On Chairman Mao's Principle of
"Taking the Essence and Discarding the Dross"
In commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of Chairman Mao's death. By Hao Guisheng. Translated by Vero Publishing.
One focus of debate on cultural questions in theoretical circles today is how to view the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture. At present the great majority of scholars endorse the idea of integrating Marxism with China's fine traditional culture. I do not agree. This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of Chairman Mao's death, and to commemorate it I want to discuss the important principle he put forward of "taking the essence and discarding the dross."
During the democratic revolution, Chairman Mao paid particular attention to the cultural development of Chinese Communists, and one important part of this was how to treat foreign culture and traditional Chinese culture scientifically. In "On New Democracy" (1940) he first addressed how to treat Western culture. "Our culture is a revolutionary national culture," he wrote. "China should absorb on a large scale the progressive cultures of foreign countries as an ingredient for her own culture; in the past we did not do enough of this. We should absorb whatever we find useful today, not only from the present-day socialist and new-democratic cultures but also from the earlier cultures of other nations, for example from the culture of the various capitalist countries in the Age of Enlightenment. However, we should not gulp any of this foreign material down uncritically, but must treat it as we do our food: first chewing it, then submitting it to the working of the stomach and intestines with their juices and secretions, and separating it into nutriment to be absorbed and waste matter to be discarded. Only then can it nourish us." In the same way, when he turned to traditional Chinese culture, he called for separating it into essence and dross. "A splendid old culture was created during the long period of Chinese feudal society," he wrote. "To study the development of this old culture, to reject its feudal dross and assimilate its democratic essence is a necessary condition for developing our new national culture and increasing our national self-confidence, but we should never swallow anything and everything uncritically. It is imperative to separate the fine old culture of the people, which had a more or less democratic and revolutionary character, from all the decadence of the old feudal ruling class." Chairman Mao could not have put it more clearly. In 1952, after visiting the Kong family mansion in Qufu accompanied by Xu Shiyou and others, Mao said even more directly of traditional Chinese culture that we must "take the essence and discard the dross."[1] This principle, set out by Chairman Mao long ago, applies fully to China's cultural development today, and to our understanding of the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture. That relationship is one of taking the essence and discarding the dross.
I. Why Did Chairman Mao Sum Up the Relationship Between Marxism and Traditional Chinese Culture as "Taking the Essence and Discarding the Dross"?
1. Marxism and traditional Chinese culture belong to different eras and different classes
Historical materialism holds that human society is made up of the material productive forces, the relations of production (whose sum is the economic base of society) and the superstructure. The productive forces determine the relations of production, and the economic base determines the superstructure. The superstructure is further divided into the political and the ideological superstructure. State organs, political parties, the law, the army, the police, prisons and other material institutions make up the political superstructure, while philosophy, literature and art, morality, religion and political and legal thought make up the ideological superstructure. Culture refers chiefly to the ideological superstructure, though it also includes culture that is not part of the superstructure, such as the natural sciences.
Social consciousness depends absolutely on social being, and the superstructure depends absolutely on the economic base. Since the productive forces and relations of production of human society develop and change, social being develops and changes, and so does the concrete content of culture. Humanity has passed through primitive society, slave society, feudal society, capitalist society and socialist society. The culture built on these economic bases is accordingly the culture of primitive society, slave society, feudal society, capitalist society, and socialist or Marxist culture. The cultures of different social formations thus differ in essence; they are historical, of their era and of their class. Traditional Chinese culture is in essence a culture of feudal society that served the ruling class. Marxist culture is the system of thought for the emancipation of the proletariat that developed within capitalist society. The essential differences between the cultures of different eras must never be confused, and there is no culture of "universal values" that transcends the economic base and the historical era and applies to every period. In this sense Marxist culture and ancient Chinese culture are in essence fundamentally opposed contents belonging to different eras and different classes. Culture has historical continuity, but the premise of any inheritance is difference and opposition, not wholesale copying. As Chairman Mao said, "we should never swallow anything and everything uncritically."
