Contemporary Studies on Modern Chinese History I 9781138236073, 9781351269407

Citation preview

Contemporary Studies on Modern Chinese History I

The study of modern Chinese history has developed rapidly in recent decades and has seen increased exploration of new topics and innovative approaches. Resulting from a special issue of Modern Chinese History Studies, this volume is devoted to showcasing the healthy development of Chinese modern history studies, and has already been revised twice in the original language. This volume exhibits major achievements in the study of modern Chinese history and shows how the role of history was in debate, transformation and re-​evaluation throughout this tortuous yet prosperous period. Articles on eight different topics are collected from 11 prominent historians in order to represent their insights on the developmental paths of Chinese historical studies. Drawing on a large number of case studies of critical historical events, such as the founding of the Communist Party of China and the May 4th Movement, this volume reflects on economic history and military history, while moving on to explore more pioneering topics such as intellectual history and cultural history. This book will be a valuable reference for scholars and students of Chinese history. Zeng Yeying is a researcher, Professor and Doctoral supervisor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. His professional research direction is the history of the Republic of China. His representative works include The History of the Republic of China, Vol. 1 (2nd edition).

China Perspectives

The China Perspectives series focuses on translating and publishing works by leading Chinese scholars, writing about both global topics and China-​related themes. It covers Humanities and Social Sciences, Education, Media and Psychology, as well as many interdisciplinary themes. This is the first time these books have been published in English for international readers. The series aims to put forward a Chinese perspective, give insights into cutting-​edge academic thinking in China, and inspire researchers globally. Titles in history currently include: Merchants and Society in Modern China From Guild to Chamber of Commerce Tang Lixing The History of Sino-​Japanese Cultural Exchange TENG Jun Chinese Buddhism and Traditional Culture FANG Litian The Hidden Land The Garrison System and the Ming Dynasty Gu Cheng The History of Chinese Feudal Society Tung-​tsu  Chu Contemporary Studies on Modern Chinese History I Edited by Zeng Yeying Contemporary Studies on Modern Chinese History II Edited by Zeng Yeying For more information, please visit www.routledge.com/​series/​CPH

Contemporary Studies on Modern Chinese History I Edited by Zeng Yeying Translated by Li Wenzhong and Wu Jinshan

This book is published with financial support from the Chinese Fund for the Humanities and Social Sciences. First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 selection and editorial matter, Zeng Yeying; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Zeng Yeying to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. English Version by permission of China Social Sciences Press British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-​1-​138-​23607-​3  (hbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​351-​26940-​7  (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Newgen Publishing UK

Contents

List of contributors  Translators’ note  Preface  1 An overview 

vi vii ix 1

Z E N G   YE YI N G

2 Theories and methods 

41

Z H AN G H AI P E N G

3 The political history of the late Qing Dynasty 

76

Z E N G YE YI N G A N D JI A N G  TAO

4 A history of the Republic of China 

109

WAN G C H AOG UA N G

5 Economic history 

137

YU  H E P I N G

6 Military history 

173

L I U T ON G AND MAO H A I JI A N

7 Intellectual history 

190

G ON G SH U D UO, D O N G G U I C H EN G A N D Q I U  TAO

8 Studies on cultural history 

221

L I U   Z H I QI N

Index 

246

Contributors

DONG Guicheng, Professor, the College of History, Beijing Normal University; Chapter 7. GONG Shuduo, Professor, the College of History, Beijing Normal University; Chapter 7. JIANG Tao, Researcher, the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Chapter 3. LIU Tong, Professor, the Department of History, Shanghai Jiaotong University; Chapter 6. LIU Zhiqin, Researcher, the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Chapter 8. MAO Haijian, Professor, Department of History, East China Normal University; Chapter 6. QIU Tao, Associate Professor, the College of History, Beijing Normal University; Chapter 7. WANG Chaoguang, Researcher, the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Chapter 4. YU Heping, Researcher, the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Chapter 5. ZENG Yeying, Researcher, the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Preface; Chapter 1; Chapter 3. ZHANG Haipeng, Researcher, the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Chapter 2.

Translators’ note

The English version of this book was sponsored as a national translation project by the Chinese Fund for the Humanities and Social Sciences (15WZS015) and was undertaken by Li Wenzhong in collaboration with China Social Sciences Press. The translation was jointly done by Li Wenzhong, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Wu Jinshan, Henan Normal University, and Liu Bing, Henan Polytechnic University. The translators would like to thank Professor Zeng Yeying for his discussion and suggestions, Dr. Xia Xia and Liu Jiaqi of China Social Sciences Press for their co-​ordination and support. LI Wenzhong Zhejiang Gongshang University WU Jinshan Henan Normal University LIU Bing Henan Polytechnic University February 16, 2020

Preface

More than ten years ago, in 1999, I worked as the editor-​in-​chief of the journal Modern Chinese History Studies sponsored by the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. In order to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the PRC, and also to help researchers in modern Chinese history to learn from the past practice with discrimination and precaution in the coming twenty-​first century, I once discussed with Huang Chunsheng and Xu Xiuli, the deputy editors, and decided on a special issue (the fifth issue of the year) with the theme of Research on the History of Modern China in the Past 50 Years. We then planned 24 special topics, such as the theories and methods for modern Chinese history studies, the political history of the late Qing Dynasty, modern economic history, cultural history, ideological history, social history, urban history, women’s history, the history of youth movements, the history of workers’ movements, the history of Sino-​foreign relations, the history of the Republic of China, and the history of the Communist Party of China, for which we invited a group of prominent historians on the mainland to write introductory articles looking forwards and backwards, with a view to promoting the healthy development of Chinese modern history studies. Subsequently, we received positive responses and support from many notable scholars. But it turned out that the limited space made it impossible to accommodate all the contributions at one time. The original fifth issue had only published 16 of them. Then the published articles together with the other eight pieces were made into a volume with the title Research on Chinese Modern History in the Past 50 Years and submitted for publication by Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House. The publications mentioned above aroused widespread concern among historians, especially young students. Many readers wrote to the journal editorial board asking for mail orders, and almost all college history students had a copy, thus making the fifth issue the most widely distributed for many years. The book Research on the History of Modern China in the Past 50 Years was first published in April 2000 and second edition in July 2002. In August 2003, perhaps because it was the first of its kind to systematically introduce the PRC’s studies on modern history, it was also approved by the State Council as one of the “Tenth Five-​Year Plan” key projects for the “211

x Preface Project” of higher education, namely the “Digital Library Project for Classic Coursebooks of Higher Education.” Accordingly the book was published by Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House as an e-​book for online reading by lecturers and students of the 100 “211 Project” universities, 400 universities offering graduate programs, and another 1,000 universities. In October and November of 2008, during my visit to Taipei for historical materials, I was also informed by many Taiwanese friends that “the book also sold well there” and was asked whether I  was “interested in continuing to do it.” It seems that this book was helpful for people studying and researching the history of modern China. This is the main reason why I am still willing to take up the old job and edit this Contemporary Studies of Modern Chinese History (1949–​ 2009) today, more than ten years later. This book is a revision with new additions of Research on the History of Modern China in the Past 50 Years. Other than combining individual topics into chapters, the main changes are the addition of an “Overview” as an independent chapter, the inclusion of research between 1999 and 2012 in each chapter together with modifications and feedback from pre-​1999 reviews in some chapters. The introduction of the research mainly adheres to the following principles:  first, due to the limited space in this book, while it is not possible to cover everything in detail, we concentrate on major events, important people, with the research well focused, adequately dealt with, well justified and properly delivered. Second, an introduction has to be impartial with regard to the representative viewpoints. For controversial issues, different views are given equal exposure to prevent bias. Third, for some representative views that have a wider impact on academia and society, the main arguments and key factual evidence held by researchers are introduced appropriately. Fourth, practical review and prospects should be given as a summary of past research. Of course, everything is easier said than done. Despite all this, readers may still find the book unsatisfactory, and we feel obliged to ask for forgiveness. Other aspects remain unchanged. Twenty-​three topics have been retained, though the chapter on the “history of education” was reluctantly removed, because its author Wang Bingzhao died, and other scholars felt it was inappropriate to revise it. Moreover, a few chapters such as “Social history,” “History of Northern Warlords” and “History of historiography” have been changed or have acquired new authors for various reasons. The writing style remains diverse depending on the authors’ own choice, with no unified and consistent style guideline being imposed upon them. Authors vary to a great extent in their presentation in terms of organization, ordering, focus, representation and citation. It needs to be noted that in order to maintain the extent of each chapter, necessary deletions, occasionally significant ones were made to some. Other chapters were written while most were revised and modified in the light of historical facts. I am responsible for such modifications rather than the original authors. However, I have also retained some slightly repeated content

newgenprepdf

Preface  xi in individual chapters, which would not have been appropriate for a unified book, without having deleted them altogether. This is because 1) the fact that the original design ignored the possibility of overlapping events in different chapters simply makes it impossible to avoid them at this stage; 2) although the book is composed of 24 chapters as a whole, each chapter is actually a separate unit, with its own independence, integrity and internal logicality; 3) despite of some slight repetitions, they complement each other on account of their varied emphases and different ways of delivery. In addition, most of the works introduced in this book are carefully cited with their sources for further reference by readers. However, now that the important figures introduced in this book are limited in number and discussions of them are concentrated in several chapters, there is no index of personal names in order to save space. For the successful publication of this book, heartfelt thanks go to all the contributors for their warm support, to China Social Sciences Press for permission to quote from Report of Development of China Philosophy and Social Sciences, and to Zhang Xiaoyi and Liu Zhibing for their guidance, especially Liu Zhibing for his painstaking work in proofreading, citation format, and compilation of references. Finally, I  honestly welcome discussion and criticism from both professionals and general readers. ZENG Yeying The Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences May 2019

1  An overview ZENG Yeying

It has been over 70  years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, during the course of which studies of the modern Chinese history have developed from what used to be the least substantial in Chinese historical research and was even hardly regarded as a branch of “knowledge,” into an established branch of science in Chinese historiography today with its own scientific system in unprecedented prosperity. This is obvious to all. However, the same is also true that due to various factors both at home and abroad its development is far from smooth, having experienced the same problems of all kinds as emergent in the development of Chinese social sciences as a whole, and suffered serious setbacks as well as twists and turns in the whole process. It is therefore not only undoubtedly necessary but useful to conduct a brief review of such a tortuous process for the future development of modern Chinese historical research.

1.1  Initial development Ever since the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC), modern Chinese history studies have been highly valued by the Central People’s Government, especially by its top leader, Mao Zedong, the outstanding leader of the Chinese revolution. As early as May 1 1950, just six months after the birth of the PRC, the Central People’s Government established, on the basis of the Historical Research Department of the North China University, an institute of modern Chinese history with the Marxist historian Fan Wenlan as the director. It was the first of its kind in the humanities and social sciences after the founding of the PRC. In September 1953, as was proposed by the Publicity Department, the CPC Central Committee, and according to the “resolution” by the “Chinese Historical Research Committee” of the CPC Central Committee, it was officially placed as the third department of the Institute of Chinese Historical Research in the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the national science research center. Soon its original title was restored, namely the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and then evolved into today’s Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social

2  ZENG Yeying Sciences. At the time of its creation, there were no more than ten people, most of whom were history researchers cultivated during the period of the democratic revolution of the Communist Party of China. Later, a group of distinguished senior scholars of history study were gradually recruited from universities or scientific research institutions before 1949, together with a growing number of young researchers trained in the PRC. As the result, the institute became the research center for modern Chinese history in China, with its membership having quickly reached over one hundred. In the meantime, history institutes focusing on modern Chinese history were established in many provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions, such as Shanghai, Tianjin, Hunan, Guangdong. In addition, history departments concentrating on teaching and research in modern Chinese history were established in many universities, thus involving a large number of people in teaching and research. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that the total number of modern history researchers at central, provincial, municipal and regional research institutions as well as universities within the first ten years of the PRC had far exceeded its pre-​1949 levels. This is a good example showing how much importance the PRC has placed on modern Chinese history study. With the support of the central government and local governments, and the joint efforts of the majority of researchers, remarkable progress was made, in the study of modern Chinese history during this period, in the following three aspects. The first is the establishment of an independent scientific system of modern Chinese history as a discipline. For a long time, Chinese history study, including modern Chinese history, had not been able to embark on a scientific path, since it invariably concentrated on the rise and fall of the state and social prosperity and collapse in terms of whether the ruler was “wise” or “virtuous,” thus covering up the facts of class struggle with various idealist fallacies. Although historians of the Chinese bourgeois democrats, with an orientation of incredulity and discrimination, had also criticized the traditional historical view and historical account based on the genealogy of the emperors, and thus had played a moderate role in the development of Chinese history, they still failed to reveal the truth of China’s modern history because they always denied the decisive role of productive forces in the course of history and thus disavowed the historical role of class struggle. Since the founding of the PRC, the majority of the modern Chinese history researchers, having studied Marxist historical materialism and class analysis methodology and research practice, and confirmed that “the history of all societies is but that of class struggle,” have basically reached a consensus on the disciplinary issues in modern history for its upper and lower time limits, basic development tendencies and research methodology, while it is true that they occasionally hold different views on some specific issues. It is the shared view among most of the historians that modern Chinese history starts from the Opium Wars in 1840 and ends in the May 4 Movement in 1919 (and extends to 1949 when the PRC was founded, as was recognized with the deepening study of history

An overview  3 after the reform and opening up), and that it is by nature a semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society, whose fundamental task is to fight imperialism and feudalism. Therefore, the basic clue in the study of modern Chinese history should be the Chinese people’s anti-​imperialist and anti-​feudal struggle and its development, with the Marxist Materialist conception of history and class analysis method being its fundamental methodology. Three representative works fully reflect and demonstrate such a subject system: the first and second are the course books for the teaching of modern Chinese history in universities published in 1962, the History of China (Vol. 4) with Guo Moruo, the dean of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, as the chief editor, and Liu Danian, the deputy director of the Institute of Modern History, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, as the executive editor, who organized the researchers into writing teams, and An Outline of Chinese History (Vol. 4) whose chief editor was Jian Bozan and its author Shao Xunzheng and Chen Qinghua of Peking University. The third one is From the Opium Wars to the May Fourth Movement written by Hu Sheng, which was published as late as 1981 though its system is not very much different from the first two books. Second, a number of basic documentaries and literature of modern Chinese history have been collected, collated and published, having thus laid a solid foundation for further study. Historical data is the core and foundation of historical research, and the latter simply cannot exist without the former. Therefore, the Association of Chinese Historians, which was set up by the “Chinese Historical Research Committee,” undertook as its top priority even in its preparatory stage the collection, collation and publication of the basic documentaries of modern Chinese history. As early as July 1949, the eve of the founding of the PRC, Fan Wenlan, who was in charge of the preparation of the Association of Chinese Historians, was already beginning to plan this work. He aimed to compile the Reference Documentaries on Modern Chinese History Series, and to organize historians to compile special references in respect of the major historical events in modern history for successive publication. At the time of the fiftieth anniversary of the Yihetuan (The Boxer) Movement in 1950, Yihetuan (The Boxer) was edited and published by Jian Bozan as a special collection. From July 1951, when the Association of Chinese Historians was officially established, to 1959, ten books were successively edited and published in accordance with the plan, among them were Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, The Uprising of the Hui People, The Reform Movement of 1898, The Opium Wars, The Sino-​French War, The Sino-​Japanese War, The Revolution of 1911, The Nian Army, and the Westernization Movement. Of the book series the most dense consists of eight volumes and over 2 million words, whereas the lightest consists of four volumes and over 1 million words; the Taiping series of ten books can be regarded as the most comprehensive literature collection and one of the biggest publication events by academic historians in the early years of the PRC. In 1954, the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Sciences founded the journal Materials on Modern History specifically for the publication of materials on modern Chinese history. At the same

4  ZENG Yeying time, under the unified planning of the Association of Chinese Historians, many economic historians, such as Yan Zhongping of the Institute of Economics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, started the compilation of a work on Chinese modern economic history. As the result, a series of books on China’s modern economic history were in continuous publication, such as Reference Materials on Chinese Modern Economic History Series, including Selected Materials on the Chinese Modern Economy, Materials on the History of Chinese Modern Industry, Materials on the History of Chinese Modern Agriculture, Materials on the History of the Chinese Modern Handicraft Industry, Materials on the History of Chinese Modern Railways, Materials on the History of Chinese Modern Shipping, Statistical Historical Materials on Chinese Modern Foreign Debt, and Historical Materials of Old Chinese Bonds, Materials on the Imperialism and China Customs Series, including Chinese Customs and the Burmese Issues, Chinese Customs and Continued Loans from Britain and Germany, Chinese Customs and the Boxer Movement, Materials on the History of Chinese Capitalist Industry and Commerce Series, including Beijing Ruifuxiang, Shanghai National Rubber Industry, Shanghai Cotton Cloth Industry, Shanghai National Machine Industry, Shanghai National Match Industry, Shanghai National Wool Textile Industry, Yong’an Textile Printing and Dyeing Company, and Statistical Materials on Old China’s Flour-​Producing Machine Industry, Historical Materials on Shanghai Typical Capitalist Enterprises, which contains specific materials on the Nanyang Brothers’ Tobacco Company, the Rong’s Enterprise, and Liu Hongsheng’s Enterprise. These journal and book series, being carefully selected by experts and scholars and of considerable reference value in respect of modern political and economic history, are still widely cited by modern Chinese history researchers. It should be noted that they were just a few remarkably large-​ scale material collections beside many other works. There were also Adapted Collection of Historical Materials on the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Series edited by Luo Ergang, Memoirs of the Revolution of 1911 edited by the CPPCC (The Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference) National Committee, Selected Materials of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in the Second Civil Revolutionary War Period and Selected Materials of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in the Third Civil Revolutionary War Period edited by the Academy of Military Sciences, to name just a few, whereas other works, which varied in size, due to the limited space of this book, will not be mentioned here. However, these alone are enough to show that the painstaking efforts shown by Chinese researchers of modern history to material collection as well as the remarkable achievements they have made are beyond any doubt. Finally, a systematic and in-​depth study of the major events and topics in modern Chinese history was undertaken regarding the history of the imperialist invasion of China, the peasant movement of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Revolution of 1911, and the capitalist economy. On the history of imperialist aggression against China among the first batch to be published

An overview  5 were Liu Danian’s History of the American Invasion of China and Chin Benli’s History of the US Imperialist Economic Invasion of China. Later, the first volumes of History of Imperialist Aggression against China compiled by Ding Mingnan et al. were published, which, although dealing merely with the Sino-​ Japanese War of 1894–​1895, gives a full and systematic “synthetic account” of the history of the oppression of China, opposing China’s independence and the impeding of Chinese social progress by the major capitalist nations in the late Qing period. The most significant progress in this period was made in the study of the peasant movement of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. Take the papers in the journal Historical Research as an example, before the “Cultural Revolution” in 1966. Altogether 113 papers were published on modern Chinese history, of which 65 were on the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, accounting for 57.52 percent of all the papers on various topics, almost two-​thirds of them. As for monographs, significant accomplishment was made in the textual research on historical events as demonstrated in the seven monographs written by Luo Ergang, such as the History of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, a biographical general history, Essays on the Corrections of the Historical Records of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, The Textual Research on the Historical Events of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, Collected Essays on the Discrimination of the Historical Materials of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, Textual Research on the Heavenly Calendar (of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom) and a Cross-​reference Table of the Heavenly Calendar, Xia Calendar and Gregorian Calendar, Essays on Research and Interpretation of the Historical Materials of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, Interpretations on the Images of the Cultural Relics of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, and Essays on the Survey on the Historical Sites of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. Although less progress was made on the Revolution of 1911 compared with the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, 22 papers were published on Historical Research before the “Cultural Revolution,” ranking second in terms of quantity. What is more important is the fact that significant changes took place in the direction and focus of the study, which no longer, just as the historiography in old times used to do, focused on isolated political events and studied the personal activities of a small number of celebrities; instead the economic backgrounds and class relations were explored, and emphasis was placed on the status and role of ordinary people. Moreover, the Revolution of 1911 was regarded as the product of the fundamental contradictions that were intensifying in the late Qing Dynasty. Such studies have greatly contributed to the study of the Revolution of 1911 and helped to reveal much of its historical truth. In the study of the capitalist economy, first of all, fruitful accomplishments were achieved: as many as 61 important monographs were published before 1966, such as Wu Jie’s China’s Modern National Economic History, Shang Yue’s A Preliminary Study of the Occurrence and Evolution of the Capitalist Relations in China, Wu Chengming’s Imperialists’ Investments in Old China, Wei Zichu’s Imperialism and Kailuan Coal Mine, Fu Zhufu’s China’s Primitive Capital Accumulation, Zhou Xiuluan’s The Development of China’s National

6  ZENG Yeying Industry during the First World War, Zhang Yulan’s History of China’s Banking Industry, and Yang Peixin’s Inflation in Old Times China. Second, many new research fields were opened up. It was from then on that many new subject areas began to arouse research interest and in which substantial progress was made, such as primitive capital accumulation, the national market, the national bourgeoisie and the comprador bourgeoisie, the commercialization of agricultural products, the new democratic economy, and the impacts of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Reform of 1898, and the Revolution of 1911 upon the economic development. The reason that such remarkable progress in the study of modern Chinese history was made in the period can be, in addition to the above mentioned support by the central and local governments, attributed to several other important factors. First, there was a relatively stable period of time for research. Any scientific research, in order to be successful, must be dependent on the availability of both research object and the researchers themselves. And for the study of modern Chinese history, the most important thing for the former is the availability of theory and methodology as well as data. As mentioned above, since Marxist historical materialism and class analysis methods were established, and there was a certain amount of prepared data available, it was certainly not a problem. The one that is more crucial is the latter, that is, whether the researchers had the initiative and the time for concentration on the study of modern Chinese history without interference from other unrelated activities. The victory of the revolution in China and the founding of the PRC has washed off the disgrace and humiliations that imperialism had imposed on the Chinese people for over a century, and basically ended the state of division and war. Modern Chinese history scholars, being either prominent senior experts on old times or new scholars who grew up in the PRC, were fêted like the rest of the whole country, and were keen to give their best to the development of the PRC’s scientific and cultural cause; everyone had unprecedented enthusiasm beyond any doubt. Therefore, the only thing that mattered was whether there was availability of time. Before 1966, especially in the early 1950s, in spite of the fact that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) repeatedly carried out ideological criticism campaigns targeted at repelling the so-​called ideological attack of the bourgeoisie, stressing that social science researchers must transform their world outlook, so that the research work always made way for ideological criticism movements to the effect that it was occasionally interrupted, yet the time period can still be said to be relatively stable because the durations were relatively short and small scale. Many researchers, with their whole-​hearted support for the PRC’s cultural construction and love for the study of modern Chinese history, engaged themselves in their own research using every minute of available time by taking advantage of this relatively stable environment and with strong will and perseverance. This should be one of the reasons for the remarkable progress in the period.

An overview  7 Another reason was the broad implementation of the policy of “letting a hundred flowers blossom and letting a hundred schools of thought contend.” In August 1953, Mao Zedong personally put forward the forthcoming Historical Research the policy “Let one hundred schools of thought contend,” to promote the development of historical research. On 2 May 1956 in his speech at the Supreme State Conference, he again formally declared “let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” in the fields of art and science. He said: “There are schools of this and that in social sciences, let them talk. And they can also voice their opinions in journals and on newspapers.”1 This is a far-​reaching policy; it had not only mobilized to the utmost the initiative of the majority of scientific workers, but also it was a necessary way to develop sciences, because only the academic viewpoints that stand up free discussions of different views may be a tenable truth. A general survey of the research in modern Chinese history in this period reveals that, in contrast with the subsequent period, there still existed a relatively strong atmosphere of free academic discussion. As an example, in 1954, Hu Sheng’s article “On the periodization of modern Chinese history” was published in Historical Research and immediately caused a heated discussion, which lasted more than three years. According to the statistics of “Discussion on China’s modern history periodization comes to an end” published by the Xinhua News Agency in 1957, a total of 24 related papers were published within three years. Such an event, having involved so many people for such a long term on a specific historical topic, has been to this day unprecedented in the study of history of modern Chinese history. Another example was Jiang Duo’s “The Westernization Movement and its facilitation of the early national capital,” “The contradictions between the economic activities of the Westernization Movement and the foreign capital of aggression” and his other papers published in the Wen Hui Bao newspaper (Shanghai) between 1961 and 1962 also provoked a heated debate. On Jiang Duo’s views, some disagreed, some held the middle position, and others took a half-​for-​half-​ against view, reflecting a favorable attitude of those modern Chinese history scholars at that time for freely speaking their mind in their pursuit of truth. Even after Qi Benyu published Historical Research in 1963 and 1964 “On Li Xiucheng’s self-​account” and “How to deal with Li Xiucheng’s surrender and treacherous behavior?,” there were still scholars standing up and voicing their dissent. It can be seen from these cases that the “double-​hundred” policy of this period was actually well carried out, and had thus played an important role in promoting modern Chinese history study at that time. There was a third reason. A  group of highly respected senior historians played an important guiding role. This was because besides the significant progress mentioned above, certain problems, and even wrong tendencies also arose, and they should have been promptly overcome and corrected. Moreover, new problems could arise any time in a changing situation. In such cases, it was of crucial importance whether some people showed the right way for a smooth development of research. Fortunately, at that time a number of

8  ZENG Yeying respected senior historians, such as Guo Moruo, Fan Wenlan, Jian Bozan and others, were not only in good health, but still able as usual to play a guiding role. They not only were aware of such problems, but also in a timely manner pointed modern Chinese history study to the right direction, with their strong sense of responsibility and their considerable learning and experience, by frequently writing books and delivering speeches. Take Fan Wenlan as an example. As early as in 1950, he published an article reviewing his own A Brief History of China and The Modern History of China with a sense of matter-​of-​fact and self-​examination, hoping to invoke people’s criticism. In the article Fan Wenlan said that one should adopt a Marxist historical analysis for history and individual historical figures in the entire feudal era. Either condemning all or praising all before, any analysis was merely subjective non-​historicism. He also said that to some extent the practice of “talking of the past to allude to the present” damaged the historical viewpoint of seeking truth from facts, indicating that in his former book he made a false analogy by associating the union between the Wu and Shu in the Three Kingdoms period with the national united front of anti-​Japanese, and by referring Sun Quan of the Wu to the Kuomintang reactionaries and their undermining of such a united front, and reprimanded the Kuomintang’s spy reign by the faulty analogy of Wu Zetian (Empress of the Tang Dynasty, who reigned 685–​705); in the latter, the Modern History of China, he again blamed Chiang Kai-​shek by talking of Emperor Daoguang’s “difficulty of begging to surrender” during the Opium Wars.2 Fan Wenlan set a brilliant example for the historians with his spirit of seeking truth from facts and courage of self-​ criticism. In 1954, to deal specifically with the situation that some historians were often constrained by the individual assertions of the classical writers of Marxism, Fan wrote “Why China became a unified country from the Qin and Han dynasties,” arguing from the reality of Chinese history that the Han nationality had come into gradual formation as early as the Qin and Han dynasties, which is not what Stalin said, that the nation cannot be formed until the capitalist age. This was a specific demonstration opposing book-​copying dogmatism. In 1957, in a lecture to the History Department of Peking University Fan further pointed out that learning Marxism was to “think like” rather than “look like,” and problems occur and have new infinite changes, and correspondingly there should also be new infinite solutions. This is the living vitality of Marxism. This is what I mean by “think like” in learning Marxism. It is nothing but pseudo-​Marxism and dogmatism to regard Marx’s phraseology as a panacea, and to limit oneself to some abstract formula by applying them indiscriminately with no careful consideration of time, context and conditions. What Fan Wenlan said of “think like” here simply means learning and understanding the very spiritual essence of Marxism, while the so-​called

An overview  9 “look like” means dogmatically copying discrete statements regardless of the specific historical conditions. It is totally undesirable to do so.3 In 1961, Fan published in Historical Research “Opposing firing empty shots” specifically dealing with the situation in which some historians during the “Great Leap Forward” of 1958 took on a boastful manner and made groundless remarks. He criticized those who simply invented formula and law and wove them into lengthy articles before doing any serious investigation and research. He also pointed out that to write a good research article or book, one must begin with close investigation into the historical event in question, then go ahead reading various references for a systematic and detailed understanding of the matter, and analyze the causes of such an occurrence as well as the various factors, positive or negative, contributing to its development for a determination of its tendency by applying the perspectives and methodology of Marx, Lenin, and Mao Zedong’s thought. “One must adhere to the honest attitude of ‘being determined to seek truth from facts, but not to seek popularity by producing shocking statements’. Never try to collect data in a grab-​and-​use manner.” Here he was not only talking of the genuine attitude, but also proper research method.4 Guo Moruo, Fan Wenlan, Jian Bozan and a number of respected senior historians repeatedly corrected the wrong tendencies in the critical moments for modern Chinese history study and pointed to the right direction, which always provoked great repercussions in the academic community. It is their irreplaceable guiding role that promoted the development of modern Chinese history study in this initial stage.

1.2  Critical setbacks Now that great importance was placed on the study of modern Chinese history, and that people had unprecedentedly high motivation for learning and studying it which resulted from the victory of the Chinese revolution, then modern Chinese history research should have been able to embark on a smooth sustainable development. But that was not the case. The momentum of development in the early 1950s was soon suspended by the anti-​rightist campaign of 1957 that was to be dramatically expanded. From then on, the whole country headed into a period of comprehensively “putting politics in command,” and the central tasks of the various units and departments had to make way for oncoming political movements one after the other. The vast majority of intellectuals, young and old, old and new, had invariably been identified as bourgeois intellectuals and must be ideologically transformed and take the so-​called “red and expert” (socialist-​minded and professionally competent) path. They could find no way to be engaged in research until their bourgeois world outlook was transformed. However,

10  ZENG Yeying the best way to such transformation was to “turn intellectuals into laborers,” namely sending them to factories and rural areas for labor training. In 1958, all colleges and universities began to fully implement the policy of combining education with production labor, with production labor being listed as a compulsory course.5 In 1963, the Institute of Philosophy and Social Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Sciences also began to implement, for all the newly assigned university graduates in all its research sections, the so-​called rigid “labor practice” system providing that each was to be sent to labor for the first-​year in the rural areas. In 1965, Chen Boda, as a vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, notoriously known as a “Marxist theorist,” “formally proposed twice to the Chinese Academy of Sciences that all the research sections of the Institute of Philosophy and Social Sciences be abolished and all researchers be dismissed.” In January 1966, the “theorist” Kang Sheng, who had not published any single piece of theoretical work, wrote a lengthy comment on a Briefing of the Institute of Philosophy and Social Sciences, saying that the social science researchers, before a proper transformation of their bourgeois world outlook, have no right to do any research work, nor do they have the right to serve the farmers. The only one thing they can do is to go to labor in the countryside.6 Even more common were the political learning activities for the purpose of raising the so-​called “ideological consciousness” of researchers, or the urgent mobilization to fight off the so-​called bourgeois ideological attack. The so-​ called “red and expert” was merely another name for being only “red” but not “expert.” Researchers so frequently separated from their research practice, with most of their time and energy wasted in such endless transformations, would of course find it hard to continue modern Chinese history research. There were far more problems than that. After the Anti-​rightist Movement in 1957, began to foster the so-​called “sharpening of the class struggle in socialist society”; and the struggle against the bourgeois ideology became more frequent and more intense. As the consequence of a series of critical standpoints such as “pulling the white flag (capitalist ideology) and planting the red flag (socialist ideology)” in all the universities in 1958, new biases emerged in such major issues as research direction and approach, in addition to the existent dogmatic use of the general principle of Marxism in place of specific problem analysis as mentioned above. The first was the absolute, simplistic and formulaic conception of class struggle, which was caused by one-​sided understanding of Marxist theory of class and class struggle. It was a common practice in modern history studies that only class struggle was stressed while ignoring the fact that a class society is the unity of opposites of different classes, that only peasant wars, such as the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, and their role in promoting history were overstressed while ignoring the fact that some regulatory policies

An overview  11 of the feudal ruling class also functioned to promote social production, and that people were more critical than accepting even toward such bourgeois reform and revolutionary movements as the Reform Movement of 1898, and the Revolution of 1911. In short, all the ideas and activities of the exploited classes were positive, progressive and revolutionary; all the ideas and activities of the exploiting classes were always negative, backward, and reactionary. Black or white, everything was all clear-​cut. Moreover, even the academic title “History of foreign relations” in the history departments in some universities was criticized as manifesting a loss of the proletarian position, and it was “required to be renamed as the ‘history of imperialist invasion of China’, and later changed into the ‘history of Chinese people fighting against imperialism’.”7 A requirement was that historical research should be in the service of political reality. At first it was merely a requirement for finding out the historical basis for justifying certain policies and making some historical comments. With the so-​called sharpening of the class struggle of the socialist society being intensified, even such kinds of “studies” seemed to be far from enough. In 1965, Qi Benyu published “Studying history for the revolution” on Historical Research, requiring that historical research should be entirely carried out for current political needs, namely the needs of the class struggle, and directly make historical research a part of the current political struggle. It seemed that there was no need to care about whether such research conforms to the truth of history, or whether it is really beneficial to the progress of society and to the development of modern Chinese history research. Finally, there was a serious neglect of basic research, opposing the so-​called “tedious textual research” while advocating “theory guiding history.” One typical instance was the question whether Hong Xiuquan (of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom) had a beard or not. It was often used as a target of ridicule and criticism for being “tedious textual research,” saying that such textual research was utterly meaningless. In fact, even this criticism may not be without biases. People might need to know whether Hong Xiuquan had a beard or not when they wanted to make a portrait of him, or impersonate him on the stage. In such an example, is research still unnecessary and meaningless? All these biases were but factors that seriously affected the sustainable development of modern Chinese history research. However, the study of the modern Chinese history was not totally terminated and researchers in general could undertake their research in an on-​and-​off manner, even though they had to spend most of their time and energy on the transformation of their “bourgeois world outlook.” In 1961, the Central Committee reiterated the policy of “letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend.” A number of respected historians as mentioned above, such as Guo Moruo, Fan Wenlan and Jian Bozan, had the courage to uphold truth and continued to voice their disagreement and criticisms of the biases regardless of the increasingly erroneous idea of “turning left rather than right.” There was even a period when the academic atmosphere was moderately restored. Therefore, modern Chinese

12  ZENG Yeying history research was able to maintain a slow development, as was manifest not only in more or less inertial progress on the basis of the previous more profound research, but also in some newly-​opened fields characterized by social investigation such as “four histories,” namely that of families, villages, Communes (the People’s Communes) and factories, with some initial results being achieved. However, even this unsatisfactory situation did not last long. The period from 1966 to 1976, ever since then modern Chinese history research, like other social sciences, had suffered severe damage and even destruction for ten years imposed by Jiang Qing and Lin Biao cliques. They first announced the closure of all levels of institutions, including universities, scientific research institutes, and the termination of all the research organizations and academic groups; all journals like Historical Research immediately ceased to work, and quite a number of accomplished historians were labeled as “three anti’s members,” namely anti-​party, anti-​socialism, and anti-​Mao Zedong thought, or “reactionary academic authorities,” having thus completely negated the achievements of historical research in the 17  years since the founding of the PRC and forced the scientific research of modern Chinese history to a prolonged standstill. But does this mean that the Jiang Qing and Lin Biao Cliques intended to completely abolish historical research, including the study of modern Chinese history? Of course not. On the contrary, they attached great importance to the study of history. The reason they vigorously slashed historical research at this time was to abolish all scientific historical research, and to replace it with the historical research they needed. Therefore, very soon after they forced historical science to a standstill, they quickly restored the “Special column” of the Guangming Daily and deployed some researchers respectively from the Institute of Modern History and the Institute of History, Chinese Academy of Sciences and formed the “Group of peasant war history,” specializing in peasant war history research. Despite the fact that the research group was soon closed down due to the fall of Qi Benyu, without causing any adverse consequences, it was still enough to show that those cliques did not actually neglect historical research. After the collapse of the Lin Biao Clique, the Jiang Qing Clique was particularly infatuated with historical research and in 1974 restored the journal Historical Research. In order to prevent Zhou Enlai, who was in charge of the Central Committee’s work at that time, from taking measures to eliminate the negative effects of the period from 1966 to 1976 and maintain a healthy state, the Jiang Qing Clique set about as a political conspiracy “overthrowing everything” and usurping the Party and seizing power by recruiting some historical researchers to form a writing team and create public opinion, in the name of “Liang Xiao” and “Luo Siding” or under the banner of the “theory group” of the workers, peasants and soldiers, that Chinese history, from the Spring-​Autumn and Warring State period on, was just a history of “Confucianism-​ Legalism struggles.” They also advocated that “the struggle between Confucianism and Legalism continues

An overview  13 to the present, and will affect the future,” and that “there still is a Confucian in China even today, the biggest one at that,” which was meant to target at Zhou Enlai.8 The whole ten-​year period was a nightmare for the modern Chinese history research, with nothing left except painful lessons. What are these painful lessons then? And which of them is worth forever remembering? In my personal opinion, the following three aspects are worth our particular attention: First, we cannot simply turn historical research directly into a part of politics and use academic research as a means of political struggle. Such a tendency, as previously mentioned, began to emerge before 1966 when Jiang Qing and Lin Biao began the purpose of consolidating the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and to serve the current political requirement that historical researchers should consider that their only divine task was accommodating and meeting immediate political needs. In other words, it is precisely “putting politics in command.” Just because they advocated all this under the banner of “proletarian headquarters,” no one dared to say a word, which had led to rampant spreading of such a tendency. Admittedly, as Emperor Taizong of Tang said, with history as a mirror, you can understand the rise and fall of a state, meaning that historical research enables us to have a comprehensive knowledge of the past and present, to discriminate between rights and wrongs, to evaluate gains and losses, and to push society forward. People never study history without a realistic value orientation or just for the sake of research itself. Otherwise, history studies would not have such long-​term vitality and should have already been expelled from social sciences. In this sense, indeed “all history is contemporary history.” However, the Jiang Qing and Lin Biao Cliques had demanded that historical researchers should take to “serving the real political struggle,” that is, “serving the political struggle of the proletariat,” as the sole and divine task. This is more harmful than improper. First of all, the slogan itself is imperfect. While imposing one-​ sided emphasis on serving politics by science, it completely ignores the fact that politics also serves science. As a matter of fact, if politics does not serve science, and fails to provide the necessary conditions for the very existence of science, such as “letting a hundred flowers blossom, and letting a hundred schools of thought contend,” science will not survive, let alone serve proletarian politics. Second, as far as the social function of historical research is concerned, the slogan is too narrow. Do history studies only serve proletarian politics, but not the proletarian economy, culture and education?9 Moreover, everything is changing and developing, even political reality, which can never stay for the same demand. If we follow closely in our research the instantaneous demand for so-​called “consolidating the proletarian dictatorship” and “serving the real political struggle,” we will have to frequently adapt history to such political demands, which can vary to a great extent over the course of time, resulting in great confusion, and being far removed from any historical truth. Is this not the true case of the Concise Course Book of the History of the

