Keyword

The “nation” and its related issues constitute frontier problems that cannot be circumvented nowadays, and therefore, introducing the national dimension into the Chinese form of Marxist literary criticism is inevitable and necessary.

The national dimension of the Chinese form is being proposed and examined because of challenges due to globalization. During the process of global integration, the trend also faces resistance. Reflections on the problems brought on by globalization and vigilance against cultural and linguistic colonization highlight the significance and urgency of national issues under the new historical context of globalization. As a matter of fact, the construction of contemporary Chinese literary criticism has always struggled between seeking assimilation in resistance and maintaining resistance in assimilation. While Chinese critics are eager to participate in the global dialogue, they care more about their cultural identity and intellectual background. “Looking for the way home” has become a self-conscious search for most Chinese literary critics in the twenty-first century. In this sense, the return of a national consciousness is a product of globalization.

Among the various paradigms of contemporary Chinese literary criticism, the social, historical, political, cultural, and formal dimensions of literary works have in turn become the approaches to literary criticism. In contrast, the national dimension has been ignored and downgraded, overshadowed by other dimensions such as society, culture, and politics.Footnote 1 This is another crucial reason to propose the national dimension. The absence of a national dimension in contemporary Chinese literary criticism may be attributable to how the concept of nation has been understood and evaluated. The concept seems plain and simple, but it has many pitfalls. Moreover, the understanding and perception of the concept have been inconsistent and confusing for a long time. As the French scholar Gil Delannoi wrote: “A nation is more elusive than a state or market, especially because it appears to be natural but is in fact unintelligible” (Delannoi 2005, p. 19). Charles Tilly, an American sociologist, described it as “one of the most puzzling and tendentious items in the political lexicon” (Tilly 1975, p. 6). Nevertheless, to construct the national dimension of Chinese criticism, we need to re-examine and dialectically study the nation and its related issues.

Although the concept of nation is rather vague, national elements have never been absent from Chinese literary writing and criticism, offering the literary basis for proposing the national dimension. Over the past couple of centuries, initial efforts in “救亡图存” (save the nation, struggle for existence) provided the soil for the germination of a national consciousness, which was etched profoundly in Chinese literary writing and criticism of that time. Many excellent literary works expressed the fervent hope of national rejuvenation through the themes of enlightenment and national salvation. In literary criticism, there were ceaseless heated debates over national issues, such as the disputes about the proposal of “中体西用” (Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for application) and discussions about the national forms of literature and art. More recently, many controversies in literary writing and criticism could also be directly or indirectly attributed to the nation and its related issues. Thus, it would be difficult to understand Chinese history and literature over the past couple of centuries without considering elements of the nation.

1 The Discrimination of the Concept of Nation

In order to put forward the national dimension of the Chinese form, a more precise definition of the term nation is required for differentiation and analysis. In other words, clarifying the boundary between different terms is the premise of studying the national dimension of the Chinese form.

1.1 Nation and Its Related Concepts

In contemporary Chinese, the word 民族 (minzu) is a translation of the English word “nation.” The character 族 (zu) contains 矢 (shi), which means “to defend.” In ancient Chinese, the character zu is associated with certain orthodox concepts, such as “天下” (tianxia, land under heaven), “华夏” (Huaxia, Cathay), “中土” (zhongtu, Central Land), and “炎黄子孙” (yanhuang zisun, Descendants of the Yellow Emperor), to distinguish the Chinese from 狄 (di) and 蛮 (man) whom were deemed barbarian ethnic groups. As translation of the English word “nation,” the term 民族 now refers to something quite different from the original meanings of zu and Huaxia, though the term is related to them to a certain extent.

1.1.1 The Concept of Nation

The word “nation” was derived from the ancient Roman word natio, which came from natus, the past participle of the Latin nasci “to give birth.” The Old French word nacion played an intermediate role.Footnote 2 According to Chinese ethnologist Huang Xianfan (黄现璠), and others in the West, after the Protestant Reformation and the 1640 Puritan Revolution, the religious “citizens under social contract” and the secular “new citizens under social contract” gathered to form the Nation (the national community) (Huang 2008).

Since the introduction of the concept of the nation, Western scholars have proposed various understandings and interpretations of this widely-used term. However, the term basically means the modern nation, which is a product of modern history. Classical Marxist writers believed that the concept of nation was conceived in the Middle Ages. At the same time, events such as the Industrial Revolution, Protestant Reformation, and bourgeois revolution facilitated the formation of the nation as a new form of organization. They also assumed that although the nation would continue to exist for a long time, neither the nation nor the state was the ultimate form of the history in the future.

Friedrich Engels revealed the process of the historical formation of the modern Western nations in his essay “Collapse of the Feudal System and the Emergence of Nation States.” He connected the emergence of modern nations with language: “Once their boundaries had been fixed (disregarding subsequent wars of conquest and annihilation, such as those against the Slavs of the Elbe) it was natural for the linguistic groups to serve as the existent basis for the formation of states; for the nationalities to start developing into nations” (Engels 1990b, p. 560). Based on a further explanation of the relationship between languages and nations, Engels affirmed the contribution of the Middle Ages to the formation of nation-states with the vision of historical development: “linguistic boundaries and national frontiers were far from coincident throughout the Middle Ages, but every nationality except perhaps Italy was represented by a separate big state in Europe, and the tendency to form national states, which becomes increasingly clear and deliberate, constitutes one of the Middle Ages’ most considerable levers of progress” (Engels 1990b, p. 560). Compared to the city-state, nation-state formation is undoubtedly a great leap forward, turning a new page in world history.

1.1.2 Nation Versus Race and Ethnicity

In the term “modern nation,” the English word nation is related to but also different from raceFootnote 3 and ethnicity. Distinguishing among the three concepts will help discern the misuse of the Chinese term for nation and further clarify its boundaries.

Race mainly refers to a group of people who share physical characteristics, such as yellow, white, and black skin. It can be either larger or smaller than a nation in scope. One race can encompass multiple nations, and one nation can contain different races. While “nation” has cultural and political implications, most studies of race focus on genetics.

Ethnicity is mainly derived from consanguinity within groups in ancient primitive societies. This concept is more complex and ambiguous. According to Engels, ethnicity is based on consanguinity and develops gradually on the basis of family and tribe “…the blood-ties, on which here as everywhere the entire national structure was based…” (Engels 1990c, p. 58). However, “It is not an ethnic community because, despite some overlap in that both belong to the same family of phenomena (collective cultural identities), the ethnic community usually has no political referent, and in many cases lacks a public culture and even a territorial dimension, since it is not necessary for an ethnic community to be in physical possession of its historic territory” (Smith 2010, pp. 209–220). Nowadays, in nations, especially in those with immigrant populations, blood ties among different groups have gradually worn off.

Since ethnicity implies cultural heritage, it can be regarded as the embryonic form of the nation. In the contemporary era, “ethnicity” mainly refers to different ethnic groups in national states. For example, ethnic minorities in the Chinese nation can be deemed “ethnicities,” highlighting the difference between “nation” and “ethnicity.” However, considering the history and current status of the ethnic minorities in China, it would be more appropriate to transliterate the term for ethnic minorities in Chinese directly as “minzu.”Footnote 4

1.2 Nation and the Chinese Nation （中华民族）

The modern meaning of nation was defined after the end of the Middle Ages. In contrast, for China, “中华民族” (zhonghua minzu, Chinese nation) emerged as a concept when a preliminary national consciousness surfaced with the feudal dynasty about to collapse. China’s modern national consciousness resulted from the transformation of the traditional ethnic consciousness in the mid-nineteenth century influenced by Western nations.

