Hubbry Logo
May Fourth MovementMay Fourth MovementMain
Open search
May Fourth Movement
Community hub
May Fourth Movement
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
May Fourth Movement
May Fourth Movement
May Fourth Movement
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
"Wusi" redirects here. For other uses, see WUSI.
Not to be confused with June 4th movement.

May Fourth Movement
Approximately 3,000 students from 13 Beijing universities gathered in Tiananmen Square
DateMay 4, 1919
Location
Republic of China
Resulted in
Parties
Protesters
May Fourth Movement
Traditional Chinese五四運動
Simplified Chinese五四运动
Literal meaning5-4 Movement
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu PinyinWǔsì yùndòng
Bopomofoㄨˇ ㄙˋ ㄩㄣˋ ㄉㄨㄥˋ
Gwoyeu RomatzyhWuusyh yunndonq
Wade–GilesWu3-ssu4 yün4-tung4
Tongyong PinyinWǔ-sìh yùn-dòng
IPA[ù.sɨ̂ ŷn.tʊ̂ŋ]
Yue: Cantonese
Yale RomanizationŃgh-sei wahn-duhng
JyutpingNg5 sei3 wan6 dung6
IPA[ŋ.sej˧ wɐn˨.tʊŋ˨]
Southern Min
Tâi-lôNgó-sì ūn-tūng

The May Fourth Movement was a Chinese cultural and anti-imperialist political movement which grew out of student protests in Beijing on May 4, 1919. Students gathered in front of Tiananmen to protest the Chinese government's weak response to the Treaty of Versailles decision to allow the Empire of Japan to retain territories in Shandong that had been surrendered by the German Empire after the Siege of Tsingtao in 1914. The demonstrations sparked nationwide protests and spurred an upsurge in Chinese nationalism, a shift towards political mobilization, away from cultural activities, and a move towards a populist base, away from traditional intellectual and political elites.

The May Fourth demonstrations marked a turning point in a broader anti-traditional New Culture Movement (1915–1921) that sought to replace traditional Confucian values and was itself a continuation of late Qing reforms. Even after 1919, these educated "new youths" still defined their role with a traditional model in which the educated elite took responsibility for both cultural and political affairs.[1] They opposed traditional culture but looked abroad for cosmopolitan inspiration in the name of nationalism and were an overwhelmingly urban movement that espoused populism in an overwhelmingly rural country. Many political and social leaders of the next five decades emerged at this time, including those of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).[2]

Background

[edit]
Further information: Warlord Era

Oxford University historian Rana Mitter observed that the "atmosphere and political mood that emerged around 1919 are at the center of a set of ideas that has shaped China's momentous twentieth century."[3] The Qing dynasty had disintegrated in 1911, marking the end of thousands of years of imperial rule, and ushered a new era in which political power nominally rested with the people, but Confucianism still had a profound influence on social and political relations. After the death of President Yuan Shikai in 1916, China became dominated by warlords who were concerned with building political power and rival regional armies. The government in Beijing could do little to counter foreign influence and control.[3] Chinese Premier Duan Qirui's signing of the secret Sino-Japanese Joint Defence Agreement in 1918 enraged the Chinese public when it was leaked to the press, and sparked a student protest movement that laid the groundwork for the May Fourth Movement.[4] The March 1st Movement in Korea in 1919, the Russian Revolution of 1917, continued defeats by foreign powers and the presence of spheres of influence further inflamed Chinese nationalism among the emerging middle class and cultural leaders.[3]

Leaders of the New Culture Movement blamed traditional Confucian values for the political weakness of the nation.[5][6] Chinese nationalists called for a rejection of traditional values and the adoption of Western ideals of "Mr. Science" (賽先生; 赛先生; Sài xiānsheng) and "Mr. Democracy" (德先生; Dé xiānsheng) in place of "Mr. Confucius" in order to strengthen the new nation.[7][8]: 352  These iconoclastic and anti-traditional views and programs have influenced China's politics and culture to the present day.[9]

Twenty-One Demands

[edit]
Main article: Twenty-One Demands

The twenty-one demands were a set of proposals presented by the Ōkuma Shigenobu government to the Yuan Shikai administration in hopes of expanding Japanese power in China. The demands consisted of a variety of economic and territorial provisions. These included the expansion of Japanese interests in southern Manchuria and eastern Mongolia, in addition to the confirmation of Japan's seizure of German ports in China's Shandong province.

In early 1915, Japan's submission of the twenty-one demands were revealed to the Chinese public, causing an outbreak of anti-Japanese sentiment in China, particularly in the Chinese press. The twenty-one demands ultimately added fuel to the rising tensions between the two countries, playing an important role in triggering the impending May Fourth Movement.

Shandong Problem

[edit]
Main article: Shandong Problem

China had entered World War I on the side of the Triple Entente in 1917. Although that year, 140,000 Chinese laborers were sent to the Western Front as a part of the Chinese Labor Corps,[10] the Treaty of Versailles ratified in April 1919 awarded rights to the German territories in Shandong to Japan. The representatives of the Chinese government put forth the following requests:

  1. Abolition of all privileges of foreign powers in China, such as extraterritoriality
  2. Cancelling of the Twenty-One Demands
  3. Return to China of the territory and rights of Shandong, which Japan had taken from Germany during World War I.

The Western allies dominated the meeting at Versailles, and paid little heed to Chinese demands. The European delegations, led by French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, were primarily interested in punishing Germany. Although the American delegation promoted Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and the ideals of self-determination, they were unable to advance these ideals in the face of stubborn resistance by David Lloyd George and Clemenceau. American advocacy of self-determination at the League of Nations was attractive to Chinese intellectuals, but their failure to follow through was seen as a betrayal. This failure of diplomacy at the Paris Peace Conference created what became known as the "Shandong Problem".[11][12]

Protests

[edit]

May 4, 1919

[edit]
Tsinghua University students burning Japanese goods
Peking Normal University students detained by the government during the May Fourth Movement

On the morning of May 4, 1919, student representatives from thirteen different local universities met in Beijing and drafted five resolutions:

  1. To oppose the granting of Shandong to the Japanese under former German concessions.
  2. To draw and increase awareness of China's precarious position to the masses in China.
  3. To recommend a large-scale gathering in Beijing.
  4. To promote the creation of a Beijing student union.
  5. To hold a demonstration that afternoon in protest to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

On the afternoon of May 4, over 4,000 students of Yenching University, Peking University and other schools marched from many points to gather in front of Tiananmen. They shouted such slogans as "struggle for the sovereignty externally, get rid of the national traitors at home", "Give Qingdao back to us!",[13] "do away with the Twenty-One Demands", and "don't sign the Versailles Treaty".

Protestors voiced their anger at the Allied betrayal of China, denounced the government's spineless inability to protect Chinese interests, and called for a boycott of Japanese products. Demonstrators insisted on the resignation of three Chinese officials they accused of being collaborators with the Japanese. After burning the residences of these officials and beating some of their servants, student protesters were arrested, jailed, and severely beaten.[14]

Participants

[edit]
Female students participate in May Fourth demonstrations

On May 4, 1919, a group of Chinese students began protesting the contents of the Paris Peace Conference. Under the pressure, the Chinese delegation refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles. The original participants of the May Fourth Movement were students in Paris and Beijing, who joined forces to strike and take to the streets to express their dissatisfaction with the government. Some advanced students in Shanghai and Guangzhou joined the protest movement as it progressed, gradually forming a wave of mass student strikes across China. In June 1919, the Beijing government carried out the "June 3" arrests, in which nearly 1,000 students were arrested. However, this did not suppress the patriotic student movement, instead further angering the Chinese public and increasing revolutionary sentiment. Workers and businessmen across the country went on strike in support of the students' movement, marking the entrance of the Chinese working class into the political arena.

With the emergence of working-class support, the May Fourth Movement developed to a new stage. The center of the movement shifted from Beijing to Shanghai, and the working class replaced students as the main force of the movement. The Shanghai working class staged a strike of an unprecedented scale. The growing scale of the national strike and the increasing number of its participants led to a paralysis of the country's economic life and posed a serious threat to the government in Beijing. The working class took the place of the students to stand up and resist. The support for this movement throughout the country reflected the enthusiasm for nationalism and national rejuvenation, which was also the foundation for the development and expansion of the May Fourth Movement. Benjamin I. Schwartz added, "Nationalism which was, of course, a dominant passion of the May Fourth experience was not so much a separate ideology as a common disposition."[15]

During the May Fourth era, pledges of celibacy were a means through which participants resisted traditional marriage and devote themselves to revolutionary causes.[16]: 97 

Expansion

[edit]

On May 5, students in Beijing as a whole went on strike and in the larger cities across China, students, patriotic merchants, and workers joined protests. The demonstrators skillfully appealed to the newspapers and sent representatives to carry the word across the country. On the morning of May 6, students from Shanghai gathered at Fudan University in response to the events in Beijing. By the evening, meetings and special committees were held at various campuses in Shanghai, and telegrams were sent to the Beijing government in the name of the 33 representatives of different campuses in Shanghai to express their protest. Over the next few days, the movement grew in size. Students in Shanghai began striking at the end of May. During this time, disagreements arose within the protesters about the intensity of the protests, but the protests as a whole were seen to be intensifying.