14  ZENG Yeying Soviet Communist Party? It was one thing when Stalin was alive, but turned into another when Khrushchev took office, and still another when Brezhnev came to power, making people utterly at a loss which is true, and having thus ultimately lost the people’s trust. Finally, such a slogan is extremely harmful to both social development and historical research itself, being susceptible to misinterpretation and utilization. This has been fully verified by what the Jiang Qing and Lin Biao Cliques did during the period between 1966 and 1976. A well-​known fact is that the cliques, in order to usurp the Party and seize power, and by throwing out the deterrent slogan, knew there was no stop to arbitrarily distorting and tampering with history, having made Chinese history a foul mess beyond recognition. Of course, any slogan can only be made a general call, and may be misinterpreted and used. However, as Li Shu said, the question is, this slogan does not make any requirement specific to the characteristics of history studies itself, nor does it answer the question what the task is of history as a science. In fact, the founders of Marxist historical science have long before made a clear exposition on the issue, and pointed out that its fundamental task is to reveal the law of historical development.10 To reveal the law of historical development, we must stick to historical truth, and never allow any distortion and tampering. Otherwise, it will turn into, rather than the law of history, the “law of foolery” with no factual basis and contributing nothing to social progress. This is the inevitable result of limiting the task of historical research to the scope of “serving the reality of political struggles.” It can be seen that any kind of research, be it either the open malpractice characterizing the Jiang Qing and Lin Biao Cliques, or other hidden ones turning historical research directly into a part of political struggles, can hardly promote the normal development of historical research if it attempts to utilize academic research as a means of political struggle, and therefore should be resolutely opposed and abandoned. Second, there should be no mechanical application of a ready-​ made model. Human history has always been complex and full of variations. Yet far from being a miscellany of inextricable mess in any sense, its development has a law to follow. Meanwhile it definitely does not follow a rigid route in accordance with a fixed uniform pattern. Therefore, the study of modern Chinese history must proceed from the reality of history, rather than blindly copy a stringent model. Take the history of the struggle between Confucianism and Legalism as an example. Jiang Qing claimed that, as her new discovery, the struggle between the two served as a new clue to explaining Chinese history. Such a discovery was further supplemented and elaborated by her followers before a series of rigid models was fabricated. According to such models, for instance, all the Legalists were the oppressed, rising from the grassroots, patriotic and

An overview  15 people-​loving, whereas all the Confucians were completely the opposite; the followers of Legalism must necessarily be against Confucianism, and the opposite is also true. Following this line of argument, those who advocate unity or contribute to unity will be Legalists, and those who advocate separation or separatism will be Confucians, and so on. Applying these rigid models, Jiang Qing and her followers simply classified and labeled, in the field of modern Chinese history, Hong Xiuquan, Kang Youwei, Zhang Taiyan and others as Legalists, and Yang Xiuqing, Shi Dakai, and Chiang Kai-​shek as Confucians. It was believed that the power struggle between Hong Xiuquan and Yang Xiuqing was a struggle between “anti-​Confucianism” and “Confucianism”; whereas the guilt at the capital city was the so-​called Confucians’ usurping of power and so on. In fact, these rigid models were fabrications themselves by the Jiang Qing Group for their own political needs, and thus were utterly groundless. It is even more ridiculous to use them as a model to explain China’s modern history. The reason why Hong Xiuquan was anti-​Confucianism was mainly because he was the organizer and leader of the peasant uprising. He discovered from a foreign missionary that there was a god that could be used to call the masses, but at the same time he must try his best to get rid of Confucius, who had always been respected as the “Greatest Sage” by the Chinese people. Otherwise, he would not be able to make his god gain faith in the masses. It can be said that it has nothing to do with “Anti-​Confucianism and following Legalism.” Kang Youwei and Zhang Taiyan were the representative figures in the rise of the Chinese bourgeois revolutionary movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when Confucian ideas were placed in serious crisis under the impact of the bourgeois sociology and natural science introduced from the West, each with a different orientation: the former being a famous Confucian scholar of the Ancient Classics School, and the latter a famous Confucian scholar of the New Classics School. Both were bourgeois scholars, rather than Legalists. As for Chiang Kai-​shek, he participated in the anti-​Qing revolution and overthrew the rule of the Northern Warlords, while it was also a fact that he also brutally suppressed the Communists and the revolutionary masses, but was he not patriotic, despite participating in the anti-​Qing revolution and overthrowing the rule of the Northern Warlords, and uniting with the Communist Party to resist the Japanese invasion for a victory in the anti-​Fascist war, and upholding the “one China” policy in Taiwan. Should he not be regarded as a “legalist,” since he once proclaimed that he was maintaining unity. How could he become a so-​called “Confucian”? Was this not a self-​denial of the standard of Confucianism proposed by themselves? Facts have proved that in the study of human history, with regard to various historical models thus constructed for different people, the first thing we need to do is to test whether these models conform to the reality of Chinese history, and to examine the true intentions behind them, rather than blindly applying them indiscriminately, thinking they are something precious. Otherwise, such

16  ZENG Yeying misdoing, besides being ridiculous, would eventually distort history, and it is not a trivial matter. Third, we must not violate the scientific spirit. Since the study of modern Chinese history is scientific research, it must be treated in accordance with the scientific law itself, which means that the scientific spirit must be adhered to. This is a necessary condition for the study of modern Chinese history to achieve greater success. However, from 1966 to 1976, the Jiang Qing and Lin Biao Groups, who held heavy powers, had not only failed to make claims in accordance with such scientific principles, but had forced a series of measures against it from outside, having thus pushed the study of modern Chinese history into an abyss of destruction. Moreover, they set up various restrictions on what should be researched and what should not. For instance, research could only be allowed on the history of the peasant war, imperialist aggression against China, the people’s anti-​imperialist struggles, and the history of the Communist Party of China. Even in the study of the history of the Chinese Communist Party, only research could be allowed on the theory and practice of the great leader Mao Zedong, nobody else or nothing else, the least possible being research on persons and events that had opposed or been unfavorable to the great leader. If there were any research in such areas, it could only expose the crimes of those persons and events. Such malpractice had simply turned a colorful modern Chinese history into a lifeless singular account, just like an old crone walking alone in the cold wind, with little flesh and blood. In fact, human history is far from being so narrow, and with various phenomena closely interconnected. One phenomenon would not be able to be adequately, comprehensively, and thoroughly explained without giving a full account of another. Therefore, Marx and Engels have always believed that history is an all-​encompassing science, and never advocated limiting its scope of research, nor stipulating what may or may not be studied. As for research methodology, although the Jiang Qing and Lin Biao Groups talked about class analysis, they went to such an extreme as to turn it into a highly simplistic and absolute label that could be arbitrarily placed. In an article “Patriotism or traitorism: on A Secret History of the Qing Royal Court” published in 1966, the author Qi Benyu extolled the Boxers to the skies and described the Reform of 1898 as a crime. What was actually running through was an extremely simple model:  everything about the working people was good, whereas nothing was good about the exploiting class; one should be affirmative about the violent struggles under any circumstance, and negative about political reforms in all situations. This is the downright fact-​ignoring subjectivism and pragmatism. While the Boxer Movement is a spontaneous struggle of the peasants and it is by nature revolutionary for its anti-​imperialism and patriotism, it is at the same time indiscriminately exclusive, opposes everything foreign, and is in addition characterized by strong peasant backwardness and feudal ignorance, thus being in no sense of the same importance as the Reform of 1898. Being a bourgeois democratic reform

An overview  17 movement, the Reform of 1898 represents the political ideal of transforming feudalism into capitalism and a pathway to save the country. No matter how incomplete or unrealistic it is, it still has an epoch-​making significance, since no single peasant movement had ever, or even possibly ever, brought forward such an ideal in the past few thousand years. To different academic views, the Jiang Qing and Lin Biao Groups openly announced the implementation of a comprehensive dictatorship in the field of art and science, having thus ignored Mao Zedong’s “double-​hundred” policy of developing art and science, and his repeated requests that the controversies in art and science be settled through free discussions and in actual practice, rather than by forced promoting or prohibiting, simply using political power, certain style or school. What they approved were no more than eight “model works” in literature and art, and in history studies only two groups of authors, Liang Xiao and Luo Siding, who were in their own interest rigidly engaged in “service for practical political struggle,” got their approval, having thus completely blocked the pathway of modern history research. Historical research is a scientific undertaking, not political propaganda, and a scientific undertaking has its own developmental characteristic that is completely different from political propaganda. Since the fundamental task of historical research is to reveal the essence of history and the law of its internal development, it is necessarily a tortuous and complicated process full of errors and failures, and it is not all accomplished in a single hit. In such process, errors or error correction are a necessary link to knowledge of truth. Every time one corrects an error, one comes one step closer to the truth. It is therefore wrong to stick to a ready-​made conclusion and reject further research. Accordingly, we must try our best to avoid the interference of administrative forces and allow for free discussions of different opinions. In short, what should never be ignored is adherence to the scientific spirit, which is the lifeline of all scientific undertakings, including the study of modern Chinese history. It should be pointed out that the Jiang Qing and Lin Biao Groups were not hiding the truth from the masses all the time and on any issue. In June 1972, Zhou Enlai personally instructed the “May 7th Cadre School” in Henan Province to be moved to the Minggang military camp, and all the research institutes of the Philosophy and Social Sciences Department of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which had been under inspection for so-​called “May 16th Counterrevolutionary Conspiratorial Group” for over a year, to return to Beijing and be back at work. Such instruction by Zhou Enlai brought two rare highlights to the study of modern Chinese history between 1966 and 1976. The first highlight is that it greatly promoted the study of the history of Russia’s invasion of China, of which research was forbidden by the PRC in order to maintain friendly relations between the two powers. In spite of the fact that such restriction was later lifted due to the breakdown of Sino-​Soviet relations, and a group of scholars were still studying the history of Russian’s relentless invasion of China even during the friendly period between China

18  ZENG Yeying and the Soviet Union, very little had been done because of endless political turbulence. And thanks to Zhou Enlai’s instruction, scholars were regrouped in the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, to set up a research group for the History of Russian Invasion of China, and as a result, a remarkable accomplishment was achieved. From 1974 to 1975, they successively published “A refutation of liars—​several issues on the Sino-​ Soviet boundary,” “Historical truth shall not be distorted—​several issues on the Sino-​Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk” and other articles; and in March 1976 the first volume of the History of Russian Invasion of China was completed before publication in October by the People’s Press. These historical writings, though not without the imprint of that era in wording, are basically serious academic works with full deference to historical facts and can stand the test of time. The second highlight is that it opened up a new field of research on the history of the Republic of China. In September 1972, the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Sciences set up a research group of 40 scholars on the history of the Republic of China as well as a working plan of one book, namely History of the Republic of China, and three compilations, namely The Republic of China Memorabilia, The Biographies of Eminent Chinese in the Republic of China and The Politics, Economy and Culture of the Republic of China (Special Collection), thus opening the prelude to the study of the history of the Republic of China in the PRC. Such an endeavor served to make a start and lay an initial foundation for later development, despite the fact that very little was actually achieved since it was still in the period of 1966 to 1976 when most of the researchers were seriously traumatized and their research work practically retarded, and that their limited achievement bore the imprint of that time. These two highlights can be said to be fortunate in an otherwise hopeless period.

1.3  Unprecedented prosperity In October 1976, the Jiang Qing Group also collapsed following the downfall of the Lin Biao Group. With the advent of the new era of national reform and opening up and socialist modernization, the study of modern Chinese history has also begun a new page, going from setbacks into an era of unprecedented prosperity, of which the main characteristics can be summarized as follows: First, the era has witnessed a rapid growth of research teams and improvement of their quality. In May 1977, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China approved the transformation of the Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Sciences into the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which was upgraded to a ministerial level department as a parallel to the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Followed by all the provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions where scholars in different fields had been grouped, each had its own academy of social sciences established. This was once again a strong indicator of the high value placed

An overview  19 on the social sciences by both the central government and local governments at all levels. At the same time, in many universities of science and engineering, such as Tsinghua University at Beijing, Huazhong University of Science and Technology at Wuhan (formerly Huazhong Institute of Technology), Donghua University at Shanghai (formerly Huadong Textile Institute) and other universities history departments were either restored or newly set up, which, taking into account a large number of new teaching and research staff, had far outnumbered researchers of modern Chinese history before 1966. Take the Institute of Modern History at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences as an example. Before 1966, there was a maximum of was 165 staff members. By the 1980s, staff numbers had reached 250. After that numbers decreased annually due to retirement, and even dropped to 140 by the end of 1999.11 However, as far as the whole country is concerned, and as institutes of history or history departments were newly established in many local social science academies and universities, it is beyond doubt that the number of people involved in modern Chinese history research increased. More importantly, with generations of younger scholars constantly joining in, the new generation of scholars cultivated after 1976 has gradually become the main force and backbone of modern history research. Having received systematic fundamental training in history, and many having trained abroad, this new generation of researchers are generally of better quality. And this is also an indisputable fact. In this regard, it becomes even more obvious considering the ever increasing qualification requirements for candidates applying for jobs in many historical research institutes and history departments in many key universities. Before the mid-​1980s, a university graduate with a bachelor’s degree was regarded by society as “the heavenly favored one,” and an undergraduate qualification was enough. However, from the late 1980s, with the growing number of postgraduates, the bachelor’s degree gradually lost favor. In the 1990s, especially in the mid-​and late 1990s, when a large number of doctoral graduates embarked on job hunting, the requirement for university employment was once again raised, so that only candidates with doctorates could apply. Yet after entering the twenty-​first century, even a doctorate is no longer a guarantee of university employment. A candidate needs to have postdoctoral research experience or a doctorate obtained “overseas” to qualify. Such changes in employment requirements are to some extent true reflections of an overall improvement in the quality of researchers in modern Chinese history. Second, there was a big increase in the number of academic groups and academic journals, and academic seminars were frequently held. In addition to the restoration of the Chinese History Society and history societies established before 1966 and the historical societies in all provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions, a large number of new history organizations have emerged, initiated and organized by researchers themselves. To illustrate this, there are a dozen associations devoted to the study of modern Chinese history:  The Historical Association of the Chinese Revolution of 1911 in

20  ZENG Yeying Central South China, The Historical Association of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom at Beijing, The Historical Association of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom at Nanjing, The Historical Association of the Boxer Movement, The Sun Yat-​sen Research Society, The Southwest Warlord History Research Association, and The Society of Modern Chinese Historical Materials, The Research Association of the New Fourth Army and the Huazhong Anti-​Japanese Base Areas, The Historical Association of the Chinese Anti-​ Japanese War, and The Modern Chinese History Society. In addition, many other historical associations also undertake the study of modern Chinese history, such as The Chinese Society for Historians of China’s Foreign Relations (shortened as CSHCFR), The Chinese Society for the History of Sino-​ Japanese Relations, The Chinese Society of Modern Culture, The Chinese Society for the History of Sino-​Russian Relations, The Chinese Society for Business History Studies, and The Tianjin History Research Association, to name only a few. There used to be only a limited number of journals, such as the Historical Research, Journal of Historical Science, History Teaching, Journal of Literature, History and Philosophy, Modern History Materials and a few other journals and university journals covering modern Chinese history. Up to the present, in addition to the Journal of Modern History Research, which is devoted to the publication of modern Chinese history research, more journals were established, including Modern Chinese History Research Abroad (which was discontinued after 1995 due to lack of funds), Republic Archives, Republican Annals, Studies on Republican China, The Journal of Studies of China’s War of Resistance Against Japan, CPC History Studies, Literature of the Chinese Communist Party, Archival Materials of Beijing, Historical Research of Enemy-​ occupied Northeast China, Historical Archives, and Archives and History, which are exclusively or mainly devoted to publishing research on modern Chinese history. Moreover, academic seminars were held one after another, unprecedented in terms of both frequency and scale. Take the history study of the Chinese Revolution of 1911 as an example. In the 27  years before 1976, only one national academic seminar was held in Wuhan in 1961. Whereas after1976, frequent seminars were held in provinces and cities such as Hunan, Guangdong, Zhejiang, Wuhan, and Shanghai that are closely related to the 1911 revolution, and in addition, the Chinese History Society also hosts international conferences with more than 100 participants every ten years, having held five conferences up to the present, including the 2011 Centennial Conference. Besides, a great number of seminars were held dealing with branches of modern Chinese history and major historical events, such as modern Chinese economic history, modern Chinese secret societies, the history of the Republic of China, the modern history of China, the history of the national revolutionary bases, the history of the War of Resistance Against Japan, the social history of modern China, the history of modern Chinese culture, the history of the Sino-​Japanese War 1894–​1895, the history of the Westernization

An overview  21 Movement, the history of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the history of the Sino-​French War, the history of the Southwestern warlords, the history of the Boxer Movement, the history of the National Protection Movement, the “First Congress” of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang), the Zunyi Meeting, and the September 18 Incident. There were also seminars on famous historical figures, such as Sun Yat-​sen, Lin Zexu, Zuo Zongtang, Cai E, Hu Hanmin, and Zhang Xueliang. Even some lesser-​known historical figures, such as Huang Yuansheng and Wang Jinfa, had repeated special seminars in their name. What is even more worth noting is that these seminars share one thing in common. They have never lacked active thinking and heated discussions, and usually diverse or even opposing voices were presented on the same issue, reflecting the atmosphere of true free discussion. Third, many new research fields have been opened up, having greatly expanded the realm of modern Chinese history. Mao Zedong pointed out as early as 1941 that modern Chinese history “analysis must first of all be conducted on economic history, political history, military history, and cultural history before any possible comprehensive research.” Soon after the foundation of the PRC, some scholars reminded modern Chinese history researchers of the fact that “political history takes up too large a proportion, while the account of social life, economic life and culture is very much limited and thus has yet to have a proper position in the study.”12 However, previous studies on modern Chinese history had not been able to do away with this predicament. Even in political history research which was more comprehensive than any of the rest, research was still limited to a very small frame of historical account, namely what was later referred to as two processes, three climaxes, and eight major events. Starting from this time (1976), remarkable changes have taken place, with political history being further expanded, the frontiers of modern history pushed farther back, and the serious imbalance between political history study and the “historical account of social life, economic life and culture” forever broken. The first is the revival and reconstruction of modern Chinese social history and cultural history as two branch disciplines. Being independent branch disciplines themselves, and each having its own distinctive objectives, areas and approaches, they also have several things in common:  first, they all attach importance to the study of so-​called “lower level,” that is, the study of the ordinary people. Second, they both emphasize the study of public life, while the only difference between them lies in their focus on spiritual life and material life respectively. Third, both stress the study of major social issues; because there are different social issues in urban and rural areas, the study has accordingly given rise to modern urban history. So it is these studies that have made up for the inadequacies and shortcomings of previous studies of modern Chinese history. Second, there have been new breakthroughs in the research fields that had received much attention in the past. The long-​term neglected topics, such as the Westernization Movement in the history of politics, the New Deal in

22  ZENG Yeying the Qing Dynasty, the history of the Northern Warlords, and the history of the Southwestern warlords, began to attract researchers. As a result, their research has produced a series of publications, such as The Associations and Activities of the New Intellectuals in the Late Qing Dynasty, Research of Education Departments in Late Qing Dynasty, Biography of Yuan Shikai, The History of Warlords in North China, and The History of Warlords in the Southwest China. Another example is the history of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. Although it had been highly valued before, the research was still restricted on the peasant side, while research on the landlord class served only as the background or contrast. In the new era, some scholars not only called for the study of the landlord class, but engaged themselves in it. Consequently, a battery of valuable works has been published, including The Landlord Class of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, A History of the Hunan Army, Biography of Zeng Guofan, and Research on Zeng Guofan’s Shogunate. Yet another example is the history of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, which is no longer limited to the study of CPC-​led guerrilla warfare behind enemy lines, but extended to extensive and in-​depth research on the frontal battlefields and guerrilla warfare of the Kuomintang, representing more accurately the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. In the new era, as the whole country has embraced centered on economic construction, scholars have proposed that the study of modern Chinese history should start from and find a breakthrough in modern economic history that is “the weakest, most difficult and most important.”13 As expected, more new fields have been opened up and more achievements turned out in the field of economic history. Some areas, which were hardly touched upon in the past, such as industrialization, enterprise management, economic laws and regulations, and modern customs, have been brought to the attention of researchers. Moreover, the history of modern customs has even become a hot research area and in which remarkable progress has been made, with the Late Qing section and the Republic of China section of the History of Modern Chinese Customs being successively published. New developments have also arisen in some previous study areas, a series of publications marking remarkable achievements such as: A History of the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce, Dual Variations of Tradition and Modern Times:  A Case Study of Suzhou Chamber of Commerce in the Late Qing Dynasty, The Chamber of Commerce and Early Modernization of China, and Archives Series of Suzhou Chamber of Commerce. (1905–​1949), and the Tianjin Chamber of Commerce Archives Collection (1903–​1950). Finally, and most importantly, extensive and in-​ depth research has been carried out on specific historical events in various areas, and many of the results are in line with or close to historical facts. All the research achievements, involving different events of varied significance and impacts, share one common feature, namely, all reflecting the requirements of historical materialism: to clear the ideological misinterpretation of history, and “to return the content of history to history.”

An overview  23 Here are just a few examples. The first is the question of who was the leader of the anti-​British struggle of the Sanyuanli people in Guangzhou in May 1841. Previously, based on a word-​of-​mouth survey after the founding of the PRC, and the words of a descendant of the vegetable farmer Wei Shaoguang, the conclusion was that it was Wei Shaoguang the vegetable farmer who led the struggle. In a moderate seminal discussion after opening and reform, such a conclusion was far from being tenable. The real organizer and leader of the struggle was found to be the patriotic landlord He Yucheng. The second example is about the historical figures of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. It was previously believed that there was a female chief leader of the Women’s Army of Taiping Army named Hong Xuanjiao, who was said to be Hong Xiuquan’s sister. Based on such a story some scholars even assumed that Hong Xuanjiao’s marriage to Xiao Chaogui was a political arrangement as Hong Xiuquan’s means of restraining Yang Xiuqing. But after close examination, this was proved wrong: there was such a person named Hong Xuanjiao, and she was not Hong Xiuquan’s sister. It was actually Yang Xuanjiao, an ordinary farmer in the Zijing Mountain area in Guiping, Guangxi province, and she was not a chief leader of the Women’s Army in the Taiping Army. The third example is how the Futian Incident should be evaluated. In early December 1930, Li Shaojiu, then the secretary-​general of the General Political Department and the Director of the Committee of Elimination of Counter-​ revolutionaries of the First Front Red Army, led his company, at the order of Mao Zedong, the Secretary of the General Front Committee, to go to Futian in Ji’an, where the Jiangxi Provincial Action Committee was located, to arrest members of the AB (Anti-​Bolshevik) group. Liu Di, the political commissar of the 20th Red Army Regiment, believing that those Li Shaojiu arrested were not members of the AB group and that if the arrest went on like this, he himself would possibly be in great danger, decided to lead his troops to rescue the arrested, having killed nearly 100 cadres and ordinary people who had supported Mao Zedong, and put forward the slogans such as “Down with Mao Zedong, and Support Zhu (De), Peng (Dehuai), Huang (Gonglue).” Subsequently, the former Jiangxi Provincial Action Committee and Liu Di and others who participated in the incident, as well as all the cadres above platoon commanders of the 20th Red Army were executed successively. The incident at Futian had always been identified as a counter-​revolutionary incident initiated by the anti-​communist AB group hidden inside Chinese Communist areas.14 After many years of in-​depth investigation and research by scholars, it has been confirmed that the so-​called “Futian Incident” was completely made up out of thin air and an unjust, false and erroneous case. Such a conclusion has been adopted in the History of the Communist Party of China (Vol. 1)  written by the Party History Research Office of CCCPC (Party History Research Center of the CPC Central Committee) and published by the People Press in July 1991, and later in the History of the Communist Party of China (1921–​1949) written by the same office but published by the Communist Party History Press in September 2002. In the book it was also pointed out

24  ZENG Yeying that the struggle to eliminate the “AB group” and the “Social Democratic Party” was a product of high speculation and forced confessions, having thus mistaken their own men for the enemy, and produced many unjust, false and erroneous cases. It is worth mentioning that such research results are by no means individual but numerous in the study of the history of the Communist Party of China. As Yang Kuisong said, “Since the reform and opening up, the most outstanding achievement in the study of the history of the Communist Party of China has been remarkable discoveries of many basic historical facts…,” including the composition of the early Communist group, the Russian Communist Party representative Vijnsky coming to China and his activities, the date of holding and the number of representatives of the First Congress of the Communist Party of China, the Communist International representative Malin’s work in China and the process in which the proposal for the Kuomintang-​Communist Party’s “intra-​party cooperation” policy was brought up, the Soviet Union consultant Borodin’s coming to China and his relationship with the Kuomintang and Communist Party, the holding time and course of the first National Labor Conference, the full story of the “March 20 Incident,” the processes of the three armed uprisings of workers in Shanghai, the impact of the resolutions of the seventh Expanded Conference of the Executive Committee of the Communist International on the Chinese revolution, the so-​called siege of Changsha city by 100,000 peasant troops, the “August 7 Conference,” the emergency meeting in November, the Nanchang Uprising, the Autumn Harvest Uprising, the Guangzhou Uprising, the Conference at South Jiangxi, the time and content of the Ningdu Conference, and the time of the Zunyi Conference and what was conveyed after the conference… Almost all the important historical facts in the history of the CPC were basically clarified in about 10  years after the reform and opening up. In any case, the word “fruitful” cannot be an overstatement when used to describe the achievements of the study of the history of the CPC in the past 40 years since reform and opening up. It is also important to point out that the booming accomplishment presented above is not limited to the study of the history of the CPC. The same is also true regarding the study of the history of the Republic of China and it is a common phenomenon of the study of modern Chinese history in general, which can be proven by the publication of detailed books such as The History of the Republic of China (Vols. 1–​12), The Chronicle of Historical Events of the Republic of China (Vols. 1–​12), and Biographies of the Historical Figures of the Republic of China (Vols. 1–​2) by the Zhonghua Book Company on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the 1911 Revolution. But why has such remarkable progress been achieved in the study of modern Chinese history, and why has it become so prosperous since the reform and opening up? The main contributing reason is that the researchers have demonstrated unprecedented enthusiasm and high creativity on account of the fact that as China has shifted its work focus to economic construction,

An overview  25 history research has returned to practical specific research from the so-​called world outlook transformation and empty political talk of year-​ by-​ year repetition. And in addition to that, I personally believe, there are also three important reasons as follows: One is the great emancipation of the mind. The discussion on the criterion of truth in 1978 and the determination of the policy of ideological emancipation at the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China broke the shackles of modern superstition, dogmatism and pragmatism that the researchers of modern Chinese history had been unable to overcome for a long time, having thus much enhanced understanding of theoretical issues such as the Marxist guiding ideology and research methodology. The previous simplified and absolute metaphysical methods were abandoned, and the practical and realistic working style dealing with specific problems was restored. It is well-​accepted that the primary requirement of Marxist historiography is to clarify historical facts. Only when the historical facts are made clear can we discover the essence and laws of the historical process and have a correct understanding of history. In order to meet this requirement, we must have at our disposal all available materials, explore internal relations and laws of historical events, and narrate the real historical process with a scientific attitude. This is the fundamental moving force for the development of modern Chinese history research in the period. Second, academic exchanges between both sides of the Taiwan Straits and between China and foreign countries have become normalized. As an ancient saying goes, listening to different voices makes a discriminating mind and partial belief makes one muddleheaded. Academic exchange is undoubtedly the most direct and effective place and way of “listening to different voices” for history researchers that regard seeking historical truth as the primary requirement. However, it goes without saying that for a long time, due to their different ideologies, academic exchanges between the Chinese historians and those outside had not been open and free, but obstructed. Both sides of the Taiwan Straits belong to one China, but they were artificially separated. The only access to Western historians, whether British or American, was through the book series Selected Translation of Works on Modern Chinese History by Reactionary Historians of Capitalist Countries,15 which was of very limited scope. Although occasionally a few academic exchanges between China and foreign countries were held, either in China or abroad, they were accessible only to a handful of privileged people, and not to the majority of historians. And it was even harder to imagine any ordinary historian going to the Western countries for face-​to-​face communication. Now, it is all over. In April 1982, the American Society for Asian Studies held a special symposium at its annual conference in Chicago, to which the historians of modern China from both sides of the Taiwan Straits were invited. It was the first time that scholars from both sides of the Taiwan Straits discussed the history of the 1911 Revolution after their separation in 1949. Ever since then, various academic exchanges have been frequently held in China with the participation of historians from

26  ZENG Yeying Taiwan and from foreign countries. In the beginning, the exchanges were still being trapped by ideologies. Historians from both sides of the Taiwan Straits seemed rather overcautious when they gathered in Chicago for the first time.16 And in the academic exchanges held in China, the participants from both sides were often housed in different hotel buildings. In spite of such situations, the lock gate of academic exchange was lifted after all, and is becoming increasingly wide, or completely normalized by now. A  large number of overseas writings on modern Chinese history began to be published and distributed in China, as well as various theories and methods. The academic exchanges among scholars from both sides of the Straits have become more frequent and convenient. Exchange of information and materials, and exchange of views have become a common practice. While such a situation reflects the progress of Chinese society, it has promoted the development of modern Chinese history research. As an example, on October 17, 1984, Wang Qingcheng illustrated in the Guangming Daily many historical events of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom that used to be least known, such as the establishment of Yang Xiuqing and Xiao Chaogui, and the changes in the attitude of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom to the Confucian classics before the Jintian Uprising, and the intensification of internal contradictions of the leading group before the Tianjing Incident. Why was he able to bring up with these new ideas? He had obviously benefited from academic exchanges between China and foreign countries. These new insights came out in the Spring of 1984, when he discovered two prints of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, The Heavenly Father’s Word and The Heavenly Brother’s Word, in the British Library during his academic visit to Britain. Third, there is the disclosure and publication of a large amount of new historical material. The basic method of historical research, as Marx said, “has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyze its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connection. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described.”17 The core requirement of this method is that historical research should not tailor historical material to some presupposed model, but to “appropriate the material in detail” and proceed entirely from the facts. “To appropriate the material in detail” is not only the starting point of historical research, but also the premise and guarantee for its further development. As mentioned before, the PRC attached great importance to the extraction and collation of modern Chinese historical materials. Since the reform and opening up, this work has not only been quickly resumed, but also got greatly expanded in its scope. The historical material of the CPC, especially the archives, had always been kept in secret rooms, and never opened to general scholars below a certain administrative “level,” let  alone collate and publish them. However, after the reform and opening up, not only were the archives of the CPC Central Committee and of all the provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions made accessible on a wider scale, a great quantity of comprehensive, as well as special, and original documentaries were also published such as Selected Documents

An overview  27 of the CPC Central Committee (Vols. 1–​18), and a Reference Material of (Vols. 1–​18), The Historical Material of the CPC, The Historical Material of the CPC at Jiangxi, Selected Historical Material of the Communist International and the Chinese Revolution (1919–​1924), and Communist International, the Federal Communist Party (Bolshevik) and the Chinese Revolution Archives Series. Moreover, there was also a booming publication of historical material of the Republic of China. A large number of materials and books emerged. Among them are the Collection of Historical Archives of the Republic of China, The Northern Warlords, Feng Yuxiang’s Diary, The War of Resistance Against Japan, The Kuomintang Army’s Secret Diaries in Military Operations during the War of Resistance Against Japan, The Interrogation Records of Chinese Traitors of Wang Jingwei and his Followers, and Zhou Fohai’s Diary. A large number of old newspapers and periodicals of the Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China were reprinted and published, such as Shun Pao, Ta Kung Pao, Shun Tian Times, Sheng Jing Daily, Republic of China Daily and Central Daily. It is the disclosure and publication of these new materials that have facilitated the study of the history of the Communist Party of China, the history of the Republic of China and modern Chinese social history, and greatly promoted the development of the study of modern Chinese history. Of course, things always advance and develop in various contradictions. And the study of modern Chinese history is no exception. The great prosperity and great development also gave rise to some tendencies that need to be cautioned. In recent years, these issues have been under discussion by a number of scholars who are not without some very insightful opinions, and they are also examined and discussed in various chapters of this book. They are not repeated here. But based on the previous discussion, some relevant views are put forward for everyone to discuss. The first tendency that manifests itself among scholars and is worthy of attention is seeking personal fame and gain. As mentioned above, before the reform and opening up, popular among the historians of modern Chinese used to be “placing politics in command,” with everything serving politics. Although no one has publicly advocated “placing economy in command,” yet there are indications that this is an indisputable fact. Some people seem to study modern Chinese history not to pursue the truth, nor to enhance people’s scientific historical knowledge for a better understanding of the past, a better understanding of today, and greater insight into the future, nor to promote social progress, but merely for self-​interest. Otherwise, there would not have been so many so-​called experts and scholars who are so flighty and impatient that they will produce nothing but low-​quality repetitions, nor would there have been so many scandals of plagiarism, nor would there have been so many overt and covert struggles in the reviews for granting various honors and funds for social sciences. Some may argue by quoting Du Fu the poet of the Tang Dynasty, “If only I had an old friend to provide rice from his salary, what more beyond that would I seek for myself ?,” complaining that it was all caused by the unreasonable scholarship assessment system and by the various

28  ZENG Yeying frustrations of living such as high housing prices, and that it was purely “forcing young girls of good families to prostitute themselves.” Frankly speaking, such arguments are only partially true, and to which I  do not fully agree. Why? My argument is that in the same situation, is there not a large number of scholars who have dedicated themselves to the study of modern Chinese history while regarding it as a lofty cause? They do not seek to be promoted, nor do they strive to make a fortune. They concentrate on their own research and have achieved considerable success and won appreciation from all walks of life. Why could they do that, but not us? Whoever in this world would not want to live a rich and decent life? There is nothing wrong with it, but it must be done in a fair and worthy way. It simply will not work to shift from the undesirable “placing politics in command” to “placing economy in command” that is equally undesirable, and unscrupulously pursue personal fame and gain. Therefore, as a responsible researcher one cannot and should not shirk his or her responsibility. To put the argument further, perhaps this is also a question worthy of further consideration and research by historical researchers. Looking back into the history of thousands of years, are there not many tragedies that are closely related to personal worship? Those who are high above in the royal court would control their subordinates by means of giving them rewards or punishments. And those who are below often manage to climb up complying with their superiors with no care for right or wrong. Is this not conscious and unconscious conspiracy of the superiors and subordinates that has given rise to one historical tragedy after another? So it can be seen that research should be carried out not only on what and how those high above do, but also on those of lower status, and even on their personalities and qualifications. Social progress would not be able to be effectively promoted without doing research in this manner. The second tendency that warrants attention is the use of double standards. Historical research is inseparable from people’s critical judgment, and evaluation of historical events. And human history is always advancing the contradictions and struggles between the forces representing respectively the advanced and backward, the conservative and innovative, the revolutionary and reactionary, and forward and backward. In recent years, everyone has said that it is necessary to treat history objectively and fairly. This raises the question of what standard and how it is to be applied. Is it a well-​recognized unified standard, or are there different standards discriminately applied to historical persons and events in accordance with one’s own attitudinal preference? The correct approach is of course the former. Otherwise, it would be hard to be truly “objective and fair.” What is worse is that it would even be dismissed as a propaganda slogan. One young scholar discovered that there has been a “historical motto of high citation rate” for many years, namely so-​ called “sympathy of understanding” put forward by Chen Yinke. It should be noted that such an observation is accurate. Since the reform and opening up, there have indeed

An overview  29 been many people, especially young people who have highly favored this statement by Chen Yinke, who believes that “in any case, the attitude of ‘sympathy of understanding’ is worthy of advocating”; and accordingly he himself has “demonstrated a kind of ‘sympathy of understanding’ ” to whatever he approaches.18 So, what is Chen Yinke’s original intention in saying this? Is he really asking historical researchers to “demonstrate an attitude of ‘sympathy of understanding’ ” to any historical issue? Or is he asking them to take it as a “method” of historical analysis? I personally believe that Chen Yinke’s words have been largely misinterpreted. Let me first cite his original words: Whoever writes the history of ancient Chinese philosophy is well advised to have a sympathy of understanding towards the theories of the ancients before writing anything down. This is due to the fact that whatever the ancients wrote and put forward arose out of their own inspiration and experience. It follows that their theories could hardly be properly analyzed without a full knowledge of their circumstance and background. What is manifest here is a “methodological” issue, that is, before criticizing any of the theories of the ancients, one has to fully understand the author’s “circumstances and background.” First, when Chen Yinke was trying to explain the meaning of “a full knowledge,” in his other word “true understanding,” he said something like “in wandering meditation one stays in the same state as the ancient scholar and then develops some sympathy for his ideas, which he had got from contemplation, before having such ideas scrutinized without misunderstanding and being superficial.” Yet immediately following the statement was a negative elaboration that this kind of sympathetic attitude is most likely to give strained interpretations and draw far-​fetched analogies, because the ancient materials as seen today are either single existences from losses or ambiguous and difficult to understand, no history of philosophy would be possible without giving them full account.19 It is clear that what Chen Yinke means by his “sympathy of understanding” is apply it as a historical analysis “method” rather than as an indiscriminate attitude. It is something like Lenin’s proposal in 1914 of “placing the problem within a certain historical range”20 in Marxist analysis of any social problem. And “method” and “attitudes” are actually two different concepts. A “method” can either be applicable or non-​applicable, whereas it would be to no avail when it is transformed into an “attitude” toward history, because one can scarcely remain “objective” while keeping “sympathetic” in historical research. Being “sympathetic” moves away from “objectivity,” and being “objective” does not have to be “sympathetic.” This will explain why some scholars of historical figures have been criticized for the fact that “they tend to love whomever they study” in their research since the reform and opening up.

