Hu Shih | |
|---|---|
胡適 | |
| Chinese Ambassador to the United States | |
| In office 29 October 1938 – 1 September 1942 | |
| Preceded by | Wang Zhengting |
| Succeeded by | Wei Tao-ming |
| Personal details | |
| Born | 17 December 1891 Shanghai, Qing China |
| Died | 24 February 1962 (aged 70) Taipei County, Taiwan, Republic of China |
| Alma mater | Cornell University (BA) Teachers College, Columbia University (PhD) |
| Occupation | Diplomat, essayist, literary scholar, philosopher, politician |
| School | Pragmatism Experimentalism |
| Region | Chinese philosophy |
| Philosophical interests | Liberalism, redology, philosophy of education |
| Influences | |
| Influenced | |
| Signature | |
| Hu Shih | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Chinese | 胡適 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Simplified Chinese | 胡适 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hu Shih[1][2][3][4] (Chinese: 胡適; pinyin: Hú Shì; Wade–Giles: Hu2 Shih4; 17 December 1891 – 24 February 1962), also known as Hu Suh in early references,[5][6] was a Chinese diplomat, essayist, literary scholar, philosopher, and politician. Hu is widely recognized today as a key contributor to Chinese liberalism and language reform in his advocacy for the use of written vernacular Chinese.[7] He was influential in the May Fourth Movement, one of the leaders of China's New Culture Movement, was a president of Peking University, and in 1939 was nominated for a Nobel Prize in literature.[8] He had a wide range of interests such as literature, philosophy, history, textual criticism, and pedagogy. He was also an influential redology scholar and held the famous Jiaxu manuscript (甲戌本; Jiǎxū běn) for many years until his death.
Hu was born on December 17, 1891, in Shanghai to Hu Chuan (胡傳; Hú Chuán) and his third wife Feng Shundi (馮順弟; Féng Shùndì). Hu Chuan was a tea merchant who became a public servant, serving in Manchuria, Hainan, and Taiwan. After Hu Shih's birth, Hu Chuan moved to Taiwan to work in 1892, where his wife and Hu Shih joined him in 1893. Shortly before Hu Chuan's death in 1895, right after the outbreak of the First Sino-Japanese War, his wife Feng and the young Hu Shih left Taiwan for their ancestral home in Anhui.[9]
In January 1904, Hu Shih's family arranged his marriage to Chiang Tung-hsiu (江冬秀; Jiāng Dōngxiù). In the same year, Hu and an elder brother moved to Shanghai seeking a "modern" education.[10]
Family legend has it that Hu Shih's ancestors were descended from the last teenage Emperor of Tang China (being different in origin from the rest of the Hu clan), who fled in disguise with a loyal minister of court in 907 to Anhui and eventually took the name as his son.
Hu became a "national scholar" through funds appropriated from the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship Program. On 16 August 1910, he was sent to study agriculture at Cornell University in the U.S. In 1912 he changed his major to philosophy and literature, and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. After receiving his undergraduate degree, he went to study philosophy at Teachers College, Columbia University, where he was greatly influenced by his professor, John Dewey. Hu became Dewey's translator and a lifelong advocate of pragmatic evolutionary change, helping Dewey in his 1919–1921 lectures series in China. He returned to lecture in Peking University. During his tenure there, he received support from Chen Duxiu, editor of the influential journal New Youth, quickly gaining much attention and influence. Hu soon became one of the leading and influential intellectuals during the May Fourth Movement and later the New Culture Movement.