On June 3, police in Beijing arrested a large number of students. To express their disapproval to it, businessmen and workers in Shanghai joined the strike. The center of the movement shifted from Beijing to Shanghai. Chancellors from thirteen universities arranged for the release of student prisoners, and Cai Yuanpei, the principal of Peking University resigned in protest. Although at this point the event was defined as a multi-class protest action, overall it was still a student-led movement.

Newspapers, magazines, citizen societies, and chambers of commerce offered support for the students. Merchants threatened to withhold tax payments if China's government remained obstinate.[17] In Shanghai, a general strike of merchants and workers nearly devastated the entire Chinese economy.[14] On June 12, the general strike ended because under intense public pressure, the Beijing government dismissed Cao Rulin, Zhang Zongxiang and Lu Zongyu that had been accused of being collaborators with the Japanese. Nevertheless, students continued to express their protest against the content of the Versailles Peace Treaty by organizing rallies and other events at that time, and organized the National Student Union. Finally, Chinese representatives in Paris refused to sign the Versailles Treaty: the May Fourth Movement won an initial victory which was primarily symbolic, since Japan for the moment retained control of the Shandong Peninsula and the islands in the Pacific. Even the partial success of the movement exhibited the ability of China's social classes across the country to successfully collaborate given proper motivation and leadership.[14]

Significance

[edit]
The sculpture of "Wind of May" in Qingdao, Shandong
A monument to the May Fourth Movement in Dongcheng, Beijing

Scholars rank the New Culture and May Fourth Movements as significant turning points, as David Der-wei Wang said, "it was the turning point in China's search for literary modernity",[18] along with the abolition of the civil service system in 1905 and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1911. The challenge to traditional Chinese values, however, was also met with strong opposition, especially from parts of the Kuomintang. From their perspective, the movement destroyed the positive elements of Chinese tradition and placed a heavy emphasis on direct political actions and radical attitudes, characteristics associated with the emerging Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Two of the CCP's founding members, Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu, were leaders of the movement. The CCP viewed it more favorably, although remaining suspicious of the early phase which emphasized the role of enlightened intellectuals, not revolution.[19] Li and Chen were the most influential promoters of Marxism in China during the May Fourth period.[20] In its broader sense, the May Fourth Movement led to the establishment of radical intellectuals who went on to mobilize peasants and workers into the CCP and gain the organizational strength that would solidify the success of the Chinese Communist Revolution.[17]

During the May Fourth Movement, the group of intellectuals with communist ideas grew steadily, such as Chen Tanqiu, Zhou Enlai, Chen Duxiu, and others, who gradually appreciated Marxism's power. This promoted the sinicization of Marxism and provided a basis for the birth of the CCP and socialism with Chinese characteristics.[21]

The legacy of the May Fourth Movement is embraced both by the CCP and its critics, who express different understandings of the movement and its importance.[22]

Kuomintang members such as Luo Jialun, Shao Lizi and Duan Xipeng played an active role in the Movement, and some Kuomintang leaders claimed that their party and its founder Sun Yat-sen were active in leading the movement. However, Kuomintang influence on the Movement was minimal.[23] In British Malaya, May Fourth-influenced riots in Penang and Singapore involving Kuomintang teachers and sympathetic students led the British to pass the Registration of Schools Ordinance, an attempt to remove Kuomintang influence from local education. From 1922, the British also instituted a ban on the Kuomintang itself.[24]

Birth of Chinese communism

[edit]

For many years, the orthodox view in the People's Republic of China was that after the demonstrations of 1919 and their subsequent suppression, the discussion of possible policy changes became more and more politically realistic. Influential leaders such as Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao shifted to the left and became founders of the CCP in 1921, while other intellectuals became more sympathetic.[25] Originally voluntarist or nihilist figures like Li Shicen and Zhu Qianzhi made similar turns to the left as the 1920s saw China become increasingly turbulent.[26] In 1939, Mao Zedong claimed that the May Fourth Movement was a stage leading toward the fulfillment of the Chinese Communist Revolution:

The May Fourth Movement twenty years ago marked a new stage in China's bourgeois-democratic revolution against imperialism and feudalism. The cultural reform movement which grew out of the May Fourth Movement was only one of the manifestations of this revolution. With the growth and development of new social forces in that period, a powerful camp made its appearance in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, a camp consisting of the working class, the student masses and the new national bourgeoisie. Around the time of the May Fourth Movement, hundreds of thousands of students courageously took their place in the van. In these respects the May Fourth Movement went a step beyond the Revolution of 1911.[27]

Paul French argues that the only victor of the Treaty of Versailles in China was communism, as rising public anger led directly to the formation of the CCP. The Treaty also led to Japan pursuing its conquests with greater boldness, which Wellington Koo had predicted in 1919 would lead to the outbreak of war between China and Japan.[28]

A rally on the 21st anniversary of the October Revolution in Russia

Western-style liberal democracy had previously had a degree of traction among Chinese intellectuals. Still, after Versailles, which was viewed as a betrayal of China's interests, it lost much of its attractiveness. Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, despite being rooted in moralism, were seen as Western-centric and hypocritical.[29] Many Chinese intellectuals believed that the United States had done little to convince the other nations to adhere to the Fourteen Points and observed that the United States had declined to join the League of Nations. As a result, they turned away from the Western liberal democratic model. With the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, Marxism began to take hold in Chinese intellectual thought, particularly among those already on the Left. Chinese intellectuals such as Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao began serious study of Marxist doctrine.[30]

Cultural

[edit]

The May Fourth Movement focused on opposing Confucian culture and promoting a new culture. As a continuation of the New Culture movement, the May Fourth Movement greatly influenced the cultural field. The slogans of "democracy" and "science" advocated in the New Culture Movement were designed to attack the old culture and promote the new culture. This purpose can be summed up in a sentence from David Wang: "It was the turning point in China's search for literary modernity."[18] As historian Wang Gungwu notes, the May Fourth Movement became subsequently identified as the predecessor and inspiration for the later Cultural Revolution.[31]

Participants at the time, such as Hu Shih, referred to this era as the "Chinese Renaissance", because there was an intense focus on science and experimentation.[32] In Chinese literature, the May Fourth Movement is regarded as the watershed after which the modern Chinese literature began and the use of written vernacular Chinese gained currency over Literary Chinese, eventually replacing it in formal works.[33] Intellectuals were driven toward expressing themselves using the spoken tongue under the slogan "my hand writes what my mouth speaks" (我手寫我口), although the change was gradual: Hu had already argued for the use of the modern vernacular language in literature in his 1917 essay "Preliminary discussion on literary reform".[34]

In 1917, Chen Hengzhe published the short story One Day (一日) in an overseas student quarterly (留美学生季报)—a year before the publication of Lu Xun's Diary of a Madman and The True Story of Ah Q (not published until 1921), which has often been incorrectly credited as the first vernacular Chinese fiction.[34][35]

More ordinary people also began to try to get in touch with new cultures and learn from foreign cultures. Joseph Chen said: "This intellectual ferment had already had an effect in altering the outlook of China's new youth."[5] After the May Fourth Movement, the Chinese modern female literature developed a literature with modern humanistic spirit, taking women as the subject of experience, thinking, aesthetics, and speech.[36]

Instead of the formerly euphemistic language for sex, May Fourth reformers used the broader, more explicit term xing.[37]

In honor of the May Fourth Movement, May 4 is now celebrated as Youth Day in China and as Literary Day in Taiwan.

Women's emancipation

[edit]

The domination of Confucian ideologies shaped gender inequalities in Chinese culture, labeling and treating women as second-class citizens. The May Fourth Movement played a crucial role in women's emancipation in China, representing a social and cultural shift toward societal transformation.

