New Life Movement

Corruption

The launch of the New Life Movement in September 1934 was set in the context of a notoriously corrupt government which not only cooperated with leaders of organized crime syndicates, but also in the kidnapping and assassination of political enemies. Historian Colin Mackerras writes that “Corruption was an abiding feature of Chiang Kai-shek’s rule", and that nepotism and bribery were rife among the bureaucracy. This is supported by Chiang’s own acknowledgement of his regime’s corruption in a statement that he made, saying: “If we do not weed the present body of corruption, bribery, per-functoriness, and ignorance, and establish instead a clean, effective administration, the day will soon come when the revolution will be started against us as we did the Manchus”. 

The corruption in Chiang’s regime is made further evident by the fact that Chiang’s government instituted an opium monopoly system in 1931, where the government itself administrated the opium trade. One Western doctor decried the fact that "absolutely no attempt has so far been made to restrict, control, or suppress opium cultivation or use. Within the space of a year, the Nationalists raised Chinese $40 million from their monopoly. 

Moral Decadence

The New Life Movement was set a period of perceived moral degeneracy. Chiang claimed that the life of a Chinese man could be summarised with words such as “hedonism”, to signify his unprincipled and controlled pursuit of pleasure; “laziness” to represent his negligence and carelessness; as well as having “unbearable filthiness” in every aspect of his life. This was further commented upon by Chinese politician Wang Ching-wei, on an author who described Chinese life as a life of "smoking," "sickness," "gambling," "filth," "ghosts" (i.e., superstition), and "indolence”. Wang argued the fundamental psychological basis of such behaviour was "lackadaisicalness" (suibian zhuyi) and "self seekingness" (zili zhuyi). He contended that  “lackadaisicalness” led to lives without a sense of right or wrong, and hence with no distinctions or purpose. "Self-seekingness," he argued, led to the rejection of all outside interference with this kind of behaviour as encroachment on "freedom". There was no consideration for others and their rights, only of one's own comfort, inevitably obstructing social life and group solidarity. Given that Wang often clashed with Chiang, his agreement with Chiang over the moral decadence of the Chinese people was significant. Another example is Garfield Huang, Secretary General National Anti-Opium Association of China, who on 21 October 1935 ascribed China’s “lack of morality” to the opium trade.

Influx of Foreign Ideas

The New Life Movement was founded at a time when China, already weakened by Western imperialism, faced the threats of rising Japanese militarism, domestic factionalism and communism. This is compounded by the influx of foreign ideas following the New Culture Movement and May Fourth Movement which fostered Western concepts such as liberalism, pragmatism and nationalism as well as more radical ideas including Marxism respectively. The Movement attempted to counter such threats through a resurrection of traditional Chinese morality, which it held to be superior to modern Western values. As such the Movement was based upon Confucianism, mixed with Christianity, nationalism and authoritarianism that have some similarities to fascism. It rejected individualism and liberalism, while also opposing socialism and communism.

Soong Mei-ling decided that China's challenges called for a program of spiritual enlightenment. Mei-ling wrote Forum, an American magazine, in 1935, that "the mere accumulation of great wealth is not sufficient to enable China to resume her position as a great nation." There must be, she continued, "also revival of the spirit, since spiritual values transcend mere material riches. She played a major role both in launching the Movement and in representing its public face.

Chiang Kai-shek used the Confucian and Methodist notion of self-cultivation and correct living for the Movement; to this end it prescribed proper etiquette on every aspect of daily life. Some of its many measures included: opposition to littering and spitting on the floor; opposition to opium use; opposition to conspicuous consumption; rejection of immoral entertainment in favor of artistic and athletic pursuits; courteous behavior; saluting the flag. Another campaign was its promotion of bathing with cold water: Chiang Kai-shek pointed out the (supposed) Japanese habit of washing their faces with cold water as a sign of their military strength, and expected Chinese to be able to do the same.

The New Life Movement was considered by the Kuomintang as a key part of the program to carry out the "principle of the people's livelihood" in Sun Yat-sen's Three Principles of the People. However it was suspended indefinitely in the approach to the Second Sino-Japanese War.

Doctrines and Principle Beliefs

In Chiang Kai Shek’s speech to inaugurate the New Life Movement, it was stated that, “[These] virtues must be applied to ordinary life in the matter of food, clothing, shelter, and action. The four virtues are the essential principles for the promotion of morality. They form the major rules for dealing with men and human affairs, for cultivating oneself and for adjustment to one’s surroundings. Whoever violates these rules is bound to fail, and a nation that neglects them will not survive.”  The four virtues – 'Lǐ' (禮/礼, proper rite), Yì' (義/义, righteousness or justice), lián (廉, honesty and cleanness) and chǐ (恥/耻, shame; sense of right and wrong) are considered to be a modernized version of Confucian beliefs.

