, taking an orderly part in the discussions and thus influencing its decisions”(Engels 1990, p. 209). The notion of people here refers to society as a whole and the rights they possess. The Chinese Marxists’ interpretation of the concept of the people is quite close to Engels’ interpretation of the people as aggregation of classes in “The Communists and Karl Heinzen.” In this article, Engels also made a distinction among and analysis of the status of various classes of people in light of the history of revolutions in various countries, and the peasantry were “First and foremost to the small peasants, to that class which in our day and age is least of all capable of seizing a revolutionary initiative …The industrial proletariat of the towns has become the vanguard of all modern democracy; the urban petty bourgeoisie and still more the peasants depend on its initiative completely” (Engels 1976, p. 295). It was the proletariat that Engels affirmed, while the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie were merely fellow travelers in the revolution. Overall, Marx and Engels expounded on three dimensions of the people: the first was aggregations of classes, the second was the mass of laborers distinct from the ruling class, and the third was all people in society. Moreover, Marx and Engels occasionally equated the masses with the proletariat, as in The German Ideology, “For the mass of men, i.e., the proletariat...”(Marx and Engels 1975b, p. 56).

As the class camps became clearer, the concept of the people was gradually replaced by the mainstay of the revolution, the proletariat. According to Marx, “The people, or, to replace this broad and vague expression by a definite one, the proletariat…the status of a recognized party” (Marx 1976, p. 222). The reason why Marx replaced the “broad and vague expression” (Marx 1976, p. 222) of the people with the proletariat was due to a special historical background. Marx was living in a time when the class camps were quite distinct: “Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (Marx and Engels 1976, p. 485). Reinforcing the power of the proletariat, Marx says, “Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class” (Marx 1989, p. 88). Therefore, to use the concept of “the people” would obliterate class boundaries and undercut the leadership of the working class (Marx 1989, p. 89).

Fredric Jameson once uncovered the reason why Marx and Engels placed more emphasis on the status of the proletariat. Jameson stated that in Marx’s era “It was a world in which social conflict was sharpened and more clearly visible, a world which projected a tangible model of the antagonism of the various classes toward each other, both within the individual nation-states and on the international scene as well” (Jameson 1974, p. xvii). Also relevant was the performance of the peasants in their struggle for power in that era. In “The Peasant War in Germany” Engels analyzed in depth the reasons for the failure of the German peasant revolt and the economic situation of the different classes among the peasants. He concluded,

...that the agricultural population, in consequence of its dispersion over a great space, and of the difficulty of bringing about an agreement among any considerable portion of it, never can attempt a successful independent movement; they require the initiatory impulse of the more concentrated, more enlightened, more easily moved people of the towns. (Engels 1979, p. 12)

Another reason for Marx to replace the concept of people was that it was often used in the rhetoric of politicians. He propounded, “the German king in regard to the world which has come into being when he calls the people his people as he calls the horse his horse. By declaring the people his private property the king simply states that the property owner is king” (Marx 1975b, p. 187). Marx pointedly exposed the practice of the ruling class of treating the people as their private property. The people here are reduced to the ruler’s subjects, merely the property or instruments of the ruler, just like the king’s horses.

Marx and Engels emphasized that the proletariat comprise the mainstay of the revolution, but they also pointed out that the proletariat represents the interests of the vast majority of the people. In “The Communist Manifesto,” Marx and Engels declared: “All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority” (Marx and Engels 1976, p. 495). Here, Marx and Engels highlighted the relationship between the proletariat and the overwhelming majority of the people, and made working for the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people the creed of the proletarian struggle. However, since the proletariat did not take power at that time, it was impossible for Marx and Engels to think in depth and practice about the relationship between the ruling party and the people.

Admittedly, the classical writers of Marxism have said less about the people than the class theory, but the historical materialism upheld by classical writers lays a theoretical foundation for the Chinese form of the concept of the people. Marx and Engels revealed that history is created by the people, since “together with the thoroughness of the historical action, the size of the mass whose action it is will therefore increase” (Marx and Engels 1975a, p. 82). In addition, their distinctive people’s scale in the evaluation of historical events and literary works has also profoundly affected later literary criticism.

1.1.2 The Scale of the People in Marx and Engels’ Literary Criticism

Marx and Engels’ revolutionary activities began with a concern for the vital interests of the people. In 1842, the Sixth Rhine Province Assembly, in the interest of the forest owners, legislated the act of picking up dry wood by the poor as the act of theft of wood. In response to this incident, Marx defended the poor people in the Rheinische Zeitung (Rhenish Newspaper) in the name of “a Rhinelander” (Marx 1975c, p. 263). He first distinguished between the act of picking up dead branches and the act of stealing forest trees, and then, he stated that the law should safeguard the general interests of the people, while the state of Prussia and its Council used it as a tool for the ruling class to rule, plunder the people, and protect their own private interests. Marx revealed the essence of the problem is that the law protects the special interests of the forest owners, that is, the feudal aristocracy, the privileged class. Marx wrote, “…what is your basic principle? It is that the interests of the forest owner shall be safeguarded even if this results in destroying the world of law and freedom” (Marx 1975c, p. 256). Marx thus stood firmly on the side of the poor people and expressed his support for the rights of the “lowest, propertyless and elemental mass” (Marx 1975c, p. 230).

Therefore, from the position of historical materialism, Marx and Engels argued that literary works should express the thoughts, feelings, and aspirations of the people in a certain historical era, and further stressed that the people are the concrete, historical people. The young Hegelians were criticized by the classical writers in that they failed to gain insight into the historical nature of the category of the people and regarded the people merely as an unchanging group. “There is just as little difference, in the eyes of Absolute Criticism, between the ‘from the start’ of the sixteenth-century mass and the ‘from the start’ of the nineteenth-century mass as there is between those masses themselves” (Marx and Engels 1975a, p. 80). On the contrary, literary creation should recognize and truly represent the life and spiritual identity of the people in a given, concrete historical situation.

When examining the literary phenomena of their time, classical Marxist writers especially underlined the importance of participation of the people in literary activities. In his letter to Lassalle, Marx suggested that he should focus on the literary representation of ordinary peasants and urban revolutionaries:

The aristocratic representatives of revolution—behind whose catch-words of unity and liberty there still lingers the dream of the imperial past and of club-law—ought not in that case to monopolise the interest as you make them do; rather the representatives of the peasants (of these in particular) and of the revolutionary elements in the towns should provide an altogether significant and dynamic background. (Marx 1983, p. 420)

Engels praised the style of fiction writing in England and France at the time as “(the style of novel writing has undergone) a complete revolution during these last ten years; that instead of kings and princes, who formerly were the heroes of similar tales, it is now the poor, the despised class, whose fates and fortunes, joys and sufferings, are made the topic of romance; …this new class of novel writers, such as G. Sand, E. Sue, and Boz, is indeed a sign of the times” (Engels 1975a, p. 415). Engels was pleased to see “the poor, the despised class” as the protagonists of literary works, calling it “a complete revolution.”