1.2.1 The Proposal of a “Chinese Nation”

In 1901, Liang Qichao(梁启超) published an essay, “Commentaries on Chinese History (中国史叙论),” in which the concept of “中国民族” (zhongguo minzu, China’s nation) was proposed for the first time, and the evolutionary history of China’s nation was divided into three periods. “The first is the upper era, from the Yellow Emperor to the Qin Dynasty’s unification of China. During the period, China related only to China, or China’s nation developed, competed, and united on its own terms.” “The second is the middle era, from the unification of China by the Qin Dynasty to the end of Emperor Qianlong’s reign of the Qing dynasty. In this period, China related to Asia, or China’s nation interacted frequently and competed the most intensively with other nations in Asia.” “The third is the pre-modern era, from the end of Emperor Qianlong’s reign to the present day. This is the period in which China related to the world. China’s nation together with all the Asian nations interacted and competed with the West” (Liang 2015a, pp. 471–472). The division into these three eras shows the extent of the perception of culture and space in China and how the nation of China gradually became an integral part of the world system.

In 1902, Liang Qichao used the term “中华” (zhonghua, Chinese)Footnote 5 in his book On the Major Trend of Changes in China’s Academic Thought: “Who is the largest nation in the largest continent among the five continents? Our Chinese. Who has the population that is one-third of the world? Our Chinese. Who has a history of more than four thousand years without any interruptions? Our Chinese” (Liang 2015a, p. 577). Liang Qichao indicated that the Chinese nation in his essay mainly referred to the Han nationality, which had been developing continuously since the Xia and Shang dynasties. Chinese was used instead of “Han” because Han was a later dynasty, which could not represent “the name of our whole nation” (Liang 2015b, p. 580). In one of his later essays, Liang Qichao further pointed out the “pluralistic mix” of the Chinese nation. He wrote: “I could squarely declare that the Chinese nation was not a single ethnic group from the beginning, but a mixture of many ethnic groups” (Liang 2015b, p. 7300). Although Liang Qichao here has not yet abandoned the Han framework, he has recognized the potential of ethnic integration. Furthermore, regarding the difference between “Zhongguo” and “Zhonghua,” Wang Shumin wrote, “the wide use of the term ‘Zhonghua’ implies that the meanings expressed by the users may vary according to their different intentions. The same goes for the term ‘Zhongguo,’ which generally refers to the whole territory of China but sometimes refers to the Central Plains of China. Notably, the term ‘Zhonghua’ not only refers to a certain region but also a certain culture and people with this culture. The later connotations are absent from other terms” (Wang 1985, pp. 6–16). Although it is his personal opinion, it is inspiring.

1.2.2 The One and the Many of the Chinese Nation

In 1931, when Japan invaded northeast China and began to expand into north China, the consciousness of Chinese national identity surged. The construction of the nation’s anti-Japanese united front became the consensus of this era: “As the Chinese people have arrived at their most perilous time, every person is forced to expel his very last cry. Arise! Arise! Arise!” In 1938, China’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression entered its most challenging period. During this period, Gu Jiegang (顾颉刚) published the article “Chinese Nation United as One (中华民族是一个)” in Yishi Daily: Frontier Weekly, which he had founded. His argument helped develop a definition of the Chinese nation. Gu stressed in the article that there was only one Chinese nation. Referring to China’s Han, Manchu, Mongolian, Hui, and Tibetan ethnicities as “nations” was a strategy and conspiracy by the imperial forces to divide and disintegrate China. Gu’s argument reflected the cordial patriotism of scholars at that time. It was very political with distinct characteristics of its time. Meanwhile, Gu was aware of the strong inclusiveness of Chinese culture, given its historical development and offered a more precise concept of the “Chinese nation.” Fei Xiaotong (费孝通), who had just returned to China after studying anthropology in the UK, wrote that there was no need to deny the existence of groups of different cultures, languages, and systems within China. The key was that “all members of a country should enjoy equality” (Fei 1939). Gu wrote two articles specifically to address this proposition. In 1993, Fei returned to this debate in his article “Centenary Celebration for Gu Jiegang,” “Mr. Gu certainly could argue for his points. Unfortunately, I could not consult him in person. I believe that if I could talk with his soul, he would not be offended about discussing the old issue again. The development of history has presented the answer to the question we debated at that time. The answer is that the Chinese nation is united as one body comprising diverse elements. The oneness and pluralism are not two exclusive concepts” (Fei 2009, p. 270).

In short, if Liang Qichao was the first to propose the concept of the Chinese nation, then the concept is just over a century old. Since then, some historians have attempted to reconstruct the historical system of the origin of the Chinese nation from the perspective of a unified multi-ethnic China by highlighting a historical context in which all ethnic groups were integrated.Footnote 6 It can be said that the concept of the Chinese nation, which has materialized since pre-modern times, is a concept with a modern national consciousness. “The formation of the Chinese nation coincided with the historical process of the economic-political construction of the modern nation-state. It marks China’s progress in politics, economy, science, and technology, as well as its corresponding historical process. More importantly, the quality and style of social existence, the ideological system, the individual-group mentality structure, and the corresponding cultural system have fully articulated with modernity. At the same time, it marks that the Chinese nation has been integrated into the world system under the general trend of modernization” (Xu 1998, p. 129). Thus, the Western concept of nation corresponds with the unified, multi-ethnic Chinese nation.

Therefore, the concept of nation in Chinese form refers specifically to the Chinese nation. The national dimension of the Chinese form involves the spiritual products and its related issues of the Chinese nation.

2 Marx and Engels on Nation

Most people believed that Marx and Engels advocated internationalism and disapproved of nationalism in their theories of social liberation based on a slogan in the Communist Manifesto: “The workers have no Fatherland.” Some Western Marxists also had a negative perception of the theories of nationalism proposed by classical Marxist writers.Footnote 7 In fact, Marx and Engels thought deeply about national issues. Moreover, they left a wealth of literature on the concept of the nationFootnote 8 and many scholars have studied their theories (Hua 1998, pp. 72–76). Given the disputes in understanding and interpreting Marx and Engels’ national theories, I only summarize essential arguments on the relationships between nation and class, as well as nation and internationalism to highlight their positions and methodologies in order to respond to the controversies about their national theories.

2.1 Nation and Class

The classical Marxist writers’ research on the nation is also based on the standpoint of historical materialism. In terms of the relationship between nation and class, although Marx and Engels emphasized the dominant role of class, their dialectical interpretation of the relationship between nation and class is useful in understanding the relationship of nation, state, and culture in the era of globalization.

2.1.1 Class Issues Dominate National Issues

Based on the position of the proletariat, Marx and Engels believed that the national issue would weaken the class struggle to some extent, so they primarily related them to class.

Marx and Engels observed that rulers often used national issues to cover up class contradictions and social problems. For example, on the one hand, the bourgeoisie often used nationalism to legitimize the exploitation of domestic workers and to oppose foreign competitors on the other “…the ruling classes of the old society who can only maintain their own power and the exploitation of the productive masses by national conflicts and antagonisms” (Marx 1989b, p. 819), thus perpetuating the rule of the bourgeoisie. Meanwhile, Marx also criticized the provincial, outdated, and false national views of the German bourgeoisie and exposed their duplicity: “The genuine patriotism of the bourgeoisie…has faded into a mere sham consequent upon the cosmopolitan character imprinted upon their financial, commercial, and industrial enterprise” (Marx 1986, p. 501). Since the bourgeoisie was born from the impulse of global expansion, Marx and Engels believed that the bourgeoisie used the national problem as a smokescreen. Moreover, some nationalisms worked against the tide of history, such as the pan-Slavic coalition against revolutionary Austria, on which Engels stated that “Pest itself is obviously the goal” (Engels 1977b, p. 231). In particular, when the nation-state constituted an obstacle to the international union of the proletariat, the nation became “a reactionary, backward thing.”