Li

'Lǐ', means to have a regulated attitude, in both mind and heart. It was intended to adapt to circumstances. Examples would be the intention for this virtue in nature to become natural law, but signifies rules in the context of social affairs. Additionally, in national affairs, it would signify discipline instead. These three aspects are intended to symbolize the phases of one’s life, and are supposed to be regulated by reason. One of the interpretations of 'Lǐ' is that it is intended to regulate attitudes of the mind and heart.

Yi

Yì', means to have a sense of rightness or duty. It is also intended to be interpreted to mean “proper”. Being “proper” is defined as obeying the three aspects that is part of 'Lǐ': natural law, rules and discipline. If one acts against any of these three aspects, the act is considered to be naturally wrong and therefore would not fall under Yì'.

Lian

“Lian/ Lien (lián) 廉”  means to have integrity and honesty, in personal, public and official life. It is intended to differentiate right from wrong. To be right, the action/idea must be in agreement with 'Lǐ' and Yì and must forgo any other actions/ideas.

Chi

''Chi/ Ch’ih (chǐ) 恥/耻” means to have a sense of shame, to be conscious when one was acting against the virtues. One is meant to feel ashamed when acting against the three virtues mentioned above, and if they are aware that someone else is acting against the virtues, they are meant to feel disgust. Furthermore, one must strive to remain good and improve oneself while doing their best to get rid of the evil.

Additional Beliefs

By Chiang Kai-Shek’s later speeches, the four virtues had been extended to eight, with the addition of “Promptness”, “Precision”, “Harmoniousness” and “Dignity”. These elements were summarized in two basic forms: “cleanliness” and “discipline” and were viewed as the first step in achieving a “new life”. Examples of this in people’s lives was that people were encouraged to engage in what’s considered modern polite behaviour, such as not to spit, urinate or sneeze in public. They were encouraged to adopt good table manners such as not making noises when eating. Overall, the people were encouraged to adapt better social behaviour that must coincide with the stated virtues.

Reception

Despite the grandiose goal of revitalising and revolutionising China, the New Life Movement ultimately ended in failure as both domestic and foreign reception remained paltry throughout the duration of the movement. The combination of the movement’s inability to formulate a systematic ideology and the seeming banality of its concerns caused both Chinese and foreign commentators to ignore the significance of New Life ideology and intentions and instead to stress the more superficial aspects of the movement. Consequently, the movement was approached variously as a joke, or to those taking it more seriously, a shallow and antiquated regression to Chinese tradition when tradition had already proved incapable of solving China’s problems.

The Movement’s inability to formulate a systematic ideology and abstract code of ethics contrasted sharply with the promises of the Communists, who spoke sharply and to the point on taxation, distribution of land and the disposition of overlords. From the perspective of a Chinese citizen, the policies of Marxists are far more practical and coherent, leading to the lack of significance attributed to the New Life Movement. On a Western perspective, Chiang’s complex code of ethics was far too abstract and lacking in action to be useful or pragmatic, perceived as being superficial and inordinately idealistic.  

The lack of popular domestic reception is exacerbated by the behaviour of the Blue Shirts, a far-right fascist group that enforced the rules of the New Life Movement. Historian Sterling Seagrave writes “by 1936, the Blue Shirts were running amok, driven by excesses of zeal and brutality, giving the New Life Movement a bad name. The Literary Digest observed that year, ‘Most likely to upset the teacups were Chiang’s own civilian, anti-foreign, bombing, stabbing, shooting ‘Blue Shirt’ terrorists, who once useful, no unmanageable, have become something of a Frankenstein monster.’” The association of the violent and repressive behaviour of the Blue Shirts compounded the less than enthusiastic reception of the Movement, further attributing to it a negative reputation as well. 

Historical evaluations

In the words of Soong Mei-ling's biographer, the New Life Movement was a "curious East-West ideological fusion of neo-Confucian precepts, thinly disguised, New Testament Christianity, YMCA-Style social activism, elements of Bushido -- the samurai code -- and European fascism, along with a generous dose of New England Puritanism." Arif Dirlik explains the Movement as motivated by the need to counter Communist success in both ideological appeal and political organization.