Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:04:06.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Malleability of Man in Chinese Marxism*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Donald J. Munro
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Human nature changes” – a vague statement acceptable to Marx and to Engels, to Stalin and to Mao. The point is: what is it that changes, under what conditions does it change, and what is the nature of the change? The article that follows is a case study of the interaction between the concrete cultural and social dimensions of a given country and a philosophical concept that has made its way into that country's official ideology. It examines the idea of the malleability of human nature in contemporary China. The concept is of monumental importance in Chinese Marxism, and examination of its evolution and implications will illuminate the Chinese definition of social class, and the causes of a nationwide crisis in the educational system in 1958 that foreshadowed the dramatic 1966 closing of all schools and their subsequent restructuring. Most important, the analysis clarifies the meaning of a term so often used in discussions of Chinese thought and so rarely understood.

Type
Research Article
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 48 , December 1971 , pp. 609 - 640
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Marx, Karl, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (Third ms. “Private Property and Labour”), translated in Fromm, Erich, Marx's Concept of Man (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1963), p. 141.Google Scholar

2. Plamenatz, John, Man and Society (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), Vol. 2, p. 321.Google Scholar

3. Engels, Frederick, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1888)Google Scholar, quoted in Passmore, John, The Perfectibility of Man (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970), pp. 235–236.Google Scholar

4. Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, p. 76.Google Scholar

5. In both the Soviet Union and China the tendency to understress the importance of innate differences or innate abilities is facilitated by the habit of thinking in terms of the collective rather than the individual. People speak of the individual being “incomplete apart from the collective” (whatever that means). They say that the ability of the individual can only exist as part of the ability of the group or be demonstrated in the group's activity. The group does well in school. The group has knowledge, ability, creative spirit. See, for example, Hung wei-ping pao (Red Guard News) (Peking), 23 01 1966.Google Scholar

6. Philosophers in contemporary China give Wang Fu-chih credit for first disproving the Neo-Confucian notion of an unchanging “moral nature.” Neo-Confucian thinkers often argued as to whether mind or nature was static or active. Chu Hsi maintained that both dimensions are present.

7. Shao-ch'i, liu, “Jen ti chieh-chi-hsing” (“Man's Class Nature”), in Lun Ssuhsing (On Thought) (Peking: Ch'ün-chung shu-tien, 1949), p. 9.Google Scholar

7a. Tieh, Wang, Ch'ing-nien ying-kai tsen-yang fa-chan ko-hsing? (How should young people develop their personalities?) (Peking: Chung-kuo ch'ing-nien ch'upan she, 1959), p. 29.Google Scholar

8. Feng, Kuan, “Shih-lun Lei Feng ti shih-chieh-kuan ti hsing-ch'eng” (“Examining the Formation of Lei Feng's World View”), Che-hsüeh yen-chiu (Philosophical Studies), No. 5 (1963), pp. 1–11.Google Scholar Kuan Feng, one of China's most influential philosophers from the mid-50s became a member of the Cultural Revolution Group and was subsequently disgraced.

9. Lien-tui kuan-li chiao-yü kung-tso (A Company's Managing Educational Work) (Shanghai: Jen-min ch'u-pan-she, 1965), p. 4.Google Scholar

10. “Refutation of the Theory that ‘Waste is Justified’,” Hung-ch'i (Red Flag), No. 2 (1970)Google Scholar, as quoted in Foreign Broadcast Information Service, Daily Report on Communist China, Vol. 1, No. 23 (3 02 1970), p. B4.Google Scholar

11. Discussions with Gordon Bennett were helpful in making this analysis.

12. “Some Concrete Policy Formulations of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in the Rural Socialist Education Movement” (“Chungkung chung-yang kuan-yü nung-ts'un she-hui chiao-yü yün-tung chung i-hsieh chü-t'i cheng-ts'e ti kuei-ting”) (The Later Ten Points), in Baum, Richard and Teiwes, Frederick C., Ssu-Ch'ing: The Socialist Education Movement of 1962–1966 (Berkeley: University of California Center for Chinese Studies, Chinese Research Monographs, No. 2, 1968), p. 90.Google Scholar

13. Ibid., p. 91.

14. “Some Concrete Policy Formulations of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in the Rural Socialist Education Movement” (Revised Later Ten Points), in Baum and Teiwes, ibid., p. 116.