In literary works, the ordinary people should not only be the protagonists, but also show their strength and resistance. Based on this notion, Marx believed that Eugène Sue’s novel “The Mysteries of Paris,” despite depicting the underclass from a sympathetic standpoint, mistook religious and moral salvation for the recipe of social change, ignoring the fact that the people themselves could act as a revolutionary force. In a letter to Harkness, Engels expressed a similar view:

In the “City Girl” the working class figures as a passive mass, unable to help itself and not even making any attempt at striving to help itself ... in 1887 to a man who for nearly fifty years has had the honour of sharing in most of the fights of the militant proletariat. The rebellious reaction of the working class against the oppressive medium which surrounds them, their attempts—convulsive, half-conscious or conscious—at recovering their status as human beings, belong to history and must therefore lay claim to a place in the domain of realism. (Engels 2010, p. 167)

The working class in the late nineteenth century was no longer a class in itself, but a class for itself, and literature should not be written as if “All attempts to drag it out of its torpid misery come from without, from above” (Engels 2010, p. 167), but rather as if it were a conscious demand of the working class.

As for the achievements of writers and the qualities of their works, Marx also deemed that they should be judged by the people: “...the people, which hitherto has been the sole judge as to which writer has ‘authority’ and which is ‘without authority’” (Marx 1975a, p. 177). Only works that have withstood the test of the people and offered them beauty and profound enlightenment are deemed excellent works. Engels provided a model for the use of the people-scale with concrete critical practices. When evaluating “German Volksbuche,” Engels measured the “poetic value” and the “popular value” of folktales to examine “what do the people want with it?”, whether they “deserve to circulate among the people” and whether they should be sent out “among the people.” Engels appreciated “Siegfried the Invulnerable” because it “has the most exuberant poetry written sometimes with the greatest naivety and sometimes with the most beautiful humorous pathos,” and it “has character, a bold, fresh, youthful spirit.” And thus “every young wandering craftsman can take as an example,” and “the people have also shown themselves grateful for it.” Therefore, Engels insisted that these folklore books should be circulated among the people, so they can “restore the legend in its old language, add other genuine folk legends to make a complete book, send this out among the people, and it would keep the poetic sense alive.” Engels also criticized “The legends of Faust” and “Der ewige Jude,” suggesting that “not as products of the free imagination are they conceived, no, as children of a slavish superstition” and “incapable of offering any poetical enjoyment,” instead, in their present shape, “they are bound to strengthen and renew old superstitions.” Engels further emphasized that, “…I believe I have shown, even in these few notes, how inadequate this literature appears, when judged according to the interest of the people and not the interest of poetry” (Engels 1975b, pp. 32–39).

1.2 Lenin on the People

The notion of the people became a much clearer political concept for Lenin. Subsequently, the people became an important measure for distinguishing between friend and enemy, as well as a major supporting force for the proletarian revolution. Lenin’s discourse on the people directly informed the later Chinese Marxist view of the people.

1.2.1 Lenin’s Connotation of the People

Lenin often referred to the people in his writings, but more often he used the people as an important concept to distinguish between friend and enemy. This distinction enabled him to scope out the supporters and advocates of the revolution. Lenin shared Marx’s basic view that “the proletariat and the peasantry are the chief components of the ‘people’” (Lenin 1962a, p. 136), and that “…the Bolsheviks have at all times and invariably spoken about the capture of power by the masses of the people, by the proletariat and the peasantry and not by any ‘politically-conscious minority’” (Lenin 1962c, p. 370). In addition to the “proletariat and peasantry,” Lenin extended the scope of the people to the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, and soldiers, in a word, all the forces that can drive historical progress in a given period of time. Lenin, however, posited a specific historical interpretation for such people. He argued that whether the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, and soldiers belong to the camp of the people depends on their attitudes toward the old regime. If they support the old regime or compromise with it, they obviously walk toward the opposite side of the people. Here, the idea of the people is no longer a question of identity, but a question of political stand, which is related to individuals’ attitude toward the old and new regimes.

As for the attitude toward the people, Lenin enthusiastically eulogized the substantial contribution of Russian people in the Russian Revolution:

And yet all the freedom that still exists in Russia was won only by the “crowd,” only by the people, who heroically came out into the street, who made countless sacrifices in the fight, and who with their deeds supported the great watchword: freedom or death. All these actions of the people were the actions of the crowd. The whole new era in Russia was won, and is being maintained, only by popular passion. (Lenin 1962c, p. 398)

It was also on the basis of his attitude toward the people that Lenin exposed the vacillating nature of the bourgeois parties: “Have not the Cadets shown a thousand times already that they, too, are striving both to lean on the people and to check its revolutionary upsurge?” (Lenin 1962c, p. 359). Furthermore, just like Marx, Lenin was particularly wary of the deceitful nature of those bourgeois parties that, in the name of “the people,” are in fact contrary to the interests of the people, and he bitterly satirized those who were subservient to the ones at the top. Lenin said:

If we are representatives of the people, we must say what the people are thinking and what they want, and not that which is agreeable to the higher-ups or some sort of “political conditions”. If we are government officials, then I am perhaps prepared to understand that we shall declare in advance that anything is “impracticable” which the powers that be have given us to understand is not to their liking. (Lenin 1962a, pp. 284–285)

Here, Lenin raised a critical question that still exists today: Whether the representatives of the people truly represent the interests of the people? Or are they subservient to the source of power?

Moreover, Lenin saw the problems among the people themselves as well. “ In Europe, there is no ‘honest’ revolutionary defencism like we have in Russia, where the people have handed over the power to the bourgeoisie through ignorance, inertia, tradition, and the habit of suffering the rod” (Lenin 1962d, p. 145). This indicates that not all people are inherently revolutionary, and that even those being exploited and oppressed need publicity and education. Some questions Lenin raised about the notion of the people still carry a warning today.