30  ZENG Yeying In short, even if Chen Yinke really asks historical researchers to treat historical issues with an attitude of “sympathy of understanding,” such an attitude should be equally applied as a unified standard to all the parties of contradictions and struggles in historical movements. Otherwise, how can objectivity and impartiality be achieved? However, it is not difficult to find out that, if we pay attention to years of the research practice of modern Chinese history, this is not entirely the case. While a large majority of researchers remained impartial and avoided using double standards when dealing with different parties of contradiction and struggles, a few researchers simply failed to do so and tended to favor one more than the other. They tried their best to invariably “demonstrate ‘a sympathy of understanding’ ” to the Qing Imperial Court, the Northern Warlords Government and the Nanjing National Government, but showed no “sympathy of understanding” to all to other parties, such as the Old Democratic Revolution led by Sun Yat-​sen and the New Democratic Revolution led by the Communist Party of China, in their “finding problems” and revealing “truth” to their best, having thus fully manifested their implementation of double standards that runs counter to objectivity and fairness. It should be noted that I  am not opposed to “finding problems” or “revealing the truth.” But I insist that the standard should be consistent and impartially applied, as the saying goes, “a bowl of water never spills when it is held evenly.” Otherwise, we would never be able “to return the historical content to history.” Even worse, we would also create greater confusion of history. Does such malpractice not violate the original intention of our historical study? The third tendency deserving attention is the weakening of political history studies. Previous historical studies have focused too heavily on political history, simply attributing the complicated social history to a history of class struggle, and denouncing the rich and colorful social life as “advocating the decadent lifestyle of the exploiting class.” In the early 1980s, a few scholars began to “actively advocate ‘the revival and strengthening of the study of social life history’,” believing that it was a “practical way” to get out of the so-​called “historical study crisis.” Since then, there has been a tendency to weaken the study of political history. Many researchers have consciously or unconsciously turned to the historical study of human civilization, social life, and social customs and habits. Many subjects such as basic necessities of life, sacrifice, etiquette, temple fairs, tea houses, clans, gentries and so on have become the fashions pursued by researchers, while political history has been apparently ignored. Some even proposed that the two world wars should be removed from history teaching in high schools. In fact, it is understandable and justifiable to shift focus from political history in the new historical period in view of the fact that previous historical studies had overemphasized political history. Moreover, as mentioned before, restoring the study of social history is not only justified, but contributory to the progress of the study of modern Chinese history. This is because history

An overview  31 is rich and colorful, and political history is not the whole of history, but only a part of it. Besides, how a historian chooses his or her research orientation is down to his or her own personal freedom. However, it is quite a different matter if political history is placed as the opposite to the rest of historical studies, putting them on a binary opposition to each other with one being favored, promoted and respected while the other discarded, and intending to remove political history from history itself so that people are made to mistakenly believe that there is no need to do any such research. First, political history actually exists, and it is to be obliterated by no one. Second, honestly speaking, while it is true that politics belongs to superstructure and does not play a decisive role in social development as that of economic basis, yet facts have already proved that it has a significant reaction to social development, and under certain conditions it even plays a key role. To illustrate the point, which era of social change is not closely related to politics? Or is it not the product of tremendous political changes? Take fashion as an example. Before the 1911 Revolution, everyone used wear their hair in a braid; and was it only made possible at the time of the Wuchang Uprising for that braid to be cut off ? Another example is the “Mao-​style” cadre suit which was monotonous in color and style and worn by everyone regardless of age or sex. Was it not until after the reform and opening up that people completely changed their style of dress? Without the reform and opening up and its impact after 1978, there would be no colorful, fashionable and pleasing dressing styles in both the cities and the countryside. It can be seen that significant political change is an important condition for a rapid and thorough change in social life. There is no reason to neglect, and much less reason to downplay, the study of political history.

1.4  New trends The study of modern Chinese history has entered a new period of development since 2000. Remarkable achievements have been made in the study of the history of the Republic of China, which has gradually become an “prominent subject” in China since 1976. As mentioned before, a list of publications came out in 2011, as follows:  The History of the Republic of China (Vols. 1–​12) and Major Historical Events of the Republic of China (Vols. 1–​12), and Biographies of the People of the Republic of China (Vols. 1–​12), all compiled by the Historical Research Department of the Republic of China, Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, presenting a great gift to the centennial of the 1911 Revolution. The same achievements have also been made in such well-​studied subjects as the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Reform Movement of 1898, and Chinese foreign relations, on which a number of influential works have been published. For example, there was General History of Modern China in general history, edited by Zhang Haipeng, a researcher at the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and the fulfillment of the long-​cherished plan of generations

32  ZENG Yeying of researchers. And in research on special topics, there were Historical Events of the Reform Movement of 1898 and From 1894 to 1898:  An Annotated Edition of Kang Youwei’s “My History” by Mao Haijian, a professor at the Department of History of East China Normal University, Party Members, Party Power and Party Struggle:  The Organizational Form of Kuomintang of China from 1924 to 1949 by Wang Qisheng, a former researcher at the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (currently a professor of the Department of History of Peking University), and Kuomintang’s “Uniting Communists” and “Anti-​Communists” by Yang Kuisong, a professor in the Department of History at East China Normal University. With the opening and publication of various works on Chiang Kai-​shek, Hu Hanmin, Zhang Xueliang and the Communist International, many breakthroughs have been made in the reconstruction of historical facts, such as the Change of Banner in Northeast China in the 1920s, the Zhongdong Railway Incident (the Sino-​Soviet Conflict of 1929), the factional politics within the Kuomintang in the 1930s, the relationship between Mao Zedong and the Communist International in the 1940s, and the political situation in the Northeast of China after the War of Resistance, for which many historical facts have gradually been unveiled. In view of the fact that the related researchers have their own deep understanding of the specific subjects, there is no need to elaborate their views here, and here I just present a brief introduction to the new trends in the field of modern Chinese history research in this period based on my personal observation. The first new trend is that a coolheaded and rational attitude has been developed and established from what used to be the much emotionally biased “either-​one-​or-​the-​other” dogma. Before the reform and opening up, the history academia had been generally plagued by dogmatism and the absolute class struggle. But after the reform and opening up, China’s modern history, like other areas of Chinese history research, also experienced an unusually comprehensive and profound reflection, having thoroughly cleaned up the over-​ simplification and one-​ sidedness. For example, some questioned the previous excessive exaggeration of the revolutionary nature of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom’s “Land System of the Heavenly Kingdom”; some conducted a realistic investigation and analysis of the unequal treaties imposed on the Chinese people by the imperialist powers over the past 100 years, and proposed some more convincingly objective and scientific criteria to have ruled out those false or even wrong determinations; some criticized the bias of “judging a person by his attitude toward someone else” in the evaluation of historical figures, and reexamined the so-​called “recognized” historical events before having restored in an objective and justified manner what many historical figures really were. It should be said that this is very necessary and its effect is good, and plays an important role in keeping the study of modern Chinese history on a normal scientific track. However, things are often complicated in one way or another. In the process of reflection, people find that some “reflections” seem not as objective

An overview  33 as are self-​asserted by those who do. Apart from the fact that they are more often than not groundless and yet to be justified by further study and discussion, there exists in modern Chinese history study some emotionally biased tendency, conscious or unconscious, of new simplification and one-​sidedness, which is very harmful and historical researchers are not supposed to have in their pursuit of historical truth in the new predicament of simplification and one-​sidedness. For example, some people only blamed the Boxer Movement for its ignorance and backwardness, but would give no word of praise to its anti-​imperialist patriotism; some tended not to mention the profound social crisis that triggered revolutionary movements in history, but went all out to emphasize the “losses” and “destruction”21 they incurred to the society; some tried to utterly isolate the military aggression of China by imperialist powers from politics, economy and culture, believing that despite its negative impact on China, the military aggression of China by the imperialist powers served to have introduced “new social factors” to and “carried out reforms” in China as part of its “many efforts” for the modernization of China in the fields of economy, politics, culture and education. They even further argued that beside those fields mentioned, “even the military wars had produced positive impact on China.” Taking the Opium Wars as an example, they argued that it was not only a war of aggression by the Western colonialists against a sovereign country in the East, but also a war by rising capitalism against the old feudal dynasty in its declining years, which was of progressive significance. From this point of view, some people even concluded that if the Opium Wars had come earlier, China would not have been as backward and humiliated as it was later.22 Such emotional reflections are contrary to the facts, but deceptive as well. Not even being the mainstream opinion of the majority, they would inevitably produce adverse effects on the study of history and the public as well if they were allowed to be excessive. So it is much justified for the researchers to be not only warned against readopting the malpractice of “either-​one-​or-​ the-​other” prevailing in the past, but to uphold the principle of reason and be practical and realistic in the study the modern history of China, rejecting altogether the old and new dogmatism, simplification and one-​sidedness. It is necessary to actively reunite all those self-​composed and rational researchers and encourage them to contribute to a healthy and long-​term development of modern history research. Moreover, a large majority of scholars have devoted themselves to their own research implementing this principle and have achieved considerable results. The second new trend is a shift from simple copying of Western historiography and methodology to a study that combines it with the realities of Chinese history. For a period of time since the beginning of the reform and opening up, for understandable reasons, a handful of Western historical theories and methods had been promiscuously introduced into modern

34  ZENG Yeying Chinese history research, among them were the so-​called “modernization paradigm,” “Skinner’s model,” comparative historiography, econometric history, and field investigations, to name only a few. This is understandable with a view to developing our national culture through learning from foreign advanced culture. However, it is undeniable that each country has its own national conditions. Western historical theories and methods are cultivated in the soil of the West, and they work well as they are duly used to explain the history of the corresponding Western countries on account of their shared cultural background and way of thinking. But if rigidly copied to China and arbitrarily applied to explaining modern Chinese history, such theories and methods would inevitably be out of place and disappointing because of their incompatibility with Chinese cultural background and way of thinking, and of their limited knowledge of China. Moreover, some so-​called theories and methods are not real new inventions today, comparative historiography and econometric history having been widely adopted in Chinese historiography, and “field investigation” being another name for “social investigation” that was adopted in the past. They fail to serve as something new to compensate for existent inadequacies. For this reason, the discussion on how to draw on the theories and methods of Western historiography has continued for many years in the academia of modern Chinese history in particular and that of Chinese history as a whole. Taking the “modernization paradigm” as an example, it has been pointed out by many scholars that it is not a new theory either. As early as the 1930s and 1940s, Jiang Tingfu put forward similar concepts following Western theory, having formed the earliest opposition against the so-​called ­“paradigm of revolutionary history” brought forth by Fan Wenlan, which states that the modern history of China is a history of the invasion of imperialism transforming China into a semi-​feudal and semi-​colonial country, and that of Chinese people’s anti-​ imperialist and anti-​ feudal activities. But most of today’s advocates of the “modernization paradigm,” being fundamentally different from Jiang Tingfu, whose purpose then was to withstand the “Communist Revolution,” mainly hope to provide reference for the proposal of making economic construction the central task. However, the basic requirement of historical research is to proceed from reality, and no research deviating from historical facts can play a real role of reference. It is clear to all that are familiar with the development process of modern Chinese history that the people’s revolution, being aimed at overthrowing the three great mountains of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism, is not only the objective fact not to be transferred by any human will, but also the most magnificent chapter and the strongest voice in modern Chinese history. However, some researchers are quite unwilling to face up to this objective fact. Instead, they are blind, consciously and unconsciously advocating the “modernization paradigm” in the hope of replacing or transforming the “paradigm of revolutionary history.” Being of different wording, both are equally biased. Many scholars, speaking from their own research experience, point out that while it

An overview  35 is true that a perspective of “modernization paradigm” to modern Chinese history brings some insight, since “it enables readers to see the history of modern China from another perspective,” “such observation and research will fail to present a complete picture of modern Chinese history.” And replacing the “paradigm of revolutionary history” with the “modernization paradigm” will remove the magnificent revolutionary chapters that exist objectively from modern Chinese history, and thus far from being “correct substitution.” Even for its inclusion of the “paradigm of revolutionary history,” the “modernization paradigm” remains an inadequate theory. It is mainly because the two fundamental tasks of modern China, namely striving for national “independence” and for “prosperity and strength,” “are not on an equal footing,” and “in modern China the theme is still seeking China’s independence and equality. And it is this theme that restricts the development of modern Chinese history and the direction of China’s modernization.” For this reason, it is believed that the more advisable way is to respect the historical reality, and center on the “paradigm of revolutionary history,” while absorbing the strengths of the “modernization paradigm” to make up for weaknesses. Only in this way can we fully reflect the true face of modern Chinese history.23 Look again at “Skinner’s model.” In 1998 the Chinese Social Sciences Press translated and published the papers by G. William Skinner from 1964 to 1965, an American anthropologist and Asian research expert, on modern Chinese social and economic history, and in which he put forward a new analytical model for China’s market system, that is, the structural-​functional analysis model. Since then, it has aroused extensive attention from Chinese historical researchers. The “Skinner’s model” is indeed a new theory for Chinese modern historians. It is contributory and reasonable in that it affirms the great significance of the market system to farmers, and opens up a new situation for the study of rural markets. But does it fully comply with the historical reality of China’s rural market? Are there any limitations and where are they? To what extent can it be applied to the study of China’s rural market? Wang Qingcheng, a researcher at the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, with an attitude of seeking truth and respecting facts, making use of the local chronicles of dozens of prefectures and counties in North China, particularly the rich information in the materials that appeared in the early period of the Emperor Guangxu’s Reigning (1875–​1908), such as Qingxian Village Maps and Shenzhou Village Maps, has closely examined the different markets and market rings in North China in the late Qing Dynasty. In his study he found that the fairs are not evenly distributed, and the number of fairs varies to a great extent from county to county in North China, and there is no regular ratio between the number of fairs and the population size, the number of villages and land area of the counties and prefectures. It is also found that the market rings, defined as the spatial composition of markets and marketing villages, vary significantly in size, with the largest involving as many as 100 villages, and the smallest two to three villages or even one village. Such findings are neither able to match Skinner’s so-​called “hexagonal marketing

36  ZENG Yeying area pattern,” nor to comply with his theory that local marketing communities, rather than villages, shape rural social organizations in China, and these marketing spatial areas are the farmers’ actual social spaces in China, thus bringing the theory to further examination. Just as Wang Qingcheng said, more than half a century ago, Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong put forward that “the units of Chinese local communities are villages, which can vary in size from three households to thousands of them.” At present, I  would rather accept this view as more feasible—​so long as there still lacks of solid evidence for the theory that the markets are the basic communities of farmers.24 Of course, there are also some scholars who believe that “from a methodological point of view, Skinner’s model is still an effective resource for us to use for reference in the study of modern Chinese history.” Such a belief is a normal phenomenon in academic research and is therefore not surprising at all. However, these scholars also acknowledge that “Western scholars may find it difficult to understand China, and even more so to have a comprehensive knowledge of China.” They argue that there is nothing wrong “to evaluate a theoretical framework in the light of facts, and that it is a due reflection to criticize a theory from a third-​person perspective, both being an attempt to promote the development of knowledge.”25 From the arguments above it can be seen that even this group of scholars does not oppose testing Western historical theories and methodology “using practical experience and research.” That is enough. When all are devoted to pursuit of truth, there will be no unsolvable problem. It can be seen that scholars, being increasingly dissatisfied with simply copying Western historical theories and methods, have begun to engage themselves in the research to combine them with Chinese historical reality. They successfully demonstrate through their own research practice that only through such combination can Western historical theories and methods be confirmed, revised, expounded and innovated, and to us researchers of modern Chinese history, can we decide which theories and methods are desirable, or only partly desirable, and which are not, or only partly not. This is the only advisable attitude toward Western historical theories and methods. Although relatively speaking, the scholars who have participated in this kind of research so far are still limited both in number and their achievement, yet it can be foreseen that as long as efforts are made, there will be a bright future. This is because as early as the period of China’s democratic revolution, Mao Zedong had demonstrated such endeavor for us with his great practice and success. The third new trend is the shift from research that focuses mostly on historical details to research that takes into account both microscopic and macroscopic historical perspectives. For a period of time since the beginning of reform and opening up, in order to redress the one-​sidedness of previous

An overview  37 modern Chinese history study in the past and to “restore” history as much as possible, many scholars, while carefully reviewing the previous research, began to explore a number of new areas that had never been touched upon. The research of that period, if classified using the criterion in terms of microscopic and macroscopic research, seems to be basically microscopic studies or studies of details regardless of which area is in focus, on account of the fact that most of the conclusions are either answers as “positive” or “negative” and “correct” or “incorrect” to the questions about specific historical facts, or descriptions of specific historical processes, with little reflection on overall historical development. Of course, there was some macroscopic historical research, but relatively limited. By way of contrast, remarkable achievement was made in microscopic historical research and well acknowledged. As Mao Haijian said, “of many historical events we have today a fresh understanding, better knowledge, and more pertinent conclusions, not because there are big breakthroughs in ideas or methodologies, but probably because some of the key historical details have been clarified.”26 Now that research on historical details has such a great role, of course there is no reason not to continue to do so. However, the ultimate goal of historical research, after all, is not only to evaluate the merits and demerits of the ancients, but also to explore the path of China today. For the fate of Chinese nation and even the whole of mankind today, and for the progress of the future society, we cannot do without macroscopic historical research, or “historical perspective”; we must not exclusively use microscopes to observe the details of history, but without telescopes that can be used to foresee the future of history. We do need them both. While studying the details of history, we should also reflect on history in a long-​term and all-​round way so as to find out the thread and law of historical development. Even when we try to comment on a historical person, we are able to do this not only through observation of all the “details” of the person in terms of how he or she behaves in one event, at one time, in one place and in one way, but also by way of an all-​round comprehensive investigation into the people and things around him or her, such as his or her family, opponents, friends, superiors and subordinates, those who are indifferent, the public opinions he or she faces, and what he or she hears and sees. Therefore, while fully affirming the necessity of studying “historical details,” many scholars have proposed a broad “historical perspective” to the study of modern Chinese history, advocating that the periodization of modern history should first be vertically “re-​united,” revoking the division around 1919 into early modern and modern stages, so as to study the history of 1840–​1949 as a whole. In July 1997, Hu Sheng said in his congratulations on the 100th issue of Modern History Studies, I would like to reiterate my suggestion that the 80 years before and the 30  years after 1919 be regarded as a whole, and that it is more appropriate to call it generally “modern Chinese history,” which, in this way,

38  ZENG Yeying has become a complete history of semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal China, with its beginning and end.27 Second, what should be horizontally “re-​united” is that “historical perspective” is applied to the study of such aspects as politics, economy, ideology, culture, and social life, and even in association with the history of the surrounding countries. Luo Zhitian, a professor at the Department of History, Peking University, said in reflecting on the 30-​year study of modern Chinese history since the reform and opening up, to study modern China, we should not only have a deep understanding of the so-​called “early modern” China, but also refer at least to three external histories, namely, that of the West, Japan and all the colonies since the nineteenth century (as well as their subsequent studies). Only through a thorough and solid understanding of the West and Japan since the nineteenth century, especially their development and changes, can we truly understand many unprecedented changes in modern China. But few past studies have really done this, the least so in linking Japan and China (more often than not they are just comparisons between the two countries on the success or failure of the reforms).28 It is gratifying that many scholars, with a dedication to the pursuit of truth, have embarked on the exploration into such fields of history without fear of difficulty. Although more efforts have yet to be made, their research represents a new trend worthy of affirmation, and there seems to be no doubt about it. Over the past 60  years, the study of modern Chinese history has gone through a tortuous path, not without development, setbacks, and prosperity, from which both experience and lessons can be drawn. Today, China has entered a new era, in which the whole country is striving for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. With still a lot to expect, the study of modern Chinese history will definitely have a much more brilliant and beautiful prospect.

Notes 1 Cited in Pang Xianzhi and Jin Chongji, (eds.), Biography of Mao Zedong (1949–​ 1976) (Vol. 1), Beijing: Central Party Literature Press, 2008, p.486, 492. 2 Liu Danian, “Fan Wenlan and historical research,” In Liu Danian, Selected Papers of History Studies by Liu Danian, Beijing: The People’s Press, 1987, pp.535–​537. 3 Cai Meibiao, “Four recollections of Fan Wenlan on learning,” In Notes on the Past Academia. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2012, p.198. 4 Cai Meibiao, “Honesty and calmness: Two reflections on Fan Wenlan’s spirit of learning,” In Notes on the Past Academia, Beijing:  Zhonghua Book Company, 2012, pp.208–​209. 5 I have in my personal possession a table of academic record of history majors between 1958 and 1963 of a university. It shows that of the five years except in the

An overview  39 academic year of 1961–​1962 there was no arrangement of “labor” course because the students were not in good health as China was in an economically difficult situation, whereas in all the four years there were records of “labor.” Moreover, the importance of the course can be shown by the fact that only five courses were opened up in the academic year of 1958–​1959, including Philosophy, the Russian Language, the Ancient Chinese Language, Physical Education and “Labor.” The so-​called “labor” course was a weekly arrangement of land tilling on the university-​owned  farm. 6 Li Shu, “Thirty years of Chinese social sciences,” In Li Shu, Self-​selected Essays of Li Shu, Guangzhou: Guangdong People’s Press, 1998, p.99. 7 Li Shu, “Marxism and Chinese historiography” In Self-​selected Essays of Li Shu, p.140. 8 Li Shu, “ ‘The Gang of Four’ and their devastation of Chinese history studies: On the hoax of so-​called history of Confucianism and Legalism struggle,” In Self-​ selected Essays of Li Shu, p.62; Liu Danian, “Fan Wenlan and historical research,” In Selected Essays of Historical Research by Liu Danian, p.544. 9 Li Shu, “Chinese history studies of 1979,” In Self-​selected Essays of Li Shu, p.118. 10 Li Shu, “The history studies of 1979,” In Self-​selected Essays of Li Shu, p.119. 11 Zhang Haipeng, “Foreword,” In Research Catalogue of Researchers of the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (1950–​2000), published by the Research Institute of the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 2000, p.1. 12 Hu Sheng, On the periodization of modern Chinese History, Historical Research, 1954 (1). 13 Liu Danian, Where is the breakthrough in the study of modern Chinese history? Guangming Daily, February 17, 1981. 14 In The Selected Works of Mao Zedong (People’s Publishing House, 1991), this AB group was mentioned many times, saying that the AB group had a great influence on the masses in Futian and Donggu areas, which led to the opposition between the masses and the Red Army. It is more clearly stated in the notes that the AB group was a counter-​revolutionary secret service organization of the Kuomintang hidden in the Red Regions at that time (see pages 204, 211 and 236 of the book). 15 See the Compilation and Translation Group of the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (compiled and translated), How Foreign Bourgeois Viewed China’s History—​Selected Translation of Works on Modern Chinese History by the Reactionary Historians of Capitalist Countries, (Vol. 1), Commercial Press, 1961, pp.10–​14. 16 According to Li Zongyi, a Beijing scholar, and Zhang Yufa, a Taipei scholar, who attended the meeting, they later told each other that apart from expressing different academic opinions at the meeting, they had no personal contact at the meeting. They both seemed overcautious, merely looking at each other from a distance making sure which one was from Taipei and which from Beijing. 17 Karl Marx, “Capital,” (Vol. 1, Afterwords to the second German edition) In Selected Works of Marx and Engels, (Vol. 2). Beijing:  The People’s Press, 1972, p.217. 18 Liu Wei, The establishment, impact and significance of “On the assumption that the pre-​Qin scholars are not from official positions”:  An example of Hu Shih’s innovative paradigm “to open up but not to teach.” Modern Chinese History Studies, 2003 (1).

40  ZENG Yeying 19 Chen Yinke, “Review report I,” In Feng Youlan, Appendix to the History of Chinese Philosophy (Vol. II), Zhonghua Book Company, 1961, pp.1–​4. 20 Vladimir Lenin, “On the right of national self-​determination (February–​May 1914),” In Selected Works of Lenin (Vol. 2), The People’s Press, 1961, p.440. 21 Wu Jianjie, Thoughts on the “new paradigm” of modern history research, Modern History Studies, 2001 (2); also see Li Wenhai’s Several Important Historical Facts in understanding modern national conditions, Modern History Studies, 1996 (6). 22 Cited in Wang Jingyu’s Colonialist views on modern Chinese history studies, Modern History Studies, 1996 (6). 23 Zhang Haipeng, General History of Modern China (Vol. 1), Phoenix Publishing Media Group, Jiangsu People’s Press, 2006, pp.56–​60. 24 Wang Qingcheng, Fairs and marketing rings in North China in the Late Qing Dynasty, Modern History Studies, 2004 (4). 25 Ren Fang, Skinner’s Model and the study of modern Chinese history, Modern History Studies, 2004 (4). 26 Mao Haijian, The Second Collection of Historical Events of the Reform Movement of 1898, SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2011, p.2. 27 Modern Chinese History Studies, 1997 (4). 28 Luo Zhitian, The variation and non-​variation of modern Chinese history research in the past thirty years—​some unsystematic reflections. Social Sciences Research, 2008 (6), cited in Bu Ping, Reform and opening-​up and modern Chinese history research, Modern History Studies, 2009 (5).

2  Theories and methods ZHANG Haipeng

2.1  The periodization of modern Chinese history in the 1950s Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, great progress has been made in the study of modern Chinese history. There has been development unparalleled in the past in all such aspects as the research institutions, research teams, research results, or the depth and breadth of the study. However, I believe that the most important progress is in the conception of history and in the theories and methods for the study of modern Chinese history. In 1954, Hu Sheng published his article “On the periodization of modern Chinese history” in the inaugural issue of Historical Research, which aroused strong concern and heated discussion among modern historians. In 1957, the editorial department of Historical Research brought together the articles of discussion by scholars for publication. It was a precious record of Chinese modern historians seeking to establish a Marxist historiography system in the field of Chinese modern history research by way of studying historical materialism. How to periodize modern Chinese history seems to be a specific problem in compiling modern history textbooks. But what criteria are to be applied in periodization involves more complicated issues such as historical outlooks, the theories and methods, the main task, and the basic clue to studying modern Chinese history, the main task of describing and studying modern Chinese history. Hu Sheng, considering it quite insufficient and inconsiderable to have modern Chinese history described in some textbooks before 1949 in terms of the “Daoguang Era,” “Xianfeng Era,” “Tongzhi Era,” or “Age of Weakness,” “Age of Political Change” and “Republican Age,” because they “failed to reflect the essence of social and historical development.”1 He went further to point out that some textbooks, including those attempting to account for history in the light of Marxist class analysis, abandoned historical periodization and tried to present history in terms of major events. Their presentation of history, adopting “recording major events from beginning to end,” inevitably “distorted many of the historical events that are originally interconnected, and blurred the basic clue in the development of history.”2 In his discussion on the criterion of periodization, Hu Sheng criticized the

42  ZHANG Haipeng periodization solely in accordance with imperialist aggression as considerably biased, since it “only focused on aggression, but not on people’s resistance against aggression, which is one of the main shortcomings of the modern historical works with a bourgeois viewpoint throughout.”3 Meanwhile, he also criticized the periodization merely based on changes of social and economic life, arguing that it will deviate and go to the standing of economic materialism. He insisted on the periodization of modern Chinese history in the light of a comprehensive examination of both the economic foundation and superstructure of the society at the time, while changes of the latter do not necessarily follow that of the former in a step-​by-​step manner. On the basis of Marxist historical materialism and Mao Zedong’s statement of modern Chinese history, Hu Sheng put forward an important opinion that “the criterion of periodization is basically the expression of class struggle.” He also pointed out that the Marxist requirement for the study of modern Chinese history is not to simply label events and figures with the marks of this or that class, progressive or revolutionary. If a modern history book is but repetition of bourgeois views, except that there are some additional labels, that will not be the completion of the task of Marxist research. To make historical research truly permeated with the Marxist ideological power, we must be good at revealing, through economic, political and cultural phenomena, the appearance and essence of various social forces on the stage of modern Chinese history, their origins, their interrelations and mutual struggles, as well as their development trends.4 It should be noted that this is the first time that the task of using Marxism to study modern Chinese history, and the important viewpoint of making historical research truly permeated with Marxist ideological power were put forward in academic circles. According to this point of view, Hu Sheng also put forward the concept of “the upsurge of three revolutionary movements in modern Chinese history” (which has later been commonly referred to as “three revolutionary climaxes”) and his own views on the periodization of modern Chinese history from 1840 to 1919. Hu’s article received strong responses from scholars. By 1957, when the Xinhua News Agency announced that “the discussion on the periodization of modern Chinese history has come to an end,” a total of 24 papers had been published. In the three years between 1954 and 1957, historians like Sun Shouren, Huang Yiliang, Jin Chongji, Fan Wenlan, Dai Yi, Rong Mengyuan, Li Xin, Lai Xinxia, Wang Renchen, and Zhang Kaiyuan all put forward their own views in their articles. And newspapers also reported discussions on the periodization of modern Chinese history at the Department of History of Tianjin Normal University, the Sixth Seminar on Science at the Renmin University of China and the seminal meeting on the syllabus of history teaching for higher education. While many people agreed or basically went along with Hu Sheng’s view on the criterion of periodization, several

Theories and methods  43 different criteria were proffered, one being that the development of the main contradictions and changes in their nature in modern Chinese society should be taken as the criterion.5 Another criterion was that “the principles of historical materialism must be strictly followed, and Chinese people should be established as historical heroes in China,”6 Another one was that “the periodization criterion should be a combination of the representation of the class struggle with that of the social economy (mode of production),”7 and another was that “the economic and political oppression by imperialism as well as its lackeys and the national democratic revolution of the Chinese people have become the fundamental contradiction throughout the modern historical period, and a clue running through all events,”8 to mention only a few. Many different proposals came into formation due to different understandings or interpretations of the periodization criterion. For a review of the discussion, I believe that it is not about the unification of the understanding of the criteria for periodization, nor how much progress has been made in the specific area, but rather an important opportunity in which historians of (but not limited to) modern Chinese history have conscientiously studied Marxism and historical materialism since the founding of the PRC in conjunction with the study of periodization, while eliminating the feudal and bourgeois views of history from old China. And it is through the discussion that it has been clarified that the theory and method of Marxism and historical materialism must be adopted in the study of modern Chinese history. The discussants all agreed that Mao Zedong’s statement that “the history of China’s transformation into a semi-​colony and colony by imperialism in collusion with Chinese feudalism is at the same time a history of struggle by the Chinese people against imperialism and its lackeys,” expressed in principle the basic content of Chinese modern history. Therefore, the struggles of the Chinese people against imperialism and feudalism and their development should be considered as the basic clue to modern Chinese history. At the same time, there were many discussions among historians on the periodization of ancient Chinese history, slavery and feudalism in China, the land ownership system in China, the formation of the Han nationality, and the germination of capitalism in China. All these discussions can be regarded as the great learning of Marxism that took place in the 1950s, and a rare contention among various ideas, having thus promoted the formation of a strong atmosphere of theoretical learning, especially of learning historical materialism in the field of history, enabled a large number of scholars from old China and young scholars in the field of history to be educated in Marxism, and to learn to observe and study Chinese history, particularly modern Chinese history, by applying the fundamental Marxist viewpoints and historical materialism, and as a result promoted the construction of the discipline of modern Chinese history and the study of some important theoretical and practical issues in the field of modern Chinese history. Looking back on the discussion, we still feel justified to say that the current prosperous situation of modern Chinese history,

44  ZHANG Haipeng and the historians’ current high level of thought, should all be attributed to the discussions in the 1950s. After the discussions of the 1950s, the modern historians have generally reached a consensus on modern Chinese history study for its scientific and revolutionary aspects, its guiding ideology, and its basic clue to modern Chinese history. The three textbooks of modern Chinese history published thereafter were but a reflection of the discussion. Two of them were published in 1962, one being the fourth volume of the History of China, with Guo Moruo as the chief editor and Liu Danian as the leading editor coordinating researchers of the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, another being the fourth volume of An Outline of Chinese History, with Jian Bozan as the chief editor and Shao Xunzheng and Chen Qinghua as the editors. The third book edited by Hu Sheng, From the Opium Wars to the May 4th Movement, was published in 1981 as another result of the discussion. While former two books are textbooks for college majors in history, the latter is intended as a reader of modern Chinese history for cadres at large. Previous books on modern Chinese history, including Fan Wenlan’s Modern Chinese History, which has a large readership, are generally characterized by separate accounting of major events and an overemphasis of their content on political history. Such practice is justifiable for the time, but needs improvement, which is manifest in the fourth volume of the History of China in which the authors have made great efforts to make changes. According to Liu Danian, the 80-​year history of modern China from 1840 to 1919 is clearly manifested in three different periods: from the Opium Wars to the defeat of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, from 1864 to the Reform Movement of 1898 and the failure of the Boxer Movement, and from 1901 to the outbreak of the May 4th Movement. During those periods, imperialism and all classes of Chinese society had their own characteristics in their interrelationship as well as their contradictions and struggles. In them social and economic conditions, class struggle and ideology are integrated and unified. Therefore, new works are required to account for events in the chronological sequence of historical evolution, not only recounting political events, but also economic basis and ideology; not only narrating the history of the Han nationality regions, but also the connections and interrelations between the various nationalities and the whole country in their struggles. And it is in this manner that the fourth volume of the History of China has summarized, with generalization and sublimation, the theoretical and research achievements of modern Chinese history since the founding of the PRC, setting up a new frame for modern Chinese history. It was a designated textbook for higher institutions, with large print. The book was commended as the most influential piece of historical writing in the 1960s in a seminar held for scholars of modern history in 1982 in Chengde, illustrating how popular the book once was at that time. This comment points out the popularity of the book over a period of time. The third book, Hu Sheng’s, being both comprehensive and full of detail in its analysis, and magnificent in its discussion, has reflected to a certain extent

Theories and methods  45 Marxist ideological power that the author intentionally pursues, and has thus made a far-​reaching impact on teaching and research as well as patriotic education for the masses. Although scholars may have different opinions on some specific issues regarding these three books mentioned above, they have basically determined the stylistic rules and framework for writing of textbooks on modern Chinese history, confirmed the adoption of class analysis for the examination of historical process, identified modern Chinese society as a semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society, and confirmed that the basic task of modern China is to fight against imperialism and feudalism. Specifically and generally accepted is the conception of three revolutionary climaxes. Hundreds of textbooks and popular books on modern Chinese history published since the mid-​1980s are basically in accordance with such a framework, indicating its acceptance among scholars.

