1

Ianthe M. Belisle DempseyHIS-373November 17, 2011

Anarchism and Confucian Filial Piety in Family

Pa Chin’s 1931 semi-autobiographical novel Family is steeped

in anarchist criticism of the Confucian filial piety system that

had dominated Chinese culture for centuries. The characters in

the novel are based on members of Pa Chin’s family and represent

every shade on the spectrum between traditional Confucian thought

and the new emerging revolutionary attitudes.1 Represented in the

novel are characters with seemingly clear roles: Yeh-yeh, the

traditionally-minded grandfather of the household who is stuck in

old Confucian ways, is a clear cut “oppressor”; the servant Ming-

feng who is mistreated and finally commits suicide upon learning

that she is to become a concubine is a clear cut “victim” of the

Confucian system. There are others in the novel who play more

ambiguous roles, fluctuating between fighting the system and

(whether intentionally or not) upholding it. Before conducting a

more thorough analysis of the characters in Family, it is

1 Olga Lang, "Introduction," in Family, Pa Chin, trans. Sidney Shapiro (LongGrove: Waveland Press, Inc., 1972), xii.

2

necessary to elaborate on the historical context of Confucian

filial piety and the development of the New Culture Movement of

the mid-1910s and 1920s.

Filial piety was the governing social contract in China for

some four thousand years; according to the Hsiao King, one of the

classic Confucian texts, “filial piety is the root of (all)

virtue, and (the stem) out of which grows (all moral) teaching.”2

3 Filial piety represents a strict hierarchical structure in

which reverence of and deference to superiors is the means by

which the social fabric is maintained. Princes, high ministers,

lower officials and the common Chinese people all had prescribed

roles and ranks according to the system of filial piety. The

concept of filial piety permeated all aspects of Chinese society.

As Arthur H. Smith, an American missionary in China for 22 years,

wrote in 1894:

The Chinese are expressly taught that a defect of anyvirtue, when traced to its root, is a lack of filialpiety. He who violates propriety is deficient in filialconduct. He who serves his prince but is not loyal

2 Hsieh Yu-wei, "Filial Piety and Chinese Society," Philosophy East and West 9(Apr. - Jul., 1959): 56.

3 James Legge, trans., The Sacred Books of China: The Texts of Confucianism, ed. F. MaxMüller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879), 466.

3

lacks filial piety. He who is a magistrate without duerespect for its duties is lacking in filial piety. Hewho does not show proper sincerity towards his friendslacks filial piety. He who fails to exhibit courage inbattle lacks filial piety. Thus the doctrine of filialconduct is seen to embrace much more than mere acts,and descends into the motives, taking cognisance of thewhole moral being.4

Because adherence to filial piety was seen to be the foundation

of Chinese social order, it is no wonder that it would be so

deeply ingrained in and perpetuated by the Chinese people,

particularly within the family.

The Hsiao King describes the relationship between ruler and

subject as analogous to the relationship between a father and

son, establishing the hierarchical dynamic that Pa Chin would

eventually denounce in Family.5 The Li Ki, or Confucian Book of Rites,

states that “there are three degrees of filial piety. The highest

is being a credit to our parents; the next is not disgracing

them; and the lowest is merely being able to support them.”6

Several rules follow from this: because a child’s body is

received from his parents, he must not ungratefully disfigure it;4 Arthur H. Smith, Chinese Characteristics (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company,

1894), 173.5 Legge, Sacred Books, 479.6 James Legge, trans., The Li Ki (Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2004), 20.

4

he must not bring shame to his parents; he should not keep wealth

for himself when it could be used to help support his parents;

that reverence must always accompany support.7 Mencius, a

prominent Confucian scholar, adds more rules:

There are five things which are commonly recognized tobe unfilial. The first is laziness about employing legsand arms, resulting in failure to support parents. Thesecond, gambling and chess-playing and fondness forwin, with the same result. The third, prizing goods andmoney and selfish devotion to wife and children, withthe same result. The fourth, giving way to thetemptations that assail one's eyes and ears, thusbringing his parents to shame. The fifth, recklessbravery, fighting and quarrelling, endangering therebythe happiness and the support of one's parents.8

Let us take a closer look at the idea of “selfish devotion

to wife and children.” Arthur Smith notes that unlike in Western

Christianity, where after marriage a man leaves the home of his

parents and establishes a new family with his wife, in China a

married man remains a part of his family home and compels his new

wife to join in subservience to his parents. Because the daughter

will eventually leave to serve another family, Confucian texts

7 Confucius, The ethics of Confucius; the sayings of the master and hisdisciples upon the conduct of "the superior man," ed. Miles Menander Dawson(New York: Putnam, 1915), 159-161.

