What is the Beijing School?

"Beijing School" refers to a group of liberal writers active in the north in the 1930s, which took Mercury, Camel Grass, and other magazines as its base, emphasized the aesthetic character of literature, and advocated that literature should be kept away from politics, and its main writers included Li Jengo, Shen Congwen, Zhu Guangqian, and Lin Huiyin, among others.

A summary of the divergent concepts of the Beijing School

In the history of Chinese literature, the Beijing School is a very complex and difficult to distinguish literary phenomenon. There are a lot of differences in people's understanding of when and where it existed and what it looked like. Among different researchers and parties involved, the reference to the Beijing School often slips and slides, and some even deny the characteristics of the Beijing School as a genre. The modern academic community is also far from unanimous. Mr. Xu Daoming even classified Lu Xun, the spiritual ally of the left wing, as a member of the Beijing School, saying: "As for Lu Xun, a considerable part of his experience, upbringing, emotions, tastes and style is connected with the Beijing School, and it is not unfounded to say that he used to be a member of the Beijing School. " [1](24) Xiao Qian, who is generally regarded as a standard member of the Peking School, is not only not a "Peking School writer" in Mr. Wang Jialiang's opinion, but also belongs to the "Life School" writers. [2] (44) This difference in understanding of the existence or non-existence of the Beijing School and the nature of the School is in fact an extension of the modern literary history in which each school holds its own view of the Beijing School. Moreover, the problem of the divergence of conceptions of the Beijing school has not been clarified to this day.

In order to solve this public case in modern literary history, we should first look at what the Beijing School people themselves said. Zhu Guangqian, one of the parties involved in what was once regarded as the pillar of the Beijing school of literary theory, recalled it after the event, and also still used the spring and autumn style of writing. In his autobiography, he said, "At that time, it was the time when the 'Beijing School' and the 'Hai School' were facing each other. The Beijing faction was mostly the old intellectuals in the literary world, and the Hai faction mainly referred to the Left League." [3] In the article "Shen Congwen's Literary and Artistic Style from Shen Congwen's Personality" in Huacheng, No. 5, 1980, he added: "He edits the Ta Kung Pao? Literary Supplement, I edited the Commercial Press's Literary Magazine, some Beijing literati gathered together to occupy these two literary positions, thus earning the so-called 'Beijing school of literati' appellation." To say that "the Hai faction mainly refers to the Leftist League", however, is not in line with historical facts and is only half right. The transposition of war terms such as "occupy," "gather," and "position" also reveals the new democratic cultural outlook and Marxist class analysis that Zhu Guangqian identified with after he was criticized. Even Zhu Guangqian was not immune to this, even in the latter half of his life. The word "Bo" in the title of the so-called "Beijing School of Literature", which he called "Bo", also euphemistically implies that the "Beijing School" is nothing but a fictionalized version of the "Beijing School". also euphemistically implies that the "Beijing School" is nothing more than a fictionalization. Xiao Qian also said that the Beijing School as a literary genre to study, "itself is not very scientific. [4] Then look at Shen Congwen. His early appreciation of Xu Zhimo, quasi crescent school; as a "modern review" of the publisher, and then for Hu Shih to promote when the Chinese public school teacher, and then should be invited by Yang Zhensheng teaching in a moment of scholars gathered in Qingdao University; edited the "Ta Kung Pao? Literature and Art, the initiator of the Beijing-Hainan dispute; involved in Lin Yutang and Lu Xun's controversy over "the literati despise each other"; in 1936, he provoked the controversy over "more or less the same" and fought with Mao Dun; and in 1946, he became a member of the "Liberalism" movement, which he called "liberalism". In 1946, he advocated the "third force" under the signboard of "liberalism", thus engaging in polemics with Guo Moruo and others. From the point of view of the class position of the literary movement, his words and deeds throughout the history of modern literature were at odds with the highly politicized left-wing; from the point of view of the independent aesthetics of literature, he always insisted on a free, serious, and healthy style of writing, and rebuked the flimsy style of commercially oriented writing. Regardless of his creation, criticism, experience, or literary concepts, he can be said to be a Beijing School character through and through. So is the Beijing School in his writing clear and unambiguous? The fact is not only not, on the contrary, it is him who blurred the line of genre, canceled the proper meaning of literary genre, and gave people an impression that Beijing School has no genre, and Beijing School has no boundaries. Moreover, he did not mention the term "Beijing School" at all, but only referred to "Beijing Style", "Northern Literature", and other inaccurate terms. In 1931 published "narrow and moldy Zhai gossip" article, he regarded "Beijing-style" literature as "life literature", and "sea school" in opposition. He said, "The literature of the Beijing style ended after the rise of the romantic literature of the Hai school." [5] (93) His article "The Attitude of the Literary Person", which provoked the Beijing-Hai dispute, was not at all about genre, but criticized the thin air of the literary world, especially the attitude of those who played with the white-phase literature of playing with literature. Because of the purpose of commenting on a prevailing literary culture, so Shen did not intend to discriminate against or elevate a certain place, in Beijing and Shanghai, almost each hit 50 boards. He said: "These people live in bookstores, newspapers, and government magazines in Shanghai, and in universities, high schools, and various educational institutions in Beijing. Although such people are attached to elegance, they are in fact bound up with mediocrity." [5] (154) In this light, it seems to us that Shen's blurring of genre boundaries to eliminate the proper meaning of literary genres is a sin of wanting to add insult to injury.

