The Resonance of the Bell of Freedom Across the Taiwan Strait

— In Memory of Professor Yusheng Lin

By Kuide Chen Ph.D.

Looking Back at the Scholar’s Grace

When the grievous news of Professor Yusheng Lin’s passing came in November 2022, I was stunned and subsequently sank into a prolonged numbness that I could not shake off. In recent years, too many of my teachers and peers have suddenly passed away. In particular, in 2021 Professor Yingshi Yu, followed closely in 2022 by Professors Yusheng Lin and Hao Zhang—three mentors from whom I had sought advice for nearly four decades— all departed one after another. It felt as if a cold bucket of ice water had been poured over me, leaving my mind utterly blank. Was the world sliding toward its end? With countless words on my mind, where could I even begin…? Now, nearly three years after Professor Lin’s passing, as the numbness has given way to reflection, memories of the many moments between him and myself have surged back. It is time to write something down.

It was the summer of 1988. Professor Yusheng Lin of the University of Wisconsin visited Shanghai and came to the Institute of Cultural Studies, which I directed (then under East China University of Chemical Technology, today’s East China University of Science and Technology). There, he accepted an appointment as Honorary Professor of the Institute and gave a lecture on modern liberalism.

Those of slightly older generations may remember that, in the latter half of the 1980s, Yusheng Lin had already become widely known in Chinese intellectual circles as a resounding voice for liberalism. By then, I had already read many of his writings, especially his correspondence with Professor Haiguang Yin and his discussions on Friedrich Hayek’s thought. Yet our personal acquaintance began only in 1988, during those stormy and fervent years in China’s intellectual and cultural scene. Born in Shenyang, Professor Lin was tall and imposing, with piercing eyes. Moving between Beijing and Shanghai, he combined the forthrightness of a Northerner with the literary refinement of a Southerner. But chatting with him was by no means light or casual. He could shift quickly from cheerful greetings to weighty and abstruse topics in scholarship and history. He was not a fast-talking orator with a glib tongue, but a scholar who chose words with great care, weighing every sentence, constantly defining concepts and cautiously selecting precise terms. He feared that even the slightest imprecision might mislead others down the wrong path. Whenever he published in Thinker—a journal I edited (see illustration below)—he would personally proofread the articles repeatedly and solemnly requested that no changes be made. This meticulous approach embodied his well-known and somewhat surprising dictum about scholarship: that it must “err on the side of slowness.”

Professor Lin, together with Professor Hao Zhang, had been a disciple of Professor Haiguang Yin at The Department of Philosophy, National Taiwan University. As is well known, the so-called “disciples of Yin” formed a vigorous young force in Taiwan’s Free China movement, who, inspired by Professor Yin’s spirit, became leading figures in steering Taiwan’s social transformation. In the 1960s, Lin went to the United States and studied at the University of Chicago under political philosopher and economist Friedrich August von Hayek and sociologist Edward Albert Shils. From that point, he became a close disciple of Hayek and a lifelong adherent to his system of liberal thought. After earning his doctorate, Lin taught at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. In 1994, he was elected an Academician of Academia Sinica, and in 2004, he became Professor Emeritus in the Department of History at the University of Wisconsin.

The most remarkable trait of Professor Lin, and the life mission he pursued tirelessly, was his almost missionary zeal in studying and disseminating Hayek’s revival of classical liberalism in modern times. This intellectual lineage, in political thought, can be traced back to the Scottish Enlightenment (represented by Adam Smith, David Hume, and Adam Ferguson), and in economics, to the Austrian School (Carl Menger, Friedrich von Wieser, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, and Ludwig von Mises).

This center-right strain of liberalism—liberalism with a certain conservative inclination—had by the late 1980s and especially between 1992 and 2013 become the mainstream discourse in China’s unofficial intellectual circles (with scholars such as Youyu Xu, Xueqin Zhu, Junning Liu, Qiren Zhou, Weiying Zhang, Quanxi Gao, Weifang He, Ming Zhang, Jiaxiang Wu, among others). Consequently, after 2013 it faced severe suppression by Beijing authorities, making it nearly impossible to be voiced on the mainland. During this period, Professor Lin’s exchanges with intellectual circles in mainland China and Taiwan primarily took place in the West, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Nevertheless, his writings and speeches from the 1980s and 1990s undoubtedly helped inspire and nurture the rise and expansion of this mainstream liberal trend in China. According to Lin himself, this influence was in some way related to his meeting with Professor Yingshi Yu in 1975.

