Abstract

Reviewing Zhang Xianliang's novel Half of Man Is Woman,1 I naturally associate it with his Mimosa2 and "Soul and Body."3 When I ponder the content for a moment, even Shen Rong's At Middle Age4 and Xu Chi's Gadbach's Conjecture5 come to mind. I associate them because first, the subject of all these writings is the fate of contemporary Chinese intellectuals, and second, they represent the three types of Chinese intellectual that developed during the three different stages of the New Period literature about Chinese intellectuals. Chen Jingren, who is a "white specialist"6 mathematician devoted to science, represents the literary affirmation of the intellectual who has a simple personality. Lu Wenting, who is an outstanding doctor and responsible wife and mother, represents the complete affirmation of the intellectual who has a complex personality. Xu Lingjun and Zhang Yongling, who are "gifted scholars in dire straits," were created by Zhang to represent the affirmation of intellectual self-transformation. From different perspectives, these stories bring the image of Chinese intellectuals to the peak of character perfection by showing intellectuals' high self-esteem and their rediscovery of their own knowledge and talent, and by contrasting this to the comprehensive negation of intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution when they were thrown into the depths of hell. The positive meaning of these images is indubitable. Moreover, all of them have been evaluated quite positively. However, we have to admit that in terms of the intellectuals' understanding of their own identity, their complete negation during the Cultural Revolution and complete affirmation in the New Period show the same tendency: an unconsciousness or blindness—they neither consciously realize their primary destiny as intellectuals in the New Period, nor consciously dig up the deep roots of the tragic fate of intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution. On the surface, this blindness shows that the influence of the ultraleftist line still exists. On an even deeper level, it shows that the traditional feudal ideology of our country has a deep-rooted potential impact not only on other social groups, but also on intellectuals. Thus, it is really necessary to stand from a macrohistorical perspective and deeply reflect on the images of intellectuals as they appear in the New Period literature by comparing the literature on intellectuals from the New Period, the May Fourth period, and the Classical period. Frankly speaking, such reflection should have started earlier and is unavoidable. It affects not only literature, but also the development in China of modem culture, and even the issue of whether or not Chinese intellectuals, as they push reforms forward, can carry on the May Fourth tradition of bringing forth intellectual enlightenment, transforming the deep-rooted, bad characteristics of our nation, and eliminating traditional feudal ideology. In this sense, although I agree with the idea, proposed by Huang Ziping and others, that the duty of contemporary Chinese literature is to carry forward the May Fourth heritage and change the national character, I have reservations about the general concept of a "twentieth century Chinese literature." This is because evaluations of the antifeudal value of contemporary Chinese literature to date have been insufficient. In reality, although the contemporary works that we have seen show some form of succession and development of the May Fourth new literature, in spirit these works are closer to Chinese Classical writing. This similarity is most visible in the writings about intellectuals