Image credit: Dai Yunfei Faye
by Shi Lanxin
Read the Faculty Introduction.
“Men speak and always will speak of what fills their souls and no poetic,
whether it be that of Tolstoy or of Aristotle,
will be able to suppress the sufferings accumulated in them.”
(Shestov 88)
Introduction
In this essay, I will discuss Ibsenism as a phenomenon of the so-called “Weltliteratur” (i.e., World Literature) under the context of early 20th century China through a close analysis of the local reception towards it. I will argue that World Literature is no omnipotent medicine universal and adaptable for all cultures, but rather, a dynamic conversation joined by both the host culture and the source culture. That is to say, the ideal of World Literature is realized through the metamorphosis of the ideas embodied within the text. This metamorphosis is made possible not only by the text of origin alone, but also by the effort of the audience critically examining the foreign ideas. In the case of Ibsenism and its reception in China, as I will show with detail, the spirit of the original text has undergone a variety of challenges and reinterpretations in order to be able to adequately contribute to the dynamic social forum of early 20th century China.
I will unfold my discussion of this issue through the following two dimensions: first, I will briefly explain the question: What is Weltliteratur, i.e., World Literature? Secondly, I will closely examine Chinese Ibsenism as a case of World Literature. The second dimension will first engage the comparison of Hu Shi’s and Lu Xun’s Ibsenism, and then focus on the local adaptation of Ibsen’s drama by examining the metamorphosis of his A Doll’s House—more specifically, the metamorphosis of the female protagonist Nora Helmer—in China, exemplified by Lu Xun’s Regret For The Past. This short novel of Lu Xun’s not only concerns the themes of individualism and feminism discussed in the original work, but also casts doubt on the feasibility of those ideas if put into the specific historical and social context of the host culture, viz., early 20th century China.
What is Weltliteratur?
In the early 19th century, the prestigious German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe foresaw a kind of globalization that will happen in many realms including literature, as the progress of the human race unfolds. He then introduced the term “Weltliteratur,” i.e., “World Literature,” to describe this future trend of the universalization of literature. In the article “Goethe’s ‘World Literature’ Paradigm and Contemporary Cultural Globalization,” John Pizer states, “Goethe’s vision of a new literary modality emerging from the progress generated by the increasingly international nature of discursive interchange reflects the holistic perspective that guided his forays into the natural science” (215). That is, what Goethe was then expecting with the term “World Literature” is the birth of a literature that is no longer limited within certain exclusive cultural localizations. In other words, the term anticipates a kind of literature that will include the discussion of values and ideas that are universally valid and will grow similar to scientific discourse.
The history from the late 19th century to the present day has witnessed how Goethe’s term makes sense if understood as a prediction of the phenomenal diffusion of literature throughout the world. By phenomenal diffusion, I am referring to the phenomenon that a great quantity of literary works have been spread out from their home culture to other cultures and are introduced and discussed in various places thanks to the development of the global market. Goethe’s idea of World Literature is thus proved valid in the sense that it is able to function as a kind of trigger in foreign cultures that contributes to the debating forum regarding social issues, philosophical discussions, cultural transformations, etc. But Goethe’s interpretation of this term is confronted by certain limitations, too. His definition of World Literature is too ideal, or even too simplified, so that it is only possible in a phenomenal sense. Its feasibility is undermined when examined from an immanent level—by which I mean the stability and unchangeability of the inner ideas or theories embodied within the original texts. As David Damrosch suggests in his “World Literature, National Contexts,” “the study of world literature may be most fruitful if it doesn’t directly go global, instead understanding world literature as a variable and contingent concept, taking distinct forms in different national contexts” (520). He asserts this because when a piece of literature goes global, it will unlikely to remain in the same contextual environment as its original culture. The inner ideas of the original texts, which are usually shaped by the specific historical and cultural environment of the native culture, will almost inevitably undergo a certain transformation when it diffuses into a foreign culture. In a foreign culture, it is often the case that a series of ideas need to be reshaped in order to fit into the cultural context and demand of the new audiences. After this transformation, the new interpretation can be absorbed into the initial host culture, i.e., the culture which the ideas of the original source culture disperses to and which transforms those ideas. That is to say, the idea is no longer foreign to the “receiving” culture; instead, it now actively engages in the social issues of the culture that reshapes it, and the rudimentary contrast between the source culture and host culture is reconciled within this process of metamorphosis. Strictly speaking, it is no longer the case that there is one “source culture” which actively imposes its ideas onto a “host culture,” but rather, the ideas are developed by the effort of both sides. The true value of the philosophy embedded in the idea is not constituted by the original texts alone, but by the multifarious interpretations provided by different cultures. World Literature is thus realized in this web of multicultural interpretations.
