The discourse on human nature in twentieth century Chinese literature

The present study is an examination of the discourse on human nature in twentieth century Chinese literary circles. It concentrates on the following high points of the discussions: the early May Fourth discussion, when human nature was first raised as an issue for literary discourse by Zhou Zuoren; the debate in the late 1920's between Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu; the discussions of the issue around the time of the Yan'an Literary Forum in 1942; the late 1950's and early 1960's challenge to the Party's position on human nature led by Ba Ren; and lastly the early post-Mao discussion. This study was undertaken to provide some insights into the ideas behind the development of particular themes and modes of characters portrayal, and the ethical values embodied in the portrayal of man in twentieth century Chinese literature.; Crucial to the present study are J. H. Miller's metaphor of "translation," and Michael Reddy's "Toolmaker paradigm." The former put forth a multi-layered meanings of translation, while the latter shows how the nature of an individual cognitive environment serves as a crucial factor influencing that individual's acquisition of new knowledge. Supported by these theories, the present study maintains that the definition of human nature given at different stages covered by the study were each a kind of "translation." A "translation" that involved the assimilation of new propositional assumptions (foreign ideas) with those pre-existing assumptions about human nature existing in the cognitive environments of the subjects examined. Those pre-existing assumptions about human nature led to a remarkable consistency and continuity in the essence of the views of human nature in the different periods of the twentieth century Chinese literary discourse. Though these views were to a certain extent responsible for the development of new literary modes in twentieth century China, they also limited the potentialities of the writers; the writers were hampered by their traditions, as this limited the scope of their writing, especially their vision of characters in fiction.