A Study Of The Discourse Of Petty-bourgeoisie Intellectuals In Modern Chinese Literary Theory

A scrutiny of modern Chinese literary history would reveal that the discourse of petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals was employed frequently and intensely in discussions about literary composition and related issues. Its discourse construction relied on the defining of intellectuals by features of petty bourgeois. Related to this term are expressions such as petty-bourgeoisie nature, writers, ideology, sentiments, origin, and literature, all of which are derivatives of petty bourgeois that is evoked to define the class property of intellectuals, including writers, and, a step further, their cultural and aesthetic properties.Genealogically, the theory regarding petty bourgeois, very Chinese though, was mainly derived from revolutionary leaders such as Marx, Engels and Lenin. In practice, petty bourgeois, originally a term in the politico-economic domain, was extended to become a cultural and aesthetic concept, thus rendering intellectuals petty bourgeoisie, and causing the disputes over whoe, workers and peasants or intellectuals, should be the subjects of cultural and aesthetic creation. Following the elucidations by Chen Duxiu, Qu Qiubai, Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, etc. and especially Mao’s “Remarks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art”, petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals as a special form of discourse had become the norm. Accordingly, the “signified” of petty bourgeois was extended to involve the naming and presentation of the nature of intellectuals and literature and art in the context of cultural production, thus defining the orientation of Chinese literature and even the destiny of intellectuals in general.Chronically,the discourse of petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals runs through Chinese literary history.In the 1920s and the 1930s,characterized by disputes over“revolutionary literature”,the discussion of intellectuals’identity entailed by revolution gave rise to the issue:who should be the participants and the leaders of revolutionary literature.It was believed that writers at that time had some sort of inclinations such as“interest-ism”,“infirm ideology and disillusion”,and“individualism”,and therefore were labeled as petty bourgeoisie.Consequently,those petty bourgeoisie intellectuals were considered as outsiders of revolutionary literature.In power struggle of various kinds,they,once on the central stage of literature,were marginalized.The formation of the notion of petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals became a theoretical prelude to their“self-reformation”and“self-exile”.The 1940s and the 1950s were the formative years of the discourse of petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals.Mao’s“Remarks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art”became absolutely correct political and cultural guideline,and,through discussions of whom literature and art serves and whom to represent,petty bourgeois and intellectuals were tied intensely so much so that they could signify each other,and,in extreme cases,capitalists were used to refer to intellectuals,which indicated society’s alertness to intellectuals.At that time,the reformation of petty bourgeois and capitalists evolved into that of intellectuals,who were targets of criticism and mockery and scapegoats for cultural vicissitudes.This severely toppled such traditional notions as“Prominence in learning precedes a political career”or“Scholarship alone is to be revered”.It was a de-intellectual trend to some degree,though the late 1950s and the early 1960s witnessed some vain effort to redefine intellectuals by ridding them of the label of petty bourgeois or capitalists and by crowning them as“workers”.Such short-lived effort was negated by the old discourse and intellectuals were still targets to be reformed.In the 1980s and the 1990s,with the advent of reform and open-up and the market economy,the fashion industry and modern media created a new form of discourse of petty bourgeois:xiaozi(小资)in Pinyin,which had nothing to do with petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals,but much to do with the recognition of some sort of aesthetic tastes and sentiments.The appearance of“xiaozi”marks the dissolution of the discourse of petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals.Intellectuals’derogatory label was ripped off,and their status as subjects of aesthetic creative activity was recognized.This enabled them to have some cultural leadership.The generation, evolution and dissolution of the discourse of petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals over the past 100 years reveal that the mechanism governing the generation and the misuse of such discourse was the dominance of “class” over culture and aesthetics. That is to say, the connotation of intellectuals had long been defined by virtue of class analysis. Consequently, intellectuals’ cultural and aesthetic properties were overwhelmed by the judgment of class discourse. In this case, intellectuals did not have revolutionary or cultural leadership, and their subjectivity as cultural and aesthetic creators was seriously negated and curbed. In fact, due to their complex identity and cultural intension, intellectuals, characterized by the trinity of class, culture and aesthetics, would present their properties in a multi-faceted rather than a single-faceted way at different stages of history and cultural development, and they would participate collectively in historical and cultural construction. When intellectuals were defined as petty bourgeois, their basic properties as cultural and aesthetic subjects should not be overlooked. In our exploration of the concept, the nature and the functions of petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals, only by revealing their historical and cultural complexity, can we fully understand intellectuals’ multiple properties and the drives for cultural development and literary creation.