He emphasized nurturing one’s capabilities to the full extent, but selflessly in the service of the state (Fairbank and Goldman 2006: 259). All these scholars being statist in their orientation, which is again in line with Confucian philosophy, believed that it was the state which was the source of rights and therefore, it is the duty of the citizen to strengthen the state; in doing so strengthening the masses. It implied that individual rights were a means to an end, which was, an invincible state. Thus, as much as ‘rights’ were considered a limitation on the arbitrary power of the state in the western conception; in contrast, the Chinese version of ‘liberalism’ that evolved during this time advocated that the ruler was still to be autocratic, with extensive control on the constitution, parliament and citizen’s rights in order to maintain state’s stability (Fairbank and Goldman 2006: …show more content…
Mao, who was himself a May Fouther, idealized the movement as a bourgeois-democratic revolution against imperialism and feudalism. During this phase in history, scholars like Liang Qichao revisited his conception of rights and in later years, believed that one of the major reasons for the weakness of China was the lack of assertion of rights by the people as a result of the traditional Confucian emphasis on social harmony and the importance attached to the virtue of compromise or ‘giving way’ (Weatherley 1999: 69). What made the movement more impactful was the fact that it was majorly driven by the intelligentsia who introduced new ideas of science and democracy in favor of their stand against imperialism (Fairbank and Goldman 2006: 268). Being one of the pivotal points in Chinese history when there was a massive student participation directly influencing the direction of the movement, it led to a popular impact on the larger intellectual culture of the Chinese society. Also known as New Culture Movement, May Fourth Movement was an attack on the traditional Confucian values. Constantly emphasizing the new ideas of science and democracy, the participants propounded the new ideals of critical, independent thinking (Svenssson 2002: 149). As far as the individual was concerned, they believed in releasing him/her from the strict bounds of family system and filial piety