1.2.2 Lenin on the Relationship Between Literature and the People

Lenin inherited and carried forward the excellent literary tradition of Russian revolutionary democracy. According to Vissarion Belinsky, “Their literature has always been a true reflection, a mirror of society, has always gone hand in hand with it, oblivious of the mass of the nation, for their society is the supreme manifestation of their nation spirit, their nation life” (Belinsky 1958, p. 13). Nikolay Dobrolyubov further suggested that literature should reflect not just ordinary life, but “the life of the people, the aspirations of the people” (Dobrolyubov1983, p. 187). Lenin made an even clearer statement on the relationship between literature and the people, in his “Party Organisation and Party Literature” published in 1905, where for the first time he resolutely put forward the slogan that literature should “serve the millions and tens of millions of working people” and that free writing will not serve “some satiated heroine” nor “the bored ‘upper ten thousand’ suffering from fatty degeneration,” but serve “the millions and tens of millions of working people” (Lenin 1962b, pp. 48–49).

In the wake of the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin further elaborated on the premise that “art belongs to the people” based on the new historical conditions:

Art belongs to the people. It must have its deepest roots in the broad mass of workers. It must be rooted in and grow with their feelings, thoughts and desires. It must arouse and develop the artist in them. (Zetkin 1929, p. 14)

Therefore, for the first time in the global history of art that the affiliation of art was clearly stated. Lenin also argued, in light of the situation in Russia at the time, that the first thing needed to be done for literature and art was to popularize it. Lenin said, “Are we to give cake and sugar to a minority when the mass of workers and peasants still lack black bread?…We must keep the workers and peasants always before our eyes” (Zetkin 1929, p. 14).

Lenin’s concept of the people and his theories on the relationship between literature and the people directly impacted Chinese Marxists. Mao Zedong (毛泽东) repeatedly cited Lenin’s statements in his “Talks at the Yan’an Conference on Literature and Art,” citing in particular Lenin’s statement that literature and art should “serve the millions and tens of millions of working people” (Lenin 1962b, pp. 48–49), and underlining the importance of serving the workers, peasants, and soldiers. When talking about the relationship between literature and the revolutionary cause, Mao also borrowed Lenin’s metaphor that literature and art should become “gears and screws” of the revolutionary machine. Additionally, when talking about the direction of the popularization of literature and art to serve the people, Mao also cited Lenin’s statement that “It must have its deepest roots in the broad mass of workers. It must be rooted in and grow with their feelings, thoughts and desires” (Zetkin 1929, p. 14).

2 The Chinese Form’s View on People

In terms of literature and art, the people, as the subjects of literary activities, are both the subjects of literary representation and literary acceptance. The relationship between literature and the people constitutes the cornerstone of the construction of the Chinese form. The Chinese form has presented some distinctive and creative theoretical views on whom to serve and how to serve, and has scientifically answered these questions. These views are of great guiding significance for the development of Chinese literature and art.

2.1 The Connotations of People

Considering classical Marxism as the basis, the people’s view in Chinese form has undergone a process of constant construction, revision, and supplementation and has gradually developed its own characteristics. As Mao Zedong suggested, “The concept of the people varies with different countries and with different historical periods of the various countries” (Mao 1957, p. 311). In different periods of China’s revolution and construction, the concept of the people has been endowed with different connotations at different times to meet the needs of China’s revolution and construction and the shifts in classes and strata.

2.1.1 The People as the Aggregation of Classes

The Chinese form’s definition of the people as the aggregation of classes is a choice made in light of China’s actual conditions. China has long been an agrarian society with a self-contained small-scale peasant economy dominating the society, which makes it vastly different from Marx’s nineteenth-century Western European society. In modern times, with the rise of national conflicts, class and national conflicts have been intricately intertwined. The lessons of the Chinese revolution have made people gradually realize that in order to win the revolution, it is imperative to expand the allies and win the support and advocacy of the broadest masses of the people. During the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, the Chinese Communists’ concept of the people became increasingly sophisticated. In 1945, Mao Zedong gave a report on “On the Coalition Government” at the Seventh National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, analyzing the proportion of China’s population when expounding the basis for the coalition government:

This is because it has been winning the approval of all possible people among, first, millions of industrial workers and tens of millions of handicraft workers and farm laborers, and, second, among the peasantry, who constitute 80 percent of China’s population, that is, 360 million out of a population of 450 million, and, third, among the large numbers of the petty bourgeoisie, as well as the liberal bourgeoisie, the enlightened gentry, and other patriots. (Mao 2015, p. 782)

While the urban industrial proletariat was relatively small in number in the twentieth century, the peasants “accounted for eighty percent of China’s population, i.e., 360 million out of 450 million.” These figures afford the historical reasons why Mao extended the leading force of the revolution from some classes to the people of all classes, represented by workers, peasants, and soldiers.

In accordance with the specific characteristics of various classes in Chinese society and the needs of the current revolution, Mao corrected the slogan of “Literature for the Common People (Pingmin Wenxue 平民文学)” put forward in the May Fourth Movement: “…in fact the ‘common people’ then could only refer to the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois intellectuals in the cities, that is, the so-called urban intelligentsia” (Mao 2005, p. 361). Literature and art should serve a broad range of working masses, and “It should serve the toiling masses of workers and peasants who make up more than 90% of the nation’s population and should gradually become their very own” (Mao 2005, pp. 368–369). In his famous “Talks at the Yan’an Conference on Literature and Art (1942),” Mao specifically discussed the components of the people: “The broadest section of the people, who constitute more than ninety percent of the total population, are workers, peasants, soldiers, and the petty bourgeoisie.…These four kinds of people constitute the largest sector of the Chinese nation and the broadest popular masses” (Mao 1943, p. 65). Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the concept of the people has taken on new connotations with the changing times. “In the period of constructing socialism, all classes, strata, and social groups that approve of, support, and participate in the endeavor to construct socialism fall under the rubric of the people” (Mao 1957, p. 311). Thus, it can be seen that Chinese Marxism does not exactly repeat Marx’s concept of the people, but offers a matter-of-fact interpretation of the concept of the people considering the actual conditions of Chinese society, where the people become a revolutionary aggregation of classes with broad common interests and an association based on but also transcend class. By expanding the Marxist concept of class to the incorporation of all classes of people, the Chinese form of the concept of people acquires a novel quality and embodies the spirit of Chinese Marxism of seeking truth from facts and the characteristics of the theory of the people.