2.2  Discussions on the basic clues of modern Chinese history in the 1980s Since 1980, discussions arose once again on China’s modern historiography and the basic clues of modern Chinese history. Some scholars began to demand the rectification of the one-​ sidedness and simplistic tendencies in historical study and rethinking the actual situation of the modern history studies, having thus brought up suspicion and refutation on the division of historical periods in terms of class struggles and the concept of the three revolutionary climaxes, which were originally proposed by Hu Sheng and supported by quite a lot of scholars. Li Shiyue first published a paper on the first issue in the 1980 edition of Historical Study entitled “From Westernization, Reformation to Bourgeois Revolution,” which caused a new round of discussions on the basic clues of modern Chinese history. This discussion also touched upon the periodization of modern history. But unlike the discussions in the 1950s, instead of attaching such a major theoretical issue as the basic clue of modern history to its periodization, it was raised directly as an issue in its own right. After Li Shiyue’s article was published, a wave of contending was formed in the mid-​1980s, and extended to the 1990s when related articles were still published. Compared with the 1950s, the issues under discussion were more widely raised, with more updated perspectives, more in-​depth research, and more conspicuous disagreements. In summary, there are three main points of view. One is represented by Li Shiyue. Li Shiyue proposed that “The modern history of China from 1840 to 1919 has experienced four stages: the peasant wars, the Westernization Movement, the Reform Movement, and the bourgeois revolution.” They have reflected the dramatic changes in modern Chinese society and the rapid development of the political consciousness of the modern

46  ZHANG Haipeng Chinese people. And they are therefore the indicators of the basic clues of the progress of modern Chinese history.9 He suggested that attention should be focused on the significance of the development of the capitalist economy in modern history, and the bourgeois political movement should be given credit for its proper political status.10 He also emphasized that the “Westernization Movement, the Reform Movement and bourgeois revolution” should be regarded as the progressive trend or basic clues of modern Chinese history. Some scholars have summarized this formulation as a “three-​step” theory, which Li Shiyue himself thought was inaccurate, having reformulated it in an article as the “four-​step” theory in which the peasant wars of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom were supposedly included. It is argued that there are actually two trends rather than one in the development of modern Chinese society: one is the transformation from an independent state to a semi-​colonial (semi-​independent) one and evolving toward a colonial state; another is the transformation from a feudal society to a semi-​feudal (semi-​capitalist) one and evolving toward capitalist society. While the former is a downward trend, the latter is a trend of upward development. Supporting explicitly the use of class struggles as historical clues, Li Shiyue claimed that his “four-​step” theory was not fundamentally opposed to the “three climaxes” theory, but only a partially revised and supplemented version of it, since the “three climaxes” theory had inadequacies, which lay in the fact that “the class struggle has not been closely linked with the social economy, so that historical materialism has not been carried through to the end.”11 In the discussion of the basic clues of modern Chinese history, some scholars believed that Mao Zedong’s “two processes” theory failed to outline “all the content” of modern Chinese history, and was thus a “misunderstanding” of Mao Zedong’s original meaning, thus calling for “getting rid of ” the “binding” of the “two processes” theory and re-​learning Marxist theory, in which it was expected to “get some new enlightenment, and build our research on the basis of scientific theory.”12 Some suggested that in modern Chinese society “striving for independence and progress has always been the historical theme, whereas learning from the West and developing capitalism is the fundamental road for modern China to achieve the goal.”13 In other words, in modern times, the Chinese people are faced with the two fundamental tasks of striving for national independence (against imperialism) and seeking social progress (development of capitalism). These two tasks are consistent throughout the modern history of China, and all struggles, including political, economic, ideological and cultural struggles are all carried out around these two fundamental tasks. They constitute the basic clues of modern Chinese history.14 Such a theory takes the capitalist movement (involving economic and political aspects) as the main clue to investigate the process of modern Chinese

Theories and methods  47 history development, and views the Westernization Movement, the Reform Movement and the Revolution of 1911 as “reflecting the rapid development of modern Chinese people’s political consciousness, marking the basic context of the progress of modern Chinese history.”15 They held that under the social and historical conditions of modern times, that in order to strive for national independence and social progress, China must learn from the advanced Western capitalist countries, eliminate poverty and backwardness, and bring into being modernization. Another group generally adheres to Hu Sheng’s original point of view. In the preface of From the Opium Wars to the May 4th Movement and the preface of its reprint in 1997 as well as other articles, Hu Sheng still maintained his theory of three revolutionary climaxes, and argued that the views formerly introduced have obliterated the role of the peasant revolution in modern Chinese history. Scholars such as Su Shuangbi,16 Yuan Shuyi,17 Zhang Haipeng,18 Rong Mengyuan19 and others also published contending articles. They believed that the development clue to modern Chinese history should be conditioned by the nature of the semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society of China. The central task of the Chinese people was to abolish imperialism and feudalism, including the establishment China’s own national industry and developing capitalism in China. This process constitutes the main clue to the development of modern Chinese history. They believed that Mao Zedong’s “two processes” of modern Chinese history have correctly summarized the basic clues of modern Chinese history; at the same time they disagreed with the proposal that “learning from the West and developing capitalism” should be taken as “the fundamental road for modern China to strive for independence and progress,” believing that only through democratic revolution and overthrowing the rule of imperialism and feudalism could China develop capitalism. Compared with the former group, this group is opposed to simply regarding the Westernization Movement as a progressive movement, and excluding the Boxer Movement from the basic clue. The opinions of the third group are comparatively complex, being basically somewhere in the middle of the aforementioned two opinions, but occasionally coming up with some new ideas. Zhang Kaiyuan, in his article “National movement and basic clues of modern Chinese history” (Historical Research, 1984 (3)), tried to clarify the basic clues of modern Chinese history from the perspective of national movement. He held that the Opium Wars were the beginning of the national movement in modern China, and that modern Chinese history of nearly 80  years, with the year 1900 as the landmark, is summarized as “two stages, three upsurges,” that is, the first stage covers the two upsurges of the national movements with the 1898 Reform and the Boxer Movement after the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and the war of 1895; the second stage covers the upsurge of the national movement with the r­ evolution of 1911, which is of greater modern characteristics. He also claimed that the three upsurges of the national movements represent a development trend that actually exists in modern Chinese history, and is thus an embodiment of

48  ZHANG Haipeng the basic clue and development law of modern Chinese history. According to Zhang Kaiyuan, the “Westernization-​Reform-​Revolution” is a simple framework, which is the important social context of farmers and land issues is very likely ignored. Since China is a semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society, advice has been against mechanically copying modern history, and the ready-​made formulaic history of the emergence, development and decline of capitalism. He also suggested that it is better not to use the term “three revolutionary climaxes,” because the term “revolution” has both broad and narrow interpretations, and in addition it is not only likely to cause ambiguity in conceptual understanding, but also easy to create association with the term of three domestic revolutionary wars in the history of new democratic revolution, which would result in a lack of coordination in stylistic representations concerning the new and old democratic history as an integral part of the whole modern history of China. He also pointed out that Mao Zedong’s “two processes” theory can serve as the base point for further exploring the basic clues of modern Chinese history. To say that the development of modern Chinese history is a national movement does not mean to replace the “two processes” with another set of clues. The “two processes” is an objective historical reality and the backbone of the whole process of modern Chinese history, and it is naturally understood as the basic clue throughout. From this point of view, although the third group criticizes the first two groups, the essence of its proposition is relatively close to Hu Sheng’s opinion. Qi Qizhang has another view. He claimed that to say the “two processes” theory as the basic clue to modern Chinese history is groundless. In his opinion, when considering the basic clues, it is not appropriate to talk about “the manifestation of class struggle” in an empty way. The anti-​imperialist struggle certainly cannot embody the basic clues, even the anti-​feudal struggle may not always embody the basic clues. “The basic clues should be the domestic class struggle that can reflect the future of modern China’s social development ... only the domestic class struggle that promotes social change can embody the basic clue to modern Chinese history.” He proposed that in modern Chinese history only the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Reform Movement and the Revolution of 1911 could embody the basic clues, whereas the Westernization Movement and the Boxer Movement could not be counted as the basic clues. In this way, “the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom-​the Reform Movement-​the Revolution of 1911” constitute the three steps of the development of modern Chinese history.20 These are the main views arising in the debate on the basic clues of modern Chinese history in the mid-​1980s. They are mostly based on China’s historical process from 1840 to 1919 as the historical facts. There are many things in common among the three groups, that is, they all admit that the manifestations of class struggle should be taken as indicators to determine the basic clues of modern Chinese history. Their theoretical differences are manifested in the following:  some emphasize that class struggle should be associated with the development of social economy. They require that the significance of the

Theories and methods  49 development of capitalism and the political status of the bourgeoisie should be taken into account, proposing that learning from the West and developing capitalism is the fundamental gateway for modern China to strive for independence and progress. They therefore highly value the historical status of the Westernization Movement but belittled the role of the Boxer Movement. Others emphasize that class struggle should be associated with social changes reflecting the future of modern Chinese social development, and thought that the Westernization Movement and Boxer Movement could not be included in the basic clue. However, the latter hold that the “two processes” of modern Chinese history and anti-​imperialism and anti-​feudalism are not supposed to be regarded as the basic clues of modern Chinese history, which is obviously contrary to their proposition that “the basic clues of modern Chinese history can only be reflected in the domestic class struggles that have promoted social change.” Such a theory is far from being rigorous. The three groups also have specific differences, of which the biggest lies in how to evaluate the Westernization Movement and the Boxer Movement. As far as the Westernization Movement is concerned, the first group believe that it gives rise to Chinese capitalism and is therefore a progressive movement. Wang Jingyu, an expert in economic history, having studied the Westernization enterprises and the development and under-​development of modern Chinese capitalism, suggested that the modern Chinese capitalist enterprises arose from civil activities with businessmen as the main body preceding the official activities with Westernization bureaucrats as the main body. The first people who came into contact with capitalism and practiced it in China were the new businessmen who had contact with the invading foreign capitalism. Although the business enterprises run or supervised by the Westernization faction of officials later occupied a leading position in the production process of modern capitalist enterprises in China, the Westernization faction failed to be a positive force in supporting of the development of Chinese capitalism, as the bureaucrats of the Westernization faction were not on the side of promoting the development of Chinese capitalism.21 Wang Jingyu came to the conclusion that “the Westernization bureaucrats involved in modern enterprises failed to undertake the historical task of developing Chinese capitalism”22 in his study of the enterprises run by private businessmen but supervised by the Westernization officials. When Jiang Duo, an expert in economic history, discussed the nature of Westernization enterprises, he suggested that the Westernization enterprises were in the nature of early bureaucratic capital, characterized by compradores and feudalism, “the monopolistic and exclusive tendency of the Westernization enterprises restrained to certain extent the free development of private capital, which was also an objective existence and should not be denied.”23 It was also pointed out that there are several capitalist movements of different natures in modern China. Only national capitalism is conducive to the development of Chinese history and the liberation of the Chinese people, and is therefore

50  ZHANG Haipeng progressive, whereas bureaucratic capitalism and colonialism are but the fundamental factors having caused China’s poverty and backwardness, and are therefore reactionary. China has not been burdened with national capitalism, but with feudalism, bureaucratic capitalism and imperialism. Compared with the enterprises run by bureaucratic capitalism and imperialism in China, the national capitalist enterprises are very weak. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the proposition that the capitalist movement is taken as the main clue in an investigation into the development of modern Chinese history without rigorous analysis, and the indistinct claim that the Westernization Movement reflects the rapid development of the modern Chinese people’s political consciousness and represents the direction of the times.24 Opinions differ on the Boxer Uprising, yet all seem to agree that the Boxer Uprising was a spontaneous anti-​imperialist patriotic movement of peasants in the north. The problem is that Hu Sheng did not take the Boxer Uprising as the only indicator when he first defined the second revolutionary upsurge, but instead affirmed that “it is partially true to regard the Boxer Uprising from 1899 to 1900 as the second revolutionary upsurge,” intending himself to regard the “Reform Movement of 1898” and the Boxer Uprising together as the indicators of the second revolutionary movement upsurge. He pointed out that although both of them existed during the upsurge of the second revolution, they were completely unrelated. The reformist movement in pursuit of capitalist ideals resulted in the short-​lived Reform Movement of 1898, whereas the spontaneous struggles with the peasants as the major force ended up as a distorted finale in the tragic failure of the Boxer Movement.25 In his From the Opium Wars to the May 4th Movement, in addition to giving a positive narration of the Westernization Movement and the Boxer Movement, Hu Sheng also emphasized in the foreword of the first edition that “we think it is not justifiable in any sense to discuss the historical progressive trend in modern China in terms of ‘the Westernization Movement-​the Reform of 1898-​the Revolution of 1911’ ”; and that in a full consideration of the Boxer Movement and its role in the anti-​ imperialist struggle, we have to be aware of its serious weakness at the same time. And of course we must not erase its historical position simply because the Boxer Movement could not in any possibility to evolve into a healthy anti-​ imperialist struggle under the historical conditions at that time. Hu Sheng’s evaluation of the Boxer Movement is clearly measured and appropriate in his thorough adherence to the three revolutionary climaxes theory.

Theories and methods  51 Hu Sheng was justified for his emphasis on the combination of class struggle with social and economic development, as it was his very intention as he brought up the issue for discussion. According to Hu Sheng, the fundamental task of studying modern Chinese history is to explain, through analysis of specific historical facts, how new classes have emerged in Chinese society, what changes have taken place in the relations between different classes, and how the class struggle has developed under foreign imperialist invasion of China.26 According to the Marxist concept of political economy, the so-​called classes refer to the groups in different positions in a given social production system and in a given social economic structure. The so-​called class struggle is the struggle between the groups of fundamental conflicting economic interests. Raising the question in what way a new class has emerged within Chinese society is asking in what way a new social and economic structure has emerged in the semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society, and thereby a new class structure and class struggles have emerged. To study the new class, the relationship between different classes and the situation of class struggles, is arguably to study the new socio-​economic structure, and to combine the study of class struggles with socio-​economic structure. In 1980, coming up with the question “where does modern Chinese history break through?,” Liu Danian emphasized the importance of studying modern Chinese economic history, advocating applying the Materialistic historical outlook to the study of modern Chinese history, for which he had the same intention as Hu Sheng. It should be pointed out that after the 1950s, the understanding and application of the clues of modern Chinese history and the three revolutionary climaxes theory became increasingly simplified and formulaic, and the understanding of the class struggles was becoming dogmatic and singular. As a result, many textbooks of modern Chinese history were repetitious and not very different from each other and readers grew dissatisfied and frustrated, after having stirred up a lot of reflection and discussion. This is understandable. Such reflections and discussions are of great benefit to re-​learning and understanding Marxism, to more deeply understanding historical materialism, to acquiring an in-​depth knowledge of the complex process of modern Chinese history, and to exploring modern Chinese history from multiple perspectives, multiple aspects and in a thorough-​going manner. The discussion of the basic clues of modern Chinese history has made new progress since the late 1980s. Owing to their dissatisfaction with the previous discussions within the limit of the periodization of modern Chinese history from 1840 to 1919, an increasing number of scholars began to back up the proposal that the lower limit of modern Chinese history should be extended to 1949. In the third issue of Historical Research in 1988, Chen Xulu in his article “Reflections on the clue to modern Chinese history” attempted to examine the 110 years from 1840 to 1949 as a complete historical period. Chen Xulu wrote that the so-​called complete historical period means that the 110  years are different from any historical Dynasty since the Qin and Han Dynasties,

52  ZHANG Haipeng but a special historical social form, that is, a semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society as a result of a collapsing feudal society drawn into a capitalist world. The period is supposed to be approached with a full consideration of such a special and complete social form and its rich connotation. Starting from this point of view, Chen Xulu defined the revolution climaxes in terms of its original motivations. He believed that there were three revolutionary climaxes in modern Chinese history, but they were not the ones advocated by Hu Sheng and accepted by most scholars. He thought that in the middle and late nineteenth century, even though China had experienced the climax of peasant uprising, the climax of reform and the anti-​imperialist movement, which all promoted or reflected the metabolic historical process in different ways and degrees, yet failed to reach the high-​level climaxes of an anti-​imperialist and anti-​feudal revolution which was to happen later. It was only in the twentieth century that revolutions in full swing and of complete significance took place and reached a climax. He therefore asserted that the three climaxes are: the Revolution of 1911 overthrowing the Qing government in 1912, the Revolution of 1927 overthrowing the Northern Warlord government, and in 1949 the liberation war led by the Communist Party of China overthrew the rule of the Kuomintang and won national victory. He stressed that in modern Chinese history, there are only three climaxes of revolution. Without these three climaxes, imperialism could not have been driven away and feudal forces defeated. Xia Dongyuan also presented his understanding of the basic clues of modern Chinese history based on 110 years of modern Chinese history, proposing that “one main line” (i.e. the clue to inception, emergence and development of capitalism) and “two processes” (i.e. the process of imperialism being joined with Chinese feudalism to have turned China into a semi-​colony and a colony, which is also the process of the Chinese people’s resistance to imperialism and its supporters) are combined to clarify the historical law of modern China in the 110-​year period. So I neither agree with the view “three upsurges of revolution,” nor accept as appropriate the “four steps” theory.27 Xia took capitalism as the main line, and tended to regard the Westernization Movement, the Reform of 1898 and the Revolution of 1911 as three progressive movements, which was a restatement of a view brought up 40 or 50  years ago. Having re-​examined and re-​interpreted the view, Xia was able to notice the pattern of the development of capitalism, but still failed to link up the 110-​year history. And it is not appropriate to completely align the Westernization Movement, the Reform of 1898 and the Revolution of 1911, since the Westernization Movement was against the core issue of capitalism—​democratic political reform. Therefore, Xia was convinced that the combination of the inception, emergence and development of capitalism and the “two processes,” with the realization of democracy or the anti-​realization of democracy determining the development of capitalism or the failure of its smooth development as the basic clues, should be used to divide modern Chinese history of 110 years into two phases around

Theories and methods  53 the demarcation line of the Reform of 1898. Such a division, according to Xia, was more capable of fully reflecting the law of historical development.28 In 1997, Zhang Haipeng continued to comment on this issue. According to Zhang Haipeng, since the 1950s, the study of modern Chinese history, having adopted the theory prior to the founding of the PRC, is divided into two periods:  Pre-​ Modern Chinese history (1840–​ 1919) and Modern Chinese history (1919–​1949). Until now, the universities have set up teaching and research sections and taught courses in terms of the above division. In his view, such a division is not good for historical understanding and discipline construction. It more than 50 years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China. With regard to the period of Chinese history traced back from 1949 to 1840, we have now understood it more clearly and should be more clearly explained and appreciate. Generally speaking, Zhang believed that the study of Chinese history should center on the period 1840 to 1949, which would be of great advantage to the study of modern Chinese history, modern Chinese history after 1949, the history of the Chinese revolution and the history of the Communist Party of China. He also thought that Li Shiyue was quite innovative in proposing in the past few years that the semi-​colony was “historical falling” and semi-​feudalism or semi-​capitalism was “historical rising.”29 But at the same time Zhang was not convinced with Li Shiyue’s view that the semi-​ colonial and semi-​feudal China had been falling and rising at the same time, which Li Shiyue rebutted. “If modern China only has historical falling, then ‘where would such historical falling’ stop? Would there be any end to the long dark night?”30 Being inspired by the statement, Zhang Haipeng then proposed that for the 110-​year history of semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal China, modern Chinese history is coterminous with the beginning of the twentieth century (roughly from 1901 to 1915)  with the fall of the semi-​colonial and semi-​ feudal society to the bottom of the valley. In 1901, the Peace Protocol of 1901 was signed. And 1915 was the year in which Japan forced 21 demands upon China, Yuan Shikai proclaimed himself emperor, and Chen Duxiu founded New Youth. These major events greatly stimulated Chinese society by growing new social class forces, promoting their awakening, and the awakening of the whole Chinese nation. Since then, the internal development of Chinese society began to show an upward trend, of which the development of the new cultural movement and the outbreak of the May 4th anti-​imperialist patriotic movement are all clear indicators. And ever since then, the forces of the bourgeoisie and its political representatives, and those of the proletariat and its political representatives have grown rapidly and have finally replaced the old forces to become the leading forces in social development.31 Zhang Haipeng also believed that Hu Sheng’s theory of three revolutionary climaxes is very important in modern Chinese history. From the perspective of political history or revolutionary history, this concept reflects the reality of history. Of course, from the perspective of economic history, ideological history, cultural history or the history of modernization, some different concepts could be put forward based on the needs of each relevant specialty reflecting

54  ZHANG Haipeng its historical reality. However, in an overall consideration of modern Chinese history, the theory of three revolutionary climaxes must have its dominating and balancing role. If it were completely discarded, historical reality could hardly be fully accounted for. However, when Hu Sheng first proposed this theory, he dealt with the first half of China’s modern history, that is, from 1840 to 1919. Having pushed the lower limit of China’s modern history to September 1949, it has become obvious that Hu Sheng’s theory of the three revolution climaxes is not in line with the historical reality of modern Chinese history. Therefore the criticism of the theory is completely justified from the perspective of new periodization. Accordingly, from an overall consideration of China’s modern history, it is necessary to reconsider the issue of the revolutionary climaxes in modern Chinese history. Hu Sheng’s original intention of proposing the theory of revolutionary climax was to explain the basic clue to the development of modern Chinese history, and to “reveal through economic, political and cultural phenomena both the appearance and essence of various social forces on the stage of modern Chinese history, including their origins, their mutual relations and struggles, and their development trend,” and to understand “the upsurge of the revolutionary movement is a period of time in which various newly-​ facilitated social forces manifest themselves in full swing through fierce class struggles.”32 From the observation above, we know that Hu did not define “the upsurge of the three revolutionary movements” in terms of the original meaning of revolution. And his starting point in putting forward such a theory is understandable. It is very important for us to understand the basic clues and characteristics of the development of modern Chinese history from a political perspective. Moreover, the upsurge of several revolutionary movements in the nineteenth century (such as the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom movement, the Reform Movement of 1898, the Boxer Uprising) made serious preparations and provided ideological materials for the arrival of the real revolutionary movement thereafter, and it was an indispensable preparatory stage in the transition from the old democratic revolution to the new democratic revolution. Without these, we would lack the necessary links to understand the basic clues and summarize the development rules of modern Chinese history. From this understanding, the revolutionary climaxes of modern Chinese history should still include several revolutionary movements in the nineteenth century, and of course, they do not have to be three times only. On an overall scale, there should be seven climaxes. They are the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom revolutionary movement, the Reform of 1898 and the Boxer Movement, the Revolution of 1911, the new cultural movement and the May 4th Movement, the Revolution of 1927, the Anti-​Japanese War of 1937–​1945, the victory of the Liberation War and the founding of the People’s Republic of China. The aforementioned seven revolutionary movements or climaxes have basically determined the political trend of modern China, including all major stages from the old democratic revolution to the new democratic revolution, and

Theories and methods  55 including the basic content of the national democratic revolution. This is the basic clue to the development of modern Chinese history.33 Although fewer articles have been published in recent years on the basic clue to modern Chinese history, scholars continue their thinking. I hope and believe that our discussion will not stop there. It is important to maintain a good momentum of contention. We need to have more than one voice. Under the guidance of Marxism, we can form many schools and put forward many different frameworks to promote the real prosperity of the study of modern Chinese history. It must be emphasized that to study the basic clue to modern Chinese history is to explore a methodology of observing modern Chinese history, so as to use it to discover the basic law of the development of modern Chinese history. The basic law of modern Chinese history is not the same as the basic clue to modern Chinese history. And the historical facts represented in modern Chinese history are the basic content of modern Chinese history, though not in any sense the whole content, which is much richer and more complicated than represented. There are abundant historical phenomena. They are like piles of copper coins in the old era. These basic clues are like string, which can link up scattered copper coins, making it more convenient for people to count the coins. If we have a clear understanding of the basic clues to modern Chinese history, we will have a much more orderly understanding of all modern Chinese history, and we will find it easier to grasp the development and law of modern Chinese history. The above knowledge about the stages and the basic clues of modern Chinese history, as well as the general consensus having been thus achieved are the major achievements of modern Chinese history in the past 60 years. Thanks to these achievements, the whole face of modern Chinese history has become clearer. And the status modern Chinese history as an independent discipline is attributed to these achievements to some extent. It is within such an overall framework of understanding that rich and colorful research results have been accomplished in the field of modern Chinese history.

2.3  The “falling” and “rising” of modern Chinese history The “falling” and “rising” of modern Chinese history is closely related to the development trend of modern Chinese history, and an interesting issue as well of how to view the development orientation of modern Chinese history. The development trend of modern Chinese history in general used to be recounted as “falling” to the “abyss” of the semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society.34 In the early 1980s, Li Shiyue came up with the view that there are actually two trends rather than one in the development of modern Chinese society. One is the development from an independent country to a semi-​ colonial country (semi-​independent) and evolving into a colonial country; the other from a feudal society to semi-​feudal (semi-​capitalist) one and evolving into capitalist society. The former is a downward trend, while the latter is an

56  ZHANG Haipeng upward trend. Semi-​capitalism is a historical progression to a feudal society, so its existence is an upward “rising.” Therefore, in the semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society there is not only “falling” but also “rising.” They coexist at the same time. This is another interpretation of modern Chinese history by historians. It is quite a novel interpretation and has a great influence on modern historiography. In his review of the statement, Wang Jingyu put forward that “according to the author’s argument, people could come to the conclusion that modern Chinese society is either semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal or semi-​colonial and semi-​capitalist, since semi-​feudalism is equal to semi-​ capitalism.”35 Obviously, Wang Jingyu disagreed with this view, but did not discuss it in depth, apart from which no other special discussion was found. Li Shiyue presented the above views in the framework of modern Chinese history with the year 1919 as the lower limit. Within this framework, several points in the new interpretation of the development trend of modern Chinese history fail to be properly accounted for. First, prior to 1919, China suffered a great blow from the great powers, as it was severely constrained by a series of treaties, such as the Treaty of Nanjing, the Treaty of Beijing, the Treaty of Shimonoseki, the Peace Protocol of 1901, and the Treaty of 1915, having been repeatedly forced to cede territory and pay indemnities, to yield to the stationing of foreign troops, to lease concessions and territory, and to accept the agreement tariff and the consular jurisdiction. By the fact that Chinese economic life was actually under the control of foreign economic forces, it basically conforms to historical facts to say that China fell to the “abyss” of the semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society. It makes no sense to say that during that period of time there also coexisted “rising” in China. Second, after the Westernization Movement, the capitalist mode of production played a very insignificant part in China’s economic life, and the national capitalism being formed in the late nineteenth century was still very weak. It is obviously not appropriate to say that the other half of China’s semi-​feudalism was semi-​capitalism. Third, from an academic perspective the semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society is generally interpreted as a societal form, and the so-​called societal form is a Marxist concept, which is a transitional societal form between capitalism and socialism. There is some truth in saying that the expression semi-​colony is used in terms of national status, and semi-​feudalism in terms of semi-​capitalism. However, it is neither scientific to cut apart a societal form, nor is it theoretically valid. When we take modern Chinese history to be from 1840 to 1949, and comprehensively observe historical development during a period of 110 years, the situation becomes significantly different, and our vision is greatly broadened, then the whole process of “falling” and “rising” of modern China reveals itself. Having engaged myself in thinking for more than ten years, I have been able to write an article on the “falling” and “rising” of modern China as a discussion with Li Shiyue. Based on a close examination of the 110 years of modern China, I have come up with the view of “falling,” “valley bottom” and “rising.” In my opinion, from 1840 to 1900, the development trend of Chinese

Theories and methods  57 history was mainly manifested as “falling,” but accompanied occasionally by “rising,” which was quite a minor factor. From 1901 to 1920, Chinese history was manifested as a period of “falling” to the “valley bottom.” The so-​called “valley bottom” period was actually a transitional period from “falling” to “rising,” a transitional period from darkness to dawn. And it is a period in which China had its most difficult time after the signing of the Peace Protocol of 1901, with the semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society having come into complete formation. It is the most serious period of “falling.” And it is during this period the Revolution of 1911 and the May 4th Movement took place, which demonstrated that the “rising” factor in China had risen to counteract with the “falling” manifestations. Having got through the “valley bottom” period, China was mainly on a “rising” trend in its historical development.36 As far as I know, several scholars have commented on my view. Most people think the “valley bottom” theory is quite innovative. Chen Tiejun remarked that the viewpoint “represents the author’s creative academic exploration” and “tentatively puts forward a new theoretical framework of modern Chinese history.”37 Yuan Chengyi believed that the article “on the periodization of modern Chinese history and the issues of ‘sinking’ and ‘rising’ ” “is a valuable contribution to reconstructing the disciplinary system of modern Chinese history,” and that “the semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society being on the ‘valley bottom’ of the abyss is an important academic issue worthy of further discussion.”38 Zhang Huateng also suggested that the theory of the “valley bottom” regarding China’s semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society together with the theory of “falling” and “rising” regarding modern Chinese society have enabled us to have a better and a more visualized vision of the semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society, and thus to have come closer to the reality of history. While historical development is tortuous, it moves forward after all, as is the case of modern China. This will give people confidence and strength. In particular, we observe from the development of modern society that, despite the efforts made by various classes and groups in modern times to avoid the “falling” of society, it is the proletariat that has finally prevented China from a continued “falling” into a colony, and won independence and liberation for the Chinese nation, ... Zhang has made a great contribution to the systematic account of modern Chinese history.39 “I fully agree with Mr. Zhang’s description of China’s modern social development track, especially his ‘valley bottom theory’, which is a completely novel proposal.” Zhang Haipeng’s valley bottom theory and his description of the development of modern Chinese society is a most vivid and scientific explanation of modern social development. Zhang’s description makes people clearly see the track of modern Chinese social development, not only the

58  ZHANG Haipeng humiliations and disasters confronting modern society, but also its power and direction in its progress; accordingly people could have a scientific understanding of modern society. This is a great contribution Zhang has made to the macro research of modern Chinese history.40 As for at what stage should the “valley bottom” of modern China’s “falling” be identified, there were different views. Some believed that it should be somewhere between the Sino-​Japanese War of 1894 and the signing of the Peace Protocol of 1901;41 some argued that it should be during the Japanese invasion of China between 1931 and 1945.42 There were also scholars who questioned the “valley bottom theory.” They argued that “the ‘valley bottom theory’ is only partially correct, due to the fact that it has completely denied or underestimated the victory and success of the Revolution of 1911 and its historical significance as a epoch-​making milestone.”43 It seems that it is of great significance to continue discussion on the “falling” and “rising” as well as the “valley bottom” of modern China in order to understand its historical development track or trend and what essentially characterizes modern Chinese history. It is therefore necessary and worth advocating further academic contention and exploration.

2.4  The nature of Chinese society and the issue of “farewell to revolution” It is a Marxist proposition to judge the social nature of a certain stage in human history. Lenin was the first to have put forward a view on the nature of modern Chinese society. Lenin put forward the theory of colony and semi-​ colony according to the characteristics of imperialism.44 As early as 1912 and 1919, Lenin mentioned in his articles that China was a semi-​feudal and semi-​ colonial country. But Lenin talked of the two “semis’ ” in the light of the transitional society, making no further argument. It was accepted in China after the founding of the Communist Party of China.45 In July 1922, the word “semi-​ colony” began to appear in the “Resolutions on ‘the International Imperialism and China and the Communist Party of China’ ” and “Resolutions on the Parliamentary Action” adopted at the Second National Congress of the Communist Party of China. In September of the same year, Cai Hesen clearly used the concepts of “semi-​colony” and “semi-​feudalism” in his accounting for the nature of Chinese society in his articles such as “Unification, debt borrowing and Kuomintang” and “Unification by force and inter-​provincial autonomy: warlord dictatorship and warlord separatism.” Around this period of time, Chen Duxiu, Cai Hesen, Deng Zhongxia, Xiao Chunü, Li Dazhao, Luo Yinong and others all clearly recognized China as a semi-​colonial society. In 1926, Cai Hesen mentioned “semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal China” and “semi-​feudal and semi-​colonial country” in his “The development of the history of the Communist Party of China (an outline),” which is the earliest

Theories and methods  59 complete expression that has so far been found to have combined the two “semi’s” concepts. It was in February of 1929 that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China formally put forward the complete concept of semi-​colony and semi-​feudalism in its own document as the “No. 28 Notice of the Central Committee: The strategies of the peasant movement,” which was issued after the Sixth National Congress of the Communist Party of China.46 At the same time, there was a big debate on the nature of Chinese society. The School of New Thoughts, representing theorists under the guidance of Marxism and Leninism, has engaged itself in a long-​term theoretical struggle against the Power School of Chinese Trotskyists and the New Life School of Kuomintang scholars, having seriously examined and theorized about the nature of Chinese society and revolution. From 1938 to 1940, Mao Zedong, having successively published guiding works such as “The War and strategic issues,” “The Chinese revolution and the Communist Party of China,” and “On the New Democracy,” has provided a systematic, scientific and correct account for the nature of Chinese society. He has pointed out that “since the Opium Wars of 1840, China has gradually become a semi-​colonial and semi-​ feudal society,” when imperialist powers invaded China, on the one hand, this led to the disintegration of China’s feudal society and the occurrence of capitalist factors, transforming a feudal society into a semi-​feudal society; on the other hand, they were ruling China cruelly, transforming an independent China into a semi-​colonial and colonial China.47 The characteristics of China are: it is not an independent democratic country, but a semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal country; there is no democratic system with in, but it is oppressed by the feudal system; there is no national independence on the outside, but it is oppressed by imperialism.48 This is the most classical expression of the social nature of modern China. Mao Zedong stressed more than once that only by recognizing the nature of Chinese society can we recognize the object, the task, the driving force, and the nature of the Chinese revolution, as well as its future and transformation. In a word, only by recognizing the social nature of China can the basic law of the development of modern Chinese history be solved. Since then, the theoretical workers of the Communist Party of China, as well as the historiographers willing to accept the guidance of Marxism under the promotion of the success of the Chinese revolution, have all agreed that modern China is a semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society in terms of its social nature.49 The view above was not without questioning and challenging. It was held by some that imperialism “destroyed China’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, but did not and could not change China’s social nature.” Therefore, China had still been a feudal society before the Revolution of 1911, and thereafter, China became a semi-​feudal or semi-​capitalist society (some also held that it was a capitalist society). Before and after the Revolution

60  ZHANG Haipeng of 1911, China was not a semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society in any case. Therefore, it seemed necessary to re-​examine whether the term “semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society” is an appropriate one. There were also people who directly questioned and refuted the theory of “two semis’.” They thought that the theory of “two semi’s” was a “mistake” and “thus delayed the completion of our historical task of anti-​feudalism.”50 A researcher, when asked by a reporter in an interview “Do you mean that we should deny the theoretical generalization of semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society and put forward a new generalization to break through the existing framework of modern history and explore a new framework?” answered “obviously, there is such an intention. To re-​examine the formulation of ‘semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal’ is to find a theoretical foundation for designing a new framework of modern history.”51 Such being the case, the issue has been raised to the point of severe acuteness. The skeptics said that they meant to “find the theoretical foundation for designing a new framework of modern history.” But what is it that they want to design? Have they found the theoretical foundation to support it? Nothing has come out. However, we have become confused as in what way the theory of “semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal” has “delayed” the completion of the historical task of anti-​feudalism. It has been pointed out before that in the revolution, with a clear understanding of the nature of Chinese society, we can also appreciate the task and object of the Chinese revolution. It is to fight against imperialism and feudalism, which is determined by the nature of semi-​ colonial and semi-​ feudal society. Does the frequently-​ referred-​ to “overthrowing the three mountains” not mean having completed the revolutionary task of anti-​imperialism and anti-​feudalism? We would like to ask that if we abandon the theoretical formulation of the “semi-​colonial and semi-​feudalism,” can we correctly adhere to the view of anti-​imperialism and anti-​feudalism in the study of modern Chinese history? In the discussion of semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society, one difference deserves attention. The semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society as a social form and a good fit for modern Chinese society is a transitional social form, and appropriately reflects the political, economic and cultural conditions of modern Chinese society. As a social form, it is inseparable. Another view is that semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal are not complementary but opposite to each other, as the former is formulated in terms of the national status and latter in terms of semi-​capitalism. This difference is very big. In the light of such views any party of difference may come to a distinct conclusion about modern Chinese history. Different approaches can be adopted in analysis of the issue of the semi-​ colony and semi-​feudalism in modern China from the perspective of either theoretical formulation or historical practice. Yet any theoretical analysis must only be based on historical practice. Any analysis removed from historical practice is but a pedantic view and thus unreliable. What is the historical practice of the new democratic revolution in modern China? It is based

Theories and methods  61 precisely on the correct understanding and analysis of the nature of China’s society that the strategies and tactics of the new democratic revolution are formulated, and that its revolutionary object, force and future are clearly defined. The founding of the People’s Republic of China and the choice of the socialist road are all results of this historical practice. If removed from this historical practice, how can all those conjectured theories be consistent with historical practice? Historical research is an exploration based on historical facts. Without historical facts, it is impossible to achieve anything except by speculation. Since the 1950s, there have been many debates on revolutions and reforms in modern Chinese history. The debate in the 1980s mainly touched upon how to evaluate the reformists or reformism correctly. The debate at that time was generally positive about the roles of the revolutions. The question was how to evaluate the historical role of reformists, which mainly involved the evaluation of the Reform Movement of 1898 and the roles of the constitutionalist movement, the constitutionalists, the Council and the Consultative Bureau in the late Qing Dynasty. In the early stage, the evaluation of reformists was relatively negative. But since the 1980s, the evaluation of reformists has become increasingly simple and truth-​seeking. I  talked about the issue in the first volume of the General History of Modern China. Looking back on history, we can see that reforms and revolutions are different choices of the modern Chinese in their endeavors to transform China. Although their historical destinies in modern China are different, their progressive roles in promoting modern Chinese history shall not be obliterated. Of course, this does not mean that reforms and revolutions should be treated as equal. One view tends to see the revolution and reform as the two wheels to drive modern Chinese history. Such a view needs to be placed under examination. What are the two wheels? Two wheels rolling forward at the same time drive the cart forward. Is it true that the revolution and reform are such two wheels promoting modern Chinese history at the same time? We need to make a specific analysis based on facts and theories. What is the relationship between revolution and reform? In terms of the progress of social history, both revolution and reform are the driving force for its advancement. While reform is normal, revolution is abnormal. Every country, or every era, is always in a state of reformation. Otherwise, society would stagnate and be unable to move forward. So reform often exists. But it is not the case for social revolution, which does not always exist, as a society could not always be in the state of revolution. If so, the society would be sick. It is true that revolution is not the only driving force for the advancement of social history. Revolution takes place under certain conditions, and it is not made to happen at will. Social reform, in contrast, is a common form of social development. When the class contradiction is not intensified, the solution to the conflict of social class interests is often obtained through class compromise and reconciliation, whereas the solution to the conflict of social political interests is often obtained through various social reforms. While class

62  ZHANG Haipeng reconciliations and social reforms can also promote social development, they only operate in the same social system. If the old system is to be overthrown and a new system established, class reconciliation and social reforms are of no avail, and can only give way to revolutionary means. Only by revolution can social development change qualitatively. Therefore, revolution is the fundamental driving force of social development, if it is not the only one. It is obviously an anti-​historicist attitude to deny revolution and to sing the praise of social reform without principle. Since revolution is the fundamental driving force of social development, it can promote the historical development in qualitative changes, whereas reform is not aimed at overthrowing a social system. It is carried out within the scope permitted by the social system. In today’s words, it is carried out within the system. Therefore, a real revolutionist does not refuse to reform, but a reformist often refuses revolution. It is also often the case that revolution may break out when a society cannot continue its reform, or when the society does not allow any reform. From this point of view, reform prepares conditions and accumulates energy for revolution. In this case, the people who carry out reform and the people who carry out revolution are often not in the same group.52 These words, in general, sum up the common knowledge having thus been acquired in many debates. In today’s view, it seems fair to draw such a conclusion. However, in the 1990s, there was once a view of “farewell to revolution.” Such a theory had existed in Western society for a long time before it began to appear in China in the mid-​1990s. It seems that Li Zehou was the first advocate. In 1994, Li Zehou said in a conversation: the Revolution of 1911 was a mess, a result of radicalism. ... Following the Revolution of 1911, revolutions arose one after another: the Second Revolution (1913), the Movement to Protect the Nation and Constitution (1917–​1922), the Great Revolution (1924–​1927), and finally the revolution of 1949. After that, Mao Zedong would still continue to carry out revolution ... nowadays we should reverse this concept clearly: “revolution” is not necessarily a good thing in China.53 In 1995, Li Zehou and Liu Zaifu published a book entitled Farewell to Revolution in Hong Kong China when they were “looking back at China in the twentieth century.” The book denies almost all the revolutions in history, and certainly all the revolutions in modern China. They declared that reform is better than revolution. This little book is a record of conversations. It presents no theoretical basis or argument, but reflects the speakers’ aversion to revolution. This is not a misunderstanding of theory or academic direction, but a wrong political standing. I have once pointed out in a comment: what is behind “farewell to revolution”? To oppose the French Revolution is to oppose the October Revolution;

Theories and methods  63 to oppose the Revolution of 1911 is to oppose the New Democratic Revolution of the Communist Party of China. Such is their purpose in their attempt to “reflect on the whole modern history of China.” They wanted to make some changes in their anti-​Communist and anti-​socialist strategies, for which they tried to “give up the radical social/​political critical discourse and to adopt the cultural conservative discourse,” “a metaphorization of some ideological intention.” This is not clear enough. In the foreword of Farewell to Revolution the purpose of the statement is fully stated: “this set of thoughts is exactly the most effective way and form to deconstruct the revolutionary theory and the deeply rooted orthodox ideology of this century.” So it is. The revolutionary history of modern China would thus be denied, the revolutionary theories of the twentieth century deconstructed, the anti-​ imperialist and anti-​feudal consequently unjustified, and the founding of the People’s Republic of China would lose its rationality. In this way, would socialism with Chinese characteristics and the socialist market economy not lose all their validity?54 The view in Farewell to Revolution is a manifestation of historical nihilism, which has a wide influence in the field of ideology and culture, and thus warrants our caution. It needs to be pointed out here that historical research is supposed to seek truth from historical facts, that is, to make objective observations on existing facts, events, people and their behavior in history, in an attempt to propose understanding and specify historical reference for future generations. Revolutions and reforms are events that took place in history. The task of historians is to study the origin and development of revolutions and reforms, and to evaluate their impact on the historical development of the present time and later generations.

