^1. See Konrad, G. and Szelényi, I., The Intellectuals on the Road to Class Power (Harvester Press, 1979), p. 22.Google Scholar

^2. For further discussion on the dual functions of Chinese intellectuals see Jilin, Xu, “Jintui weigude kunhuo” (“The perplexing state of being caught in a dilemma”), in Zouxiang weilai (Towards the Future), No. 2 (1987).Google Scholar

^3. There are several ways of defining the different generations of Chinese intellectuals. For Li Zehou's and V. Schwarcz's analysis of the six generations of modern Chinese intellectuals see Chinese Studies in History, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (1983–1984).Google Scholar For Liu Xiaofeng's definition see Yusheng, Lin (ed.), Wusi: Duoyuande fansi (May Fourth: Pluralistic Reflections) (Hong Kong Sanlian shudian, 1989).Google Scholar

^4. See People's Daily (overseas edition), 12 03 1992.Google Scholar

^5. See Zehou, Li, Zou wo zijide lu (I Walk My Own Path) (Beijing: Sanlian shudian 1986)Google Scholar, and The Path of Beauty (Beijing: Morning Glory Publishers, 1988).Google Scholar

^6. See Zehou, Li, I Walk My Own Path, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

^7. The Philosophy Institute in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, where Li has been working since 1954, is politically sensitive. It has nurtured the careers of several prominent intellectuals who have previously held or currently hold key positions in the Chinese political and cultural establishment. However, despite his influence at the theoretical level over the last decade, Li's official position is still no higher than a research fellow and vice-chairman of the All-China Aesthetics Society, a scholarly association. He was also selected as a delegate to the seventh National People's Congress, which is basically an honorary position with little political substance.

^8. Zehou, Li, I Walk My Own Path, p. 4.Google Scholar

^9. Ibid. pp. 3–4.

^10. Ibid. pp. 60–63, 200–201.

^11. Li Zehou was deeply influenced by Lukács' thought. Lukács' pursuit of a new philosophical ontology in the later years of his life became the theoretical inspiration for and source of Li's exploration of social ontology on which his theory of human subjectivity is based. (This point was mentioned by Li Zehou himself in his talk with the author in April 1985.) There are also many similarities between them. Both have a strong interest in aesthetics. As D. Bell pointed out, Lukács is the first member of the modern western intelligentsia to “cross self-consciously … from the realm of aesthetics to politics…” (Bell, D., “After the age of sinfulness,” Times Literary Supplement, 26 07 1991, p. 5Google Scholar). Li can be considered the first Chinese intellectual in modern China to make this crossing. The underlying principles of both Lukács's and Li Zehou's systems derived from the Enlightenment tradition a kind of rationality which has been developed from Bacon, Locke, Kant and Hegel to Marx.

^12. Zehou, Li, I Walk My Own Path, p. 91.Google Scholar Li's work also shows some theoretical influence from Jean Piaget's genetic epistemology and the Frankfurt School, as well as French existentialism and structuralism.

^13. See Huoren, He (ed.), Dangqian wenxue zhutixing wenti lunzheng (The Current Debate on the Question of Subjectivity in Literature) (Fuzhou: Haixia wenyi chubanshe, 1986).Google Scholar

^14. See Xiaobo, Liu, Xuanze de pipan (A Selective Critique) (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1988), p. 1.Google Scholar

^15. See Zehou, Li, “Kant zhexue yu jianli zhutixing lungang” (“Kant's philosophy and an outline for establishing subjectivity”)Google Scholar and “Guanyu zhutixing de buchong shuoming” (“Supplementary explanations on subjectivity”) in Li Zehou zhexue meixue wenxuan (A Selection of Li Zehou's Works on Philosophy and Aesthetics) (Changsha: Hunan renmin chubanshe, 1985)Google Scholar; “Guanyu zhutixing de disange tigang” (“A third outline on subjectivity”) in Zouxiang weilai (Towards the Future), No. 3, 1987.Google Scholar

^16. Ibid.

^17. See Zehou, Li, Li Zehou ji (A Collection of the Works of Li Zehou) (Harbin: Heilongjiang jiaoyu chubanshe, 1988), p. 506.Google Scholar

^18. Ibid. p. 506.

^19. Ibid. pp. 499 and 506.

^20. Zehou, Li, Pipan zhexuede pipan (A Critique of Critical Philosophy) (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1979), p. 407.Google Scholar

^21. See Zehou, Li, Wode zhexue tigang (An Outline of my Philosophy) (Taipei: Fengyun shidai chuban gongsi, 1990), p. 218.Google Scholar

^22. See Zehou, Li, A Critique, p. 407.Google Scholar

^23. See Zehou, Li, “Guanyu zhutixing de disange tigang.”Google Scholar

^24. Ibid.