2. Traditional Chinese culture must be analyzed dialectically, dividing one into two
The law of the unity of opposites is the essence and core of materialist dialectics. The scientific attitude of Marxists toward anything rests first of all on seeking truth from facts. How do we seek truth from facts? The scientific method is to analyze and understand things by means of the law of the unity of opposites: in Chairman Mao's words, to divide one into two, to analyze. This applies all the more to traditional Chinese culture. When Chairman Mao said that foreign and ancient Chinese culture must be treated "as we do our food," chewed and digested and separated into nutriment and waste, and that we must "reject its feudal dross and assimilate its democratic essence" and "never swallow anything and everything uncritically," the core and scientific method of thought was dividing one into two, the dialectical method. Only by this method can we understand foreign and Chinese culture as they really are. As Lenin put it in the first of his "sixteen elements of dialectics," the aim is "the objectivity of consideration."[2]
Chairman Mao held that every culture is the product of history and of class. Each arises of necessity, each certainly has its rational side, and each certainly has its limitations and negative side; that is, each contains both essence and dross. His attitude was neither to reject wholesale nor to affirm wholesale, but to analyze. His comparison of this scientific attitude to the way we take in food, "chewing" and "the working of the stomach and intestines," is vivid, concrete and profound. If we take things in without analysis, swallowing them whole and raw, can the result be good? The ancient Chinese idioms "learning to walk in Handan" and "Dong Shi imitating Xi Shi's frown"[3] describe precisely the grave consequences of copying and imitating without analysis.
3. What, then, is the essence and what is the dross in traditional Chinese culture?
Marx said that the ruling ideas are the ideas of the class that is the ruling material force. Feudal culture is in essence the culture of the ruling feudal class in feudal society, the culture of the landlord class ruling, exploiting and squeezing the peasants. Its basic content includes the supremacy and worship of power, hierarchical thinking, the culture that "eats people,"[4] an inverted view of righteousness and profit, selfishness, contempt for labor, a culture of keeping the people ignorant, and the doctrine that study is the road to office. The personality it shapes is twisted and one-sided, marked by extreme selfishness, servility, hypocrisy, indifference and a tendency to infighting. It is a spiritual opium that numbs the people, a spiritual weapon for maintaining the rule of the feudal ruling class, the ideological root of obstacles to China's productive and scientific development, and an extremely important reason why Chinese feudal society lasted for thousands of years. That is why it became the main target of criticism and attack in the May Fourth Movement. The dross of traditional Chinese culture still gives off a foul stench across China today, like a corpse in a coffin. The supremacy of power and the culture that "eats people" above all do grave harm to Chinese society today, and especially to the ranks of cadres and intellectuals. After reform and opening up, this dross colluded with the Western capitalist culture that flooded in, forming the decadent character of the hybrid that is contemporary culture "with Chinese characteristics." Anyone who does not face and acknowledge its extremely serious corrosive and destructive effect on China today is certainly no Marxist.
Traditional Chinese culture also contains an extremely rich essence: a sense of social responsibility, patriotic feeling, an independent personality that clearly distinguishes right from wrong, the pursuit of equality and the spirit of resistance against tyranny and evil forces, regard for the people, naive materialism and naive dialectics, ideas about education and learning, and outstanding achievements in literature, calligraphy, painting, poetry and many other fields. This essence did play a certain role in advancing Chinese society. But on the whole, over thousands of years of feudal society, it never held the dominant position, and its effect was far, far smaller than that of the dross.
It was precisely because Chairman Mao understood deeply, on the basis of this objective fact, that traditional Chinese culture contains both essence and dross, that he insisted on "taking the essence and discarding the dross."
II. Where Exactly Does the "Integration Theory" Go Wrong?
I consider the view that Marxism should be integrated with traditional Chinese culture mistaken, mainly for the following reasons.