May Fourth Movement discourses contrasted the idea of the "new woman" with that of the "traditional woman".[38]: 149  The "new woman" reflected a secular world view, opposition to arranged marriage, and opposition to patriarchy.[38]: 149  The idea of the "new woman" emphasised the urban and modern.[38]: 149  May Fourth Movement discourses framed "traditional women" as rural, uneducated, and submitting to "feudal superstition".[38]: 144  May Fourth literature often depicted rural mothers as participants in imposing arranged marriages and other feudal social constructs on their daughters.[38]: 149 

Women in the May Fourth Movement were often restricted to indoor speeches and debates, lacking the same freedom of movement as their male counterparts.[39] Although most activists and protesters were male, male intellectuals believed women's liberation was essential for a stronger and unified China. They argued that Confucian family structures hindered China's development. Stating that "Women's liberation had to be achieved to save China from disarray and humiliation."[40] Many supported the movement as they believed that women's emancipation was essential for a modern China. They saw it as intertwined with nationalism and new democratic values driven by the anti-imperialist movement.

Economic

[edit]

Anger against Japan led many elements of society to join students in a movement to boycott Japanese products. Many hoped that when Japanese products were suppressed, China's national industry would benefit.[41] However, the strike in Shanghai that occurred in June damaged the economy.[42] One of the main reasons was that shop owners were not willing to open their shops during the strike, despite the use of police force.[41]

Criticism and resistance

[edit]

Many intellectuals at the time opposed the anti-traditional message, some felt it did not go far enough, and many political figures ignored it. In the late twentieth century, voices more strongly questioned the premise that Chinese traditional culture had to be destroyed rather than developed.

Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek, as a Confucian and a nationalist, was against the iconoclasm of the May Fourth Movement. As an anti-imperialist, he was skeptical of Western culture. He criticized these May Fourth intellectuals for corrupting the morals of youth.[43] When the Nationalist party came to power under Chiang's rule, it carried out the opposite agenda. The New Life Movement promoted Confucianism, and the Kuomintang purged China's education system of western ideas, introducing Confucianism into the curriculum. Textbooks, exams, degrees, and educational instructors were all controlled by the state, as were all universities.[44]

Some conservative philosophers and intellectuals opposed any change, but many more accepted or welcomed the challenge from the West but wanted to base new systems on Chinese values, not imported ones. These figures included Liang Shuming, Liu Shipei, Tao Xisheng, Xiong Shili, Zhang Binglin and Lu Xun's brother, Zhou Zuoren.[45] In later years, others developed critiques, including figures as diverse as Lin Yutang, Ch'ien Mu, Xu Fuguan, and Yu Ying-shih. Li Changzhi believed that the May Fourth Movement copied foreign culture and lost the essence of its own culture. (Ta Kung Pao, 1942). This is consistent with what Vera Schwarcz has said: "Critically-minded intellectuals were accused of eroding national self-confidence, or more simply, of not being Chinese enough."[1]

Another view was that "this limited May Fourth individualist enlightenment did not lead the individual against the collective of the nation-state, as full-scale, modern Western individualism would potentially do."[46]

Chinese Muslims ignored the May Fourth movement by continuing to teach Classical Chinese and literature with the Qur'an and Arabic along with officially mandated contemporary subjects at the "Normal Islamic School of Wanxian".[47] Ha Decheng did a Classical Chinese translation of the Quran.[48] Arabic, vernacular Chinese, Classical Chinese and the Qur'an were taught in Ningxia Islamic schools funded by Muslim General Ma Fuxiang.[49]

Neotraditionalism versus Western thought

[edit]

Although the May Fourth Movement attack on traditional Chinese culture was largely successful,[50] opponents still argued that China's traditions and values should be the fundamental foundations of the nation. These opponents of Western civilization formed three neotraditional schools of thought: national essence, national character, and modern relevance of Confucianism. Each school of thought denounced the western values of individualism, materialism and utilitarianism as inadequate avenues for the development of China. Each school held to specific objectives. The "national essence" school sought to discover aspects of traditional culture that could potentially serve the national development of China. Such traditional aspects consisted of various philosophical and religious practices that emerged parallel with Confucianism. Most particularly, China imported Buddhism during antiquity from India. Under the "national character" school, advocates promoted the traditional family system, the primary target of the May Fourth Movement. In this school, reformers viewed Westerners as shells without morals. Finally, the modern relevance of Confucianism was centered on the notion that Confucian values were better than Western ones. In response to western culture's primary concentration on rational analysis, China's neo-traditionalists argued that this was misguided, especially in the practical, changing milieu of the world. Most importantly, these three neo-traditionalist thoughts did not consider the individual, which was the main theme of the May Fourth Movement.[19]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

May Fourth Movement

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The May Fourth Movement was an anti-imperialist protest movement in China that began on 4 May 1919 with demonstrations by university students in Beijing protesting the decision of the Paris Peace Conference to transfer German concessions in Shandong Province to Japan, rather than returning them to Chinese sovereignty. The immediate trigger stemmed from China's declaration of war on Germany in 1917 and expectation of territorial restoration, undermined by prior secret agreements among Allied powers favoring Japan. These initial protests, involving resolutions against perceived traitorous officials and appeals to international delegates, quickly expanded into a mass mobilization across cities, encompassing merchant boycotts of Japanese goods, worker strikes, and broader calls for political accountability. Under public pressure, Chinese representatives ultimately refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles. The movement's intellectual dimension, overlapping with the contemporaneous New Culture Movement since around 1915, rejected traditional Confucian values—such as hierarchical obedience and classical literary forms—in favor of Western-inspired principles including scientific rationalism, individual emancipation, democratic governance, and the use of vernacular Chinese (baihua) to disseminate ideas widely. This cultural iconoclasm blamed entrenched traditions for China's vulnerability to foreign domination, fostering a drive for national rejuvenation through modernization. Politically, it amplified anti-imperialist nationalism and introduced diverse ideologies, from liberalism to Marxism, influencing the founding of the Chinese Communist Party in 1921 and shaping subsequent revolutionary trajectories. While celebrated in the People's Republic of China as a precursor to communist victory, its legacy encompasses both progressive reforms and the radicalization of youth activism amid warlord-era instability.

Historical Context

Republican China's Weakness and Warlord Era

The death of on June 6, 1916, marked the onset of severe political fragmentation in the Republic of China, initiating the that persisted until roughly 1928. Yuan's authoritarian consolidation of power, including his brief monarchy in 1915–1916 and suppression of parliamentary institutions, had undermined republican structures, leaving no viable central authority upon his demise from . The nominal in , derived from Yuan's , devolved into a puppet regime manipulated by rival military cliques, including the under , the led by figures like and , and the commanded by . These factions, often comprising former Beiyang officers, controlled vast provincial territories through personal loyalties rather than national allegiance, resulting in over 20 years of intermittent civil conflicts such as the 1920 and the 1924 Zhili–Fengtian Wars. Central authority's weakness manifested in the proliferation of private armies, which ballooned from about 500,000 troops in 1916 to over 2 million by 1928, sustained by extortionate local taxes, production, and loans from foreign powers like . The regime cycled through seven heads of state and lacked the capacity to enact social or economic reforms, fostering widespread corruption, banditry, and that left millions in and fueled social discontent. This disunity invited foreign exploitation, as warlords granted concessions to imperial powers unable to be resisted by a fractured state, exacerbating national humiliation and eroding public faith in republican governance.

China's Role in World War I

China declared neutrality upon the outbreak of in , amid internal instability following the and the death of President in 1916, which fragmented the into competing factions. 's initiation of in early 1917 prompted to sever diplomatic ties in March, aligning with Allied pressures and the pro-intervention stance of Premier Duan Qirui's Anfu faction, which sought to bolster 's position for postwar territorial recovery. On , 1917, formally entered the war by declaring war on and , motivated chiefly by the aim to reclaim the —leased to since 1898—and to secure Allied guarantees against Japanese expansionism there, while gaining leverage to abolish extraterritorial rights and other unequal treaties. China's military involvement was negligible, as no combat troops were deployed; instead, the government mobilized the , recruiting around 140,000 primarily illiterate peasants from northern provinces like and between 1916 and 1918. These workers, enlisted under secretive contracts to evade neutrality constraints, were shipped via or the Pacific to the Western Front, where they performed vital support tasks for British and French forces, including unloading supplies at ports like , constructing camps and railways, digging trenches, and exhuming . Approximately 2,000 to 20,000 died from , artillery fire, or industrial accidents, with survivors repatriated by 1920 amid Allied efforts to suppress knowledge of their role to avoid . Smaller contingents, totaling about 10,000, aided Allied operations in the and . Domestically, China's war participation allowed seizure of German economic privileges in cities like and , but Japan’s early 1914 conquest of rendered direct gains illusory, as extracted secret Allied pledges—later revealed in the Nishihara Loans —to maintain influence over . The Beiyang government's alignment with the Allies, financed partly by Japanese loans totaling over 140 million yen, deepened elite divisions, with conservative parliamentarians decrying it as a ploy for personal power rather than . Ultimately, China's peripheral underscored its weakness as a sovereign power, reliant on labor exports for diplomatic leverage, yet expecting the Peace Conference to affirm its claims to and elevate its status among victors.