Sowing the Seeds of Liberalism in Taiwan and Mainland China

In 1975, after Professor Yusheng Lin had found his footing in American academia and gradually developed some of his own systematic views, he met Professor Yingshi Yu in Taiwan. Yu emphasized to him the importance of overseas Chinese scholars in the humanities setting aside time to write in Chinese. Lin agreed wholeheartedly and resonated deeply. He later recalled: “That is how I began writing in Chinese in 1975.” This became the starting point for Lin’s subsequent role as a messenger of liberalism, shuttling across the Taiwan Strait. Thus, Lin put his missionary zeal into practice, and people soon witnessed his tireless academic journeys across the Taiwan Strait after 1975.

First, he returned to Taiwan during summers, where he gave lectures at the Department of History, National Taiwan University, including courses on “Methodology of Intellectual History” and other academic activities.

Subsequently, during the 1980s, late 1990s, and 2010s, he made several visits to China—particularly Beijing and Shanghai—where he spread the sparks of Hayekian liberalism. This included, as mentioned earlier, his appointment in 1988 as Honorary Professor at the Institute of Cultural Studies of East China University of Chemical Technology, and later, in 2002, as Honorary Professor at the China Academy of Art. Professor Lin also delivered lectures and talks at multiple Chinese academic institutions and published papers and articles in various journals and newspapers. For instance, he published “The Debate between Shi Hu and Shuming Liang on Eastern and Western Cultures and Philosophies and Its Historical Significance” in the inaugural issue of Thinker in January 1989.

After the Tiananmen Incident in 1989, for a time it became difficult for Professor Lin to travel to mainland China for academic activities. However, his interactions with overseas Chinese scholars and writers became even more frequent, especially his exchanges with exiled intellectuals of the Princeton China Initiative, which I personally witnessed.

On May 3–5, 1991, Professor Lin participated in the large-scale academic conference From May Fourth to River Elegy held at Princeton University. There, he delivered a long academic speech on “The Critique of Marxism by Western Liberalism.” He pointed out that the fundamental and fatal flaw of Marxism lies in its attempt to destroy all past civilizational achievements and start anew by rationally designing a flawless civilization. It relies on violent revolution to conjure up a paradise on earth from nothing, but the actual result is a return to barbarism and the creation of an unprecedented human catastrophe in history.

In May 1995, Professor Yusheng Lin attended the academic conference Cultural China: Intellectual Trends and Schools of Thought in a Time of Transformation, hosted by the Princeton China Initiative. At the conference, he sharply and rigorously criticized the positions of several new-left scholars, including Zhiyuan Cui, Yang Gan, and Shaoguang Wang. He argued that their so-called “institutional innovations” designed to “transcend the dichotomy of socialism and capitalism” would inevitably lead back to the communist totalitarian system established through violent revolution.

Academic and Intellectual Contributions

Professor Yusheng Lin developed a unique scholarly style—clear, precise, and measured. Employing “Ockham’s razor” to cut away irrelevant arguments and superfluous words, he avoided pedantic jargon, shunned stale expressions, and rejected ornate literary tones. His academic and intellectual contributions extended beyond his rigorous and in-depth explications of the essence of Hayekian liberal thought across the Taiwan Strait. He clarified key concepts such as liberty and liberation, liberty and authority, rule of law and rule by law, human rights and civil rights, constitutionalism and totalitarianism, the universality and abstraction of law, and the distinctions between three different types of “democracy.” By doing so, he dispelled much of the confusion that had long clouded Chinese academia. Even more importantly, he made original contributions of his own. In my view, they can be summarized primarily in two respects:

1，“Totalistic Anti-Traditionalism” (or Totalistic Iconoclasm)