But in fact, things are far from simple. One stone stirred up a thousand waves. Shen published on October 18, 1933, "the attitude of the literary person" article even attracted like Q taunted Wang Hu said, "whoever recognizes it will be scolded" self-recognition. Shanghai's Su Wen in December of the same year, "Modern", Volume 4, Issue 2 published "literati in Shanghai", complaining about the Shanghai literati's grievances, and against Shen's intention to "low-class taste is equivalent to the kind of thin style of writing is equivalent to the style of Shanghai writers," Shen's point of view to refute. Shen made "people do not know and not huffing", kind and steady response, published on January 10, 1934, "on the" Hai faction "article. The article used a lot of ink to explain the "Hai Pai": "The 'Hai Pai' and the 'Saturday School' in the past cannot be separated. They were two names for the same thing. The combination of 'celebrity talent' and 'commercial bidding' established our concept of the term Hai Pai today. But this concept in the general public is ambiguous and try to derive: 'opportunistic', 'see the wind and make the helm', such as the old worship six school a certain Mr., to the recent also talk about the history of philosophy, but also said to the left, which is the so-called Hai Pai. ...... get some money from the official, then eat and drink, do what the arts and culture will, recruiting children, cajoling readers, thinking shallow and ridiculous, trick nasty unspeakable, that is, the so-called Hai Pai. Sentimentalism of the left, brave as a lion, a look at the situation is not right, immediately surrender, and identify the planting of friends, claiming credit for profit, also known as the Haiku school. Because of the desire to be famous, they made use of all sorts of methods to flaunt outside of their works, or exchanged information with small publications to make their own news favorable to themselves, or invited people to criticize every book they published, or stole other people's works as their own articles; or borrowed the tabloid newspapers to create rumors among the others, and passed on a summary of untrue and unbelievable news. All these kinds of things are also called Hai Pai." [5] (158) Although the text does not mention the Beijing school, the atmosphere of the controversy has clearly presented the Beijing-Hai antagonistic situation. The concept of the Beijing School (as distinguished from the historical facts of the Beijing School) also appeared in the history of modern Chinese literature as the "other" of the Hai School in this controversy. Shen's interpretation of the Hai faction in the binary context of the Beijing-Hai opposition can be seen as the opposite of the Beijing faction, the other side of the silver coin. He should not have interpreted the Haiku School, which is a literary genre without boundaries, as a creative ethos. We know that an ethos can not only transcend space, such as not being limited to Beijing or Shanghai, but can also transcend time, and can be something that has been around for a long time and is difficult to extinguish. He pointed out in his article "The Attitude of Literary People" that the literature of white-phase ticket friends has been in existence since the Wei and Jin dynasties. When he interprets the Haiku school, which is a very specific literary school in time and space, with an attitude of literary creation that transcends time and space, the inappropriateness of his interpretation is not revealed. Unfortunately, the Beijing school, which exists in dichotomy with the Haikai school in the controversy, has been generalized from a specific genre concept to an adjective describing the serious style of literature because of its negative existence as the Haikai school and the image of the Haikai school as the other. It can be seen that, in the Beijing school giant Shen Congwen, Beijing school can mean and refer to, name and reality is still ambiguous, yellow and white difficult to distinguish.

Secondly, let's see how those who were beyond the Beijing School viewed it.