^25. See Zehou, Li, A Critique, p. 201.Google Scholar

^26. Ibid. pp. 201 and 406–408.

^27. See Reiss, H. (ed. and trans.), Kant's Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), p. 54.Google Scholar

^28. See Li Zehou ji, p. 515.Google Scholar

^29. See Zehou, Li, A Critique, p. 73.Google Scholar

^30. See Li Zehou ji, p. 504.Google Scholar

^31. See Zehou, Li, A Critique, pp. 13–76Google Scholar and “A third outline.”

^32. See Li Zehou ji, p. 505.Google Scholar

^33. Ibid. p. 504.

^34. Ibid. p. 505.

^35. Ibid. pp. 504–505.

^36. Ibid. p. 515.

^37. Ibid.

^38. Ibid. pp. 515–16.

^39. Ibid. pp. 516.

^40. Ibid.

^41. Ibid.

^42. Ibid. pp. 516–17.

^43. See Zehou, Li, “A third outline.”Google Scholar

^44. Ibid.

^45. Ibid.

^46. Ibid.

^47. Ibid.

^48. See Li Zehou ji, p. 509Google Scholar and Zehou, Li, A Critique, p. 201.Google Scholar

^49. See Li Zehou ji, p. 509.Google Scholar

^50. Kelly, D, “The emergence of humanism: Wang Ruoshui and the critique of socialist alienation,” in Goldman, M., Cheek, T. and Hamrin, C. L. (eds.), Chinese Intellectuals and the State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), p. 181.Google Scholar

^51. Ibid. For further details on this debate, see Brugger, Bill and Kelly, David, Chinese Marxism in the Post-Mao Era (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), pp. 139–170.Google Scholar

^52. Kelly, , “The emergence of humanism,” p. 177.Google Scholar

^53. Ibid. p. 163.

^54. Li Zehou ji, pp. 266–67.Google Scholar

^55. Ibid. p. 267.

^56. See Zehou, Li, “1949–1986: Zhongguo yishi xingtaide fansi” (“Reflections on Chinese ideology, 1949–1986”), in Yanzhong, Xiao (ed.) Zhishifenzi ping wannian Mao Zedong (Intellectuals Evaluate Mao Zedong's Later Years) (Hong Kong: Zhongyang chuban gongsi, 1989), pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

^57. Ibid.

^58. Li Zehou ji, p. 267.Google Scholar

^59. Ibid. pp. 267–68.

^60. Ibid.

^61. See Zehou, Li, A Critique, p. 401.Google Scholar

^62. Ibid. p. 402.

^63. Ibid. p. 403.

^64. Ibid. p. 404.

^65. Ibid. pp. 405–406.

^66. See Hicks, George (ed.), The Broken Mirror (Harlow: Longman 1990), pp. 30–34Google Scholar and also Xiaokang, Su et al. , Long de beichuang (The Tragic Sorrow of the Dragon) (Taipei: Fengyun shidai 1989).Google Scholar

^67. Zhiqin, Liu, “Wenhua fansi” (“Reflections on culture”), in Zou xiang weilai, No. 2.Google Scholar

^68. Zhiqin, Liu (ed.), Wenhua weiji yu zhanwang – Tai Gang xuezhe lun Zhongguo wenhua (Crisis and the Prospects for Culture – Taiwanese and Hong Kong Scholars Discuss Chinese Culture) (Beijing: Zhongguo qingnian chubanshe, 1989), p. 547.Google Scholar

^69. See Zehou, Li, Zhongguo gudai sixiang shilun (On the History of Traditional Chinese Thought) (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1985)Google Scholar; Zhongguo jindai sixiang shilun (On the History of Modern Chinese Thought) (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1979)Google Scholar; Zhongguo xiandai sixiang shilun (On the History of Contemporary Chinese Thought) (Beijing: Dongfang chubanshe, 1987).Google Scholar

^70. Zehou, Li, I Walk My Own Path, p. 201.Google Scholar

^71. Ibid. pp. 230 and 332.

^72. The official press has recently criticized this concept, See Renmin ribao, 15 06 1990Google Scholar and 10 August 1990.

^73. See University, Fudan (ed.), Zhongguo chuantong wenhuade zai guji (A Reappraisal of Traditional Chinese Culture) (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe 1987), p. 240.Google Scholar

^74. See Yusheng, Lin, May Fourth: Pluralistic Reflections, p. 258.Google Scholar

^75. See Li Zehou ji, p. 332.Google Scholar

^76. Ibid. p. 355 and Zehou, Li, Contemporary Chinese Thought, p. 335.Google Scholar

^77. Li Zehou ji, p. 332.Google Scholar

^78. Zehou, Li, I Walk My Own Path, p. 227.Google Scholar

^79. Ibid. and Zehou, Li, Contemporary Chinese Thought, p. 336.Google Scholar

^80. Li Zehou ji, p. 355.Google Scholar

^81. Zehou, Li, Contemporary Chinese Thought, p. 336.Google Scholar

^82. Li Zehou ji, p. 358.Google Scholar

^83. Zehou, Li, I Walk My Own Path, p. 227.Google Scholar

^84. Ibid. p. 230.

