Don‘t Study Chinese (According to Lu Xun): A Paradoxical Plea for Linguistic Liberation15

The title "Lu Xun: Don't Study Chinese" is inherently paradoxical. Lu Xun, a titan of modern Chinese literature and a fierce advocate for social and linguistic reform, would never explicitly advise against learning Chinese. However, a nuanced reading of his works reveals a critique of the *way* Chinese was taught and utilized, a system he saw as deeply entrenched in oppressive structures and hindering intellectual progress. This essay explores this paradoxical position, examining Lu Xun's critique of traditional Chinese education and language use, and how his concerns remain relevant in the context of contemporary language learning and the evolution of Chinese in the 21st century.

Lu Xun's primary target wasn't the Chinese language itself, but the antiquated and ossified methods employed in its teaching. The classical Chinese education he endured was rote memorization, focusing on archaic texts and convoluted grammar devoid of practical application. This approach, rooted in Confucian ideals and emphasizing obedience and conformity, stifled critical thinking and independent thought. Students were encouraged to emulate ancient masters, rather than to engage in original thought or creative expression. This pedagogical approach, Lu Xun argued, fostered a culture of intellectual stagnation and hindered the development of a vibrant, modern nation.

In his essays and short stories, Lu Xun consistently portrayed the debilitating effects of this traditional education. Characters often find themselves trapped by the weight of Confucian morality and the limitations imposed by a language that prioritized elegance over clarity. He used satire and allegory to expose the absurdity of a system that prized superficial erudition over genuine understanding and critical engagement. The dead weight of classical texts, laden with archaic vocabulary and allusions inaccessible to the common person, served to reinforce social hierarchies and perpetuate intellectual elitism. Lu Xun's concern wasn’t just about literacy; it was about the political and social power dynamics embedded in language use.

His critique extended beyond the classroom. The prevalent use of classical Chinese in official documents and public discourse further alienated the masses. This linguistic barrier prevented meaningful participation in national life, reinforcing the power of the elite and perpetuating social inequalities. Lu Xun championed the use of vernacular Chinese (Baihua), advocating for a language accessible to all citizens, regardless of their social standing or level of education. He believed that a democratized language was essential for fostering a truly modern and equitable society. His adoption of Baihua in his own writings was a powerful demonstration of this belief, a radical departure from the entrenched norms of the time.

The call for Baihua wasn't simply a linguistic preference; it was a political act. By embracing a language readily understood by the common people, Lu Xun sought to empower them, enabling their participation in political and cultural discussions. This accessibility, he argued, was crucial for national development and social progress. The move towards Baihua represented a fundamental shift in the relationship between language, power, and the individual, challenging the existing order and paving the way for a more inclusive and democratic society.

However, Lu Xun's advocacy for vernacular Chinese wasn't a simplistic rejection of classical learning. He recognized the enduring value of classical literature and its contributions to Chinese culture. His critique was targeted at the *method* of teaching and the *context* in which classical Chinese was used, not the language itself. He believed that classical Chinese should be studied, but within a broader context of critical analysis and with a focus on understanding its historical and cultural significance, rather than blind imitation.

The implications of Lu Xun's critique extend far beyond his time. In contemporary China, the challenges of language learning remain. While the use of Baihua has become standard, the educational system still faces criticism for prioritizing standardized testing and rote memorization over critical thinking and creativity. Furthermore, the increasing prevalence of English as a global language presents new challenges, raising questions about the role of Chinese in a rapidly globalizing world. Lu Xun's concerns about accessibility, critical thinking, and the relationship between language and power are just as relevant today.

Therefore, "Lu Xun: Don't Study Chinese" should be understood not as a literal instruction, but as a call for a radical re-evaluation of how Chinese is taught and utilized. It's a plea for a more critical, more engaging, and more empowering approach to language learning, one that fosters independent thought, critical analysis, and genuine understanding, rather than mere memorization and imitation. It's a call for a linguistic liberation, mirroring the larger social and political revolution that Lu Xun championed throughout his life. His legacy is not a rejection of the Chinese language, but a passionate demand for a more meaningful and liberating relationship with it.

In essence, Lu Xun's implied message isn't to avoid studying Chinese, but to study it thoughtfully, critically, and with a deep awareness of its historical and social context. It's a call to avoid the pitfalls of rote learning and blind adherence to tradition, and instead to embrace a dynamic and evolving understanding of the language and its place in shaping individual lives and national identity. Only then can we truly honor Lu Xun's legacy and unlock the full potential of the Chinese language.

2025-04-07

Previous：Is Learning Chinese Easy? A Comprehensive Look at the Challenges and Rewards

Next：Unlocking the Secrets of Mandarin: A Comprehensive Guide to Learning Chinese