The Chinese form of the people is not only a historical and economic concept, but more significantly, a political concept. Mao pointed out in “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People” that “To acquire a correct understanding of these two different types of contradictions, [i.e., the contradictions] between the enemy and ourselves and [the contradictions] among the people, we ought first make clear what is meant by the people and what is meant by the enemy” (Mao 1957, p. 311). The people are always opposed to the classes, strata, and social groups that hinder historical development, and the political connotation of the notion of the people always varies in different times. For instance, during the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, all classes, strata, and social groups that resisted the Japanese aggression fell within the scope of the people; during the period of socialist construction, all social classes and groups that favored, supported, and participated in the cause of socialist construction, including all patriots who safeguarded the integrity and unity of the motherland, belonged to the scope of the people. In this sense, the concept of the people in China is neither a mere aggregation of the majority, nor is it divided by the degree of possession of the means of production. Rather, it represents a revolutionary aggregation of classes on the basis of political interests in a specific era of Chinese society. The people are the fundamental historical force of the Chinese revolution, as well as the main body that undertakes the important task of pushing forward history and national liberation. The concrete historical and political essence of the aggregation of classes or strata of the people adds a singular color to the Chinese form of the concept of the people.

2.1.2 The People Are the Creators of History

Do heroes make history or do slaves make history? This question is constantly mentioned and debated in academic circles. Marx and Engels clearly stated that history is created by the masses of the people, and that “Together with the thoroughness of the historical action, the size of the mass whose action it is will therefore increase” (Marx and Engels 1975a, p. 82).

The Chinese form imbibed this view and insisted that the people are the creators of history. Mao made it clear that “The people, and the people alone, are the creative force of the world” (Mao 2015, p. 761). In the course of history, the people, as the subjects of practice, are not just the creators of material wealth, but also of spiritual wealth, and thus constitute the decisive force for social change.

In terms of literary creation, ordinary workers have the right to be the main object of their literary and artistic representation. As early as 1919, Mao Zedong in his “Declaration on the Founding of ‘Xiangjiang Review (湘江评论)’” (July 14, 1919) enthusiastically praised the new changes brought about by the May Fourth Movement to the Chinese literary circles: “In literature, the literature of the aristocracy, classical literature, dead literature, has given way to literature of the common people, contemporary literature, a literature imbued with vitality” (Mao 1992, p. 318). After watching the Ping opera (Pingju 评剧) “Forced to Join Rebels,” Mao was even more passionate in praising the cast for depicting the people as the main descriptive objects of the work, sending a letter to the choreographer:

History is created by the people, but on the stage of old opera (and all the old literature and arts that were divorced from the people), the people were but the dregs of society, and the stage was dominated by nabobs, rich wives, and young masters and misses. You now have reversed this inversion of history and have restored history’s true face. (Mao 2015, p. 483)

Mao saw the problem of traditional Chinese opera and therefore advocated turning the history once dominated by the emperors and generals into the history of the people, reversing the reversal of history. In fact, this phenomenon exists not only in traditional opera, but also in ancient Chinese historical novels. Lin Shu, in the “ Preface of ‘The Conscript: A Story of the French War of 1813’,” has compared the depictions of the Chinese and Western wars:

I read through the Chinese history of the recorded battles. It only described the strategy of the military master, the convenience of the terrain to win, and the momentum of victory and defeat, but did not describe the life and death of the soldiers in the army, as well as the sadness and complaints of conscripted husbands and lovesick wives… Between the lines, it described in detail that in the wake of the defeat in Moscow, Napoleon raised or enlarged an army, fought hard with Lippincott, and was defeated at Waterloo. What is interspersed is the story of Joseph the Cripple, the love affair with his wife Gosselin, and the bitter battle between the military alliances of Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Switzerland and the French army. All military matters, whether important or trivial, can be well known. (Lin 1990, pp. 49–50)

The Chinese historical novel (演义小说) mainly delineates the astuteness and resourcefulness of the military counselors and the invincible might of the generals, while the soldiers are only the foil and embellishment of the war. Readers cannot identify with their personal images, nor their family origins or mental activities. This differs from the emphasis on those microscopic scenes of war in Western war novels (Hu 1988). Literary works should thus express the joy, anger, and sorrow of the ordinary people, shape the heroic image of the people, and show the spirit of the people in the pursuit of their ideals and free life, which is precisely the embodiment of the Marxist historical materialism in literary activities.

2.1.3 Adherence to the Centrality of the People

Adherence to the centrality of the people distinguishes the Chinese form from either “the people are the foundation of the state (民为邦本)” maxim of traditional Chinese culture or the “masses” theory of Western Marxism. The view of the people in the Chinese form differs from the traditional Chinese idea that “the people are the foundation of the state” and “the people are more valued than the ruler(民贵君轻).” Although the adage, “the people are the foundation of the state,” emphasizes the importance of the people, it aims to consolidate autocratic rule with the aid of the power of the people, reminding the ruler that “the water that bears the boat is the same that swallows it up.” As Chen Duxiu (陈独秀) stated:

The so-called “Emperors sees as the people see; Emperors hears as the people hear,” “the people are the foundation of the state, ” and “the people are more valuable than the ruler,” all take the ruler’s state (i.e., the ruler’s ancestral property) as the principal. Such people-centered principles as be benevolent to the people, love the people, and for the people, fundamentally abolish the individuality of the people, and the people-oriented democratic politics with the people as the main body is by no means the same thing. (Chen 1993, p. 187)

The Chinese form of the people is also different from the idea of the masses or citizens discussed in Western Marxism. Western Marxism aims to criticize and reflect upon capitalism, and the masses or citizens are mainly the objects of their salvation, while the Chinese form emphasizes the people as the masters of society. The people are not only the subject of the Chinese revolution, but also the subject of today’s modernization. The ever-advancing developments and extraordinary achievements of contemporary China rely just on the great practice of the Chinese people.

“All for the people, all relying on the people, and serving the people wholeheartedly,” has become the fundamental purpose of the ruling party, including the Chinese form. As Xi Jinping (习近平） proposed: “We must ensure the principal status of the people, and adhere to the Party’s commitment to serving the public good and exercising power in the interests of the people. We must observe the Party’s fundamental purpose of wholeheartedly serving the people, and put into practice the Party’s mass line in all aspects of governance. We must regard as our goal the people’s aspirations to live a better life, and rely on the people to move history forward” (Xi 2017, p. 21). The view of the people in the Chinese form is an inheritance and improvement of the classical Marxist view of the people. It embodies the historical materialism of Marxism, and moreover, it is the fruit of the combination of Marxism and the practice of the Chinese revolution, which demonstrates the collective political wisdom and pragmatic spirit of Chinese Communists.

2.2 “People First” in Literary Criticism

In the history of Chinese and foreign literary criticism, the relationships between literature and the world, literature and writers, as well as literature and readers, have constituted a crucial dimension of literary theory and criticism, but the relationship between literature and the people has not gained as prominent a position as it deserves. The Russian revolutionary-democratic critics once mentioned “peopleness” in the development of literature, and it was Lenin who explicitly proposed that literature and art should serve the people. But because Russia was in the midst of a stormy revolutionary struggle, for Lenin, as Mao found, “This is in fact not the case, since many comrades have certainly not found a clear and definite answer to this question” (Mao 1943, p. 63). Theoretically and practically, the establishment of the relationship between literature and the people historically fell on the shoulders of Chinese Marxist literary critics.