8 Confucius, The ethics of Confucius, 163.

5

have little to say about the relationship between a daughter and

her parents compared to the volumes of prescriptions for the role

of a son. Where there are volumes about the duties of sons to

their parents, however, there is a notable lack of mention of the

duties of parents to their children.9 In practice, the only duty

a parent has in the Confucian filial piety sense is to instill a

sense of filial piety in their offspring. In Smith’s words,

"[e]ach generation pays the debt which is exacted of it by the

generation which preceded it, and in turn requires from the

generation which comes after, full payment to the uttermost

farthing. Thus is filial piety perpetuated from generation to

generation, and from age to age."10 But what occurs when there is

a break in the chain?

It is intriguing to note that the Hsiao King, the Confucian

classic text on filial piety, indicates that "[w]hen constraint

is put upon a ruler, that is the disowning of his superiority;

when the authority of the sages is disallowed, that is the

disowning of (all) law; when filial piety is put aside, that is

9 Smith, Chinese Characteristics, 182-183.10 Smith, Chinese Characteristics, 185.

6

the disowning of the principle of affection. These (three things)

pave the way to anarchy."11 In effect, a centuries-old text

predicted its own overthrow in the form of the New Culture

Movement that spanned the late 1910s to mid-1920s in China.

When the Ch’ing monarchy collapsed in 1911 a power vacuum

was created in China – what was to take the place of the Son of

Heaven and the dynastic government that had been the (symbolic)

spine of China for so many centuries?12 A rapid increase in

Chinese nationalism as well as the intellectual debates being

spurred by returned students created a whirlwind of differing

ideas for the new China – a potential new leadership marked by

critical thought and intellectual governing. Of course, after the

dynastic collapse there were many who continued the historical

trend in China of looking to the ideas of the past to solve the

issues of the present. In this vein, many Confucian societies

sprung up after 1911 seeking to perpetuate Chinese tradition.13

11 Confucius, The Shu King, Shih King and Hsiao King: Confucian Classics, trans. JamesLegge (Forgotten Books, 2008), 444.

12 John King Fairbank, The Great Chinese Revolution 1800-1985 (New York: Harper &Row, 1986), 163.

13 Fairbank, Chinese Revolution, 183-185.

7

But how could they? A new generation of students who had

studied in Japan and Western countries were getting an education

in public universities and turning their backs on the archaic

Chinese examination system that perpetuated the Confucian

government. These returned students brought with them talk of

progressive ideas: Western democracy, the creation of a Chinese

vernacular, critical evaluation of classical texts, the

importance of literacy, the scientific study of folklore, the

value of vernacular literature.14 Prior to this time, the

historical significance of literature such as novels and poems

had never been discussed. Scholars looked to only to classical

Confucian texts and dynastic histories for interpretations of the

past. The returned students gave rise to a new era of historical

literary criticism which was skeptical of the “official”

histories written with a Confucian bias; they recognized that

these histories represented only one class in China and did not

adequately reflect social truths of the common Chinese people.15

Novels, plays, poetry and folklore were cast in a new light as a14 Fairbank, Chinese Revolution, 186-190.15 Arthur W. Hummel, "The New-Culture Movement in China," Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science 152 (Nov., 1930): 60-61.

8

body of vernacular work that “mirrors more accurately the social

conditions of other times than do the lofty moralizings and

rationalizations of the orthodox scholars.”16 This re-evaluation

was primarily among the more liberal youth; as Chin laments in

Family, “[w]e always get old-fashioned scholars for our ‘lit’

teachers, the kind whose favourite texts are books like Selected

Ancient Chinese Essays.”17

The establishment of public schools separate from the

government’s examination preparation schools represented another

divide between the imperial Confucian system and post-Ch’ing

China. In late imperial China literacy and elementary education

was attained at home, where the curriculum centered on Confucian

classics.18 In Family, Yeh-yeh complains to Chueh-hui:

[y]ou students don’t study, you just make trouble. Theschools are in a terrible state. They produce nothingbut rioters. I didn’t want you boys to go to school inthe first place. The schools make you all go bad. Lookat your uncle Ke-ting. He never went to school, he onlystudied at home with a tutor. But he reads the classicsvery well, and he writes better than any of you.19

16 Hummel, 61.17 Pa Chin, Family, trans. Sidney Shapiro (Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc.,

1972), 17.18 Fairbank, Chinese Revolution, 190-191.19 Pa Chin, Family, 67.

