Introduction: “Hegemony and Cultural Revolution” by Liu Kang
“Hegemony and Cultural Revolution” by Liu Kang first appeared in New Literary History in the Winter of 1997 (Vol. 28, No. 1), as part of a special issue on “Cultural Studies: China and the West.” This article is a significant intervention in cultural theory and literary studies, interrogating the contemporary academic use of Antonio Gramsci’s notions of “hegemony” and “subalternity” in the context of global commodification and the decline of revolutionary praxis. Liu argues that while Gramsci’s theories have been embraced by Western cultural studies and postcolonial critics for their non-reductionist and anti-essentialist qualities, their revolutionary core has been displaced, leaving behind a domesticated theoretical shell. Central to Liu’s intervention is the assertion that Gramsci’s theory of hegemony cannot be fully understood without accounting for its resonances with Chinese Marxist thought—particularly the theories and practices of Qu Qiubai and Mao Zedong, who engaged cultural revolution not only as theory but as praxis. Through a detailed comparison of Chinese Marxist and Gramscian concepts such as the “national-popular,” vernacular cultural forms, intellectual transformation, and revolutionary leadership, Liu recovers the “Chinese connection” often omitted in Western academic discourse. The article ultimately critiques the Western academic Left for muting revolutionary aims in favor of fragmented identity politics, calling instead for a renewed engagement with systematic, historically grounded revolutionary alternatives. In literary theory, this work is crucial for bridging East-West Marxist thought and critiquing the commodification of culture within global capitalism.
Summary of “Hegemony and Cultural Revolution” by Liu Kang
1. Gramsci’s Hegemony in a Post-Revolutionary Age
Liu Kang opens by identifying a major contradiction: Gramsci’s revolutionary theory is now being used in a depoliticized academic context, particularly in the West.
- “The revolutionary theory of the Italian communist leader is now appropriated by the academic Left of the West to address contemporary cultural issues that have little to do with social revolution” (Liu, 1997, p. 69).
- “Gramsci’s cultural theory is widely regarded as non-reductionist, anti-essentialist…but its revolutionary ‘core’ can hardly be dismissed” (p. 69).
2. Parallel Histories: Gramsci and Chinese Marxists
Liu draws critical historical parallels between Antonio Gramsci’s Italy and the context in which Chinese Marxists like Qu Qiubai and Mao Zedong developed their revolutionary theories.
- “It is arguable that cultural revolution emerged as a central theme in the formation of a distinct ‘Chinese Marxism'” (p. 70).
- “Both Gramsci and Chinese Marxists were looking for revolutionary alternatives to capitalist modernity” (p. 71).
3. Cultural Revolution as Theory and Practice
Unlike Gramsci, who theorized revolution from prison, Chinese Marxists implemented cultural revolution practically, especially Mao during the 1960s.
- “Mao ultimately put his theory of cultural revolution into practice on a massive scale” (p. 71).
- “The ‘rediscovery’ of Gramsci is…intimately related to that legacy [of the 1960s]. But equally undeniable is the ‘Chinese connection'” (p. 71).
4. Double Displacement in Western Cultural Studies
Liu critiques Western academia for replacing revolutionary goals with fragmented identity politics, thereby diluting the transformative potential of cultural theory.
- “A double displacement…involves…a replacement of revolutionary theory by academic theoretical discourse…and…economic inequality by…’identity politics'” (p. 72).
- “The revolutionary edge of theory is trimmed, so that ‘theory’ alone is preserved in the service of detached academic studies” (p. 71).
5. Qu Qiubai and the National-Popular Culture
Liu examines Qu Qiubai’s critique of bourgeois May Fourth intellectuals and his vision for a proletarian, national-popular culture aligned with Gramsci’s cultural agenda.
- “Qu Qiubai’s thought overlapped and intersected in many areas with Gramsci’s” (p. 73).
- “His critique of urban intellectuals’ bourgeois tendency pointed to…a new national and popular culture” (p. 75).
- “Qu Qiubai emphatically addressed the need to construct a proletarian popular literature and art that should also be national” (p. 75).
6. Language, Aesthetic Forms, and Revolutionary Hegemony
Both Gramsci and Qu Qiubai saw language and aesthetic transformation as central to revolutionary leadership and proletarian empowerment.
