The May Fourth Movement

For the Chinese contemporary historians, 1919 is an important date; they

regard it as the turning point between the modern (jindai) and contemporary
(xiandai) history of china. Both The communists and nationalists alike look
upon the May Fourth Movement as the high point of China’s Revolution. This
entire movement viewed as the second phase in the Chinese revolution. It
marked the beginning of the modern nationalist movement against foreign
domination. It was also the death of the old culture and birth of a new one. A
Cultural Revolution and anti-imperialism converged in the May Fourth
Movement. It was not limited to any particular aspect but covered many
strands.

In the 1911 revolution Sun Yat Sen had sowed the seeds of nationalism with the
assertion of Chinese identity in the face of the Manchu rule. When the Manchus
had fled, nationalism had subsided temporarily but soon burst out against
foreign imperialism, especially Japan. The communist historians of china argue
that the revolution of 1911 was only in name and form not in essence and
content. For them it was a fake revolution because a conservative reactionary
republican government succeeded the imperial government. Nothing
substantial had changed in the basic structure of the Chinese society. It lacked a
coherent and acceptable philosophy beyond the establishment of a republic.
The 1911 revolution was anti Manchu revolt, which assumed a republican
character for lack of any other alternative to Manchu misrule, rather than an
expression of a fundamental change in the underlying philosophy of the peoples
or even those who became the rulers of the country. It also suffered from lack of
coordination, concentration of power in the military and failure of leadership.
However one must remember that the significance of 1911 lies in the
mobilization of various classes that was an irrevocable process and prepared
the ground for movements such as the May Fourth Movement. After 1911 there
developed a new cultural and intellectual atmosphere, which established
conditions for a renaissance. In 1911 Sun Yat Sen had enunciated apart from
nationalism the people’s principle of democracy and socialism too. Since the
latter had not been achieved in the 1911 revolution it was considered an
incomplete revolution. Consequently, the May Fourth movement is viewed as
carrying forward the revolution.

1
The changes in china’s economic, social and political situation and international
influences on china after the First World War form the background to the
movement.
The pressure of foreign commercial competition on Chinese economy never
ceased until the outbreak of the First World War when the western powers
became preoccupied with military production. Chinese national industry and
commerce obtained a breathing space. Native production by textile and flour
mills and other light industries developed markedly from 1914 to
1920s.Uniform currency and modern style banks developed. There was capital
concentration and growth of urban economy. However this economic
transformation was rudimentary. Shortly after the First World War
international conditions that had fostered this economic surge in china ceased
to exist. The growth of industries had been lopsided and the Japanese influence
on the Chinese economy also grew.

Along with economic there were also important social changes. New merchants,
industrialists and urban workers arose along with the growth of new cities.
Because of civil wars (1915-1922), calamity and collapse of rural economy the
number of landless peasants and unemployed grew. This vagrant population
nourished warlordism. At the same time there had been contact with the
modern western civilization and increasing alienation from traditional
ideology. During the First World War sentiments of nationalism and democracy
prevailed in the world and Asia in particular. Woodrow Wilson’s political
idealism; the Russia October revolution of 1917;socialist revolts of Finland,
Germany, Austria-Herzegovina and Bavaria; Rice riots of Japan (August 1918);
Korea’s March First Movement - all had influenced the Chinese intellectual
class. This was a period of intellectual and political cosmopolitanism. There was
great enthusiasm for the pragmatism of the American Dewey; for the libertarian
socialism of the Englishman Bertrand Russell; for the Japanese utopianism of
the ‘new village’; for the idealization of the east by Tagore; for the anarchism of
Reclus and Kropotkin; for the humanitariasm of Tolstoy and Romain Roland, as
well as the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels.

Humiliation from abroad, injustice in the Versailles treaty and frustration at

the ineptness of the traditionalist government had all fuelled the movement but
it was the ‘Twenty-one Demands’ (1915) along with the 1919 peace settlement
at Versailles (the shantung resolution) that ignited the movement.

