The Cultural Revolution in China in 1965 - Research Paper Example

What are some of the perspectives that western scholars have employed to understand the Cultural Revolution in China in 1965? The Cultural Revolutionis one of the defining moments of modern China not just in the eyes of its own people but that of the world as well. Western scholars specifically dominate the scholarly documentation, interpretation and analysis of the political upheaval. Such fact is important because it is pivotal in creating impressions of China today. This paper will explore the perspectives that Western scholars employed in order to understand the Chinese Cultural Revolution. While the theme of the paper does not necessarily require this author to take a stand in regard to the Cultural Revolution itself, the content is expected to better explain how Western scholars arrived at their judgments and allow the readers to better pinpoint biases, inadequacies and their opposite in the humungous body of literature on the subject. Background The study of Communist China is a field in itself and that the corpus of literature written about the subject in the West could probably equal the rest of Chinese history combined. In the study of the Cultural Revolution, Western scholars analyze and understand the phenomenon using the studied society’s criteria or some use their own society’s criteria. Few scholars go so far as to claim that internal criteria are in principle inaccessible to cross-cultural scholars or that using either internal or external criteria is inherently inappropriate. According to Xiuwu Liu: this dichotomous classification of evaluation criteria as internal versus external, like the similar dichotomous classification of points of view, has serious limitations. Indeed, as with points of view, it is impossible to classify many criteria according to this dichotomy. More important, the subjects and purposes of evaluation are diverse.1 Indeed, one single set of assessment criteria for the Cultural Revolution among Western scholars, whether it be internal or external to the extent that it can be identified, cannot appropriately or adequately cover all possible assessment situations. And so, it is understandable that there are many ways, perspectives and approaches to analyze the Cultural Revolution and scholars contend on the methods most appropriate for the country and for the period. Nonetheless, there are sufficient evidences from which valid and credible interpretations could be made as the subject - the Cultural Revolution – is widely documented. For this paper, two important perspectives are explored that – the Mao-in-command model and the factionalism models. Mao In Command Radicalism in China began in 1956 with Mao’s “great stride” and continued two years later with the even more ambitious Great Leap Forward policy. This adventure in high-speed socialist development culminated in the Cultural Revolution, wherein China isolated itself from the rest of the world. After the Chinese Cultural Revolution, with its mass terror, many Western scholars came to view Mao as having presented little or no innovations in the basic Stalinist framework of communism, except that he has directed a greater terror and oppression. Aside from this, Mao’s statements opposing the growing urban-rural gap and increasing bureaucratism in the party have been compared to his actual policy positions, which led to greater increases in inequality and elite privileges and to an even greater squeeze on the peasants through low state-set grain prices and high prices for fertilizers and other state-supplied commodities.2 The simplest approach to Chinese politics, according to Peter Moody, particularly from 1949 to the 1960s, and the approach that would allow the easiest deductions from ideology to practice, is to take what has been called the “Mao in command” model.3 In this view, Chinese politics of the period is largely explained as a reflection of the wishes of Chairman Mao. Now this approach is considered to be a credible and therefore widely used. As it was, many policies that were implemented during the period is attributed to Mao himself. On a deeper level, a study of the data available reveals that many of the major policy initiatives in the Communist China had been undertaken by Mao himself or, what at one time may have amounted to the same thing, by his erstwhile private secretary, Ch’en Po-ta.4 For a decade, from 1966 to 1976 China was politicized. The Cultural Revolution paralyzed the Chinese Communist Party apparatus, creating factions and rivalries, disrupted the economy and led China into a deeper isolation from the rest of the world. The entire population was involved in the destruction of traditional Chinese culture in massive proportion. An ideological battle between the proletarian and the so-called bourgeois classes was waged. It was believed that Mao Zedong deliberately wreaked havoc on China by launching the Cultural Revolution in order to prevent China from embracing capitalism and that from evidences based on public statements, two aims were acclaimed consistently: 1) to prevent capitalism; and 2) to consolidate the socialist system for ultimate realization of a communist society.5 Because of the efficacy of the communist propaganda, the Chinese masses embraced the idea that communist society was the ultimate end of social progression that could guarantee the best life for the Chinese. And so, the Cultural Revolution was launched. Robert Tucker (1972) explained the theoretical as well as the practical grounds behind the span of Mao’s role in the Cultural Revolution and the wider span of his regime. He argued that evidence point to the fact that dictators such as Lenin, Stalin Mussolini, and Hitler, did in fact have control over the movements they led and that the differences among these movements can be explained in large part by the different personalities of these leaders.6 Not all of the events, activities and developments during the Cultural Revolution could be explained by the so-called Mao-in-command approach. Moody stressed that Mao was often able to implement policies associated with his name only by acting in concert with others and that Mao may have had a radical vision, but this vision was not always translated into action.7 Factionalism Another source of explanation from among the Western scholars in regard to the Cultural Revolution is concerned with the alliances of various leaders. This perspective is called the factionalism model, offered by Andrew Nathan. In the first volume of MacFarquhar’s study on the origins of the Cultural Revolution, evidences were presented demonstrating, with the exception of Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Yang who both remained loyal to Mao’s ideas, the leadership as divided, which prefigured the subsequent divisions in the Cultural Revolution. Thus, Chen Boda and Kang Seng supported Mao’s call for ‘blooming and contending’ plus rectification, while Liu Shaoqi, Peng Zhen, Peng DeHuai and Lu Dingyi opposed it.8 What perhaps demonstrated the influence of factionalism in the Cultural Revolution was the context in Chinese politics that is called as the two lines approach. According to Moody: Ideologically, the first line is associated with the leader, and the second line with the established bureaucracies... Most of the dualities that crop