Correspondence with Han Shaogong
Liu Jiming, Han Shaogong 2024-10-16 Source: Human Realm Institute | WeChat Official Account
Correspondence between Liu Jiming and Han Shaogong
Han Shaogong to Liu Jiming
Jiming:
Hello! After receiving your letter, I paid attention to "Shanghai Literature" and read both pieces. (I've been reading fewer periodicals lately.) I greatly admire your state of mind. The first piece seems more natural and relaxed. The second is like broad brushstroke painting—such works are indispensable, but difficult to master. When language spins in the air, the demands on language are even higher. I can understand "Shanghai Literature's" emphasis on "cultural concern," but this label is too big—you needn't worry about it, just write what you should write. The criticism circles lack sufficient voltage; expecting them to respond may be wishful thinking. Now we can only be responsible to ourselves.
Hainan remains the same. This year, periodical approvals are basically frozen. Lin Gang has been trying to secure a publication number for you, but it won't budge—we can only wait for future opportunities. Our Writers' Association recently had a boss contribute tens of thousands of yuan to invite Zhang Chengzhi, Chen Cun, Jiang Zilong and others for a gathering. In casual conversation, people mentioned you—they're paying attention to you. I'm about to take a trip to Australia. Writing continues, but I think more and write less.
Hastily written, wishing you
Good health
Han Shaogong
May 10, 1994
Liu Jiming to Han Shaogong
Mr. Shaogong:
I've read the Kang Xiaoguang article you sent with great interest. I've paid little attention to the "New New Confucianist School" before, so this gave me a preliminary understanding of their basic approach. I've always adopted a cautious attitude toward the "political solutions" proposed by scholars—neither rushing to affirm nor to negate, but trying to discover what is reasonable and unreasonable in them. I still tend to agree with Said's position on intellectuals exercising social criticism as "amateurs." This is probably consistent with your "skepticism," isn't it?
Additionally, Kang's complete denial of the practical significance of "democracy" is questionable. Actually, Kang's proposed "Confucianization plan" also incorporates some democratic political elements. I think there's a significant difference between democracy as "purpose" and democracy as "means." Rejecting "democracy" without discrimination is inadvisable and ineffective for refuting liberalism. For example, communitarianism can be said to be a derivative within the democratic political framework, with considerable reasonableness.
The above are just random thoughts—I wonder if you agree?
Liu Jiming
February 2005
Han Shaogong to Liu Jiming
Jiming:
The functions of democracy should indeed be analyzed concretely. Generally speaking, democracy tends toward good internally (such as supervising official power) but toward evil externally (such as nationalist wars); democracy tends toward good in dealing with immediate matters (such as ending tyranny) but toward evil in dealing with distant matters (such as neglecting environmental protection)... The reason is that democracy relies on the masses' rational interests, and interests can be divided: some within the masses' field of vision, others in their blind spots.
The conditions for democracy should also be analyzed concretely. Generally speaking, democracy depends on virtuous masses—as Western democracy once relied on religious inertial influence for moral support; democracy necessarily fails with evil masses—as online democracy in the consumerist era often results in righteousness failing to overcome evil. Democracy also depends on sharing abundant resources. If Western city-state democracy had no vast slaves secretly supporting it, if Western nation-state democracy had no vast colonies secretly supporting it, would there have been as much glory?
To speak plainly, democracy in history has been a mixture of good and evil, just as Confucian rule (scholar politics), religious rule (ecclesiastical politics), monarchy (aristocratic politics) are also mixtures of good and evil—indeed, actually more evil than good. Nevertheless, democracy in institutional form most closely approaches the goal of people-centeredness, thus having value advantages over other political systems and greater social mobilizing power—people-centeredness is, after all, promised by most political systems and serves as a value guide for most political systems' virtuous operation.
Due to thinking habits stemming from Greek rationalism and Christian universalism, Western scholars equate democracy with people-centeredness, using means to lock in purposes—this is understandable. Although the weakening of religion (hedonistic waves) or strengthening (fundamentalist movements), capital control (American-style democracy) or authoritarian control (Nazi-style democracy) may all cause democracy to deviate from people-centeredness, this institutional heritage of democracy should still be inherited and absorbed.
Absorption need not be copying, but must not be abandonment.
Another shortcoming of Kang's article may be strategic: borrowing a predecessor's words, whatever sounds good is impractical, whatever is practical doesn't sound good—Confucian hierarchical theory at this moment is at least unwelcome to people's ears, although it contains some bitter truth.
Written casually, as an exchange of ideas.
