A New Discourse on Fengjian: the Redefinition of Fengjian and the Demonization of Federalism

Abstract

This article examines the evolution of the vocabulary “feudal (fengjian)” in early twentieth-century China. Despite having served as a symbol of local autonomy and countervailing against imperial authority as emphasized in the Confucian tradition, the term had descended into an object of scorn, oppression, and retrogression in the latter half of the twentieth century until today. An alternative interpretation toward the modern misuse of fengjian may be found by focusing and comparing the two seemingly unrelated and radically different portrayals of fengjian by: political thinker Zhang Taiyan’s federalist ideology; and Marxist historian Guo Moruo’s manipulation of Chinese classics. Under the historical context surrounding the turmoil of 1920s China, this article argues that much more than a mistranslation, the redefinition of fengjian was an intentional slander to, through the ambiguity surrounding its definition, destroy the Chinese tradition of liberty and local autonomy, further justifying a unified, highly centralized Chinese nation-state.

Keywords:

• Fengjian
• Chinese federalism
• Zhang Taiyan
• Guo Moruo
• Chinese Marxist historiography
• Shijing
• confucian political thought
• political decentralization

Acknowledgment

The author would like to express his gratitude to Dr Thomas Burnham and Dr Yue Zhuang of the University of Exeter for their valuable advice and comments.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Joseph R. Allen (ed.), The Book of Songs, trans. Arthur Waley and Joseph R. Allen, (New York: Grove Press, 1996), p. 323. For clarity, all Chinese texts which use the characters “fengjian” will be retained as “fengjian”, regardless of whether it refers to “feudal” or “enfeoffment and establishment”.

2 Confucian scholars often utilised the fengjian system as a means to criticise the imperial junxian system since the Qin Dynasty. Major fengjian supporters of the Song-Ming period include: Bi Zhongyou (畢仲游) (1047-21), Hu Anguo (胡安國) (1074-1138), Hu Yin (胡寅) (1098-1156), Hu Hong (胡宏) (1105-61), Zhang Zai (張載) (1020-77), Zhu Xi (朱熹) (1130-1200), and Chen Chun (陳淳) (1159-1223) of the Song; and Huang Shengzeng (黃省曾) (1496-1546), Huang Zongxi (黃宗羲) (1610-1695), Gu Yanwu (顧炎武) (1613-1682), and Wang Fuzhi (王夫之) (1619-1692) of the Ming.

3 Confusingly, the Chinese Marxist historiographical tradition often interchanges the two definitions of fengjian. Liu Zongyuan (柳宗元) (773-819), for example, was a Tang Dynasty scholar who argued in his famous essay “Fengjian Lun (A Discourse on Fengjian)” that fengjian was not the true intention of the Confucian sages, rather a force of circumstance. Liu’s work was often praised by Mao Zedong, who encouraged the nationwide reading of the essay during the “Criticise Lin Criticise Confucius Campaign” of 1974. Marxist historians therefore often emphasise the “progressive”, “materialistic”, and “anti-feudal” nature of Liu’s essay. Ironically, certain Confucian scholars who praised the merits of the fengjian system are praised also as “anti-imperial, anti-feudal” thinkers. These include Gu Yanwu, Huang Zongxi, and Wang Fuzhi.

4 See, for example, Ri Zhi, “‘Fengjian Zhuyi’ Wenti (Lun Feudalism Bainian lai de Wuyi) [The problem of “fengjian ideology” (A Discussion of the century-old mistranslation)].” Shijie Lishi 6 (1991): 30–41, 125–124; Jianxin Hou, “A discussion of the concept of ‘feudal’.” Frontiers of History in China 2, no. 1 (2007): 1–24; Tianyu Feng. “Society of Imperial Power: Reinterpreting China’s ‘Feudal Society’.” Journal of Chinese Humanities 1, no. 1 (2014): 25–50.

5 Arif Dirlik, “Social Formations in Representations of the Past: The Case of ‘Feudalism’ in Twentieth-Century Chinese Historiography.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 19, no. 3, (1996): 227–267.