up in the Chinese communist discourse can be fit into two lines: red and expert, democracy and centralism, truth and discipline, the thought of Mao and Marxism-Leninism; (on the bad side) dogmatism and revisionism, commandism and tailism, (most generally) left and right.9 Although these variables, the dualism within the Chinese politics, do not necessarily or directly translate into factionalism, they breed the political struggles that took place particularly in the lineup of the forces involved in the Cultural Revolution. Specifically, the controversy between Chairman Mao and President Liu Shaoqi in regard to the long-term economic development strategy for China is, according to Y. Y. Kueh, what triggered the Cultural Revolution. To quote: Mao’s critique of Liu centers on his programme of capitalist restoration, but in essence the Mao-Liu conflict involves two different approaches to implementing the same Stalinist forced-draft industrialization strategy, rather than alternative choices between capitalism and socialism.10 The above example underscores the fact the scholarly interpretations of the Cultural Revolution may differ but the process in which such judgments were arrived at employed the same model, which in this case is the factionalism approach. Through the factionalism approach, one could understand the Cultural Revolution as an outcome of a series of strategic choices made by the various actors in conflict or in cooperation with each other. The available alternatives are shaped by the perceived and/or actual structures of constraint and opportunity, and the choice of one of these alternatives is an intentional and deliberate act to maximize the chances of a preferred outcome and to achieve self-consciously selected goals.11 Institutions A recent perspective being adopted by some Western scholars emphasizes the dynamics of the Chinese institutions. Catherine Keyser, for instance, talked about the political institutional changes in the context of breaking points in Chinese history. She argued that upheavals, such as the Cultural Revolution, is a consequence of a period when society’s values and institutions are being challenged or shattered and that during these times, citizens are more likely to become aware of values, concepts, beliefs and institutions by which they live.12 For her, in such situations political institutions are reexamined and possibly modified, transformed or replaced. The institutional model emphasizes on the objectified as well as the nature of institutions and organizations and their environments as perceived by the scholars. Tang and Holzner further argued that: The interlinking institutions and their changes characterized the period of the radical transformation of the Chinese social system. The Communist regime utilized this multi-institutional approach to carry out many planned social changes. The process climaxed in a systemwide transformation: the Cultural Revolution.13 An example of change in an institution can be demonstrated by the following: In traditional China, the triangular struggle between the central government, its appointed officials in the local governments and local interest groups gave rise to the strategic role of kinship solidarity and the social influence of the family organization. After revolution, the government suppressed local interests and the family lost its political function. This model of understanding institutions, however, finds less favor from among the realists, whose approach are more strongly anchored on realism. For the critics, they do not see behavior as conditioned by the moral motive of defensibility in terms of general principles enshrined in institutions. Conclusion Through the different approaches outlined by this paper, along with their specific examples as well as our own reflections and discussions on the issue, two points actually emerge. First, in the analysis of these approaches, individually and collectively, we are led to conclude that the discourse of Cultural Revolution from the Western scholars’ perspective is characterized by a range of possible and varied interpretations of this subject in history. While a good number of Western literature on Cultural Revolution use the Mao-in-command model and points to the cruelty and havoc that came with the upheaval and the negative characterization of Chairman Mao, who most believe to have played a most significant role in the movement, the interpretative models yield different perspectives and analysis of events that have led them to such conclusion. In line with this, through the approaches used to analyze the Cultural Revolution, it is also easier to pinpoint instances of bias, inadequacy and credibility in arguments, narratives and documentaries. This element leads us to the second point, which is the reiteration of the truism in regard to the act of making meaning of any text. Here, in understanding image or written word on the Cultural Revolution, the processes are always a two-way street. Whether the illustrations and narratives were negative or positive depiction of the event, they are made based on the knowledge, fears, expectations, cultural specifities, and emotional or psychic needs of their spectators – the Western scholars particularly. Finally, the significance of Cultural Revolution including the Maoist excesses, being treated as a defining moment in Chinese contemporary history, is maybe a minor event in China internally. The perspectives adopted by Western scholars are the only resources that we have and that the upheaval may be considered as a defining moment in the world’s opinion of China. The many approaches with their equally numerous interpretations and analysis of the event are largely based on Westerner’s priorities and values, perhaps because the revolution vividly reinforced the Western ideals. It is important to underscore that majority of the Western scholarly account on the upheaval – whether positive or negative – were written from an external perspective, using Western society’s criteria in their assessment and evaluation. Bibliography Andrew, Anita and Repp, John. Autocracy and Chinas rebel founding emperors: comparing Chairman Mao and Ming Taizu. (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000) Brugger, Bill, “China, liberation and transformation, 1942-1962” (Rowman & Littlefield, 1981) p. 153. Keyser, Catherine, Professionalizing research in post-Mao China: the System Reform Institute and policy making. (M.E. Sharpe 2003) Kueh, Y. Chinas New Industrialization Strategy: Was Chairman Mao Really Necessary? (Edward Elgar Publishing 2008) Liu, Xiuwu. Western perspectives on Chinese higher education: a model for cross-cultural inquiry. (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996) Moody, Peter, Opposition and Dissent in Contemporary China. (Hoover Press, 1977) Tsou, Tang, The Cultural Revolution and Post-Mao Reforms: A Historical Perspective. (University of Chicago Press 1999) Tang, Wenfang and Holzner, Burkart, Social change in contemporary China: C.K. Yang and the concept of institutional diffusion. (University of Pittsburgh Press 2006) Tucker, Robert, The Dictator and Totalitarianism. World Politics 17, no. 4 (July 1965): p. 555-583 Xing, Lu. Rhetoric of the Chinese Cultural Revolution: the impact on Chinese thought, culture, and communication. (University of South Carolina Press, 2004) Read More