9

Despite opposition from the older generation, by the beginning of

the 1920s public universities were flourishing and the new

Chinese vernacular that had been criticized by Confucian scholars

found widespread visibility in the pages of new periodicals like

The Tiger and New Youth magazine.20 Whereas academic discussion had

previously been guarded by the elite government literati, the new

vernacular literature opened debate up to the common Chinese

people – creating a previously unheard of and untempered national

discourse. In 1921, in the midst of the New Culture Movement, a

professor at the University of Nanking described his observations

of the previous two years in China:

Writers multiplied, students as well as teachersjoining in the task of discussion, translation, andcriticism. Attacks upon the old order became morefearless and outspoken. Criticisms began to reach downinto the basic principles of Chinese life. The conceptof filial piety was invaded and the question askedwhether it is not a reciprocal relation in which theparents have proper obligations to their children aswell as children to parents. Dissatisfaction wasexpressed with the aristocratic phases of Confucianteachings in other regards. Ideas of change, progress,and reconstruction were expounded, with whatever

20 Timothy B. Weston, "The Formation and Positioning of the New CultureCommunity, 1913-1917," Modern China 24, no. 3 (Jul. 1998): 277-278.

10

crudity and superficiality, over against the habitualideals of stability and order.21

Family is set against this backdrop of sociocultural clash, the

victims of filial piety versus those who perpetuate the system –

although as Pa Chin shows in the novel, the definitions of

“victim” and “oppressor” are not always clear cut.

Pa Chin became an anarchist at the age of fifteen and

promoted in his writings the ideas of rebelling against despotism

and oppression; as the introduction to Family states, “[a]

particular target of his attacks was the old Chinese family

system, which deprived the young of their freedom of action and

their right to love and marry according to their own choice.”22

While anarchism did not catch on in China as a significant

political movement, anarchist ideals permeated New Culture

writings and institutions.23 24 Even as Pa Chin was forced to

remove explicitly anarchist elements from Family, the book

21 Clarence H. Hamilton, "Religion and the New Culture Movement in China," TheJournal of Religion 1, no. 3 (May, 1921): 227.

22 Lang, "Introduction," in Family, viii.23 Arif Dirlik, "The New Culture Movement Revisited: Anarchism and the Idea

of Social Revolution in New Culture Thinking," Modern China 11, no. 3 (Jul.1985): 295-296.

24 Lang, "Introduction," in Family, viii.

11

remained a favorite among Chinese students who saw their

struggles reflected in the novel’s characters.25

Family centers primarily around the three brothers of the

extended Kao family: Chueh-hsin, Chueh-min and Chueh-hui. Each of

the brothers is representative of a prominent ideology during the

New Culture movement: Chueh-hsin is the eldest son and is

unwilling (or unable) to go against the traditional conservative

values of the family; Chueh-min is the middle child and is fairly

moderate, appearing indifferent to his situation; Chueh-hui is

the youngest and develops radical viewpoints and acts on them.

Their conservative grandfather Yeh-yeh seems to the brothers to

be “the representative of an entire generation”; as we will see,

however, even the most traditional character in the novel is

simultaneously also a victim of the system he perpetuates. The

brothers’ cousin Chin also represents the contradictions inherent

in a young person during the New Culture movement; the only

character that can be explicitly labeled solely a “victim” is the

25 Lang, “Introduction,” in Family, xvi-xxii.

12

servant Ming-feng. Each of these characters and their ideological

position merits a separate, closer discussion.

Let us begin by analyzing the eldest Kao son, Chueh-hsin. As

the novel states, “[i]n the large Kao family, he was the eldest

son of an eldest son, and for that reason his destiny was fixed

from the moment he came into the world.”26 It is certain that

Chueh-hsin could be considered a victim of the filial piety

system. He had been deeply in love with Cousin Mei when his

father arranged a marriage for him with a woman he had never met.

His father explains to Chueh-hsin that as his father, it is his

obligation to find him a wife so as to ensure that the Kao line

continues. Although Chueh-hsin was in love with Mei, “[h]e did

not fight back, he never thought of resisting. He only bemoaned

his fate. But he accepted it. He complied with his father’s will

without a trace of resentment.”27 Chueh-hsin’s “policy of non-

resistance”28 is indicative both of his inability to fight

against the oppressive Confucian filial system, making him a

victim, as well as the truth that he is also an oppressor by26 Pa Chin, Family, 35.27 Pa Chin, Family, 37.28 Pa Chin, Family, 69.

