2014/12/11 by Elisabeth Forster · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #Chinese history and philosophy #Vietnamese History and Culture Studies #Asian Culture and Media Studies #Newspaper #Politics #Ivory tower #Rhetoric #New Culture Movement #China #Government (linguistics) #Media studies #Political culture #Reform movement #History #Sociology #Political science #Law #Theology #Philosophy
paper · doi:10.3868/s020-003-014-0037-2
openalex publication_date 2014/12/11 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
In early 1919, people like Hu Shi and Chen Duxiu were regarded as members of an ivory-tower “academic faction” (xuepai), embroiled in a debate with an opposing “faction.” After the May Fourth demonstrations, they were praised as the stars of a “New Culture Movement.” However, it was not obvious how the circle around Hu Shi and Chen Duxiu was associated with the May Fourth demonstrations. This link hinged on the way in which newspapers like Shenbao reported about the academic debates and the political events of May Fourth. After compartmentalizing the debating academics into fixed xuepai, Shenbao ascribed warlord-political allegiances to them. These made the Hu-Chen circle look like government victims and their “factional” rivals like the warlords’ allies. When the atmosphere became hostile to the government during May Fourth, Hu Shi’s “faction” became associated with the equally victimized May Fourth demonstrators. Their ideas were regarded as (now popular) expressions of anti-government sentiment, and soon this was labeled the core of the “New Culture Movement.” The idea and rhetoric of China’s “New Culture Movement” in this way emerged out of the fortuitous concatenation of academic debates, newspaper stories, and political events.