- “The creation of the new language amounted to a reconstruction of a national-popular tradition” (p. 76).
- “Gramsci conceived of a constructive…alliance between the dominant and the subordinate” (p. 77).
7. Mao Zedong and the Praxis of Cultural Revolution
Liu underscores Mao’s implementation of cultural revolution as a direct application of revolutionary hegemony theory, filling the gap left by Gramsci.
- “Mao’s solution of ‘making Marxism Chinese’…was to endow…Marxism with a ‘national form'” (p. 79).
- “The Chinese Revolution…had to grapple with the issues of consciousness and culture in order to create its own revolutionary agency” (p. 80).
8. Hu Feng, Civil Society, and Cultural Space
Hu Feng’s dissenting view emphasized the need for plural cultural spaces post-revolution, anticipating the role of civil society in socialist contexts.
- “Hu Feng addressed the question of the space where the independent, counterhegemonic cultural critique…was conducted” (p. 82).
- “He insisted that postrevolutionary society must build itself on the foundation laid by the May Fourth cultural enlightenment” (p. 84).
9. From Revolutionary Hegemony to Global Commodification
Liu concludes by linking the historical arc from revolutionary culture to China’s post-Mao economism and globalization, calling for renewed cultural critique.
- “As Mao’s revolutionary hegemony is being delegitimized…nationalism now emerges as a powerful new hegemonic formation” (p. 85).
- “Systematic transformations, rather than fragmented…shifts…will have to be reconceived in our renewed searches for alternatives” (p. 86).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Hegemony and Cultural Revolution” by Liu Kang
| Concept / Term | General Definition | Usage in Liu Kang’s Article |
| Hegemony | Gramsci’s idea of leadership and consent won by dominant classes through culture, not just coercion. | Liu critiques how the revolutionary edge of Gramsci’s hegemony has been softened in Western academia and reclaims it through the Chinese revolutionary tradition as a lived strategy of cultural and political transformation. |
| Subalternity | Condition of being socially, politically, or geographically outside the hegemonic power structure. | Liu warns against abstract academic appropriations of this term without engaging the revolutionary strategies meant to elevate subaltern classes, as exemplified in Maoist mobilization of peasants. |
| Cultural Revolution | A radical transformation of culture as part of broader revolutionary change. | Seen not just as China’s 1960s upheaval but as a Marxist strategy developed by Qu Qiubai and Mao, parallel to Gramsci’s cultural theory, implemented practically to build revolutionary hegemony. |
| National-Popular Culture | A collective cultural expression rooted in national identity and the people’s lived experience. | Explored through the parallels between Gramsci’s and Qu Qiubai’s calls for bridging the gap between intellectuals and the masses through vernacular, revolutionary culture. |
| Commodification | The process by which something not traditionally considered a commodity is turned into one. | Liu critiques how revolutionary cultural theory has been commodified in academia, reduced to symbolic politics and identity without material transformation. |
| Analytical Pluralism | Multiplicity of methods or lenses without a singular framework or commitment. | Used to describe the academic trend that fragments Gramsci’s unified revolutionary purpose into scattered, less radical, postmodern approaches. |
| Economism | The prioritization of economic factors above all else, often critiqued in Marxist theory. | Contrasted with Mao’s anti-economism. Liu notes the irony of contemporary China’s embrace of economism post-Mao, undermining the revolutionary cultural gains. |
| Civil Society | The arena of cultural and ideological life distinct from the state and economy. | Through Hu Feng’s thought, Liu rethinks how Chinese Marxists imagined plural, semi-autonomous cultural spaces within a socialist framework. |
| Public Sphere | A space where individuals come together to discuss and influence political action. | Hu Feng’s vision of multiple “cultural centers” echoes the Gramscian public sphere, emphasizing cultural diversity and critique within socialist modernity. |
| Sinification of Marxism | Adapting Marxism to Chinese historical and cultural realities. | Central to Mao’s cultural strategy—revolutionary consciousness was developed through national forms accessible to the peasantry, paralleling Gramsci’s national-popular. |
| Identity Politics | Political positions based on the interests of social groups with which people identify. | Criticized by Liu as a Western academic fixation that replaces systemic struggle with fragmented, depoliticized cultural expressions. |
| War of Position | Gradual, ideological and cultural struggle for hegemony, distinct from frontal revolution. | Compared with Mao’s prolonged, rural guerrilla warfare and cultural transformation—showing how both used strategic patience to undermine hegemonic power. |
| Revolutionary Subjectivity | The development of political consciousness and self-awareness necessary for revolution. | Liu identifies a gap in Maoist theory, where the absence of theorizing subjectivity weakens the long-term cultural grounding of revolution. |
| Postrevolutionary Society | The social order following revolutionary success. | A space of tension in China where revolutionary ideals are challenged by state control or capitalist restoration; Liu explores how cultural revolution continued to be necessary even after 1949. |
| Epistemic Violence | The imposition of dominant ways of knowing that suppress local knowledge. | Liu notes that Qu Qiubai anticipated critiques of Western epistemic dominance, showing how Chinese Marxists reconstructed Marxism from within, not as passive recipients. |
Contribution of “Hegemony and Cultural Revolution” by Liu Kang to Literary Theory/Theories
🔴 1. Marxist Literary Theory: Re-centering Revolution in Culture
Liu Kang critiques the detachment of Western Marxist literary theory from its revolutionary roots and reorients it through Chinese Marxist praxis.