2.2.1 The Principle of “Literature and Art for the People”

The question “for whom literature and art should be” is a “fundamental question, a question of principle” that needs to be solved by the Chinese form. During the May Fourth Movement, this issue was brought to the attention of the young Chinese Communists. Yun Daiying (恽代英) wrote that the new literature should “stimulate the spirit of the people and make them engage in the movement for national independence and democratic revolution” (Yun 1984, p. 390). Shen Zemin further elaborated:

Is there any literary work that can fill its genre with the majestic vigor of an awakening generation of people? Is there any literary work that painfully depicts the lives of the majority of the people in modern China and suggests their background and prospects? Is there a work that is extremely full of youthful spirit and can represent the new generation to speak of their divine aspirations and sorrows, strengths and weaknesses? If there can be such a work, I think it is the literature we need. (Shen 1997, p. 53)

In the 1930s, with the development of the left-wing literary movement, the discussion about the popularization of literature and art continued to intensify. Lu Xun clearly proposed that literature and art should not be isolated from the people, and that the development of literature and art should be diversified to meet the needs of different groups of people: “Literature and art should have been appreciated not by only a few of the best, but something that cannot be appreciated by only a few of the innately imbecile.” He further suggested that, “in the present society with unequal education, there should still be a variety of literature and art of varying difficulty to meet the needs of readers of all levels” (Lu 2005, p. 367). Zhou Yang also proposed that the popularization of literature and art should be based in reality: “If one ignores the low general cultural standard of the toiling masses in China at present and talks about raising the level of the masses to appreciate real, great art, that is actually a refusal to serve the masses, a kind of abolitionism!” (Zhou 1984, pp. 28–29). The masses discussed by the Chinese left-wing mainly referred to the oppressed toiling masses, and their advocacy of popularization laid the foundation for the view of the people in the Chinese form.

In 1942, Mao gave a comprehensive exposition of the relationship between literature and the people in his well-known “Talks at the Yan’an Conference on Literature and Art.” Considering the reality of revolutionary literature and art in China since the May Fourth Movement, especially in response to the problems that arose in the literary movement in the revolutionary base areas during the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, Mao clearly asserted that “Our literature and art serve the popular masses, primarily workers, peasants, and soldiers; they are created for workers, peasants, and soldiers and are used by them” (Mao 1943, p. 73). As for literary creation and criticism as well as literary policies, the above clearly defines the fundamental orientation of literature and art to serve the workers, peasants, soldiers, and literature and art to serve the people. Furthermore, the tension between popularization and enhancement, the dialectical unity of motivation and effect, etc., which Mao talked about in his “Talks at the Yan’an Conference on Literature and Art,” were all based on the needs and interests of the people. Only by clarifying the question of literature “for whom” can we discover the basis and criteria for popularization and enhancement, and motivation and effect. The telos of Mao’s proposal to critically preserve the heritage of Chinese and foreign literature and art is also to incorporate them as a part of serving the people. In a manner of speaking, once the fundamental problem of serving the people is solved, other problems will be smoothly solved, and vice versa, “and unless the fundamental question is settled, it won’t be easy to settle many other questions either” (Mao 1943, p. 67).

In the new era after China’s Reform and Opening up (1978), Deng Xiaoping (邓小平) adhered to and also developed Mao’s idea that literature and art serve the people. In his “Speech Greeting the Fourth Congress of Chinese Writers and Artists,” he repeatedly highlighted that “our literature and art belong to the people” and fondly compared the relationship between the people and literary and art workers to that of a mother and her children: “It is the people who nurture our writers and artists. The creative life of all progressive writers and artists is rooted in their intimate ties with the people. Creativity withers when these ties are forgotten, neglected or severed” (Deng 1995, pp. 209, 211).

Today, with the progress of society and material prosperity, there is once again a highlight on the relationship between literature and the people. Xi Jinping further pointed out in his “Speech at the Symposium on Literary and Art Work” that “Putting people at the center means that we must make satisfying the people’s spiritual and cultural needs into a starting point and stopover point for literature and art, and literature and art work, make the people into the subjects of literature and art expression, make the people into connoisseurs and critics of literature and art aesthetics, and make serving the people into the vocation of literature and art workers” (Xi 2015, pp. 13–14). The Chinese form takes the relationship between literature and the people as the fundamental value of literature and art, which is unprecedented in the history of literature both in China and in other parts of the world.

2.2.2 Adherence to the Direction of People-Centered Creation

Literary creation should be centered around the people. To accurately portray the people as the main object in literature and art, one needs to walk toward the people and be among the people; otherwise, it is difficult to create real and emotionally evocative artistic images. Mao Zedong said: “Revolutionary Chinese writers and artists, the kind from whom we expect great things, must go among the masses; they must go among the masses of workers, peasants, and soldiers and into the heat of battle for a long time to come, without reservation, devoting body and soul” (Mao 1943, p. 69). After Mao’s “Talks at the Yan’an Conference on Literature and Art” in 1942, a number of masterpieces emerged and still retain their artistic charm today, which is directly the result of writers and artists of that time living with the people and obtaining sources of artistic creation from them. In addition to going to the grassroots and exploring their lives in depth, emotional identification is even more important if writers and artists adhere to the direction of people-centered creation. Xi Jinping indicated, “Deeply loving the people isn’t a slogan, it requires profound rational knowledge and concrete practical action” (Xi 2015, p. 18). In terms of not only the integrating the people with the “body,” but also with the “heart” and “feelings,” Xi declared: “There will be no lasting literary inspiration and creative passion in the ivory tower. Literature and art will become rootless duckweed, disease-free groans, and soulless bodies without the people. All aspiring and pursuing literary and art workers should follow the footsteps of the people, step out of every inch of the world, read the whole world, and let their hearts always beat with the hearts of the people” (Xi 2016, p. 11). In other words, writers and artists should establish contact with ordinary persons to feel the joys and sorrows of their life, to experience the true love and truth and to feel the greatest love and Tao (道) of the world from the persons and stories around them. Xi went on to say, “whether or not excellent works can be produced, depends most fundamentally on whether or not they are expressed for the people, express emotions for the people and express concern for the people” (Xi 2015, p. 16). Thus another characteristic of the Chinese form is the emphasis on the emotional connections between the people and writers and artists.