1. The meaning of "integration" shows that they cannot be integrated
"Integration" means that two phenomena or two cultures act on, complement, perfect and influence each other and develop together, as theory and practice are integrated. Theory influences and acts on practice, deepening it; practice in turn influences and acts on theory, correcting, supplementing, enriching and perfecting it. When two cultures of different peoples exist at the same time in one country, they can act on, influence and integrate with each other. But opposed cultures belonging to different eras and different classes cannot be integrated. As everyone knows, classical German philosophy, classical English political economy and French utopian socialism played a crucial role in the founding of Marxist philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism, and the writings of Marx and Engels abound with high praise for their influence. They share a great deal in common with Marxism, but the relationship is by no means one of integration; it is one of dialectical negation, of critical inheritance. Only the former influenced and acted on Marxism; one certainly cannot say that Marxism influenced and acted on them. By the same token, however much "fine" content and "essence" there may be in traditional Chinese culture, whose basic character is feudal autocracy, the relationship between it and Marxism can only be one of critical inheritance. And the relationship can only run in the present direction: traditional Chinese culture, already fixed in form and possessing the relative independence of consciousness, exerts positive and negative effects on Marxist culture. There is no question of Marxism acting back on traditional Chinese culture to remold it into some new "fine traditional Chinese culture."
2. The essential relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture is one of "non-congruence"
In order to prove the truth of the "integration theory," some in theoretical circles today invoke "the congruence between Marxism and China's fine traditional culture": because they are congruent, they can be integrated. This argument does not hold up.
China's fine traditional culture is not a culture standing completely independent and isolated in human or Chinese history. It is part of the feudal culture of China, built on the economic base of thousands of years of feudal society. To speak of "fine traditional Chinese culture" is already to have analyzed "ancient Chinese culture" and to have separated essence from dross. This shows that the relationship between Marxism and ancient Chinese culture is in essence one of non-congruence.
I have seen one scholar's interpretation of the term "congruence" (qihe, 契合). Examining its etymology, he wrote: "Qi (契) in the oracle-bone script is made up of a knife and wood; its original meaning is to carve. Two pieces of wood are each carved with one half, and when put together they fit seamlessly: that is qihe. The term presupposes two things that exist independently. The two pieces of wood were not split from the same block; each has its own origin, and only when they meet is it found that they match. This differs from 'identity.' Identity means that they were originally one and the same thing, or that one is subordinate to the other; congruence means that they come from different places and are independent of each other, yet echo each other at key points. Using this term to describe the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture already contains an important theoretical premise: the two do not share a common source, and there is no question of one deriving from the other." I think this interpretation is sound. The premise and condition of "congruence" is non-identity, different origins, opposition. Commonality is discovered on the basis of different origins and non-identity, and only then is there "congruence." His conclusion is that the premise for facing and acknowledging the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture is that they are opposed and of different origins, fundamentally opposed; that is, "non-congruent." I think this conclusion is correct and accords with dialectics. For whenever dialectics discusses the relationship between two things, it first acknowledges difference, distinction and opposition, while also acknowledging sameness, identity and correspondence, and then again acknowledging that within sameness there is difference.
The essential relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture, including its fine culture, is first of all "non-congruence": they are products of opposed classes in different eras. "Non-congruence" contains "congruence" and commonality, but even where there is congruence, they cannot simply be integrated. Some scholars point out, for example, that ancient Chinese culture contains many elements of utopian socialism, and take this as proof of congruence between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture. But even if this is congruence, there is non-congruence within it; within sameness there is difference. Can the utopian socialism of ancient Chinese culture be simply copied, borrowed and stuffed directly into Marxist theory without analysis and criticism? Take "the world belongs to all" (tianxia wei gong) from the Book of Rites, which Sun Yat-sen stressed again and again. This "public" is certainly not a "public" built on historical materialism; it is "public" in a utopian sense. Interpreted scientifically by historical materialism, Marxism's relationship to "the world belongs to all" is one of critical inheritance, not a seamless relationship of "congruence" or "integration." However much "congruence" is claimed between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture, it cannot change their essential non-congruence. To speak only of "congruence" and "integration" is simply to tie and knead different cultural contents together.