On a practical level, it is also impossible to define World Literature as a unidirectional influence, where World Literature is an unchanging container of certain universal, objective ideas, that is imposed by one culture upon other cultures. Above all, its phenomenal diffusion is not a neutral process; rather, it is influenced by the needs of the culture that receives the literature. As David Damrosch asserts, “A culture’s norms and needs profoundly shape the selection of works that enter into it as world literature, influencing the ways they are translated, marketed, and read” (519). The import of books and ideas is closely related to the demand of the receiving nation or culture, which already entails a subjective filter. Furthermore, if what World Literature brings to the host culture are immanently valid ideas, then they should be unable to be converted when they enter a foreign environment. But the fact is that they not only change meanings after diving into alien cultures, but also provoke reactions from the latter which vary enormously from place to place; sometimes those reactions even differ between people who come from the same cultural background. The reason for this interpretive divergence is that the term “World Literature” is not a lifeless notion nor a container full of a priori, fixed ideas; instead, it is an organic and lively whole. It is not a mechanical process of pairing ideas and thoughts, but a dynamic conversation between cultures. As Damrosch claims,
World literature . . . is always as much about the host culture’s values and needs as it is about a work’s source culture; hence, it is a double refraction, one that can be described through the figure of the ellipse, with the source and host cultures providing the two foci that generate the elliptical space within which a work lives as world literature, connected to both cultures, circumscribed by neither alone. (514)
In other words, World Literature is constituted dynamically, with the complex refraction and transformation of ideas happening in the process of the phenomenal literary diaspora. In the remainder of this essay, I will give a specific example regarding Ibsenism in early 20th century China to further demonstrate the dialectical dynamics among cultures existing within the notion of “World Literature.”
Chinese Ibsenism as a Phenomenon of World Literature
The term “Ibsenism” was first introduced by Hu Shi in 1918 in a special issue of the magazine La Jeunesse (《新青年》) as the New Culture Movement in China reached its climax. This special issue was entirely devoted to introducing the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen and presenting several of his translated works. There, Hu Shi defined Ibsenism as a kind of realism by which Ibsen’s play vividly reflects the corruption and morbidness of society without any disguise.1 As is analysed in the first section, the selection of works imported into a host culture reflects its own needs. This special issue on Ibsen demonstrates what young intellectuals and revolutionaries were musing about during that crucial historical period of rapid social and cultural transition: the questions of social reform, women’s liberation, individualism, and so forth. The introduction of Ibsenism thus functions as a catalyst, prompting people to ponder these central topics. It also points out a possible way for their resolution.
Nevertheless, as Ying-Ying Chien reveals in her analysis of the reception of Ibsen in China, “it is noteworthy that Ibsen’s plays and the related women’s issues were received in China not directly—that is, not as in the Norwegian context—but were transmuted into the Chinese context through certain important ‘intermediaries’ for specific purposes” (98). Ibsenism was not taken as a still and inflexible subject; instead, its themes were examined and selected carefully so that they could be revised to meet the specific expectations of the Chinese audience at that time. Among the Chinese intellectuals who presented Ibsenism to the readers, Hu Shi and Lu Xun are two essential figures. These two Chinese intellectuals were highly influential during the early 20th century, their interpretation and analysis of various literary works have played a significant role in changing Chinese society and culture, and their works even continue to be relevant to Chinese society and culture today. Interestingly, however, their interpretations of Ibsenism are very different, if not contradictory to each other. Hu Shi’s understanding is, as we will see, very idealistic and optimistic, while Lu Xun’s criticism connotes more worry and scepticism towards the compatibility of Ibsen’s ideas and the specific Chinese context. I will unfold my discussion on Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House, which tells the story of Nora Helmer, the housewife of the family, who gradually realizes that she has been the obedient doll or puppet of her husband while she took control of the children as her own puppets. Due to this realization, Nora eventually walks out of the house to seek her independence and freedom. I will analyse this divergence in Hu’s and Lu Xun’s interpretations by focusing on Nora, one figure in the play A Doll’s House. I will also discuss the issue of New Women in China, which is closely related to the two interpretations of Nora.
