In a way, today we feel a similar kind of ambivalence towards criticism and self-criticism. We are no longer sure what it means. Re-examining what constitutes self-criticism is thus one indication of this uncertainty. I believe that without criticism there can be no self-criticism. Only when there is unobstructed interaction between the two, can they each have their own purpose and utility. Two possible ways to reshape the development of self-criticism in this era have been proposed. One way is to do so with the ultimate goal of rebuilding the foundation of criticism in mind. Healthy, wholesome self-criticism is the prerequisite for robust criticism; ineffective self-criticism renders criticism impossible. The other way is to dismiss criticism and focus on self-criticism alone.

The Self-Criticism Manifesto is what motivates my discussion here. I would like to consider the conditions which enable self-criticism and the current circumstances which have made it impossible. To be precise, I would like to review the obstacles which prevent the interaction between criticism and self-criticism in today’s society.

Of movements and campaigns led by the state. In this way, individuals were mobilised through criticism and self-criticism to finish the revolution, which was materialised in the form of the Cultural Revolution. But once it became clear that the goal, that is, the ideal world, could not be attained, criticism and self-criticism lost its momentum and the core force that sustained it. That is why the succeeding round of criticism and self-criticism in post-socialist China was kicked off by reflections on the Cultural Revolution. Furthermore, since the beginning of economic reforms, criticism and self-criticism had essentially changed into a movement for China to achieve the kind of modernisation defined by the West. The main participants of this movement included intellectuals and government officials. It also had a defined goal and a clear target. The goal was for China to become modern in the Western sense and the target – or the enemy – was a not sufficiently modern China. This means that the intellectual resources the participants drew on consisted mainly of theories developed in the West.Criticism and self-criticism have long existed in China. In ancient times, self-critique was the basis of a whole set of self-improvement skills and principles. As the Great Learning in Confucianism dictates, he who aspires to make the kingdom peaceful and happy must first govern the kingdom properly; in order to govern the kingdom properly, he must first regulate his family; and in order to regulate his family, he must first cultivate himself. Therefore, self-cultivation, that is, self-critique in all areas of life, was considered the core and foundation of all forms of improvement. One must first cultivate oneself before learning the truth about the world and bettering it gradually. But these principles only applied to scholar-officials, or the literati, not the general public. On the other hand, the ideal world based upon these principles for the scholar-gentlemen in ancient China was not progressive, but regressive. Then in the socialist era, criticism and self-criticism turned into a governing technique for the state, deeply connected to power. The target of socialist criticism and self-criticism could be either individuals or personified organisations. This governing method eventually reached everyone through all kinds of movements and campaigns led by the state. In this way, individuals were mobilised through criticism and self-criticism to finish the revolution, which was materialised in the form of the Cultural Revolution. But once it became clear that the goal, that is, the ideal world, could not be attained, criticism and self-criticism lost its momentum and the core force that sustained it. That is why the succeeding round of criticism and self-criticism in post-socialist China was kicked off by reflections on the Cultural Revolution. Furthermore, since the beginning of economic reforms, criticism and self-criticism had essentially changed into a movement for China to achieve the kind of modernisation defined by the West. The main participants of this movement included intellectuals and government officials. It also had a defined goal and a clear target. The goal was for China to become modern in the Western sense and the target – or the enemy – was a not sufficiently modern China. This means that the intellectual resources the participants drew on consisted mainly of theories developed in the West.

The three models of criticism and self-criticism outlined above which have existed in Chinese history are marked by their distinct ideals, participants and relationship between its two elements. Compared with previous times, the conditions enabling the development of criticism and self-criticism today have changed drastically because of three main reasons. three main reasons.

First, both China and the West have become disillusioned with their vision for the “ideal world” against which they conduct criticism and self-criticism. China has been disillusioned with Western modernisation. This is caused by a combination of factors. One is China’s increasingly obvious rise since 2008 and the sense of complacency it brings about. As Chinese people travel abroad more frequently, however, this complacency is increasingly frustrated by the treatment they actually receive overseas, which is not how they imagined a citizen of a “great power” should be treated. Therefore, the Chinese Dream is in essence not about constructing a worldview for the country; rather, it manifests the anxiety and uncertainty caused by the disillusionment with the former unachievable goal when there is no new goal in sight to replace it with. At the same time, the West has also lost its own version of the “ideal world” as some old powers of the Third World such as China and India rise up and terrorist attacks have become more frequent since the 9/11 attacks. The disillusionment in the West cannot be solely attributed to disappointing economy. Nor is it a catastrophe which, according to the Left, is bound to happen to capitalism. What is significant about this is that the established, “natural” worldview of the West, formed during colonial expansion and wars led by the West, is being challenged. Indeed, the contemporary “comprehensive” or “universal” values developed by the West are based upon its colonial conquest and comfortable dominance. (Previously, the most volatile period that threatened to challenge its dominance was the Cold War era. Although the West was confronted with a great enemy at that time, its dominance was not fundamentally disrupted.) Therefore, in the Western imagination the self is the conqueror and the other is the conquered. Without the assurance of dominance, the West is no longer certain about the relationship between the self and the other. In a word, over the past four decades the definition of the “ideal world” for the West and that for China have both lost their legitimacy. In addition, the ecological crisis has made it even more difficult to redefine the ideal world. How to perform healthy criticism and self-criticism with no clearly or even roughly defined picture of the ideal world to perform it against has become a conundrum which first confronted the New Left in the West. Now the Right in the West and most intellectuals in China are also attempting to solve the puzzle. Since we no longer have a set of objectives, how can we feasibly perform self-criticism? How should we develop self-criticism as a starting point for outlining new goals for the ideal world?

