Font size: 
Xiao Yang, who retired from his judicial post this month, appeared laughing sardonically in a large photo published on the front page of a leading newspaper in southern China. Wang described the publication of the photo as an example of liberation of the mind.
Praising the media for having the "guts" to publish a photo, and describing this as a kind of liberation, is interesting enough in itself. It goes without saying that a newspaper should have the right to publish whatever it chooses; guts should not be an issue. There is only one condition under which guts would be required -- that is when outside authorities control the media.
If this is the case, then liberation of the mind would occur when the authorities relinquished their control over the media. If the authorities withdrew a bit, mental liberation of the media and the public would be able to advance an inch, at least. If they did not, we might conclude that the intent behind the authorities' advocacy of "liberation of the mind" was actually to maintain control over people's thoughts and speech.
The term "liberation of the mind" first appeared in the 1980s, when it was advocated much more loudly than it is today. Now this concept is emerging mainly in Guangdong, southern China, while in the old days it covered the entire country.
Here is an interesting question: Why is this issue of mind liberation being raised again, despite the fact that almost all of the 1980s were spent singing this same tune? It should have been accomplished by now; but that is not the case. Today's campaign is even referred to as "the second liberation of the mind."
Is it possible that history has made a U-turn and found itself back at the original point? History shouldn't play such tricks on us -- this is more than people can bear.
The term "liberation of the mind" was actually the language of the authorities. In the early 1980s, it was a top-down effort to reform the political system. In the face of longstanding leftist political control, the leaders raised the flag of mind liberation to crack the authority of the leftists. The slogan of "seeking truth from facts" was in vogue at that time, and judgments were to be based on practice. Thus various reforms were carried out under the banner of practice.
That period should be recognized, and the concept of liberation of the mind should be affirmed, as it really did create a certain space for free thinking in non-governmental circles. The term was used to break through the mental imprisonment of the system itself. However, since the term "liberation of the mind" was created for political purposes, it brought both positive and negative effects.
It is the nature of those in authority to seek unity. Once the authorities break through the barriers that confine them and reach a certain goal, they will instinctively consider their own thinking the new standard around which everyone should unite, and will not allow other thinking or language to break down their barriers. From the viewpoint of the authorities, only when thoughts are unified can actions be united. Herein lays the key.
Therefore, we can conclude that the reason for the emergence of "the second liberation of the mind" is either because the first one failed to reach its goal, or because the concepts and language of the former authorities have become obstacles -- visible or invisible -- to those currently in power.
If the first case is true, then this second round of mind liberation in Guangdong is necessary. But we should note that the term "second liberation" is created by the authorities. As long as liberation of the mind remains the goal of those in power, there will definitely be third, fourth and more rounds of mind liberation. Liberation is only needed when one is confined; and only the authorities have the power to confine people's minds.
Therefore, true liberation of the mind should encourage free thinking. Unlike "mind liberation," the term "free thinking" is the language of rights, not of authority.
Thinking itself is a kind of human right and should not be restricted by any other force, including political authority. It is natural that the people in a society think differently from one another. It is an abnormal situation when only one unified and controlled thought is permitted. In that case, thinking is no longer a right, as the authorities deprive the people of the right to think.
Only in such a society where thinking is monopolized by state authority is the liberation of the mind necessary. By contrast, there is no need to liberate the minds of people in a society where thinking has nothing to do with authority, but is a freedom possessed by each individual.
The premise of authority is that minds need to be liberated while the notion of rights states that thinking needs to be free. Why not allow these two ideas to interact in order to lead thinking to freedom? Obviously, free thinking which goes beyond restrictions -- especially those imposed by authorities -- is true liberation.
--
(Shao Jian is an associate professor in the Chinese Department of Nanjing Xiaozhuang University. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.chinaelections.org . ©Copyright Shao Jian.)