On 18th January 1915 Hioki Eki (the Japanese minister to china) communicated
the twenty-one demands that called in effect for Japanese control of Manchuria,

2
Inner Mongolia, Shantung’s China’s coast and the Yangtze valley. Also Japan
intended to deprive the Chinese government of virtually any control over its
domestic affairs. It demanded the appointment of influential Japanese advisors
in political, economic and military affairs, the right of ownership of land for the
building of Japanese hospitals, churches schools and the joint Sino Japanese
organization and administration of police forces in important places. Ultimatum
was given in May 1915 after four months of negotiations. Yuan shih kai’s
government accepted the demands and a treaty was signed. Huge public outcry
and boycott of Japanese goods was organized in areas such as the Yangtze port.

At beginning of may 1919 the telegraph, which was already operative in all
large towns in china, spread the news that the peace treaty signed in Versailles,
bringing the First World War to an end, had not taken the Chinese claim into
account. Germany’s rights and privileges in shantung (its zone of influence,
mines and railways, military bases at Qingado) had been transferred to Japan
instead of being given back to china. The westerners had done so in order to
make Japan an ally ready to bar the way of communism in Asia. They also
refused to run the risk of creating a breach in the unequal treaties system by
returning to china even a part of the advantages the powers had won since the
Opium Wars. The delegation that had gone to the Paris peace conference was
unaware of the secret treaties between Japan and the allies. This deception had
led to huge public outcry, which finally resulted in the May fourth
demonstrations by the students of the Peking University.

The first question that arises is regarding the term May fourth movement itself.
Why was it called so? The demonstration against injustice in the Versailles
treaty and frustration at the ineptness of the traditionalist government took
place on 4th may 1919 in Peking. It was mainly a student’s movement. However
it soon turned into a nation wide boycott of Japanese goods and strikes. Other
classes like merchants, working class, bourgeoisie etc. too joined in . It was
hence quite broad based. It can’t be just understood in terms of the 4 th may
nomenclature. A broader time perspective has to be considered. It was
variously termed as- cultural movement, new language movement, literary
movement, renaissance etc.; therefore it was not uni-dimensional. Also in terms
of the impact which was felt far beyond 1919 it cannot be limited to what
happened on 4th may 1919.

When the news of China’s failure in the Paris Conference reached Peking at the
end of April 1919, student organizations, including the New Tide Society, the
Common Voice Society and the Cooperative Study Society, held a meeting

3
wherein they resolved to hold a mass demonstration on 7 th May, National
Humiliation Day, the fourth anniversary of Japan’s ultimatum in the Twenty-
one Demands. The student bodies of all the universities and colleges in Peking
soon approved this resolution. After this meeting, on 1 st May and 3rd May, the
news from Paris grew alarming. It was reported that China’s demand for a just
settlement of the Shantung question was about to be rejected by the Peace
Conference. On 3rd May, public sentiment in Peking reached fever heat; political
and social groups rushed to hold emergency meetings in an effort to save the
situation. The Chamber of Commerce of Peking and the Chamber of Commerce
of Shanghai also got involved. The Corps of Chinese Students in Japan for
National Salvation telegraphed the President that ‘it would be better to face an
open rupture than to live in shameful submission’. Under this public pressure,
the Peking government took drastic measures to quell the uproar, which made
the public still angrier. The students in Peking felt impelled to hold the
scheduled mass demonstration earlier than originally planned. On the morning
of 4 May, a Sunday, at ten o’clock, student representatives met at the Peking
College of Law and Political Science, as scheduled by the meeting on the
previous evening, to prepare the demonstration. Student representatives from
thirteen colleges and universities, including the National University of Peking,
attended. By 1.30 in the afternoon over three thousand students had gathered
at the T’ien-an Gateway to take part in the demonstration. The Peking
government had made efforts to prevent the mass meeting. A representative of
the Ministry of Education accompanied by several garrison and police officers
was sent to Peking University. The only effect of his episode was to delay the
students only for some time. Their immediate purpose was to publicly
demonstrate indignation against the warlords and against the national
humiliation brought about by power politics.