15. Ibid., p. 105.

16. “Some Concrete Policy Formulations of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in the Rural Socialist Education Movement” (The Later Ten Points) in Baum and Teiwes, ibid., p. 83.

17. Bennett, Gordon A., “Political Labels and Popular Tension,” Current Scene: Developments in Mainland China (Hong Kong: U.S. Information Service), Vol. VII, No. 4 (26 02 1969), pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

18. Ibid., p. 5.

19. “Chung tsai piao-hsien shih tang ti chieh-chi cheng-ts'e” (“Emphasizing Manifestations is the Party's Policy on Classes”), Chung-kuo ch'ing-nien (China Youth), No. 18 (16 09 1965), p. 2.Google Scholar

20. Hung-wei-ping pao, 23 11 1966.Google Scholar

21. Tse-tung, Mao, Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art (Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1962), pp. 31–32.Google Scholar

22. Tse-tung, Mao, On Contradiction (Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1964), pp. 14, 27.Google Scholar

23. Mao Tse-tung, speech in Hangchow on 21 December 1965, quoted in “Mao Tse-tung tui wen-ko chih-shih hui-pien” (Collection of Mao Tse-tung's Directives during the Cultural Revolution”), Tsu-kuo (China Monthly) (Hong Kong), No. 66 (1 09 1969), pp. 41–46.Google Scholar

24. Po-ta, Ch'en, Jen-hsing, tang-hsing, chieh-chi-hsing (Human Nature, Party Spirit, and Personality) (n.p., 1947), p. 5.Google Scholar

25. In the summer of 1950, at the “Joint Session of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. and the Academy of Medical Sciences on Physiological Problems in the Theory of Academician I. P. Pavlov,” Pavlov's theory of higher nervous activity was strongly endorsed.

26. Pavlov, , Selected Works (pp. 446–447)Google Scholar, as quoted in Simon, Brian (ed.), Psychology in the Soviet Union (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1957), p. 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Pavlov did distinguish between different innate “types” of nervous system activity leading to differences in character types (aggressive, active, quietly determined, timid), but these innate differences do not determine intellect or its lack, creativity, or the individual's ability to make social contributions. Furthermore, one can change types.

28. Prozorov, G. S., “Heredity and Upbringing,” in Redl, Helen B. (ed. and trans.), Soviet Educators on Soviet Education (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964).Google Scholar

29. Ibid., p. 4.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid., p. 7.

32. Ibid., p. 9.

33. Ibid., p. 20.

34. Ibid., p. 6.

35. Ibid., p. 12.

36. Increasingly, this assumption has been given the practical lie in the emergence of special schools for the mathematically talented. A major inspiration for this phenomenon was the theory of the mathematician Andrei Kulmagorov that unique mathematical aptitudes manifest themselves very early.

37. Smirnov, A. A., “Child Psychology,” in Simon (ed), Psychology in the Soviet Union, p. 184.Google Scholar

38. Ibid., p. 185.

39. Kostiuk, G. S., “Some Aspects of the Interrelation between Education and the Development of Personality,” in Brian, and Simon, Joan (eds.), Educational Psychology in the U.S.S.R. (Stanford University Press, 1963), p. 37.Google Scholar

40. Leontiev, A. N., “The Nature and Formation of Human Psychic Properties,”Google Scholar in Simon, (ed.), Psychology in the Soviet Union, p. 228.Google Scholar

41. Kostiuk, , in Simon, (eds.), Educational Psychology.Google Scholar

42. Based on interviews and descriptions in the media (e.g. Kuang-ming jih-pao (henceforth KMJP) 15 08 1958)Google Scholar of Peking Normal University's channels for implementing its materials on a mass scale throughout the country.

