Unboxing Chinese Literati: Political Fastidiousness and the Poison of Resistance

Eric's article punctures the false myth of the "independent personality" of Chinese literati. Why is a "purist" view of political outlook inherently toxic to real-world change? This article coldly dissects those "bookshelf bonsai" who use their writings to overwhelm others while lacking any original thinking, and explores how Chinese scholars preserve their face by lowering their visibility.

Today, we are unpacking the "scholar."

Let's look at what the top-tier prestige they worship is essentially about.

When people mention our scholars, there is a high-frequency word—aloof. Without aloofness, one is not qualified to be a literatus. A literatus is supposed to have a sharp backbone and an independent personality, preferring to dwell in the distant lakes and rivers rather than the high imperial court, so as to manifest the high purity of the lotus.

The so-called entering officialdom when advancing, and retiring into seclusion when retreating, is about jumping back and forth between holding office and not holding office.

Did you notice what they are missing?

Some people may have already seen it, and that is political practice outside the system.

Their limited political practices are almost entirely concentrated within the system; they either rely on the system to realize their ambitions or detach themselves from the system to become free and unfettered cranes in the clouds.

Compared to working for the emperor, in the hearts of Chinese literati, the prestige of the latter is obviously higher (never mind whether it is a self-consolation after failing to get a job), which is also a certain ideal personality of Chinese literati for thousands of years.

To put it bluntly, this top-tier prestige that Chinese scholars are so haunted by is essentially six characters—

Rejecting political practice.

Comparing this with the colorful associations and practices of their Western peers outside the system, what orthodox Chinese literati promote is so-called independence characterized by keeping a distance from all parties.

In modern times, the influx of Western thought made the political practice of Chinese literati outside the system a bit more active, but a considerable number of people still suffer from severe theoretical dependency, wanting only to read ten thousand books while refusing to travel ten thousand miles.

For example, in online political discussions, we occasionally encounter people using the number of books they have read to prove their proficiency in political science. When you see someone using these to pressure you without offering any original views or thoughts of their own, you know that this person's mind is not filled, but hollowed out, flat and neat, becoming a racecourse for other people's thoughts, and nothing more.

Western political thought values practice very much, because politics itself is a discipline highly related to reality, and political practice is regarded as an important source of the rationality and legitimacy of political theory.

That is to say, so-called political theory that has never entered the arena is highly suspicious.

Therefore, the probability of Western intellectuals stepping into the arena themselves is very high.

For example, during the Spanish Civil War, numerous intellectuals participated in it, and through close observation, modified and birthed many key political thoughts. Without such personal participation and personal verification, Orwell could not have written "1984," could he?

Conversely, we Chinese literati have much fewer willingness and opportunities to correct our own concepts through practice.

Therefore, the persistence of many people in following a single path to the end in their concepts is particularly strong, while at the same time, their ability to observe and anticipate the political situation is particularly weak, with almost no ability to organize and lead political practices.

However, none of this prevents them from using the prestige of "independence" to strike at their opponents in political polemics.

For example, we can see that what was originally a debate over a certain terminology gets disrupted when one party immediately flips the table and talks at length about political ethics plus personal resume, eloquently detailing how untrustworthy they themselves find those with backgrounds within the system... tirelessly telling you (mainly for the benefit of onlookers) how you should understand independent personality, dissidents, freedom, truth... and your position.

That is to say: our debate must first look at how you have dealt with power throughout your life, whether you have entered the system, and how deep your connections are? If you have had any entanglements, then compared to clean independent dissidents like me, you are actually a head shorter.

This is essentially vetting a person: do you stay by the margins of power for a long time, or have you been shaped by the power system?

This equals returning to the traditional model of Chinese literati—being a free-floating crane is simply more prestigious than serving as an official in the imperial court.

In a debate, this is a typical covertly established standard.

What standard? The standard of a "true dissident."

This set of standards is extreme, even puritanical: not attached to any political organization, not accepting any political funding, not endorsing any ideology, and not even cashing in on the identity of an intellectual...

Once this set of standards is established, what will happen?

The vast majority of those with backgrounds in the system, exiles, and NGO dissidents are all demoted to "conditional opponents," or even individuals with polluted personalities, and even if they have both borne risks and paid a price, they are still not superior to the other party.

Those who set this standard have pushed the so-called "independent personality" and its representative (themselves) to an almost unrepeatable height.

Standing at such a height, technical debates are lackluster, because he has already formed a dimensionality reduction strike against you.

This is their debate logic.

This is a victory of personal ethics, rather than an academic victory, let alone a practical victory. On the contrary, this value system that returns to the prestige of traditional literati is highly individualized, cannot be reproduced at scale in political practice, and naturally deconstructs the necessary political mobilization in reality.

In other words, this traditional literati view is naturally toxic to resistance movements and naturally beneficial to the authorities' rule.

This is not surprising; rather than calling it a personality declaration, it is better to call it a survival strategy. Chinese people have been bound to the land for a long time, and the consequence of extremely poor mobility is that the ability to resist risks is also extremely poor. Natural disasters, man-made calamities, and dynastic changes can all cost the lives of an entire family. Therefore, lowering one's visibility and avoiding becoming a variable in the order has become a necessary survival philosophy.

Placed among literati who were frequently suspected by the emperor of forming cliques for rebellion, it evolved into a set of survival preferences: keeping a distance from power, loathing political mobilization, resenting organizational action, and promoting seclusion, exit, and keeping oneself blameless...

All of this was packaged as an independent personality.

In fact, it is merely a dignity management technique to preserve as much face as possible on the premise of not having direct friction with power.

Rather than calling it independence from power, it is better to call it independence from responsibility.

Fortunately, we still have a group of literati who have truly accepted modern concepts, who while studying theory, actively participate in political practice and political mobilization, coordinate all parties, and advance opposition politics.

China's way out does not lie in having a few more "clean, independent personalities," but in having people willing to put theory, personality, and action into the muddy pit of real politics to accept testing.

This is truly a scholar of unity in knowledge and action.