For the interests of the proletariat, Marx and Engels advocated that class issues should outweigh national issues and placed class interests above national ones. In the Communist Manifesto, they pointed out: “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie” (Marx and Engels 1976, p. 495). The first and foremost thing the proletariat must do is to take on the domestic bourgeoisie. Only when class liberation is achieved can national liberation be achieved. In “Draft of the Civil War in France,” Marx stated plainly, “…the government of the working class is, in the first instance, necessary to save France from the ruins and the corruption impended upon it by the ruling classes, that the dislodgment of these classes from Power (of these classes who have lost the capacity of ruling France) is a necessity of national safety” (Marx 1986, pp. 500–501). He emphasized, “the government by the working class can only save France and do the national business, by working for its own emancipation, the conditions of that emancipation being at the same time the conditions of the regeneration of France” (Marx 1986, pp. 500–501). The liberation of the working class is the premise and condition for national revival. In other words, “… so the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie is at the same time the signal of liberation for all oppressed nations” (Marx 1976, p. 388).

Additionally, based on this idea, Marx and Engels put forward the famous slogan “the working men have no country” (Marx and Engels 1976, p. 502). Specifically, “The working men have no country” was proposed in response to the accusation that the “the Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality” (Marx and Engels 1976, p. 502). The working class has no special interests and therefore, no national prejudice. “But the proletarians in all countries have one and the same interest, one and the same enemy, and one and the same struggle. The great mass of proletarians are, by their very nature, free from national prejudices and their whole disposition and movement is essentially humanitarian, anti-nationalist. Only the proletarians can destroy nationality, only the awakening proletariat can bring about fraternisation between the different nations” (Engels 1976, p. 6). Therefore, Marx and Engels turned their attention to the proletariat for the emancipation of humankind, and they believed that only the proletariat could eliminate this segregation.

2.1.2 Complex Relationship Between Nation and Class

When studying the relationship between national conflicts and class struggle, Marx was soberly aware of the complexity of this relationship and provided a far-sighted analysis.

In some particular contexts, Marx believed that nationalism should be recognized; for instance, Ireland’s resistance to the British Empire was justifiable. His suggestions included “self-government and independence from England” and “protective tariffs against England” (Marx 1987, p. 486). Obviously, Marx’s views are based on the position of the oppressed, and he is asking for justice for the weak.

Marx also had the genius to foresee competition within the working class, that is, the competition between the working class of one nation and that of another. When Great Britain enslaved Ireland, Marx expressed, “All industrial and commercial centered in England now have a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who forces down the standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker, he feels himself to be a member of the ruling nation and, therefore, makes himself a tool of his aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He harbors religious, social and national prejudices against him. His attitude towards him is roughly that of the poor whites to the niggers in the former slave states of the American Union. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of English rule in Ireland” (Marx 1988, pp. 471–472). In this letter, Marx not only revealed the intricacies of the relationship between nation and class but also realized the competition within the working class, an increasingly critical issue in the era of globalization.

2.2 Nation and Internationalism

While studying the international situation of the time, Marx and Engels increasingly and unequivocally realized the correlation between the national problem and the cause of human liberation. Their discussion on the relationship between nations and internationalism is also dialectical. Marx’s views on the independence and unity of nations and the union of all nations based on equality and freedom have theoretical relevance and practical significance for the comprehension of international relations in the context of globalization.

2.2.1 Criticism of National Chauvinism

The criticism of national chauvinism is another aspect of the arguments on national issues put forward by Marx and Engels. It can be seen in their criticism of Jews and Germans. As a Jew, Marx criticized the Jews’ self-important national view, “But the Jew, too, can behave towards the state only in a Jewish way – that is, by treating it as something alien to him, by counter posing his imaginary nationality to the real nationality, by counter posing his illusory law to the real law, by deeming himself justified in separating himself from mankind, by abstaining on principle from taking part in the historical movement, by putting his trust in a future which has nothing in common with the future of mankind in general, and by seeing himself as a member of the Jewish people, and the Jewish people as the chosen people” (Marx 1975a, p. 147). Describing Germany, Marx charged that it “asserts its narrow-hearted essence before it has been able to assert its magnanimous essence” (Marx 1975b, p. 185). Engels offered biting satire on arguments proposed by theorists like Ernst Moritz Arndt, who put the German nation above all other nations in the world suggesting that “In its infinite self-consciousness [it] places itself above the nations and expects them to kneel at its feet and implore it for enlightenment, [and] only shows by this caricatured Christian-Germanic idealism that it is still up to its neck in the mire of German nationalism” (Marx and Engels 1975a, p. 177). He said that the nationalism of petty citizens in the guise of “false universalism and cosmopolitanism” was “more disgusting” than overt national parochialism.

At an international conference in London to mark the 17th anniversary of the Polish Uprising of 1830, Engels famously made this observation about Germany’s partition of Poland, “A nation cannot become free and at the same time continue to oppress other nations” (Marx 1976, p. 389). For ties between nations founded on oppression, slavery, and plunder breed hatred: “Germany will liberate herself to the extent to which she sets free neighboring nations” (Engels 1975b, p. 166). “Otherwise the fetters with which we have chained other nations will shackle our own new, barely prescient, freedom” (Engels 1975b, p. 166). Moreover, the enslavement of other nations can cause enslavement within the nation itself. On the fantasy of a nation seeking to lead the world, Engels asserted that “The time has passed for ever where one nation can claim to lead all the rest” (Engels 1975b, p. 166). This slogan lay the theoretical foundation for the world’s opposition to hegemonism.

2.2.2 Arguments on Colonization

In the article “The Future Results of British Rule in India,” Marx talked about the renovation of India’s infrastructure and the promotion of material production by colonization. Because of this article, post colonialists have accused classical Marxist views on colonization of being inappropriate. These views need to be understood in a specific context. At that time, India was extraordinarily underdeveloped and people lived an “undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life” (Engels 2004, p. 12). The construction of infrastructure and commercial exchanges of British colonists in India indeed promoted India’s social development. The British colonists not only connected the Indian states through railway construction but also linked India with the Western world through trade, “and has revindicated it from the isolated position which was the prime law of its stagnation” (Marx 1979a, p. 132). Marx recognized this progress from the perspective of historical development. The British colonists acted as “the unconscious tool of history” for their own interests (Marx 1979b, p. 218).

Marx also expressed his sympathy for the Indian people’s suffering and his criticism of the colonizers in this article. Marx emphasized that what the British bourgeoisie in India “… may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their appropriation by the people” (Marx 1979b, p. 221). That is, the British colonists did not bring genuine benefits to the people. For the people to truly reap the benefits, there needs to be a transformation in the relations of production. In addition, Marx also mentioned the rivalry and inversion of the civilizations of the conquerors and the conquered: “the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of their subjects” (Marx 1979b, p. 218). This thesis reveals some laws and characteristics of the development of civilization and has profound historical significance.

Therefore, we need to comprehensively examine Marx’s views on colonial issues. The key is to grasp the position and methodology Marx maintained or used in his research, and the analysis should be carried out considering the context. Admittedly, Marx’s own ideas also underwent a process of transformation and maturity.