2.5  The late Qing history and its relationship with modern Chinese history and some understanding of the “New Qing History” The study of the late Qing Dynasty is not only a basic component of the historical study of the Qing Dynasty, but also a basic component of modern Chinese history study. There is no doubt about it today. But such a viewpoint was not made clear until Jiang Tao published his study of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty in 1999 (the fifth issue of Modern History Study). When people talked about the history of the Qing Dynasty, they actually did not include the 20 years after Daoguang’s reign. When people talked about the modern history of China, they often referred to the history of China after 1840. It seems that the history of the late Qing Dynasty is not within the scope of the study of Qing history. When the national project of the Qing history compilation was about to start, I attended a symposium. A renowned scholar of Qing history presented a reference list of Qing history works, which were all before Jiaqing’s reign (1796–​1820). I asked whether the period of time after that should be included in Qing history, to which the historian gave no answer.

64  ZHANG Haipeng At that time, a scholar who is now undertaking an important task in the compilation of Qing history said that he was not suitable for the post in the Qing history project. The basic reason was that his major was in modern Chinese history. It can be seen that at that time, there was a barrier between modern Chinese history and Qing history, and there was a boundary as well in the minds of researchers. From the perspective of disciplinary division, there is a certain distinction between the history of Qing Dynasty and modern Chinese history. Such a distinction manifests itself mainly since 1949, when modern Chinese history has been formed as an independent discipline, when the Research Institute of Modern History in the newly established Chinese Academy of Sciences was first set up, and when modern Chinese history is generally taught in various universities as an independent course. In the universities, history before Jiaqing’s reign is taught as ancient Chinese history, and history after Daoguang’s reign is taught as modern Chinese history. The distinction between late Qing Dynasty history and modern Chinese history is naturally formed among scholars. No one particularly has yet discussed the distinction between late Qing Dynasty history and modern Chinese history, and no administrative department has ever expressed views on it. This is a natural course of discipline growth. The research object of modern Chinese history has experienced a process of evolution. For a long time, most scholars regarded Chinese history from 1840 to 1919 as modern Chinese history. In the past 20 years, most scholars regarded Chinese history from 1840 to 1949 as the modern history of China. No matter how the research object of modern Chinese history evolves, the late Qing history from the Opium Wars to the overthrow of the Qing emperor is included in the scope of modern Chinese history. In other words, the history of the late Qing Dynasty belongs to the modern history of China. Observing the history of the late Qing Dynasty from the perspective of modern Chinese history, from the beginning of the Opium Wars in 1840 China witnessed a turbulent change that had not been seen for thousands of years, namely the invasion by Western forces, the eastward spread of Western thought, the decline of Confucianism, the change in social nature, the unsettling of thought among all personages from the grassroots to high-​ranking officials, and a society seriously disturbed. Along with foreign aggression, there were incessant foreign and domestic wars. From the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and Westernization Movement, through the Reform Movement of 1898, the Boxer Movement, to the revolution advocated and promoted by the Chinese T’ung-​meng Hui (China Alliance Committee), and to the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty and the establishment of the Republic of China, Chinese society had changed from “falling” to “rising.” When Western machines and capitalist production technologies were transplanted to China, production modes in China began to change, and new class forces and new knowledge groups, such as the working class, the bourgeoisie, and the new intellectual groups different from those conceived by traditional scholars

Theories and methods  65 emerged gradually in China from the Reform Movement of 1898. Meanwhile all kinds of social groups were in full swing for China’s reform and revolution. These new social forces were different from the traditional ones. This is also an important sign of the transformation of Chinese society from “falling” to “rising.” If we look at late Qing history from the perspective of Qing history, the picture may be slightly different. From the beginning of the Opium Wars in the twentieth year of the Daoguang reign, China witnessed turbulent change which has been described above. High-​ranking officials and dignitaries having lost in their luxurious life and self-​enjoyment, concentrated only on how to retain the imperial court and how to keep their official positions. They often turned a blind eye to the voice of the people to reform the government, but instead adopted a policy of repression for peasant uprisings or revolutionary actions. From the perspective of the Qing government, Chinese society was in a state of “falling.” High above in the court there was no serious reflection, no countermeasures, no enterprise, no sense of crisis, and opportunities for development were missed so many times. The so-​called development opportunity has three meanings. First, it had to develop. Second, there must be international comparison. Third, the opportunities must be seized. The so-​called seizure of opportunity refers to the conscious understanding and practice of the decision-​makers. There was no lack of development opportunities for ate Qing society. Owing to the fact that the decision-​makers at that time failed to understand the necessity of developing themselves rapidly to catch up with the advanced countries in the world, and even failed to grasp the opportunity when it came, the late Qing Dynasty was to suffer a series of tragedies and episodes of being beaten due to its backwardness. This is a painful lesson from history. Although the Opium Wars brought a blow to China, the rulers did not understand the seriousness of the situation. The imperial court was still ignorant of world affairs. Even after the Nanjing Treaty was signed, Emperor Daoguang still had no idea of where and how far Britain was. Although Lin Zexu and Wei Yuan acquired a correct understanding of “learning from the advantages of foreigners to counteract them,” and they also wrote the book Records and Maps of the World States which introduced the history and geography of foreign countries, the book caused a sensation in Japan but received no reaction in China. It was not until the peasant uprising of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom that the Taiping army became invincible with its forces active in most of China. Meanwhile Britain and France started the second Opium War and attacked Beijing city. When Emperor Xianfeng had to flee to Rehe with the excuse of “hunting in the north,” the Qing government began to feel the “strong ships and powerful armaments” of foreign countries. However, the highest ruling personages still thought that these were simply “troubles of limbs,” and what really mattered as “troubles closest to heart” was the peasant uprising. After the peasant uprising of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was completely suppressed, there followed more than 20 years of

66  ZHANG Haipeng relative peace in China. With the upper ruling class being more aware of the development gap between China and foreign countries, and the regime being relatively stable, new possibilities of development could have arisen had the imperial government grasped the opportunity of self-​development. It was at this time that Japan laid the foundation for the development of capitalism through the Meiji Restoration. Some of the high-​ranking officials in China, such as Yi Xin, the Minister of Military Affairs, Zeng Guofan and Li Hongzhang, all governors, initiated the new deal of Westernization, engaging in building ships and cannons and developing military industries, which were followed by a few non-​military ones both state and privately owned under governmental supervision. These people tried to make some changes only in terms of instrument, but not in terms of ideology and social system to seek the prosperity of the people and the country. Even such partial changes failed to have reached the consensus of the ruling class as a whole. They were confronted with opposition from many diehards, opposing groups, and many others from the highest to the lowest in the whole country. The Dowager Empress Cixi, the supreme ruler, was in the middle, and had no definite opinion. This was contrary to what happened to the Japanese ruling class after the Meiji Restoration. A chance to develop was thus missed. In the Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​1895, the whole Beiyang navy was annihilated, together with the shattering of the dream of seeking wealth and strength embraced by the leaders of Westernization. The second opportunity for development in the late Qing era came during the Reform Movement of 1898. The intellectuals were stimulated and enlightened by the national crisis after the Sino-​Japanese War before their entry into official careers. By delivering lectures and running newspapers, organizing meetings and forming associations, they gathered strength, and at the same time, gave publicity to and indoctrinated the masses with new knowledge, hoping to change the government and ideology and develop capitalism in the country from bottom to top and then from top to bottom. Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao were representatives of these people. It happened that the young Emperor Guangxu wanted to consolidate his position of being in charge of the government and get rid of the dowager empress together with those old and important officials, which is why he joined up with Kang and Liang in launching the Reform Movement of 1898. However, the reform lasted only 100 days. Cixi and her group launched a palace coup, imprisoned Guangxu and executed the Six Gentlemen of 1898, having aborted the prospect of reform and made China once again lose the opportunity of development. The emperor still could not control the real power of the court. Those scholars who were in exile called on each other in the name of protecting the emperor, but came to no avail. On the tenth day of the twelfth month of Chinese calendar in the twenty-​ sixth year of Guangxu’s reign (1900), the Qing government issued an edict of reform in the name of Guangxu emperor, in which it was specially pointed out that

Theories and methods  67 Her Majesty’s instruction thought that taking the advantages of foreign countries could make up for the shortcomings of China, and punishing the losses of the past could serve as a guide for the future. Since the years of Dingchou and Wuyin (1877–​1878), false debates have prevailed and led to preposterous division of old and new. The calamity brought about by Kang the insubordinate is even worse than that of the Boxers. Now that they fled overseas, they still attempted to seduce people on rebellion. Moreover, they plotted to sow discord in the royal court by spreading the evil words of protecting the emperor and Chinese races. The people need to know that Kang’s talk about the new law is but chaotic, not reform in any sense. ... In fact, the Dowager Empress’s intention is to eliminate treason while allowing for renovation.55 That is to say, Dowager Empress Cixi was not opposed to taking the advantages of foreign countries to make up for the shortcomings of China. After having cut off the “rebellion” of Kang and Liang, she did agree to reform and renovation. This is Dowager Empress Cixi’s self-​defense in the new situation. This shows that she was not against political reform, but reluctant to have Emperor Guangxu, Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao presiding over the reform. She would carry out the reform according to her own will and grab it in her own hand. What was essentially meant was to carry out reform on the premise of maintaining imperial power. At the beginning of the twentieth century, China came across its third development opportunity. A  complex situation arose about who would take the opportunity. The rulers at court and the revolutionaries and constitutionalists out of office all wanted to seize this opportunity, all having performed their own different tragicomedies. The invasion of China by the allied forces of the eight powers left a profound lesson for the rulers of the Qing Dynasty. They realized that it was difficult to maintain their rule in the old way and were determined to implement the new deal. From 1901 to 1911, the Qing government did have considerable action in implementing the new deal. Very little opposition to the implementation of the new deal was seen from the ministers at court, and almost no faction against the reform existed. This is fundamentally different from the two previous new deals. The Qing government not only sent five ministers to Eastern and Western countries to investigate politics (this was an indicator of admitting that its own politics was inferior to that of others), but also made great strides in the reform of politics, military affairs, the economy, education and the legal system, having issued a large number of policies, decrees, rules and regulations. Some measures had shaken the root of the Qing Dynasty’s rule, such as announcing the preparation of a constitution, setting up an advisory council in the central government and a consultative bureau in each province, expanding the expression of public opinions, and making some innovations to the official system; encouraging the capitalists to invest in industrial and commercial enterprises, encouraging the development of capitalists, promoting the current organization of capitalists due to

68  ZHANG Haipeng general development of the chambers of commerce, abolishing the imperial examination in education, establishing a new school system by founding primary and secondary schools to the formation of a new talent training mechanism, and conducting legal system reform in which the traditional mix of politics with law, and confusion of legislation with justice were overwhelmed. All these contrasted to a great extent with the previous two new deals. Had such a new deal been implemented 40 years earlier, China’s development path might have been different, and a Chinese style Meiji Restoration would not have been impossible. However, the new deal was carried out under the historical conditions in which new class forces were rising in China. Being more conscious of the widening gap between China and foreign countries in their development, the new intellectual group demanded greater reform. However, the supreme ruler had a firm will to defend the imperial power, and would not allow its Grand Council, a most powerful governing body that embodied imperial power, to be affected by any reform, having delayed for too long a time the preparation of the constitution. At the same time, the royal nobles and their relations stepped up their control of political power, especially the newly trained army, which offended the constitutionalists who were keen on constitutional monarchy, and aggravated the conflict between the Manchu and the Han people. With the Qing government being totally opposed to the revolutionaries, and the reform being aimed at consolidating imperial power and preventing revolution, it was finally regarded as a failure under the joint attack of the revolutionaries and the constitutionalists, having made the Qing government lose its last chance of development through reform. But this time, the loss of a development opportunity was fatal to the Qing Dynasty. Under the joint attack of revolutionaries and constitutionalists, it lost the legitimacy of its rule and was finally forced to collapse. Observed from the perspective of the history of the Qing Dynasty, the late Qing period is a history of “falling,” a history of decline. On the whole, there are both distinctions and connections between the late Qing period and modern Chinese history. In terms of their distinction, the late Qing period is only a part rather than the whole of modern Chinese history. Their connection is very clear and basic. Observed either from the history of the Qing Dynasty or from the modern Chinese history, the late Qing is the same historical period and the basic research object. From this point of view, we too should be absolute about the distinction. American scholars of the Qing Dynasty put forward the idea of a “new history of the Qing Dynasty,” which is said have aroused profound debate in American academia. In recent years, the so-​called “New Qing History” school has also attracted attention and reviews in China. In my knowledge Chinese scholars are quite skeptical or even not in favor of the so-​called “New Qing History.” I have read no more than a few comments on and introductions to the works of the “New Qing History.” In the study of the “New Qing History,” it advocates the study of the Manchu as the dominant nationality in China by

Theories and methods  69 using Manchu files and other nationalities’ writings, while emphasizing the contribution of the Manchu in the establishment of Qing Dynasty China, and the study of the “Manchu character” of Qing Dynasty rulers. Though such advocates are positive to some extent for the study of Qing history, their significance should not be overestimated, rather, the basic academic tendency of the “New Qing History” is questionable. Some review comments that they are “extraordinary” and “challenging” are quite unrealistic. The major problem with the “New Qing History” lies in its view that the Manchurian Empire was not equal to China, and that China was only a part of the Manchurian Empire. Such a statement is a castle in the air that is supported by no historical evidence. It is a made-​up illusion and a reflection of the Western world’s outlook on the study of Chinese history. It is not praiseworthy. The comments of He Bingdi, a Chinese American historian, are worthy of attention. Chinese scholars Liu Xiaomeng and Huang Xingtao also gave their academic comments successively.56 Liu Fengyun and Liu Wenpeng edited National Identity of the Qing Dynasty:  Research and Contending on the “New Qing History,” a collection of debates of American scholars on the “New Qing History” and the responses of Chinese scholars.57 And in 2009 the Institute of Qing History of Renmin University in China held an international seminar on the “New Qing History.” The proceedings of the conference were entitled Political and National Identity of the Qing Dynasty, which was a collection of many scholars’ opinions.58 Some scholars began to apply the view of “New Qing History” to the study of the Qing history. A review article on the Translation and Collation of the Manchu-​Language Archives in Qianlong’s Reign (referred to as the Manchu-​ Language Archives hereinafter) analyzed and introduced the historical value of the book. It is doubtful whether the research has reached expectations as the author intended to introduce the book with the viewpoint and method of “New Qing History.” According to the author, the Manchu-​Language Archives is a collection of “important files of records and copies of the emperor’s edicts on letters at the Grand Council of the Qing, for which there are no replica copies in Chinese, so their value is beyond any doubt.” The author believes that “the New Qing History is undoubtedly a great challenge, which needs to be verified and dealt with after an in-​depth study of Qing history, especially Manchu archives.”59 The article suggests that the Manchu letters of the Qianlong Reign reflect the political, military, national, diplomatic and many other historical facts of the northwest frontiers and the northeast, especially the ethnic affairs of the frontiers, as well as the relations between the frontier areas and foreign countries. In the absence of their corresponding Chinese copies, they are of great significance to the study of the historical materials of the Qing Dynasty. The author also points out, citing other researchers of “New Qing History,” that “Manchu archives play an important role in reconstructing more complete pictures of politics, society, economy and culture on different levels in the Qing Dynasty.” Such being indeed the view of the so-​called “New Qing History” school, it is equivalent to saying nothing.

70  ZHANG Haipeng It is clear that no matter in China or in the United States, the study of Qing history needs to pay attention to Manchu archives, which has never been doubted. Have the scholars of the Qing Dynasty ever doubted this? Never. It has always been the aim of the Qing history researchers to explore Manchu archives and work on their arrangement, editing and translation.60 According to the viewpoint of “New Qing History” quoted in the Manchu-​ Language Archives, “the New Qing History” thinks that Manchu people had never lost the idea that they were a special group in Qing society. The reason why they could maintain minority rule is mainly because they were able to take advantage of the Chinese political tradition on the one hand and maintain their unique identity on the other. But to the historians of Qing history, there is nothing new in such a view. The Manchu provided the rulers throughout the Qing Dynasty, and during the period there was no lack of contradictions between Manchu and Han people in Chinese society. Even till 1909, when the three-​year-​old Xuantong succeeded to the throne, his father, Zaifeng, as the Regent still rejected the Han ministers. The so-​called responsible cabinet established in May 1911 was actually the “Imperial Cabinet” or the “Imperial Noble Cabinet” which excluded the Han ministers. This is a strong indicator of the Manchu people maintaining their unique identity while ruling. Of course, it is also the what had accelerated the collapse of the Manchu Dynasty. In the section title “The research value of the New Qing History in the Manchu-​Language Archives of the Qianlong Reign,” the author points out several facts: first, the letters in the archives did not use the words Zhongguo or Zhonghua (China, Chinese), but instead used “the Great Qing Empire.” The author believes that “referring itself to the ‘Great Qing Empire’ does not mean that it does not represent China, which is similar to other self-​referring expressions such as the ‘Great Ming’ in place of China.” It should be said that the “Great Qing” is just like the “Great Tang,” the “Great Song,” the “Great Yuan” and “Great Ming,” all having inherited the naming tradition after the change of dynasties in China. Second, “in the external account in the Manchu-​Language Archives, the word ‘Tianchao’ (the Heavenly Kingdom) occurs in large numbers.” The author points out that since the word Tianchao is a Chinese word, and traditionally represents China, it continues to retain its usage and meaning of China. It is hard for us to come to the conclusion that Tianchao here refers to the “Great Qing” instead of China. The above two points serve to demonstrate the “China identity” of the Manchu rulers. And at this crucial point, we cannot see any unique Manchu characteristics deviating from such an identity. According to Huang Xingtao’s research, the inscription contained in Volume 143 of the True Record of the Kangxi Emperor of the Qing Dynasty shows that in Kangxi’s Reign the word the “Great Qing” had been used in exactly the same sense as in China. There

Theories and methods  71 is no doubt that “Manchuria” became a sign of ethnic identity of the Manchu people after they entered the Shanhai Pass, and it is fundamentally different from its self-​referring Zhongguo (China) as the national identity.61 While it is acknowledged in The Manchu-​Language Archives that Manchu was the national language of the Qing Dynasty, and Manchu and Mongolian officials who were responsible for the Eight Banners affairs and the ethnic minorities in the border areas generally wrote official documents in Manchu, and they were not allowed to use Chinese without permission, and that Manchu was also used in official documents concerning imperial edicts, decrees, letters and the writings of various departments, it has been indicated that “the Sinicization of Manchu is also an obvious fact.” The conclusion of the section refutes the viewpoint of “New Qing History” in every aspect. It is therefore quite revealing that the view of “New Qing History” is inadequately justified. The “New Qing History” is a proposition put forward by some young scholars of Qing history in the United States, and it has also aroused controversies in the United States. In my opinion, “New Qing History” is nothing new as it seems to suggest. It is not necessarily accurate to say that “its emergence has posed a challenge to the study of Qing history to some extent.”62 The researchers of “New Qing History” only emphasized the history of the early Qing Dynasty, but failed to observe the history of the late Qing. Looking at the history of the Qing Dynasty, the defects of “New Qing History” are evident. The “New Qing History” paid close attention to the study of the development of the border areas in the early Qing Dynasty, and it is partially justified to transfer the study of Qing history from the Central Plains to the border areas. But the border areas in the late Qing Dynasty were the very object of the invasion of capitalist powers. How would this be accounted for in the “New Qing History”? If the “New Qing History” is referred to as a school, it should have a consistent interpretation system for all Qing history. In fact, such a system can never be found. From an objective academic standpoint, it is not necessary to overemphasize either Han chauvinism or Manchu chauvinism in the study of Qing history. In opposition to Han chauvinism, it is not necessary to deny the Sinicization of Manchu, which is a slow and long-​ term process. The so-​called Sinicization mainly refers to the overall absorption and promotion of Han culture by the Manchu ruling class, and the gradual disappearance of Manchu as a language and in texts from political and daily life. Such an emphasis does not mean that “the Manchu characteristics” of the Manchu ruling class have disappeared. As the ruling class of the Qing Dynasty, the Manchu people have always been wary of the Han people and restricted them politically. The establishment of a “Royal Cabinet” is an obvious sign. Meanwhile, it is not necessary to avoid the Sinicization of the Manchu when concentrating on the Manchu nationality. In the long-​term historical development, the Han people have maintained a significantly higher level of economic and cultural development than the ethnic minorities. And in the development of Chinese history, there have been conflicts, collisions

72  ZHANG Haipeng and integration of various ethnic groups for thousands of years. In such a process, the Han people have certainly learned and absorbed many cultural components from other ethnic groups. But on the whole, the highly developed Han culture has become the main target for other ethnic groups to learn and absorb. It is just like capitalism having reached its maturity. It is the economic culture that is obviously higher than that of pre-​capitalism. Under the promotion of gunboat policy, the economic culture of capitalism has influenced all nations in the world. The Han economic culture, as highly developed as it is claimed, is also affected, and the Manchu culture is no exception. At the International Symposium on “Politics and National Identity during the Qing Dynasty” held by the Institute of Qing History of Renmin University in China in 2009, Mark C. Elliott, a professor in the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilization at Harvard University and a representative scholar of the school of the New Qing History, said that the “New Qing History” is hardly a school, but a vision or trend of thought. His personal research only emphasizes that Manchu people’s success was not only due to Sinicization, but also because of their maintaining strong Manchu characteristics. Talking about the debate between He Bingdi and Luo Youzhi more than ten years ago, he was much convinced by the former’s point of view. In his view, Qing history is indeed a part of Chinese history, and the Qing Dynasty and China are inseparable.63 This impromptu speech almost subverted the basic idea of the “New Qing History” school, and made the research return to the right track of Qing history study. It may be people’s instinct in the pursuit of knowledge to go after the new at the expense of the old. However, analysis and judgment need to be made on anything new. Some studies are just new wine in old bottles. Some have poison in their “newness,” and some are even real innovations. In the study of political history of the late Qing Dynasty, we need to innovate and have new research perspectives and new theories and methods. Yet it is not genuinely advisable to seek everything that is claimed as new theory in foreign countries while discarding all the old. The study of political history of the late Qing Dynasty should not follow the trend, nor be blinded by the so-​called “New Qing History.” Chinese scholars should have academic confidence.

Notes 1 Hu Sheng, The periodization problem of Modern Chinese history, in Collected Discussions on the Periodization Problem of Modern Chinese History. The SDX Joint Publishing Company, 1957, p.2. Here, Hu Sheng refers to Li Taifen’s A New Century History of China, 1924; Meng Shijie’s The Recent History of China, 1926. 2 Ibid. Hu Sheng here refers to Hua Gang’s History of China’s National Liberation Movement (Revised Edition), 1951, and Fan Wenlan’s Modern History of China (Vol.I), 1947, both attempting to account for history in the light of Marxist class analysis. 3 Ibid, p.4.

Theories and methods  73 4 Ibid., p.7. 5 Sun Shouren, Discussion on the periodization of modern Chinese history, in Collected Discussions on the Periodization Problem of Modern Chinese History, p. 15. 6 Huang Yiliang, A  review of Sun Shouren’s discussion on the periodization of modern Chinese History, in Collected Discussions on the Periodization of Modern Chinese History, p.43. 7 Jin Chongji, Opinions on the periodization of modern Chinese history, in Collected Discussions on the Periodization Problem of Modern Chinese History, p.45. 8 Fan Wenlan, The periodization of modern Chinese history, in Collected Discussions on the Periodization Problem of Modern Chinese History, p.98. 9 Li Shiyue, From Westernization and reform to the bourgeois revolution, Historical Research, 1980 (1). 10 Li Shiyue, My opinion on the main clues of modern Chinese history and their indicators, Historical Research, 1984 (2). 11 Ibid. 12 Hu Bin, Breaking the rules and opening up the horizons, Journal of Literature, History and Philosophy, 1983 (1), a column about the basic clues to modern Chinese history (written talks). 13 The research on the bourgeoisie in modern China in the field of domestic historiography, Historical Research, 1983 (4). According to the citation notes in the article, this text segment was written by Li Shiyue and Hu bin in their article “On the Westernization Movement,” which was published in the People’s Daily on March 12, 1981. The passage quoted in the above materials is different from the original text, but it does not violate the author’s original meaning, nor can it be regarded as a summary of the author’s original meaning. 14 Hu Bin, Breaking the rules and opening up the horizons, Journal of Literature, History and Philosophy, 1983 (1), a column about the basic clues of modern Chinese history (written talks). 15 Li Shiyue, My opinion on the main clues of Modern Chinese history and their indicators, Historical Research, 1984 (2). 16 Su Shuangbi, Clues to the development of modern Chinese history, Guangming Daily, November 9, 1983. 17 Yuan Shuyi, On the progressive trend of modern China, Modern Chinese History Studies, 1984 (2). 18 Zhang Haipeng, The “two processes” and related issues in modern Chinese history, Historical Research, 1984 (4). 19 Rong Mengyuan, On the two processes of modern Chinese history, History Teaching, 1984 (7). 20 Qi Qizhang, Several opinions on the basic clues of modern Chinese history, Historical Research, 1985 (6). 21 Wang Jingyu, The development and under-​development of capitalism in modern China, Historical Research, 1988 (5). 22 Wang Jingyu, The Westernization group’s failure to undertake the historical task of developing Chinese capitalism, Historical Research, 1985 (4). 23 Jiang Duo, On the nature of the Westernization enterprises, Historical Research, 1985 (6). 24 Zhang Haipeng, The “two processes” of modern Chinese history and related issues, in In Pursuit:  An Exploration of the Process of Modern Chinese History, The Social Sciences Literature Press, 1998: pp.14–​15.

74  ZHANG Haipeng 25 Hu Sheng, On the periodization of modern Chinese history, in Collected Discussions on the Periodization Problem of Modern Chinese History, pp.8–​9. 26 Ibid, p.6. 27 Xia Dongyuan, Modern Chinese history should be rewritten, Shanghai Social Sciences, September 22, 1988; The 110 years of modern Chinese history should be demarcated by the Reform of 1898, Historical Research, 1989 (4). 28 Xia Dongyuan, The 110 years of modern Chinese history should be demarcated by the Reform of 1898, Historical Research, 1989 (4). 29 Li Shiyue, My opinion on the main clues of modern Chinese history and their indicators, Historical Research, 1984 (2). 30 Li Shiyue, Several considerations on “Semi-​colonial and Semi-​feudal,” Historical Research, 1988 (1). 31 Zhang Haipeng, The periodization of modern Chinese history and the issues of “falling” and “rising,” Modern History Studies, 1998 (2). 32 Hu Sheng, The periodization of modern Chinese history, in Collected Discussions of the Periodization of Modern Chinese History, pp.4, 7. 33 Zhang Haipeng, The periodization of modern Chinese history and the issues of “falling” and “rising,” Modern History Studies, 1998 (2). 34 Li Shiyue, The evolution of modern Chinese society and the Revolution of 1911, in Proceedings of Symposium on Commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Revolution of 1911, Vol. I, Zhonghua Book Company, 1983, p.173; Li Shiyue, My opinion on the main clues of modern Chinese history and their indicators, Historical Research, 1984 (2). 35 Wang Jingyu, Modern Chinese society, modern bourgeoisie and bourgeois revolution, Historical Research, 1986 (6). 36 Zhang Haipeng, The periodization of modern Chinese history and the issues of “falling” and “rising,” Modern History Studies, 1998 (2). 37 Chen Tiejun, A new theoretical framework of modern Chinese history, Historical Theory Research, 1999 (4). 38 Yuan Chengyi, A re-​exploration of the “valley bottom” of the semi-​colonial abyss in modern China, Journal of Hangzhou Normal University, 2001 (2). 39 Zhang Huateng, An original work on modern Chinese history—​a book review of Modern Chinese History edited by Zhang Haipeng, Yindu Journal, 2001 (3). 40 Zhang Huateng, Several considerations on the development and its track of modern Chinese society: With a discussion with Zhang Haipeng, Yindu Journal, 2003 (2). 41 Ibid. 42 Yuan Chengyi, A re-​exploration of the “valley bottom” of the semi-​colonial abyss in modern China, Journal of Hangzhou Normal University, 2001 (2). 43 Chen Tiejian, A discussion on modern China’s falling on the valley bottom: On reading Pan Rong’s Historical Review of the Northern War Lords, Journal of Historical Science, 2008 (1). 44 Zhao Dexin, Lenin’s theory on semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society, Qinghai Social Sciences, 1984 (4). 45 Sun Yat-​sen’s view that China is a “subcolony” and that the status of a “subcolony” is even inferior to that of colonial India is a misunderstanding of the colonial theory. 46 Chen Jinlong, An analysis of the formation process of the concept of “semi-​ colonial and semi-​feudal,” Modern Chinese History Studies, 1996 (4); Tao Jiyi, The first use of the concept of “semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal,” Modern Chinese

Theories and methods  75 History Studies, 1998 (6); Li Hongyan, The origin and development of semi-​ colonial and semi-​ feudal theory, in The Youth Academic Forum, Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Vol. 2003, Social Sciences Literature Press, 2005. 47 Mao Zedong, Chinese revolution and the Communist Party of China, Selected Works of Mao Zedong, The People’s Publishing House, 1964, pp.620, 624. 48 Mao Zedong, The war and strategic issues, Selected Works of Mao Zedong, p.530. 49 Li Hongyan, The origin and development of semi-​ colonial and semi-​ feudal theory, in The Youth Academic Forum of the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Vol. 2003. 50 Re-​understanding the nature of modern Chinese society, Academic Research, Guangzhou, 1988 (6). The first title of this report is “the authority of Mao Zedong’s ‘two semi’s theory is facing challenges.” 51 Responses to a reporter’s questions on the social nature of modern China, Academic Research, Guangzhou, 1988 (6). 52 Zhang Haipeng, (ed.), General History of Modern China, Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2006, pp.127–​128. 53 Li Zehou and Wang Desheng, Dialogue on cultural status and moral reconstruction, Orient, 1994 (5). 54 Zhang Haipeng, What is the problem with Farewell to Revolution? Contemporary China History Studies, 1996 (6). 55 Donghua Records of the Guangxu’s Reign, Vol. 4, p.4601. 56 Liu Xiaomeng, On the Eight Banners in the history of the Qing Dynasty, The Qing History Journal, 2010 (2); Huang Xingtao, “Chinese Identity” of Manchu in the Qing Dynasty, The Qing History Journal, 2011 (1). 57 Liu Fengyun and Liu Wenpeng (eds.), National Identity of the Qing Dynasty: Research and Contending on the “New Qing History,” China Renmin University Press, 2010. 58 Liu Fengyun, Dong Jianzhong and Liu Wenpeng (eds.), Political and National Identity of the Qing Dynasty, The Social Sciences Literature Press, 2012. 59 Chang Jianhua, Determining the historical values of the Translation and Collation of the Manchu-​Language Archives in Qianlong’s Reign from the perspective of the study of “New Qing History,” Historical Archives, 2011 (1). 60 Wang Zhonghan, Research on Manchu Archives and Qing History, More Research on Qing History, Liaoning University Press, 2001; Wu Yuanfeng, Literature review on Manchu and Manchu ancient documents, Manchu Minority Research, 2008 (1); Wu Yuanfeng, A review on compilation and publication of Manchu archives in recent 100 years—​Focusing on the mainland China, Manchu Minority Research, 2011 (2). 61 Huang Xingtao, Manchu’s “Chinese identity” of Manchu in the Qing Dynasty, The Qing History Journal, 2011 (1). 62 Jia Jianfei, On the New Qing History, Chinese Social Sciences Today, March 16, 2010. 63 Elliot’s speech is quoted in the postscript of The Politics and National Identity in Qing Dynasty by Dong Jianzhong and Liu Wenpeng, pp.870–​871.

3  The political history of the late Qing Dynasty ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao

The political history of the late Qing Dynasty is an important part of modern Chinese history. As “modern times” itself is a relative concept, with the passage of time, the time range of modern Chinese history has changed greatly in the past 60 years. In the 1950s, modern Chinese history basically refers to the period of time from the Opium War in 1840 to the May 4th Movement in 1919. Today, in the twenty-​first century, people who study modern Chinese history have recognized that the period from 1840 to the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 should be placed within the scope of modern history. However, the late Qing Dynasty (from the Opium War in 1840 to the abdication of the Qing emperor in 1912) remains unchanged in modern times, and the political history of the late Qing Dynasty has always been an important part of modern Chinese history. For the study of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty in the past 60 years, this chapter takes the reform and opening up in 1978 and the beginning of the new century in 2000 as the boundaries and roughly divides it into three stages around 1978 and the beginning of the twenty-​first century for a brief account.

3.1  A new system in formation The period between 1949 and 1978, especially the 17 years from 1949 to 1966, is the formation period of the new modern history system. In the period the study, the political history of the late Qing Dynasty was included in the framework of the new system of modern Chinese history, and fruitful results had been achieved. The founding of the people’s Republic of China is the victory of the Communist Party of China, the victory of the Chinese people, and the final result of nearly a hundred years of turmoil and transformation in old disaster-​ridden China. The national ideology inevitably became the guiding principle for the study of modern Chinese history since the late Qing Dynasty, and the study of relevant history also made an indissoluble bond with politics.

