On The Genealogy Of "petty Bourgeoisie"(1900s-1950s)

“Petty bourgeoisie” is a keyword of Chinese society in the20th century. In thispaper, I will focus on the evolution of the petty bourgeoisie discourse and try to studythe significance system of “petty bourgeoisie” in different historical periods anddifferent social context. Petty bourgeoisie discourse was a powerful tool for politicalpower to tame the modern intellectuals and also was a typical paradigm of politicalliterature criticism.The term “petty bourgeoisie” was introduced into China in the early20th centuryalong with Marxist. At first, the Chinese translation of “petty bourgeoisie” have noclear meaning. In the revolution of the1920s, revolutionary intellectuals used toanalyse the class of Chinese society in order to identify the revolutionary forces. Thus“petty bourgeoisie” entered the public space. In the “Revolutionary Literature”Debate, petty bourgeoisie was highly stigmatized. When the left-wing writers of thelate Chuang Zao club and the Tai Yang club criticized Lu Xun, Mao Dun and Yu DaFu, they use “petty bourgeoisie” as a term of abuse. In the “Free Man” and “ThirdPerson” Debate of1930s, the “Petty Bourgeoisie Literature” which was fiercelycriticized by the left-wing writers did not exist, because it was just a slogan whichinsist that the literature should not be interfered by the ideology of both theCommunist Party of China and Kuomintang. In the Rectification Movement happenedin Yan An1940s, Mao Ze Dong made authoritative interpretation of the “pettybourgeoisie”. It meant alienation from the will of the Communist Party of China.From then on, the petty bourgeoisie discourse became an interpretation system thatcan be used to explain any problem in the ideology by the Communist Party of China.Petty bourgeoisie discourse generated a powerful disciplinary function, makingintellectuals surrender to the political power. After the founding of People’s Republicof China，the petty bourgeoisie discourse was a “jargon” of literature criticism andbecame a typical paradigm of political literature criticism.