2.2.3 The Relationship Between Nations and Internationalism

Classical Marxism also made an incisive and dialectical interpretation about the relationship between nations and internationalism. The independence and equality of nations shape the world landscape and are preconditions of internationalism. Engels made it clear: “true Internationalism must necessarily be based upon a distinctly national organisation” (Engels 1988, p. 155). In the case of Poland, “only when Poland has re-conquered its independence, when it once again exercises control over itself as a free people, only then can its internal development recommence and will it be able to take part in its own right in the social transformation of Europe” (Engels 1989, p. 57). “Without restoring autonomy and unity to each nation, it will be impossible to achieve either the international union of the proletariat, or the peaceful and intelligent co-operation of these nations towards common aims” (Engels 1990a, p. 366). There can be no genuine international cooperation and peace without the independence and unity of all nations. Marx and Engels also further emphasized national independence and autonomy by opposing false internationalism. Engels proposed: “If members of a conquering nation called upon the nation they had conquered and continued to hold down to forget their specific nationality and position, to ‘sink national differences’ and so forth, that was not Internationalism, it was nothing else but preaching to them submission to the yoke, and attempting to justify and to perpetuate the dominion of the conqueror under the cloak of Internationalism” (Engels, 1988, p. 155). These arguments explicitly reflect classical Marxist thought on national independence. The phenomenon of false internationalism exposed by Engels continues to exist today, and people of all countries should recognize it and be vigilant against it.

Marx and Engels also offered the insight that genuine internationalism requires tangible development within nations. “The relations of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labour and internal intercourse” (Marx and Engels 1975b, p. 32). The premise of national unity lies within the internal development of each nation. On the one hand, “this theory of universal fraternal union of peoples, which calls indiscriminately for fraternal union regardless of the historical situation and the stage of social development of the individual peoples” (Engels 1977a, p. 366), is not advisable. On the other hand, national independence and internationalism presuppose each other. Independent nations need to relate to each other, “each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others” (Marx and Engels 1975b, p. 49). Nations need to communicate as their isolation could inevitably lead to their decline. Human emancipation “… presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with them” (Marx and Engels 1975b, p. 49). Although revolution may result in one country’s victory, considering today’s globalization, which implies countries are inextricably intertwined in politics and economy, it is difficult for a single nation to realize Marx’s social thoughts alone.

Internationalism is built on the foundation of the independence, unity, and autonomy of all nations. The exchange and communication of all nations is the driving force for the continuation and development of human civilization. It can be said that this internationalism is human liberation in its ideal form for Marx and Engels: the free association of independent nations. It is fundamentally different from cosmopolitanism.Footnote 9 Internationalism is “inter-national” instead of a kind of equivocal holism.

Marxist classical writers’ theories on national issues are illuminating as they constitute the theoretical guidelines for the national dimension of Chinese form. This is because some national theories posited by Marxist classical writers still have realistic pertinence today. They could help us discern and resist the global infiltration of capitalism. More importantly, their historical and dialectical perspective toward national issues offers valuable guidance on methodologies for today’s research on national issues. This indicates the contemporary significance of Marx and Engels’ theories on the nation. In an evolving context, we can better describe Marxism as “the unification of theory and practice.” Marxism itself is open, and its national theories also need to be developed. With its revolutionary, critical, and dialectical power of thought, Marxism has the vitality to continuously renew itself.

3 National View in the Chinese Form

Confronted by the harsh reality of the proletariat revolution, Marx’s theories on the nation were not fully evolved, leaving room for the national study of the Chinese form. For Chinese Marxist literary criticism, the concept of nation （which means Chinese nation 中华民族） is a vital issue in the Chinese revolution and construction. As Terry Eagleton put it, “If Marxism lent its support to national liberation movements in the so-called Third World, it did so while insisting that their perspectives should be international-socialist rather than bourgeois nationalist” (Eagleton 2011, p. 217). The Chinese form needs to locate national issues within its specific historical conditions to further establish its own national position and notions, and engender the national concept with new theoretical characteristics and connotations from a historical and logical perspective.

3.1 The Restoration of the Reputation of the Concept of Nation

“Nation” is a word that has appeared frequently in modern culture and literature. It is also a concept that is often misunderstood. The understandings of the nation and practices related to the nation are diverse. While proposing the Chinese form, we need to clarify the concept of the nation from the perspective of Marxism.

3.1.1 The Nation Is Not About Self-Seclusion

Independence is frequently referred to as the foundation of national existence. However, independence by no means implies isolation or closure. As an independent community, the nation is established in contrast to and reference with the “others” in the world. The nation always exists in relation with other nations. Without the other, there would be no nation. Therefore, as a relational concept, a nation needs the reflection of the other and also needs to communicate with the other.

The emergence of the modern concept of nation in China did not happen in isolation, but is a result of the Chinese people’s increasing awareness about the world. The national consciousness among Chinese women and men was stimulated after being humiliated by Western powers, and their purpose of pursuing national self-improvement is to stand abreast with other nations rather than confronting them.

With the cross-border flow of capital and global access to the Internet, the world has become interconnected. It is almost impossible for any nation to stay out of the game. Although there are contradictions and conflicts among different nations, nations have to learn to live with confrontation and interdependence. Many problems can no longer be solved by one country or one government alone. In terms of national development, openness has become indispensable for the existence and continuation of a nation.

3.1.2 The Nation Is Not About Going Back to the Good Old Days

The nation cannot be associated with retrograde or regressive movements. Some people believe that national rejuvenation is merely about discovering and preserving traditional skills or restoring traditional costumes. Unquestionably, a nation cannot develop without history and, indeed, a national culture has its virtues. However, as things change over time, a nation anchored in its bygone past has no hope. For the sake of prosperity, a modern nation needs to break away from its past while honoring traditions. Only by abandoning some obsolete things that are incompatible with social development can we move forward easily.

National rejuvenation necessitates the preservation of traditional culture. Nevertheless, how to approach traditional culture remains a problem. Understanding and evaluating traditional Chinese culture is far more complex than a simple affirmation or negation. Traditional Chinese culture does have some excellent characters and genes. “The Chinese nation has cultivated and formed unique ideas and moral norms in long-term practice. It values benevolence, people, integrity, dialectic, concordance, and general coordination, as well as traditional virtues, such as ceaseless self-improvement, diligence and sociability, righteousness, readiness to help those in distress, fighting for what is right, and filial piety” (Xi 2015, pp. 25–26).

These ideas can withstand the test of time. Literature and culture researchers bear a responsibility to refine and pass on the desirable genes of Chinese culture. Meanwhile, many propositions in Chinese traditional culture are antinomies with both advantages and disadvantages. For example, Laozi’s “non-contention (不争),” Zhuangzi’s “effortless action (无为),” Taoism’s “purity (清净),” and Buddhism’s “letting go (放下),” as well as relevant “a contented mind is a perpetual feast (知足常乐)” and “accommodating oneself to circumstances (随遇而安),” should be subject to dialectical analysis. We “should choose the good aspects to follow and should know the bad aspects and then correct the similar ones in ourselves (择其善者而从之, 其不善者而改之)” (The Analects of Confucius: Shu Er).