Second, the composition of critics has changed. Who is qualified to carry out criticism and self-criticism? In Chinese history the job fell consistently upon intellectuals. They were the primary critics, despite being marginalised from time to time. By contrast, today the Internet has blurred the distinction between intellectuals and the general public. Meanwhile, the public do not seem more enlightened than individuals as Kant envisioned. Nor do higher living standards bring about more virtuous ways of living as classical Chinese thinkers predicted. The assurance of basic survival needs being met and the abundance of material wealth have not resulted in the emergence of new spaces where criticism and self-criticism flourish. Material abundance does not reverse the trend of animalisation but rather exacerbates it. In contemporary Chinese society, this animalisation takes the form of a tendency to criticize as a knee-jerk reaction. Having emerged from the socialist years not long ago, Chinese people are still familiar with the socialist language of criticism and self-criticism. In fact, we are very good at conducting criticism using socialist terms. The question we should ask is whether such an approach constitutes a positive basis of criticism and self-criticism. If not, how should we evaluate the ongoing movement of mass criticism? Obviously, the current movement was not caused by a lack of self-criticism alone; there are more important underlying social and historical reasons. As we have focused on economic development, economic growth is the only thing those in charge are held accountable for. No one has the right to question or investigate any other affairs; nor is anyone held responsible for them.

Such mentality is epitomised by the party chief Dakang, a character in the hit TV anti-corruption drama “In the Name of People”. Dakang is criticized by his colleagues as autocratic, but he is determined to maintain the GDP growth rate as his ultimate goal and responsibility. Similarly, perhaps because its assumed self-identity and worldview are being seriously challenged, the West has also turned rather uncertain who or what should be the target of criticism and self-criticism. Lu Xun argued in “Concerning Imbalanced Cultural Development” that the development of Western culture was marked by its bias and imposition. This was based on the steady global expansion and dominance of the West, without which the West could no longer impose its view on the rest of the world. As we can see, Western intellectuals have already increasingly withdrawn their attention from other countries and focused on their own instead. In a similar fashion, both capitalists, national and transnational alike, and proletariats seem to be trapped by local and national conundrums of their own society, though in completely different ways, and simply do not have the mental energy to be concerned about others’ problems.

Finally, we need to re-examine our particular pattern of criticism and self-criticism. In today’s post-socialist China, we still have the tendency to criticize and self-criticize in a way that is characteristic of the socialist era. This tendency is the legacy of historical discourses on criticism and self-criticism, a hybrid of residues from past ideologies. How to deal with this hybrid is a most challenging task in remodeling and recommencing the kind of criticism and self-criticism this era needs. The old-fashioned mode of criticism can be observed in all kinds of areas. Ideology, market economy and urban space are among the most prominent ones. In the field of ideology – if it still exists in contemporary Chinese society, the popular TV series about the country’s anti-corruption campaign “In the Name of People” is a typical example. The show’s theme seems to suggest its attempt to criticize and self-criticize, but its representation in fact celebrates an obsolete attitude towards power. In this sense, although on the surface the show is about criticism and self-criticism, it is actually an attempt of the government to protect itself and reinforce its power. As for market economy, in the early stages of Western capitalism the market used to be a place where critique and self-critique thrived. Business people were keen to gather information in order to understand the market and take the initiative to be a dominant player. Joseph Alois Schumpeter even contended that the world was led by such entrepreneurs. In today’s China, by contrast, market research and data mining in effect produce no real insights. Corporations invest heavily in advertising, promoting certain types of tastes and meanings, and then spend huge amounts of money mining large data sets in the market sector they have advertised for in order to find out what people like. The cycle continues as companies analyse the data, refine their advertising strategies and begin again. In the age of big data where people are constantly fed manipulative information, how is it possible to develop criticism and self-criticism? With regard to urban space, people are increasingly placed into defined and enclosed spaces – the commercial, the administrative, the artistic, the educational, the academic, the subcultural and the virtual (the Internet). The outdated ethos of criticism and self-criticism is alive and well in these confined urban spaces, sustained mainly by young people. To critique social problems and themselves is the best means conceivable for the young generation to contribute to Chinese society. That is, if they are not completely self-seeking. In fact, the more pessimistic people are of society, the more they tend to hold on to old certainties for self-preservation. It is a survival instinct. The outdated approach to criticism and self-criticism that lingers on in current society is one of those old certainties. But in reality, what we are facing today is something entirely new. Clinging on to the residue left from the past would only blind us to its newness.



Translated by Li Yinan   ; Beijing INSIDE-OUT Art Museum