6 John E. Schrecker, The Chinese Revolution in Historical Perspective (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004), 184–85, 195.

7 Viren Murthy, “The politics of fengjian in late-Qing and Republican China” in Beyond the May Fourth Paradigm: In Search of Chinese Modernity, eds. Kai-wing Chow, et al., (Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2008), 175–76.

8 Duara Prasenjit, Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 147–75, esp. 170–5.

9 Gengsong Gao, “Yan Fu’s (Mis)translation of ‘Feudal/Feudalism’.” Intertexts 19, no. 1 (2015): 23–38.

10 Steven Philips notes that one of the aftermaths of the Northern Expedition was the “demonization of federalism”, which saw fengjian be “translated as ‘feudal’, and came to mean less an alternative administrative system than a set of pre-modern values”, but has not expanded on it. See Steven Philips, “The Demonization of Federalism in Republican China” in Defunct Federalisms, eds. Emilian Kavalski and Magdalena Zolkos, (Hampshire: Ashgate, 2008), 89.

11 Schrecker, The Chinese Revolution in Historical Perspective, 72–80.

12 Zhang Taiyan (1869–1936), original name Binglin, changed his name after Huang Zongxi’s courtesy name Taichung (Tai); and Gu Yanwu (Yan). Much of Zhang’s decentralist federalist ideology took inspiration from the Confucian tradition of fengjian. Zhang was a fierce critique of the nationalists’ vision of unifying China through military action and denounced the nationalist government’s legitimacy after the Northern Expedition. Zhang proclaimed himself “loyalist of the Republic of China” and insisted on using the “five-coloured flag” of the republic to be draped over his coffin. See Ta-chia Li, Minguo Chunian de Liansheng Zizhi Yundong (The Federalist Movement of the Early Republican Era), (Taipei: Hongwenguan Chubanshe, 1986); Zhijun Tang, Zhang Taiyan Zhuan (Biography of Zhang Taiyan), (Taipei: Commercial Press Taiwan, 1996); Viren Murthy, The Political Philosophy of Zhang Taiyan : The Resistance of Consciousness, (Leiden: Brill, 2011); Zhijun Tang, Zhang Taiyan Nianpu Changpian (Extended Chronicles of Zhang Taiyan), (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2013); Nianchi Zhang, Zhang Taiyan Shengping yu Xueshu (Zhang Taiyan’s Life and Academics), (Shanghai, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2016); Fanshen Wang, Zhang Taiyan de Sixiang: Jian lun qi dui Ruxue Chuantong de Chongji (Zhang Taiyan’s Thought and its Impact towards Confucian Thought), (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2018).

13 Hokyin Chan and Tze-ki Hon, “‘Fenli’ yu ‘Tongyi’ de Duoyuan Bianzheng: Zhang Taiyan Liansheng Zizhi Sixiang de Tezhi (Dialectics Between Autonomy and Unification: Zhang Taiyan’s Thought on Provincial Self-Rule)” Zhongguo Wenhua Yanjiusuo Xuebao 67, (2018): 223. Taiwanese historian Li Ta-chia, for example, claims to fail to grasp the “true political motivations” of Zhang Taiyan’s federalism; Tang Zhijun claims that Zhang was “manipulated by warlord powers” which led to his “pedantic” federalist thought. This, of course, reflects the sensitivity of decentralist ideology in the study of Chinese intellectual history. See Li, Minguo Chunian de Liansheng Zizhi Yundong, 126; Tang, Zhang Taiyan Zhuan, 332–33; Zehou Li, “Zhang Taiyan as a Revolutionary and a Thinker” Chinese Studies in History, 15, no. 3–4, (1982): 90–108.

14 Taiyan Zhang, Zhang Taiyan Zhenglun Xuanji (Collected Political Essays of Zhang Taiyan), (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1977), 359.

15 Chan and Hon, “‘Fenli’ yu ‘Tongyi’ de Duoyuan Bianzheng”, 208.

16 Mencius, Mencius, trans. Philip J. Ivanhoe (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 6, 33.

17 Taiyan Zhang, Zhang Taiyan Zhenglun Xuanji, p. 99. ‘Gu Qin Lou Song’ is taken from Wang Fuzhi.

18 Fujie: tally signifying imperial authorisation of military leadership; zhangfu: uniforms of Chinese officials, of which ornaments (zhang) signify rank.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid., 101.

