Between secularist ideology and desecularizing reality: the birth and growth of religious research in Communist China

Sociology of Religion, Summer, 2004 by Fenggang Yang

However, after so many years of pervasive atheist education and fierce suppression, the persistence of religion itself was very puzzling. "Document No. 19" simply states that there may be psychological and social roots for religion to continue to exist in socialist society. But what are such roots? What is the nature of religion? "Document No. 19" set the basis for tolerance and restriction policies, but it also set off debates on the nature and roots of religion.

Initially, the debate was around the opium thesis. "Religion ... is the opium of the people" (Marx 1844). This statement by Karl Marx was once regarded by the CCP as the foundation of Marxist atheism. After this position was reiterated by Party ideologues around 1980, other theorists, under the cloud of "thought liberation" (jiefang sixiang), spoke out in challenge. Many scholars and ideologues were drawn into the debate (see He 2000; Gao 2000; Dai 2001). The leftists insisted that the opium thesis was the cornerstone of a Marxist view of religion, whereas the liberals offered counter arguments within the parameters of upholding orthodox Marxism, making painstaking efforts with delicate rhetoric. The liberals argued,

   * the opium statement was only an analogy and an analogy was not a
     definition;
   * the opium analogy by Marx should not be understood in complete
     negative terms because opium was used as a pain reliever at Marx's
     time;
   * this analogical statement did not represent the complete view of
     Marxism on religion and Marx, but especially Engels, made other
     important statements on religion; and
   * before Marx other people had already compared religion to opium so
     this was not a uniquely Marxist view.

Gradually, liberal thinking prevailed, especially attracting younger scholars. Many leftists also softened, even completely abandoned, their original position. A striking example is Mr. Lu Daji, as will be discussed later, who eventually turned away from Marxist atheism in favor of scientific neutrality and objectivity.

This debate has been referred to as the "opium war" because of the involvement of numerous scholars and ideologues from both sides. It also stimulated interest in religion among young scholars. The most important contribution of the "opium war" debate was probably that it legitimized religious research as a discipline. The Institute for the Study of World Religions at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences expanded. Some provincial academies of social sciences also established religious research institutes, including Shanghai in 1980, Yunnan in 1984, and Tibet in 1985. Several specialty journals for religious research were launched, including the Journal for the Study of World Religions (Beijing, 1979), Religion (Nanjing, 1979), Sources of World Religions (Beijing, 1980), Scholarly Research on Religion (Chengdu, 1982), Contemporary Religious Research (Shanghai, 1989), and several other journals for internal circulation. Meanwhile, several major universities, including Fudan University, the People's University of China, and Beijing University, formed a section for teaching and studying religion, most of which were based within philosophy departments. Books about religion began to be published, including introductions or general surveys of various religions, and historical studies of Chinese Buddhism, Daoism, Islam, and Christian missions (e.g., Ren 1981; Gu 1981; Jiang 1982; Tang 1982; Ma 1983; Zhang 1986; Yu 1987; Zhang and Liu 1987; Luo 1988; Qin 1988-1995). The overall tone of the publications gradually changed from completely negative criticism of religion to a more balanced evaluation.