Origins of the New Culture Movement

The New Culture Movement arose amid widespread disillusionment with China's political instability and cultural stagnation following the 1911 Revolution, which overthrew the Qing dynasty but failed to consolidate a stable republic, leading instead to Yuan Shikai's brief imperial restoration attempt in 1915-1916 and subsequent warlord fragmentation. Intellectuals, many of whom had studied abroad and encountered Western Enlightenment ideas, increasingly critiqued Confucian orthodoxy as incompatible with modern governance and scientific progress, viewing it as a root cause of China's weakness against imperial powers. This sentiment gained traction in urban centers like Shanghai and Beijing, where returned scholars sought to reform education, language, and social norms to foster national renewal. The movement's formal origins are traced to September 15, 1915, when , a radical educator and former , launched the monthly journal New Youth (Xin Qingnian) in as a platform for advocating cultural overhaul. Initially titled Youth Magazine, it was renamed New Youth by its second issue and became a seminal outlet for iconoclastic essays that rejected feudal traditions, emphasizing , vernacular Chinese (baihua) over classical literary style, and the adoption of "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Science" as antidotes to and superstition. Chen's editorial in the inaugural issue urged youth to embrace autonomy and reject servility, framing cultural regeneration as essential for China's survival in a Darwinian world of nation-states. Early contributors, including Hu Shi and later Li Dazhao at , expanded the journal's influence by 1917, promoting pragmatic literary reform and Marxist thought, respectively, which laid intellectual groundwork for broader activism. These efforts were not isolated but reflected a causal link between domestic failures—such as Yuan's monarchical bid, suppressed by provincial opposition—and exposure to global events like , which highlighted China's semicolonial status and the need for internal strength over ritualistic heritage. By prioritizing empirical rationality over dogmatic authority, the movement's origins embodied a first-principles of inherited systems that had empirically failed to prevent national humiliation.

Precipitating Factors

Japanese Twenty-One Demands

The Japanese Twenty-One Demands were a set of ultimatums issued by Japan to the Republic of China on January 18, 1915, during World War I, exploiting the preoccupation of European powers to expand Japanese economic and political influence in China. Presented secretly to President Yuan Shikai by Japanese Minister Hioki Eki, the demands comprised 21 articles divided into five groups, with Groups 1–4 focusing on territorial and economic concessions and Group 5 containing the most intrusive political stipulations. Japan justified the demands as a basis for negotiation, building on prior agreements like the 1901 Anglo-Japanese Alliance and Japan's seizure of German-held Tsingtao in Shandong Province in 1914, but they effectively sought to supplant Western spheres of influence with Japanese dominance.
  • Group 1 (Shandong concessions): Required to consent to Japan's inheritance of German rights in , including ports, railways, and mining privileges, following Japan's declaration of war on .
  • Group 2 (Manchurian extensions): Demanded renewal and expansion of Japan's lease beyond 99 years, plus rights to railways, forests, and mining in eastern and South Manchuria.
  • Group 3 (Infrastructure and loans): Sought Chinese consent for joint Sino-Japanese banks to fund railways in and provinces, alongside unspecified railway constructions.
  • Group 4 (Industrial control): Aimed to integrate the Chinese-owned Hanyeping coal and iron works near under Japanese management, citing prior loans, to secure raw materials for Japanese steel production.
  • Group 5 (Political oversight): The most controversial and initially secret provisions, including mandatory Japanese advisers in 's and finance ministry, Japanese control over key police and matters, and a on foreign loans or concessions without Japanese approval—provisions that risked transforming into a Japanese .
Yuan Shikai's government, weakened by internal warlord rivalries and lacking military readiness, viewed the demands as a threat to but prioritized avoiding conflict with , which had mobilized troops near . Negotiations dragged into April 1915, with leaks of the demands' contents—first to Chinese officials and then via foreign press—sparking domestic protests and merchant strikes in cities like , highlighting public outrage over perceived national humiliation. Under a Japanese ultimatum on May 7, 1915, Yuan accepted Groups 1–4 and a diluted version of Group 5 (excluding the most egregious clauses like mandatory advisers), leading to the signing of a Sino-Japanese on May 25, 1915. International powers, including the and Britain, protested the demands' coercive nature and secrecy, prompting Japan to withdraw Group 5 formally, though the concessions entrenched Japanese footholds that later fueled resentment at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The episode underscored Republican China's vulnerability to imperial pressure, eroding faith in the and nurturing nationalist sentiments that contributed to later anti-Japanese agitation.

Shandong Issue at the Paris Peace Conference

During , Imperial held special privileges in China's Province, including a on (centered on , captured in 1897) and extensive railway and mining rights granted via the 1898 Jiao-Ao Treaty. seized these German holdings early in the war, declaring war on on August 23, 1914, and capturing by November 7, 1914, with nominal British assistance. In exchange for Japanese naval support against German Pacific raiders, Britain concluded a secret treaty with on February 19, 1917, recognizing Tokyo's claims to , followed by similar pacts with (February 1917), (March 1917), and (November 1917). China entered the war against on August 14, 1917, primarily to reclaim and end Japanese encroachments, supplying over 140,000 laborers to Allied forces but no troops. At the Peace Conference, which convened on January 18, 1919, the Chinese delegation—led by diplomat (Gu Weijun)—demanded direct restoration of to Chinese sovereignty, arguing that as a co-belligerent, held superior moral and legal claims, and rejecting Japan's of 1915 as coercive imperialism. However, the conference's dominant powers (Britain, , and the ) prioritized honoring pre-war secret treaties with over 's appeals, viewing as a counterweight to both German resurgence and emerging Soviet influence in . U.S. President initially sympathized with 's position, advocating principles, but relented amid Japanese threats to abandon of Nations or withhold ratification, coupled with Allied insistence on for Japan's wartime contributions. On January 27, 1919, formally presented its claims to the ; by April 30, 1919, the Council of Four approved transferring German rights—territorial, economic, and administrative—to , with vague assurances of eventual Chinese restoration under Japanese trusteeship. The Chinese delegates were notified of this decision on , 1919, prompting their walkout and 's ultimate refusal to sign the —the only major Allied power to do so—nullifying Articles 156–158, which explicitly ceded privileges to . This outcome exposed the conference's prioritization of alliances over equitable postwar restitution, fueling domestic disillusionment with Western liberal ideals and accelerating nationalist mobilization in .

Course of the Protests

Beijing Demonstrations on May 4, 1919

On May 4, 1919, over 3,000 students from 13 colleges and universities in assembled at Gate to protest the Chinese government's acquiescence to the transfer of German concessions in province to under the . The demonstration, organized by student groups including the Student Union of Peking and the New Tide Society, began around 1:30 p.m. with participants marching through the city's business districts while distributing pamphlets and voicing anti-imperialist slogans such as demands to "return " and "punish the national traitors." The protesters specifically targeted three pro-Japanese officials—Communications Minister Cao Rulin, former Foreign Minister Lu Zongyu, and Japanese Ambassador Zhang Zongxiang—accusing them of betraying Chinese interests by facilitating Japanese influence. Unable to present their directly to authorities, the crowd stormed Cao Rulin's residence in the Legation Quarter, ransacking the property, setting it ablaze, and physically assaulting Zhang Zongxiang, who was beaten during the confrontation. Police intervened, leading to clashes that resulted in injuries among the students and the arrest of 32 demonstrators by the end of the day; was briefly imposed in parts of the city to restore order. These events marked the ignition of the broader May Fourth Movement, as the protests highlighted widespread public outrage over diplomatic failures at the Paris Peace Conference and inspired subsequent actions across . While the immediate violence was limited, it underscored the students' frustration with the Beiyang government's perceived weakness and corruption, shifting focus from abstract intellectual critique to direct political activism.

Participants and Social Composition

The May Fourth Movement's protests commenced on May 4, 1919, with approximately 3,000 students from 13 higher education institutions, including as a primary organizer, marching to to denounce the government's acceptance of the Shandong concessions at Versailles. These participants were predominantly young male students from urban educated backgrounds, often sons of , officials, or merchants, radicalized by the New Culture Movement's critique of Confucian traditions and advocacy for modern reforms. A smaller number of female students also joined, marking early public involvement of women in political activism. Intellectual elites and professors, such as those associated with magazine, provided ideological support and guidance to the student leaders, framing the demonstrations as a broader call for national regeneration through , , and measures. As protests spread to other cities, social composition diversified; merchants formed associations to enforce boycotts of Japanese products and shuttered businesses in solidarity, while workers initiated strikes, culminating in Shanghai's June 1919 general work stoppage that paralyzed the city's commerce and involved laborers from factories, railways, and presses alongside shopkeepers and urban petty . This expansion reflected a rare convergence of intelligentsia-led agitation with practical economic actions by commercial and proletarian groups, though rural peasants remained largely uninvolved in the urban-centric unrest.