He quit New Youth in the 1920s and published several political newspapers and journals with his friends. His most important contribution was the promotion of vernacular Chinese in literature to replace Classical Chinese, which was intended to make it easier for the ordinary person to read.[11] The significance of this for Chinese culture was great – as John Fairbank put it, "the tyranny of the classics had been broken".[12] Hu devoted a great deal of energy, however, to rooting his linguistic reforms in China's traditional culture rather than relying on imports from the West. As his biographer Jerome Grieder put it, Hu's approach to China's "distinctive civilization" was "thoroughly critical but by no means contemptuous."[13] For instance, he made a major contribution to the textual study of the Chinese classical novel, especially the 18th century novel Dream of the Red Chamber, as a way of establishing the vocabulary for a modern standardized language.[14] His Peking University colleague Wen Yuan-ning dubbed Hu a "philosophe" for his wide-ranging humanistic interests and expertise.[15]
Hu was the ambassador of Republic of China to the U.S. between 1938[16] and 1942.[17][18] He was recalled in September 1942 and was replaced by Wei Tao-ming. Hu then served as chancellor of Peking University, which was then called National Peking University, between 1946 and 1948. In 1957, he became the third president of the Academia Sinica in Taipei, a post he retained until his death. He was also chief executive of the Free China Journal, which was eventually shut down for criticizing Chiang Kai-shek.
He died of a heart attack in Nankang, Taipei at the age of 70, and was entombed in Hu Shih Park, adjacent to the Academia Sinica campus. That December, Hu Shih Memorial Hall was established in his memory.[19] It is an affiliate of the Institute of Modern History at the Academia Sinica, and includes a museum, his residence, and the park. Hu Shih Memorial Hall offers audio tour guides in Chinese and English for visitors.
Hu Shih's work fell into disrepute in mainland China until a 1986 article, written by Ji Xianlin, "A Few Words for Hu Shih" (为胡适说几句话), advocated acknowledging not only Hu Shih's mistakes, but also his contributions to modern Chinese literature. This article was sufficiently convincing to many scholars that it led to a re-evaluation of the development of modern Chinese literature and the role of Hu Shih.[20] Selection 15 of the Putonghua Proficiency Test is a story about Hu Shih debating the merits of Written vernacular Chinese over Classical Chinese.[21]
Hu Shih Hall at Cornell University is named for him.[22]
During his time at Columbia, Hu studied with John Dewey and became a staunch supporter of the Pragmatism school. After returning to China, Hu first coined the word traditional Chinese: 實驗主義; pinyin: shíyànzhǔyì, experimentalism in literal translation. Today, the word Pragmatism is more commonly translated as traditional Chinese: 實用主義; pinyin: shíyòngzhǔyì.[citation needed]
Hu Shih's adoption of Pragmatism is, in fact, a reflection of his own philosophical appeals. Before he encountered Dewey's works, he wrote in his diary that he was in a search of "practical philosophy," instead of deep and obscure philosophies for the survival of the Chinese people. Instead of abstract theories, he was more interested in methodologies (術, shù).[23] Hu viewed Pragmatism as a scientific methodology for the study of philosophy. He greatly appreciated the universality of such a scientific approach because he believed that such a methodology transcends the boundary of culture and therefore can be applied anywhere, including China during his time. Hu Shih was not so interested in the content of Dewey's philosophy, caring rather about the method, the attitude, and the scientific spirit.[24]
Hu Shih saw all ideologies and abstract theories only as hypotheses waiting to be tested. The content of ideologies, Hu believed, was shaped by the background, political environment, and even the personality of the theorist. Thus these theories were confined within their temporality. Hu felt that only the attitude and spirit of an ideology could be universally applied. Therefore, Hu criticized any dogmatic application of ideologies. After Hu took over as the chief editor at Weekly Commentary (每周評論) in 1919, he and Li Dazhao engaged in a heated debate regarding ideology and problem (問題與主義論戰) that was influential among Chinese intellectuals at that time. Hu writes in "A Third Discussion of Problems and Isms" (三問題與主義):
"Every isms and every theory should be studied, but they can only be viewed as hypothesis, not dogmatic credo; they can only be viewed as a source of reference, not as rules of religion; they can only be viewed as inspiring tools, not as absolute truth that halts any further critical thinkings. Only in this way can people cultivate creative intelligence, become able to solve specific problems, and emancipate from the superstition of abstract words."[25]
Throughout the literary works and other scholarships of Hu Shih, the presence of Pragmatism as a method is prevalent. Hu Shih consist of using an ill-defined scientific method. He described him own as experiential inductive, verificatory, and evolutionary.[26] Hu Shih was deeply influenced by John Dewey's ideals.
In more details, Hu quotes Dewey's division of thought into five steps.