3. Mao's many comments on, borrowings from and absorptions of Chinese culture are products of "taking the essence," not of "integration"
Some scholars cite the many quotations from and high appraisals of China's fine cultural achievements in Chairman Mao's writings to argue for the necessity of "integrating" Marxism with fine Chinese culture. This method of argument is wrong. Since Chairman Mao insisted on "taking the essence" of traditional Chinese culture, he naturally acknowledged that it contains a great deal of essence. But this essence was taken on the premise of criticizing the dross, through concrete analysis that pointed out the shallowness and one-sidedness of its understanding, and was then transformed and given new content. It was never a matter of simply copying the concrete content of traditional culture without analysis and forcing it into his own system of thought.
Many people cite "seeking truth from facts" in "Reform Our Study" as a product of the "integration" of ancient culture and Marxism. This is completely wrong. "Seeking truth from facts" originally appears in the Book of Han, praising Liu De, Prince Xian of Hejian, for his scholarship: he "devoted himself to learning and loved antiquity, seeking truth from facts."[5] Through analysis and dissection, Chairman Mao recognized that it was only a method of scholarship, which should be transformed by the epistemology of dialectical materialism into the line and method of Communist practice. So in "Reform Our Study" he gave "seeking truth from facts" a new and deeper meaning. This idea is therefore not the product of "integrating" two cultures but the result of Marxism's "critical transformation, bringing forth the new from the old." There are a great many examples of this kind.
Others cite the idea of a "moderately prosperous society" (xiaokang shehui) as a product of the "integration theory." This is also completely wrong. The "xiaokang society" is in essence part of the dross of the Book of Rites. It stands opposed to "the world belongs to all" and emphasizes "the world belongs to families." However a certain great personage and some eminent theorists interpret its so-called "rational" and "positive" elements, they can never change the essential character of the "xiaokang society" as dominated by private property and private-ownership thinking. Forcing this essentially mistaken dross directly into socialist culture has objectively promoted the spread of private-ownership thinking across China. The "xiaokang society" is therefore certainly not the product of integrating Marxism with fine traditional culture. It is the product of revising and distorting scientific socialism, of peddling feudal culture.
4. The deep root of Marxism's flowering in China is not "fine traditional Chinese culture" but the sharp and fierce class struggle of China's living reality
In order to argue for the necessity of "integrating Marxism with China's fine traditional culture," some scholars today have invented a justification: Marxism is the "soul," fine Chinese culture is the "root," and integrating the two is integrating soul and root. I agree that it is right to stress the integration of an idea's soul and root. The question is what the "root" actually is. Is it culture in the form of ideas, or objective social reality? Marxism did arise in the capitalist countries of Western Europe in the 1840s. Why could it take root, flower and bear fruit in China in the twentieth century? That "root" is certainly not China's fine traditional culture. It is the practice of the sharp and fierce class struggle of the Chinese people, in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country, against feudalism, bureaucrat-capitalism and imperialism. This class struggle needed scientific theoretical guidance. China's patriots had tried to save China with Confucian culture and with Western humanism (such as Sun Yat-sen's Three Principles of the People), but all failed. "The salvoes of the October Revolution brought us Marxism-Leninism." The Chinese Communists, with Mao Zedong as their representative, integrated Marxism-Leninism with the practice of the Chinese revolution, created Mao Zedong Thought, and found the truly scientific guiding ideology for saving China. That guiding ideology was certainly not the product of integration with China's fine traditional culture, but of integration with the "root" of living class struggle in China's real life. As Chairman Mao himself said, he took the idea of class struggle from the Communist Manifesto, but the book said nothing about class struggle in China, and he had to study the class struggle in Hunan and Hubei. An extremely important reason he became the greatest Marxist of the Chinese nation was that he knew and understood China's conditions and reality better than anyone, could best interpret them scientifically in Marxist-Leninist terms, and could best form in practice a correct Marxist-Leninist ideological and political line. Without studying China's conditions, and especially without studying today's living class struggle in China, what sense is there in talk of "integrating" Marxism with fine Chinese culture?