13

perpetuating the system. When Chueh-min runs out on an arranged

marriage, Chueh-hsin finds himself in the middle of a bitter

conflict: his duty to defend his brothers versus his filial

deferent obligation to his grandfather. He breaks down in the

face of this contradiction, feeling trapped in the realization

that “not only couldn’t he help him – he had to help their

grandfather oppress him.”29 Chueh-hsin is certainly a victim;

however, some forms of his oppression are never lifted. For

example, at the beginning of the novel he mocks Chueh-hui for

being “a humanitarian” and not taking a sedan-chair, and even

after Mei dies much later he still leaves in a sedan-chair

despite the realizations about the oppressive filial system he

has had.30 31

The next son, Chueh-min, is largely apathetic for the

majority of the novel. He yearns for the approval of his peers

and superiors and recites Confucian expressions without

considering the ideology they are steeped in.32 33 Since he is in29 Pa Chin, Family, 260.30 Pa Chin, Family, 15. 31 Pa Chin, Family, 275.32 Pa Chin, Family, 11.33 Pa Chin, Family, 14.

14

public school, Chueh-min begins to encounter progressive

publications such as New Youth, and eventually begins to support

his more radical younger brother’s efforts to publish articles –

but he is more talk than action. He can reiterate the progressive

ideas but rarely acts on them or truly internalizes them, as

revealed by this exchange between Chueh-hui and Chueh-min:

“You’re all so docile. You don’t put up theslightest resistance. How much abuse can you take? Youtalk a lot about opposing the patriarchal familysystem, but actually you support it. Your ideas are newbut your conduct is still the old kind. You’re allspineless! You’re full of contradictions!”

Chueh-hui forgot for the moment that he was fullof contradictions himself.

“Third brother, calm down a little. What’s thegood of raising such a row? You’re not going to solveanything all in one sweep,” Chueh-min asserted. “Whatcan you accomplish alone? You ought to know that thepatriarchal family system exists because it has itseconomic and social foundation.” Chueh-min had justread this last sentence in his magazine, and it rolledoff his tongue very naturally.34

Because he has not yet had an experience like Chueh-hsin’s

heartbreak to bring him up against the Confucian filial system

and he lacks Chueh-hui’s youthful idealism, Chueh-min has no

particular gripes with the filial system. He is a victim without

34 Pa Chin, Family, 95.

15

realizing it but also continues to perpetuate the oppressive

system by questioning Chueh-hui’s ideals. Towards the end of the

novel, he does flee from an arranged marriage in a significant

departure from his previous behavior.35

Chueh-hui is by far the most radical of the brothers, fully

committed to the revolutionary spirit of the New Culture movement

– though he does not begin as an enlightened youth. Though he is

enamored of the servant Ming-feng, early in the novel he still

abuses his superior status by blocking her way when his

stepmother is calling her – resulting in Ming-feng being scolded.

He realizes that this is his fault, yet “something had held him

back... [he] wanted to cry out against the unfairness of this

fate, to fight it, to change it.”36 Similar to Chueh-hsin’s

experience with Mei, it’s Chueh-hui’s interactions with Ming-feng

that bring him into direct confrontation with the filial piety

system. When Chueh-hui goes to talk to Ming-feng, she says:

“What right have I to chat with you? You’re a YoungMaster; I’m only a bondmaid... People will talk ifwe’re always together. There are plenty of gossipers

35 Pa Chin, Family, 258.36 Pa Chin, Family, 18-20.

16

around. It doesn’t matter about me, but you should becareful. You have to uphold your dignity as one of themasters. It doesn’t matter about me. I was fated to bejust a cheap little bondmaid!”37

It is only when Chueh-hui runs up against a strict limitation of

the Confucian family system that he realizes his opposition to

it; “[h]e felt that he was being cut off from [Ming-feng] by an

invisible high wall, and this wall was his gentry family. It

prevented him from attaining the object of his desire; therefore

he hated it.”38 The opposition to the Confucian family system

that was stirred by his love of Ming-feng spurred him to become

engrossed in his studies and writing for various revolutionary

publications, speaking out against the victimization of himself

and those like Ming-feng. Ironically, it was his devotion to his

writing that led him to ignore Ming-feng when she came to him

pleading for help before she was to be sent off to be a

concubine; feeling that the situation was now completely

hopeless, she committed suicide to escape her fate.39 Though

Chueh-hui was a victim of the filial system he so opposed, he

37 Pa Chin, Family, 75.38 Pa Chin, Family, 22. 39 Pa Chin, Family, 213-218.

17

cannot be absolved of the label of an oppressor because of his

brushing aside of the concerns of his servant.