Nationwide Expansion and Boycotts

The May Fourth protests initiated in Beijing on May 4, 1919, quickly expanded beyond the capital as news of the demonstrations spread via telegrams and newspapers. By May 5, the Beijing Chamber of Commerce had declared a boycott of Japanese goods, marking the beginning of organized economic resistance against perceived Japanese imperialism. This action encouraged similar measures in other regions, with merchants and students coordinating to refuse Japanese imports and disrupt trade. Demonstrations proliferated in major cities, including a large protest march in on May 12, followed by student strikes and rallies in on June 3, marking the first large-scale strike involving over 50 enterprises and 70,000 workers. The movement's reach extended to over 200 cities and towns across , encompassing provinces such as , , and , where local students and intellectuals organized rallies denouncing the government's handling of the Shandong concessions. In , a general student strike involving approximately 25,000 participants began on May 19, amplifying the national momentum. Workers and merchants increasingly allied with students, escalating the protests into broader labor actions. On June 5, a general strike erupted in , uniting industrial workers, shopkeepers, and students, which halted commerce and transport in a city of over 1.5 million residents for three to four days. Similar strikes occurred in cities like and , contributing to the boycott's economic pressure on Japanese interests, including factory closures and reduced imports. The boycotts persisted for over two months in key urban centers, demonstrating widespread public opposition to foreign encroachments and domestic capitulation.

Immediate Consequences

Government Repression and Concessions

The Beiyang government under Premier Duan Qirui initially arrested 32 students following the May 4 demonstrations in Beijing, including 20 from Peking University, but released them by May 7 amid ongoing protests and the burning of Communications Minister Cao Rulin's residence. Escalation occurred on June 3, 1919, when authorities issued suppression orders, deploying police to break up rallies and enacting martial law in central Beijing, resulting in the arrest of nearly 1,000 students over the following days in what became known as the "June 3rd Incident." These actions, aimed at quelling anti-government sentiment tied to the Shandong concessions, included temporary university closures and reflected Duan's reliance on Japanese financial support, which fueled perceptions of official complicity in imperial encroachments. Nationwide solidarity amplified pressure: merchants in and other cities initiated strikes on June 5, halting commerce and underscoring the movement's cross-class appeal, while telegrams from provincial assemblies and intellectuals demanded . By , facing economic paralysis and eroding legitimacy, the government yielded with key concessions: full release of detained students in June, dismissal of Cao Rulin, Japanese Ambassador Zhang Zongxiang, and Coinage Bureau head Lu Zongyu—figures accused of pro-Japanese dealings—and a formal rejection of the Versailles Treaty's Shandong terms, though the delegation had already walked out. These measures, while restoring order, highlighted the fragility of central authority amid fragmentation, as Duan's cabinet survived only through military backing despite the political cost.

Diplomatic Repercussions

The May Fourth Movement exerted significant pressure on the Chinese delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, culminating in China's unprecedented refusal to sign the on June 28, 1919, due to widespread public protests against the treaty's allocation of concessions from to , overriding China's expectations for territorial restoration following . In response to the escalating demonstrations, the Beijing government on May 9, 1919, dismissed three pro-Japanese officials—Communications Minister Cao Rulin, Currency Minister Zhang Zongxiang, and diplomat Lu Zongyu—whose prior accommodations with Japan had fueled public outrage. This purge weakened factions favoring compromise with and signaled a diplomatic pivot toward greater assertiveness in foreign policy. The refusal isolated from the Allied consensus at Versailles, as the treaty's Shandong provisions reflected prior Anglo-French-Japanese understandings, including loans and secret treaties that prioritized European stability over Chinese sovereignty claims. Nonetheless, it prevented formal endorsement of the transfer, preserving China's legal position and galvanizing subsequent multilateral negotiations, such as the 1921-1922 , where Japan eventually agreed to return Shandong administration to under auspices on February 4, 1922. Relations with deteriorated markedly, as the movement's anti-Japanese boycotts and strikes disrupted and diplomatic overtures, eroding the influence of accommodationist policies and fostering a nationalist consensus against further concessions. This shift contributed to the collapse of the in 1923, partly due to heightened scrutiny of imperial arrangements in .

Intellectual Transformations

Advocacy for Science and Democracy

The advocacy for and emerged as a core intellectual pillar of the May Fourth Movement, framed by reformers as essential remedies for China's perceived national weaknesses, including superstition, autocratic governance, and cultural stagnation. Intellectuals like , editor of the influential magazine, popularized the personas of "Mr. " (Sai Xiansheng) and "Mr. " (De Xiansheng) in early 1919, portraying them as saviors to supplant outdated Confucian doctrines. Chen argued that embracing Mr. required rejecting Confucian rites, chastity norms, and traditional morality, while Mr. demanded opposition to old arts, religion, and superstitious practices in favor of empirical inquiry and . This rhetoric intensified after the May 4 protests, positioning Western-derived principles as causal drivers for modernization amid imperial humiliations like the Shandong concessions. Hu Shi, a Columbia University-trained philosopher and key New Youth contributor, complemented Chen's calls by emphasizing a pragmatic —rooted in verifiable experimentation and incremental reform—over dogmatic traditions. In essays and lectures from 1919 onward, Hu advocated not as abstract but as a system fostering individual liberty, public participation, and , drawing from John Dewey's influence during his 1919-1921 China visit. These ideas circulated through burgeoning periodicals, student societies, and public debates, with over 100 new journals launched between 1919 and 1921 to disseminate them, challenging the Beiyang government's and promoting as a bulwark against warlordism. Critics within the movement, however, highlighted tensions: while aligned with technological self-strengthening—evident in calls for industrial education— faced resistance due to China's fragmented polity and skepticism toward mass rule, leading some like Chen to later pivot toward Marxist alternatives by late . Empirical outcomes were mixed; spurred curricula reforms, such as Peking University's adoption of Western natural sciences, but democratic experiments, including provincial assemblies, yielded limited causal impact amid ongoing civil strife. Nonetheless, this marked a decisive causal shift from ritualistic Confucian orthodoxy toward rational , influencing subsequent generations despite institutional biases in later that amplified radical over liberal strands.

Linguistic and Literary Reforms

The linguistic and literary reforms of the May Fourth Movement emphasized replacing (wenyan), an archaic and elite-exclusive script, with vernacular Chinese (baihua), which mirrored spoken dialects to enhance accessibility and promote mass literacy. This initiative, building on the New Culture Movement's foundations from 1915, intensified after the May 4, 1919, protests, as student activists and intellectuals leveraged baihua in pamphlets and journals to disseminate anti-imperialist ideas nationwide. Hu Shi, upon returning from U.S. studies in June 1917, catalyzed the effort with his "Tentative Suggestions for Literary Reform" in the January 1917 issue, proposing eight guidelines: ensuring substantive meaning in writing; eschewing imitation of ancient styles; adhering to modern grammar; expressing genuine emotions; discarding hackneyed phrases; avoiding classical allusions; rejecting antithetical structures; and employing common speech. reinforced this in 1917 by denouncing wenyan as obsolete and calling for a literary that prioritized realistic depictions of to awaken public consciousness. Literary output shifted toward naturalistic prose and poetry in baihua, rejecting ornate classical forms for direct expression influenced by Western models. Lu Xun's "Diary of a Madman," serialized in New Youth's May 1918 issue, marked the first major vernacular short story, using the form to allegorically assail Confucian traditions as cannibalistic. Post-May Fourth, the reforms proliferated: over 400 periodicals switched to baihua by late 1919, symbolizing nationalist renewal amid Versailles grievances. The Ministry of Education required baihua in primary textbooks by 1920, mandated its instructional use in primary schools in 1921, and extended it to secondary levels in 1922, fostering vernacular poetry for moral education and youth mobilization. These changes elevated rates and modernized but sparked contention over diminishing classical erudition's cultural depth, with baihua ultimately standardizing as China's written norm by the 1940s.