5. Digging up "defects" in Marxist theory in a subjective idealist way
To promote the necessity of the "integration theory," a few scholars go to great lengths to dig up defects and shortcomings in Marxist theory, in order to prove that Marxism needs to be supplemented, perfected and enriched, while greatly exaggerating the essence of fine Chinese culture and inflating it without limit into the mainstream, essence and core of Chinese culture. A recent video talk by Professor Guo Jicheng of the China University of Political Science and Law[6] is an example. Guo begins by dwelling on the defects and flaws of Marxism. "Marx spent his whole life proving that communism would inevitably be realized, and all his research approached the argument from the angles of the development of the productive forces, changes in the mode of production and the transformation of social structure." But, he says, Marx never spoke of the transformation of "human nature": "In which work did Marx systematically explain the path by which people should transform their own hearts and nature and cultivate a communist spiritual character?" He subjectively concludes that Marx never wrote on this subject at all. He says the core and essence of traditional Chinese culture is "developing from the small self to the greater self," and even that "from ancient times to the present, China's fine traditional culture has been about one thing at its core: guiding people to step out of the narrow small self, to embrace the greater collective self, and finally to eliminate selfishness and reach selflessness." To prove the "integration theory," Professor Guo has gone so far as to invent the defects of Marxism and to make the essence of Chinese culture "from the small self to the greater self to no self." Can the truth of the "integration theory" be proved by such methods of distortion and fabrication?
6. What is the essence and crux of the error of the "integration theory"?
First, its philosophical basis is the theory of "combining two into one." Philosophical circles debated for years how to formulate the law of the unity of opposites. Chairman Mao held that "one divides into two"; Yang Xianzhen, then vice president of the Central Party School, held that "two combine into one"; and some took a conciliatory position, that the law is the unity of the two.[7] I hold Chairman Mao's view and have written on it before. The philosophical basis of the "integration theory," which seeks to integrate two fundamentally opposed cultures, is the theory of "two combine into one." The philosophical basis of Chairman Mao's "taking the essence and discarding the dross" is "one divides into two."
Second, its crux is a new edition of "Confucian culture will save China." Since reform and opening up, some in theoretical circles have doubted that Marxism and socialism can save China, and a few have argued that Western culture or Confucian culture will save China. Clearly the latter two views are absolutely wrong. In my view, the "integration theory" now sweeping theoretical circles is in essence a disguised attempt to use ancient Chinese culture, that is, Confucian culture, to supplement, revise, perfect and even replace Marxism, and above all to repudiate and replace the Marxist theory of class struggle. It is a new edition, under new conditions, of "Confucian culture will save China."
Third, it abandons the critical and revolutionary essence of Marxism. The essence of Marxism is critical and revolutionary. From its birth and throughout its more than two hundred years of development, Marxism has always been engaged in struggle against every kind of mistaken idea. Marxism has never denied the enormous cultural achievements of humanity before it. But their fatal and fundamental defect is that they do not speak of class struggle or use the method of class analysis. Marxism has never refused, and indeed seeks to inherit to the fullest, their fine achievements, but on the premise of analysis: distinguishing dross from essence, exposing and criticizing the dross while stripping the essence away from it. Chairman Mao's approach was first analysis, criticism and exposure, and only then absorption and inheritance. Throughout his life, while attaching importance to absorbing the essence, he attached great importance to criticism as well. The campaign to criticize Lin Biao and Confucius and the critique of Water Margin[8] that he launched in his later years are typical expressions of the critical character of Marxism. The error of the "integration theory" lies in forgetting and abandoning the critical and revolutionary character of Marxism.
III. How, Then, Should Socialist Culture Be Built?
China's socialist modernization is an immensely arduous and great undertaking, and cultural development all the more so. How should socialist culture be built?