Han Shaogong
February 2005
Han Shaogong to Liu Jiming
Jiming:
The article is well-written and will be enlightening to readers.
Only the analysis of revolutionary literature could go deeper. Revolution is institution-building without capital, so revolution abolished capital's hierarchy but could create power hierarchy, or achieve temporary separation between the former and latter. What might be the different expressions of literature's grassroots consciousness in such circumstances? The class struggle literature of that time had its reasonableness, but where were the hidden dangers? For instance, was the "tall, great, and perfect" tendency in works like "Bright Sunny Sky" merely a technical problem, or was it establishing a non-capitalized hierarchical system?
For reference only.
Shaogong
March 2005
Liu Jiming to Han Shaogong
Brother Shaogong:
After sending out the article, I made several major revisions, including some viewpoints and further refinement of terminology and concepts. The revision took longer than the writing itself. Writing novels allows indulgence in the pleasure generated during the narrative process, without needing to dwell too much on the derivation of words and concepts. But theoretical articles require repeated analysis in the details of word-to-word and concept-to-concept relationships, layer-by-layer deepening clearing and discrimination. Often, a slight relaxation makes the argument appear loose and superficial. This obviously requires solid scholarship and meticulous thinking ability as foundation. This is what I've felt most deeply after concentrating on writing several theoretical pieces recently.
Reading your articles, I feel you're always skilled at incorporating some major value propositions into specific, subtle language, and from there reaching profound and vast spiritual domains. The experience you've accumulated in this area is worth my careful study.
The key points you mentioned in your letter about "revolutionary literature" needing further in-depth analysis were quite inspiring to me. I think they deserve a special article, which seems beyond my current capability. I remember you once mentioned having such writing plans—I look forward to reading your great work soon!
Jiming
March 2005
Brother Shaogong:
A few days ago I went to Beijing for a symposium where most people gave "Human Realm" high praise, but there were also clashing dissenting opinions. What moved me was that Han Yuhai refuted certain challenges one by one, quite like a great chivalrous hero. Since a certain journal wants to publish a special "Human Realm" critique issue, I hastily wrote a short piece as a response, sending it for your reading and hoping for your generous corrections.
Jiming
October 20, 2016
Han Shaogong to Liu Jiming
Jiming:
I admire your concern, thinking, courage, and imagination. As Li Yunlei said, it's a landmark work of "new socialism," unprecedented utopian reconstruction, comprehensive settling of accounts and seeking solutions. In this sense, such writing itself is a great merit that deeply moves me. This book's topical nature will very likely be long-lasting, broad, and far-reaching, far exceeding our expectations. My slight hesitation is that it's very "realistic" when revealing problems, including vivid characterization of Lu, Ding, Gu and others with good proportion, but appears overly "romantic" when seeking solutions—this may not be your shortcoming but rather that real life hasn't yet reached this stage. Websites still depend on capital's charity. Protests have been crushed by capital. Things are indeed this stark. As for the utopia's greatest fulcrum, "cooperatives," their persuasive power also seems ethereal. You must know that given current global pricing systems and economic structures, given agriculture's low added value, a few households' "organic products" are completely insufficient for self-reliance and self-strengthening. For instance, pests and diseases cannot be isolated, while greenhouse isolation brings excessive costs; pig manure has very low fertility, not to mention biogas and feed bringing huge costs; product certification has scale thresholds, and certification doesn't equal automatic customer trust or zero sales barriers... More importantly, cooperatives are not collectives but merely a limited collaborative form of private ownership (cooperatives allow withdrawal of shares, collectives don't). The possible forms of "reorganization," the economic pressure, social trends, and human motivations needed for "re-socialism" all await further fermentation and accumulation through practice. The complexity and difficulty far exceed what Liu Qing, Hao Ran, and Zhao Shuli could imagine in their time. Moreover, was the "old socialist" narrative of that era also overly romantic? Without the accumulated disadvantages and severe setbacks of the left wing back then, how could the whole party and people's rightward stampede have formed later?
This isn't discussing your work but using my experience to continue participating in the thinking you've initiated. Currently, rebuilding utopia is a global major issue, but the 99% have prepared complaints but not construction; prepared words but not action; prepared accusations but not self-reflection. This is the experiential resource predicament of us writers. Perhaps we don't have better methods for now.
Speaking privately, just for reference, I won't elaborate further. Perhaps this won't help your next writing. Thank you for the gifted book and for inspiring and encouraging me.