Professor Yusheng Lin believed that, compared with intellectual movements in world history, one of the most striking features of twentieth-century Chinese intellectual history was the resolute and total denial of China’s traditional cultural heritage that emerged during the May Fourth era. The May Fourth period’s totalistic anti-traditionalism also called holistic anti-traditionalism—meant “directly targeting the entirety of Chinese tradition, without distinguishing among its rich and complex elements.” Traditional Confucian thought was especially seen as hav_ing an “inevitable” and “organically causal relationship” with other parts of Chinese tradition. Therefore, to transform Chinese society and politics, it was thought necessary first to thoroughly change people’s ideas and values, so as to eradicate the old traditions still prevalent at that time. This comprehensive attack on Chinese tradition, with Confucianism as its central target, was described by Lin as a form of “intellectual determinism reductionism,” bearing the features of an “ideology.” That is, Chinese intellectuals who adopted a totalistic anti-traditionalist stance developed, based on their own premises, a closed “systematic” discourse. On this basis, they believed they had no need to study the various components of tradition, nor to distinguish and select among its different parts, but could instead reject tradition as a whole in an ideologically comprehensive manner centered on ideas.

To explain the emergence of “totalistic anti-traditionalism,” one must seek internal causes within Chinese traditional culture. From tradition through to modern Chinese intellectuals’ minds, there had been a deeply rooted cultural tendency—what Lin called a “cultural-intellectualistic approach,” that is, a method of seeking solutions through ideas and culture. This is a simplified, monistic way of thinking, whose fundamental belief presupposes that changes in thought, ideas, and culture constitute the foundation of all transformation. It views the relationship between thought and action as close—even identical. This tendency contains the potential to evolve into what Lin termed an “intellectualistic-holistic mode of thinking,” which conceives of social culture as an organic whole directed and dominated by ideas. Professor Lin argued that, although the anti-traditionalists of the May Fourth era opposed tradition in terms of content, their mode of thought was still shaped by tradition. This argument— attributing anti-traditionalism itself to tradition—was profoundly shocking at the time.

2，“Creative Transformation” of Cultural Tradition

The concept of “creative transformation” once stirred intense debate in both modern Taiwan and mainland China. It originated from Yusheng Lin’s exploration of totalistic anti-traditionalism in The Crisis of Chinese Consciousness. In his book Intellectuals and the Chinese Cultural Tradition, Lin explained: “In recent years, I occasionally saw this phrase quoted domestically, and it even appeared in a semi-official proclamation about ‘cultural renaissance.’ (In fact, what I referred to as ‘creative improvement’ or ‘creative transformation’ must be strictly distinguished from what is meant by ‘cultural renaissance.’) These few words run the risk of turning into a mere slogan. But what, after all, is the ‘creative transformation’ of cultural tradition? It is to adapt certain symbols and value systems within Chinese cultural tradition, so that these adapted symbols and values become seeds conducive to change, while at the same time preserving cultural identity during the process of transformation. This is an arduous and long-term task; it cannot be achieved by any single individual, group, or even an entire era… Unfortunately, since the May Fourth era, because the leading figures of the intellectual world ‘are more inclined to shout slogans than to think,’ their scholarly cultivation and intellectual foundations have been too weak. Coupled with the divisions and constraints imposed by both the left and the right political forces, Chinese academic and cultural thought has always been stuck in the quagmire of revivalism, anti-traditionalism, Westernization, anti-Westernization, or eclectic patchwork, unable to open new horizons or expand into new realms.”

3，“Creative Transformation” of Cultural Tradition

The concept of “creative transformation” once stirred intense debate in both modern Taiwan and mainland China. It originated from Yusheng Lin’s exploration of totalistic anti-traditionalism in The Crisis of Chinese Consciousness. In his book Intellectuals and the Chinese Cultural Tradition, Lin explained: “In recent years, I occasionally saw this phrase quoted domestically, and it even appeared in a semi-official proclamation about ‘cultural renaissance.’ (In fact, what I referred to as ‘creative improvement’ or ‘creative transformation’ must be strictly distinguished from what is meant by ‘cultural renaissance.’) These few words run the risk of turning into a mere slogan. But what, after all, is the ‘creative transformation’ of cultural tradition? It is to adapt certain symbols and value systems within Chinese cultural tradition, so that these adapted symbols and values become seeds conducive to change, while at the same time preserving cultural identity during the process of transformation. This is an arduous and long-term task; it cannot be achieved by any single individual, group, or even an entire era… Unfortunately, since the May Fourth era, because the leading figures of the intellectual world ‘are more inclined to shout slogans than to think,’ their scholarly cultivation and intellectual foundations have been too weak. Coupled with the divisions and constraints imposed by both the left and the right political forces, Chinese academic and cultural thought has always been stuck in the quagmire of revivalism, anti-traditionalism, Westernization, antiWesternization, or eclectic patchwork, unable to open new horizons or expand into new realms.” ·