At the mass meeting and the following demonstration, a printed brief

‘Manifesto of All the Student of Peking’ was distributed This manifesto was
written in vivid and clear-cut vernacular Chinese, which reflected the effect of
the literary revolution, and was considered an excellent expression of the spirit
of the young intellectuals. Sloganeering was also done to expressing the
purpose and sentiments of their demonstration. For instance, ‘Return our
Tsingtao’, ‘Boycott Japanese goods’, ‘Protect our sovereignty’ and
‘Down with the traitors’. There were no signs of intended violence on the part
of students. But the temper changed and became less disciplined during the
latter part of the demonstration. Pro-Japanese official, Ts’ao Ju-lin’s, house was
ransacked and burnt. Chang Tsung Hsiang was beaten to ground. There was
struggle between students and police but the latter mostly maintained an

4
attitude of ‘benevolent neutrality’. Thirty-two students were arrested and
martial law was proclaimed.

The students in Peking started immediately after the incident to organize the
new intellectuals of the nation in the support of their cause. They also tried to
win over the sympathy of the general public by means of publicity, mass
meetings and demonstrations. Hence they began to secure support of the vast
illiterate masses and the merchants, industrialists and urban workers. The
chambers of commerce and guilds joined the students, who went on strike,
supplementing their propaganda work by proclaiming a boycott of Japanese
goods. This boycott was maintained on a national scale for some months,
without any affect on it of the governmental repression. The Movement had
now entered its second phase. It was no longer limited to intellectuals and the
students of the Peking University. The demands of the protestors included no
consent to the peace treaty and dismissal of the three officials who were pro
Japanese. Due to the growing strength of domestic pressure, the Chinese
dignitaries walked out of the Paris conference. Students were released and the
pro- Japanese ministers were sacked. However by now, the attack on
traditionalism had become more violent and a large number of conservative
leaders (like Hu Shih) withdrew from the movement. In this phase the focus of
the movement shifted from Peking to Shanghai.

The political and social crisis of the movement cannot be dissociated from the
movement for the renewal of the Chinese culture. Intellectual and literary
ferment started shortly after the incident of the 21 demands. Numerous
Chinese intellectuals returned from abroad bringing new ideas with them.

Ch’en tu Hsiu’s return from Japan in 1915 and his establishment of the New
Youth magazine marks the start of the basic reform movement. Chen had taken
part in the abortive “second revolution” in 1915 against Yuan Shih Kai. When he
started his publication, there were a number of severe press laws. Because of
the difficult political situation, Ch’en avoided direct political commitments. The
purpose of the magazine was declared to be reformation of the thought and the
behaviour of youth rather than political criticism.

On 26th December 1916, Yuan p’ei, the moral leader of the new intelligentsia
and one of the greatest educators and liberals in modern china was appointed
chancellor of the National University of Peking. Reforms were carried out by
Yuan in the Peking University, which was well known for its conservative
traditions. Students considered it as a stepping-stone for promotion in

5
government instead of an institution of learning. Teachers were judged by their
official rank and not their knowledge. Yuan enunciated a three-point policy for
administering the university. Firstly, the university was to function as a
research institution. The study of western civilization by scientific methods was
encouraged. Secondly, students were not to regard the university as a
substitute for the old government examination and recruitment system.
Thirdly, the government was to preserve academic freedom. He permitted the
coexistence of divergent opinions. Many practical reforms were undertaken -
professors with divergent view points were brought into the university; various
study and advisory groups among the faculty were established; students were
permitted were to take part in political activities as individuals; spirit of
enquiry was encouraged.

These new intellectuals concentrated their efforts on intellectual and cultural

matters during the period 1917-1918.The program placed emphasis on both
ethical and literary reforms. They not just introduced western thought but also
re-evaluated the Chinese traditions. This approach was not directed or planned
by any one person rather it represented a common ground for a number of
people with divergent ideas. They mainly opposed old patterns of thought and
customs and advocated new learning. They opposed monarchy and advocated
democracy, liberalization and individualism. They also spoke against traditional
ethics such as filial duty to parents, double standards of chastity for women and
men, loyalty to officials etc.

The Renaissance was the name given by a group of Peking University students
to a new monthly magazine they produced in 1918.

The students readily recognized in the new movement then led by the
intellectuals a striking similarity to the renaissance in Europe. Three prominent
similarities were pointed out - a conscious movement to promote a new
literature in the living language of the people; a conscious protest against
traditional institutions ideas; application of new methodology of modern
historical criticism and research. It was viewed as a movement of reasons
against tradition and freedom against. authority. In this sense it was also a
humanist movement.