1. We must face and acknowledge the degeneration and collapse in China's cultural life today
Recently, the distorted and ugly portraits of Red Army soldiers, peasants, astronauts and others produced by certain professors at the Academy of Arts and Design of Tsinghua University and the doctoral students they trained provoked the indignation of the great majority of the people. This is no isolated case. It is a microcosm of the inversion of right and wrong, good and evil, beauty and ugliness throughout China's cultural world today. In literature, the sordid works of Mo Yan and Jia Pingwa are lavishly praised by many, spread widely and win prizes, while the model revolutionary operas and Hao Ran[9] are rejected wholesale; these are typical expressions of degeneration and collapse in intellectual and cultural circles. A great many well-known cultural figures, such as Zhao Benshan and assorted film and television stars, have become fabulously rich. What positive effect have their works had on society? And are not the many scandals repeatedly exposed in education, especially in the universities, in recent years also signs of the degeneration of cultural people? Our Party's guiding ideology is Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and schools of Marxism, professors and doctoral supervisors have sprung up like bamboo shoots after rain. But what of their quality and ability? When the Marxist theory of class struggle has vanished without a trace, when Leninism is no longer mentioned, and when the theory of continuing revolution, the very essence of Chairman Mao's thought, has been repudiated, does "guidance by Marxism" not become an empty slogan and signboard?
At the same time, along with the reform direction of privatization and marketization, a culture characterized by private-ownership thinking has spread across China at unprecedented speed. Xu Jiayin and a whole series of corrupt Party, government and military officials are in essence typical representatives of the twisted, one-sided, deformed and ugly personality shaped by decadent culture. Toward both Western and traditional Chinese culture, their approach is "take the dross and discard the essence." Some people attack and slander the economy of the Mao era as having been "on the brink of collapse." But we may fully use the word "collapse" to describe the state of Chinese culture today: contemporary Chinese culture is on the brink of degeneration and collapse.
2. Correctly understand the goal of socialist modernization in the Party's basic line
Cultural development is an extremely important part of socialist modernization. The last sentence of the Party's basic line is to build our country into a prosperous, strong, democratic and culturally advanced modern socialist country. "Culturally advanced" here refers to cultural development. But we cannot fail to face and acknowledge the objective fact that in recent decades the complete content of the Party's basic line has been reduced to "one central task and two basic points," and above all to the "one central task." That is, the whole Party and the whole country, at every level and in every field, are busy with the economy, which is to say, with money. This understanding in essence deviates from and betrays the Party's basic line. The correct guiding idea and practice is to work hard at economic construction while giving even more attention to democratic and cultural development, and to criticize every kind of mistaken talk and tendency that belittles democratic and cultural development. An extremely important reason for neglecting democratic development is the feudal notion of "let the ruler be a ruler, the subject a subject, the father a father, the son a son," and the supremacy of power, manifested especially among those in power at every level and among intellectuals. An important reason for belittling cultural development is the distortion of the historical-materialist principle of material interest into a principle of purely individual material interest. The principle of a "xiaokang society" is in fact the product of collusion between the private-ownership thinking of Confucianism and that of capitalism.
3. We must strengthen the study of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and especially of the Marxist viewpoint of class struggle and method of class analysis
The guiding ideology of cultural development must be Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and the core and essence of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought is the doctrine of class struggle. A Marxism that does not speak of class struggle and class analysis is not genuine Marxism but sham Marxism, revisionism. The theoretical root of the extreme confusion, degeneration and collapse in China's intellectual and cultural life today is the departure from and betrayal of the Marxist viewpoint of class struggle, and above all of the theory of continuing revolution, the quintessence of Mao Zedong Thought. Strengthening cultural development requires strengthening, in practice, the study of the works of Marx, Lenin and Chairman Mao, reading them earnestly and in earnest. If people shout loudly about "integrating Marxism" with fine traditional Chinese culture while not even understanding the basic knowledge and common sense of Marxism, like Professor Guo Jicheng, what can they mean by "integration"? What can they mean by the guiding position of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought? This is the most fundamental path and condition for the survival and development of Chinese Communists and the Chinese nation, and for whether communism can finally be realized. At the same time, developing Marxism is indeed extremely important for Chinese Communists today. Besides earnest reading, there is another fundamental condition: honestly studying the living class struggle of China's present reality. Without acknowledging, let alone studying, the class struggle in China today, can empty talk of "integration" with traditional culture develop Marxism?