Cao Juren had utilized the connotation of the Hai Pai as interpreted in Shen Congwen's essay "On the Hai Pai" to argue that the Beijing and Shanghai schools were "not different", and then he simply equated the two to blur the line between the Beijing school and the Hai Pai school. He said: "Dr. Hu Shi, the best of the Beijing school, but also the history of philosophy, but also talk about the literary revolution, but also run the Independent Review, but also running on the road to Baoding, there is a difference with Mr. Shen Congwen called speculation? Said: there is no difference. The sea school pretends to be elegant or far talk about Greco-Roman, or close to talk about the scribe woman; and the Beijing school is the sole monopoly of elegance, or on behalf of set out the centennial weekly commemorations, the millennium weekly commemorations, or transfer send "Autumn Xing" ten hundred metered poems, shut up in a glass room and the reality of the isolation of each other, there is to be different from each other? I said that there is no difference. Sea school literati from the official got some money, do what literature and art will, recruit children, eat and drink; Beijing school literati, from what what foundation got some money, stroll overseas, talk about culture, each other have to be different? Said no to be different." [6]

With Cao Juren's view of the two factions of the Beijing-Shanghai a look at the same unkind, Lu Xun also gave the Beijing-Shanghai each reward fifty boards. He played by the regional nature of Beijing and Shanghai to open up, with almost four or six rhymes, Kan fun full of Beijing and Shanghai caricature of the school as the helpers of the government and business, and each of their own masters. He said: "the so-called 'Beijing School' and 'Sea School' does not refer to the author's origin, referring to a group of geographic area, so the 'Beijing School' are not all Therefore, the 'Beijing School' is not all from Beiping, and the 'Sea School' is not from Shanghai. However, the origin of all despise solid can not determine the merits and crimes of my residence, the literature of the ugly, but also affect the writer's look. Mencius said: 'living to move the gas, raise to move the body', this is also said. Beijing is the imperial capital of the Ming and Qing dynasties, Shanghai is the countries of the rental sector, the imperial capital more officials, rental sector more business, so the literati in the capital near the official, no sea near the business. Near the official to make the official name, near the businessman in the business profit, and they also rely on to make a living. To summarize, but the 'Beijing faction' is the official's helpers, 'sea faction' is the help of business only. But from the official to get the food of its situation hidden, external can still be proud, from the business to get the food of its situation is obvious, everywhere difficult to cover up, and so forget their own, so according to have a clear and turbid points." [7](655)

Thirdly, let's see what role the Beijing school played in the eyes of later proletarian literary theorists and writers.

Yang Heiben, who set fire to Zhaojialou during the May Fourth Movement and was a member of the Sinking Bell Society, was also y involved with the Beijing School, but later became skilled in class analysis. He first used class analysis in the spring 1947 issue of Wen Wei Po? New Literature and Art" in the spring of 1947, for the first time, he used a class point of view to equate the "Beijing School" and "Haikai School" with the "Peasant School" and the "People's School". The People's School". From the Liberation War to the end of the Cultural Revolution, with the military and political victories of the ****production party, this kind of left-wing thinking spread rapidly and intensified. The Beijingists were thus considered an outright reactionary group of literati. As Guo Moruo said in his article "Rebuke of Reactionary Literature and Art" published in the first series of the Popular Literature and Art Series, New Directions in Literature and Art, on March 1, 1948, "Shen Congwen, in particular, has been consciously operating as a reactionary." In the article, Xiao Qian was denounced as the black opium of the anesthetized people and was judged by the universal "whatever" formula: "Whatever is conducive to the revolutionary war for the liberation of the people is good and positive, while on the contrary, it is evil, wrong, and reactionary to the revolution." Feng Naichao also wrote an article on this series, "A Brief Review of Shen Congwen's Xiong Gongguan", which judged Shen Congwen's work Xiong Gongguan to be "a cover-up of the reality of the landlords' exploitation of the peasants' lives and a whitewash of the landlord class's vicious and bloody rule", and "an attempt to reunite some anti-people's spiritual aristocracy against the people's victory", so it was a reaction against the people's revolution. It attempts to re-unite some anti-people spiritual aristocrats to resist the people's victory", so it is "the typical landlord class literature and art in China today, and also the most reactionary literature and art". Shen Congwen was recognized by Feng Naichao as a "lackeyist" and a "landlord's fool" who continued the tradition of the Ching Dynasty's literary beggars because of his hometown relationship with Xiong Xiling, the fact that he had been known to the latter, and that he had written an article in praise of Xiong's mother. Zhu Guangqian was Shao Tsuen-lin in the same group of articles with the above attacked as "the pen tube under the wind flashes cruel killing machine. This is precisely the most vicious place where you imperialists do not see blood". ("Zhu Guangqian's cowardice and reactionary") This originally has a strong vitality of the class analysis method simply rigid as "no revolution that is counter-revolutionary" thinking logic, seriously distorting the nature of the Beijing faction and its essence, and long-term influence on people's understanding.