Because of Lin’s close intellectual relationships with Shi Hu, Haiguang Yin, and other figures—men who were regarded as fathers of the May Fourth Movement—and because of his own identity as a self-proclaimed liberal, the idea of “creative transformation” made a substantive contribution to the further exploration of May Fourth liberalism, while also embodying an intellectual’s deep concern for reality. Nevertheless, Yusheng Lin maintained strong critiques of the various radical ideologies of the May Fourth period, including even the liberalism of that era. At the same time, he sought ways to resolve the entanglement between history and reality within the limits of available historical resources. “Creative transformation” was undoubtedly one of the main remedies he proposed. Whether it is truly effective or not remains to be tested by history. But regardless, judging from its enormous impact, Professor Lin unquestionably deepened the discussion of Chinese liberalism—and that in itself was a creative achievement.

(Note: The above summary is drawn from Yusheng Lin’s works: The Crisis of Chinese Consciousness: Radical Anti-Traditionalism in the May Fourth Era (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979); Intellectuals and the Chinese Cultural Tradition (Taipei, 1983; se_lected in 2009 by the East Asian Publishers’ Conference as one of the “100 East Asian Classics”); and Twentieth-Century China’s Radical Anti-Traditionalist Trends, Sinicized Marxism, and Mao Zedong’s Utopianism. )

Professor Yusheng Lin’s devoted critiques of “totalistic anti-traditionalism” and his strong advocacy of “creative transformation of cultural tradition” stand as two original scholarly contributions that elicited widespread response and acclaim, while also provoking heated debate and criticism. In light of this, there is no doubt that these intellectual achievements will remain firmly inscribed in the history of twentieth-century Chinese liberal thought.

The scholarly legacy Professor Lin left behind includes: The Crisis of Chinese Consciousness: Radical Anti-Traditionalism in the May Fourth Era (Madison, 1979); its Chinese translation The Crisis of Chinese Consciousness (Guizhou, 1986; revised edition 1988); Intellectuals and the Chinese Cultural Tradition (Taipei, 1983; se_lected in 2009 by the East Asian Publishers’ Conference as one of the “100 East Asian Classics”); Political Order and Pluralistic Society (Taipei, 1989); Passion and Reason (Shanghai, 1998); The Correspondence of Haiguang Yin and Yusheng Lin (co-authored, revised and expanded edition, Jilin, 2009); Creative Transformation of Chinese Tradition; Se_lected Writings of Yusheng Lin (Shanghai, 2011); The Origins and Consequences of China’s Radical Ideological Currents (Jilin, 2012); and The Spirit of the Modern Intellectual Aristocracy: Se_lected Recent Writings of Yusheng Lin, among others.

On November 22, 2022, Professor Yusheng Lin passed away in Denver, Colorado. Throughout his life, he journeyed tirelessly between Taiwan, the United States, and mainland China, persistently striving for the rooting, blossoming, and fruition of freedom, the rule of law, human rights, and constitutionalism on that ancient land of East Asia. With tireless effort and a pure heart, he spoke out boldly across China. His voice was like a great bell of freedom, resonating powerfully across the Taiwan Strait. His life and work remind me of the words of his own teacher, Haiguang Yin, in his assessment of Lin’s mentor, Friedrich Hayek: “From the very outset, he was extraordinary. His vision encompassed the very survival of the free world; his intellectual domain summarized the warp and weft of the entire liberal order.” Now, sixty years later, a new dawn, one enveloping the survival of the liberal order, seems to be faintly emerging on the horizon of the Far East. I believe Professor Lin must have perceived this premonition far more clearly than we can. He may now rest peacefully beneath the Nine Springs.