43. Chih-kuang, Chang, Tsen-yang ch'ü liao-chieh hsüeh-sheng ti ko-hsing (How to Understand Students' Personalities) (Shanghai: Hsin chih-shih ch'u-pan she, 1958), p. 34.Google Scholar

44. KMJP, 4 07 1956.Google Scholar See also Nan-hsiang, Chien, “Lüeh-lun Kao-teng hsüeh hsiao ti ch'üan-mien fa-chan ti chiao-yü fang-chen” (“A Summary of the Educational Guidelines for ‘Full Development’ in Institutions of Higher Learning”), Chung-kuo ch'ing-nien (China Youth) (henceforth CKCN), No. 20 (1956), pp. 9–12.Google Scholar

45. KMJP, 4 07 1956 and 15 October 1956.Google Scholar

46. Jen-min jih-pao (People's Daily) (Peking), 12 03 1962Google Scholar; Shanghai wen hui pao, 21 12 1959Google Scholar; Jih-ch'ang, Ts'ao, “Shih hsin-li-hsüeh keng-hao ti fu-wu yü she-hui-chu-yi chien-she” (“Using Psychology to Better Serve Socialist Construction”), Hsin chien-she (New Construction), 1 01 1960.Google Scholar

47. People's Daily, 13 03 1962.Google Scholar

48. Article by Ling-kuan, Chang in Jen-min chiao-yü (People's Education) Peking, No. 2 (1955).Google Scholar

49. Yeh-ming, Chang, “Ho Chiang Nan-hsiang t'ung-chih shang-ch'üeh chiao-yü fang-chen wen-t'i” (“Discussing Some Questions About Educational Guidelines With Comrade Chiang Nan-hsiang”), Hsin-Hua pan-yüeh-k'an (New China Fortnightly) (henceforth HHPYK), Peking No. 3 (101) (1957), p. 77Google Scholar; Jen-min chiao-yü, No. 2 (1957), especially p. 23Google Scholar, and No. 3 (1957), especially p. 43.

50. KMJP, 2 12 1961.Google ScholarPeople's Daily, 3 02 1963Google Scholar, reports on special tributes paid to a mathematics teacher who excelled at gearing his teaching to individual differences in mathematical aptitude. Stories in Chung-kuo ch'ingnien (China Youth) for the same year make the same point concerning teacher obligations. At this time psychologists were also being enjoined to focus their studies on the differences between the abilities of students; see KMJP, 13 03 1962.Google Scholar

51. KMJP, 29 10 1956.Google Scholar

52. Jen-min chiao-yü, No. 3 (1957), p. 43.Google Scholar

53. Yu-sung, Ch'en, “Chien-ch'a Hu Shih tsai chiao-yü fang-mien ti fan-tung ying-hsiang ho Hu Shih ssu-hsiang tui-wo ti ying hsiang” (“An Examination of Hu Shih's Reactionary Influence in the Education Sector and the Influence on me of Hu Shih's Thought”), in Tzu-ch'an-chieh-chi chiao-yü p'i-p'an (A Critique of Capitalist Education) (Peking: Wen-hua chiao-yu ch'u-pan she, 1955), pp. 193–197.Google Scholar Also KMJP, 15 05 1956.Google Scholar

54. Tse-tung, Mao, Reform Our Study (Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1962), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

55. “Tsai ko-ming ti ta p'i-p'an chung shen-ju k'ai-chan hsueh-hsiao tou-cheng p'i-kai” (“In the Great Decisions of the Revolution, Wholeheartedly Begin the Struggle to Correct the Schools”), Chiao-yü ko-ming (Educational Revolution), No. 4, 6 05 1967), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

56. This is described in more detail in Munro, Donald J., “Egalitarian Ideal and Educational Fact in Communist China,” in Lindbeck, John M. H. (ed.), China: Management of a Revolutionary Society (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1971), pp. 256–301.Google Scholar

57. Cremin, Lawrence A., The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education 1876–1957 (New York: Vintage, 1964), p. 43.Google Scholar