The "Beijing School" concept

As a historical researcher, one of the tasks is to make scientific use of the revelations and paths provided by the previous interpreters, to analyze the historical materials and verify the historical facts, so as to penetrate through the fog of the history of the various colors, to send out the ghostly microscopes, and to reveal the original state of the history. The purpose of the above tedious and trivial list of various divergent perceptions of the Beijing School is to utilize the various memories, words and interpretations of the Beijing School to discover the qualitative provisions of the Beijing School that exist in the differences between the divergent perceptions, and to prepare for the discernment of the original ecology of the Beijing School.

First of all, is the Beijing School legitimate as a literary school and a literary trend? Was it just a false flame created by the debaters in Beijing and Shanghai in the 1930s? Is it true that, as Xiao Qian said, "the division of some writers in the 1930s into Beijing School and Shanghai School" was just "a matter of saving time for literary historians"? [8](62)

This all has to start from the Beijing-Hainan controversy. From the perspective of time and space, this controversy was provoked in October 1933 by Shen Congwen's article "The Attitude of the Literary Person" in Beijing. In December of the same year, Shanghai's Su Wen published an article entitled "Literati in Shanghai" to refute it, and in January 1934, Shen then wrote "On the Sea School" to explain it. This led to a full-scale reaction from the literary circles, with Lu Xun, Cao Juren, Hu Feng, Yang Tun Semi-finish, Xu Mouyong, Yao Xueyin, Sen Bao, and Zhu Xiuwen intervening. Finally, on February 17, 1934, Shen Congwen, who had just returned from his hometown, wrote a disappointing article entitled "About the Hai School," which ended with his anger at the gross distortion of his original meaning and his "lack of any other opinion to say. [5] (164) but from the logical order of the nature of the argument, the controversy, which can be traced back to shen june 1931 published "narrow and moldy Zhai gossip" to start. Compared with The Attitude of the Literary Person, the clarity of the object of his opposition and the irritation of provoking the other side are much more distinct and intense. From this article can also be seen, the left-wing, modernists and other writers of the backlash is not in the spirit, play on the theme or empty cave, but from the beginning. See how the text is written: "Only beautiful poets, with haggard eyes looking forward to the other end of the Pacific Ocean even cloudy skyscrapers, writing hymns of civilized cities; Pro poets, also with haggard eyes looking to the end of the Siberian wilderness, writing poems of wrought iron factories, dockyards, as well as other things tilted to the heart." It is also said that "the writers of Shanghai at present, though deprived of the flavor of the self-congratulation of the Peking gentleman, are too rich in the complacent habits of the Shanghainese." [5] (93) For years afterward, I have been chanting about "triviality," "thinness," "toys," "whiteness," The concepts of "irony," "wit," and "funkism" are all brought up in this paper, and hopefully taught a lesson. And following the logical order down, the controversy was continued to both sides are laid to rest a year after the April 14th Lu Xun's another article "" Beijing school "and" sea school "published. He once again exposed the ****same nature of the two "gangs" and the resulting phenomenon of convergence after confrontation. Although the Beijing-Haikou controversy was only a part of the Beijing School's literary activities, it was it that made the Beijing School move from the free state of having no name and reality to the self-conscious state of having a name and reality, and that made it enrich and clarify its own essential connotation in the confrontation with the Haikou School. This point, in today's academic circles several become **** knowledge. As Mr. Kuang New Year said, this "controversy became an important symbol of the maturity and growth of the Beijing School. The meaning of 'Beijing School' in the debate between the 'Beijing School' and the 'Haikai School' and the meaning of 'Beijing School' in the history of literature do not completely overlap. completely overlap, but the outbreak of the 'Peking School' and 'Hai School' controversies showed the independent existence of the 'Peking School' as well as its majesty in the literary world." [9] (260) We may also summarize the essence of the Beijing School as revealed in the Beijing-Hai dispute.