While studying traditional culture, it should be noted that the extant ancient books were compiled by rulers, historians, and scholars of the time. The recorded historical materials were basically the products of modifying or redacting some lively and marginal things. Therefore, we need to look beyond the text, as many things may have been omitted, distorted, or deleted. For example, we need to verify the texts against folk practices, oral culture, and even archeological finds regarding the intangible cultural heritage. Even the extant ancient texts are too formidable to explore. We should discern their authenticity. In fact, Chinese culture comes from multiple sources, including the inheritance of Han culture and the changes in Han culture when it was integrated with other ethnic cultures. Therefore, while inclusiveness is a prized characteristic of the Chinese nation, we need to distinguish between the positive influence of external cultures and their distortion of Han culture. However, the latter has not yet attracted much attention and thought. In the history of Chinese civilization, some inherent flaws in traditional culture might be associated with the erosion by alien cultures.

When dealing with the relationship between traditional culture and the present, the national view of Chinese form emphasizes not only the present and but also the future. Xi Jinping suggested: “Inheritance of Chinese culture is not simply restoring past traditions nor blindly exclusive. We need to take a dialectical approach to absorb what is valuable from the ancient and foreign nations while discarding negative elements of Chinese traditional culture, and ‘opening our new field according to the rules of the ancients,’ thereby achieving creative transformation and innovative development of Chinese culture” (Xi 2015, p. 26). The vitality of tradition lies in “creative transformation and innovative development”; otherwise, tradition is dead. Fredric Jameson also proposed: “We will no longer tend to see the past as some inert and dead object which we are called upon to resurrect, or to preserve, or to sustain, in our own living freedom; rather, the past will itself be- come an active agent in this process and will begin to come before us as a radically different life form which rises up to call our own form of life into question and to pass judgment on us, and through us, on the social formation in which we exist. At that point, the very dynamics of the historical tribunal are unexpectedly and dialectically reversed: it is not we who sit in judgment on the past, but rather the past, the radical difference of other modes of production (and even of the immediate past of our own mode of production), which judges us, imposing the painful knowledge of what we are not, what we are no longer, what we are not yet” (Jameson 1979, pp. 41–73). The national view of the Chinese form cannot preserve the past as an antique, let alone unconditionally accept what is retained by history. Past culture influences the present culture to some certain extent, serving as a reference and a spur, prompting us to re-examine our present.

Nationality and modernity are not entirely opposite and incompatible. Undeniably, modernity has indeed impacted some timeworn aspects of nationality, but modernity may renew nationality. Throughout China’s modern history, in most cases modernity has not excluded nationality. National self-improvement is intertwined with modernization, and it is in the process of modernization that new China is achieving national rejuvenation. Even in today’s era of globalization, while national development may encounter some headwinds, the exchanges or even confrontation among nations may also be transformed into opportunities and driving forces for the economic or cultural advancement of a nation-state.

3.1.3 The Nation Does Not Imply the Collective’s Suppression of Its Individual Members

The inherent collectivity of the nation is another topic of contention. The relationship between nation and individual should be concretely analyzed. When the country is in peril, given the common fate of individuals and the country, the nation’s interests should be put before its individuals. Throughout history, many Chinese revolutionaries with lofty ideals sacrificed their lives for national dignity, writing chapters capable of evoking great emotion. In a turbulent time, an individual cannot live a secure and happy life, as “when a bird’s nest is overturned, no egg can remain intact.”

In the concept of the nation of the Chinese form, the collective and the individual are not incompatible like fire and water, nor is the group a tool for coercing or suppressing individuals. The prosperity of a nation should be dependent on the prosperity of its people. The individual rights of value, dignity, freedom, development, and self-fulfillment are essential to a modern nation. The struggles of each individual are the basis of national rejuvenation. Completely ignoring the existence of individuals, or even suppressing or harming them will not sustain the development and prosperity of the nation. On the contrary, the nation should demonstrate respect for individual life and protect individual rights and interests. In this way, individuals will have a more robust national identity while pursuing their own interests, thereby forming a mutually supportive relationship between the collective and the individuals. When necessary, individuals may do everything for their nation, even sacrifice their lives.

3.2 New Interpretations of National View

To further clarify the connotation of the concept of nation, the Chinese form needs to absorb classical Marxist thought while considering the characteristics of Chinese society and the evolution of Chinese society, thereby exploring and framing the new connotation of nation theoretically.

3.2.1 Nation Is a Historical Concept

Benedict Anderson proposed a widely-used definition of nation when discussing the issues of nationalism; that is, a nation is “an imagined political community” (Anderson 1991, pp. 5–6). He adopted a novel approach to combat the dilemma of defining the concept of a nation. Perhaps the “imagined” means that the community is constructed by the power of collective identity, rather than suggesting that the national community is fictitious. Despite discussing in detail how a nation was initially imagined, how it was then shaped and remodeled, and the historical preconditions preceding the imagination, he focused on the means and channels through which an imagined nation-state was constructed. According to him, nations are “cultural artefacts of a particular kind” (Anderson 1991, p. 4) or the narrated text. This concept was met with severe challenges. British ethnographer Anthony Smith classified the modern definitions of the nation into objective and subjective ones. He objected to Anderson’s subjective theory of “invented” or “imagined.” Instead, he stressed that the nation could not be constructed out of nowhere, and it could only be “reconstructed” on the basis of original ethnic traditions. He wrote: “Typically, where the modern nation claims a distinctive ethnic past, as so often happens, ‘invented traditions’ turn out to be more akin to ‘reconstruction’ of aspects of that past. The latter acts as a constraint on ‘invention’. Though (the past can be ‘read’ in different ways, it is not any past, but rather the past of that particular community, with its distinctive patterns of events, personages and milieux. It is not possible to appropriate or annex the past of another community …in the construction of the modern nation” (Smith 1991, p. 358).

For Marxists, the nation has always been a historical existence rather than an imagined construction. Even as a historical existence, a nation can be narrated differently depending on people’s different positions and views. However, in whatever way the nation’s origin and formulation are imagined, the nation’s gene is always present. Lineages, languages, territories, traditions, and religions comprise the foundation of modern nation-states. Moreover, in the long run, different nations have formed different histories and national memories preserved in literary works such as myths, folktales and legends, historical documents, and even poems. Although these myths and legends are narrative stories, they are more than just wild imagination but are based on the life history of generations of people. A nation is indeed a community of people formed over the course of its history. As Vladimir Lenin put it: “…but ‘nations without a history’ cannot find models or patterns anywhere (apart from utopias) except among historical nations” (Lenin 1962, p. 125). A nation is an embodiment of the social relations of group identity formed over the course of history. We cannot understand the nation purely based on imagination. The narrative of this historical phenomenon needs to be changed.

National historicity is also reflected by the fact that forming a nation is a continuous process, and group identification is realized gradually rather than overnight. Moreover, since the nation has had its rise, it must also have its fall. In today’s globalized world, with immigrants moving all over the world, future nations are bound to show heterogeneity and convergence to a certain extent. Nevertheless, whether or not nations disappear in the future, diverse cultures will remain.

3.2.2 Nation and Culture

Engels listed several essential elements of a nation in his article “Democratic Pan-Slavism,” “all the other Slavs lack the primary historical, geographical, political and industrial conditions for independence and viability” (Engels 1977a, p. 367).