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  77 It is a consistent proposition of the Communist Party of China to attach importance to the study of the history of the 100 years or so after the Opium Wars. As early as May 1941, Mao Zedong criticized the style of study that was characterized by the fact “there are some who are proud, instead of ashamed, of knowing nothing or very little of our own history.” He proposed that as for China’s history in the last hundred years, we should assemble qualified persons to study it, in co-​operation and with a proper division of labor, and so overcome the present disorganized state of affairs. First it is necessary to make analytical studies in the fields of economic history, political history, military history and cultural history, and only then will it be possible to make synthetical studies.1 On June 30, 1949, in order to commemorate the twenty-​eighth anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, Mao Zedong published the article “On the people’s democratic dictatorship” on the People’s Daily, having not only narrated chronologically the bitter experience of the pioneering Chinese people’s painstaking but unsuccessful efforts to seek truth from Western countries since the Opium War in 1840, but also summed up all the changes in China ever since the “universally applicable truth” of Marxism-​ Leninism was discovered, and having shown that the Chinese Communists are bound to “lean to one side” and follow the path of the Russians. It is worth noting that Mao Zedong mentioned successively several pioneering Chinese persons who had learned from the West before the birth of the Communist Party of China. Starting from the failure of the Opium War in 1840, these pioneers had attempted to seek truth from the West going through many ups and downs. They were Hong Xiuquan, Kang Youwei, Yan Fu and Sun Yat-​sen.2 Of these four persons, one was the king of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, two were major proponents of the Reform Movement of 1898, and the other was the leader of the 1911 Revolution. Mao Zedong, by taking them as representatives, summed up the struggle which the Chinese people had indomitably and unremittingly opposed the oppressors both home and abroad for over 100 years, and the Chinese Communists had finally completed their ancestors’ wishes, having thus presented a new interpretation by the Chinese Communists of Chinese history since the Opium War in 1840. On September 30 of the same year, Mao Zedong made a clear representation on several nodes of China’s 100 years’ history in the epitaph he drafted for the monument to the people’s heroes: eternal glory to the heroes of the people who laid down their lives in the people’s war of liberation and the people’s revolution in the past three years! Eternal glory to the heroes of the people who laid down their lives in the people’s war of liberation and the people’s revolution in the past 30 years! Eternal glory to the heroes of the people who from 1840 laid down their lives in the many struggles against domestic and foreign enemies and for national independence and the freedom and well-​being of the people!3

78  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao In the epitaph the “past 30 years” indicates the period since the May 4th Movement in 1919. From 1840 to 1949, the nearly 100 year history of China is divided into two parts: the former is the modern history of China, and the latter is the contemporary history of China. From the perspective of revolutionary history, the former part is also called the old democratic revolutionary stage, and the latter part is the new democratic revolutionary stage. The so-​called modern history is the history of the old democratic revolution stage, and it is actually the history of the late Qing Dynasty plus the first eight years of the Republic of China. However, the history of the late Qing Dynasty itself could not have its own independent status at this time. Put forward by the Communist Party of China in the practice of democratic revolution, the related exposition as the guiding ideology of the new historical system at the time mainly includes: The nature of modern society. Since the Opium Wars and until the founding of the people’s Republic of China, Chinese society is neither a capitalist society nor feudal society, but a transitional society—​a semi-​ colonial and semi-​feudal society. This concept was put forward at the end of 1920s by the Communist Party of China according to the theory of Marxism-​Leninism. In his works such as The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party (December 1939) and On New Democracy (January 1940), Mao Zedong made a systematic exposition and demonstration of the semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal nature of Chinese society since the Opium Wars. In his book The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong put forward that “the contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation and the contradiction between feudalism and the great masses of the people are the basic contradictions in modern Chinese society.”4 For the statement Fan Wenlan once offered the explanation that after the Opium Wars, there were two fundamental contradictions in Chinese society, one was pre-​existing (referring to the contradiction between feudalism and the people), the other was a new addition. The new fundamental contradiction is that of the Chinese nation’s opposition to the economic and political oppression of foreign capitalism, which later became imperialism. China’s feudal forces and foreign aggressors combined to form a reactionary force. In a sense, the two fundamental contradictions also merged into one fundamental contradiction. The reactionary forces, which are dominated by imperialism and supplemented by feudal forces, have become one side of this contradiction, which is why the revolution of the Chinese people is directly targeted at the feudal forces and at the same time at imperialism. The same is true conversely. They are related to each other and collude with each other, which has imposed dual tasks upon the Chinese people’s revolution, namely anti-​imperialism and anti-​feudalism at the same time, which are impossible

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  79 for the Chinese peasantry and bourgeoisie to undertake. All the revolts in the old democratic revolution ended in failure. This is where the causes lie.5 Closely related to this proposition is another viewpoint of Mao Zedong, that is, “the process of China’s transformation into a semi-​colony and colony by imperialism in collusion with Chinese feudalism is at the same time a process of struggle by the Chinese people against imperialism and its lackeys.”6 This principled exposition, often referred to as “two processes” theory, is regarded as the basic clue to understanding modern Chinese history. The development of research institutions is most clearly marked by the establishment of Institute of Modern History within the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This national research institution founded at the beginning of the PRC was set up in May 1950 by some historiographers headed by Fan Wenlan from Yan’an and the liberated areas of North China. History departments of several universities set up courses in modern Chinese history as well as research schools in modern Chinese history, where a large number of scholars were trained and participated in the research and teaching of modern Chinese history. As for the construction of historical materials, beginning with the founding of the Association of Chinese Historians with Guo Moruo as its chair and Wu Yuzhang, Fan Wenlan as vice-​chairs, work began on Collections of Modern Chinese Historical Materials as the promotion of research in modern Chinese history. The book series was mainly used as reference by high school and university teachers and history researchers. Under the guidance of the general editorial committee, which consisted of 11 members, namely Xu Teli, Fan Wenlan, Jian Bozan, Chen Yuan, Zheng Zhenduo, Xiang Da, Hu Sheng, Lv Zhenyu, Hua Gang, Shao Xunzheng, and Bai Shouyi, the materials under compilation served to reflect a series of major events in the late Qing Dynasty. In fact, they can also be said to be the materials of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty. The editorial board was highly qualified, and most of the editors were eminent scholars. Among the ten volumes of materials compiled in the 1950s, the ninth volume The Boxers (compiled in 1950 and published in 1951)  was published first. The early publication of the book was to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the Boxer Movement, and since the publication also coincided with the outbreak of the Korean War, the best way to commemorate the Boxer Movement was to clear the bloody account of imperialism, which was also an important reason for publication at this time. The fifth volume, The Westernization Movement, was compiled in 1959 and published in 1961. The reason why it was compiled last was that the Westernization Movement itself lasted for the longest time (almost 40 years of modern Chinese history), and the materials involved were all inclusive, making their compilation a demanding project. Of the ten volumes, The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, The Nien Rebellion and The Muslim Uprising all reflect the anti-​Qing struggles of people of all ethnic groups centered around the Taiping Heavenly revolution. Therefore, all these materials can

80  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao be summed up as “eight major events.” The summarization of these events in the “preface” or “examples” represents the views of the compilers and the researchers, formed through repeated discussion. They are actually a typical representation of the events in the political history of the late Qing Dynasty in modern history in the 1950s. The following are a few instances selected for a brief introduction.7 About the Opium Wars, the editor pointed out that the Opium Wars are an epoch-​making event in Chinese history, and the disaster it brought to the Chinese people is profound. After the Opium Wars, China gradually fell into the historical stage of semi-​colony and semi-​feudalism, but at the same time, revolutionary struggles of the Chinese people against imperialism and feudalism were hatched. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and Chairman Mao, the great leader of the Chinese people, the Chinese people finally succeeded in overthrowing the rule of imperialism and the feudal landlord class, having ended the historical destiny caused by the Opium Wars. But this is not to say that the dying imperialists and feudal remnants were willing to withdraw from the stage of history without a final struggle. Therefore, it is very important to understand the miserable situation of the Chinese people under the double oppression of imperialism and feudalism in the past hundred years, and to learn the indomitable spirit of resistance of the Chinese people. The Opium Wars are the beginning of modern Chinese history. We should start from the Opium Wars to study the modern Chinese history. About the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, it was pointed out that the revolutionary movement of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom 100 years ago, which lasted for 14 years, had its influence expanded to 17 provinces, the revolutionary heroes having established their own government, organized powerful armed forces, carried out various revolutionary policies, launched the struggle of the broad masses of peasants to overthrow the feudal land system, and taken up the task against the aggression of foreign capitalism. Their heroic actions had written a glorious page in Chinese history. Being still a simple peasant war without the leadership of the working class, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom finally failed under the joint attack of Chinese and foreign counter revolutionaries. But the glorious revolutionary tradition and lofty patriotism of the Chinese people that the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom represents are always worthy of the pride of the Chinese people. About the Westernization Movement, it was pointed out that the Westernization Movement began in the 1860s and lasted for more than 30  years before and after the Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​1895.

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  81 It was a self-​help movement by a handful of comprador-​oriented persons in authority in the Qing government by adopting a capitalist shell to maintain the feudal rule. It came into being when the Qing government failed in the two Opium Wars and in its battles against the Taiping Army, and some of the bureaucratic warlords realized the danger of their poor weapons and lack of ships. On the one hand, they felt that the foreign people’s ships were so formidable that they succumbed to the foreign countries. On the other hand, they felt that the foreign people’s weapons could be used to consolidate their rule. Therefore, they consciously advocated the so-​called “New Policies.” After Western capitalist countries seized more rights and interests in China by means of war, they believed that the ruling class of the Qing Dynasty had completely surrendered, and that the Qing government’s establishment of these “New policies” was not a threat to them, and in addition would make it more convenient for them to undertake deep exploitation and enslavement of the Chinese people. This is the political basis for their collusion with the ruling class of the Qing Dynasty. So during this period, they tried to supply the Qing government with a huge amount of arms and a large number of officers and technicians, and worked together to massacre the Chinese people. These “New Policies” could not stand the test. China was completely bankrupt during the Sino-​French War and Sino-​Japanese War. However, the Westernization Movement, which lasted for more than 30 years, played a certain role in Chinese history in the second half of the nineteenth century. It has created some favorable conditions for the emergence and development of Chinese capitalism. Moreover, the proletariat in China has gained some development. At the same time, the Qing government had to cultivate some persons who could understand foreign affairs. Through setting up the Tongwenguan (the College of Combined Learning) and the Navy School and sending students overseas, a group of technicians who could understand the foreign affairs and science were trained. Some of these people became active members in the Westernization group, and some of them acquired new ideas in their contact with the West, and played a role of a bridge in the spread of capitalist ideas in China. The publication of the book series has laid a solid foundation for the study of modern Chinese history, in particular the political history of the late Qing Dynasty, being still of great value for scholars today. But the compilation has its limitations of that era. For example, in the material on the Opium Wars, the editor made a “necessary” abridgment of the materials selected from the “biographical notes of Lin Wenzhong” in Li Yuandu’s Biographies of Imperial Officials by deleting Lin Zexu’s earnest warnings to the junior officials to guard against Russian aggression based on his personal experience in Xinjiang province.8 In 1954, Hu Sheng published “The periodization of modern Chinese history” in the first issue of Historical Research, which led to an extensive

82  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao discussion on the periodization that lasted for three years. The Joint Bookstore also published a special collection and devoted it to the discussion.9 According to Hu Sheng, the so-​called periodization “refers to the issue of how to divide the history of approximately 80 years from the Opium Wars to the May 4th Movement into several stages and periods.” Its original intention was to solve the problems of the narrative system and content structure of modern history, so as to overcome the shortcomings that “ political history accounts for a large proportion, while the narration of social, economic and cultural life is very small and still to enjoy an appropriate position” in modern history. According to the author’s analysis, in spite of various other causes, it is closely related to the chronicle style of accounting history, “since in modern history, if only the major events are chosen as the narrative theme, it is easy to see only some political events.” However, from the results of the discussion, it seems that the original intention of the author has not been really achieved. While criticizing the great proportion of political history in modern history, the author suggested that the period should be divided in terms of the class struggle, and that there have been three upsurges of revolutionary movements in the modern history of China. The first is the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the second is the failure of the Boxer Movement and the third is the Revolution of 1911. Although scholars have different opinions on the division of specific periods, or even disagree with each other, they basically agree with the theory of “three climaxes of revolution” marked by class struggle. It can also be seen that the importance of the discussion lies not in the division of specific periods, but in proposing a new structural interpretation system and an overall outline of the system. So far, the new structural system of modern Chinese history has become more complete and mature, with the political history of the late Qing Dynasty as the basic framework, and the class struggle as the core of the revolutionary history. The “eight events” have not been and cannot be replaced by “three climaxes,” but have been organically integrated since then. Therefore, people often mention at the same time “two major contradictions,” “three climaxes” and “eight major events” to summarize the system. In the early 1960s, some textbooks written according to the new system came out one after another. Among them, the most outstanding was the fourth volume of An Outline of History of China published by the People’s Publishing House in 1962. The book is a historical work edited by Guo Moruo, president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The fourth volume is “a semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society (I),” namely, the modern history part (1840–​1919), compiled by Liu Danian with other researchers of the Institute of Modern History. Liu Danian tried hard to overcome the shortcomings of the former works of modern history, including Fan Wenlan’s Modern Chinese History narrating history in separate important events, which enjoyed a large readership and was focused on political history. He decided to present the events according to the time sequence of historical evolution, concentrating not only on political events, but also on their economic basis, ideology

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  83 and cultural development. He would focus not only on the history of the Han nationality areas, but also the history of all the ethnic groups in their struggles and their connections and mutual relations with the whole country. Guo Moruo once praised the book of no more than 200,000 words as “concise, clear, fluent and attractive. The red thread of anti-​imperialism and anti-​ feudalism runs through like a spine, which is where its strength lies.”10 At that time, the book was a designated textbook for universities, with a large number of impressions. It was the most influential modern history work in the 1960s. In the study of special history, the most in-​depth research was in the history of imperialist invasion of China and the history of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. Liu Danian’s History of the American Invasion of China published in the early 1950s was a long-​span study, and the late Qing Dynasty was only one part of it. The first volume History of Imperialist Aggression against China (from the Opium Wars to the Sino-​Japanese War) compiled by Ding Mingnan and others in collaboration in the late 1950s and based on the materials available at that time, comprehensively and systematically narrated the history of major capitalist countries oppressing China, opposing China’s independence and hindering China’s social progress in the late Qing Dynasty. But what was focused on in the book was the political relationship between foreign aggressors and China. The anti-​Qing struggle of the people of all ethnic groups around the Taiping Revolution is the most important event in the political history of the late Qing Dynasty. But it is only in the PRC that it has the conditions for in-​depth study. Because peasants are the main force in the democratic revolution led by the Communist Party of China, the study of the history of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the peak of the old peasant war, has received unprecedented attention. According to my statistics, the papers on the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom published in Historical Research, which was founded in 1954, accounted for 58 percent of the total number of papers published before 1966, far more than those of the Revolution of 1911, which accounted only for 19 percent. There is an indissoluble relationship between political history and the study of personalities. Political history is the basic framework or main content of history, and one of the remarkable characteristics of political history is the activities of various personages. If the late Qing Dynasty history is a big stage, its political history is the prominent front stage, and the various personages active on the stage are the objects of the history researchers. Since the study of political history in the late Qing Dynasty before 1966 had a strong color of revolutionary history, the study of the personages in the late Qing Dynasty naturally was focused on the revolutionary camp, while the ruling class was much ignored, namely the so-​called reactionary camp. According to the Index to Papers on Modern Chinese History (1949–​1979) (Zhonghua Book Company, 1983)  compiled by Xu Liting and Xiong Wei, the statistics show that in the 30 years from 1949 to 1979, most papers and materials about personalities in the late Qing Dynasty published in major

84  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao domestic newspapers (including journals of colleges and universities) were on Sun Yat-​sen. Of the 453 papers written about him, 422 were published before the “Cultural Revolution” and particularly in 1956 around the ninetieth anniversary of his birth. The second is Li Xiucheng, with 306 articles, mainly focused on Qi Benyu’s attack on Li Xiucheng in 1964 and 1965 after he used Li Xiucheng’s autobiography to attack him as a traitor. In the third place is Zhang Taiyan, with 137 articles on all periods, mainly being focused on the period between 1974 and 1975, the climax of “Examining Legalism and Criticizing Confucianism.” This is because he was labeled “Legalist” by the Gang of Four during this period. Other personages in the late Qing Dynasty with more than 20 articles are as follows: Hong Xiuquan (93), Qiu Jin (70), Gong Zizhen (62), Lin Zexu (58), Shi Dakai (56), Liang Qichao (52), Yan Fu (50), Kang Youwei (45), Wei Yuan (41), Tan Sitong (40), Zhan Tianyou (38), Yang Xiuqing (36), Chen Yucheng (29), Zeng Guofan (22), Yuan Shikai (22), Zhang Jian (22), Li Hongzhang (20), Hong Rengan (20). Among them, Zhan Tianyou is not a political figure, but made a significant contribution to the railway industry. Gong Zizhen is famous mainly for to his poetry and Zhang Jian for his industrial activities. If these three people were removed from the list, the personages of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom would make up the majority. Of the personages in great authority in the late Qing Dynasty, Zeng Guofan, Li Hongzhang and Yuan Shikai all ranked very low on the list. In addition, of the high-​ranking officials in the late Qing Dynasty, Zhang Zhidong, who was famous for running Western industries, was the subject of 19 research articles; Zuo Zongtang, who was equally famous as Zeng Guofan and Li Hongzhang, had only four articles published about him, of which one was published before 1966, and the other three were published in 1978 and 1979. This is a good illustration of the problem. During the ten years after 1966, with the “leftist” line becoming more and more intense, it became more difficult to undertake normal historical research. It was only for the need of “combating and preventing revisionism” that the history of Sino-​Russian relations in the late Qing Dynasty was still being studied by a few scholars authorized by the state. The glut of articles praising the Boxer Uprising and the Red Lanterns in 1967 in coordination with the criticism of Sorrows of the Forbidden City, and the articles about the anti-​Confucius struggles of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom successively published from 1974 to 1976 in coordination with “Criticism of Lin Biao and Confucius” are no longer regarded as serious historical research.

3.2  Further development in research After 1976, especially after implementing reform and opening up and re-​establishing the principle of seeking truth from facts in 1978, the study of political history in the late Qing Dynasty began to step on the right track with unprecedented development having been achieved.

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  85 By that time, a growing number of historians agreed to regard history from 1840 to 1949 as a unified modern Chinese history. For this reason, while still an important part of modern Chinese history, the late Qing Dynasty with its inherent attribute as a part of Qing history has been increasingly revealed. Its connection with the pre-​Qing and mid-​Qing history is also strengthened, and its distinction within the history of the Republic of China has become increasingly prominent. Interestingly, when discussing the periodization of modern history in the past, the scholars involved used to avoid either taking the time when the Qing court was overthrown as the node of history, or mentioning the abdication of the Qing emperor, even though it was used as the node, while only mentioning the failure of the Revolution of 1911 and Yuan Shikai’s coming to power. But now the event has become the natural basis for periodization and self-​evident at that. In the early 1990s, the ten volumes of The Complete History of the Qing Dynasty, edited by Wang Rongsheng, were published successively, having officially included the history of the late Qing Dynasty in its system, with the seventh and ninth volumes specially devoted to the political history of the late Qing Dynasty. Fan Wenlan and Cai Meibiao continued writing the ten volumes of General History of China, which originally ended with Jiaqing’s reign, and was now extended to cover late Qing Dynasty history. In the Chinese history part of the Great Encyclopedia of China, the first comprehensive encyclopedia of its kind, there is not even an entry for “modern Chinese history,” with the corresponding parts included in the “Qing history” and the “history of the Republic of China.” But modern Chinese history still has its basis, of which the political history of the late Qing Dynasty is still an important part. The reason is very simple:  people need to know their yesterday and the day before yesterday, and the late Qing Dynasty is not far from us after all. What is more, since the Western Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth century, the once backward West (including Western Europe, North America plus Japan in the East) has become the most advanced region in the world, and such a fundamental trend has remained substantially unchanged so far since the Western Industrial Revolution. The same late Qing Dynasty history looks somewhat different when it is observed in terms of modern history rather than in terms of dynastic history. From the perspective of dynastic history, the late Qing Dynasty is falling after the peak, the “end-​time” or “declining years” after the “time of prosperity,” a “sinking history” or “dying history” of collapsing into decline. But the word “modern” itself is contrasted with “contemporary.” From the perspective of modern history, researchers focus on the reality and pay more attention to the formation and development of new forces and factors closely related to the reality. As Liu Danian pointed out, our study of modern history should reflect the past that is closely related to reality as people need to know in the development of the times. If we did not do this, it would be like the saying, “they are deaf people who answer questions that are never asked.”11

86  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao The study of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty was most active in the period between the late 1970s and early 1980s. With the recovery and establishment of a number of research units and related disciplines in colleges and universities, with an increasing number of academic journals, and the convening of various small and medium-​sized academic conferences, academic exchanges among scholars were unprecedentedly active, and a large number of papers and work were published. A few of these works were written in the early 1960s but were oversubscribed for various reasons. Some of the newly written works were accumulated research results during 1966 to 1976. Among these works, Modern History of China (with Liu Danian as the chief editor, published by the People’s Publishing House, its first volume was published in 1978, the second and third volumes 1984) compiled at the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of social sciences is a work of modern general history, which originated from Volume 4 of the History of China. While it is true that the book generally adopts the original framework, and does not put forward any new views concerning modern history, it strengthens the basic views of the fourth volume having overcome the defect of “bones without flesh” of the original work, through a large number of historical facts; it presents a general comment on each period from a unique perspective. Unfortunately, only the first three volumes were published, covering the period from the first Opium War in 1840 to the conclusion of the Peace Protocol of 1901, with nearly 20 years still to cover of its original plan of writing up to the May 4th Movement in 1919. However, it presents quite a complete history accounting for the 60 years from the Opium Wars to the Boxer Movement during the late Qing Dynasty. Hu Sheng’s From the Opium Wars to the May 4th Movement published in 1981 was based on the author’s own theory of “three climaxes of revolution.” In his new work, Hu Sheng by borrowing Zhang Taiyan’s witty remark that “the revolution used to be called ‘bandits’ alliance, but at present is commonly known as ‘scholars’ revolt’ ” reiterated his argument: in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, it was the “bandits’ alliance,” not the “scholars’ revolt”; during the time of the Reform Movement of 1898 and the Boxer Movement, it was still the “bandits’ alliance,” but with the “scholars” already starting to “revolt,” though quite unwilling to get involved in the “bandits’ alliance.” By the time of the Tung Meng Hui (Chinese Revolutionary League), it was mainly the “scholars’ revolt,” and the “scholars” also wanted to make use of the power of “bandits.” The fact that the three climaxes of revolution had distinct situations could be basically attributed to the different powers launching them. Of course, the so-​called “bandits” and “scholars” both had their own class implications.12 Hu also stressed in the preface that “the author of this book does not think that it is justifiable to discuss the trend of progress of the modern period in the light of the thread of the ‘Westernization Movement—​the Reform of 1898—​ the Revolution of 1911’.” Hu’s is really a great work, with

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  87 detailed analysis and profound discussion, reflecting to a certain extent the ideological power of Marxism that the author deliberately pursues, and having thus produced a significant impact on the teaching and research as well as the patriotic education of the masses.13 However, Hu Sheng in the work had also inherited his earlier misunderstanding in his Imperialism and Chinese Politics that “both inside and outside (both central and local forces) should be united and aspire to kill thieves” was mistakenly interpreted as “Chinese and foreign reactionaries colluded with each other to suppress revolution.” Moreover, Hu continued to describe Dowager Empress Cixi’s declaration of war on foreign invaders in June 1900  “almost as a tactful vicious strategy of killing people by someone else’s sword.”14 Such defects have practically weakened the book. However, with further deepening and expansion of reform and opening up, it has become an irreversible fact to focus on economic construction. Being no longer satisfied with the fact that modern Chinese history was basically treated as political history, or even revolutionary history, scholars tried to break through the existing framework and related conclusions. First of all, the theoretical discussions focused on the different views on the development of modern Chinese history. In 1980, an article proposed to use “the peasant war—​the Westernization Movement—​the Reform Movement—​the bourgeois revolution” as the basic line of description for China’s modern historical development. Since the article mainly presented three “important processes” from the Westernization Movement and the Reform Movement to the bourgeois revolution, this view was also known as “three steps” theory, and was approved by quite a number of scholars. The later development of this view challenged the semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal nature of Chinese society starting from the Opium Wars, which was also referred to as “two semis” theory. The “three steps” theory is to some extent justified, or it can make up for the deficiency of the theory of “three climaxes” when modern history is observed from the perspectives of capitalist development, modernization and industrialization. But the “two semis” theory has its own vitality:  while highlighting the revolutionary goal of anti-​imperialism and anti-​feudalism, it also implies the semi-​independent and semi-​capitalist property of modern Chinese society, thus also providing a basis for the development of capitalism and the realization of modernization and industrialization. As Liu Danian pointed out, the study of modern Chinese history has already led us to a conclusion and a clear understanding of the two basic problems of modern Chinese history which are: first, the nation is not independent and requires liberation from foreign aggression and oppression; second, since feudal rule makes social production in modern China backward, the nation requires industrialization and modernization. This generalization comes from the study of various specific problems. It conforms to historical facts and can

88  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao help us analyze and observe the reality of today.15 Liu Danian’s view of “two basic problems” can be said to be an integration and reunification of the two theories on the basis of new understanding. Moreover, there is a further expansion of related research fields. Specifically, research in various fields other than political history has been strengthened; economic history, military history, social history, cultural history have all gradually started and all have obtained their own achievements. The history of Sino-​foreign relations of the late Qing Dynasty, which was closely intertwined with its political history, became also a focus of research. The research program “the history of imperialist aggression against China” was restarted 20 years later in 1978, with the second volume (from the post-​ war period of the Sino-​Japanese War in 1895 to the May 4th Movement) being published in 1986. In addition, accomplishments were successively achieved in research on specific topics such as the history of Tsarist Russia’s invasion of China and that of Japan’s invasion of China. Research on the ruling class of the Qing Dynasty was strengthened. Many of the important figures in the ruling group, particularly Zeng Guofan, Zuo Zongtang, and Li Hongzhang, were closely researched in the large quantity of monographs and research papers, together with their voluminous personal works being published in collections. In addition, some achievements were made in the study of the key figures, such as Prince Gong (Yixin), Dowager Empress Cixi and others, and the Hunan Army and Huai Army groups. Moreover, there was deepening study on “the Eight Major Events” in the late Qing Dynasty. For example, Mao Haijian’s The Collapse of the Chinese Empire:  A Re-​examination of the Opium Wars (The Joint Publishing Press, 1995) was a comprehensive and in-​depth presentation of the historical facts concerning the information transmission system, the official document writing system, the military allocation system and the war process of the Qing government in the first Opium War, though it provoked for a time some criticism due to its modernization orientation. Qi Qizhang’s The History of the Sino-​ Japanese War in 1895 (Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1990)  clarified the historical facts of the Sino-​Japanese War based on his personal experience in the compilation of historical materials while refuting various long-​standing misrepresentations about the war. Kong Xiangji’s Research on the Reform Memorials of Kang Youwei (Liaoning Education Press, 1988) was considered as a most significant breakthrough after Huang Zhangjian in Taipei in the research of the Reform Movement of 1898. The study of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was the most fruitful field, but during the 1966 to 1977, the Gang of Four did worse by making use of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom stirring up more trouble. Hong Xiuquan was raised to a unprecedented height, while other important figures, including Yang Xiuqing and Shi Dakai, were labeled like Li Xiucheng as capitulators, traitors and separatists. Even Hong Xiuquan’s poem about an earthquake “the earth turns into a new omen, and the sky revolves for new heaven” was used as an inspiration by the Gang of Four after the Tangshan earthquake.

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  89 Therefore, the “recovery” of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom research at a much earlier time was no accident, since the historians had long prepared for an outburst. In May 1979, the first large-​scale international symposium on the history of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was held in Nanjing. For a while, the study of the history of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom prospered. For such situation someone ironically remarked that “there are more people studying the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom than the Taiping Army.” However, with the development of other research fields in modern history, the phenomenon of many people crowding in the field of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom soon faded away, and the research focus gradually shifted to other fields, indicating a change in research orientation. The Revolution of 1911, especially the study of Sun Yat-​sen, became a new hot spot after the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, which also somewhat resulted from the strengthening academic exchanges with Taiwan as a region and foreign countries. Besides papers on newspapers and journals, some important academic monographs were also published, such as A History of the Revolution of 1911 (in three volumes) by Zhang Kaiyuan and Lin Zengping, and A Draft of the History of the Revolution of 1911 (in four volumes) by Jin Chongji and Hu Shengwu. With the deepening of the reform and opening up centered on economic construction, the study of the Westernization Movement was gaining its momentum, with the evaluation of the Westernization Movement as a research object itself was gradually ascending. For example, some researchers suggested that the Westernization Movement is a progressive movement, with patriotic tendency and the role of resisting foreign aggression, and that it primarily promotes the emergence and development of Chinese national capitalism, whereas its limiting effect comes only secondary, for which quite a fair evaluation was published in Xia Dongyuan’s A History of the Westernization Movement (East China Normal University Press, 1992). Therefore, in essence, the Westernization Movement, like the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Reform Movement of 1898 and the Revolution of 1911, is a progressive movement in modern Chinese history. The “three steps” theory as mentioned above is closely related to “the Westernization Movement fever.” The specific contents of some special studies in the political history of the late Qing Dynasty will not be elaborated in detail here due to their complexity. Some comparison and contrast will be made on the changes of trend between “cold” and “hot” only in terms of the three periods, namely that prior to 1966, that between 1974 and 1983, and that between 1984 and 1993, which were divided according to the number of papers published in the years between 1954 and 1993 in Historical Research. It should be noted that those papers in Historical Research that did not fall into, in terms of either topic or time period, the category of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty are excluded from the statistics in the table below.16 First of all, the total number of papers on the political history of the late Qing Dynasty rose slightly: 113 papers were published during about 12 years

90  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao Table 3.1 Research status of political history in late Qing Dynasty (1954–1993) (Unit: Article/paper) Topics The two Opium Wars The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom The Westernization Movement The Reform Movement of 1898 The Boxers Movement (and others) The Revolution of 1911 The Imperialist Aggression of China Total

Prior to Percentage 1966

1974–​ Percentage 1983

1984–​ Percentage 1993

5

4.42

4

3.31

10

65

57.52

37

30.58

17

12.6

2

1.77

16

13.22

34

25.18

6

4.96

15

11.11

13

11.5

7.41

4

3.54

6

4.96

7

5.19

22

19.47

42

34.71

51

37.78

2

1.77

10

8.26

1

0.74

113

100

121

100

135

100

Source: Catalog Index to Historical Research

before 1966; 121 papers from 1974 to 1983; and 135 papers between 1984 and 1994. Second, there was a significant change in monographic research. For example, the two Opium Wars were not popular subjects in the three periods, and only attracted a few more research papers after 1984, showing an upward trend. The revolution of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom gradually fell from the top spot (taking up about two-​thirds of the total number of research papers) down to third place after 1984 (taking up about less than one-​seventh). Research on the Westernization Movement rose from cold to hot, with as few as two articles being published before 1966; but it leaped from bottom to second place (taking up more than a quarter of the total number of articles) after 1984. The study of the Reform Movement of 1898 experienced hot-​cold-​hot transitions and stayed stable at about 11 percent with the period from 1966 to 1976 being its cold period. While research on the Boxers Movement remained cold, research on the Revolution of 1911 witnessed a steady increase, rising from the second place before 1966 to the first (taking up nearly two-​fifths). The study of imperialist invasions of China came last, being a little bit enhanced during the period from 1966 to 1976 to meet the needs of the political context of fighting against the social imperialist hegemony. Since some papers have been classified and conflated in terms of their corresponding time periods, the research under

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  91 examination here is mainly either general theoretical study or research on border areas. The changes in the study of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty after 1978 could be attributed to the following factors: First of all, a large number of documents were accessible and published. In 1978, the First Historical Archives of China were reopened to the public, which promoted the development of research of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty. Meanwhile, many collection agencies began to collate and publish historical documents and archives on a large scale. The following are a few major publications corresponding to their specific time periods: The Selected Translation of the Historical Materials of the Opium Wars (translated by Guangdong Literature and History Research Institute, Zhonghua Book Company, 1983), The Historical Archives of the Opium Wars (compiled by the First Historical Archives of China, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1987; Tianjin Ancient Books Publishing House, 1992), Records of Investigation on the Sino-​French War (Guangxi People’s Publishing House, 1982), The Naval Historical Materials of the Late Qing Dynasty (edited by Zhang Xia et  al., China Ocean Press, 1982), Collected Political Commentaries by Kang Youwei (edited by Tang Zhijun, Zhonghua Book Company, 1981), Kang Youwei and the Chinese Empire Reform Association (compiled by Shanghai Municipal Commission of Heritage Preservation, Shanghai People’s Press, 1982), Collected Historical Materials of the Independence Association (Yuelu Press, 1983), Historical Materials of Boxers (jointly edited by the Editorial Department of Modern Historical Materials (Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) and the First Historical Archives of China, and published in 1983 by China Social Sciences Press), Historical Materials of the Preparation for Constitutionalism in the Late Qing Dynasty (compiled by the Archive Department of Ming and Qing Dynasties of the Palace Museum, and published in 1979 by the Chinese Book Company), and Selected Archives of Wuchang Uprising (Hubei People’s Press, 1981). The publication of these archives greatly facilitated the study of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty. Second, there was a general improvement in the research environment with free discussion having become a common academic expectation. Before 1978, the political history of the late Qing Dynasty was incorporated into the research paradigm of “revolutionary history.” As a result, everything was labeled as class struggle, and no one was not masked by class division, all things being the same and all people being identical; nothing could be seen of the personal characters, much less of the characteristics of the times, thus many judgments were arbitrarily formed and denied any possible modification. After the reform and opening up in 1978, the scientific spirit of seeking truth from facts was rapidly restored, and the policy of “double hundreds” was no longer an empty promise but was practically implemented, and free discussion gradually became a common practice in historical research. Such improvement of the research environment served as an impetus for historical research breaking through many forbidden areas, thus having greatly transformed the research of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty.

92  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao Third, there was impact from overseas historical theories and methods. After the reform and opening up, overseas related research works were no longer “internal references” accessible only to a handful of researchers, but instead began to be translated and published in large quantities, having thus become important sources of reference for Chinese modern history researchers. For example, the Overseas Chinese Studies Series translated and published by Jiangsu People’s Publishing House became a bestseller for a time. Meanwhile, the research works of modern Chinese history in Taiwan also began to attract the attention of a growing number of mainland researchers. These works had impacted quite a number of mainland researchers, particularly the younger historians, with their different perspectives, novel theories and methods, and distinct narrative methods. Such an impact was positive in that it served to broaden our horizons, enlighten our thought, and advance our research; yet it was also negative in that some people attempted to select passages and choose phrases according to their own needs, or to make a deliberate misinterpretation out of context, or to accept everything without criticism. Such practice is wrong as it accepts anything foreign promiscuously with no justification. It is something we should beware of. Since the 1990s, there have been new trends in the study of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty. Some discordant voices emerged, apart from the common situation where there was a growing interest in the ruling class, the ruling figures and even the political system of the late Qing Dynasty, as well as the evolution of central and local power while there was a decrease in research on revolutionary movements and revolutionaries. This is mainly due to the fact that some researchers gradually shifted to cultural conservatism, namely political conservatism in their value orientation, which made them oppose all the revolutions in modern history. They believed that so far as the political history of the late Qing Dynasty was concerned, not only the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and the Boxers Rebellion, but also the Revolution of 1911 were all mistaken and made things worse. And for the persons in the ruling group, some researchers failed to present a comprehensive and valid study and evaluation, but instead tried hard to write unprincipled reviews and reversed judgments. Take Zeng Guofan as an example. Some researchers claimed to overthrow the slander generated by the historian Fan Wenlan, saying that “the accusation that Zeng Guofan was an executioner in suppressing the revolutionary forces is unjustified,” “Zeng Guofan did not only ‘betray the country and surrender,’ but also showed his love for the country regardless of personal humiliation.” They also argued for Li Hongzhang, whom they thought it inappropriate to make an all-​negative evaluation of, since whoever in his position would not have been able to avoid his destiny. While such statement is objective to some extent, it is not an objective attitude at all when it was stated that hardly any fault could be found in Li Hongzhang after reading all his materials. But in any case, the diversity and even the uncertainty as is demonstrated in the study of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty is a very gratifying thing. It is a leap in interpretation from the argumentation that

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  93 the people’s revolution led by the Communist Party of China has been proved to be extremely correct and inevitable, to a plain study and narration of history. History is a factual science. Even if we do not use a certain periodization or narrative system, we can still explain history clearly if we adopt a scientific attitude when seeking truth from facts. A wise man said, “certain events go only one way not because they can’t go the other way but because it is extremely unlikely that they go backward”17 Following this line of thinking, we can also say that some historical events have the outcome we know today, not because it is inevitable and unchangeable, but because it is extremely unlikely that we go backward. People are creating their own history. But where will today’s human activities lead us? Modern people may not know exactly. The study of modern history will always be new because of this uncertainty, and the study of political history of the late Qing Dynasty will always be new because modern history is always new. This is not to say that the political history of the late Qing Dynasty can be deliberately arranged like ancient “coins” on a string, but that it highlights from time to time some aspects that are previously unknown or not valued by researchers. That is all that it is.

3.3  New progress in the early twenty-​first century18 Upon entering the twenty-​first century, generally speaking, the study of political history of the late Qing Dynasty did not deviate much from the track that had been formed gradually since the 1990s. Most researchers still focused on the ruling group of the Qing Dynasty, and by way of contrast ignored research of revolutionary movements. In particular, the so-​ called “New Policies” reform implemented in the last decade of the Qing Dynasty received unprecedented attention. It is the very field in which most of the important progress made in the study of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty was concentrated in the early twenty-​first century. The publication of Hou Yijie’s The Political Reform at the Beginning of the 20th Century in China—​A History of the Constitutional Movement at the End of the Qing Dynasty (The People’s Publishing House, 1993) and Zhu Ying’s The Economic Policy and Reform Measures in the Late Qing Dynasty (Central China Normal University Press, 1996)  was followed by Guan Xiaohong’s Research on the Ministry of Education in the Late Qing Dynasty (Guangdong Education Press, 2000) and Li Xizhu’s Research on Zhang Zhidong and the New Policies of the Late Qing Dynasty (Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House, 2003) and Su Quanyou’s Research on the Ministry of Post and Communications of the late Qing Dynasty (Zhonghua Book Company, 2005) as well as other monographs on the New Policies of the Late Qing Dynasty. In addition, an increasing number of research papers were published in newspapers and journals. In these works extensive research was undertaken on the changes of political system, financial system, legal system, imperial examination system and education system in the late Qing Dynasty. Below is a brief introduction.