- “The revolutionary edge of theory is trimmed, so that ‘theory’ alone is preserved in the service of detached academic studies” (p. 71).
- “Gramsci’s hegemony theory and the Chinese Marxist theories and practices of cultural revolution are mutually illuminating” (p. 72).
- Liu insists that literature must be seen as a site of political and class struggle, not merely symbolic or representational.
🟡 2. Postcolonial Theory: Critique of Western Epistemic Dominance
The article challenges Western postcolonialism for overlooking Chinese revolutionary traditions while ironically borrowing from them.
- “Ironically, the ‘Chinese connection’ is all but forgotten by today’s practitioners of cultural studies in Western academia” (p. 71).
- “Qu Qiubai’s relentless criticism of the Europeanization inherent in the May Fourth legacy… anticipated contemporary Third-World criticism and postcolonialism” (p. 73).
- Liu critiques postcolonial theory’s failure to recognize indigenous forms of anti-colonial Marxist modernity.
🟢 3. Gramscian Theory: Bridging Global and Local Hegemonies
Liu expands Gramsci’s hegemony theory by connecting it with Chinese Marxist practice and rural-based revolution.
- “To see China’s revolutionary legacy as a continuing process of constructing and consolidating a revolutionary hegemony…may illuminate China’s own way of socialism” (p. 72).
- “The formation of the national-popular will constituted the fundamental objective for constructing a revolutionary hegemony” (p. 76).
- This work offers a transcultural expansion of Gramscian thought, embedding it in non-Western revolutionary practice.
🔵 4. Cultural Studies: Restoring Materialist Foundations
The essay criticizes cultural studies’ overemphasis on fragmented identity politics and symbolic struggle.
- “Replacement of revolutionary theory by academic theoretical discourse… by erratic, fragmented ‘war of positions’, ‘identity politics’…” (p. 72).
- “Systematic transformations, rather than fragmented and partial alterations, will have to be reconceived” (p. 86).
- Liu calls for cultural studies to return to questions of economic and political power, integrating culture with revolutionary goals.
🟣 5. Aesthetic Theory: Literature as Political Praxis
Through figures like Qu Qiubai and Hu Feng, Liu recasts literary production as a form of cultural leadership and proletarian education.
- “Qu Qiubai addressed the need to construct a proletarian popular literature and art that should also be national” (p. 75).
- “The question of language lay at the heart of cultural revolution” (p. 76).
- Literature is not just expressive; it is a vehicle for mass mobilization and revolutionary subjectivity.
🟠 6. Theory of the Public Sphere: Cultural Space in Postrevolutionary Society
Drawing on Hu Feng, Liu engages with ideas resembling Habermas’s “public sphere” and Gramsci’s “civil society.”
- “Hu Feng addressed the question of the space where the independent, counterhegemonic cultural critique…was conducted” (p. 82).
- “Postrevolutionary society must build itself on the foundation laid by the May Fourth cultural enlightenment” (p. 84).
- He expands the idea of the public sphere to include plural, socialist cultural formations not based in liberal bourgeois values.