Joseph Stalin systematically summarized the elements of “nation” in “Marxism and National Issues”: “A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture” (Stalin 1953, p. 307). This definition has been considered the classical Marxist definition of a nation. Arguably, these elements did effectively make up the connotations and scope of the nation. However, nowadays, languages, races, and even economic lives could not function as fundamental criteria to distinguish nations (Anderson 1991, p. 46). The question is, which of these elements is the most fundamental? As early as the nineteenth century, it was suggested: “The criteria for distinguishing nations are neither race nor language. When people form a group with the same thoughts, interests, feelings, memories, and hopes, they feel at heart that they belong to one nation” (Delannoi 2005, p. 204). This deeper, empathetic interconnectedness is none other than culture.Footnote 10

It is the culture that maintains a nation. There are many definitions of culture, especially in terms of values. As a symbol of the bond of a nation, culture is manifested as a set of shared ideals, values, and codes of conduct of a group, playing significant roles of exchanging ideas, communicating emotion, and enhancing cohesion among its members. The power of culture can even transcend ethnicity or race. In a nation-state, people of different races or colors can live in a shared space. It is culture and shared values that hold them together. In this sense, culture obviously outweighs blood ties. Although there is heterogeneity within each nation, with the coexistence of cohesion and rejection, centripetal force and centrifugal force, identification and dissension, as the crystallization of long-term accumulation, each nation’s dominant culture is distinguishable from those of other nations. For example, the Gothic churches in Spain are quite distinct from the Forbidden City in China. They represent two different national cultures. Like genes, culture is embedded in the minds of its members and passed down over generations. In the age of globalization, the identity anxiety of those who move to different countries is essentially the anxiety of cultural conflicts.

Thus, it can be said that cultural identity is the foundation for the existence of a nation. The absence of culture and national memory could foretell the extinction of a nation.

3.2.3 Nation and the People

Antonio Gramsci coined a new phrase “national-popular” when studying the dissemination of literature. In the early sixteenth century, the word “nation” experienced an extension of its conceptual meaning in England, and it became almost synonymous with “people” in some modern European languages. Liah Greenfeld has described this extension in her exploration of the evolution of the word “nation” (Greenfeld 1993, pp. 6–9). Gramsci put forward this concept mainly because Italian readers were fond of popular foreign novels and turned a cold shoulder to contemporary national works. He regarded “nation” and “people” as semantically similar concepts. He emphasized “national-popular collective will” (Gramsci 1971, p. 131), and thus correlated the two, proposing that people’s education and cultivation are the very premise of national development. Meanwhile, Gramsci’s “national-popular” concept is also related to his concept of “cultural hegemony.” Given the relatively weak status of the Italian proletariat in numbers, to assume cultural hegemony, the proletariat must combine forces with farmers and other middle-class groups making them aware of shared interests. This way, leadership could radiate outward from the Communist Party and the working class into the collective “national-popular” will.

In the Chinese form, the correlation between the nation and the people is the outcome of Chinese revolutionary practices. If Gramsci’s “national-popular” is mainly a theoretical concept, the correlation between the nation and the people in the Chinese form has become a tangible reality. During the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, the nationalization of literature and art went hand in hand with the popularization of literature and art in China. This combination reflected the consistency of the nation and the people. In contemporary society, the realization of the correlation between the national and popular was a necessary and inevitable consequence. The convergence of national rejuvenation and popular welfare reflected this combination. Remarkably, people are the main body of the nation. The liberation of the people is tantamount to the liberation of the nation, and people’s welfare defines the direction of national development. This proposition by the Chinese Communists breaks away from the classical Marxist writers’ view that class interests override national interests and constitutes a transcendence of Lenin’s theory of “two national cultures.” The national view of the correlation between the nation and the people is another key theoretical characteristic of the Chinese form.

4 The Nature and Characteristics of the National Dimension

The national dimension of the Chinese form is simultaneously a theoretical construction and a practice of criticism. The national dimension will bring a novel perspective to literary criticism, offering a rational analytical tool for analyzing the locality and globalism of literature and the Sino-West relationship. This dimension of criticism is rather different from postcolonial criticism, which aims to guard against and criticize the colonial tone in literature. Instead, it tries to discover and discern the national elements in literary works and build a beautiful spiritual home through the mutual shaping of literature and national spirit.

4.1 The Research Standpoint of the National Dimension

In China, the standpoint of “open nationalism” has its own historical and realistic contexts. The modernization of Chinese society involved an excruciating transformation under tremendous amount of external pressure and even dire threats. Regarding literary criticism, without sufficient preparation in terms of thoughts, notions, and theories, China has had to develop itself on the basis of learning and drawing from external critical theories. Since the beginning of the 1980s, with the reopening of China’s literary world, there has once again been a large scale of translation and a surge of Western theories of literary criticism. After a while, people gradually realized that the power of discourse was hidden in the dissemination of Western culture and literary criticism. If it continues, Chinese literary criticism will lose its egalitarian quality in communication with the West. It can be said that the proposition of “open nationalism” is the product of Sino-Western relations, and it always contains an “other” for dialogue.

Throughout modern times, the world of Chinese literary criticism has faced a persistent dilemma in the relationship between China and the West. On the one hand, suppose Chinese literary criticism does not absorb new foreign theories and ideas, and does not communicate with the Western world, it will be difficult to achieve self-renewal and establish a dialogue with the world. On the other hand, if Chinese literary criticism does not transcend Western barriers, it cannot satisfactorily explain China’s unique literary practices. Amidst this anxiety and reflection, the position of open nationalism becomes a choice of national dimension for the Chinese form in the context of globalization.

4.1.1 Open Nationalism

To clarify the position of open nationalism, we need to explain nationalism concisely. The concept of nationalism is paired with the concept of nation, but it is a word that is even more castigated. Some scholars suggest that the term nationalism did not appear in social texts until 1844. Its basic meaning was loyalty and devotion to a nation, especially a specific national consciousness, that is, the belief that one’s own nation is superior to other nations, with the particular emphasis placed on the promotion and enhancement of its own culture and interests to counter the culture and interests of other nations (Xu 1998, p. 40). The term’s appearance in discourse is subject to further investigation, but the explanation above generally contains the primary description of nationalism. Nationalism has long been associated with narrow-cultural tribalism characterized by blindness and self-seclusion, denial of dialogue, ignorance of advanced ideas, and a less-developed culture. We need to take a dialectical approach to this assertion. After all, in the context of globalization, to reject nationalism altogether is to abandon the chance of resisting cultural homogeneity.

Nationalism has its specific national connotation and consciousness in different periods, including national chauvinism and also anti-colonization nationalism, which need to be dismissed. It is generally believed that nationalism has both detrimental and reasonable sides. The detrimental aspect is the potential danger of blind arrogance in nationalism, which tends to feed racism and xenophobia. The interwoven national inferiority and arrogance will lead to an extremely narrow nationalism. In his reflection on the disasters suffered by the Jews, Ernst Hans Gombrich quoted and agreed with Popper in his later years: “If I may close with the words Popper used: ‘I consider any form of nationalism to be criminal arrogance, or a mixture of cowardice and stupidity. Cowardice, because the nationalist needs the support of the crowd - he does not dare to stand alone - stupidity, because he considers himself and his ilk to be better than others’” (Gombrich 1997, p. 40). Gombrich has a keen insight into the dangers of nationalism. Narrow nationalism tends to be generalized into a kind of intense emotion, which could include violence. This extreme nationalism directly led to Fascism, such as the German Fascist genocide of Jews during World War II. It can also easily cause terrorism in today’s world—acts of terrorism are disastrous for humankind. One should be wary of someone using the banner of nationalism to deceive the public.