As is illustrated in Hu Shi’s essay on Ibsenism, the fundamental method of Ibsenism is realistic literature. He asserts that “considering none of us could be deemed free of responsibility for the evilness existing within the society, we must speak of the reality” (“Ibsenism”), as Ibsen has done in his plays.2 In other words, Hu deems Ibsen’s depiction of social ills as a reflective result of the author’s criticism of contemporary society and thus is a way of contributing to the larger social transformation. It is also important to notice that Hu’s analysis itself on Ibsen’s subject matters is a reflective result of his own position regarding those social issues. In his analysis, Hu identifies three aspects of social forces discussed variously in Ibsen’s plays regarding the problems of Norwegian society, viz., law, religion and morality, which are, as Chien points out, closely related to his own critique of “traditional Chinese norms and attitudes toward women with regard to religious superstition, social morality, and family values” (100). With the emphasis on Ibsen’s social critique, Hu attempts to show the symmetry between China and Norway, unveiling the similar problems existing within Chinese society. Another thematic core of Ibsenism illustrated by Hu is individualism. In his article, he explicitly claims that “the biggest evilness of the society is no more than the suppression of one’s individual characteristics which prevents him or her from freedom” (“Ibsenism”). From his perspective, individualism is one of the fundamental values of an independent nation, where every person should have the right to use their free will and thus be responsible for his or her own deeds. In short, Hu’s interpretation of Ibsenism focuses more on the relatively big and abstract issues such as social problems in general and the notion of individualism instead of diving into the specific social issues in China. Additionally, he ends his essay with an optimistic prediction of the future of China, expressing his hope of a “progressing society” that would improve slowly but smoothly, which is a very typical view in his mild progressive philosophy. This optimistic view is different from Ibsen’s own ending, which leaves space for interpretation as Ibsen does not provide any determined destiny for Nora who walks out at the end.
Lu Xun’s attitude towards Ibsen, however, is very different. First of all, Lu Xun does not deem Ibsen’s play as “realistic” in the same way as Hu Shi. Although it is undeniable that Ibsen has depicted the imperfections of society, Lu Xun views Ibsenism as a kind of poetics whose aim is essentially “writing poetry” (“Nora”), i.e., composing idealistic things, as he quoted from Ibsen’s confession, rather than faithfully demonstrating real problems of a society. In his speech “What Happens after Nora Walks Out” (《娜拉走后怎样》), Lu Xun reveals how Ibsen’s social plays are not complete and fulfilled regarding concrete social conditions by questioning Nora’s fate outside the time and space of this special play, viz., what will happen to Nora after the curtain falls, and what will become of her if she lives in contemporary China.
Focusing on the practical context of Chinese society at the time instead of the aesthetic effect or the idealistic plot of the play, Lu Xun’s prediction towards Nora’s fate is far less ideal and poetic compared to Hu Shi’s. His response is rather pessimistic: “Logically, however, Nora really has only two options [after she walked out]: to fall into degradation or to return home” (“Nora”). That is, taking into consideration the larger social and cultural environment, it is hardly possible for Nora to survive independently outside her home. First of all, Nora is not economically free,3 which makes it difficult for her to even resolve the problem of accommodation. Secondly, taking into consideration the dominant conservatism in society, the social environment would not support such a “New Woman” who runs away from home in order to seek freedom. As Lu Xun argues, the very best scenario is that Nora would live under the sympathy of others, which is, unfortunately, also “a loss of freedom” as the sympathy is given by others, rather than Nora’s own independent power. Not to mention that sympathy is such a momentary feeling that “would be stretched thin if a hundred Noras were to leave home while a thousand or a million Noras would only be met with disgust” (“Nora”). Therefore, the departure of Nora is bound to end up in tragedy even in its best scenario.
