How I Gradually Grew into a Ruffian Man of Letters

From ancient times to the present, without the criticism of intellectuals, society, culture, and technology could not have made leaping progress. Being a critic takes considerable courage, because the critic often challenges the beliefs of a huge group with only their own strength. Such a challenge usually means the critic will be besieged by the object of criticism for offending the powers that be. In those brutal, religious-dictatorial ages, some critics were even punished by the Inquisition, burned or killed.

The Western philosopher Aristotle said: I love my teacher, but I love truth more. Yet there is always a group of people who dislike this saying of Aristotle's. For such people, the teacher is truth. If our words show the slightest disrespect for their beliefs, they cannot bear it, feeling offended, even as they themselves ceaselessly expand their flock.

Such people carry within them the authoritarian DNA of only the magistrate may light fires. When criticized, they either lash out viciously or wail that others lack class and do not respect their faith. A belief is something you yourself must respect; no second person in this world has an obligation to respect and defend your belief. As the late American president Jefferson said, every person's soul should be left to their own care.

People often say how the West respects individual belief. But as far as I know, in the West religious belief has always been controversial, and thinkers criticizing religion have come in endless succession. The Western Renaissance was precisely a movement of religious and intellectual liberation. Today's Western religious belief has been greatly improved on the basis of ancient faith through social criticism. Without this, Westerners would still live under the shadow of religious prosecution and the Crusades.

Beyond religious belief, people have other beliefs—superstitions about traditional culture, or dogma about some ideology. The moment we express a view that disagrees with theirs, they immediately swarm and demand we shut up. Men of letters are the vanguard of public opinion; when writers fall silent, the world falls into ultimate silence and becomes the domain of authoritarianism.

After facing such people many times, I gradually understood that as a writer who loves to criticize bad phenomena, no matter what I say, I will stir up hornets' nests and attract swarms of wasps. Rather than argue until my lips are dry, it is better to take up a stick and deliver a blunt blow.

When Hu Shi launched the New Culture Movement in China, he was reviled by the whole country in every conceivable way. His friends advised him: what can a single scholar do against a gang of bandits? Li Ao admired Hu Shi but could not stand his unending forbearance, so Li Ao spent his literary career like a fighting rooster, collecting women as a lustful stallion. I admire Li Ao's backbone, but I lack his stamina; I cannot be a stallion, yet I appreciate his combative style.

So as I wrote, I gradually began to speak freely, no longer caring about anyone's abuse or expression. The world cannot be changed by a few essays from us writers, but a few essays are not useless either. From ancient times, writers as the conscience of society have been the mainstay of social morality. If all writers treasured their skins and refused to speak, the world would have no hope of improvement.

It is impossible for a writer to have no enemies; even today's fans and friends may become tomorrow's enemies, because as one writes, one may step on the toes of fans and friends on some issue. After howling for a while, they will join the camp attacking us. Writers who engage in social criticism must get used to solitude, be a bit ruffian, be tough inside, and not care about anything.

I have written online for nearly twenty years and gradually understood that I should not get too close to anyone, because once I get close to my readers, I will easily be kidnapped by them. Readers always demand that I speak for them, or hold my tongue to spare their feelings. Some of what they want me to say is nonsense; how could I say it? What they want me to hold back for friendship's sake is exactly what I must speak. How could I bottle it up for the sake of a face? Articles are not for talking nonsense; they are for speaking one's mind.

So it is better to be a bit of a ruffian and keep one's social circle cautious. Readers may curse if they like, come if they like, go if they like. Only thus can one consistently preserve one's independence and authenticity.