Despite its inherent problems, nationalism will not become a thing of the past as long as the modern nation-state exists. From the struggle for independence of various countries, it can be seen that nationalism played an essential role in national liberation and the end of colonial rule. Even in contemporary times, nationalism, as a banner against hegemony, still has strategic significance in resisting global assimilation. This is the rationale of nationalism. Nationalism, as a cohesive collective consciousness, can arouse people’s sense of identity and sense of belonging to the nation, stimulate people’s national self-esteem and self-confidence, form an atmosphere of living upward, and self-improvement within the nation, and stimulate the potential for conflict. Meanwhile, we also find that although some Western countries express their disdain for the word “nationalism” or claim that “nationalism” has been liquidated, they still put their national interests first in their actions. Therefore, an appropriate attitude toward nationalism is that we should not discard nationalism entirely while staying vigilant against all kinds of nationalist trends of thought in globalization.

4.1.2 The Fundamental Connotation of Open Nationalism

“Open” and “nationalism” seem contradictory, but this paradoxical combination constitutes mutually constrained tensions. “Open” is an attribute of “nationalism,” a rhetorical term for “nationalism,” and it is the driving force for national development. Additionally, “nation” is the anchor of “open.” Without “nationalism” based on the concentric circle of “nation,” “open” will become rootless. Their mutual restriction and interdependence constitute the unique quality of “open nationalism.” Of course, open nationalism does not mean transcending the state or nation, but only strengthening the interdependence between states or nations.

National difference is a pillar of open nationalism. It is necessary for national development and essential to avoid the homogenization of the world. It has become the academic consciousness of the Chinese form to guard against the substitution of global discourse for local discourse. However, the stress on differences does not necessarily lead to cultural conflicts and confrontations. From the perspective of academic ecology, the coexistence of heterogeneous elements can make the world more harmonious. Marx talked about the role of particularity or difference in the development of a language. He said: “although the most highly developed languages have laws and categories in common with the most primitive ones, it is precisely what constitutes their development that distinguishes them from this general and common element” (Marx 1989a, p. 23). Different countries have distinctive histories and cultures, and it is these differences from the “general and common element” that makes society (and language) rich. Adhering to national differences also includes exploring and promoting the nation’s core values that still have vitality, including Chinese experiences and problems. Core values constitute the most profound part of the spiritual world and values pursued by a nation. Many traditional virtues and values in Chinese traditional culture should be preserved and transmitted. This traditional culture constitutes an important source of socialist core values currently cherished in China. Moreover, the insistence on national differences should be based on the reality of Chinese literature and criticism and should put forward research topics to solve current problems.

The most significant difference between open nationalism and ordinary nationalism is openness. That is, we should listen to the voices of other nations and absorb their strengths. “We should not only base ourselves on national realities but also conduct research open to the outside. We should absorb and use the theoretical views and academic achievements that are beneficial. However, we should not take a single theoretical view and academic achievement as the ‘only criterion,’ nor should we attempt to use a single model to reshape the whole world. Otherwise, it is easy to slide into the mud pit of mechanical theory” (Xi 2016, p. 18). In fact, the central source of today’s communication is not limited to a particular country or a specific cultural background. The emergence of each school of literary criticism embodies the co-creation of scholars from all over the world. For example, although structuralist literary criticism was prevalent in France, it contained contributions by Ferdinand de Saussure (Switzerland) and by Vladimir Propp and other Russian formalists. In addition, Western culture is also good at absorbing foreign cultural elements. For example, Western poems, paintings, clothes, and even theories have been inspired by the East to a certain extent. Contemporary Chinese literary criticism thus needs to break the vicious circle of binary oppositions such as “margin/center” and “Western/local,” transcend the East-West hierarchical order and narrow national sentiment, and absorb factors beneficial to its own development from heterogeneous cultures to the maximum extent. Open nationalism particularly values this tolerance of “greatness lies in the capacity.” If a nation’s culture protects a kind of national departmentalism forever, then the nation certainly cannot stand abreast with other nations.

Based on open nationalism as a particular position of Chinese form’s national dimension, the questions of how to view Chinese traditional culture, how to judge the culture of other countries and nations, how art and culture could join the quest of building a community with a shared future for humankind, and how to formulate literary criticism that simultaneously embodies the national personality and has world-wide significance should be discussed further from the national dimension.

4.2 The National Dimension and the National Spirit of Literature

In China and in the West, the nationality of literature had once been the focus of literary criticism. Especially among the European romantics and Russian revolutionary democrats, the nationality of literature served as an important metric to evaluate literary works. However, as “‘nationality’ became the highest criterion and touchstone for measuring the value of all poetic works and the integrity of all poetic honors,” its meaning was so broad that “it lost all connotations” (Belinsky 1980, p. 161). Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the national dimension in literary criticism has been overshadowed by formalistic criticism that emphasizes the self-autonomy of literature to the extent that it is barely recognizable. Re-introducing the national dimension into literary activities, setting relatively specific connotations for the national dimension, and discerning and commenting on the national elements in literary works and cultural phenomena in activities of criticism have become the characteristics and contributions of the national dimension in the Chinese form.

4.2.1 National Dimension and National Identity in Literature

The discussion of national consciousness in literary works relates to national identity. The core of national identity is to find one’s own identity and sense of belonging, which are especially prominent in the current globalized era. The values being reflected in literary works, and whether they play a role in unifying national consciousness in national revitalization, have become essential metrics for considering a national dimension.

From the perspective of the national dimension, it is evident that excellent literary works often express profound national emotion and national self-consciousness. Lu Xun’s words, “While offering my blood to the Yellow Emperor (“On a Photograph of Himself”),” show such an ideal and passion. “Why are there tears in my eyes? Because I love this land deeply” (Ai Qing’s I Love the Land) is a poignant read. Even in novels about personal desires and inner conflicts, such as Yu Dafu’s Sinking, “Motherland! Motherland! I am dead because of you! Get rich and strong!” its inner sentiment is still intertwined with the nation’s destiny, reflecting the deepest affection for the nation. Contrariwise, in some contemporary works, national emotion is not strengthened with the growth of national strength but weakened and degraded. Some works focus on personal sensual pleasure and the expression of desire, but lack conviction and enthusiasm for the current problems and future development of China. Certain other works show the undesirable side of the nation, catering to Westerners’ curiosity with their characters’ dullness and suffering. These phenomena should deservedly be criticized from the perspective of the national dimension of the Chinese form. Of course, national identity is not equivalent to the unquestioning acceptance of national culture without any reflection. The sense of danger and crisis and criticism of inherent national flaws shown in some literary works also serve to maintain the national spirit, reflecting a sense of social ownership and responsibility. As Marx put it: “the shame must be made more shameful by publicizing it” (Marx 1975b, p. 178). For example, from Wen Yiduo’s Dead Water, we can obviously sense the fire with its greatest despair containing greatest hope.

When emphasizing national identity, the national dimension should also guard against national chauvinism or populism in literature. The foolish arrogance of some works has aroused disgust and criticism. Answering the question of how to coexist with the world, literary works should and can provide a way for other countries to understand the Chinese nation through literary characters and images.

4.2.2 National Dimension and the National Characteristics of Literature

The evaluation of literature from the perspective of the national dimension involves emphasizing the national identity as well as revealing the national spirit and national features. Mao Zedong greatly appreciated Lu Xun’s works. He said that Lu Xun understood foreign and Chinese cultural artifacts, but he did not despise China. “Lu Xun was for a national style” (Mao 1992, p. 102). After absorbing the art forms of Chinese and foreign novels was Lu Xun able to create a new style that deeply reveals the soul of Chinese people.