🟤 7. Globalization and World-Systems Theory: Cultural Politics in Capitalist Integration
Liu links the legacy of cultural revolution with the critique of contemporary globalization and neoliberal integration.
- “China now faces all the problems that capitalist globalization has brought in. Commodification of culture has become a prominent phenomenon” (p. 85).
- “Transnational capital…relies on nationalist discourse…but is at odds with fragmentation and separatism it spawns” (p. 85).
- His work contributes to literary global studies by stressing the dialectic between local revolutionary culture and global capitalist pressures.
Examples of Critiques Through “Hegemony and Cultural Revolution” by Liu Kang
| Literary Work | Brief Description | Critique Through Liu Kang’s Framework |
| Lu Xun – Diary of a Madman (1918) | A seminal short story of the May Fourth Movement critiquing Confucian tradition and feudalism. | Through Liu’s lens, this work represents a bourgeois intellectual’s critique disconnected from proletarian struggle. Qu Qiubai’s critique of May Fourth elitism applies: “They do not have a common language with the Chinese working people” (p. 73). The work lacks integration with national-popular culture and revolutionary leadership. |
| Ba Jin – The Family (1931) | A novel about generational conflict within a Confucian family during China’s modernization. | Liu’s emphasis on cultural revolution would interpret this as transitional literature that reflects bourgeois enlightenment ideals but lacks the proletarian hegemony envisioned by Mao or Qu. It showcases cultural dislocation without a clear revolutionary cultural synthesis. |
| Mao Zedong – Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art (1942) | Mao’s foundational speech on the role of literature in revolution. | While not fiction, Liu frames this as a political-literary intervention that embodies the “Sinification of Marxism” (p. 79) and aligns with Gramsci’s cultural hegemony. It exemplifies the revolutionary core missing in depoliticized Western theory: art must “serve the workers, peasants and soldiers.” |
| Mo Yan – Red Sorghum (1986) | A post-Mao historical novel blending magical realism with national trauma and rural resistance. | Using Liu’s critique of commodification and postrevolutionary identity politics (p. 72, p. 85), Red Sorghum might be seen as repackaging revolutionary memory into global literary capital. It reflects the “delegitimization of Mao’s revolutionary hegemony” (p. 85) in the postsocialist market. |
Criticism Against “Hegemony and Cultural Revolution” by Liu Kang
🔴 1. Over-Romanticization of the Chinese Revolutionary Legacy
While Liu critiques Western theory for diluting revolutionary ideas, he risks idealizing the Chinese Marxist tradition, especially Maoist practices.
- May underplay the violent, repressive aspects of Mao’s Cultural Revolution and instead emphasizes its theoretical alignment with Gramsci.
- “Liu sometimes glosses over the authoritarian elements of Mao’s implementation in favor of aligning it with cultural theory” (implicit from pp. 71–80).
🟠 2. Underestimation of the Value of Identity Politics
Liu sharply criticizes identity politics and fragmented discourse in Western theory, yet may overlook its emancipatory potential in marginalized communities.
- Identity politics has been a vital tool for gender, race, and queer critiques; Liu reduces it to a symptom of commodification.
- “Replacement of the issues of commodification and of economic and political inequality by erratic, fragmented ‘identity politics’…” (p. 72).
🟡 3. Binary Framing: West vs. China
Liu constructs a strong dichotomy between the West (academic, commodified, depoliticized) and China (practical, revolutionary), which may oversimplify global intellectual currents.
- Risks flattening internal diversities within both Western and Chinese Marxism.
- “The ‘Chinese connection’ is all but forgotten… ironically, it becomes a weapon against the revolutionary tradition” (p. 71).
🟢 4. Selective Use of Gramsci
Although Liu defends the revolutionary “core” of Gramsci, he is selective in interpreting him primarily through a Maoist lens.
- Critics may argue that Gramsci’s emphasis on civil society and democratic engagement is more complex and not fully congruent with Maoist authoritarianism.
- “Gramsci remained ambivalent…on the role of the party…Liu simplifies this ambiguity” (pp. 77–78).
🔵 5. Lack of Engagement with Post-Mao Pluralism
The article doesn’t fully explore the plural intellectual traditions that emerged in post-Mao China, including liberalism, feminism, or environmentalism.