Emergence of Feminist Ideas

The , overlapping with the May Fourth protests of 1919, catalyzed feminist ideas by systematically challenging Confucian patriarchal structures that confined women to domestic roles, emphasizing , arranged marriages, and practices like foot-binding—formally prohibited by Qing edicts in 1902 but persisting culturally. Intellectuals argued that women's subjugation weakened the nation, advocating emancipation through education, free marriage, and workforce participation as prerequisites for modernization, drawing on Western egalitarian concepts introduced via translations and global discourse. This shift positioned not merely as a but as a causal factor in national revival, with male reformers like in (founded 1915) critiquing the traditional family system as feudal and obstructive to progress. Women's direct participation in the May Fourth demonstrations marked a pivotal rupture from norms of seclusion, as female students from institutions like Peking Women's Normal College joined marches in starting late May and June 1919, amplifying calls for personal autonomy amid broader anti-imperialist fervor. Initially spurred by rather than autonomous , this involvement exposed urban educated women to public activism, fostering the "" archetype—self-reliant and intellectually engaged—which proliferated in periodicals debating Ibsen's (featured in 1918) as a model for rejecting doll-like . Despite these advances, May Fourth feminism remained elite-driven and urban-focused, primarily benefiting educated women while rural masses saw limited change, and was often framed through male lenses prioritizing national strength over intrinsic justice. By the early 1920s, it influenced coeducational reforms and discussions, though implementation lagged, reflecting the movement's intellectual rather than structural immediacy. This era's ideas nonetheless seeded later organizations and policies, underscoring a causal link between intellectual critique and gradual social mobilization.

Political Ramifications

Surge in Nationalism and Anti-Imperialism

The May Fourth Movement catalyzed a sharp escalation in Chinese nationalism, rooted in outrage over the Treaty of Versailles provisions that transferred Germany's pre-World War I concessions in Shandong Province to Japan rather than restoring them to Chinese sovereignty, despite China's participation as an Allied power. This decision, revealed in late April 1919, exposed the weaknesses of the Beiyang government's diplomacy and fueled perceptions of national humiliation, prompting students to frame the protests as a defense of territorial integrity against foreign encroachment. On May 4, 1919, roughly 3,000 students from 13 Beijing universities assembled for a demonstration, marching to Tiananmen Square with slogans decrying imperialism and calling for the ouster of officials like Cao Rulin, perceived as collaborators with Japanese interests. The event's immediacy stemmed from telegrams circulating among intellectuals since mid-April, linking the Shandong issue to broader anti-imperialist imperatives and invoking historical grievances such as the Twenty-One Demands of 1915. This mobilization marked a shift from elite discourse to public action, as participants emphasized collective national awakening over Confucian hierarchies, thereby amplifying anti-imperialist rhetoric that portrayed foreign powers as existential threats to China's survival. The protests swiftly expanded beyond Beijing, engendering widespread boycotts of Japanese products and commercial strikes in major cities including , , and by mid-May 1919. Merchants shuttered over 150,000 shops in solidarity, while workers in Japanese-owned factories initiated strikes affecting thousands, actions that economically pressured imperial interests and symbolized unified resistance. These efforts, sustained through , not only disrupted —reducing Japanese imports by significant margins—but also instilled a popular anti-imperialist , evident in the refusal of Chinese delegates to sign the Versailles Treaty on June 28, 1919, under domestic pressure. This surge manifested in heightened cultural and political expressions of , with periodicals and associations propagating ideas of self-strengthening through modernization to counter , influencing subsequent labor unrest and the of the 1920s. Unlike prior localized responses, the movement's scale—encompassing students, , and —fostered a nascent mass that prioritized and anti-foreign unity, laying groundwork for enduring skepticism toward international treaties favoring imperial powers.

Pathways to Communism and Radicalism

The intellectual disillusionment engendered by the May Fourth Movement's exposure of governmental weakness and foreign encroachments accelerated the influx of Marxist thought into China, as thinkers sought alternatives to perceived failures of liberal reform and Confucian tradition. Prior to 1919, awareness of the Russian Revolution remained marginal among Chinese intellectuals; the movement's protests, however, amplified interest in Bolshevik successes as a model for national regeneration, introducing Marxism alongside other ideologies like anarchism and pragmatism through translations and debates in journals such as New Youth. Key figures bridged the New Culture Movement's cultural critiques with political radicalism. Li Dazhao, chief librarian at and an early advocate for "Mr. Science" and "Mr. Democracy," interpreted the May Fourth protests as evidence of bourgeois limitations, turning to by 1919 to emphasize and organizing study groups that influenced future leaders, including , whom he employed as a library assistant. Chen Duxiu, founder of in 1915 and a vocal critic of imperial weakness, abandoned prior anarchist leanings by late 1919, explicitly endorsing as the path to China's salvation through class struggle, thereby redirecting the magazine toward communist advocacy. These efforts crystallized into organized radicalism, with Marxist reading societies forming in and by mid-1920, drawing from May Fourth student networks disillusioned by warlord fragmentation and economic inequities. This groundwork enabled the establishment of the (CCP) on July 1, 1921, in , with founding members including Chen, Li, and other movement alumni who viewed as the logical extension of anti-imperialist into socioeconomic overhaul. The pathway reflected causal dynamics of crisis: the protests' unmet demands for fostered a rejection of , favoring Marxism's promise of total systemic rupture, though it competed with liberal and anarchist strains within the same milieu.

Competing Liberal and Conservative Responses

Liberal intellectuals, exemplified by Hu Shih, responded to the May Fourth Movement by emphasizing pragmatic reforms inspired by Western liberalism and John Dewey's pragmatism, advocating for gradual experimentation in addressing China's "problems" such as cultural stagnation and political weakness rather than wholesale revolution. Hu Shih, who had studied at Columbia University and returned to China in 1917, promoted the use of vernacular Chinese (baihua) for broader literacy and accessibility of ideas, viewing the movement's protests as a catalyst for intellectual renewal through science, democracy, and individual liberty without immediate political upheaval. This approach contrasted with more radical interpretations, as liberals like Hu prioritized constitutional governance and educational modernization, influencing institutions such as Peking University where Dewey lectured from 1919 to 1921, reaching over 3,000 students and educators. Conservative thinkers, such as Liang Shuming, countered the movement's by defending Confucian traditions as a viable basis for modernization, arguing in his 1921 book Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies that Western addressed "technique" but neglected ethical "intent," while emphasized moral harmony and community over . Liang critiqued the New Culture Movement's rejection of tradition as overly simplistic, proposing instead a synthesis where could adopt Western methods selectively while revitalizing rural ethics and village covenants (xiangyue) to foster organic social reconstruction, as later implemented in his experiments starting in 1931. Other conservatives viewed the protests as disruptive to hierarchical order, fearing they eroded familial and scholarly authority without offering stable alternatives, leading to calls for preserving amid the vernacular push. These responses competed in intellectual journals and societies, with liberals dominating urban academia and media like , while conservatives appealed to rural elites and traditional scholars, highlighting tensions between rapid and cultural continuity that persisted into the and influenced divergent paths like the Guomindang's versus liberal constitutional efforts. The debate underscored causal risks of unchecked , as conservatives warned that discarding Confucian could invite ideological voids filled by , a concern borne out in subsequent radical shifts.

Criticisms and Shortcomings

Excessive Rejection of Confucian Traditions

The , which underpinned the intellectual fervor of the May Fourth protests, promulgated a radical critique of as the primary culprit for China's political and social backwardness. Figures like , in publications such as , lambasted Confucian doctrines for fostering feudal hierarchies, ritualistic rigidity, and ethical systems that stifled individual autonomy and scientific inquiry, labeling them "man-eating ethics" incompatible with modernity. This manifested in calls for the total repudiation of classical texts, ancestral rites, and familial obligations rooted in Confucian , positioning tradition as an obstacle to national salvation through wholesale Western emulation. Such absolutist rejection extended beyond rhetoric to cultural , including student-led campaigns against Confucian academies and the symbolic burning of ritual paraphernalia, which eroded institutional reverence for sage-kings and moral exemplars. Critics, including later Confucian revivalists, argue this totalistic approach—characterized by an all-or-nothing dismissal without discerning preservation of adaptive elements like communal harmony or ethical reciprocity—severed generational continuity and engendered a vacuum in normative guidance. For example, philosopher Cheng Yu observed that anti-Confucian radicalism precipitated a profound loss of cultural roots, exacerbating identity fragmentation amid rapid modernization. Empirical indicators include the sharp decline in enrollment post-1919, from over 1,200 imperial academies in 1905 to fewer than 100 reformed institutions by 1925, correlating with rising youth alienation from familial structures. The excessiveness of this repudiation is further evidenced by its unintended facilitation of ideological extremism; by delegitimizing Confucianism's stabilizing role in governance and ethics, May Fourth thought inadvertently smoothed the path for Marxist collectivism, which filled the void with class struggle absent traditional restraints on state power. Scholarly analyses, such as those by Xu Fuguan, decry the movement's radicals for their unnuanced wholesale Westernization, which ignored Confucianism's potential compatibility with democratic virtues like benevolence (ren) and ignored historical precedents of syncretic reform. This holus-bolus iconoclasm, as termed in studies of the era, prioritized negation over synthesis, yielding not renewal but a nihilistic interregnum that hindered resilient institution-building in the Republican period.