Wishing you autumn well-being
Shaogong
October 1，2017
Liu Jiming to Han Shaogong
Brother Shaogong:
Your saying you're grateful for my work's "inspiration and encouragement" is really too kind. Actually, the one who should express gratitude is me. If "Human Realm" is really as you and Yunlei said, "activating the socialist literary tradition in a new context, restoring the novel's power as a form of thought" and being "a landmark work of 'new socialist literature,'" it doesn't prove how brave I am. Speaking of "bravery," perhaps we could list a long string of names, such as you and Zhang Chengzhi, Zhang Wei, Wang Hui, Li Tuo, Wang Xiaoming, Cai Xiang, and Han Yuhai, Zhu Dongli, Kuang Xinni, etc. It's these people who, in the context of serious imbalance and distortion in China's social development and intellectual conditions, spoke out first, bravely expressing a series of profound thoughts and concerns. I'm merely someone who realized the significance of these voices relatively early and joined this ranks.
I know this is an important reason why you fully affirm "Human Realm" and say its "topical nature" "will very likely be long-lasting, broad, and far-reaching." As a novel, "Human Realm" is far from perfect. The reason it's valued by you and some friends is probably mainly that it concentrates and presents the social, historical, and spiritual-cultural chronic ailments that have accumulated over years, and does so in novel form. Such writing has been neglected and disparaged by mainstream literary circles. This is precisely why some friends worried it would cause "controversy" after reading "Human Realm." But for a literary work, controversy isn't frightening—what's frightening is "no controversy." In literary circles, people have grown accustomed to "no debate." Beneath the seemingly harmonious atmosphere, everyone harbors their own thoughts with undercurrents surging. On one hand is literary "industrialization," on the other is media "party-ization." This is the typical manifestation of what Wang Hui calls "depoliticized politics."
It's precisely in this context that literature has long lost its tradition as a "form of thought." "Human Realm" incorporates issues that seemingly belong only to the "ideological realm" and treats them as important narrative driving force. For many people, this is obviously untimely. Actually, I'm not the only one doing this—you went further in "Ma Qiao Dictionary" and "Suggestion," only you broke through traditional novel norms and created a new novel form, while I stayed within traditional novel categories, putting new wine in old bottles. Both approaches actually lead to the same destination. Is my understanding correct?
When you discuss "utopian reconstruction," you say "the ninety-nine percent have prepared complaints but not construction; prepared words but not action; prepared accusations but not self-reflection," hitting the crux of the problem. In a context where not only "utopia" but even communism, socialism, and idealism have been seriously stigmatized, rebuilding "utopia" is easier said than done. Everything is still in the imagination stage regarding the future, far from actual operation (this may also be one reason you pointed out in your letter that "Human Realm" is very "realistic" when raising problems but "overly romantic" when seeking solutions). This is the reality we must face. The key is whether our hearts are strong or firm enough, whether we have a goal worthy of being called belief or faith.
For this reason too, regarding the concept of "new socialist literature," on one hand I feel it's quite meaningful for current literature, on the other hand I don't feel so grounded. As you pointed out, Ma La's cooperative doesn't equal socialism, and in the current situation where the "socialism" concept itself is scarred and full of ambiguity, does "new socialist literature" really have the possibility of becoming reality?
This question is posed both to you and me, and to the future.
During the National Day holiday I basically stayed home, flipping through old books while pondering the questions raised in your letter.
Wishing you
Autumn well-being
Jiming
October 6，2017
Han Shaogong to Liu Jiming
Hello Jiming
The reason I was strict, demanding, and nitpicky in finding problems and expanding discussion in my previous letter was considering the severe situation and how to better respond to a protracted war. Your tolerance and understanding give me some relief. Fellow travelers should indeed speak without reservation. Your protagonist took a valuable first step, but I think it was very wise to "pause" the story with a flood. Where to go next can only find answers from practice. Looking at the present, Huaxi Village, Nanjie Village, etc. are almost communist internally but capitalist externally, including extracting surplus value from about 90% migrant workers, thus achieving temporary village prosperity. Huawei's company-wide shareholding is extraordinary, but its premise for growing strong is occupying technological high ground and utilizing existing global pricing systems (actually somewhat unreasonable) and game rules. Of course, fortunately "neoliberalism" is already full of loopholes, fortunately environmental costs, corporate social responsibility, macro-control, supply-side reform (semi-planned economy?)... have all been forced out by reality. A new worldview is calling forth. As for when we can counteract or even crush that ideological trend favoring private gain, profit, and evil, borrowing from technological revolution and social crisis opportunities to form more mature social transformation movements, we might be cautiously optimistic.
These problems often trouble me too. Let's work together. Wishing you
Autumn well-being
Shaogong
October 7， 2017