The movement captured the imagination of the youth as something that would
lead to a rebirth of the old civilization. It was a fully conscious and studied
movement. It’s leaders wanted a new language, a new literature and a new
outlook on life. They wanted literature that would express the real feelings,

6
thoughts, inspirations and aspirations of a growing nation. The problem was
that a suitable language was required to educate the vast millions. Classical
language proved inadequate and pai-hua (the vernacular language) was seen as
the most suitable for the purpose. However, pai hua was not accorded much
esteem. Infact, classical language was still seen as the repository of all
knowledge and was never given up totally. It took long for the vernacular to be
acceptable because the authority of the classics was too great to be overcome. It
had been institutionalized through the ages by empires and the civil exams. A
study of literature from an evolutionary point of view was undertaken. There
had been two parallel movements in literature – the elite classical and the
popular (in form of folk songs of love and heroism, epic stories of the street
reciter, dramas of village theatre, novels etc.). The popular literature was
imaginative and not imitative. Hence to recognize pai hua was to bring to
natural culmination a historical tendency that had been neglected and thwarted
earlier.

During the years 1919-20 the students started about 400 small periodicals in
pai hua. The new literary medium was a good means of expression. The literary
movement had been successful in giving china a national language. Political
parties too saw the utility of this new linguistic instrument.

Social composition also has a bearing on nature of the movement. The

intellectuals, professors and students played the pre-dominant role. They were
active throughout the movement and even after it was over. Students also
talked about vast modernization project. The idea of New China was given a
concrete shape by the students and the intellectuals. The ideas of anti-
imperialism had been expressed earlier but the focus was now more definite
now with a clear-cut distinction from xenophobia. The later involvement of
merchants, small businessmen, and the bourgeoisie led to widening of the base
and scope of the movement.

The nature and achievements of the movement and the identity of its true
leadership rapidly became points of dispute and have led to various
interpretations. The liberal view sees the movement as the “Chinese
renaissance”. This term was put forward first by the journalist Huang Yuanyung
in 1915. From then to 1918 various authors in the newspapers (“New Youth”,
“New Tide”) recognized the similarities between the current Chinese movement
and the renaissance in Europe. Chian Moulin remarked that it was the first step
towards the kind of emancipation like renaissance in Europe. Missionaries in
the 1920s held similar views and called for a Christian renaissance in china.

7
Three prominent similarities were pointed out - a conscious movement to
promote a new literature in the living language of the people; a conscious
protest against traditional institutions ideas; application of new methodology of
modern historical criticism and research. The Marxist and liberal leanings
viewed the European renaissance as a movement demanded by a nascent
capitalist society struggling in the bonds of the medieval order. In the May
Fourth Movement the Chinese economy also evolved through similar stages and
made similar cultural demands. But, because modern European culture was
more progressive than ancient Chinese culture, it was better to transplant the
former in china than to revive the latter. However a fundamental similarity with
the renaissance is drawn.

One must also keep in mind the various dissimilarities. The economic setting of
the May Fourth Movement (semi-colonial) was quite unlike that of the
European renaissance (expansive and colonizing). The element of nationalism
and the demand for economic independence in china was absent from the
European renaissance. Moreover it was not a restoration movement. It aimed at
transplantation of modern civilization into an old nation. As for the
“reorganization of the national heritage”-it was a later attempt by the ultra
conservatives to halt western learning. The most solid argument for the
interpretation of the movement as a Chinese renaissance similar to the
European may lie in the adoption of the vernacular as the national language and
the establishment of the new literature. In this also the similarity was limited as
the literature was later used as a political instrument.

Lian and Chinag compared the movement to “reformation” on the European

pattern because of the possible rise of “neo Buddhism” in this period. However
in view of rising naturalism and materialism in china in the twenties, this
analogy seems erroneous. Others compare the movement to the French
enlightenment or “aufklarung” because of prevalence of rationalism and
naturalism. The important difference is that unlike Europe in china the middle
class did not play a role independently but rather there was a coalition of
various rising social forces. Such analogies with European history ignore
nationalistic and socialistic dimension of the movement.