In fact, Hu saw his life work as a consistent project of practicing the scientific spirit of Pragmatism since science is an attitude, a lifestyle that must be lived.
For Hu Shih, skepticism and pragmatism are inseparable. In his essay "Introducing My Thoughts" (介紹我自己的思想), he states that Thomas H. Huxley is the one person, other than Dewey, who most heavily influenced his thoughts.[27] Huxley's agnosticism is the negative precondition to the practical, active problem-solving of Dewey's pragmatism. Huxley's "genetic method" in Hu's writing becomes a "historical attitude," an attitude that ensures one's intellectual independence which also leads to individual emancipation and political freedom.
Hu Shih brought the scientific method and the spirit of Skepticism into traditional Chinese textual study (Kaozheng), laying the groundwork for contemporary studies of Chinese intellectual history.
In 1919, Hu Shih published the first volume of An Outline History of Chinese Philosophy; the later portion was never finished. Later scholars of Chinese intellectual history including Feng Youlan and Yu Yingshi agree that Hu's work was revolutionary. Cai Yuanpei, president of Peking University where Hu was teaching at the time, wrote the preface for Outline and pointed out four key features that make Hu's work distinct:
Without a doubt, Hu's organisation of classical Chinese philosophy imitated Western philosophical history, but the influence of textual study since the time of the Qing dynasty is still present. Especially for the second point, "cutting off the many schools" is a result of the continuous effort of Qing scholarship around ancient textual studies. Since the validity of the ancient texts is questionable and the content of them obscure, Hu decided to leave them out. In fact, before the publication of Outline, Hu was appointed to be the lecturer of History of Classical Chinese Philosophy. His decision of leaving out pre-Warring States philosophy almost caused a riot among students.[28][clarification needed]
In Outline, other philosophical schools of the Warring States were first treated as equal. Hu did not hold Confucianism as the paradigm while treating other schools as heresy. Rather, Hu saw philosophical values within other schools, even those considered to be anti-Confucian, like Mohism. In 1919, this was considered a significant revolutionary act among intellectuals. Yu Yingshi, a prominent Taiwanese historian on intellectual history even praised Hu for setting up a new paradigm according to Thomas Kuhn's Enlightenment theory.[29]
Despite recognising the revolutionary nature of Hu's work. Feng Youlan, the author of A History of Chinese Philosophy, criticises Hu for adopting a pragmatist framework in Outline. Instead of simply laying out the history of Chinese philosophy, Feng claims that Hu criticises these schools from a pragmatist perspective which makes the reader feel as if "the whole Chinese civilisation is entirely on the wrong track."[30] Feng also disagrees with Hu's extensive effort on researching the validity of the resource text. Feng believes that as long as the work itself is philosophically valuable, its validity is not as significant.[31]
| New Culture Movement |
|---|
|
|
Unlike many of his contemporaries who later joined the Socialist camp, liberalism and democracy had been Hu's political beliefs throughout his life. He firmly believed that the world as a whole was heading toward democracy, despite the changing political landscape.[32][33] Hu defines democracy as a lifestyle in which everyone's value is recognized, and everyone has the freedom to develop a lifestyle of individualism.[34] For Hu, individual achievement does not contradict societal good. In fact, individual achievement contributes to overall social progress, a view that differs from the so-called "selfish individualism."[35] In his essay, "Immortality – My Religion," Hu stresses that although individuals eventually perish physically, one's soul and the effect one has on society are immortal.[36] Therefore, Hu's individualism is a lifestyle in which people are independent and yet social.[37]
Hu sees individual contributions as crucial and beneficial to the system of democracy. In "A Second Discussion on Nation-Building and Autocracy" (再談建國與專治), Hu comments that an autocratic system needs professionals to manage it while democracy relies on the wisdom of the people. When different people's lived experiences come together, no elite politician is needed for coordination, and therefore democracy is, in fact, easy to practice with people who lack political experience. He calls democracy "naive politics" (幼稚政治), a political system that can help cultivate those who participate in it.[38]
Hu also equates democracy with freedom, a freedom that is made possible by tolerance. In a democratic system, people should be free from any political persecution as well as any public pressure. In his 1959 essay "Tolerance and Freedom," Hu Shih stressed the importance of tolerance and claimed that "tolerance is the basis of freedom." In a democratic society, the existence of opposition must be tolerated. Minority rights are respected and protected. People must not destroy or silence the opposition.[39]
