By Zhan Jiang (展江), a professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University
Economic Observer Online
July 26, 2012
Translated by Laura Lin
Original article: [Chinese]

I boarded a flight from Guangzhou to Beijing on July 25 and the air hostess gave me a copy of the Chinese-language edition of The Global Times (环球时报).

Flicking through the pages, it seems as if the headlines in that day's issue were less sensational than was usual.

But when I got to the international commentary section, there was a piece that showed that the newspaper hadn't lost its ability to shock - It was titled: A proposal for repealing the appellation of intellectuals (建议取消“知识分子”的称谓).

As expected, within a short time China's major Internet portals were abuzz with various responses and reaction.

Liu Zhiqin (刘志勤), the author of the article, is not unfamiliar. Earlier this year he published another strongly-worded article in the Global Times called "Urging America to reform and to open up" (应督促美国改革开放). Mr Liu (or the editors at The Global Times) seems to have mastered the art of startling the public with astonishing headlines.

Liu has quite an impressive title, Chief Representative of the Beijing Office of the Bank of Zurich, Switzerland.

Liu's curriculum vitae is equally impressive. Since graduating from the Beijing Language and Culture University, he worked in various sectors before going abroad, where he majored in international finance and trade management at the University of Frankfurt, in Germany. Since then he has been responsible for the operations in China of several major banks from Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Not only is Liu capable of specific analysis and understanding of economic and financial affairs, he is also attentive to international affairs.

No matter from which perspective you look, Liu is by any standard an intellectual himself - a  知识分子 zhīshifènzǐ- So why does he want to abolish the term? He gave three reasons:

First, the appellation zhishifenzi lacks a clear legal definition and it cannot be decided according to whether an individual has been to univesity or not.

Second, it's an outdated title.

Third, the concept of the intellectual has "kidnapped" the Chinese education system and created social injustices.

Liu also suggested that using titles such as "teacher", "doctor" and "engineer" in referring to professionals who do intellectual work will "inevitably foster the progress of China's human rights."

I wouldn't dare to doubt Liu's foreign language skills and financial expertise. Nevertheless, I am indeed worried about his logic and ability to communicate in Chinese.

To tell the truth, I read over Liu's article many times, but aside from the catchy headline, I wasn't able to get the point of his argument.

Liu might be anxious about the social divide between the intellectuals with a university education and people without. But when you think about it, Liu is probably indicating that the latter has a relatively lower status.

Is that the case? During the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), people who were considered to be members of the "stinky ninth," a disparaging term for intellectuals, were persecuted. Since China has started opening up and implementing reforms, their situation has obviously improved. Today, however, Liu believes that the intellectual class is held in higher regard in society than the laboring class.

He writes that "the word intellectual is a remnant of an old culture, old concepts and old consciousness."

This is confusing since the term "intellectual" is a concept born with the modernization of Europe to describe people who had neither money nor nobility, but were secular "literate thinkers." In China where that modernization was delayed, this title appeared only after the birth of the modern education system. At most, it's only about 100 years old.

As for Liu's proposal that "legislators should review the situation in accordance with the new conditions and see if it is necessary to carve out the group of people as intellectuals," the syntax and logic become obviously problematic since the division of social classes is not the responsibility of legislators, nor does the concept of "carving out intellectuals" make any sense.

Liu also believes that fostering intellectuals has degenerated into a system that creates educational as well as social injustice.
This is also very confusing.

Since the national college entrance exam was restored at the end of the Cultural Revolution, it remains the fairest way to cultivate talent in a country where society is in transition and the justice system is still lagging behind.

Even more baffling is Liu's rhetoric about the relation between intellectuals and the Internet. He claims that "a minority of intellectuals have lost their honesty, gentleness, as well as kindness and have started using micro-blogging platforms to disseminate lies, rumors, calumnies and rubbish. They undermine social peace and stability. Their special aura, their ultra socio-legal privileges as well as their social superiority ought to be deleted."

That the misdemeanors of a minority of intellectuals should lead to a punishment of all intellectuals is absurd. Moreover, once the label of "undermining social stability" is pinned to the intelligentsia, China's human rights are certainly not going to progress, quite the opposite.

If we borrow the terminology of Wikipedia, "an intellectual is a person who uses thought and reason, intelligence and critical or analytical reasoning, in either a professional or a personal capacity."  

Putting this definition into the contemporary China context, one can denote three types of Chinese intellectuals as such.

First, the policy intellectuals whose role is to offer advice to those in power, they are often staff members, policy researchers or specialized college professors.

Second, there are the technical intellectuals who earn their living by virtue of their scientific expertise and knowledge.

Third, the humanistic literati or public intellectuals, among them Karl Marx was a typical representative, whose mission was "to mercilessly criticize all reality."

Such persons tend to alienate themselves from the powerful and the rich and are thus usually dirt poor, but they are often referred to as the social conscience.

I believe Liu Zhiqin is not advocating for the abolishment of the first two groups of intellectuals. So is he advocating the removal of the identity of the third type, the down-and-out literati?

News in English via World Crunch (link)