The members of the koumintang (KMT) and the Chinese youth party
represented the nationalist and traditionalist views of the movements. They
criticized the iconoclastic attitude of the movement towards the national
heritage. Chiang Kai Shek interpreted the movement mainly as a nationalist

8
uprising against the warlords and foreign aggressors. He severely criticized the
new thought and student movement aspect as being irreverent to traditional
Chinese civilizations and “blind worship” of foreign civilization. He also
disagreed with the reformers’ interpretation of “democracy” and “science”. He
interpreted “democracy” as “discipline” and “science” as “ organization”. . The
May Fourth Movement was seen as nationalist uprising led by the KMT.
However, this is not true as KMT leaders were not dominant throughout the
movement.

The Chinese communist party saw the movement as the starting point of their
political career .Mao described the May Fourth Movement as an anti-feudal and
anti-imperialist revolutionary movement that failed because it did not arouse
the peasants and the workers. He saw the movement as the dividing line
between the old and the new democracy. Although Mao fully realized the
political significance of the May Fourth Movement, he seemed to consider it
more a cultural movement. He saw it as an important stage of the Cultural
Revolution (1919-40). He also emphasized the influence of Lenin and the
October revolution and called it a part of the then “revolution of world
proletariat.” The views of Mao have been accepted as the official interpretation
of the Chinese Communist Party. This view has been criticized. The leaders (e.g.
Chen tsu hsui) who later formed the communist party (in 1921) have
themselves denied any communist influence in their thought process at the
time of the movement. Also Mao’s own criticism of the movement as a
‘bourgeois democratic revolution’ scarcely makes it a part of the revolution of
the world proletariat. Hence, this view is self-contradictory.

The May Fourth Movement was certainly not a homogeneous movement.

Different ideas were promoted in different stages. Continuity can be seen in the
ideas of growing political awareness and the force of nationalism. These could
be built only on the achievements of the cultural awakening that preceded
them. It provided both the language and ideas of nationalism in china.

Mao has criticized the May Fourth Movement as “not broad enough to reach
down to the masses of workers and peasants”. He further opines that methods
of capitalist class were used and the Marxist spirit of criticism was lacking in
the movement. However, as mentioned earlier, Mao’s views are self-
contradictory as he also labels the movement a part of the then “revolution of
world proletariat.”

9
Some general points of criticism can be made. During the cultural movement,
there was in toto rejection of the Chinese tradition. Many excellent features of
Confucianism were not recognized. Perhaps this was necessary under the
circumstance of national inertia. Critical study of western ideas was professed
but inadequately practiced. Lack of persistence characterized their dealings
with a number of difficult and complex problems; whereas a social and cultural
change of such magnitude required patient constructive work.

Nonetheless, the movement was unique in several ways. It targeted both home
and foreign affairs. The demonstrators in Peking stated that their aims were:
“externally, struggle for sovereignty” and “internally, throw out the traitors”. It
criticized both the conservative sections of the society and denounced the
powers’ policy in China and unequal treaties system. It was both a movement
for political progress and social liberation. Earlier movements had either been
conciliatory with regard to the ascendancy of the powers in china or had
remained loyal to the imperial dynasty or at least neutral on domestic matters.
The second original aspect of the movement was its spontaneous nature. It
brought hundreds of thousands of people together without benefit of any
organized political apparatus. Ad hoc liaison groups carried out the
coordination of the different social groups –students’ organizations, groups of
merchants, etc. The May Fourth Movement was also a generational movement –
students played an important part.

The significance of the movement does not lie in its ultimate implications or the
methods used .The strikes and boycott were not novel methods but their use as
a national weapon was demonstrated more conclusively in 1919 than at any
previous time. The national character of the movement was itself significant. It
indicated the perception of china as an entity by the Chinese themselves.
Another remarkable feature was that the educational aspect of the movement
continued. Schools for the masses were continued in order to combat illiteracy.

The May Fourth Movement was the culmination of years of development. It

united many different interests and issues. But the strands soon sperated and
the leadership was soon split down a new fault line with the entrance of
Marxism onto the Chinese scene.

10