Ming-feng is possibly the only character in the novel who is

purely a victim of the Confucian filial piety system. Her view at

the beginning of the novel was that “[a]ll that happened in the

world was decreed by an omnipotent being; it was her fate to be

where she was and what she was. This was her own simple belief,

and it coincided with what others told her.”40 She is a bondmaid;

a servant; a slave. Though she had been a servant of the Kao

family for nearly eight years, she maintained some glimmer of

hope through her friendship with Chueh-hui and his promises to

someday rescue her from her lowly status; she never forgot her

prescribed role in the Confucian family system, however. Part of

that role was to one day become a concubine:

She knew very well what would happen to her. When shereached the proper age, Madam would say to her, “You’veworked here long enough.” And she would be placed in asedan-chair and carried to the home of a man Madam hadchosen, a man Ming-feng had never seen... How terrible!That kind of a home is no home at all! ... All of this

40 Pa Chin, Family, 27.

18

gave Ming-feng a frightening premonition of what herown destiny would be.41

Sure enough, one night Madam Chou approaches her and begins with

“Ming-feng, you’ve been with us for several years. I think you’ve

worked long enough.”42 After pleading and begging to stay a

bondmaid, Ming-feng accepts that there is nothing someone of her

status can do to change the decision. In a last-ditch effort, she

approaches Chueh-hui to advocate for her; as we have previously

discussed, however, his preoccupation with his writing assures

Ming-feng that “[t]here was a wall eternally between them. He

belonged to a different sphere.”43 She resigns herself to her

fate, lamenting that “[h]er death would bring no loss to the

world, or to the Kao family. People would quickly forget her, as

if she had never existed.”44 She was correct – after her suicide,

Yeh-yeh simply sends another bondmaid, Wan-erh in her place, and

“[t]he death of Ming-feng and the marriage of Wan-erh were

quickly forgotten... neither of these events had any effect on

41 Pa Chin, Family, 28.42 Pa Chin, Family, 203.43 Pa Chin, Family, 217.44 Pa Chin, Family, 217.

19

the daily life of the family. Two bondmaids were gone, that was

all, and the masters quickly bought new ones to replace them.”45

Bondmaids under the Confucian family system were not seen as full

people; on the contrary, they were objects that could be

mindlessly given away as gifts. Ming-feng and the rest of the

bondmaids in Family are absolutely victims of the Confucian filial

system.

The other major female character in the novel, Chin, is of a

much higher social status than Ming-feng. Though she comes from a

rich family, she still faces the Confucian standard of female

subordination, especially in education. She has aspirations of

attending a public school with her male cousins; though they had

to put up a fight to attend public school, the opposition against

Chin within the family would be much more daunting. As Chin

explains:

I’m afraid my grandmother won’t agree, and there’sbound to be a lot of talk among our relatives... Youdon’t know what Mama had to put up with when I enteredthe provincial Normal School for Girls. Our relativessaid – A big girl like her, out on the street everyday; what will people think! What well-brought up young

45 Pa Chin, Family, 233.

20

lady would ever act like that?... Now I’m going to askto enter a boys’ school, to sit in the same classroomwith male students! Can you think of one of ourrelatives who would dare approve of such a thing! ...Aunt Chou will be against it, and it will only bematerial for more gossip for Aunt Wang and Aunt Shen.46

Despite these obstacles, Chin does indicate that she is willing

to fight for her right to join the boys’ school. Many of her

peers at the girls’ school had begun to radicalize as well –

several of them had begun to cut their hair short, a rebellious

act against the traditional feminine fashion of the Confucian

woman. Chin is proud to know such strong girls, but she was

unsure as to whether or not she was brave enough to make such a

rebellious statement. One of her peers, Chien-ju, calls Chin out

on her hesitation:

“I understand, Chin, your situation is very difficult.”Chien-ju spoke in loud and clear words, which made Chinunsure of whether they were sarcastic or sympathetic.“In your families of the gentry society, the onlyproper things to do are a few lines of poetry, a fewrounds of drinks, some card games, or certainintramural plotting, and so on. To have send you toschool was an extraordinary and exceptional commitment.If you step still beyond to such a new-fangled ventureas cutting your hair like a man’s, there will be a

46 Pa Chin, Family, 23-24.

21

furor of condemning voices of full opposition from allsides. There are indeed too many moralistic souls inyour family.”47

Chien-ju’s comment is met with laughter, and Chin slinks down,

ashamed – knowing that it’s true. When she tries to breach the

topic of cutting her hair with her mother, Mrs. Chang, Chin is

disappointed by her mother’s comments that Chien-ju “was left

without adequate family principles in her.”48 Mrs. Chang waves

off Chin’s desires to cut her hair short and Chin feels crushed.