21 Ibid., 101–102.

22 Ibid., 102.

23 Ibid., 100, 102.

24 Ibid., 102.

25 Ibid.

26 Quanfu: official responsible for the collection of tribute and taxes as recorded in the Zhouli (Rites of Zhou).

27 Ibid., 105–106.

28 Duxiu Chen, Chen Duxiu Wenji (Collected Essays of Chen Duxiu), 4 vols., (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2011), vol. 1, 92.

29 Ibid., vol. 2, 266–77, esp. 270–277. See also Arthur Waldron, “Warlordism versus Federalism: The Revival of a Debate?” The China Quarterly, no. 121 (1990): 122; Feng, Fengjian Kaolun, 266. The problematic naming of politicians and intellectuals who opposed the unification cause as “warlords” is explored by Vivienne Xiangwei Guo, who provides a detailed study on the role of warlords as agents of enlightenment, challenging the traditional portrayal of “warlords”. See Vivienne Xiangwei Guo, Negotiating A Chinese Federation: The Exchange of Ideas and Political Collaborations between China's Men of Guns and Men of Letters, 1919–1923, (Leiden: Brill, 2022).

30 Max Weber, The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism, trans. Hans H. Gerth, (New York: Free Press, 1951), 31–32.

31 Ibid., 91.

32 Ibid., 94–95.

33 Feng, “Society of Imperial Power”, 48–49.

34 Robert E. Bedeski, “The Concept of the State: Sun Yat-Sen and Mao Tse-Tung.” The China Quarterly, no. 70 (1977): 354.

35 Zhang, Zhang Taiyan Zhenglun Xuanji., 752.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid., 756.

38 Ibid., 752.

39 Ibid., 755.

40 Ibid., 753.

41 Zedong Mao, Mao Zedong Zaonian Wengao (Early Writings of Mao Zedong) (Changsha: Hunan People’s Publishing House, 2008), 476.

42 Chan and Hon, “‘Fenli’ yu ‘Tongyi’ de Duoyuan Bianzheng”, 223.

43 Guo Moruo (1892–1978) was a Marxist historian, archaeologist, poet, and politician. Due to his contributions towards the development of Marxist historiography in China, Guo is highly acclaimed in Chinese literature. In western literature, however, the highly controversial nature of Guo is a popular topic of discussion, especially regarding his undertakings in history and archaeology. See David Tod Roy, Kuo Mo-jo: The Early Years (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971); Arif Dirlik, Revolution and History: The Origins of Marxist Historiography in China, 1919–1937 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978); Xiaoming Chen, From The May Fourth Movement to Communist Revolution: Guo Moruo and the Chinese Path to Communism (New York: State University of New York Press, 2007); Shiyi Chen, Guo Moruo Kaogu Lun (A Study on Guo Moruo’s Archaeological Works) (Chengdu: Bashu Publishing House, 2009); Xiaoqian Li and Fu Ren, “Guo Moruo” in Jindai Zhongguo Shijia Xueji (Eminent Historians of Modern China) (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 2018), 241-59; Lucien Bianco, Lishi de Fuche: Zhonge Geming zhi Bijiao (Stalin and Mao: A Comparison of the Russian and Chinese Revolutions), trans. Peiran Xia, (Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press, 2020).

44 Gao, “Yan Fu’s (Mis)translation of ‘Feudal/Feudalism’.” 35.

45 Dirlik, Revolution and History, 140.

46 Ibid., 139-40.

47 Moruo Guo, “Zhongguo Gudai Shehui Yanjiu (A Study on Ancient Chinese Society)” in Guo Moruo Chuanji: Lishipian (Complete Works of Guo Moruo: History), 8 vols., (Beijing: People’s Press, 1982), vol. 1, 150.