Contribution to Social Anomie and Instability

The New Culture Movement, intertwined with the May Fourth protests of May 4, 1919, advanced a vehement iconoclasm against Confucianism, denouncing its emphasis on hierarchy, filial piety, and ritual propriety as feudal impediments to progress. Intellectual leaders like Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi argued that these traditions perpetuated China's weakness, advocating instead for wholesale adoption of Western individualism and rationalism. This rejection eroded the longstanding ethical framework that had underpinned social stability by enforcing familial duties, communal harmony, and deference to authority, creating a normative vacuum where traditional restraints on behavior dissolved without immediate, viable substitutes. Critics such as Gu Hongming contemporaneously warned that emulating Western "progress" imported moral laxity and disorder, as evidenced by the movement's promotion of unbridled critique that undermined respect for elders and institutions. Manifestations of this appeared in heightened intergenerational strife and familial discord, as May Fourth rhetoric prioritized personal autonomy over clan obligations, challenging arranged marriages and patriarchal control. Proponents like highlighted oppressive family dynamics in , fueling against parental and contributing to rising reports of domestic upheaval in urban centers during the 1920s. Economically, the protests escalated into widespread merchant strikes—such as the June 1919 shutdowns in and other cities—that paralyzed trade and exposed fractures in social cohesion, as participants defied governmental and traditional merchant guilds. These disruptions, extending beyond anti-imperial aims, reflected a broader erosion of deference to established order, exacerbating the warlord-era fragmentation where intellectual radicalism intersected with political vacuum. In response to this perceived moral decay, initiated the on February 19, 1934, in , explicitly targeting the "social disorder and individual misconduct" arising from cultural upheavals like May Fourth, which had flooded society with foreign ideas corrosive to discipline. Drawing selectively on Confucian virtues—propriety (li), righteousness (yi), integrity (lian), and self-respect (chi)—the initiative sought to rebuild everyday conduct amid , , and youth indiscipline, underscoring how the earlier movement's unmoored had intensified instability rather than resolving it. Historians note that such countermeasures highlighted the causal link between iconoclastic fervor and the normative disorientation that hindered cohesive reconstruction in Republican China.

Overstated Role in Modern Chinese Progress

The May Fourth Movement's advocacy for science (kexue) and (minzhu) is frequently invoked as a foundational spark for China's 20th-century modernization, yet this narrative exaggerates its causal influence on the nation's post-1949 economic trajectory. Empirical data indicate minimal aggregate progress in living standards immediately following the Movement; China's GDP hovered around $500–$600 (in 1990 international dollars) in the –1930s amid warlordism and invasion, stagnating further under subsequent regimes. Real GDP growth averaged under 1% annually from 1952 to 1978, punctuated by the famine (1958–1962), which killed 15–55 million, reflecting policy failures rather than enduring May Fourth-inspired rationalism. Accelerated development commenced with Deng Xiaoping's 1978 reforms, which dismantled collectivized via the (implemented 1979–1984, boosting grain output by 33% in three years), established special economic zones like (1979), and attracted $1.7 trillion in by 2020 through export-led industrialization. These measures emphasized pragmatic experimentation—"crossing the river by feeling the stones"—over ideological purity, diverging from May Fourth radicals' wholesale embrace of Western and against Confucian . Deng's "" mantra critiqued dogmatic extensions of earlier radicalism, including Maoist campaigns traceable by some historians to May Fourth's anti-traditional fervor, which fostered cultural disruption and political volatility rather than institutional stability. China's technological ascent, evidenced by 5.8% of global patents by 2020 and infrastructure feats like 40,000 km of (2010s), stems from state-orchestrated R&D spending (2.4% of GDP in 2020) and mobilization under centralized authority, not decentralized democratic innovation idealized in writings. This authoritarian , blending market incentives with party control, achieved 9–10% annual GDP growth (1978–2010), lifting 800 million from , but without adopting May Fourth's political pluralism—democracy's absence, per econometric analyses, did not impede growth, as factors like high savings (35–50% of GDP) and labor reallocation drove productivity. Critiques from neotraditionalist scholars highlight how May Fourth's cultural delayed synthesis with enduring Chinese , such as meritocratic , which underpinned reform-era adaptability more than imported radicalism. Thus, while the Movement amplified and vernacular (facilitating later policy dissemination), crediting it as pivotal undervalues contingent post-Mao institutional shifts and overstates ideological continuity amid evident ruptures.

Enduring Debates and Legacy

Neotraditionalist Counterarguments

Neotraditionalist critiques of the May Fourth Movement center on its radical iconoclasm toward Confucian traditions, which they view as a self-inflicted cultural amputation that undermined China's moral and social cohesion without delivering promised progress. Thinkers associated with New Confucianism, such as Mou Zongsan (1909–1995), argued that the movement's blanket condemnation of tradition as feudal dross ignored Confucianism's potential as a dynamic ethical system compatible with modernity, instead fostering a rootless pursuit of Western models that proved inadequate for China's context. Mou specifically countered May Fourth narratives by integrating Confucian moral metaphysics with Western philosophy, positing that innate moral knowledge (liangzhi) in Mencian terms could underpin rational autonomy and democratic institutions, rather than requiring their total rejection in favor of imported scientism and individualism. Tang Junyi (1909–1978), another key New Confucian, criticized the New Culture Movement's rationalism for oversimplifying cultural renewal as mere emulation of the West, neglecting the holistic spiritual dimensions of Chinese tradition that sustain personal virtue and communal harmony. He advocated reconstructing to address modern challenges like and alienation, warning that the May Fourth emphasis on "Mr. Science" and "Mr. Democracy" without ethical grounding led to ideological extremism, including the Marxist radicalism that supplanted liberal reforms. These arguments highlight causal links between cultural and subsequent instability: the erosion of familial piety and hierarchical ethics contributed to social in the Republican era, exacerbating warlordism and factionalism from 1916 to 1928, with over 1,000 documented clashes among regional powers. Empirically, neotraditionalists point to the post-1949 experience under the , where intensified attacks on tradition during the (1966–1976)—which destroyed an estimated 4,922 of 6,843 cultural sites—yielded economic stagnation and moral decay until Deng Xiaoping's reforms in 1978 implicitly acknowledged tradition's stabilizing role by tolerating Confucian revival. Contemporary neotraditionalism, as in state-promoted Confucian institutes numbering over 500 globally by 2020, posits that blending traditional virtues like ren (benevolence) with technological advancement better explains 's GDP growth averaging 9.5% annually from 1978 to 2018 than does unadulterated , which faltered in interwar China amid persistent and inequality. Critics of May Fourth thus prioritize causal realism: traditions evolve endogenously, and their abrupt dismissal invites imported ideologies ill-suited to local soil, as evidenced by the movement's own trajectory toward authoritarian rather than .

Westernization's Mixed Outcomes

The adoption of Western scientific methods and democratic principles during the May Fourth era spurred significant cultural and educational reforms, including the promotion of vernacular Chinese (baihua) over , which substantially increased literacy rates among the populace by making literature and ideas more accessible. Intellectual leaders like and Hu Shi championed "Mr. Science" and "Mr. " as antidotes to 's stagnation, fostering an environment that encouraged empirical inquiry and individual emancipation, with influences from visiting Western philosophers such as , whose 1919–1921 lectures in popularized and experimental models. These efforts contributed to broader societal shifts, including greater advocacy for and the dismantling of outdated practices, laying groundwork for modern scientific discourse in . Critics, however, contended that the Movement's push for wholesale overlooked the incompatibility of unadapted foreign models with China's social fabric, resulting in a destructive rejection of traditions that created cultural dislocation and moral voids. Figures like , a defender of , provided a by critiquing Western for its materialism, individualism, and , which he argued fostered and internal decay rather than genuine progress, urging retention of Eastern ethical frameworks to mitigate 's excesses. This iconoclastic fervor engendered an intellectual dependency on the West, manifesting as an that disconnected reformers from indigenous realities and facilitated the rise of radical alternatives like when liberal experiments faltered amid warlordism and political fragmentation. Ultimately, Westernization's outcomes proved ambivalent: while it catalyzed scientific awareness and nationalist mobilization, the absence of a balanced synthesis with traditional values hindered stable institutional development, contributing to ideological and a persistent search for national orientation, as evidenced by the Movement's role in priming for authoritarian paths over . Taiwan's relative success in blending Confucian continuity with modernization has been cited as a counterfactual, highlighting how the mainland's wholesale cultural rupture exacerbated instability without yielding proportional political gains.

