Transvaluing the New Culture Movement: Toward the Construction of a Cosmo-Humanism

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Ning
1960 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-322
Author(s):  
J. D. Chinnery

Lǔ xùn's first story Kúangrén rìjì ‘Diary of a madman’ was published in the review Xīn Qīngnián (La Jeunesse) in May 1918. This was during the New Culture Movement when the editors of the review were engaged in their onslaught on Confucian morality, the literary language, and other aspects of the Chinese tradition. Lǔ Xùn's story was intended as a contribution to this movement and was written, according to the author's own account, at the request of one of his friends and fellowprovincials on the editorial board, Qián Xuán-tóng .


Author(s):  
Jason Wang

The New Culture Movement (Xīn Wénhuà Yùndòng 新文化运动) originated at Peking University during the 1910s. The movement’s ideologies were reflected in the phrase Old China (Jiu Zhong Guo旧中国), referring to the rejection of traditional Chinese culture, especially orthodox Confucianism and conventional gender inequality, and the promoting of Western cultural modernity (particularly democracy and science).


1974 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arif Dirlik

Historical materialism entered Chinese thought as part of the new wave of socialism during the New Culture movement. By the late 1920's, during the ebb of communism as a political movement, it had gained a foothold in the consciousness of many Chinese intellectuals. Its application to the analysis of Chinese history reached its peak in the “social history controversy” of the late twenties and early thirties.1 After the mid-thirties interest in the Marxist discussion of history dwindled, not reaching a comparable degree of intensity until its revival after 1949.


1982 ◽  
Vol 90 ◽  
pp. 286-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ursula Richter

When in 1931 the late Arthur W. Hummel published his annotated translation of Gu Jiegang's Preface to the Gushi-bian, only the first two volumes of this opus magnum in modern Chinese historiography had appeared. Yet, Hummel recognized the nascent work as “an admirable introduction to the technique and temper of Chinese scholarship” of the post-May-Fourth “Chinese Renaissance” era, and its then youthful editor as an historian who, although he had never studied abroad or with a western teacher, was able to conduct such a large-scale disputation on ancient Chinese history “in the most rigorous scientific manner” owing to his “firm grasp of the best traditions of native scholarship, together with what he had learned of western methods.” Most of the leaders of the “New Culture Movement” (yet another name for the intellectual tide around May Fourth) subsequently contributed to the Gushi-bian, the spiritus rector of which Gu remained, although he had to ask colleagues for help with the editing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document