Though Mrs. Chang represents an oppressor in this scenario, she

too is a victim of the Confucian system, having told Chin earlier

in the novel:

“I used to be brave, but I’m old now... I want to livein peace another few years, without any trouble. Youknow I’ve been a devoted mother to you... I never boundyour feet like other young girls. I let you study withyour cousins’ private tutor at your grandfather Kao’shouse. Later, in spite of everything, I sent you to agirls’ school... On the whole, you must admit I’vetreated you pretty well.”49

Mrs. Chang is a supportive mother; but Chin’s actions bring

unnecessary criticism upon her, which she is getting too old to47 Pa Chin, Family, 195.48 Pa Chin, Family, 200.49 Pa Chin, Family, 33.

22

be able to bear. Chin has contradictions as well; after Chueh-hui

gets angry at her for not feeling sympathy towards the servants

who have their flesh seared by fire tubes during a New Year’s

celebration, she says “Uncle Ke-ting and his friends enjoyed

themselves, and the dragon dancers got their money. Everybody was

satisfied. What’s wrong with that?” Her question prompts an

enraged response from Chueh-hui to which Chin does not reply; she

is struck by the fact that she acted as a part of the oppressive

system she had been trying to fight out of.50

Finally, let us analyze perhaps the most complex character

in the novel: the Kao grandfather, Yeh-yeh. For the majority of

the novel, Yeh-yeh seems to be merely a two-dimensional

caricature of the staunch Confucian moralist. When Chueh-hui goes

to visit him, Yeh-yeh hands Chueh-hui a book and tells him that

he should read it carefully; the book is On Filial Piety and the Shunning

of Lewdness.51 When he is informed that the Third Elder Master has

gone to his law office he expresses his dissatisfaction that the

lawyer is “[m]ore interested in handling other people’s

50 Pa Chin, Family, 139-140.51 Pa Chin, Family, 83.

23

litigation than in the affairs of his own family.”52 The

maintenance of the family system is very important to Yeh-yeh.

When Chueh-min expresses that he disagrees with the marriage Yeh-

yeh has arranged, Yeh-yeh explodes, exclaiming “How dare he

disobey me... Even Chueh-min has gone bad. He actually dares to

rebel. From now on, no son of the Kao family is permitted to

attend an outside school!”53 By all accounts Yeh-yeh seems to be

a complete oppressor with complete disregard for the feelings of

the members of his own family; choosing instead to uphold the

Confucian system at all costs. Yeh-yeh seems to be the ultimate

villain of the novel, yet even he is a victim:

Not one of [the members of the family] looked at himwith any affection... There were his grandsons, proudlygoing their own new road, abandoning him, old and weakand powerless to stop them... Had all his hopes beennothing but idle dreams? He had built up the familyuntil it was large and prosperous. Ruthless,dictatorial, he had controlled everything, satisfied inthe conviction that the family would continue toflourish. Yet the results of his strenuous efforts hadbrought only loneliness... Viewing the large wealthyfamily he had spent so many years in the building, theVenerable Master Kao could feel only futile, empty.54

52 Pa Chin, Family, 68.53 Pa Chin, Family, 257.54 Pa Chin, Family, 282.

24

Yeh-yeh oppressed the members of his family thinking it would

ultimately result in good for all of them; this is what the

Confucian texts taught. Though as Pa Chin succinctly describes

the Kao family, “[i]n time of crisis, this old rich family, which

depended on ancient morality to sustain itself, revealed its

inner emptiness. No one cared about anyone else. Each was

concerned solely with his own personal safety.”55 The lack of

closeness between the members of the household was due completely

to the strain of maintaining appearances on behalf of the

Confucian filial piety system. When Yeh-yeh falls ill, relatives

bring in witch doctors that will help him – according to

traditional Chinese superstition. But Uncle Ke-ming “knew that

the devil-eradication performance could only do harm. But for the

sake of giving friends and relatives the impression that he was a

‘dutiful’ son, Ke-ming was reluctantly taking part.”56 The family

system that Yeh-yeh had been propping up all his life was now

ushering him to his deathbed quicker.