A large portion of Hu Shih's scholarship in his later years is dedicated to finding a Chinese root for democracy and liberalism. Many of his writings, including Historic "Tradition for a Democratic China,"[clarification needed] "The Right to Doubt in Ancient Chinese Thought," "Authority and Freedom in the Ancient Asian World" make a similar claim that the democratic spirit is always present within the Chinese tradition.[40] Some of his claims[clarification needed] include:
In 1928, Hu along with Xu Zhimo, Wen Yiduo, Chen Yuan and Liang Shiqiu founded the monthly journal Crescent Moon, named after Tagore's prose verse. In March 1929, Shanghai Special Representatives of National Party Chen De proposed to punish any "anti-revolutionary" without due process. Hu Shih responded fiercely with an article in Crescent Moon titled "Human Rights and Law" (人權與約法). In the article, Hu called for the establishment of a written constitution that protects the rights of citizens, especially from the ruling government. The government must be held accountable to the constitution. Later in "When Can We Have Constitution – A Question for The Outline of National Reconstruction" (我們什麼時候才可有憲法? — 對於《建國大綱》的疑問), Hu criticized the Nationalist government for betraying the ideal of Constitutionalism in The Outline of National Reconstruction. Rejecting Sun Yat-sen's claim that people are incapable of self-rule, Hu considered democracy itself a form of political education. The legitimacy and the competency of people participating in the political process comes from their lived experience.
In the early 1950s, the Chinese Communist Party launched a years-long campaign criticizing Hu Shih's thoughts. In response, Hu published many essays in English attacking the political legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party.[41]
In the writing field, Lu Xun and Hu were two most different examples representing two different political parties. The political differences between the Nationalist Party and the Chinese Communist Party led to significantly different evaluations of the two writers. As a supporter of the Communist Party, Lu Xun was hailed by its leader Mao Zedong as ''the greatest and most courageous fighter of the new cultural army.'' By contrast, Hu Shih was criticised by Communist-leaning historians as ''the earliest, the most persistent and most uncompromising enemy of Chinese Marxism and socialist thought.'' The different evaluations of the two different writers show the complexity between two different political parties in modern China.[42]
Hu's opposition to the Chinese Communist Party was essentially an ideological conflict. As a supporter of Pragmatism, Hu believed that social changes could only happen incrementally. Revolution or any ideologies that claim to solve social problems once and for all are not possible. Such a perspective was present in his early writing, as in the problem versus isms debate. He often quotes John Dewey: "progress is not a wholesale matter, but a retail job, to be contracted for and executed in section." Another ideological conflict came with his individualism.[clarification needed] Hu affirms the individual's right as independent from the collective. The individual has the right to develop freely and diversely without political suppression in the name of uniformity. He writes in "The Conflict of Ideologies":
"The desire for uniformity leads to suppression of individual initiative, to the dwarfing of personality and creative effort, to intolerance, oppression, and slavery, and, worst of all, to intellectual dishonesty and moral hypocrisy."[43]
In contrast to a Marxist conception of history, Hu's vision of history is pluralistic and particular. In his talk with American economist Charles A. Beard, recorded in his diary, Hu believed the making of history is only coincidental. Since he is a proponent of reformism, pluralism, individualism, and skepticism, Hu's philosophy is irreconcilable with Communist ideology. Hu's later scholarship around the Chinese root of liberalism and democracy is consistent with his anti-CCP writings. In a later manuscript titled "Communism, Democracy, and Cultural Pattern," Hu constructs three arguments from Chinese intellectual history, especially from Confucian and Taoist traditions, to combat the authoritative rule of the Chinese Communist Party:
1. An almost anarchistic aversion of all governmental interference.
2. A long tradition of love for freedom and fighting for freedom – especially for intellectual freedom and religious freedom, but also for the freedom of political criticism.
3. A traditional exaltation of the individual's right to doubt and question things – even the most sacred things.[44]
Therefore, Hu regards the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party as not only "unhistorical," but also "un-Chinese."