48 Ibid.

49 Guo only quotes the original texts of the classics and cauldron scripts without providing his own translations. Available English translations are thus cited, without imposing Guo’s interpretation upon the quoted texts. Ibid.; Allen, The Book of Songs, 273, 283, 314.

50 Guo, “ZGSY”, 150.

51 Tianyu Yang, (ed.), Liji Yizhu (Translation and Annotation of the Book of Rites) (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 2004), p. 193; “incompatible”: that is, they may not be directly commanded by, nor pay tribute to, the Son of Heaven; The modern character of “yong” in fuyong would consist of the radical “tu (earth)”, which means city wall, and further signifies the state. “Fuyong” would thus mean “a depending state”. See Xu Shen, Yucai Duan, Hao Xu, (ed.), “Shuowen Jiezi Zhujian di Shisan Xia (Commentary on the Annotation of the Shuowen Jiezi Volume Thirteen Part II]” in Xuxiu Siku Quanshu (Supplement to the Complete Library in Four Sections), 1800 vols., (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 2002), vol. 227, 21.

52 Guo, “ZGSY”, 150.

53 James Legge, The Chinese Classics: The She King, or The Book of Poetry (Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press, 1960), 537.

54 This use of yong may be seen in Mencius: “If he kills them, they do not resent it; if he benefits them, they do not assign the credit to him (lizhi er buyong).” See, Mencius, Mencius, 146.

55 Heng Mao, Maoshi Zhushu (Annotation and Commentary of Mao’s Commentary), (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 2013), 1424. Zhu Xi also adopts this interpretation. See Jingde Li, (ed.), Zhuzi Yulei (Collected Conversations of Master Zhu), (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1986), 2136.

56 Guo, “ZGSY”, 252.

57 Ibid., 253.

58 Stephen Durrant, Wai-yee Li, and David Schaberg, Zuo Tradition / Zuozhuan: Commentary on the “Spring and Autumn Annals.” (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2016), 1387, 1725.

59 Ibid., 1141.

60 Guo, “ZGSY”, p. 254; Durrant, Zuo Tradition, 1109.

61 Allen, The Book of Songs, 249.

62 Guo, “ZGSY”, 253.

63 Untranslatable character. Ibid.

64 Ibid., 255.

65 Ibid., 255n.

66 Ibid., 28.

67 Shuren Zhou and Qiubai Qu, “Huade Hunshu Yitong Lun (Comparing the Burning of Books in China and Germany)”, Shen Bao: Ziyou Tan, July 11, 1933.

68 Ibid.

69 Gao, “Yan Fu’s (Mis)translation of ‘Feudal/Feudalism’.” 34.

70 Moruo Guo, “Shi Pipan Shu (Ten Critiques)” in Guo Moruo Chuanji, vol. 2, 13.

71 See, Feng, Fengjian Kaolun, 238–51.

72 Hsüan Mo, “The Chinese Communists’ Evaluation of Confucius and the Political Aims of Their All-Out Campaign to ‘Criticize Confucius’ (II)” Chinese Studies in Philosophy 7, no. 3 (1975): 4.

73 Lucien Bianco, Lishi de Fuche: Zhonge Geming zhi Bijiao, 196.

74 Guo, “Ti Cao Cao Fanan (Overturning Cao Cao’s Verdict)” in Guo Moruo Chuanji, vol. 3, 457–76.

75 Guo, “Guanyu Wu Zetian de Liangge Wenti (Several Inquiries Regarding Wu Zetian),” in Guo Moruo Chuanji, vol. 3, 510–17; Bianco, Lishi de Fuche, 196.

76 James L. Hevia, review of Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China, by Prasenjit Duara, Philosophy East and West 47, no. 4 (1997): 604.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Wynn Wong

Wynn Wong is reading history at the University of Exeter. His research interests include Confucian metaphysics in Chinese literature and garden design; Christian and Confucian political moralism; the study of the Book of Poetry (Shijing); and the use and misuse of classical Chinese texts and thought in modern China. His current research focuses on the evolution of the vocabulary fengjian, an ideal Confucian political system, in twentieth century China and its implications toward contemporary Chinese politics and society.