Based on the “people-centered” principle, the people should become the content, the subject, and the destination of literary creation. The image of the people, mainly the workers, peasants, and soldiers and their historical creativity and initiative to transform reality become the focus of Chinese form. In his “Talks at the Yan’an Conference on Literature and Art,” Mao affirmed that literature and art should express “new characters and the new world” and that writers should enthusiastically celebrate “the proletariat and the masses” (Mao 1943, p. 85). This was Mao’s demand for literary creation from the perspective of a politician, and it also indicated Mao’s critical attitude toward the old culture. The “new characters and a new world” was opposite to the “emperors and generals” in the old novels and operas, and Mao hoped that literary and art workers would pay attention to the rank and file, to represent the suffering masses of workers, peasants, and soldiers, and to discover and construct new characters for the Chinese literary circles. In his “Speech Greeting the Fourth Congress of Chinese Writers and Artists,” Deng put forward the fundamental requirement of portraying new men in socialism: “We must portray the new features of the pioneers in the modernization drive, their revolutionary ideals and scientific approach, their lofty sentiments and creative ability, and their broad and realistic vision.” Besides, Deng Xiaoping also mentioned that “the deeds of heroes, the labour, struggles, joys and sorrows, partings and reunions of ordinary people, and the life of our contemporaries and of our predecessors — all these should be depicted in our works of literature and art” (Deng 1995, pp. 202–203). Noticeably, the heroic figures here should be regarded as those representatives emerging from the people. They rely on the power of the people and also giving voices for the people. Since some film and television works are inundated with images of emperors, generals, queens, and concubines, it is quite pertinent to reiterate that “new characters and a new world” are portrayed with the people as the protagonists. The Chinese form’s view that literature and art should express both the heroic performance of the people and the joys and sorrows of ordinary workers is truly an inheritance from and development of Marxism.

The relationship between literature and the people involves various external relationships as discussed above as well as many other factors including the text. The Chinese form’s emphasis on literature's concern for the people doesn’t equal to a lack of concern for the text itself. In fact, the writers’ artistic pursuits and even the formation of their linguistic style are also subject to the fundamental question of literature and art, namely whom it should serve. The people-centered approach requires a relentless exploration of artistic forms, a heartfelt effort to create works and characters that satisfy the people, and thus in “how to write” also fully expresses the writer’s love and respect for the people. Therefore, writers and artists should “consciously draw source material, themes, plots, language and poetic and artistic inspiration from the life of the people and be nourished by the dynamic spirit of the people, who make history” (Deng 1995, p. 204) and express the wishes, interests, and demands of the people using exquisite artistic methods to meet their diverse aesthetic needs.

2.2.3 The People as Recipients of Literature and Art

The masses of people should not cease to be the main object of literary works, but also have the right to enjoy all the culture created by history. In the history of human development, due to the division of labor in society and the emergence of classes, art was once owned and appreciated only by a selected few and became the specialized activity of some special members of society, while the masses of working people were excluded from the temple of art. The people are indeed the creators of material wealth, and yet, they have long been denied access to the fruits of spiritual labor. As Marx said, “labour produces wonderful things for the rich — but for the worker it produces privation” (Marx 1975d, p. 273). Therefore, the explicit inclusion and staging of the people as the recipients and consumers of literature and art is also a characteristic of the Chinese form.

Mao suggested when talking about “the question of for whom we are writing”:

In the Shanghai period, the audience for revolutionary works of literature and art consisted primarily of students, office workers, and shop assistants. … The audience for works of literature and art here consists of workers, peasants, and soldiers, together with their cadres in the Party, the government, and the army.…Once they are literate, cadres of various kinds, soldiers in the army, workers in factories, and peasants in the countryside want books and newspapers, while people who aren’t literate want to see plays, look at pictures, sing songs, and listen to music; they are the audience for our works of literature and art. (Mao 1943, pp. 59–60)

In this regard, in her “Introduction” to the translation of “Talks at the Yan’an Conference on Literature and Art” in 1980, Bonnie McDougall stated that “...it was Mao who brought the audience to the forefront of the discussion in China” (McDougall 1980, p. 15). Mao not only introduced the concept of “recipients,”and more importantly, his concept of “recipients” connotes workers, peasants, and soldiers, and this is exactly what distinguishes him from other Western critics and Western Marxist critics.

Mao also discussed the dialectical relationship between the improvement and popularization of literature and art based on people’s acceptance of it. In the early 1940s, the situation of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression was quite grim, and the purpose of literature and art at that time was not to satisfy high-brow aesthetic needs with sophisticated art, but to resort to the power of literature and art to mobilize the masses to strive for victory and national liberation at the earliest. Also, the masses of people at that time were generally illiterate and were unlikely to accept high-brow works. Therefore, “The first step for them is not a question of ‘pinning flowers on brocade’ but ‘sending charcoal in the snow’” (Mao 1943, p. 71). Considering this situation, literature and art must be popularized as the basis and focus in order to make literature and art truly serve the people. Certainly, with the improvement in the educational level of the people as the recipients, their demand for art will grow on a yearly basis. “The people demand material that can reach a wide audience, but they also demand higher standards, standards that continue to rise month by month and year by year,” because neither popularization nor improvement can “stay constantly on the same level month after month and year after year” (Mao 1943, p. 71). This shows that making the people the “recipients” of literature and art does not mean lowering the standard of art to accommodate them. The people, as “recipients,” also have a spirit of initiative and creativity, and they will raise their standards to appreciate and distinguish quality literary and artistic works, as their level of appreciation increases. The proposal that the people become the recipients, and even creators of literature and art, is a substantial contribution of the Chinese form to the history of literary reception.

In terms of the standards of literary criticism, the Chinese form also highlights the people-centered value orientation. Whether a work is excellent and valuable depends on whether it represents the interests of, and is recognized by, the people. Deng Xiaoping said, “It is for the people to judge the ideological and artistic value of a work” (Deng 1995, p. 205) which exactly accords with Marx’s earlier assertion that “the people, which hitherto has been the sole judge as to which writer has ‘authority’ and which is ‘without authority’” (Marx 1975a, p. 177). The measuring line to evaluate artistic forms of works must also be based on the needs of the people, and “a new and vital Chinese style and manner, pleasing to the eye and to the ear of the Chinese common people” (Mao 2004, p. 539) is also advocated. In addressing the literary and artistic heritage, it is important to “distinguish between works of literature and art from past ages by first examining their attitude towards the people and whether they have any progressive significance in history, and determine their own attitude accordingly” (Mao 1943, p. 100).