The last point Lu Xun makes in his speech even takes a darker view compared to Ibsen’s original theme and Hu Shi’s interpretation of the awakening of inner consciousness and individual freedom. In the last part of his speech, he extends the metaphor of “puppet” or “doll” from the range of family structure to the scale of the whole society. He continues to argue that even if Nora has eventually won her economic freedom, she will still be a puppet in Chinese society where, according to Lu Xun’s speech, everyone is another’s puppet, in the control of some while they hold the control of the others. The liberation Nora seeks is doomed to fail unless the larger social environment of people enslaving each other has changed. By reinterpreting the model provided by the source culture in relation to the milieu of the host culture, Lu Xun’s understanding of Ibsenism transcends its preliminary topics and starts to engage with the local environment and question the compatibility of the original ideas under the local context.
To conclude, as exemplified by Hu Shi’s and Lu Xun’s divergence in interpretation, Chinese Ibsenism demonstrates how the potential divergence happens within the process of the diffusion of world literature to a foreign culture. It is true that both interpretations can be indicated from the original works. For Hu Shi, his concentration on individualism and the analysis and critique of family structure is parallel to Ibsen’s original concerns, whereas Lu Xun’s scepticism in terms of economic freedom is not altogether without traces in Ibsen’s play. However, their chosen perspectives still vary due to the distinct expectations and needs of the interpreters themselves. In his Nora speech, Lu Xun famously addresses the idea that “The most painful thing in life is to wake from a dream and find there is no way out. People who dream are fortunate” (“Nora”). This line is adaptable regarding the two Ibsenisms of Hu Shi and Lu Xun. For the former, Ibsenism is a distant but approachable dream, bathing in the light of idealism and individualism. The latter, however, examining the themes through the lens of the local Chinese context, Lu Xun realizes that Ibsenism is only an illusion of reality, beneath which lies an unpredictable abyss, and only those who wake from deep sleep know the fatal danger waiting ahead.
The Metamorphosis of Remorse
Lu Xun’s short novel Regret For The Past (《伤逝》) was written in 1925, two years after his speech on Nora. The impact of the past discussion on Ibsenism is not invisible in this novel. It has an explicit reference to Ibsen and his A Doll’s House in its narration, and its theme and the protagonists’ characteristics are all representative regarding Lu Xun’s theses on Ibsenism, women liberation, economic freedom and social transformation. Regret For The Past thus can be viewed as a transformation of Ibsenism and Nora under the peculiar Chinese context, which embodies Lu Xun’s concerns towards the reality of society and nation.
Regret For The Past is a first-person, narrative novel telling the story of a “new youth” couple who was influenced by the Western idea of individualism and cohabited out of their free will disregarding their families’ objections. However, the larger social environment pushed the couple into an unfortunate destiny: after living together in a humble house on Chichao street, the female protagonist, Tzu-chun, was occupied with chores, whereas the male protagonist Chuan-sheng, the writer of this series of notes, found it difficult to get a good occupation to support their living. Busy translating works, Chuan-sheng grew more and more indifferent towards Tzu-jun. Eventually, Chuan-sheng indicated that they should part for the happiness of both, recalling their past conversation on Ibsen and his “free” and “strong-minded” Nora. One day in the next spring Chuan-sheng found that Tzu-chun was taken away by her father. The novel ends with Chuan-sheng being accidentally informed of Tzu-chun’s death and the regret and sorrow he felt towards this tragedy.