Contemporary Chinese Government Narratives

The (CCP) officially depicts the May Fourth Movement as the genesis of modern Chinese patriotism and a catalyst for the introduction of , framing it as an inevitable precursor to the party's founding on July 1, 1921, and the subsequent revolutionary triumph in 1949. State historiography, disseminated through outlets like Xinhua and , asserts that the protests against the catalyzed a broader cultural awakening, rejecting and while paving the way for proletarian leadership to resolve China's "." This narrative subordinates the movement's diverse intellectual strands—such as liberal calls for individual rights and parliamentary —to a unified story of national salvation through class struggle and party vanguardism. Under Xi Jinping's leadership, the "May Fourth spirit" is codified as encompassing , progress, , and , with as the core driver that propelled the dissemination of Marxist ideology in . In his April 30, 2019, address commemorating the Communist Youth League's centenary, Xi urged contemporary youth to inherit this spirit by "obeying the Party and following the Party," linking it to the realization of the "" of national rejuvenation under . Official directives emphasize enhanced research into the movement's since 1919, but only within parameters that affirm CCP legitimacy, explicitly rejecting "" that might portray pre-1949 events as disconnected from proletarian inevitability. Centennial commemorations in amplified this portrayal through state-orchestrated events, educational curricula, and media campaigns, positioning the movement as a foundational rejection of Western-imposed inequality at the Paris Peace Conference while crediting CCP precursors like for steering its energies toward communism. Figures like Hu Shi, who advocated gradualist reforms and vernacular language without Marxist orthodoxy, receive marginal acknowledgment, as the narrative prioritizes radical anti-imperialism as the seed of the new-democratic revolution. This selective emphasis aligns the movement with ongoing domestic mobilization against perceived foreign interference, framing youth patriotism as allegiance to centralized authority rather than autonomous .

References

  1. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/may-fourth-movement-1919/
  2. https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1750_mayfourth.htm
  3. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199920082/obo-9780199920082-0077.xml
  4. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yuan-Shikai
  5. https://alphahistory.com/chineserevolution/warlord-era/
  6. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/a-tale-of-two-warlords-republican-china-during-the-1920s/
  7. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/surprisingly-important-role-china-played-world-war-i-180964532/
  8. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/august-14/china-declares-war-on-germany
  9. https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/educator-resource/world-war-i-100-years-later-surprisingly-important-role-china-played-wwi
  10. https://sites.asiasociety.org/chinawealthpower/chapters/chen-duxiu/
  11. https://chiculture.org.hk/en/photo-story/1561
  12. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/new-youth-in-china-may-fourth-anniversary/
  13. https://alphahistory.com/chineserevolution/chinese-revolution-timeline-1912-1927/
  14. https://english.pku.edu.cn/news_events/news/focus/8468.html
  15. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/modules/hi294/timetable/resources/may_4th.pdf
  16. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/japanese-relations
  17. https://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/research-and-collections/significant-collections/morrison-collection-finding-aid/events/47-21
  18. https://www.cfr.org/blog/china-japan-and-twenty-one-demands
  19. https://laits.utexas.edu/~mr56267/HIST_341_materials/Pages/Twenty_One_Demands.html
  20. https://www.forbes.com/sites/yanzhonghuang/2015/01/21/china-japan-and-the-twenty-one-demands/
  21. https://wp.stu.ca/worldhistory/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/21-Demands.pdf
  22. https://edspace.american.edu/justinjacobs/wp-content/uploads/sites/986/2021/07/18-The-Twenty-One-Demands.pdf
  23. http://www.modernchinesehistory.com/pages/p45.html
  24. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1915/d154
  25. https://www.britannica.com/event/Shandong-question
  26. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch13subch8
  27. https://chiculture.org.hk/en/photo-story/1562
  28. https://www.woodrowwilsonhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Wilson-and-Shandong-by-TIAN-LIAO-SUMMER-2022.pdf
  29. https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/chinese-students-protest-treaty-versailles-may-fourth-incident-1919
  30. https://academic.mu.edu/meissnerd/may4.htm
  31. https://libguides.anu.edu.au/c.php?g=816744&p=6593602
  32. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/05/04/may4-m04.html
  33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/311753
  34. https://chinaworker.info/en/2019/05/01/20239/
  35. https://www.historyfromonestudenttoanother.com/as-level-international-history-1870-1945/china-and-japan-1912-1945/1919-the-may-the-fourth-movement
  36. https://english.pku.edu.cn/news_events/news/focus/8396.html
  37. https://thediplomat.com/2015/05/the-legacy-of-chinas-may-fourth-movement/
  38. https://english.pku.edu.cn/news_events/news/focus/8388.html
  39. https://review.gale.com/2019/05/04/political-and-cultural-impacts-of-the-may-fourth-movement/
  40. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/may-fourth-movement
  41. https://alphahistory.com/chineserevolution/may-fourth-movement/
  42. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/18752160.2020.1868698
  43. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/18752160.2022.2095099
  44. https://u.osu.edu/mclc/2019/04/25/science-and-the-may-fourth/
  45. https://www.languageonthemove.com/the-linguistic-legacy-of-the-may-4-movement/
  46. http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_24_Special_Issue_December_2012/6.pdf
  47. https://repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/27467/Hasergin2016.pdf?sequence=1
  48. https://u.osu.edu/mclc/2018/09/28/lu-xuns-diary-of-a-madman-100-years-on/
  49. https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1626&context=jiws
  50. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=awe
  51. https://www.ewadirect.com/proceedings/chr/article/view/28101
  52. https://content.ucpress.edu/title/9780520218741/9780520218741_wang_intro.pdf
  53. https://capiremov.org/en/experience/may-fourth-movement-and-womens-emancipation-in-china/
  54. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125974870.pdf
  55. https://journal.fi/store/article/view/8809/11507
  56. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/single-sparks-and-legacies-an-eventful-account-of-the-may-fourth-movement/EDF32456211D5347AAA309A5D7F991F3
  57. https://chineseposters.net/themes/may-fourth-movement
  58. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199920082/obo-9780199920082-0077.xml
  59. http://english.cssn.cn/skw_culture/culture_st/202510/t20251013_5918651.shtml
  60. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/edcoll/9789004424883/BP000013.pdf
  61. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26529820
  62. https://www1.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/storage/publish5L/07_AsMaj%2C_v34.1%2C_Alitto.pdf
  63. https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/year-i-couldnt-avoid-may-fourth
  64. https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1003946
  65. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/8/956
  66. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10971467.2018.1549352
  67. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/C9A6240E5A8D8B66F72C1F2EA1474672
  68. https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=history_honproj
  69. https://journals.pan.pl/Content/133690?format_id=1
  70. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/marriage-and-family-in-china-ideology-and-practice/
  71. https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/cup/chiang_kaishek_new_life.pdf
  72. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview
  73. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues8/index.htm
  74. https://www.cato.org/publications/chinas-post-1978-economic-development-entry-global-trading-system
  75. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/9780815738053_ch1.pdf
  76. https://heiup.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/transcultural/article/view/24644/18539
  77. https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/67103/8/02whole.pdf
  78. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/5/article/429824/summary
  79. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/display/book/9789004330139/B9789004330139_004.pdf
  80. https://journals.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/8609
  81. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-96-7537-1_22
  82. https://jamestown.org/program/xi-jinping-chinas-traditionalist-restoration/
  83. https://wkelly1-19385.medium.com/new-confucian-social-and-political-philosophy-of-the-diaspora-684b24d869ea
  84. https://www.cambridgepublish.com/cahr/article/download/57/59/219
  85. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236776668_Gu_Hongming_as_a_Cultural_Amphibian_A_Confucian_Universalist_Critique_of_Modern_Western_Civilization
  86. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-04/30/c_138024983.htm
  87. https://jamestown.org/program/study-may-fourth-but-not-june-fourth-the-ccp-seeks-control-of-chinas-historical-legacies/
  88. https://thediplomat.com/2023/05/the-may-fourth-movement-in-xi-jinpings-china/
  89. http://english.scio.gov.cn/m/topnews/2019-05/06/content_74754368.htm
  90. https://www.idcpc.gov.cn/english2023/ttxw_5749/201904/t20190422_158929.html
  91. https://news.cgtn.com/news/3063544d34494464776c6d636a4e6e62684a4856/index.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.