All the above elaborations form a unique part of the theoretical construction of Chinese forms. Undeniably, due to historical limitations and evolution with time, the Chinese form still needs improvement in terms of the relationship between literature and the people. However, in general, this is the first time in the history of Marxist literary criticism that the issue of the relationship between literature and the people has been theoretically and practically delineated in such a clear and systematic manner, as the concept of “literature and art serving the people”Footnote 1 proposed by the Chinese form is still highly relevant to today’s reality.

3 The Improvement and Expansion of the Concept of People

Although it is quite clear that the concept of people is central and fundamental to the Chinese form of Marxist literary criticism as discussed above, some issues remain. Specifically, the relationship between literature and the people needs further exploration and expansion with in-depth analysis.

3.1 A Reflection on the Relationship Between Literature and People

In contemporary literary creation, the relationship between literature and the people is not as satisfactory as it should be. Some literary works have deviated in their attitude toward the people, primarily in two aspects: first, looking down upon the people as a result of a messianic mentality; second, pandering to the people with the tendency of commodity fetishism—namely, the problem of “people cult” proposed by Marx. To allow the relationship between literature and the people to play a greater role under the new historical conditions, it is necessary to examine and correct these problems.

3.1.1 Looking Down Upon the People as a Result of a Messianic Mentality

In China, despite the high status of the people and the fact that no one openly denies the relationship between literature and the people, there still are some literary works in which the people are not supreme, and even in those that depict and sympathize with ordinary workers, there are some problematic issues. Some “subaltern narratives” in contemporary novels seem to depict the hardship and difficulties of migrant workers and other characters, and the authors do show some sympathy for their plight. However, the whole work is suffused with a certain sense of the author’s “superiority” (perhaps unconscious expression), as if the narrator and the author occupy a higher position than the characters in the story, looking at the world and the people with a compassionate attitude and lamenting their grim fate. As Engels propounds, the narrator, with a touch of limited sympathy, recounts the plight of “the poor man” and “little man” who cannot help themselves (Engels 1977, p. 235).

One major issue that needs to be confronted in the literature is the appropriate standpoint and attitude through which to depict the people. Whereas Western Marxism adopts the attitude of redemption, the slogans of the May Fourth Movement in China are “enlightenment” and “renovate the citizens.” Thus, the Chinese form clearly advocates approaching and assuming the viewpoint of the people, and discovering their beauty of humanity through empathy. Some people might think that ordinary people, especially those at the bottom of the social ladder, lack intriguing stories and rich emotions because they are overwhelmed with their difficult lives. However, everyone has a story, their own pursuit and splendor, and what literary creation lacks is the eyes to discover and reveal. The bell-ringer, Quasimodo, in Victor Hugo’s Notre Dame de Paris is ugly in appearance, but the brilliance of his humane actions makes him memorable to the readers. In contemporary China, there are also many excellent works about ordinary people, in which the resilience and struggle of simple men and women are evident between the lines, allowing readers to feel for their strength and kindness. An American professor once told me that she was studying novels about American cab drivers and she felt the joy of being cab drivers as depicted. Her field of study and research position are inspiring. In China, writers and artists should not only take ordinary workers as the subjects of expression, but also recognize the inner world of ordinary workers to truly understand their good qualities. The “attitude toward the people” is, thus, indeed the core measure for the evaluation of a literary work.

Adopting the outlook of the people does not mean not depicting suffering. On the contrary, the belief that needs to be held is that when depicting suffering, the works should transcend suffering, instead of blindly selling it to gain sympathy. In his review of Ye Zi’s work, Li Jianwu uses a striking image that is unforgettable—“a charred young tree.” He goes on to say, “Ye Zi’s novels are always like the charred young tree, without the emotion of Life and Death, without the vividness of language of Eighteen Hundred Quintals, and without any rich gestures, but standing in the wilderness, showing the prickly trunk, and giving people the feeling of a thriving but unfortunate young tree in late spring that has been electrocuted. It has a symbol. Here, we see nothing but suffering, and the will to move upward beyond the suffering. We might as well describe it as solemn and stirring” (Li 1984, p. 517).

The image of “nothing but suffering and the will to move upward beyond the suffering” can be regarded as a symbol of the Chinese national spirit.

3.1.2 Commodity Fetishism and People Cult

Another paradoxical attitude toward the people is the “deification” of the people. In today’s consumerist society, people have become the gods in the consumption chain. In order to gain profits, some literary works and films or TV serious have resorted to violence and pornography to attract readers and viewers; thus, these works, instead of being in the name of the people, are actually in the name of capital, and the people have become the incarnation of capital (we will discuss this issue in Chapter 7). Literature and art need to meet the needs of the vast majority of people, but there should be an aesthetic bottom line. As Xi Jinping pointed out in his “Speech at the Symposium on Literary and Artistic Works”: “Vulgarity is not popularity, desire does not represent hope, pure sensual pleasure is not equal to spiritual pleasure. Literature and art must win the people’s approval, this will not work through showy but impractical skill, opportunism, fishing for fame and compliments, self-praise or ‘a big sedan chair where people carry people’” (Xi 2015, p. 10). In other words, excessive pandering and accommodating behavior is actually irresponsible for the people, since it belittles both the art and the people, and is therefore contrary to the real interests of the people.

Additionally, it is also worthwhile to go forward alone when exploring new forms. How can the popularity of literature be combined with its originality needs further consideration.

3.2 The Complexity of the Concept of People

The definition of the people has been understood differently in Chinese and foreign academia. Some regard the people as an abstract concept and consider the people as an “empty signifier,” whereas others assert that the phrase “the people” has turned into a sense of hegemony, and that the concept has become the legitimate representative of discourse and instruction, synonymous with heroes (Lyotard 1984, p. 30). Therefore, when introducing the concept of the people, Chinese Marxist literary criticism should particularly examine the concreteness and diversity of the concept of people and avoid its abstraction and homogenization.

3.2.1 The Concreteness of the Concept of People

Although the concept of people is universal and general in nature, it is by no means an “imaginary designation.” As a designation, the phrase “the people” goes beyond the description of experience and becomes a term of collection. However, the people are by no means absent. As a historical category, the people are composed of millions of real individuals participating in a given historical activity, and this is where the concreteness of the concept lies. Without each living individual, the concept of the people would have no foundation, and yet it displays dependence on the individuals and the assertion of their will. Considering the people as a whole will ignore the meaning of individual existence under the influence of the changing social tide, and “serving the people” will become an empty phrase.

