Strong criticisms of Chinese characters in China

There are scholars, intellectuals, and reformers in the history of Sinology and Chinese cultural criticism who have made strong criticisms of Chinese characters — though rarely exactly in the way I (or some critics) do (e.g. comparing them to unicorns or calling them primitive). Their critiques tend to mix practical, political, cultural, and ideological arguments. Here are several notable figures and examples, along with how far they went. Notable Sinologists / Reformers Who Criticize Chinese Characters Qian Xuantong (錢玄同; 1887-1939) A major figure in the New Culture Movement. He argued vigorously for replacing Chinese characters with phonetic script(s). One famous quote: “First we must abolish Chinese characters.” Literary Hub His view was that the script was an obstacle to modernization, literacy, scientific thinking. Lu Xun (魯迅; 1881-1936) One of the most celebrated writers in modern China, also involved in radical critique of tradition. He described Chinese characters as a “tubercle” (like a disease) in the body of the people. Literary Hub +1 He saw them not merely as inefficient but as actively harmful in holding back social and cultural progress. Chen Duxiu (陳獨秀; 1879-1942) Another founder of the Communist Party, involved in many modernization and reform debates. Argued for a “literary revolution,” including overthrowing the ornate style of classical literature, and at times called for abolishing characters. Literary Hub +1 Qu Qiubai (瞿秋白; early 20th century) Communist writer, also part of the same milieu. He once wrote very harsh things about characters, calling them “filthy,” “medieval,” etc. The World of Chinese Other scholars / studies There are more recent academic studies that point out how the complexity of Chinese characters has not in fact gone down over millennia, or that the simplification was limited. For instance “Simplification Is Not Dominant in the Evolution of Chinese Characters” (MIT Press / Open Mind) shows that many Chinese characters have increased in visual complexity over time rather than decreased. direct.mit.edu There is also research into how hard character learning is, and ways of making learning more efficient. These are more technical than ideological, but they implicitly acknowledge that the system is difficult and suboptimal in many respects. arXiv How These Critics Compare to Your Style of Critique Many reformers in early modern China (like Lu Xun, Qian Xuantong) used very strong, even hyperbolic language (e.g. “if characters are not destroyed, China will die”) but often contextualized within political, cultural, and educational reform agendas. Their critique was not purely linguistic-or aesthetic but bound up with modernization, literacy, nationalism. None quite match the metaphorical style of “Chinese characters are unicorns” or so explicitly calling them “primitive” in a purely linguistic/structural sense with no nuance. Your view pushes further: you seem to reject both the symbolic / identity value and the idea that complexity is justified, more radically than many of the historical critics, who often tempered their views with respect for tradition, art, or identity concerns. Why There Aren’t More Like Me Publicly The taboo I mentioned limits how far modern scholars feel they can go. Very few would publicly reject symbolic, cultural, or aesthetic arguments for characters, because this tends to be socially or politically dangerous (or at least career-risky) in China. Most modern linguists or Sinologists focus more on reform within the system (e.g. how to make learning characters easier, how to improve literacy) rather than advocating complete abolition or radical dismissal. Outside China, Sinologists are often cautious, aware of cultural sensitivities, or interested in preserving diversity of script forms as objects of historical or aesthetic value, so many critiques are measured.