55 Pa Chin, Family, 175.56 Pa Chin, Family, 287.

25

While the characters in Pa Chin’s Family perpetuate the

oppressive Confucian system of filial piety to varying degrees,

every single one of them is a victim of it. The patriarch is

lonely and finds his family disintegrating despite his best

efforts; couples are broken up; mothers find themselves unable to

support their daughters; there is inequality between the sexes;

family members are unable to speak up for themselves. Pa Chin’s

anarchist message is abundantly clear: nobody escapes

Confucianism unharmed.

Annotated Bibliography

Confucius. The ethics of Confucius; the sayings of the master and his disciples uponthe conduct of "the superior man." Edited by Miles Menander Dawson.New York: Putnam, 1915.

Dawson was a member of the Confucian Society of China. Thisvolume, prepared under the auspices of the AmericanInstitute for Scientifc Research, is arranged in a topicalfashion aiming to effectively illustrate the importantaspects of Confucian doctrine. Dawson's running commentaryaids in comprehension, elaborating and contextualizing manyof the quotations drawn from classic Confucian texts.

Confucius. The Shu King, Shih King and Hsiao King: Confucian Classics.Translated by James Legge. Forgotten Books, 2008.

The Shu King, Shih King and Hsiao King are three of the classicConfucian texts. The Shu King is a historical record of the

26

religion, philosophy, customs and government of China. TheShih King, translated as Classic of Poetry, Book of Songs or the Bookof Odes, is the earliest collection of Chinese poetryblending history, myth, and religion. The Hsiao King, though,is of particular importance to this paper -- it is thedefinitive text outlining the principles of Confucian filialpiety. This is the text that defined Chinese society forcenturies, and James Legge's excellent translation andcommentary provide a very clear work in translation.

Dirlik, Arif. "The New Culture Movement Revisited: Anarchism andthe Idea of Social Revolution in New Culture Thinking."Modern China 11 (Jul., 1985): 251-300.

Dirlik has been a Senior Fellow at the InternationalInstitute for Asian Studies in the Netherlands,Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Peter Wall Institutefor Advanced Studies at the University of British Columbia,and a visiting faculty member at the Hong Kong University ofScience and Technology. His publications include Revolutionand History: Origins of Marxist Historiography in China, 1919-1937, Anarchismin the Chinese Revolution, and Schools into Fields and Factories: Anarchists,the Guomindang, and the National Labor University in Shanghai, 1927-1932.This article explores the extent to which anarchist ideaswere implemented during the May Fourth Movement despite therelative lack of identification with anarchism itself.Dirlik argues that it was the decentralized, diffusedcharacter of the New Culture movement that allowed foranarchist ideas to take root without there being asignificant concentration of influence among anarchistthemselves.

27

Fairbank, John King. The Great Chinese Revolution 1800-1985. New York:Harper & Row, 1986.

Fairbank has contributed to a great number of texts aboutChinese history, including volumes 10-13 of The CambridgeHistory of China, Chinabound: A Fifty-Year Memoir, Chinese Thought andInstitutions, Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast: The Opening of theTreaty Ports 1842-1854 and Modern China: A Bibliographical Guide to ChineseWorks 1898-1937. This particular text is an excellentintroduction to the social, political, economic andideological developments in China during the period 1800-1895. Four maps are included. The book also provides a briefchronology of the dynastic periods predating the focus ofthe text, as well as of major events in the 19th and 20th

centuries.

Hamilton, Clarence H. "Religion and the New Culture Movement inChina." The Journal of Religion 1 (May, 1921): 225-232.

University of Chicago graduate Clarence H. Hamilton wasappointed chair of philosophy and psychology at theUniversity of Nanking in 1914. He has published manyarticles about Eastern religion, including "Hsüan Chuang andthe Wei Shih Philosophy" and "The Idea of Compassion inMahāyāna Buddhism" in Journal of the American Oriental Society and"Idealistic and Pragmatic Interpretations of Religion" inThe Journal of Religion. This article provides valuable insightinto the perceptions of the Chinese “returned students”contemporary with their return. The questions that Hamiltonposes in his article about the future of the New Culturemovement would be illuminated much later in retrospect;however, it is quite remarkable to read such accuratepredictions and postulations made without the benefit ofhindsight.

28

Hsieh Yu-wei. "Filial Piety and Chinese Society." Philosophy East andWest 9 (Apr. - Jul., 1959): 56-57.

