On the Question of Love — Young People and Old People[1]

Smash the Policy of Parental Arrangement

(November 25, 1919)

I often feel that old people invariably stand in opposition to young people on all kinds of matters. From daily life such as eating and dressing, to their thoughts on society and the nation, to their attitudes toward the world and humanity, they are always desolate, withered, retreating, and static. Their views are always base, their propositions always passive. I think the reason young and old can still get along together is largely a matter of interests. The old depend on the young to provide their food and clothing; the young depend on the old to provide their experience and knowledge. This, I realize, may be “putting it to an extreme.” It is certainly because of the defects in our country’s systems and customs that such a peculiar and grotesque phenomenon exists. Yet, there are indeed fundamental differences in the lives old people and young people lead. This principle is established upon physiology and psychology. The reason human life differs between old age and youth is that the physiology and psychology of the old differ from the physiology and psychology of the young. Our lives, generally speaking, are the satisfaction of physiological and psychological desires. Desires vary due to differences in sex, age, profession, and belief; among these, the difference in desires due to age is the most conspicuous. This has already been proven by both Eastern and Western scholars.

[1] The author originally intended, under the general heading “On the Question of Love — Young People and Old People,” to write two articles addressing the two major problems impeding free love: “parental decree” and “the words of a matchmaker.” One article was to be this piece, “Smash the Policy of Parental Arrangement,” and the other was to be “Smash the System of Matchmakers.” However, when the second article appeared in the newspaper, the aforementioned general heading was no longer used.

There are many kinds of human desires: the desire for food, the sexual desire, the desire for play, the desire for fame, the desire for power (also called the desire to dominate), and so on. Among the various desires, “food” and “sex” are the two fundamental ones. The former serves to sustain the “present,” while the latter serves to develop the “future.” Of these two desires, the desire for food has no absolute distinction of age, whereas the sexual desire does.

The expression of the sexual desire, broadly speaking, is love. Young people take the matter of love seriously; old men regard it as beneath their notice. Originally, the marital relationship must be entirely centered on love; all other matters are merely subsidiary. In China, however, this issue is uniquely shunted aside. When I was young, I saw many people conducting wedding celebrations and asked them what it was all about. They all said that taking a wife was for boiling tea, cooking rice, feeding pigs, chasing dogs, spinning cotton, and weaving cloth. I then asked, why not hire a laborer? That would be far simpler. It was only later that I heard taking a wife was for “carrying on the family line,” and I still found it utterly baffling. Even today, if you look at the matter of marriage in society, you can still find not the slightest trace of love. Since society does not place importance on love, in the matter of marriage there remains nothing but the slavish tasks of boiling tea, cooking rice, and so on, plus a base life of carnal desire. (What we call the sexual desire, what we call love, includes not only the satisfaction of physiological carnal desire, but also the satisfaction of the noble desires of the spirit and of social intercourse.) Such slavish work as boiling tea and cooking rice is a result of capitalism. Since old people no longer pay attention to love, they focus solely on the single point of “eating.” Thus, when his son wants to take a wife, the old man considers it him taking a daughter-in-law. His purpose in taking a daughter-in-law is to have her perform slavish work for him. The Book of Rites states: “If the son greatly loves his wife, but the parents are not pleased, the son shall not continue to love his wife.”[1] This is ironclad proof of casting aside the couple’s question of love and focusing solely on making the daughter-in-law do slavish work. As for marrying off a daughter, he does not speak of choosing a husband for his daughter, but rather describes it as him selecting a “good son-in-law.” The so-called “good son-in-law” means that it is good only for him; whether his daughter fares well is not even asked. Worse still, in many cases a heavy bride price is demanded — then it is purely about his own “eating.” In short, capitalism and love stand in a position of conflict; old men and love stand in a position of conflict; old men and capitalism, however, are firmly

[1] See the Book of Rites, “Patterns of the Family”: the original text reads, “If the son greatly loves his wife, but the parents are displeased, send her away. If the son does not love his wife…”

bound together, while the good friends of love are only the young. Would you say that old men and young men do not stand in a position of conflict?

Based on the case of Zhao Hailou forcing his daughter to death, Pingzi[1] firmly opposes parental control of marriage but has not articulated the true reasons behind it. The arguments of others like Yunyuan, Weiwen, and Buping[2] still contain much wavering and equivocation on the point of parents interfering in their children’s marriages, failing to clarify the absolute impossibility of such encroachment. (Buping even advocates that parents act as influential participants, which veers even further off course.) I have sought, on the basis of physiology and psychology, to prove that parents absolutely must not interfere in their children’s marriages. On the children’s side, they must offer absolute resistance to any parental interference in their marriage. It is essential to achieve this point, for only then can capitalistic marriage be abolished, can love-centered marriage be established, and can husbands and wives who truly attain the happiness of love appear.

[1] Pingzi, i.e., Zhang Pingzi (1885–1972), courtesy name Qihan, from Xiangtan, Hunan, member of the Tongmenghui. In 1919, he served as the editor-in-chief of the Hunan Da Gong Bao and had considerable contact with Mao Zedong. On November 22, 1919, he published an article titled “I Do Not Approve of Parental Control of Marriage” in the Hunan Da Gong Bao. After the founding of the PRC, he served as a counselor at the Hunan Provincial People’s Government Counselor’s Office and as a member of the Hunan Provincial Committee of the CPPCC.

[2] The biographical details of Yunyuan, Weiwen, and Buping are unknown. On November 20, 1919, the Hunan Da Gong Bao published Weiwen’s article “On the Question of Reformation of the Marriage System,” which advocated abolishing early marriage, setting a minimum marriage age, allowing children to choose their own partners with approval from fathers and elder brothers, or having matches chosen by parents with approval from the children. On the same day, under the heading “Public Opinion on the Zhao Maiden Suicide Case,” the newspaper published Buping’s article, arguing that a child’s marriage should be based on voluntary union, but that parents should act as “influential participants” “so as to develop matters carefully and avoid acting rashly.” On November 21, the newspaper published Yunyuan’s “My Talk on Reforming the Marriage System,” arguing that young men and women have yet to cultivate their knowledge, “their power of choice is weak, and free marriage still has its drawbacks,” advocating that reform of the marriage system should start from breaking down “the barriers between the sexes,” implementing coeducation, and providing them opportunities for social intercourse.