It is a commonly held interpretation in literature that the female protagonist Tzu-chun is apparently a response of Lu Xun towards Nora. Similar to Ibsen’s heroine, Tzu-chun gained the courage to leave her family in which the unequal state of its members was subjugating the freedom of individuals. By contrast, however, unlike Nora who walked into a bright and ideal future at the end of the play, Tzu-chun’s lack of freedom is not resolved by her departure from her family of origin. It is more accurate to say, using Lu Xun’s metaphor from his Nora speech, that Tzu-chun ceased to be the puppet of her family of origin, but started to become the puppet of her lover. As Chien incisively observes, even from the very beginning, when Tzu-chun chose to rebel against her father and uncle, “she is already depicted as very much influenced by her lover both emotionally and intellectually” (109), inspired mainly by Chuan-sheng’s empty advocacy of freedom, independence, and new youth. After running away with her lover, Tzu-chun was still economically dependent on him, which makes the relationship between her and Chuan-sheng remain unbalanced. With the enlargement of gaps between them both in terms of economy and intellect, Tzu-chun becomes more and more inferior in this relationship, which drags her towards her destiny. As Chien comments on Tzu-chun’s fate,
Although [she wins] the freedom to choose whom to love and share their lives with, [she is] not given the opportunity to question the male-dominated power structure. Running away from one large family, [she] unwittingly [falls] into the trap of another smaller one (their lover/ husband’s): [Tzu-chun] dissolves in her lover’s apartment under his (in)visible control. Still seen as the “other,” our Chinese New Women are not given the power to see themselves as subjects in relation to their male counterparts. (108)
In short, the future of Chinese women is not as easy to change as is depicted in Ibsen’s play. Without questioning and overthrowing the essential imbalance that lies within the division of power between man and woman, Nora will never be able to really “walk out” of her family, and Tzu-chun’s tragic ending can never be redeemed.
Besides the inequality between man and woman, the indifference and ignorance of the larger social environment also constitute Tzu-chun’s tragic fate, separating her from the version of Nora in the original play. Several times in the novel, Chuan-sheng complains about the cold weather outside, alluding to the stagnant and unconcerned atmosphere spread throughout the whole society. The majority of people then were hostile to any reformation, despising the new youth and revolutionaries. This situation worsened the living condition of young people like Chuan-sheng and Tzu-chun both in the physical and spiritual sense. In his speech given two years prior, “What Happens After Nora Walks Out,” Lu Xun was still cautiously optimistic about the possible sympathy given by people in society as the best scenario for Nora. In this novel, however, even the minuscule possibility of sympathy is deprived. For instance, Chuan-sheng was dismissed from his former post due to the rumour related to him and Tzu-chun, which is an unfortunate inflection in the novel, throwing the couple to their worst. The indifference and enmity of the society towards the new youth are the straw that broke the camel’s back. The only things remaining are “the cold weather” and “cold wind” (Regret), which make it impossible for them to be comfortable at home and outside. The coldness—which is the symbolic representation of the indifferent and conservative mass—has witnessed Tzu-chun’s degradation from a lively “new woman,” free of shackles and burdens, to one who is occupied with house-keeping, too busy to read, under the implicit control of her lover, and eventually abandoned and dead without any love or hope.
Tzu-chun is no doubt a kind of metamorphosis of Nora, changed according to the peculiar cultural and social environment. Recalling Lu Xun’s attitude towards Nora, it is noteworthy that Tzu-chun’s fate realizes the hypotheses of Lu Xun in terms of Nora’s destination after she walked out: fall into degradation or go home. What is more pessimistic compared to the opinion revealed in the speech two years earlier, however, is that it is no longer a question of either-or; fate can choose both options simultaneously: Tzu-chun died both of degradation and of her second submission to patriarchy. At the same time, besides being a metamorphosis of Nora, Tzu-chun is also undergoing a kind of Kafkaesque metamorphosis. Kafka’s Gregor Samsa turns from a person to a monstrous vermin because of his alienation by humanity and the isolation following it; Lu Xun’s Nora, Tzu-chun, being a liberal and tenacious “new woman” at the beginning of the story, gradually degenerates into a miserable figure because of the indifference and the stagnancy of the whole society. Tzu-chun is, like Gregor, alienated and isolated by the society; she ends up turning from Nora to an immanent vermin whose voice is no longer able to be heard, and is abandoned and dead without the notice of the rest of the world.