58. Ibid., p. 44.

59. Goodman, Ann S. and Feshbach, Murray, Estimates and Projections of Educational Attainment in U.S.S.R. 1950–85 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Census, 1967); New York Times, 20 07 1969, and 20 June 1971.Google Scholar

60. Tang-shan hsien wen-chiao chü (Tang-shan County Office of Education), “Wo-men shin tsen-yang kuan-ch'e liang-t'iao t'ui tsou-lu pan-hsüeh fang-chen” (“How Should We Thoroughly Implement the Educational Guideline of Walking on Two Legs”), An-hui chiao-yü (Education in Anhwei), 04 1965.Google Scholar

61. Bauer, Raymond A., The New Man in Soviet Psychology (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), p. 96.Google Scholar

62. Ibid., pp. 133, 144–145, 149, 180.

63. Kostiuk, , in Simon, (ed.), Educational Psychology, p. 45.Google Scholar

64. Tse-tung, Mao, On Contradiction, pp. 4, 6.Google Scholar

65. The first major public discussions took place in the pages of KMJP, 15 08 1958.Google Scholar

66. KMJP, 23 06 1959.Google Scholar

67. KMJP, 6 07 1959.Google Scholar

68. Feng, Ssu-ma, “Te-yü hsin-li ti yen chiu pi-hsü kuan-ch'e chieh-chi fen-hsi yüan-tse” (“Research on Moral Psychology Must Thoroughly Implement the Principles of Class Analysis”), Hsin-li-hsüeh pao (Acta Psychologica Sinica), No. 2 (1965), p. 119.Google Scholar

69. “Chiao-hsüeh fang-fa ti chung-ta ke-hsin” (“Important Innovations in Teaching Methods”), Kuo Hsing-fu chiao-hsüeh fang-fa (Kuo Hsing-fu's Teaching Methods) (Shanghai: Jen-min ch'u-pan-she, 1965), p. 22.Google Scholar

70. Pei-ching jih-pao (Peking Daily), 8 01 1959.Google Scholar

71. Kung-jen jih-pao (Workers' Daily) Peking, 8 07 1962.Google Scholar

72. Tse-tung, Mao, “Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?” in Four Essays on Philosophy (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1963), p. 134.Google Scholar

73. KMJP, 3 04 1966.Google Scholar

74. Compare the discussion in Schwartz, Benjamin, “China and the West in the ‘Thought of Mao Tse-tung’” in Ho, Ping-ti and Tsou, Tang (eds.), China in Crisis, Vol. I (The University of Chicago Press, 1968).Google Scholar

75. Chung-hsien, Lin, “Psychological Disposition Necessary for the Study of Flying,” Hang-K'ung chih-shih (A viation Knowledge), No. 3 (8 03 1960), pp. 24–25Google Scholar, in Joint Publications Research Service (JPRS) (Washington), No. 2973 (6 July 1960), pp. 9–10.

76. Ta-jou, Chen, “How Psychology Can Be of Service to Socialist Construction,” Hsin-li hsüeh-pao (Acta Psychologica Sinica), No. 3 (08 1959), pp. 142–145Google Scholar, in JPRS, No. 3424 (21 06 1960), p. 5.Google Scholar

77. Jih-ch'ang, Ts'ao, and Chia-chih, Li, “Industrial Psychology in China,” Hsinli hsüeh-pao (Acta Psychologica Sinica), No. 4 (09 1959), pp. 204–213Google Scholar, in JPRS, No. 3424 (21 06 1960).Google Scholar

78. JMJP, 20 02 1966Google Scholar; see also JMJP, 9 11 1959.Google Scholar

79. Ssu-ko ti-i (The Four Firsts) (Shanghai: Jen-min ch'u-pan she, 1965), p. 32.Google Scholar

80. Quoted in Hoffmann, Charles, Work Incentive Practice and Policies in the People's Republic of China, 1953–1965 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1967), p. 31.Google Scholar