4. We must apply Chairman Mao's principle of "taking the essence and discarding the dross" to all the cultural achievements of humanity
This applies to foreign and Western culture, and equally to traditional Chinese culture. In cultural development, the main tendency today is that we neither criticize Western culture enough nor inherit enough from it, and the same is true of traditional Chinese culture. An important cause of the series of social problems in China today is that the dross of Western culture and the dross of traditional Chinese culture have colluded to form an extremely decadent culture with Chinese characteristics, which has corroded and influenced large numbers of officials, intellectuals and ordinary people. The historical task of Chinese Communists today is to use the Marxist stand, viewpoint and method to criticize and expose to the greatest possible extent the dross of both Western and traditional Chinese culture, and especially the collusion of the worship of money with the worship of power. At the same time, on the basis of criticism, we should genuinely draw on and absorb the positive content of both cultures, enriching, developing and deepening Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.
5. Strengthen the study of learning and of how to live as a person, raise the consciousness and scientific quality of learning, and promote the improvement of the whole Party and the whole nation
In a lifetime of study and teaching, I have felt deeply how rich ancient Chinese culture is in its theories of education, learning and how to live as a person, and I have been greatly influenced by them. While in post, I used the standpoint of Marxist philosophy to study learning as a phenomenon, wrote papers, taught a course on "University Learning Studies" and compiled a textbook, Learning Studies; one important reason was the influence of Confucius and other educators. Of course this learning was not simple copying. I used Marxist philosophy to dissect and analyze each of their specific views in depth, drawing out their essence to the fullest while relating it to the state of learning among today's university students and the nation as a whole. My understanding of the nature and laws of learning bears the imprint of ancient Chinese culture. I stress that learning is never merely "knowing" but must be turned into "wisdom," practical ability and learning how to live as a person. So when I define "learning," I emphasize the process of "internalizing and digesting," the process of a person's development and improvement. I have written many articles on the basic qualities and abilities of modern people and the standards for living as a person. The essence of culture is to transform people. How are others and ourselves to be transformed? Only through learning in the true sense. Chairman Mao's theory of learning is also extremely rich. The "fight selfishness, criticize revisionism" that he set out in his later years is in essence also learning, self-transformation, learning how to live as a person, how to be someone who contributes to and advances society. Chairman Mao's "taking the essence and discarding the dross" was an important reason for my own achievements in the study of learning, and it should also become the most important guiding idea for cultural development today, for turning culture in books and theory into a material force within people.
Translator's Notes
1. Mao in Qufu. Mao visited the Confucius Temple and the Kong family mansion in Qufu, Shandong, in October 1952, accompanied by Xu Shiyou, then commander of the Shandong Military District.
2. Lenin's "elements of dialectics." From Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks ("Conspectus of Hegel's Science of Logic"), where the first element is "the objectivity of consideration (not examples, not divergences, but the Thing-in-itself)."
3. "Learning to walk in Handan" and "Dong Shi imitating Xi Shi's frown." Two idioms from the Zhuangzi: a youth who went to Handan to learn its elegant gait forgot his own and had to crawl home; and the plain Dong Shi, imitating the beautiful Xi Shi's frown, only made herself uglier.
4. The culture that "eats people" (吃人). From Lu Xun's "A Madman's Diary" (1918), whose narrator finds the words "eat people" written between the lines of the classics' talk of "benevolence, righteousness and morality."
5. "Seeking truth from facts" (实事求是). The Book of Han says of Liu De, Prince Xian of Hejian, that he "修学好古，实事求是"; the Tang commentator Yan Shigu glossed the phrase as "striving to get at the facts, seeking the truth in every inquiry" (务得事实，每求真是). The original article conflates the text and the commentary.
6. Guo Jicheng (郭继承). A professor at the China University of Political Science and Law, known for popular online lectures on traditional culture.
7. "One divides into two" vs. "two combine into one." In 1964 Yang Xianzhen (1896–1992) was publicly criticized for advancing "two combine into one" as a formulation of dialectics, against Mao's "one divides into two."
8. The critique of Water Margin (评水浒). A 1975 campaign prompted by Mao's remark that the novel's hero Song Jiang was a capitulationist who accepted the emperor's amnesty.
9. Hao Ran (浩然, 1932–2008). Author of Bright Sunny Skies and The Golden Road, the most prominent novelist of the Cultural Revolution period, later disparaged by the literary establishment.