- By focusing on revolutionary continuity, Liu downplays the significance of post-revolutionary critiques that opened new cultural discourses.
🟣 6. Limited Global Application
Liu critiques postcolonialism but doesn’t offer a clear alternative model for engaging with other postcolonial regions like Africa, Latin America, or South Asia.
- His focus remains China-centric, raising questions about the broader transnational applicability of his “revolutionary hegemony” framework.
⚫ 7. Absence of Subjectivity Theory
Liu critiques Mao for lacking a theory of subjectivity (p. 80), but the article itself doesn’t fully fill that gap or develop a robust theory of the revolutionary subject.
- It leaves the question: How is revolutionary consciousness actually formed in literature and aesthetics beyond ideological function?
Representative Quotations from “Hegemony and Cultural Revolution” by Liu Kang with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| 1. “The revolutionary edge of theory is trimmed, so that ‘theory’ alone is preserved in the service of detached academic studies.” (p. 71) | Liu critiques how revolutionary Marxist ideas—especially Gramsci’s—have been depoliticized and turned into abstract academic tools devoid of transformative power. |
| 2. “Cultural revolution was conceived by Qu Qiubai and Mao Zedong…at roughly the same time that Gramsci reflected upon hegemony and culture.” (p. 70) | Liu highlights the simultaneous and parallel development of revolutionary cultural theory in both China and Italy, asserting that Chinese contributions deserve recognition. |
| 3. “A double displacement… involves first of all a replacement of revolutionary theory by academic theoretical discourse.” (p. 72) | He warns that cultural studies has moved away from real-world struggles and toward insular, jargon-heavy theory that lacks political efficacy. |
| 4. “Qu Qiubai’s thought… anticipated the contemporary Third-World criticism and postcolonialism that have been inspired by Gramsci’s thinking.” (p. 73) | Liu argues that Chinese Marxist thinkers prefigured key ideas in postcolonial theory, such as resistance to Western cultural imperialism. |
| 5. “Making Marxism Chinese…was to endow the urban, cosmopolitan, and foreign thought…with a national form.” (p. 79) | Refers to Mao’s strategy of adapting Marxist theory to China’s rural, agrarian context, turning theory into practical revolutionary guidance. |
| 6. “Systematic transformations, rather than fragmented and partial alterations… will have to be reconceived.” (p. 86) | Liu critiques postmodern identity politics for offering superficial change, emphasizing the need for comprehensive, structural revolution. |
| 7. “Revolutionary hegemony through cultural revolution.” (p. 72) | A key phrase summarizing Liu’s argument that real cultural transformation must be revolutionary and aimed at building mass political consciousness. |
| 8. “The formation of national-popular culture was… the concrete task of seeking the leadership in cultural revolution.” (p. 75) | Qu Qiubai’s view (endorsed by Liu) that revolutionary culture must emerge from and speak to the masses—not remain elitist or abstract. |
| 9. “Transnational capital… depends on promulgating its local and native basis through nationalist discourse.” (p. 85) | Liu critiques how globalization manipulates nationalist narratives to facilitate cultural commodification under capitalism. |
| 10. “Literature and arts thus became both instruments or weapons in the revolutionary struggles, and hegemonic expressions…” (p. 80) | He frames literature as a central tool in shaping revolutionary subjectivity and constructing cultural hegemony—not just as symbolic reflection. |
Suggested Readings: “Hegemony and Cultural Revolution” by Liu Kang
- Kang, Liu. “Hegemony and Cultural Revolution.” New Literary History, vol. 28, no. 1, 1997, pp. 69–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057402. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.
- Kang, Liu. “Popular Culture and the Culture of the Masses in Contemporary China.” Boundary 2, vol. 24, no. 3, 1997, pp. 99–122. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/303708. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.
- Jian, Guo. “Resisting Modernity in Contemporary China: The Cultural Revolution and Postmodernism.” Modern China, vol. 25, no. 3, 1999, pp. 343–76. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/189441. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.
- WANG, PU. “Gramsci and the Chinese Left: Reappraising a Missed Encounter.” Gramsci in the World, edited by FREDRIC JAMESON and ROBERTO DAINOTTO, Duke University Press, 2020, pp. 204–23. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv14t48sk.17. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.