^85. Zehou, Li, Contemporary Chinese Thought, p. 33.Google Scholar

^86. Li Zehou ji, p. 357.Google Scholar

^87. Zehou, Li, I Walk My Own Path, pp. 228–29.Google Scholar

^88. Zehou, Li, Contemporary Chinese Thought, p. 335.Google Scholar

^89. Li Zehou ji, p. 225.Google Scholar

^90. Ibid. p. 358.

^91. Ibid.

^92. Zehou, Li, Contemporary Chinese Thought, p. 340.Google Scholar

^93. Ibid. pp. 338–340.

^94. Zehou, Li, I Walk My Own Path, p. 202.Google Scholar

^95. Zehou, Li, Traditional Chinese Thought, pp. 321–22.Google Scholar

^96. Zehou, Li, Contemporary Chinese Thought, p. 338.Google Scholar

^97. In 1988, when returning from Singapore after a year as a senior visiting scholar, Li gave an illuminating interview to a Hong Kong journalist. When asked about his future plans, Li stated that he simply wanted to get on with some reading. He also stated that he felt uncomfortable with strangers, disliked making speeches and avoided socializing (Yusheng, Lin, May Fourth: Pluralistic Reflections, p. 267)Google Scholar Clearly, Li intended to continue his scholarly pursuits in China, and not become involved in political activities. However, from his subsequent actions during the students' movement, it is evident that he was forced to sacrifice his position of critical detachment for political imperatives.

^98. See Yan, Xuan, Jingdu Xuehuo (Blood and Fire in the Capital) (Nongcun duwu, 1989), pp. 1–37.Google Scholar

^99. See Jiushi mandai, The Nineties, No. 5 (1991), p. 39Google Scholar, and The Nineties, No. 2 (1992), pp. 86–87.Google Scholar

^100. In Chinese communist thinking, “problems in thinking” and “political problems” belong to two different political categories. The former is classified as a “contradiction among the people,” whilst the latter is a “contradiction between ourselves and the enemy.”

^101. See Renmin ribao, 5 07 1990 and 9 05 1991.Google Scholar

^102. See Yusheng, Lin, May Fourth: Pluralistic Reflections, p. 255.Google Scholar

^103. Ibid. p. 253.

^104. See Renmin ribao, 9 05 1991.Google Scholar

^105. See Yusheng, Lin, May Fourth: Pluralistic Reflections, p. 267.Google Scholar

^106. For additional information on the social background to the involvement of intellectuals in the political process of 1988–89 see Nathan, Andrew J., China's Crisis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), pp. 95–116.Google Scholar

^107. It may be an interesting historical coincidence that the social contexts of Hegel and Li Zehou share some important similarities despite the substantial spatial and temporal differences: both are characterized by an authoritarian power structure which, facing both internal and external threats, embarked on a programme of social reforms.

^108. See Xiabo, Liu, A Selective Critique, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

^109. Ibid.

^110. See Yusheng, Li, May Fourth: Pluralistic Reflections, pp. 260–63.Google Scholar

^111. Ibid.

^112. Ibid. p. 263.

^113. Ibid. pp. 62–81.

^114. Ibid.

^115. See Li Zehou ji, pp. 323–28Google Scholar and Renmin ribao, 12 04 1988.Google Scholar

^116. Li's social position, his influence, and even his personal dilemma in contemporary Chinese society can be compared to that of Hu Shi during the May Fourth era.

^117. Goodman, D. S. G. (ed.), Groups and Politics in the PRC (Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press, 1984), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

^118. Sinanian, S., Deak, I. and Ludz, P. C. (eds.), Eastern Europe in the 1970s (London: Praeger, 1974).Google Scholar

^119. See Goldman, , Cheek, and Hamrin, , China's intellectuals and the State, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

^120. See Sinanian, , Deak, and Ludz, , Eastern Europe in the 1970s, p. 57.Google Scholar

^121. Ibid. p. 45.

^122. Ibid. p. 55.

^123. A comparison can be made with Meyer's discussion on Eastern Europe. See Ibid. p. 69.

^124. There are other signs of a more relaxed political atmosphere. After more than two years of being denied the right to travel abroad, Li Zehou was finally allowed to make an academic visit to the United States at the beginning of 1992. This came about partly as a result of international pressure, but also undeniably as a consequence of changes in the political climate.