81. Quoted in ibid., p. 32.

82. Kuo Hsiang-fu chiao-hsüeh fang-fa, p. 22.Google Scholar

83. Hao-po, Chang, “Yao shan yü ch'i-fa ch'ing-nien kai-tsao ssu-hsiang ti tzuchüeh-hsing” (“Must Be Skilled at Englightening Youth in the Rebuilding of Thought Consciousness”), Chung-kuo ch'ing-nien (China Youth), No. 2 (1962), p. 8.Google Scholar

84. Wen-hui pao, 8 05 1964Google Scholar and KMJP, 15 05 1964.Google Scholar

85. Chiao-shih pao (Teachers' News), 7 03 1958.Google Scholar

86. Ibid., 7 March 1958.

87. Wen-yüan, Yao, “P'i-p'an Pa Jen ti ‘jen-hsing lun’” (“Criticizing Pa Jen's ‘theory of human nature’”), Wen-i pao (Journal of Literature and Art), 26 01 1960, p. 36.Google Scholar

88. Ting-yun hsien ch'en-t'ou li sheng-ch'an tui keng-tu hsüeh-hsiao (Halffarming half-studying primary school production brigade from li, Ch'en-t'ou, Tingyun county), “Tui shih-yung min-pan hsiao hsüeh k'o-wen k'o-pen ti i-tien chien” (“A glance at using textbooks in independently-run primary schools”), An-hui chiao-yü (Education in Anhwei), 02 1965, p. 11.Google Scholar This phenomenon occurred in other provinces as well; see Ying-hsiu hsien yeh-yü chiao-yü shih-tien kung-tso tsu (The task force of Yung-hsiao county for making experiments on a point in spare-time education), “Chiao i-hsieh yen mien-ch'ien ti tzu” (“Teaching commonly encountered characters”), Chiang-hsi chiao-yü (Education in Kiangsi), No. 12 (1965), p. 12.Google Scholar

89. Kung-jen jih-pao, 21 07 1960.Google Scholar

90. Jih-ch'ang, Ts'ao, “Translations on Communist China's Science and Technology: Several Problems Concerning the Physiological Mechanism of Memory,” K'o-hsüeh t'ung-pao (Scientia), No. 11 (11 1965), pp. 969–972Google Scholar, in JPRS, No. 33, 759 (17 01 1966), p. 63.Google Scholar Ts'ao was the deputy head of the Academy of Science's Psychology Research Unit and one of the most influential of the older, physiologically orientated scientists.

91. The number of model teachers selected from different areas in 1956 is suggestive of which areas had advanced and which had relatively backward primary and middle class schools: Peking, 64; Tientsin, 46; Shanghai, 72; Hopeh, 82; Shansi, 46; Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, 21; Liaoning, 94; Kirin, 41; Heilungkiang, 50; Shensi, 42; Kansu, 23; Tsinghai, 9; Sinkiang minorities, 17; Shantung, 83; Kiangsu, 94; Anhwei, 53; Chekiang, 50; Fukien, 39; Honan, 84; Hupeh, 60; Hunan, 68; Kiangsi, 42; Kwangtung, 88; Kwangsi, 45; Szechwan, 110; Kweichow, 21; Yunnan, 26 (from Wen-hui pao (Shanghai), 28 04 1956).Google Scholar Note how the totals for certain provinces increase when the three cities, independently tabulated, are added to their figures.

92. Menninger, Karl, The Crime of Punishment (New York: The Viking Press, 1968), pp. 242–243.Google Scholar

93. Ibid., p. 258.

94. Rosenthal, Robert and Jacobson, Lenore, Pygmalion in the Classroom (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968).Google Scholar

95. See the review by Thorndike, Robert L. in the Teachers College Record, Vol. 70, No. 8 (05 1969).Google Scholar

96. Rosenthal, and Jacobson, , Pygmalion in the Classroom, p. xii.Google Scholar

97. Coleman, James S., “The Concept of Equality of Educational Opportunity,” in Harvard Educational Review, Equal Educational OpportunityGoogle Scholar; Silberman, Charles E., Crisis in the Classroom: the Remaking of American Education (New York: Random House, 1970), p. 83et seq.Google Scholar