While Shen did not intend to set up another "Beijing School" on the opposite side of the "Hai School", which he regarded as a synonym for an ethos, in order to create an antagonistic situation of genres, he did not intend to create another "Beijing School" on the opposite side of the "Hai School", which he regarded as a synonym for an ethos. While insisting on "moral and cultural hygiene" [5](93), he used a set of criteria: i.e., the requirement of having "fulfilled the duties incumbent upon his office", [10](4) "the ability to treat literature as a religion, and to martyr himself". The sense of post of the literary man who "can make literature a religion and himself a martyr" [5] (24); the sense of the aesthetic ontology of literature, which requires not to "remember the times and forget the dignity and character of art"; the insistence on "skepticism and denial The spirit of rationality and the principle of freedom of "skepticism and denial," "correction and improvement," and "naivety and courage" are adhered to; and it is resolutely opposed to the phenomenon of literature becoming a tool of commerce and politics, and to the phenomenon of "almost" and the phenomenon of imitation. The phenomenon of "almost" and the non-artistic tendency of imitating and imitating the barnyard traders. [5] (56-59) This whole set of literary concepts precisely represents the literary conceptual system of liberal literary thought, a weak but very tough literary trend in the history of modern Chinese literature. As we know, liberal literary thinking has a long historical tradition in both China and foreign countries. However, in the history of modern Chinese literature, it has become a literary school under the name of "Beijing School", which was able to meet with the modernists, left-wing literature, Kuomintang literature, and various kinds of literature oriented to the public's tastes and commercial profits (e.g., the Mandarin Ducks and Butterfly School) under various internal and external conditions of literature. Literary genres that are mutually exclusive.

We have been able to distinguish the nameless and real liberal literary trend and the famous and real Beijing school of literature from the various complex materials. In addition, we should also see the difference between the Beijing School as a historical fact and the Beijing School as a personal conception. The Beijing School literature in historical fact always exists objectively whether it is famous or not, but the Beijing School in personal conception is not quite the same. Each person may construct his or her personal conception of Beijing School from his or her own preconceptions and perspectives, based on certain historical phenomena. Analyzing different people's conceptions of Beijing style can unearth their respective argumentative bases. These arguments can not only explain the chaos of the Beijing-Hainan dispute, but also show the internal logic of the Beijing School's evolution, so that we can better understand the ins and outs of the famous and unknown Beijing Schools from the essence, and therefore can more accurately define the Beijing Schools.