94  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao 1) The transformation of the political system. Together with Research on the Ministry of Education in the late Qing Dynasty were a series of monographic papers published by the author, having made an in-​depth exploration into and exhaustive analysis on the significance and problems in the establishment of the Ministry of Education in the late Qing, the evolution of the performance appraisal system in the prefectures and counties, the reform process of the administrative system of the governors’ office (yamen), the establishment and operation of the provincial council departments, the relationship between the reform of the official system and the administrative funds, the public expenses and the rectification of the official system, and the trial operation of the external official system reform in the late Qing Dynasty. Such research served to reveal the complexity of the system change and social transformation in the late Qing Dynasty.19 Research on the Ministry of Post and Communication in the Late Qing Dynasty was focused on the achievements in developing China’s transportation and recovery of various rights by the ministry, having re-​examined both the advantages and disadvantages of its policy-​making. Other research discussed the salary system of officials in the late Qing Dynasty, pointing out that in spite of the achievements in the reform of the old salary system by the Qing government, the reform was only auxiliary to the reform of the official system; it was not completed in the end, and inevitably failed together with the official system reform.20 Still there was also research specially dealing with the policy of eliminating the Manchu-​Han distinction in the period of New Policies, pointing out that in the implementation of the policy, the situation was that more Han officials were appointed as local officials, especially after the reform of the three eastern provinces, while the central government was still under the control of the Manchu aristocracies. When it came to Emperor Xuantong’s reign, the implementation of the policy was held back, particularly with the emerging situation “the Manchu-​ Han distinction was eliminated only at the local level but not in the central imperial court,” which had intensified social discontent and accelerated the collapse of the Qing Dynasty.21 Investigation was also conducted in the schools of officer training in the late Qing Dynasty, pointing out that it was a non-​official establishment which integrated officer training, assessment and screening. Such schools were at first set up by individual local officials, but became a common practice all over the country after 1902 as a part of the New Policies. They were soon replaced by the schools of law and politics with a fundamental change in their orientation. Other scholars believed that they were set up by the Qing government to rectify the administration of officials, whereas the local governments exploited them as a way to relieve the pressure of official candidates. In terms of their management, although the Qing government advocated devotion to practicalities, yet the establishment of officer schools finally turned out futile, with the problems of official preparation still unsolved.22 2) The reform of the financial system. It was pointed out that changes in the financial system of the New Policies period of the late Qing Dynasty

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  95 reflected to a certain extent modern transformations in politics and finance in the period, with the power of the newly re-​instituted Ministry of Statistics and Appropriation being further strengthened, and accordingly the power of the state treasury also strengthened; the formerly complicated and chaotic system was simplified in which all provinces used to deliver tax income to separate official departments, with a state treasury system on the way.23 Moreover, systematically reviewed and discussed was the introduction of a modern Western budgeting system and financial reform in the Qing Dynasty since the middle of Emperor Guangxu’s reign, revealing specifically the difficulties the Qing government encountered in the process of implementing the reform of the financial system.24 Also under investigation was the origin of opium latex and the evolution of tax rates in various provinces in the late Qing Dynasty, and it was pointed out that the collection of opium latex in the late Qing Dynasty actually began in the fourth year of Emperor Xianfeng’s reign, and finally obtained Xianfeng’s tacit approval three years later. After the Yantai Treaty came into force foreign medicine was collected by the customs, and the tax rate of local medicine in the mainland also greatly increased thereafter. After 1900, local medicine was gradually integrated into the unified collection, with a sharp increase in income. However, in response to public opinion on banning opium smoking and for supporting the World Conference on banning smoking, the opium latex was again collected alone and doubled at the same.25 3) The reform of the legal system. Zhao Xiaohua elaborated the serious crisis of the litigation system in the late Qing Dynasty from various aspects such as pending cases, waiting for interrogation, making complaints to the state departments, prison administration, and social psychology under the impact of torture and the system of litigation, believing that while the crisis was the precursor and manifestation of the social crisis, it was at the same time an important opportunity for social reform. He also pointed out that the operation of the system of litigation in the late Qing Dynasty showed that the modernization of China’s legal system must depend on the fundamental reform of the social system.26 Wu Zeyong closely examined the revision of Criminal and Civil Procedure Law in the late Qing Dynasty, pointing out that although the legislation ended up with nothing definite, it still left useful enlightenment for future generations as a case of failure in law revision.27 Xie Wei researched the change in income and its impact on the yamen runners in the Ministry of Criminal Justice in the late Qing Dynasty, pointing out that the amount and composition of the income directly affected the operation of the grassroots administration in the Qing Dynasty; the abuse of power for personal gain was prevalent among the yamen runners in the late Qing Dynasty, which was caused by both personnel administration and institutional deficiencies.28 Shi Xinheng investigated the establishment process of the judicial emissary in the late Qing Dynasty and its significance in the official system and legal system reform, and stressed that the judicial emissary occupied an important position in the system design of the legal

96  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao system reform as a key institution connecting justice and administration in the Qing Dynasty.29 Huang Hongshan after having reviewed the emergence and evolution of the Xixinjü (Heart-​washing House, reformatory school) and Qianshanjü (Changing to goodness House, rehabilitation school) in the late Qing Dynasty pointed out that under the impact of the Western reformatory school system and social changes, the Xixinjü and Qianshanjü were different from traditional charities, which were only focused on living assistance, in that they also stressed soul-​saving ideological rectification, which not only produced a profound impact on the later reform of the prison system, but also on had strong implications for the development of philanthropy in China.30 4) The reform of the imperial examination system and the education system. Guan Xiaohong proposed a revision of the so-​called abolition of the imperial examination system and the disintegration of the Four People’s society and the “marginalization” of scholars, thinking that many scholars were able to continue to hold various power resources and occupy an important position of social power after they had been re-​differentiated and combined in different channels to be reintegrated into and serve the society, and had not only basically maintained their original social status but also became an important part of the local elites in the process of power extension at the grassroots level.31 However, Gao Zhong argued that “abolishing imperial examinations and setting up schools in the late Qing Dynasty” led to an overall disintegration and transformation of the three-​dimensional Chinese social co-​construction of cultural orthodoxy, the political monarchy and social clan unity.32 Xu Yi investigated the transformation process of the imperial examination funds from “education as welfare” to “education on payment” in the late Qing Dynasty, believing that the local government’s fund-​raising activities for the imperial examination funds played an important transitional role in that they not only maintained the operation of the system in preserving “education as welfare,” but also promoted the abolition of the imperial examination system and contributed to the transformation from “education as welfare” to “education on payment.”33 Wang Wan made a comparative study of the school supervision and inspection system in the late Qing Dynasty and Japan, pointing out that although the local supervision system was introduced into modern China from Europe, the United States and Japan, its scope of authority exceeded that of general supervision, which reflected the intention of the Qing government to strengthen its control over local education through supervision and inspection.34 In the study of the upsurge of studying abroad in Japan, Lü Shunchang explored the background, process, content and implementation of the studying-​abroad program of “the Student Program in Five Japanese Universities” in the late Qing Dynasty, and pointed out that the implementation of the program had transformed studying abroad from a chaotic and sped-​up stage to an orderly one centered on specialized institutions of higher education, which directly led to the improvement of the academic quality of returned students.35 In addition, Shang Xiaoming conducted specific research on the activities of students studying in Japan in the late Qing Dynasty, such

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  97 as preparation for constitutionalism, education reform, new army training, and legal reform, suggesting that the students studying in Japan produced comprehensive influences on and played an important role in the reform of the New Policies in the late Qing Dynasty.36 5) Research on important figures. Such research was mainly focused on the following three people:  Zhang Zhidong, Yuan Shikai and Emperor Guangxu. Li Xizhu investigated the causes and consequences of the important documents of the New Policies, “the three joint memorials for proposing reform by viceroys of Jiang and Chu (Viceroy of Liang Jiang including Jiangsu, Anhui and Jiangxi; Viceroy of Hu Guang including Hunan, Hubei and Guangdong)” in the late Qing Dynasty, and suggested that the “three memorials” were mainly drafted by Zhang Zhidong, with the main ideas coming from his proposal for reform as was represented in his Exhortation to Study (Quan Xue Pian). The “three memorials” not only promoted the development of the New Policies in the late Qing Dynasty, but also played an important role in establishing Zhang Zhidong’s role and position in the process of endeavor.37 Li Zhiming studied Yuan Shikai’s shogunate and revealed how Yuan widely recruited talents, and how he used this traditional agency to help him carry out various New Policies when he was the governor of Zhili, having thus played a significant role in the implementation of New Policies in Zhili and the rest of the country.38 Cui Zhihai in his research on the background and process of Regent Zaifeng expelling Yuan Shikai pointed out that the event was not only a power struggle within the Qing Dynasty, but was also delicately linked to diplomatic relations between China, the United States and Japan at that time, while the contest between Japan and the United States was emerging.39 In addition, many scholars had a heated discussion on the cause of Emperor Guangxu’s death. While some still believed that Guangxu died of natural causes rather than murder,40 more scholars came to the conclusion that that Guangxu’s death was not the result of illness, but instead he was murdered and died of arsenic poisoning because a large amount of arsenic was found in his hair with the aid of modern high-​precision instruments while taking into account of the corresponding documentation and literature.41 Yet some scholars still insisted that Emperor Guangxu died of an illness based on his diagnostic records in the palace, and were cautious about the viewing the death as murder, arguing that since is still much doubt, no final conclusion could be arbitrarily drawn.42 6) The study of New Policies in borderland areas. Such study had long been a weak area but had a good beginning in this period. A good foundation was laid for further research thanks to comprehensive and systematic research that had been undertaken on the reform measures and experience in such aspects as politics, the economy, military affairs, culture and education in Northeast China, Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet and the Sichuan borderland areas in the period of New Policies in the late Qing Dynasty.43 7) The study of the revolutionary history of the late Qing Dynasty was not without good results, though it was relatively left out compared with the

98  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao New Policies study. In fact, remarkable progress was made in many research areas in the revolutionary history, but to varying degrees. The most significant progress was made in the study of the Reform Movement of 1898. The main achievements are as follows:  First of all, a great breakthrough was made in the “reconstruction of historical facts” concerning the Reform Movement of 1898. Successively published were Mao Haijian’s Preliminary Collection of Research on the Historical Events of the Reform Movement of 1898 (The Joint Bookstore, 2005), From 1895 to 1898:  Notes on Kang Youwei’s My History (The Joint Bookstore, 2009), The Second Collection of Research on the Historical Events of the Reform Movement of 1898 (The Joint Bookstore, 2011), having put forward a series of new ideas, clarified for readers many plausible statements in the past, and laid a solid foundation for researchers to correctly use the historical materials of the reform. Second, there was a heated discussion on the reformists’ plotting of “besieging the Summer Palace (to capture and kill Dowager Empress Cixi)” and Yuan Shikai’s “snitching” on them. Fang Delin maintained that Kang Youwei and others did have a plan of sending Yuan Shikai’s troops to besiege the Summer Palace; but he questioned the authenticity of Bi Yongnian’s Direct Record of Conspiracies, which was used as important evidence of the plot in the past, arguing that Bi Yongnian’s diary “was kept on the basis of what he heard about the plot on the third day of the eighth month of lunar calendar after the 1898 Coup.”44 As for Yuan Shikai’s “snitching,” one view was that evidence was lacking, but Ronglu was the most likely one. Yet some scholars investigated the whole process of the 1898 Coup and came to the conclusion that it was caused by Yuan Shikai informing Dowager Empress Cixi through Ronglu, and that Yuan Shikai was identified as the main informer.45 Third, Qi Xuemin put forward a new interpretation of the historical value of Liang Qichao’s A Record of the 1898 Coup, which was thought to have close connection with Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao’s political activities during their exile in Japan from the end of 1898 to the beginning of 1899; in the book the leading statement and presentation of key details of the 1898 Coup were much affected by the author’s political activities and contemporary public opinion, to the effect that the book was used as a political instrument by them to strive for foreign aid and counterattack against public opinion. The book was therefore “actually the contingent political propaganda by Kang and Liang, and it should not be taken as a serious historical document.”46 Finally, in-​depth research was undertaken on other figures in the event of 1898. As an example, it was revealed that Emperor Guangxu’s appointment of Huang Zunxian as the specially-​appointed envoy plenipotentiary to Japan in the later period of the Hundred Days of Reform was not on the recommendation of the reformists, but on the offered invitation of Japan, which led to Emperor Guangxu’s writing the oracle and the state document in person, and sending the Grand Minister to contact the Japanese envoy, in an attempt to unite Japan and carry out the New Policies seeking a way out in reform.47

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  99 8) Meanwhile, much progress was made in many aspects of the study of the Revolution of 1911. First, research from multiple levels and different points of view was done on the causes of the rapid collapse of the Qing Dynasty. After a comprehensive study of the roles and interrelations of the officials, gentry and ordinary people in the Rice Rush in Changsha, several scholars pointed out that the serious social conflict was caused jointly by the officials, gentry and ordinary people, and it was an important sign of the rapid collapse of the rule of the Qing Dynasty. In addition, the Qing government’s mistakes in controlling public opinions and armies as countermeasures with crises such as the Huanggang Uprising in 1907, the Changsha Rice Rush, the Wuchang Uprising and the Shanghai “Su-​pao Case.” were under discussion48 Second, a more in-​depth study was made on the position and role of the constitutionalists in the Revolution of 1911. Having studied Zhang Jian and his friendship with Tang Shouqian, Zhang Kaiyuan pointed out that in the period of the Revolution of 1911 the southeastern region and its elites already occupied an important position in the changing political situation of the whole country, but their overall strength was not enough to replace the traditional political center of the north all of a sudden, which was why the Revolution of 1911 came to an end with the compromise between the north and the south. While it is true that the heroic struggle of revolutionaries was the most important impacting force leading to the collapse of the autocratic monarchy, the constitutionalists, represented by Zhang Jian and Tang Shouqian, and their contributions in various reform undertakings definitely served to add fuel to the fire.49 Third, some new interpretation was put forward on specific revolutionary events. Wang Min re-​examined the Su-​pao Case, and was able to have disclosed many details that had been unknown before. Having systematically reviewed how the hero images of Zhang Taiyan and Zou Rong were constructed by various media at home and abroad over 100  years after the case, he went on to explain how the Su-​pao Case was endowed with various political implications and made ideological, and how the protagonists of the event, Zhang Taiyan and Zou Rong, were sanctified. Such study to a certain extent transformed the mainland historians’ paradigm of understanding concerning the Su-​pao Case.50 Fourth, research was also conducted on mistakes of the revolutionaries and constitutionalists in the process of revolution. It was pointed out that due to the revolutionary aim to restore the establishment of a country by the Han nationality and its self-​evident narrow “nationalism,” it objectively lent an opportunity to foreign invaders such as the Japanese Black Dragon Society to take their chance, and also led to the domestic Manchus, Mongolians, Hui and Tibetans in great suspicion and fear of the revolution while moving away from it. And a crisis encountering the country was that it was faced with territorial division, which would probably give rise to large-​scale ethnic revengeful murder. Later, the “Five-​color flag” representing republicanism of five nationalities in the Jiangsu and Zhejiang areas replaced the “Eighteen-​star flag,” symbolizing the militant unity of the Han nationality in 18 provinces under the Wuhan

100  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao military government, as the national flag of the Republic of China, a sign of the republicanism of five nationalities being established as the national policy. Such a change is of great historical significance. However, it was justifiably pointed out that the argument above was simultaneously correct and wrong about the revolutionaries and constitutionalists in terms of the relationship between the Manchu and the Han nationality in 1911.51 A few other scholars systematically examined the political relations among Tung Meng Hui (Chinese Revolutionary League), the Hubei group and the Jiangsu-​Zhejiang group within the several months from the restoration of Nanjing to the abdication of the Qing emperor, having pointed out that although the three parties had a common goal against the Qing Dynasty, each had their own interests and were unable to form a joint force. Therefore, when Yuan Shikai joined the anti-​Qing camp, he could only compromise with them. Although the revolutionaries meant well, they were still unable to establish the cornerstone of democratic constitutionalism. Moreover, it was a mistake for the revolutionaries in their attempt to use secret societies, which caused losses to the revolutionary cause rather than helping the revolutionary party to contact the masses. After the independence of each province, the secret societies turned out to be an important factor of social instability, and even turned into a reactionary force against the Democratic Republic.52 9) Some result, though far less than those in the fields presented above, was achieved in research on the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and the Boxer Movement. One research project was on whether the Taiping Army used mandatory “coercing” to supplement its soldiers during the northern expedition, believing that the final defeat of the Northern Expedition army was closely related to such means of “coercing.” Another research project suggested that the so-​called “equal distribution of land” was a misinterpretation of The Land System of the Heavenly Kingdom. Moreover, the so-​called “holy treasury system” was not an absolutely equal “military communism”; it was an institution that had been established both in the royal court and in the armies, whereas the state treasury proposed in The Land System of the Heavenly Kingdom was a warehouse intended to be established in each social grassroots organization in the future. The two were quite different in terms of their levels, properties, functions and material sources with no necessary connection. Therefore it was not appropriate to take the holy treasury as the state treasury, and to say that the state treasury originated from the holy treasury was but pure speculation. However, some argued that since the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom had always called all publicly owned warehouses “holy treasuries,” it was justifiable to refer to the supply system of public life necessities as “holy treasury system.” So “the state treasury” in The Land System of the Heavenly Kingdom was the same as the “holy treasury.” The statement that such holy treasury system was a “military Communist distribution system” still made sense.53 Wang Mingqian closely examined the rural political practice in three counties of Suzhou, Changshu and Jiangxi during the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and pointed out that if it was far from perfect, it still had its own historical value

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  101 for its painful effort and desire to get rid of the old habits.54 Several scholars explored what had caused the outbreak of the Boxer Movement by looking into both the central ruling group and the local governors. Some believed that “the Event of 1900 (Gengzi)” was closely related to the crazy activities of the “elder brother faction” headed by the King of Duan and Zaiyi, a new political group rising within the ruling class of the Qing Dynasty after the 1898 Coup. Other scholars held the view that in the late Qing Dynasty characterized by its weak central government but with powerful local forces, Zhili (Hebei province) and Shandong governors’ attitudes and policies toward the Boxer Movement not only affected the emergence and development of the Boxer Movement, but also affected the decision-​making of the central ruling group of the Qing Dynasty dealing with the Boxer Movement.55 In addition, scholars discussed Zhang Zhidong’s tendency in 1900 and whether he had the intention to be an emperor himself. Some thought that Zhang Zhidong did think of becoming an independent monarch in 1900.56 Yet the counter-​ argument was that Zhang Zhidong’s activities in 1900 hardly gave evidence of his ambition to be an emperor, so accordingly his so-​called “emperor dream” was groundless.57 There were also useful discussions on the evaluation of Yi Kuang, the prince of Qing, in the Boxer Movement, and that of Li Bingheng, the then Minister of the Yangtze River Navy.58 Of course, things are always invariably complex. In spite of the fact that a lot of progress was made in the study of political history of the late Qing Dynasty in the early years of the new century, there is still room for improvement. The following three questions may be worthy of our attention. First of all, modern Chinese history studies is not supposed to stop at the vague theory of “joined forces.” Since the reform and opening up, in modern Chinese history studies, and in the study of political history in the late Qing Dynasty in particular, there has been a prevailing new theory of “joined forces.” For example, such a theory was invariably applied in the study of the revolution of 1911 to the evaluation of Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao’s historical role as constitutionalists, arguing that their goal was consistent with that of Sun Yat-​sen as a revolutionary in that they all strove to establish a democratic system of government in China and bring about national independence, prosperity and strength, but only with differences in how to achieve it. They all advocated the expansion of civil rights, but while the former was to set limits on monarchical power, the latter was to completely overturn it. Therefore, Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao as constitutionalists were also one of the “joined forces” in overthrowing the Qing Dynasty. Some even suggested that in addition to the revolutionaries and constitutionalists Yuan Shikai should also be included in the “joined forces” of revolution. It is not discussed here whether “joined forces” is the driving force of historical progress,59 and whether Yuan Shikai should be included in the “joined forces.” Such a theory is insufficient or even defective in the light of “revealing” the historical truth as much as possible. It is true that the constitutionalists and revolutionaries belong to the same bourgeois camp, so it is indisputable that they should be

102  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao included in the “joined forces” in overthrowing the Qing Dynasty. However, in order to truly “reveal” historical reality, it seems that we should not just stop there. It is because it only “reveals” partial historical reality, but fails to go further to provide such answers as who, of the constitutionalists and revolutionaries, plays a major role, who plays a minor role, and to what extent. So research of the kind so far remains inaccurate and ambiguous. Only if we continue to do in-​depth research and finish the whole research process, will we be able to give more accurate and precise answers. Second, we should not neglect the study of historical unchangeableness. Definitely history keeps developing and changing. Modern Chinese history as “a great change only seen in three thousand years” is best characterized as “change.” Its economic base was changing, so was its superstructure, its ruling class as well as the ruled class, and its whole society, all being in constant change. It is of course necessary and beneficial to social progress for researchers of the political history of the late Qing Dynasty to make a lasting study of such a history of “changing” with a full concentration, since it is the mainstream political history of the late Qing Dynasty. However, the dialectics of history have always been that there must be branches in the mainstream; accordingly there must be in “changes” “unchangeableness,” or “unchangeable” for the time being. For example, all kinds of feudal despotism as ideas of monarchy, privilege and superstition not only existed in the late Qing Dynasty, but also remained active in people’s minds after the Revolution of 1911, after the overthrowing of the Qing Dynasty, and even after the Communist Party of China completed the new democratic revolution. This has been proved by history. Unfortunately, for a long time, research on such historical “unchangeableness,” such as its main performance, how it was formed and why it was able to be formed, why it remained unchanged for such a long time, what impact it has produced, and in what way can we get rid of it, has yet to be conducted. This is a major deficiency in modern Chinese history studies. In fact, such research is necessary and must be brought to the forefront. Third, macro-​research needs to be strengthened. Like other research fields in modern Chinese history, most research on the political history of the late Qing Dynasty is focused on true or false, right or wrong evaluation of specific facts of individual historical events, which is fact-​oriented “fragmentary” study, while very little is done on comprehensive and long-​term research and reflection. On one hand, it is necessary to clarify historical facts, which is the first step of historical research and the primary requirement of historical science. It is not only wrong but also absurd to make any judgment or draw any conclusion when historical facts are unclear with no way of telling truth or falsehood or judging right or wrong. On the other hand, the fundamental task of historical research is not only for “celebrating accomplishments” or “exposing scandals”; it is more fundamentally for today, for the future, and for people of the present and future generations to know in what historical conditions success can be secured and in what way things are done in line

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  103 with the interests of the vast majority of people, and to know in what way social progress is promoted and what can be counted as success. In a word, it is to learn from the experience and lessons of history, and to take a good and correct road for today and for the future. In order to achieve this goal, doing micro-​research on individual historical events is not enough. More comprehensive macro-​research is needed to obtain a knowledge of history that is repeatedly proved as correct in historical practice. Since historical experience has told us more than once that something that is true at this time may not be true at another time, and that something that may be feasible locally may not be feasible on the whole. Only through comprehensive macro-​research can we obtain correct historical knowledge that truly conforms to the facts and enlightens wisdom. However, these are the problems arising in the process of development. As long as we continue to move forward along the road of seeking truth from facts, we will be able to gradually solve them in such a process, and the study of political history of the late Qing Dynasty will certainly make more progress and greater achievements.

Notes 1 Reform our study, in Selected Works of Mao Zedong, The People’s Publishing House, 1967, p.594. 2 On the people’s democratic dictatorship, in Selected Works of Mao Zedong, The People’s Publishing House, 1967, p.1358. 3 Eternal glory to the heroes of the people, in Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol.5, The People’s Publishing House, 1977, p.11. 4 The Chinese revolution and the Chinese Communist Party, in Selected Works of Mao Zedong, p.594. 5 The periodization of modern Chinese history (I)  (1955), in Selected Historical Papers of Fan Wenlan, China Social Sciences Press, 1979, p.1l7. 6 The Chinese revolution and the Chinese Communist Party, in Selected Works of Mao Zedong, p.595. 7 The following quotations are extracted from the “preface,” “examples” and “notes” in Collections of Modern Chinese Historical Materials. 8 The deleted records are: there are worries about the western countries at the time. The junior officials went to Sir Lin and asked for his views, to which Sir Lin responded that “this is easy to judge. The real trouble China faces is Russia. I’m an old man now, but you will be able to see what happens.” The people around were all confused since it had been decades that Russia was not in contact with China. (The Opium War, Vol. 6, pp.263–​267) 9 Collected Discussions on the Periodization of Modern Chinese History, The Joint Publishing Company Limited, 1957. 10 Guo Moruo, To Liu Danian (August 26, 1962), In Liu Lu and Cui Yonghua (eds.), Liu Danian’s Record of Personal Letters with Contemporary Scholars, printed by the Institute of Modern history, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 1995.

104  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao 11 Liu Danian, The preface to Zhang Haipeng’s A Collection of Exploration of the Process of Modern Chinese History, Social Sciences Literature Press, 1998. 12 Hu Sheng, From the Opium War to the May 4th Movement, The People’s Publishing House, 1981. 13 Zhang Haipeng, A review of the study of modern Chinese history, in A Collection of Exploration of the Process of Modern Chinese History, Social Sciences Literature Press, 1998, pp.116–​117. 14 Sun Shouren, Some different opinions on the periodization of modern Chinese history, in Collected Discussions on the Periodization of Modern Chinese History, pp.21–​22; also see Jiang Tao’s “A new interpretation of ‘both inside and outside should be united and aspire to kill thieves’,” Guangming Daily, June 18, 1986. 15 Liu Danian, the preface to Zhang Haipeng’s A Collection of Exploration of the Process of Modern Chinese History, Social Sciences Literature Press, 1998; Liu Danian, The Period of Anti-​Japanese War, The Central Literature Press, 1996, p.3, 15, 125. 16 Catalog Index to Historical Research. Some adjustment has been made for comparison. 17 Martin Gardner, The New Ambidextrous Universe, p.278, cited from Ilya Prigogine, Order Out of Chaos:  Man’s New Dialogue with Nature (Chinese translation), Shanghai Translation Press, 1987, p.284. 18 For this section acknowledgment is made to Zhang Haipeng and Yu Heping for their coauthored article “A review of the study of modern Chinese history 2000–​ 2007” (see the relevant issues of Modern Chinese History Studies, 2002–​2008) and to Cui Zhihai for his “A review of the study of political history of the late Qing Dynasty in the past three years,” Historical Review, 2012(5) and for other articles. 19 Guan Xiaohong, The evolution of the performance appraisal system of prefectures and counties in the late Qing Dynasty, The Qing History Journal, 2005 (3); A glimpse of the structure of the governor’s office in the late Qing Dynasty, Journal of Sun Yat-​sen University, 2006 (3); An examination of the governor’s official documents and office, Historical Research, 2006 (5); Autocracy and collegiate discussion: The establishment and operation of the provincial councils in the late Qing Dynasty, Historical Research, 2007 (6); The official system reform and administrative funds in the late Qing Dynasty, Academic Research, 2009 (11); Provincial public expenses and official governance rectification in the late Qing Dynasty, Historical Research, 2010 (2); The local problems of external official system reform in the late Qing Dynasty, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2010 (5); The trial operation and effect of the reform of external officials in the late Qing Dynasty, Journal of Historical Science, 2011 (11); The reform of ministries, departments, prefectures and counties in the Qing Dynasty, Academic Research, 2011 (9). 20 Ju Fang’an, The salary reform of officials in the late Qing Dynasty, Journal of Renmin University of China, 2001 (5). 21 Chi Yunfei, The issue of eliminating the Manchu-​Han distinction in the last ten years of the Qing Dynasty, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2001 (5). 22 Xiao Zongzhi, The schools of officer training in the late Qing Dynasty, The Qing History Journal, 2006 (1); Tian Tao, On the schools of officer training in the late Qing Dynasty, Journal of Tianjin Normal University, 2007 (3). 23 Ren Zhiyong, On the treasury system of the Ministry of Revenue in the late Qing Dynasty and the transformation after 1900, The Qing History Journal, 2005 (2).

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  105 24 Chen Feng, The preparation and implementation of financial budget in the late Qing Dynasty, Jianghan Forum, 2009 (1); Liu Zenghe, The western budget system and the financial reform in the Qing Dynasty, Historical Research, 2009 (2); The financial inventory of the provinces by the central government in the Qing Dynasty, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2011 (6). 25 Zhou Yumin, A brief account of the evolution of the opium latex tax rate in the Qing Dynasty, Historical Review, 2010 (2). 26 Zhao Xiaohua, A Social Investigation on the Litigation System in the Late Qing Dynasty, The Renmin University of China Press, 2001. 27 Wu Zeyong, Examining the revision of Criminal and Civil Procedure Law in the late Qing Dynasty—​also on the timing, strategy and technique of codification, Modern Law Science, 2006 (2). 28 Xie Wei, Research on the income of the yamen runners in the Ministry of Criminal Justice in the late Qing Dynasty, Journal of Historical Science, 2009 (4). 29 Shi Xinheng, The official system reform in the late Qing Dynasty and the establishment of the judicial emissary in each province, Seeker, 2010 (10); The self-​ writing following the Western discourse:  The judicial emissary and the judicial reform in the late Qing Dynasty, History Teaching, 2010 (10); The division of legal departments and system reform: The judicial emissary system evolving into modern bureaucratic system, Seeker, 2011 (6). 30 Huang Hongshan, Striving to save the soul:  The emergence and evolution of Xixinjü and Qianshanjü in the late Qing Dynasty, Historical Review, 2009 (4). 31 Guan Xiaohong, The abolition of the imperial examination and modern rural scholars: A comparative study of Liu Dapeng and Zhu Zhisan’s diaries, Historical Research, 2005 (5). 32 Gao Zhong, The abolition of imperial examination: The domino disintegration of Chinese Confucian society, Jiangsu Social Sciences, 2005 (4). 33 Xu Yi, Research on the imperial examination funds in the late Qing Dynasty: Also on the transformation from “education as welfare” to “education on payment,” Historical Archives, 2010 (1). 34 Wang Wan, The system of the provincial supervision and inspection of schools in the late Qing Dynasty:  A comparison with Japan, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2010 (4). 35 Lü Shunchang, Changing from quantity to quality of students studying in Japan in the late Qing Dynasty:  An investigation on the “Student Program in Five Japanese Universities” in the late Qing Dynasty, Journal of Zhejiang University, 2001 (1). 36 Shang Xiaoming, The Students Studying in Japan and the New Policies of the Late Qing Dynasty, Jiangxi Education Press, 2002. 37 Li Xizhu, Zhang Zhidong and “the three joint memorials for proposing reform by viceroys of Jiang and Chu,” Historical Research, 2002 (2). 38 Li Zhiming, Yuan Shikai’s shogunate and the New Policies in the late Qing Dynasty, Historical Review, 2007 (6). 39 Cui Zhihai, Another study of the event of Regent Zaifeng expelling Yuan Shikai, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2011 (6). 40 Ma Zhongwen, The death of Guangxu and Cixi as was recorded in the contemporary people’s diaries, Guangdong Social Sciences, 2006 (6). 41 Zhong Liman, Research on the type and date of arsenic poisoning of Emperor Guangxu, The Qing History Research, 2008 (4); Dai Yi, On the death of Guangxu,

106  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao The Qing History Research, 2008 (4); Cui Zhihai, The death of Emperor Guangxu and Dowager Empress Cixi and the response of the U.S. government: Also on the cause of Guangxu’s death, The Qing History Research, 2009 (3). 42 Wang Kaixi, Some doubts on the cause of death of Emperor Guangxu, Academic Journal of Jinyang, 2009 (6); Zhu Jinfu, A re-​discussion on the death of Emperor Guangxu, Historical Archives, 2010 (4). 43 Zhao Yuntian, An account of the New Policies in Tibet in the late Qing Dynasty, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2002 (5); The administrative reform of Mongolia during the New Policies in the late Qing Dynasty Ethno-​national Studies, 2002 (5); The political reform of the northeast frontiers during the New Policies in the late Qing Dynasty, China’s Borderland History and Geography Studies, 2002 (3); An exploration of the Sichuan borderland reform in the late Qing Dynasty, China Tibetology, 2002 (3); The development of culture and education in Xinjiang during the New Policies in the late Qing Dynasty, The Western Regions Studies, 2002 (2). 44 Fang Delin, Research on the reformists’ plot of “besieging the Summer Palace”:  Also on the historical value of Direct Record of Conspiracies, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2001 (3). 45 Liu Lusheng, The groundless statement that Yuan Shikai gave information on the fourth day of the eighth-​month Chinese calendar in the 1898 Coup—​With a discussion with Mr. Guo Weidong, The Qing History Studies, 2005 (1); Kong Xiangji, Cai Jintai’s secret letter and the truth of Yuan Shikai’s snitching, Guangdong Social Sciences, 2005 (5). 46 Qi Xuemin, The theme of the 1898 Coup and its relationship with current events, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2001 (6). 47 Kong Xiangji and Yuichiro Murata, Kang Youwei and the Reform of 1898 in the eyes of a Japanese secretary: A reading of Nakajima Takeshi’s Private Writing of a Envoy Secretary and Catalogue to Letters of Correspondence, Guangdong Social Sciences, 2009 (1). 48 Yang Pengcheng, The officials, gentries and plain folks in Shangsha Rice Rush, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2002 (3); Su Quanyou, On the inability of the state in controlling the new army in the late Qing Dynasty, Academic Research, 2009 (7); The Qing government’s crisis countermeasures in the Huanggang Uprising in 1907, Academic Journal of Zhongzhou, 2009 (3); The loss of control of public opinions and the government’s countermeasures in the late Qing Dynasty, Dongyue Tribune, Vol. 31 (9); An analysis of the causes of officials’ deviation from the Qing government in the late Qing Dynasty—​taking Sun Baoxuan as an example, Fujian Forum, 2010 (5); The Qing government’s crisis countermeasures in Changsha Rice Rush in 1910, History Teaching, 2010 (24); The Qing government’s crisis countermeasures in the Wuchang Uprising, Journal of Hubei University, Vol. 37 (6); Li Xizhu, The mass uprising and the efficacy of the Qing government’s social management mechanism in the late Qing Dynasty—​from the perspective of the contradictions between the officials and the gentry in Changsha Rice Rush, Historical Research, 2009 (4); Wang Min, The late Qing government’s political crisis countermeasures in the Shanghai Su-​pao Case, Social Sciences, 2009 (6). 49 Zhang Kaiyuan et  al., Zhang Jian and Modern Society, Central China Normal University Press, 2001; Zhang and Tang’s friendship and the Revolution of 1911, Historical Research, 2002 (1).

Political history of the late Qing Dynasty  107 50 Wang Min, On the relationship between Western powers and the Su-​pao Case, Historical Research, 2009 (2); Anti-​Qing, anti-​Russia, and anti-​imperialism—​the construction of the hero image of the Su-​pao Case, Historical Review, 2009 (4); A Research on the Su-​pao Case, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2010. 51 Zhang Yong, From the Eighteen-​star flag to the Five-​color flag—​the transformation from the Han nationality country to Republicanism of five nationalities country in the period of the Revolution of 1911, Journal of Peking University, 2002 (2); Cui Zhihai, A review of the debate on the relationship between Manchu and Han in the period of the Revolution of 1911: Focusing on Min Bao(People’s Daily News) and Xin Min Cong Bao (Xinmin Series Newspaper), Historical Review, 2011 (4); Li Fan, Debate on Yi-​Xia distinction (the difference between Chinese and barbarians) and national identity during the Revolution of 1911, Journal of Historical Research, 2011 (4). 52 Zhang Hao, Sonata in disharmony: On the evolution of political relations among the Tung Meng Hui, the Hubei group and the Jiangsu-​Zhejiang group, Republican Archives, 2007 (3); Ouyang Yuefeng, Using secret societies:  A mistake in the Revolution of 1911, Journal of Historical Research, 2007 (2). 53 Chi Zihua et  al., On the coercion of the Taiping northern expedition army, Historical Archives, 2001 (3); Wang Guoping, A  new discussion on The Land System of Heavenly Kingdom, Jianghai Academic Journal, 2005 (1); Ouyang Yuefeng, A  research on the “holy treasury system,” Modern Chinese History Studies, 2005 (2); Wu Shanzhong, A  study on the holy treasury system of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2011 (1). 54 Wang Mingqian, The rural political practice in the three counties of Suzhou in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, Journal of Suzhou Institute of Science and Technology, 2006 (4); The rural political practice in Changshu county in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, Journal of Changshu Institute of Technology, 2006 (5); The rural political practice in Jiangxi in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, Journal of Jiangxi Normal University, 2006 (5). 55 Zhou Yumin, The establishment of the crown prince in 1899 and the Boxer Movement; Yu Dahua, The governors of Shandong and Hebei and the rise of the Boxer Movement, The Qing History Studies, 2000 (4). 56 Kong Xiangji, Zhang Zhidong’s emperor dream in the year 1900—​evidence from Utsunomiya Taro’s diaries, Academic Monthly, 2005 (8); Reinterpreting Zhang Zhidong’s emperor dream—​also a reply to Mr. Li Xizhu, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2010 (5); Zhang Zhidong and the revolutionaries in Japanese archives—​ focusing on the Wu Luzhen Incident, Fujian Forum, 2010 (5). 57 Li Xizhu, Did Zhang Zhidong ever have an emperor dream in 1900—​a discussion with Mr. Kong Xiangji, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2010 (3); Dai Haibin, Zhang Zhidong’s negotiations with Japan during the Event of 1900, Historical Research, 2010 (4); Aspects of Zhang Zhidong’s relationship with Japan in the year 1900—​also on the so-​called “emperor dream” of Zhang Zhidong, Academic Monthly, 2010, 42 (11). 58 Kong Xiangji, The true features of Yi Kuang in the Boxer Movement, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2011 (5); What Li Bingheng said and did in the Boxer Movement, The Qing History Studies, 2011 (3); Dai Haibin, A loyal official who harmed his country?—​revisiting Li Bingheng in the Event of 1900, The Qing History Studies, 2011 (3).

108  ZENG Yeying and JIANG Tao 59 There was a moderate debate in the field of historiography in the 1980s. Liu Danian in his article clearly expressed his disfavor of “joined forces” theory, which provoked some discussion with him. See Liu Danian’s “The power of historical progress” in Selected Papers on History Studies by Liu Danian, The People’s Publishing House, 1987, pp.106–​134; Zheng Hongwei’s “The power and joined forces of history: A review of Liu Danian’s ‘On joined forces’,” Academic Research, 1988 (3); Wu Tingjia’s “Arguing for joined forces: A discussion with Liu Danian,” Historical Research, 1988 (3).

