The info is from the book the appropriation of cultural capital: China’s may fourth project. I tried to summarize the main arguments into a short paper, but since the book is a collection of articles I had some difficulty. Enjoy.

Traditional May Fourth scholarship tends to see the period as a sharp break from the past. Before 1915, China is treated as a pre-modern society while after 1915, China was on the track to becoming a modern state. However, the Late Qing already cultivated a public sphere through newspapers and journals, specifically shenbao and Eastern Miscellany, where different opinions could be expressed.

While the M4m advocated liberal thought and democracy, in actuality, M4M discourse was much less tolerant. Why? Simply put, the M4M thinkers tried to gain cultural hegemony by promoting their agenda to the exclusion of others. They did this through a polemical mode of discourse and a non-pluralist view. Their way was the only right way. This can be most clearly seen in the argument between new youth and Eastern Miscellany where Chen duxiu of the new youth simplified, mocked, misrepresented the view of the other. The M4M was able to use this new discourse to eventually gain power, which had the consequence of turning newspapers and journals into spheres of power and influence, instead of public spheres because M4M discourse was too elitist. Therefore, it can be argued that the LQ was actually more ‘modern’ because it created a public sphere where there was freedom of private and collective activity.

What about the actual the actual M4 event? In fact, it did not arise from the spontaneous discontent of the masses, but was consciously crafted by activists after models of earlier movements, especially the Korean movement. Moreover, even though they organized the movement in the name of the people, the movement did not have mass appeal. Therefore, the activists took on the role as teacher/remonstrator to change the people so that they had the right mindset. Due to this, we see the activists shift in the use of public sphere to political power in order to change the people. They were forced to abide. The use of political power to change caused the subordination of the activists and people, and locked them into one path of modernity, instead of the many that were present before.

Why did the tradition view of the M4M exist for so long? The answer is cultural hegemony and the rewriting of history. The M4M basically erased all other voices of modernity and began to create a history that only legitimates their cultural policies. An example of this is Hu Shi and Zheng Zhenduo’s literary historiographies. Their aim was to legitimate the vernacular language, the living modern language of the people, and show that it existed in the past, but it was always in constant battle with the evil classical language, but with the help of the M4M finally took its rightful dominant place. They created a casual narrative with the aim to persuade the reader. To do this, they ignored facts that didn’t fit with their view, re-evaluted authors, periods, and even invented a literary genre.

So basically, the MFM was multidimensional and multidirectional, meaning that there existed multiple forms of modernity during the Late Qing and Early Republican period with no predetermined path, but through cultural hegemonic practices, historical recreation, and shift to political power instead of public sphere, M4M activists were able to close off all other forms of modernity. This is the reason why that it was previously thought that the only important and influencial trend during this period was the M4th activist and they were the ones that started China on its move to modernity.

d****, wrong section. Well, i guess the Qing works as well, but if someone could move this that would be great.

Interestingly, alot of the proponents/advocates of the May 4th movement were actually chinese communists. The chinese communists thus treat the May 4th movement as an important foundation of communism in China, esp. with the publication of the influential magazine "New Youth Magazine".

I was somewhat alluding to that when i was talking about the shift from public sphere to political power, but I think the way in which we perceive the M4m would have largely remained the same if the GMD won due to the way the M4m activists at that time constructed their importance, meaning, and historical significance. Plus, the cultural hegemonic practices that i was talking began around 1915, which was before the introduction of Marxism into the M4 discourse

Yes, that's true, Marxism cam a little bit later. The principles of those who took part in the M4m were often the same as the Chinese Communists were later to hold, and i think that the movement is a defining moment in China's modern history- the first major step on that long road from dynastic rule to people's governance. A very good book about the M4m and its subsequent effect on China's history is 'That Bitter Revolution' by Rana Mitter, of Oxford University. I read it and found it quite hard going but very informative, and it brought home to me the significance of May 4th 1919.

You should read the book that i mentioned in my first post since it argues against the claim that modernity in China began with the M4M, and disagrees that the M4M should be seen as a sharp break from the past.

Basically a direct contradiction to Rana Mitter then- i'm interested to read this argument. Could you tell me the name of the author? At the moment i'm firmly with Mitter on this topic, but i might be persuaded to change my view...

Its a collection of articles, but here is the book

http://www.amazon.com/Appropriation-Cultur...9512&sr=8-1

Summary:

For much of the twentieth century, the May Fourth movement of 1919 was seen as the foundational moment of modernity in China. Recent examinations of literary and cultural modernity in China have, however, led to a questioning of this view. By approaching May Fourth from novel perspectives, the authors of the eight studies in this volume seek to contribute to the ongoing critique of the movement. The essays are centered on the intellectual and cultural/historical motivations and practices behind May Fourth discourse and highlight issues such as strategies of discourse formation, scholarly methodologies, rhetorical dispositions, the manipulation of historical sources, and the construction of modernity by means of the reification of China's literary past.

About the Authors:

Milena Dolezelova-Velingerova is Professor of Chinese Literature, Emerita, at the University of Toronto.

Oldrich Kral is Professor of Sinology and comparative Literature at Charles University, Prague.

Graham Sanders is Associate Professor in East Asian Studies at the University of Toronto.

Leo Ou-fan Lee is Professor Emeritus of Chinese Literature at Harvard University and Professor of Humanities at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Stephen Owen is James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University with joint appointments in the Department of Comparative Literature and East Asian Languages and Civilizations.

Rudolph Wagner is Professor of Chinese Studies at the University of Heidelberg.

David Der-wei Wang is Edward C. Henderson Professor of East Asian Languages and Cultures at Harvard University.

Ellen Widmer is Professor of Chinese Literature at Wesleyan University.

Catherine Vance Yeh is a Research Associate at the Insitute of Chinese Studies, Heidelberg University.

Yiing-shih Yu is Professor of Chinese History at Princeton University.

Thankyou. Look pretty expensive... might have to save for a while before i can get hold of that one!