UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Divergent Paths to Democracy: Radical and Moderate Political Activism during the Democracy Wall Movement, 1978-1981 THESIS submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History by Qindian Chen Thesis Committee: Chancellor’s Professor Jeffrey Wasserstrom, Chair Assistant Professor Emily Baum Associate Professor Yang Su 2018 © 2018 Qindian Chen Table of Contents Page Acknowledgments iii Abstract iv Introduction 1 Figure 1: Flow Chart 6 Figure 2: Timeline 6 Historiographies 7 Section One: Mobilization (October 1978 ~ January 1979) 13 Section Two: Divergences (January 1979 ~ October 1979) 28 Section Three: Two Parallel Movements (November 1979 ~ April 1981) 42 Conclusion 50 Bibliography 52 ii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Professor Wasserstrom, Professor Baum, and Professor Su for their expert advice and encouragement. Specially thank to Professor Pickowicz, who lead me to this project, which would have been impossible without his sources and interview contacts. I would also thank all my interviewees, who kindly sharing their wisdom and time with me. Finally, thanks to my friends and classmates, who read my drafts and provided precious advices. iii Abstract Divergent Paths to Democracy: Radical and Moderate Political Activism during the Democracy Wall Movement, 1978-1981 By Qindian Chen Master of Arts in History University of California, Irvine, 2018 Professor Jeffrey Wasserstrom, Chair What was the decisive element for activists’ different individual choices during the Democracy Wall Movement? In other words, what were the primary factors for the Democracy Wall activists adopting either a moderate or radical position? This work employs the studies of factionalism of the Red Guard Movement to investigate the divisions among the Democracy Wall activists. Through analyzing the intentions of activists’ inner- and inter-organizational divergences, across three different phases, mobilization, divergence, and two parallel movements, this thesis argues that political access to educational and career opportunities was the decisive factor for activists’ inter-organizational divergences, which determined whether an activist adopted either a moderate or radical position on a macro-scale. Furthermore, access to higher political status within different organizations was the primary factor for their inner- organizational divergences, which determined whether an activist adopted either a moderate or radical position on a micro-scale. iv Introduction Late at night on September 29, 1979, around twenty activists, who came from all over Beijing, gathered in a room and intensely discussed whether they should organize a demonstration for October 1, which marked the thirtieth anniversary of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. The origin of this debate was rooted in the conflict between the authorities and a group of artists, who were also activists in the “Democracy Wall Movement”, and who tried to hold an unauthorized exhibition called the Star Art Exhibition (星星美展) on the sidewalk on the east side of the National Art Museum of China. However, after two days of exhibition, a group of policemen showed up to confiscate all the displays and forcibly prohibit the exhibition. At this time, the Democracy Wall Movement, which is also known as the “Beijing Spring,” had already been going on for almost a year. The movement emerged in a relatively relaxed political environment, while a group of activists publicly expressed their opinions about China’s political and social issues through big-character posters, establishing unofficial journals, and forming political organizations. These Star artists, who mainly included writers, poets, painters, and sculptors, also established a literary-oriented unofficial journal called Today (今天) to publish their works. Some core members of Today were also editors or were affiliated with other major politically-oriented unofficial journals. Therefore, when the Star artists decided to gather a joint meeting with other major Democracy Wall activists to discuss what to do next, the tightly connected personal networks allowed the news to spread rapidly. Around twenty activists from five major unofficial journals, which were April Fifth Forum (四五论坛), Exploration (探索), Beijing Spring (北京之春), Fertile Soil (沃⼟), and Today, participated in the meeting. During the meeting, activists’ diverse opinions could be 1 roughly divided into two camps. On the one hand, some radicals showed a strong willingness to air their grievances and express their political opinions through organizing a demonstration on October 1. The radicals’ main motivations were based on inside information about the rifts and political struggles within the Beijing Municipal Committee, which could provide activists an excellent chance to protest for their grievances. On the other hand, moderates were very cautious about this kind of collective activity and did not want to take risks. Through intense debate, the radical opinions were gradually gaining the upper hand, which means the majority of activists agreed to hold a demonstration on October 1. This result dissatisfied some moderates, who believed that radical behaviors would harm the art exhibition and the survival of the Democracy Wall Movement. They thought that, even though the authorities had arrested some of the most radical activists, they had still tacitly tolerated the existence of the majority of the unofficial journals for almost a year. Therefore, radical opinions and behaviors would destroy a unique opportunity to legalize the unofficial journals. Consequently, the members who belonged to the two moderate unofficial journals, Beijing Spring and Fertile Soil, informed the other activists that they were not going to participate in the demonstration on October 1. The two different decisions about whether to participate in the demonstration were quite influential. Not only did they influence the activists’ different destinies later, but also marked the watershed of two divergent paths to China’s democratization. The division of opinions among activists raises an essential question: What was the decisive element for their different individual choices during the Democracy Wall Movement? In other words, what were the primary factors for the Democracy Wall activists adopting either a moderate or radical position? Did personal psychological factors have a decisive influence on their divergent choices? Were activists’ divergent paths determined by social structural factors, 2 like family origins, class interests, social status, personal networks, and so on? Or, were their different personal choices based on diverse life experiences during the Mao era, especially the degree to which they suffered during the Cultural Revolution? Through investigating the Democracy Wall activists’ inner- and inter-organizational divergences, I argue that access to educational and career opportunities was the decisive factor for activists’ inter-organizational divergences, which determined whether an activist adopted either a moderate or radical position on a macro-scale. Furthermore, access to higher political status within different organizations was the primary factor for their inner-organizational divergences, which determined whether an activist adopted either a moderate or radical position on a micro-scale. Namely, it was the specific social and political opportunities activists faced both in their respective organizations and within the movement as a whole, rather than social structural factors, personal psychological reasons, or experiences during the Cultural Revolution, that dictated the divergent paths among the Democracy Wall activists. To demonstrate my argument, it is necessary to first define the terms “moderate,” “radical,” and “divergent paths” in the context of the Democracy Wall Movement. During the movement, the moderates showed fewer grievances about China’s socialist political system and tended to use Marxist narratives to express their political opinions. They also lacked willingness to join collective activities, like organizing joint meetings, contacting petitioners, or holding demonstrations. Namely, they were more willing to express their political opinions through governmental channels, like county- and district-level elections of People’s Representatives of Beijing University in 1980. In contrast, radicals during the Democracy Wall Movement expressed stronger grievances about China’s political system. For instance, there were some radicals who tried to establish their own political organizations to challenge the CCP’s one-party 3 system. Moreover, the radicals usually participated in or organized collective activities more actively. Compared to the moderates, the radicals usually were not satisfied with protesting only through governmental channels or those channels that were tacitly tolerated. For instance, some of the radicals tended to express their voices through foreign journalists, diplomats, and demonstrations. By using the two terms, “moderate” and “radical,” I am not trying to polarize the Democracy Wall activists. Rather, activists’ different behaviors and choices were more like a spectrum than two groups with clear boundaries. Furthermore, using these two terms does not mean activists’ radical or moderate positions were static. Instead, during the movement, they frequently switched their radical or moderate positions and regularly changed the strategy of protests,