Hu was well known as the primary advocate for the literary revolution of the era, a movement which aimed to replace scholarly classical Chinese in writing with the vernacular spoken language, and to cultivate and stimulate new forms of literature. In an article originally published in New Youth in January 1917 titled "A Preliminary Discussion of Literature Reform" (文學改良芻議), Hu originally emphasized eight guidelines that all Chinese writers should take to heart in writing:
In April of 1918, Hu published a second article in New Youth, this one titled "Constructive Literary Revolution – A Literature of National Speech". In it, he simplified the original eight points into just four:
The following excerpt is from a poem titled Dream and Poetry, written in vernacular Chinese by Hu. It illustrates how he applied those guidelines to his own work.
|
Chinese original |
|
|
都是平常情感。 |
It's all ordinary feelings, |
|
醉過才知酒濃。 |
Once intoxicated, one learns the strength of wine, |
His prose included works like The Life of Mr. Close Enough (差不多先生傳), a piece criticizing Chinese society which centers around the extremely common Chinese language phrase '差不多' (chàbuduō), which means something like "close enough" or "just about right":
As Mr. Chabuduo ("Close Enough") lay dying, he uttered in an uneven breath, "The living and the dead are cha.........cha........buduo (are just about the same), and as long as everything is cha.........cha........buduo, then things will be fine. Why...........be............too serious?" Following these final words, he took his last gasp of air.[47]
His works are listed chronologically at the Hu Shih Memorial Hall website.[48]
Hu Shih is considered one of the key leaders of the Chinese language reform and the vernacular style of writing articles. The opposite style of writing is Classical Chinese, and one of the key leaders of this language was Zhang Shizhao. Hu Shih and Zhang Shizhao had only a ten-year age difference, but the men seemed to be of differing generations, and the two were both friends and enemies.[49]
In October 1919, after visiting Wu Luzhen in China, Hu Shih said with emotion: "In the last ten years, only deceased personalities like Song Jiaoren, Cai E, and Wu Luzhen have been able to maintain their great reputation. The true features of living personalities are soon detected. This is because the times change too quickly. If a living personality does not try his utmost, he falls behind and soon becomes 'against the time'''[49] In Hu Shih's ideals, only dead people can hold their reputation; the world will soon know the real value and personality of a person if they do not follow the times. They will fall back in time soon if they are not trying to find changes that encourage writers in old China to follow the new revolution and start using the new vernacular style of writing. They cannot stay in the old style; otherwise, they will fall back in time. Furthermore, Hu Shih meant that China needed more new things.
One odd thing about Hu Shih and Zhang Shizhao is that Zhang was the biggest 'enemy' of the vernacular style, According to Liang Souming: "Lin Shu and Zhang Shizhao were two most significant people against vernacular style of writing in history".[49] But in fact, Hu Shih and Zhang Shizhao had a big age difference; when Zhang was at work in Shanghai, Hu was only a middle school student.
Hu Shih was one of the founders of the May Fourth Movement, which led to some people to be a defining moment, marking the beginning of modern China. Hu had a vision of the May Fourth Movement in China as part of a global shift in philosophy, led by Western countries. The global nature of the movement, in Hu's eyes, was particularly important, given China's relatively recent status as a global power. During the process of the May Fourth Movement, Hu's political position shifted dramatically. As fellow thinkers and students of the movement looked towards socialism, Hu also gained a more favorable view of the collective, centralized organization of groups like the Soviet Union and the Third International. After the early 1930s, however, he changed back to his earlier positions, which put more weight on individualism. During the chaotic period this movement developed, Hu felt pessimism and a sense of alienation.[50]
Towards the end of Hu's life, he expressed disappointment at the politicization of the May Fourth Movement, which he felt was counter to the primarily philosophical and linguistic issues that drove him to find it. No matter how Hu's position shifted through the course of the Movement, he always put the May Fourth Movement in a global, albeit Eurocentric, context.[51] Despite the implications of the May Fourth Movement, Hu Shih ultimately expressed regret that he was unable to play a larger role in his nation's history.[50]