The concept of the people, however, does not refer to a single individual, but to many individuals. When studying the relationship between the people as a whole and the individual, it should be placed in a specific historical context. On the one hand, a single individual cannot represent the people; the people, as a collective term for the majority, should be the greatest common denominator of many individuals, and it is the convergence of many individuals that demonstrates the power of social reformation. This is exactly the difference between the concreteness of the people and the individuality of the people. On the other hand, as individuals are part of the people, caring for the development and progress of individuals and satisfying everyone’s aspirations and pursuit of a better life constitute the proper, integral meaning of serving the people. Therefore, when studying the concept of people, it is essential to prevent absolute abstraction or limiting it to a single individual, not to mention suppressing the individual with the whole. Literary works are the vehicles that best embody the concreteness of the concept of people. The characters expressed in a work are not only specifically “This One” as put by Hegel (Engels 1995, p. 356) but also represent the characteristics of the context and the aspirations of the people. The men, women, and children in Gaomi Township in Mo Yan’s novels and the herdsmen in Mongolian yurts in Zhang Chengzhi’s novels are characters from different eras and nations who have staged a magnificent living drama in China. Through the portrayal of these vastly diverse characters, literary works demonstrate the incredible richness of the nuance of the people.

3.2.2 The Non-homogeneity of the People

In relation to the concreteness of the people, the people comprise many different kinds of individuals, as opposed to a “homogenous” group of uniform and undifferentiated people. Therefore, when discussing the concept of people, it is necessary to prevent the homogenization of the people so as to fully appreciate and recognize their differences and contradictions. Marx had long been aware of this problem, and in his essay “The Class Struggles in France,” he stated that “Universal suffrage did not possess the magic power which republicans of the old school had ascribed to it. They saw in the whole of France, at least in the majority of Frenchmen, citoyens with the same interests, the same understanding, etc. This was their cult of the people. Instead of their imaginary people, the elections brought the real people to the light of day, that is, representatives of the different classes into which it falls” (Marx 1978, p. 65). Lenin inherited this view from Marx and posited, “In using the word Marx did not thereby gloss over class distinctions, but united definite elements capable of bringing the revolution to completion” (Lenin 1962e, p. 133). On a similar note, Chinese leftist scholar Feng Xuefeng (冯雪峰) propounded, “an aggressive side and a backward side, a bright side and a gray side, and a struggling side demanding emancipation and a side still bound by feudal consciousness” (Feng 1983, p. 169). Especially in modern China, the connotation of the people has been constantly adjusted, differentiated, and expanded, highlighting the complexity of the concept of people.

The non-homogeneity of the people opens the door to diversity in literary and artistic creation and in serving the society. Today’s people are an aggregation of multiple differences. Therefore, adhering to a people-centered creation guide requires in-depth observation and analysis of the differences and contradictions inherent in the people, not only to uncover the conflicts and compromises among individuals, and between individuals and groups, but also to reveal the inner beauty of individuals and the inferiority of human nature. In this way, the portrait of the people becomes richer and more real. Moreover, the non-homogeneity of the people demands respect for the diversity and differences of readers in the reception process. As we live in an age with endless choices, it is important to create literature that is as luxuriant and varied as possible to serve the many lowercased, plural “people.” As far as literary criticism is concerned, respect for difference and tolerance of diversity should be the consensus of criticism.

It should be noted that when we talk about the concreteness and diversity of the people, we are not denying the wholeness of the concept. The people constitute exactly individuals with differences. In addition, these individual differences are established none other than on the basis of a certain consensus and make up the main body that facilitates social progress. Particularly when the concept of people is theorized and applied to the practice of literary criticism as the core concept of Chinese form, it transforms from the abstract to the concrete.

3.3 The Interaction and Mutual Shaping of Literature and People

In the past, we focused more on literature for the people, but in the future, the relationship between literature and the people will not be unilateral but bilaterally interactive, and it is with this interaction and mutual shaping that the people and literature and art will evolve further.

3.3.1 “The People Need Art, and Art Needs the People Even More”

Deng Xiaoping proposed that “the people need art, and art needs the people even more,” which can be seen as the basis for establishing a new relationship between literature and the people. “The people need art” because they need art to express themselves and to satisfy their rich and colorful spiritual life, and, in a higher sense, they need to be sublimated and edified by art. “Art needs the people even more” highlights the dependence of literature and art on the people. Max Dessoir, a German philosopher of aesthetics, held a negative attitude toward this approach and said, “It is often said that art will deteriorate once it is separated from the masses. But I instead think that art is destroyed once it is dedicated to the people” (Dessoir 1987, p. 429). This statement is reasonable if used to criticize kitsch, but it is entirely absurd when viewed in the context of the relationship between literature and the people.

The people are the mother and the source of art. The dependence of art on the people not only manifests in the richness and diversity of the people in real life, which provide the creation of literature and art with contemporary inspiration in content and forms, but also in how people desire change, which becomes the driving force for continuous innovation in literature and art. The ability to create excellent works to meet the spiritual needs of the people is related to the rise and fall of literature and art, as well as to their survival. In this interactive process, literature and art will increasingly move toward the people, which is a historical necessity.

3.3.2 Literature and “People to Come”

As we deeply explore the concept of the people, we realize that the image of the people differs from its original, having become more active and open. Deleuze staged the concept of “People to Come” and believed that writing means to invent a people “who are missing,” namely a people to come (Deleuze 1998, p. 4). Thus, Deleuze works to “invent” not the existing people, but a new “people,” a “people” with endless possibilities. For Deleuze, the true writers are always those who offer the world new possibilities, breaths, and vitality.

The proposal of “People to Come” enriches the concept of “people,” and the image of people in Chinese form will be expanded in two ways: on the one hand, not only does literary creation need to face the existing people, but also express transcendent artistic ideas through the display of new feelings and imagery, summoning the “People to Come.” On the other hand, the “People to Come” will no longer be limited to some certain occupation, but will live their lives in both labor and art, as simultaneously consumers and creators of art. This prophecy, which had already appeared in Marx/Engels’ Communist Manifesto, is becoming a reality today. The multiple identities of Deleuze’s “People to Come” echo the diversity of identities in the future society as Marx once envisioned.

The impact of this new type of people on literature is far-reaching and may reveal some new trends. The multiple identities of the “People to Come” make the identities of the subjects of creation and the subjects of reception rotate and blur, and bring novel experiences and styles to literary creation and reception. In future literary history, we will see a variety of unprecedented characters and worlds. People and literature will also draw closer in the future and their interaction will lead to harmonious companion.

In short, the introduction and refinement of the concept of people have provided “living water” or momentum to the Chinese form, which, together with the concepts of nation and politics, will become the basic essence of the Chinese form and a distinctive mark that distinguishes it from other forms of Marxist literary criticism.