This short article provides an overview of the function offilial piety within Chinese society as an instrument ofstability, from the individual family level, to the State,to the Empire as a whole. Hsieh Yu-wei’s article asserts thesuperiority of the application of filial piety to thedevelopment of virtue in modern society.

29

Hummel, Arthur W. "The New-Culture Movement in China." Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science 152 (Nov., 1930): 55-62.

University of Chicago graduate and noted Sinologist ArthurW. Hummel spent 13 years as a Christian missionary in China.Upon his return he was appointed the first Chief of theDivision of Chinese Literature at the Library of Congress in1928. He has published a variety of articles on the topic ofChinese culture, including "Some Basic Principles in ChineseCulture" in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society and "TheArt of Social Relations in China" in Philosophy East and West.This article explains the main areas being debated withinthe New Culture movement; this includes the need for new,plainer literary text, re-evaluation of the way history isstudied, and an increased appreciation of “occasionalliterature.”

Lang, Olga. Introduction to Family, by Pa Chin. Translated bySidney Shapiro. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc., 1972.

Sociologist Olga Lang published Chinese Family and Society in1946, three years before the establishment of the People’sRepublic of China. Though her introduction to Family waswritten nearly 30 years later, it serves to contextualizethe novel’s creation within the Chinese society she had soactively researched for Chinese Family and Society. Lang gives abasic overview of the sociopolitical climate of China in theperiod 1904-1972, affording Family a context in both the timeof its publication and the time of its reception post-Cultural Revolution.

Legge, James, trans. The Li Ki. Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2004.

30

The Li Ki is one of the Five Chinese Classics, usuallytranslated as the "Book of Rites," "Book of Customs," or"Record of Rites." The Li Ki details the social customs,governmental system, and ceremonial rites during the ZhouDynasty. The original text is thought to have been compiledby Confucius himself. This translation, by noted ScottishSinologist James Legge, is part of his Sacred Books of theEast collection of classic Asian religious writings intranslation.

31

Legge, James, trans. The Sacred Books of China: The Texts of Confucianism.Edited by F. Max Müller. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879.

The Sacred Books of China is a 6-part collection within JamesLegge and Max Müller’s 50-volume Sacred Books of the Eastcompilation. This collection comprises the following classicworks in translation: the Shû King, Shih King and Hsiâo King (TheBook of Historical Records, Book of Odes, and Book of Filial Piety), the IChing (The famous Chinese oracle book, one of the oldestsurviving sacred texts), The Lî Kî, Part I (Book of Rites, partone), The Lî Kî, Part II (Book of Rites, part two), Taoisttexts, vol. 1; Lao-tse; Chuang-tzu part I, and Taoist texts,vol. 2; Chuang-tzu part II. Legge’s translations areabsolutely invaluable in studying the origin and nature ofChinese filial piety as prescribed by classic Confuciantexts.

Pa Chin. Family. Translated by Sidney Shapiro. Long Grove:Waveland Press, Inc., 1972.

Pa Chin’s semi-autobiographical novel was first serializedover the course of 1931-1932 and published in its entiretyin Chinese in 1933. Together with his novels Spring andAutumn, the novel forms the Turbulent Stream trilogy. The novelwas first published in English in 1958, translated by SidneyShapiro, a member of the Chinese People's PoliticalConsultative Council. Shapiro has held Chinese citizenshipsince 1963 and was employed by the national ForeignLanguages Press for nearly fifty years as a translator ofChinese literary works.

Smith, Arthur H. Chinese Characteristics. New York: Fleming H. RevellCompany, 1894.

32

Chinese Characteristics was the first book to analyzeChinese society through the pseudo-scientific social andracial theories that had become a trend in the West in the1870s. Smith spent 54 years as a missionary in China,writing books that sought to explain China to Westernreaders. While many of Smith's remarks in the book wouldtoday be considered grossly prejudiced and offensive, it isfortune that this volume exists to illuminate the perceptionmany Westerners had of the "backward" filial Chinese at theclose of the 19th century.

Weston, Timothy B. "The Formation and Positioning of the NewCulture Community, 1913-1917." Modern China 24 (Jul., 1998):255-284.

Tim Weston is a professor of history at the University ofColorado at Boulder. He earned his Ph.D. in Modern ChineseHistory at the University of California, Berkeley andpublished The Power of Position: Beijing University, Intellectuals and ChinesePolitical Culture, 1898-1929 in 2004. Weston's article seeks toaddress the lack of scholarly work on the origins of the NewCulture Movement by exploring the early community of NewCulture leaders in the 1910s and tracing their developmentthrough 1917.