At present, people have a misconception about national characteristics, which they often associate with national customs or local colors. In fact, what is more important in national characteristics is “the unique way of thinking and feeling of a certain nation” (in Belinsky’s words). Literature, as a spiritual product, is the embodiment of the national spirit. The national dimension should investigate the thoughts and emotions embodied in literary works that contain national characteristics as well as contribute to human development. Works of some of the literary giants have been preserved and passed down for generations and have become the symbol of national spirit. An important reason is that they contain profound thoughts. For example, Pushkin is known as the “Sun of Russian Poetry,” and Lu Xun is associated with the “National Soul,” as their works represent and magnify the national culture.

In addition to searching for value in intellectual thought, the investigation of national characteristics also includes identifying distinctive national forms in works. During the Yan’an period (1935–1948), promoting the national form or folk form was a priority. The widely-sung Yangge (秧歌) operas such as Brother and Sister Opening the Lands and northern Shaanxi folk songs had distinct folk forms. This advocacy of national or folk forms is not only an important measure for the Chinese form to reach the people and explore the popularization of literature and art but can also be regarded as a corrective measure for elitism and Europeanization tendencies.

The history of China has witnessed many distinctive national art forms. However, with increasingly deep Western influences, some traditional national art and folk forms have dwindled to the point of needing reclamation. Today’s emphasis on the protection of intangible cultural heritage (including literature) in national forms in essence involves the inheritance and transformation of Chinese traditional culture and dealing with the relationship between Chinese and Western culture. However, the protection of the national form is not limited to the reformation of the original old form. Perhaps it is more significant to facilitate the generation of new national forms in literary works. The formation of this new national form requires the creative transformation of traditional forms as well as the exchange with and learning from other countries’ literature and art. In his “Speech at the Work Symposium on Literature and Art,” Xi Jinping suggested that innovation in national form “does not exclude learning from the world’s outstanding cultural achievements. For socialist literature and art to flourish, we must be eager to learn from the excellent literature and art created by other nations. Only by adhering to the principles of serving China with the foreign, pioneering innovations, and absorbing both Chinese and foreign elements can Chinese literature and art develop and flourish” (Xi 2015, p. 26). Through the national dimension, we analyze literary works to learn how to create novel national forms, thereby demonstrating a new style of integrating local and foreign, and traditional and modern elements unique to China.

From a higher standard, the national dimension of literary criticism should also study the question of “What nationality should be embodied in literature?” The answer could motivate literary works to demonstrate the ideal model of national spirit. “Lu Xun said that to transform the spiritual world of Chinese people, literature and art should be the first priority. Raising the flag of spirit, setting up the spiritual pillar, and building the spiritual home depend on literature and art” (Xi 2015, p. 6). Open nationalism calls for the mutual shaping of literature and national spirit. On the one hand, it requires literature to lead and construct a national spirit. Writers should compose the new epic of the Chinese nation by enhancing the cultural implication and artistic value of their works and leveraging the power of literature to stimulate people’s national emotions. On the other hand, brilliant national culture and values provide a spiritual foundation for literature, enabling the possibility of achieving synergy and a mutually supportive relationship between literature and national spirit.

4.2.3 National Dimension and the World

Attaching great importance to the connection between literature and the world is another crucial aspect of the national dimension of Chinese form. Literature is the most cosmopolitan medium of communication. Not only do people of all countries need economic exchange but also sustaining communication. “Literature and art are also the best way for different countries and nations to understand and communicate with each other,” “since literature and art is a world language. It is, in fact, about society and life. It is the easiest way to understand and communicate with each other” (Xi 2015, p. 8). This is the strength and value of literature.

While advocating for the expression of the national personality through literary works, the national dimension is associated not only with the pursuit of specificity but also with the discovery of universal value in literature. As early as during the May Fourth period (1915–1921), young Mao Zedong, in the “Establishment and Promotion of National Health Association,” dissected the idea of “Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for application”—the most representative proposal of China’s modern Westernization Movement (洋务运动). He argued that it was in essence an “arrogant” thought, an “empty” thought, a “Confucius-centered” thought, and a thought of “new learning while maintaining old morals.” Under the guidance of this proposal, China could not learn the essence of Western culture, but only get superficial knowledge, therefore would have no chance to change an outdated culture. Later, in his “Talk to Music Workers,” Mao Zedong elaborated his idea further: “some people advocate ‘Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical application’. Is this idea right or wrong? It is wrong. The word ‘learning’ in fact refers to fundamental theory. Fundamental theory should be the same in China as in foreign countries. There should be no distinction between Chinese and Western things in fundamental theory” (Mao 2020, p. 364). Belinsky also said: “Nationality should be the first but not the only requirement. For a poet, the wish of being acknowledged for genius is universal, not just the acknowledgment of only one nation. Besides being national, poets are also universal. In other words, the nationality in the works must be part of the forms, frames, flesh, appearance, and character of the invisible spiritual world of human thought” (Belinsky 1958, p. 93).

Brilliant literature must contain multiple voices, in which not only the individual can be heard but also the national cry and echo of humankind. Engels, commenting on Shakespeare’s work, said that he had written “Merry England” (Engels 1975a, p. 100). Shakespeare’s odd country bumpkins, clever schoolteachers, and lovely and perverse women are all English, and such scenes can only happen under English skies. It is also the case for the environment and characters in A Dream of Red Mansions (红楼梦), in which the author  portrayed the Qing Dynasty as “suddenly like a tower leaning with dim lamps about to be exhausted.” Their works have a cosmopolitan and universal value precisely because of their unrepeatable national content. In this sense, we might as well conclude, “In fact, the more the universality of literature is stressed, the more it may have a national function: asserting the universality of the vision of the world offered by Jane Austen makes England a very special place indeed, the site of standards of taste and behavior…” (Culler 2000, p. 37). “The internationalization of a nation is the inherent necessity of the development of national culture” (Feng 2014, pp. 150–151). If a nation’s literature does not delve deep into the depths of human nature, it is difficult for it to be classified as world literature. This pursuit of universality reflects the confidence of Chinese literary criticism.

While opening the door to the world, the study of Chinese literature also has the responsibility to bring Chinese culture and literary theories to the world and participate in literary circles and their dialogue so that people in other countries can better understand China. In the follow-up and research of Western literary criticism, we found that Chinese literature and criticism have been marginalized and otherized. Western literary criticism, including textbooks, rarely mentioned the literature and criticism of China. Except for a tiny minority of scholars, most Western critical theorists know little about China, especially Chinese literature and literary theories, which are substantially characterized by falsification or distortion. For example, one important reason some works of art have gained fame in the West is that they cater to Westerners’ curiosity about the East to some extent. Of course, they also expose some Western scholars’ prejudices against Eastern culture. Therefore, reversing the suppression and marginalization of Chinese literature and criticism is one of the critical tasks of the national dimension of the Chinese form. The Chinese form should assume a more active position in literary criticism and find the value and characteristics of Chinese literature and criticism through discussion and dialogue, thereby blazing a new trail for exchange and communication.

In short, the reinterpretation of the nation and the introduction of the national dimension constitute the essential characteristics of the Chinese form, distinguishing it from other forms of Marxist literary criticism. As for the theoretical construction and practical application of the national dimension, there are still many problems to be considered and studied. Also, the national dimension is only one of the dimensions of literary criticism, and it is a dimension which needs vigilance and cannot be abused. Peace and development are the general trends in today’s world. Chinese culture has the characteristic of “greatness lies in the capacity,” which pursues cultural integration rather than cultural confrontation, and it is the responsibility of the Chinese form to contribute to world civilization while rejuvenating the Chinese nation.