Conclusion
Ibsenism in China has multiple faces, which instantiate the divergence and transformation occurring in the process of the phenomenal diffusion of world literature. As has been demonstrated in this essay, Ibsen’s plays are read variously and are interpreted according to different people’s concerns. In the case of Hu Shi and Lu Xun, the former emphasizes individualism and corresponding social critiques indicated within the script’s content, while the latter’s scepticism towards the untold future after the ending of the play provides a kind of revised version or continuity of Ibsen’s themes. Lu Xun’s adaptation of Ibsen, moreover, illustrates how the thematic core of a work can undergo, or even be forced to undergo, crucial metamorphosis when confronting a foreign culture. It shows that the foreign culture, while similar with the source culture superficially at first sight, may differ largely regarding deeper elements such as peculiar social ills, specific historical and cultural background.
As is illustrated in the examination of Ibsenism, instead of being a conception a priori, unchanging and universally valid, the notion “World Literature” is a dialectical whole constituted by both ideas and values provided by the source culture and expectation and ideology by the host culture. It is not a one-way conception, transferring its spirit one-dimensionally from one part of the world to the rest as an omnipotent savior, but a mutual conversation between the original culture and the foreign audiences. On the side of the original culture, the example set by the text can trigger various social reactions and can even provide certain, though not adequate, instructions to resolve the problem discussed by the literature. On the side of the reception, the host culture ruminates and criticizes the presented ideas according to its own special social conditions. If the notion of World Literature is confined only as to impose an unchangeable idea to the rest of the world, it is only an impossible dream. Vain is the attempt of this unrealistic “world literature” to achieve the state of a generalized theory as a unity of ideas feasible for everything, for problems that emerge locally are unpredictable. The pain, suffering, and trauma embodied within a certain culture are unpredictable, mixed with subtle components which are beyond the reach of any abstract theory. World Literature is made possible only through the metamorphosis of the ideas, the dynamic forum with the participation of all cultures, within which the ideas connoted in the text are shaped and criticized so that it can evolve and interweave into concrete social, cultural, and historical conversations.
Endnotes
1 Although the term Ibsenism is a very flexible notion which includes a series of genealogy of meanings and connotations, this essay does not aim at defining this notion (Actually the Irish writer Bernard Shaw has written a book on Ibsen’s plays and ideas—which he refers to using one single word “Ibsenism”—with the title The Quintessence of Ibsenism, discussing Ibsen’s receptions in England. But it is uncertain whether this book has an influence on Hu Shi and Lu Xun, and the reception of Ibsen’s works in England is not this essay’s focus, which would differ from Chinese reception enormously considering the difference in time, culture and social environment). Instead of analysing Ibsenism the notion an sich, this essay will focus on a specific case, viz., how Ibsenism is interpreted and utilized in China, so to demonstrate the term’s flexibility as an example of the transformation of idea and conception within the larger dialectical body of world literature.
2《易卜生主义》. Translated by me.
3 One of the thematic threads throughout the original play is the plot of Nora trying to pay off her debt.
Works Cited
Chien, Ying-Ying. “Feminism and China’s New ‘Nora’: Ibsen, Hu Shi & Lu Xun.” The Comparatist, vol. 19, 1995, pp. 97–113. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44366898. Accessed 18 Nov. 2018.
Damrosch, David. “World Literature, National Contexts.” Modern Philology, vol. 100, no. 4, 2003, pp. 512–531.
JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/379981. Accessed 18 Nov. 2018.
Hu, Shi. 易卜生主义 / “Ibsenism”. La Jeunesse, vol. 4, no. 6, 1918. https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/易卜生主義 Accessed 18 Nov. 2018.
Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Dover Publication, 1992.
Lu Xun. Selected Stories of Lu Hsun, Trans. Yang Hsien-yi and Gladys Yang. Foreign Language Press, 1960, 1972.
—. “What Happens After Nora Walks Out.” Trans. Bonnie S. McDougall. https://chinachannel.org/2017/09/29/lu-xun-nora/. Accessed 18 Nov. 2018.
Pizer, John. “Goethe’s ‘World Literature’ Paradigm and Contemporary Cultural Globalization.” Comparative Literature, vol. 52, no. 3, 2000, pp. 213–227. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1771407. Accessed 18 Nov.
Shestov, Lev. Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Nietzsche, edited by Bernard Martin, Ohio University Press, 1969.