From the above, we can see that Shen Congwen's entry into the Beijing-Haikou controversy was based on his liberal view of literature and art and its underlying aesthetic nature, while Su Wen's rebound was basically a complaint for Shanghai writers about being misunderstood or even belittled, and his entry was based on the nature of the region. His sensitivity to the writers' residence can hardly be said to be directed at Shen Congwen's simple article, but it is mostly because Shen Congwen's argument of origin touched the pent-up dissatisfaction in his heart due to the deep taste of people's historical discrimination against the Haikai culture. Because for a long time, no matter painting, opera, or dress, Beijing school represents orthodoxy, while the sea school is associated with frivolity. In addition to the thesis of aesthetic essence and regional essence, the likes of Yang Hei, Guo Moruo, Feng Naichao, Shao Tsuenlin, and Zhu Guangqian in his later years formed their own conception of the Beijing School from the base of understanding of class essence. This point has been clarified by the author in the previous article. Among the many commentators, Lu Xun and Cao Juren are the most profound. Lu Xun's seemingly witty and transcendent articles also most Shen Congwen angry. He said in the "about the sea school" in the article is not not deplorable: "or pretend to read this paper is not clear, intentionally say something interesting to play muddy", "or although it has been clear where the meaning of this paper, but only picking the eye to pick a sentence or two and have a sense of fun, the article is not only have a sense of fun, say something interesting to play gags, or and according to the popular habit of making a sense of fun, but also to make a sense of fun. Or, according to the popular custom of making 'just a bit of humor there', I have nothing else to say about this kind of article." [5] (93) Lu Xun in January 30, 1934 even wrote "Beijing school" and "sea school" "North and South" two famous articles. On the surface of the essays, it is true that they are just casual feelings, as Shen said, but in essence, they reveal a deeper underlying disharmony between Shen and Lu. After Lu Xun's lifetime of writing, we can undoubtedly conclude that Lu Xun also advocated that "literature and art themselves are independent and free, aesthetic and sensual". His criticism of the literary world of all kinds of thin and oily style and its formulaic creative methods can be said to be more intense than Shen, but also much more profound. Shen and Lu were consistent in their view of the aesthetic nature of literature and art, and this consistency was sometimes even expressed in similar terms, such as Shen's "celebrity talent" and "commercial bidding" and Lu's "talent + hooligans" and "agreed upon literary heroes". "agreed upon literary hero". It is also because they are the same in the aesthetic nature of the view, some people such as Xu Daoming that Lu Xun was a Beijing school. But all of this can not cover up the profound differences in the treatment of the Beijing School from the base of the cultural essence. Lu Xun has always criticized the inertia, pedantry, boredom, and aristocracy that pervade Chinese culture, especially the dependence of the intellectuals, who are the concentrated representatives of Chinese culture, with a cultural vision that is very class-oriented but deeper than class-oriented. It is also with this sharp eye of cultural criticism that he saw the agreement between the two schools of Beijing and Shanghai on the deep cultural level, and revealed the ****same nature of their "help" and "leisure", and was pessimistically worried about " The North-South fusion of "no intention" and "no meaning in words" will produce "an ominous new breed of bad seed". [11](656) This prediction really happened in the North-South literary scene after 1934. For example, in January 1934, Shanghai's Ba Jin and Zheng Zhenduo went north to co-edit the Literary Quarterly with Zhang Jinyi, "initially breaking the fence between the 'Beijing School' and the 'Hai School'". 1934 On April 5, 1934, Zhou Zuoren's poem on his fifth birthday was published in the Haiku publication. On April 14, 1935, Lu Xun wrote another article, ""Beijing School" and "Sea School"", in which he also cited examples to confirm his prediction of an ominous new breed of inferiority --The "Beijing-Hainan Hodgepodge": "First, the power of selecting and printing Ming masters' sketches was given to the Hai School (referring to the compilation and printing of Twelve Late-Ming Masters' Sketches by Shi Yacun--quote), which used to be a part of the Beijing School, but the Hai School was not. (cited note), before Shanghai certainly also selected and printed the Ming sketch of the people, but can also be said to be an impostor, this time there is a real old Peking School of the title (referring to Zhou Zuoren - cited note), so it is indeed the mantle of orthodoxy. Secondly, there are some new publications (referring to the "Literary Dining Sketches" launched in Shanghai in February 1935 - citation needed), where the real Old Beijing School is at the head and the Little Hai School is at the tail." In October 1936, Dai Wangshu of the Modern School and Bian Zhilin, Sun Dayu, Feng Zhi, Liang Zongdai and others of the Beijing School co-organized the monthly New Poetry, which "to a certain extent effected the merger of the Hai School with the Beijing School, and the merger of the Symbolic School with the Metrical School of Poetry." For example, in April 1936, the Shanghai edition of Ta Kung Pao was opened, and Xiao Qian was stationed in Shanghai from then on, and was introduced by Bajin to keep in contact with Lu Xun.

In summary, the divergence of the concept of Beijing School is the result of different people looking at Beijing School from different perspectives. Shen Congwen's entry into the Beijing-Haikou controversy was based on his liberal view of literature and art from the perspective of aesthetic essence; Su Wen's rebound was based on his people's dissatisfaction with the historical discrimination against the Haikou school of culture, and his entry into the angle of the essence of the region. On the other hand, Yang Xi, Guo Moruo, Feng Naichao, Shao Luanlin, and Zhu Guangqian formed the reactionary, backward, and even murderous concept of the Beijing School from the base of understanding of class essence. Lu Xun transcends the single-class perspective, treats the profound differences of the Beijing School from the base of cultural essence, criticizes the inferiority of Chinese culture, especially the dependence of Chinese intellectuals, and thus reveals the ****same nature of the Beijing and Shanghai Schools of "help" and "leisure". Only by seeing the different positions of aesthetics, geography, class, and culture can we see the inner reasons for the divergence of the Beijing School's concepts, and can we reveal the characteristics of the Beijing School's genres in a historical perspective. In outlining and correcting the divergent perceptions of the Beijing School, we can see clearly at the beginning of its genre identity, that is, the Beijing School is a literary genre that took the liberal view of literature and art as its essence in the history of modern Chinese literature and was able to become a literary genre under the name of the "Beijing School" by taking advantage of the opportunity of the Beijing-Haikou Controversy. In summary, this school is firmly opposed to commercialization, politicization and other non-artistic tendencies, and advocates that literary scholars should hold the post consciousness, aesthetic ontology, rationality and the principle of freedom of the literary person.