4  A history of the Republic of China WANG Chaoguang

The study of the history of the Republic of China is a new subject in the study of Chinese history. Although a preliminary study was made before 1949 on the history of the Republic of China, yet it was established as a discipline of historical research after 1949. Especially after 1978, due to the changes in the national political and economic environment and the reform and opening-​up policy together with the situation which brought about a hundred blossoming flowers and a hundred schools of contending thought, the science of the history of the Republic of China was established, developed and prospered in a real sense. It is one of the disciplines which was established late but witnessed rapid development and remarkable achievements. This chapter is intended to provide a general outline for the 60 years of development of the history of the Republic of China in a limited space, together with a brief commentary and examination of the existing problems to be solved in the research, so as to facilitate researchers’ reference and use.1

4.1  A historical retrospect The Republic of China ushered in a period of unprecedented and constant change in modern China. As early as the period of the Republic of China, some scholars began to collect and organize historical materials, and conduct preliminary research.2 But in general, before 1949, due to the fact that China was in constant war and chaos, there was no necessary environment and materials for research, and that was because the Republic of China only had been established for a short time. Historians generally followed the Chinese historiographical tradition of not writing the history of the contemporary dynasty, but there was no such idea of regarding the history of the Republic of China as research science.3 After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the study of the history of the Republic of China made its entry into the study of Chinese history. In 1956, the history of the Republic of China was listed as a key project in the 12-​year plan of national social sciences. In 1971, it was again listed in the national key publishing plan at a national publishing conference. For this reason, a research group was established on the history of

110  WANG Chaoguang the Republic of China in the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (now the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) in 1972, and the group became the first research unit in the name of “the Republic of China history studies” in China. Subsequently, the group began to collate related materials and started preliminary research, the result of which was the compilation of The Republic of China Historical Materials Series. However, due to many events and figures, the history of the Republic of China had already received political “set opinions,” thus leaving very limited space for further study and for free discussion needed in academic research. At the same time, in the mainstream periodization of Chinese history, the history of the Republic of China before 1919 was classified as the modern history of China, and that after 1919 it was classified as contemporary history, splitting up the history of the Republic of China into two parts.4 Moreover, the main content of the study of contemporary Chinese history is limited to the history of the New Democratic Revolution and the history of the Communist Party of China, with the history of the Republic of China serving as a contrast or foil. Therefore, before 1978, research on the history of the Republic of China was mainly limited to exposing imperialist aggression and the rule of the Kuomintang, having become an instrument and appendage of political “grand criticism.” One exception was modern economic history, in which a group of scholars did an outstanding and pioneering job. As one of their remarkable achievements, the compilation and publication of modern economic historical materials presented a considerable amount of economic statistical data from the period of the Republic of China, which was still widely cited and used in today’s research.5 However, before 1978, the study scope of the history of the Republic of China was very limited in general and had little impact. The study of the history of the Republic of China as a discipline was yet to be established. Academic research was gaining its momentum and unprecedented prosperity starting from the discussion of the standard of truth in 1978, which was followed by a prevailing ideological liberation movement and the reform and opening up becoming a national policy, having resulted in tremendous changes in the national political and economic environment. Benefiting from such an environment, in 1978, the history group of the Republic of China Institute of Modern History was renamed the History Research Office of the Republic of China. The first volume of Biographies of the People in the Republic of China, edited by the Office, was published in 1978, which was the first work under the title of “the Republic of China” published after 1949,6 marking the real start of the history of the Republic of China as a discipline. In 1981, the first volume, The History of the Republic of China, which was also compiled by the Office, was published and became the foundation work for its establishment as a history discipline. Since then, a large quantity of works and historical materials on the history of the Republic of China have been published, with academic research teams having expanded rapidly, and academic exchange activities having become increasingly frequent. The history of

A history of the Republic of China  111 the Republic of China has developed into a rising star in various disciplines of Chinese history studies. The publication of high-​quality research works that truly represent the research level of a discipline is a sign of the establishment and maturity of the discipline. The History of the Republic of China, which was a set of systematic history works on the Republic of China, included research monographs, biographies and memorabilia and was determined that its compilation at the beginning of the History Research Office of the Republic of China, would symbolize the history of the Republic of China as an established discipline for publication, and at the same time a representative achievement in the field in the mainland. The History of the Republic of China was divided into three parts and 12 volumes, which were jointly written by dozens of well-​ known scholars in China. Successively published were The Revolution of 1911 and Nanjing Interim Government (Vol.1 of Part I, Li Xin ed.), The Rule of Yuan Shikai (Vol.1 of Part II, Li Zongyi, Zeng Yeying, Xu Huiqi, and Zhu Zongzhen eds.), The Rule of the Warlords of Anhui (Vol. 2 of Part II, Peng Ming and Zhou Tiandu eds.), The Northern Expedition War and the Doom of Northern Warlords (Vol. 5 of Part II, Yang Tianshi, ed.), From Songhu Anti-​Japanese War to Lugou Bridge Incident (Vol. 2 of Part III, Zhou Tiandu, Zheng Zemin, Qi Fulin, and Li Yibin, eds.), From the Victory of the Anti-​ Japanese War to around Full Outbreak of the Civil War (Vol. 5 of Part III, Wang Zhaoguang, ed.), and The Failure of the Kuomintang and the Collapse of the Republic of China (Vol. 6 of Part III, Zhu Zongzhen and Tao Wenzhao, eds.). The other volumes were all submitted for publication in the near future. The Biographies of the People in the Republic of China, which consists of 12 volumes (with Sun Sibai, Zhu Xinquan, Yan Ruping, Xiong Shanghou, and Lou Xiange as editors) covering nearly 1,000 influential figures in politics, the military, diplomacy, economy, culture and other fields in the period of the Republic of China, was published in full. The Chronicles of the Republic of China (Prelude: 1905–​1911, Main part: 1912–​1949, Han Xinfu and Jiang Kefu, eds.), which has a total of five volumes in 39 sections presenting a day-​ by-​day record of the political, military, diplomatic, economic, and major cultural events of the Republic of China, was published in full. The three projects constitute a relatively complete system of the history of the Republic of China and lay a solid foundation for its study. In the special history of the Republic of China, the most important works published in the last 20 years of the twentieth century were as follows: The History of the Revolution of 1911 (Zhang Kaiyuan and Lin Zengping, eds.), A History of the Revolution of 1911 (Jin Chonghe and Hu Shengwu), The History of the 1911 Revolution Movement (Lin Jiayou, ed.), A History of Northern Warlords (Lai Xinxia, ed.), The History of the National Protection Movement (Xie Benshu et  al.), The History of the Constitution Protection Movement (Mo Shixiang), History of the National Revolution (Huang Xiurong), History of the National Government at Wuhan (Liu Jizeng, Mao Lei and Yuan Jicheng), A History of the National Army (Wang Zonghua and

112  WANG Chaoguang Liu Manrong), A Brief History of Tangled Warfare of the Kuomintang’s New Warlords and The National Government in the Cooperation of Chiang Kai-​shek and Wang Jingwei (Zhang Tongxin), A History of the Kuomintang Factional Struggles (Guo Xuyin), A New Exploration of Xi’an Incident (Yang Kuisong), Seventy Years’ History of Japanese Invasion of China (the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences), A History of the Chinese Anti-​Japanese War (the Department of Military History of Chinese Academy of Military Sciences), A Military History of the Chinese Anti-​Japanese War (Luo Huanzhang et al.), A New Compilation of the National History of the Puppet Regime of Manchuria (Xie Xueshi), The Origin and Development of American Policy towards China (Zi Zhongyun), China’s Foreign Relations during Anti-​Japanese War (Tao Wenzhao, Yang Kuisong and Wang Jianlang), A Diplomatic History of the Republic of China (Shi Yuanhua), A Historical Outline of the Chinese Kuomintang (Yan Qi and Zhang Tongxin), The History of the Chinese Kuomintang (Liu Jianqing), The Kuomintang Members and the May 4th Movement (Liu Yongming), A History of the Southwestern Warlords (Xie Benshu and Feng Zuyi), A History of the Sichuan Warlords (Kuang Shanji and Yang Guangyan), A New History of the Gui (Guangxi) Warlords (Mo Jijie), The History of the Development of Chinese Capitalism (Xu Dixin and Wu Chengming, eds.), The National Capitalism and the Old Chinese Government (Du Xuncheng), A History of the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce (Xu Dingxin and Qian Xiaoming), A Brief Military History of the Republic of China (Jiang Kefu), The History of the Political System of the Republic of China (Xu Mao), History of the Political System of the Republic of China (Yuan Jicheng, ed.), Chinese Social Changes during the Reign of the Northern Warlords (Zhang Jingru and Liu Zhiqiang), A Chronicle of Sun Yat-​ sen (Chen Xiqi, ed.), A Biography of Yuan Shikai (Li Zongyi), A Biography of Chiang Kai-​shek (Yan Ruping and Zheng Zemin), A Critical Biography of Song Ziwen (Wu Jingping). And there were a number of book series devoted to the history of the Republic of China. There were also a large number of papers on the history of the Republic of China published in various journals, but it is difficult to have exact statistics. However, most of the high-​quality and influential papers were published in a limited number of journals, such as Historical Research, Modern Chinese History Studies, and The Journal of China’s Resistance War against Japan. Such a situation will remain unchanged in the short term due to the long-​term prestigious status these journals have enjoyed. Various university journals and provincial social science journals, which can be counted as the main platform for research on the history of the Republic of China, made a significant contribution, but for various reasons the quality of papers varies to a great extent.

4.2  Development after the reform and opening up The study of the history of the Republic of China did not really start until 1978. Owing to many of the “forbidden areas” formed thereby, researchers

A history of the Republic of China  113 always had fears; research was limited in the political frame and became its mouthpiece. Even the word “Republic of China” could hardly appear in historical works without derogation. After 1978, the ideological emancipation movement opened the space for free discussion in the studies of the history of the Republic of China. In a situation of ideological emancipation and growing toleration of contending voices in research, unprecedented development was made in the studies of the history of the Republic of China as the limitations of old rules and regulations were broken through. The recovery and development of the principle and method of seeking truth from facts being a most fundamental change, researchers were able to study history in the light of its actual development and internal patterns. Research was done and new opinions were formed on the issues that had not been touched on or could not be touched on before in the history of the Republic of China. Even those issues that had been researched and given “set opinions” were repeatedly re-​examined with new views. Research on the history of the Republic of China from 1978 to the end of the twentieth century could be roughly divided into two stages. The first stage was the period from 1978 to 1989. Its major manifestation was the establishment of the disciplinary status of the history of the Republic of China, with various limitations being broken through and new views and ideas being put forward, in addition to a greater development in macro-​research. The second stage was the time period from 1990 to 1999, with research deepening, and researchers began to focus on the case study of specific issues, having thus pushed forward micro-​research.7 The studies of the history of the Republic of China first made a breakthrough on the Revolution of 1911. The Revolution of 1911 was a major historical event that led to the birth of the Republic of China and it was also its beginning. However, after 1949, very little research was done on it and people did not think much of it. In 1981, guided by the seventieth anniversary of the Revolution of 1911, a number of monographs and papers were published demonstrating it as a bourgeois democratic revolution, having fully evaluated the historical achievements of the Tung Meng Hui (Chinese Revolutionary League) and Sun Yat-​sen in leading the Revolution of 1911, establishing the Nanjing Interim government and overthrowing China’s feudal monarchy that lasted for thousands of years. Specific and in-​depth analyses were made on the position and role of the bourgeoisie in the revolution, and on how various regions, classes and levels, different political factions, groups and representative figures got involved in the revolution.8 One most important contribution of the research was to have clearly affirmed the progressive significance of the bourgeois revolution in China at that time: “the bourgeois regime is superior to the feudal one, and it has a new look.”9 After the breakthrough in the studies of the Revolution of 1911, research on the history of the Republic of China was deepening and new progress was constantly made, of which the main line was that the historical position and progressive role of the bourgeoisie and its representatives in the Republic of

114  WANG Chaoguang China was increasingly affirmed and discussed in depth. In the studies of the National Protection Movement, it was affirmed as bourgeois revolutionary in its nature, stating that “the National Protection Movement was the continuation of the Revolution of 1911” and “it was a bourgeois revolutionary movement”; accordingly Liang Qichao and his colleagues, who had been previously disparaged, whose leading role in the movement was also recognized.10 Generally speaking, Liang Qichao was a representative of the bourgeois moderates, who advocated constitutionalism rather than revolution, which is why he received much more severe criticism in the past than those bourgeois revolutionaries represented by Sun Yat-​sen. Therefore, besides affirming the historical achievements of the bourgeois revolutionaries, affirming the historical contributions of the bourgeois moderates was of great significance. After the establishment of the government of the Republic of China, the central and local governments soon fell into the hands of the Northern Warlords and local warlords. In the past, the evaluation of this historical period used to be focused on criticizing the warlords for their reliance on imperialism and the harm they brought about to the people and country, regarding them as a hindrance to the development of history. Such orientation continued after 1978 except that more reference was made to historical facts.11 On the other hand, the researchers also believed that the relationship between warlords and imperialism was interwoven both with conflicts of interest and contradictions. Such a relationship was complicated and varied from time to time and from place to place. Therefore, the warlords should not be simply recognized as an “instrument” of imperialism. The fact that Chinese representatives at the Paris Peace Conference refused to sign the treaty was not only the result of popular opposition, but also closely linked to the “divisive politics” caused by the internal contradictions of the ruling class.12 At the same time, the class attribute of the Northern Warlord regime was under examination. It was argued that since the bureaucratic capital of the Northern Warlords was private capital, the Northern Warlords “had the feudal landlord class as their major social foundation,” but “to some extent they also had some property of the bourgeoisie.”13 Now that the Northern Warlord government partially represented bourgeois interests, its policies accordingly served to promote the economic development at that time. Some scholars believed that the Northern Warlord government had formulated a series of policies and decrees that were conducive to the development of national industrial and commercial enterprises, which gave rise to new productivity and production relations and led to changes in political and economic structure as well as ideology and culture in Chinese society at that time, having resulted in social revolution and ultimately led to the decline of the Northern Warlords.14 It is worth mentioning in the studies of the mass movements in the Northern Warlords period that the relationship between the Kuomintang and the May 4th Movement was examined. It was revealed that the Kuomintang had actively participated in and promoted the movement by publicizing and advocating it and formulating strategies and methods to promote its

A history of the Republic of China  115 development during the movement. Of the May 4th Movement the “political attribute and ideological theme, and to the extent that its rehearsal, outbreak and victory, all were directly connected with the Kuomintang members’ political words and deeds”; therefore, “the real impetus and leader of the May 4th Movement should be the bourgeois democratic revolutionaries led by Sun Yat-​sen.”15 In the past, the bourgeoisie and its representative parties used to be placed on the opposite side of the mass movements, whereas the new conclusions demonstrated some changes, which was consistent with the trend of positively evaluating the historical role of the bourgeoisie in the Republic of China from 1978. The political power of the Kuomintang after 1927 had always been a sensitive field in the studies of the history of the Republic of China, on which very little research had been done before 1978. Yet after 1978, research on the Kuomintang’s rule saw a first breakthrough in the studies of its role in the Anti-​Japanese War. A  considerable achievement was reached in 1985 with the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the victory in the Anti-​Japanese War, in that a moderate and positive evaluation was generally given to the Kuomingtang for having shifted its policy from “resisting foreign aggression and pacifying the interior” to joining the Communist Party in resisting Japan, to its military and economic preparations for the War of Resistance such as reorganizing troops, building national defense fortifications, developing military industry, formulating anti-​Japanese strategies and carrying out economic construction for national defense, to the position and role on the battlefield borne by the Kuomintang army in the war, and to the important battles.16 At the same time, the researchers also commented positively on the Kuomintang government’s tariff autonomy, its reform of legal currency, and the role of its economic policies during the War of Resistance.17 As for the role on the battlefield in the War of Resistance and the relationship between the front battlefield and the rear battlefield, previous studies highlighted the rear battlefield while having neglected the front battlefield. It was pointed out that both before or after stalemate, “the front battlefield of the Kuomintang and the rear battlefield of the Communist Party had equal strategic status, and there was no distinction between the main and secondary battlefields”; while there was friction between the two battlefields, their mutual cooperation and interdependence ran through the whole War of Resistance against Japan.18 Fortunately, the history of the War of Resistance against Japan was one of the earliest topics in the field of the history of the Republic of China engaging scholars from both sides of the Taiwan Strait in academic exchange and interaction. For example, on the strategy of the War of Resistance against Japan, scholars from the Taiwan Region believed that the Kuomintang government had formulated a long-​term strategy since the beginning of the war, and actively launched the Battle of Songhu (Shanghai) to induce the Japanese army to change the direction of attack, having thus laid the foundation for the victory of the war. Most scholars in China held the view that the Kuomintang’s long-​term consumption strategy was gradually

116  WANG Chaoguang formed in the war, and there was still a crucial defect in such a strategy, namely its incompleteness and wavering; and “it was always incomplete,” “in fact, it was in its narrow sense only a military operation strategy”; as for the strategic intention of launching the Battle of Songhu, there was no historical basis to support the above assumptions of Taiwan scholars at present, while the battle failed to transform the overall situation.19 Although their views were not without differences, such exchanges and interactions are of great significance to the study of the history of the Republic of China. It is worth noting that obvious progress on some major issues was made in the macro-​field as a result of researchers’ courageous exploration, despite the fact that research on the period of Kuomintang rule was rather sensitive and of weak foundation. Chiang Kai-​shek as the leader of the Kuomintang and its political power used to be labeled as “an autocrat and traitor to the people” and “a public enemy of the people.” It was pointed out that during the whole War of Resistance, fighting against the Japanese invaders remained the main orientation of the Kuomintang’s policy of dealing with Japanese and with the Communist Party of China, owing to the fact the national contradictions between China and Japan had not been solved. So long as one was engaged in fighting against the Japanese invaders, one belonged to and was counted as a part of the people, and this applied to the Chiang Kai-​shek group.20 In a comprehensive review of Chiang Kai-​shek before and after the War of Resistance, it was believed that Chiang complied with the historical trend in that he renounced the wrong policy of “pacifying the interior before resisting foreign aggression” before the war and joined the Communist Party of China to resist Japan. In the beginning of the war, while Chiang cooperated with the Communist Party of China and commanded the Kuomintang army to fight against the Japanese army, which was a contribution to the country and people, his partial resistance and passive defense strategy also caused unnecessary losses to the country. In the middle of the war while Chiang did not completely give up resistance against Japan and continued his cooperation with the Communist Party, he did not move from one party dictatorship and autocracy, create anti-​Communist frictions, practice passive resistance to preserve his strength, having thus restricted and reduced the effect of the Kuomintang army in resistance. After the victory in the War of Resistance, Chiang went against the historical trend by adhering to personal dictatorship, which eventually led to his complete failure.21 Researchers also put forward their own views based on historical facts on specific issues in studies of the War of Resistance. For example, regarding the relationship between Chiang Kai-​shek and Wang Jingwei, it was believed that Chiang “had nothing to do” with Wang Jingwei’s treason and surrender to the enemy, and that they “had nothing in common, nor did they act in concert.” And it was not in line with the historical facts to think of “saving the nation through an indirect path” as “the guideline of the Kuomintang authorities.” The Kuomintang crushed all the traitors’ powers, confiscated all their properties, and executed the main ones. As for the appointment of some

A history of the Republic of China  117 traitorous generals, it was “only a temporary use for the purpose of the anti-​ Communists and seizing enemy-​occupied areas.”22 Remarkable accomplishment was also made in the research on bureaucratic capital. Bureaucratic capital was a concept used as early as the beginning of the Republic of China. It was adopted in research from 1949, while its use was expanded to the extent that all the enterprises invested and established by warlords, bureaucrats, as well as the state and government agencies were referred to as bureaucratic capitalism. One view was that bureaucratic capital as a popular term well accepted by the masses could be used as a specific category, but in its essence, in the light of political economy, it was state capitalism under different political powers. Another view was that since bureaucratic capital was a political concept, it should not be used to mark the nature of enterprises; bureaucratic private investment was different from state investment, and even the capital of warlord bureaucratic investment was counted as the private component of national capital.23 It was also clearly indicated that since bureaucratic capital was a political concept, some scientific economic concept should be used instead; the source of the original accumulation of warlord bureaucrats should not be used to determine the nature of the enterprises they ran. From a political perspective, there were four grand families that controlled the power of the party, government, army and finance and economy during Kuomintang’s rule; yet from an economic perspective, there were no four monopoly capital families in that period.24 In the studies of the economic history of the Republic of China, it is possible to reach a common view in that state capital as a more rigorous and scientific concept is used in preference to bureaucratic capital. However, now that the concept of bureaucratic capital was widely used as early as the period of the Republic of China, it is still necessary to use it in studies of the political history of the Republic of China. In general, the studies of the history of the Republic of China from 1978 to 1989 changed the past situation of limited research but was full of “forbidden areas,” presenting a positive scene of prosperity and development allowing different contending thoughts, having made breakthroughs on several important issues. The disadvantage lies in the fact that there was still a lack of in-​depth research, and discussions became superficial, being of political significance only when putting things on the right track. The period from 1990 to 1999 can be regarded as the second stage after the establishment of the discipline of history of the Republic of China. Reviewing the previous stage of research, many researchers felt that only breaking through the limitations in a few fields by putting forward some new views was still superficial, given that such new views just arose with the trend of ideological emancipation; there still lacked in-​depth research, but real breakthroughs and innovations could only come about through in-​depth

118  WANG Chaoguang study. Therefore, research on the second stage was more focused on case studies of specific issues. The case studies on the history of the Republic of China had many manifestations. First of all, there was research combined with archives. From the 1990s, new and unknown archive collections about the events and figures of the Republic of China were constantly made accessible. Meanwhile, the historical materials of the Republic of China collected abroad became available, together with a large number of archive material of the Communist Party of China closely related to the history of the Republic of China being made accessible to the public, all of which served to provide good conditions for researchers. The achievements made on the basis of the new archival materials included research on issues during the Northern Expedition, a case study of the Xi’an Incident, and studies of events and figures in the history of the Republic of China mainly based on archival and historical materials collected abroad.25 Considerable progress was also made in the case study of the War of Resistance against Japan. Taking the case of “non-​resistance” as an example, it was discovered that the “non-​resistance” was parlance of the local authorities in the Northeast, whereas no such order was given from Chiang Kai-​shek. However, Chiang and the Nanjing government acquiesced in the “non-​ resistance” of the local authorities in the Northeast. It was Zhang Xueliang that was mainly held responsible for the “non-​resistance.” One specific study was made of the Lugou Bridge Incident in an attempt to reconstruct its historical process through a comprehensive use of historical materials from both China and Japan. It was pointed out that the incident was completely premeditated by Japan, and that the argument of “who actually took the first shot” by a few Japanese scholars was meaningless; Chiang Kai-​shek and the national government were correct in their handling of the incident, and they were deployed for war and promoted the national resistance war against Japan.26 In the past, no research was done on the guerrilla warfare behind the enemy by the Kuomintang army during the War of Resistance. And it was in this period that a comprehensive introduction and positive comments were given to the Kuomintang army’s guerrilla warfare with regard to its initial decision-​making, implementation process, characteristics and development in each war zone behind the enemy.27 Moreover, re-​evaluation was made on the issues concerning the front battlefield that had been settled before. Taking the front battlefield in 1944 as an example, what used to be emphasized was the fact that thousands of miles of land was lost to the enemy. By way of contrast, it was argued in a re-​examination that since the Kuomintang implemented the strategy of “defending the East and attacking the west,” the failure in the eastern battlefront did not seriously affect the overall situation, while the victory of the western Yunnan-​Myanmar battlefield relieved the threat of the enemy on both sides of China and opened up an important line of communication. Therefore the whole front battlefield in 1944 was more gain than loss. As for the strategic counterattack on the front battlefield, one

A history of the Republic of China  119 view was that the battle to the west of Hunan in April 1945 was the beginning of the counterattack on the front battlefield; henceforth the front battlefield repeatedly won over the Japanese army and recovered a lot of land. Owing to the special situation of China as a weak country, China’s counterattack was different from that of other countries, in that it was powerless and with a short time span, yet it still deserved affirmation.28 In research on Kuomintang rule, there were also some noteworthy achievements made from research on the financial policy in the early years of Kuomintang political power, on the Sanqingtuan (the Youth League of the Three Principles of the People), on the Chongqing Negotiations, on the post-​war Northeast, and on the Sino-​ American commercial treaty.29 In the studies of the Northern Warlords and their political powers, greater consensus was reached on their capitalist nature. This was mainly due to the studies of the economic policies of the Northern Warlord government. Most researchers believed that the economic policies of the Northern Warlord period promoted the development of capitalism and reflected the interests of the bourgeoisie. One view was that most of the economic policies formulated by the Northern Warlord regime were practically implemented, except for a few due to financial difficulties and the constraints of unequal treaties. Another view, through research of the archival materials, was that the construction of an economic legal system in the early years of the Republic of China with its complete categories and detailed contents had initially formed a capitalist economic legal system, which was historical progress as it embodied the interests of the bourgeoisie.30 Still another view was that the development of state capitalism starting from the late Qing Dynasty was interrupted due to the fact that the central government in the Northern Warlords period had a mere nominal existence. The central government’s lack of authority and inability to control economic activities left the economy developing along the path of free capitalism.31 In studies of political diplomacy of the Northern Warlord period, moderate affirmation was given to the “treaty revision diplomacy” of the Northern Warlord government.32 As for the rise of the national revolutionary movement in the late period of the Northern Warlord government, research demonstrated the need for social transformation by illustrating the impoverishment of ordinary people in the period from the perspective of household living standards with detailed statistics. In addition, the social, cultural and educational issues in the period of the Republic of China, on which little research was done previously, began to attract more researchers. Their research results were supported by many academic journals.33 To summarize, the second stage witnessed a more extensive and diverse choice of research topics on the history of the Republic of China due to the booming case studies. What characterized the narration and evaluation was a greater focus on specific and detailed analysis. The practice of either absolute affirmation or absolute negation in research method and conclusion in the past was rarely seen in this period, indicating a constantly deepening and developing research of the history of the Republic of China. The disadvantage

120  WANG Chaoguang was that some of the research results were confined to facts, with a lack of theorization and theoretical discussion on major issues in particular.

4.3  New development in the new century34 Since the twenty-​first century, progress has been constantly made in studies of the history of the Republic of China, which has become a most noticeable research field of Chinese history. The History of the Republic of China (Nanjing University Press, 2006, Zhang Xianwen ed.) is a comprehensive study of the history of the Republic of China, together with The History of the Republic of China (Sichuan People’s Publishing House, 2006, Zhu Hanguo et al. eds.). In addition, five volumes of the ten-​volume General History of Modern China (Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2006, Zhang Haipeng, ed.) are devoted to the history of the Republic of China. Being general history works themselves, such works are still basically focused on the political history, whereas the economic, cultural and social history still need to be strengthened. In the comprehensive studies of the history of the Republic of China, various symposiums and conferences also played an important role. In recent years, several international symposiums were held each year on the history of the Republic of China, such as the International Symposium on the History of the Republic of China hosted by the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and held in 2002, the International Symposium on China During 1910s and 1940s co-​hosted by the Republican History Department of the Institute of Modern History and the History Department of Sichuan Normal University and held in the years from 2004 to 2007, and the International Symposium on the History of the Republic of China hosted by the Department of History of Nanjing University and held in 2000 and 2006. The participants of these symposiums were from various research institutions at home and abroad, with a wide range of research fields and cutting-​edge research. Their latest achievements, research orientation and development trends both at home and abroad are clear manifestations of the history of the Republic of China as an international discipline. Recent years saw a stronger focus of research on the period of the Nanjing National Government as special research of the history of the Republic of China. Many more achievements were made in research on the history of politics, the economy, military affairs and diplomacy, which were traditional research. Meanwhile, many new research fields, such as society, culture, regional, and urban history began to attract more researchers. In their orientation, researchers with a strong sense of free discussion greatly promoted the understanding of the history of the Republic of China by putting forward new ideas or revising the original ones. Likewise, there was a diversified development of methodology, while the empirical case study remained the mainstream method. As far as publication was concerned, in addition to many special books published every year, a large number of research papers were published as an important contribution to the history of the Republic

A history of the Republic of China  121 of China. The following is a brief introduction to some of the achievements in the studies of the political history of the Republic of China in recent years. The studies of the national revolution in the mid-​1920s used to be focused on the formation, evolution and results of the relationship between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China from the perspective of the history of the Communist Party of China. However, in recent years the research began to concentrate on the many factors affecting the emergence and development of the national revolution from the historical reality of that time, especially the situation in the north. Luo Zhitian believed that the main contradiction in Chinese politics at that time was the “tension between the North and the South” rather than that between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China. From such a point of view, he re-​examined various factors affecting the national revolution, such as geopolitical culture, and social identity.35 Yang Tianhong’s research on the aftercare conference was also different from the previous perspective of the Southern government opposing the Northern “warlords,” in that he believed that the dispute between the Kuomintang and Duan Qirui government over the aftercare conference was more about fighting for the control of power of the central and local governments. However, due to the lack of strength, the Kuomintang failed to force the Druan Qirui government with the support of the warlords of Fengtian to make substantive concessions, and eventually the relationship between the two sides broke down.36 As for the mass movements in the period of the national revolution, previous research was done mostly from the perspective of revolutionary history. However, Feng Xiaocai focused his research on the Duan Qirui government in his studies of the May 30th Movement, arguing that the expansion of the movement was linked to the political and diplomatic strategies of the government, and actually became a tool that could be used by the government. Therefore, in modern China, any mass movement was never a simple expression of public opinion; if the forces behind a movement in modern China were ignored, one could hardly understand its complex connotation.37 Previous studies of peasant movements in the period of the national revolution were concentrated on the peasant movement at the two lakes under the leadership and influence of the Communist Party of China. Yet Liang Shangxian focused his studies on the relationship between the Kuomintang and the peasant movements in Guangdong, believing that the Kuomintang initially supported the peasant movement in Guangdong, but maintained a close relationship with the landlords and gentry. In the later “purifying the party” movement, the Kuomintang permitted retaliation of the peasant association and the peasants by the civil corps of local tyrants and evil gentry groups, which affected the loyal members of the Kuomintang and young revolutionaries who worked hard for the national revolution, thus pushing the Kuomintang to political corruption and on track to its future failure.38 Qiu Jie researched the Canton Merchants’ Corps Uprising in 1924, which used to be studied from the perspective of Sun Yat-​sen and the revolutionary

122  WANG Chaoguang government, through examining how the merchant corps emerged and developed in Guangzhou in the late Qing Dynasty and the early years of the Republic of China. He argued that the traditional statement that such an incident was instigated by the British and the Northern and Southern warlords was not supported with strong evidence; the outburst of the incident was directly connected to the special political, social context and to the historical development of the merchant corps, which might be a special case of conflict between the merchant corps and the government.39 Ao Guangxu, in his studies of the emergence and development of the Canton Merchants’ Corps, believed that in increasing friction between the government and business, conflict between the army and civil corps, the merchants’ strike and united activities of the whole province, an integrated social network was gradually formed with the merchant corps as the driving force, the civil corps as the peripheral organizations, the gentry and merchants as the main social basis, the rule of the people or autonomy as its core idea; subsequently a great corporatism posing as the social subject came into being competing on its own strength with the Guangdong government, thus giving rise to a civil society that was similar to early Western modernization and its occurring pattern.40 The rise and fall of Kuomintang rule in the period of the Republic of China has always been a research focus. Wang Qisheng undertook unique research on the history of the Kuomintang’s organizational system from the perspective of the history of the Kuomintang’s party administration, with historical research as its orientation and an integration of sociology and political science. His research raised attention with his in-​depth studies of the Kuomintang’s organizational structure, the composition of its members, its recruitment system, the relationship between the party and the government, and factional struggles. In his view, after the reorganization of the Kuomintang in the mid-​1920s, there were great differences between the actual organizational form and the institutional form. While the organizational form was as undisciplined as it used to be, the movement of “purifying the party” led to an adverse elimination of the talents within the Kuomintang, allowing the local tyrants, evil gentry, the opportunists and corrupt elements to divide and plunder the local resources. The self-​injury of the Kuomintang was no less than that of the Communist Party. Moreover, as the Kuomintang practiced domination of the government by the party at the central level but separation of the party from the government in the local level, party power was increasingly weakening in the local political operation and thus greatly shook the authority and foundation of Kuomintang governance, on account of which the Kuomintang could only establish a weak autocratic government.41 Jiang Pei of Nankai University studied the origin, concept, practice, variation and influence of the Kuomintang’s party-​state system using the theory of political science. He believed that after the establishment of the Nanjing National Government, the Kuomintang implemented the “party-​ state” system, in which the Kuomintang’s ideology was used as the basic principle of governance and the “double track system of the party and government” as a power

A history of the Republic of China  123 management system was operated in a top-​down administrative mode. This was not only the result of the Western party political system. The influence of the Soviet-​Russian system in particular on Chinese politics also needs to be considered, as well as the consequences of the interaction of traditional political culture with the modern Western political system and ideas. However, such a system evolved into the persistent ailment of the political system of the Kuomintang due to the disputes between the interests of the party, the government and the army in its ruling system, and the doubling of the administrative cost caused by the coexistence of the party and the government management system and the obstruction of their relations.42 In recent years, there has been expanded research on the relationship between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China in the national revolution and the post-​war period, as the relationship between the two parties has always been a central topic in research. Yang Kuisong examined the evolution of the relationship between Sun Yat-​sen and the Communist Party of China as well as the debate within the Kuomintang on whether to “tolerate” or “separate” from the Communist Party. He believed that Sun Yat-​sen’s acceptance of the Communist Party was based on the practical needs of uniting with Russia on the one hand, and on the other, on his attempt to use the Communist Party’s ability in propaganda and organization to transform the Kuomintang. Yet such acceptance did not change Sun Yat-​sen’s basic political goals and ideas. Therefore, thenceforth whether to “tolerate” or “separate” from the Communist Party became a central topic of contradictions and conflicts within the Kuomintang. After Sun Yat-​sen’s death, the disappearance of the restraining forces inevitably led to the rupture of the relationship between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. On this basis, Yang Kuisong further studied the movement of purifying the party by the Kuomintang, pointing out that the movement, taking the form of violence and with the help of the army and the old local forces, not only made the army the beneficiary of the local power, but also restored the old ruling relationship in many areas, which actually led to a split of the “party character” of the Kuomintang, including the conservatism and corruption of the power departments running counter to the relative radicalism of the party system in terms of the organization, and the serious disconnection between the party ideas and its actual policies.43 Deng Ye and Wang Zhaoguang respectively did research on the relationship between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party before and after the victory in the War of Resistance, focusing on such issues as the United Government, the Kuomintang-​Communist Party negotiations, the Political Consultative Conference, and the Northeast Negotiations, and revealed the complexity and diversity of the relationship between the two parties, and how it was affected by situations both home and abroad, as well as various other factors affecting its development and evolution, thus deepening people’s understanding of relevant historical issues.44 Chiang Kai-​shek was another research subject. Using Chiang Kai-​shek’s diaries that were recently made accessible to the public, Yang Tianshi made

124  WANG Chaoguang a comprehensive study of Chiang Kai-​shek as well as related figures and events, which attracted wide attention both home and abroad.45 Huang Daoxuan tried to offer a new interpretation of Chiang Kai-​shek’s policy of “pacifying the interior before resisting foreign aggression” and believed that the policy was not specifically targeted at the Communist Party before the September 18th Incident, since “resisting foreign aggression” was basically slogan propaganda, and “pacifying the interior” was first aimed at the local power groups against Chiang. After the September 18th Incident, “pacifying the interior” became a central task, whereas in “resisting foreign aggression” the main keynote was compromise but with some limits. In 1934, the policy changed greatly in that “pacifying the interior” turned to domestic construction, while the focus was significantly shifted to “resisting foreign aggression.”46

4.4  Factors affecting historical research First of all, research materials have become widely accessible. Historical materials are the basis of research. In recent years, the development of history research of the Republic of China first benefited from the opening of historical materials and the convenience of obtaining them. For example, the archives of the Republic of China were gradually opened to researchers in recent years, especially the local archive and historical materials of the Republic of China in various archive collections, the archives of Chiang Kai-​shek and the KMT in Taiwan, the archives of Chiang Kai-​shek, Song Ziwen and Kong Xiangxi at Stanford University, Columbia University and Harvard University in the United States, and the archives of the Communist International in Russia.47 The open access to such archives was instrumental to achievements in research on the national revolution, the relationship between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, and on Chiang Kai-​shek. Another example is Jin Yilin and Luo Min’s research on the factional and regional disputes between Chiang Kai-​shek and the Kuomintang, which was mainly based on the historical materials of the archives collected in Taiwan.48 Chen Hongmin’s research on Hu Hanmin, the leader of the Kuomintang, was mainly based on Hu Hanmin’s Archives collected at Harvard’s Yenching Library.49 Wu Jingpin’s research on the financial history of the Republic of China was mainly based on the financial archives of the Republic of China collected at Shanghai City Archives.50 It should also be noted that several major newspapers and magazines of the Republic of China were photocopied for publication together with a large quantity of local archive collections and documents in the period of the Republic of China compiled and published by all the provinces and cities of the mainland (such historical materials involve the situation of various places, periods, industries and persons of the Republic of China), which are all very useful for researchers. At present, the fundamental problem for scholars of the Republic of China lies not so much in the shortage of historical materials but in how to make use of so many

A history of the Republic of China  125 historical materials and how to find and solve problems from such a vast historical resource. Second, there has been an expansion of research fields. The studies on the history of the Republic of China used to be mainly in such traditional fields as politics, the economy, military affairs and diplomatic history. In recent years, while traditional research continued, many new research fields have been opened up, such as social history, cultural history, regional history, urban history, and institutional history. Several factors contributed to such an expansion, such as changes of research ideas (such as changing from “extroverted research” to “introverted research” and from “looking up” to “looking down” perspective), expansion of research materials (such as the use of local historical materials, oral historical materials, visual and video historical materials), and the need for research topics from a large number of junior researchers and master’s and doctoral candidates. For example, Zhu Ying and others did quite a lot of research on the merchant movements that used to be scarcely studied.51 Wei Guangqi did his research on the administrative system from the late Qing Dynasty to the Northern Warlords period,52 and Wen Rui’s research on the social management function of the local grassroots governments in the first half of the twentieth century helped us to have a better knowledge of the function of the modern transformation of the Chinese local system.53 Wang Zhaogang’s research on the county autonomy in the 1930s54 and Cao Chengjian’s research on the local autonomy in the 1940s provoked reflections on the collapse of the national government from the perspective of social grassroots control.55 Wang Xianming and others researched the relationship between the county government construction movement and rural social changes in the 1930s,56 Zhang Wei on the construction of rural grassroots political power in Guangxi,57 Wang Hanzhong on the tax collectors in Northern Jiangsu during the Republic of China,58 and Li Julan on the rural grassroots political power below the county government during the Republic of China59 all served to present interpretations of the evolution and transformation of modern rural society, and to prompt us to reflect on the relationship between state power and rural areas. Li Lifeng’s research on the civil service examination system in the period of the Republic of China60 made us better understand specific aspects of the government organization system at that time. Yan Tianling’s research on the national government’s policy toward the Inner Mongolia before the War of Resistance demonstrated the complexity and particularity of ethnic issues and ethnic policies. A few areas that used to be rarely touched upon made their entry into research, such as Wang Qisheng’s research on the relationship between comics and the Northern Expedition, Li Gongzhong on the relationship between Sun Yat-​sen’s Mausoleum architecture and politics,61 and Wang Chaoguang on the film censorship system of the Republic of China.62 The expansion of the research fields helps later generations to understand the history of the Republic of China more comprehensively and deeply, and to have a better knowledge of its multiplicity and complexity.

126  WANG Chaoguang Third, there is a change of research orientation. Empirical research based on historical materials is of course a basic method. Yet recent years witnessed a growing use of methodology in social sciences by younger scholars in the field of history studies of the Republic of China, homing in on formulating new research questions, constructing frameworks and theoretical analysis. For example, Yang Nianqun’s research on China’s modern medical and health system adopted sociological method in analyzing the relationship between the establishment of modern medical systems and Chinese traditional culture and ethics, as well as other modern systems such as the police system and new autonomous institutions. He also examined the impact of modern medical systems on the control of social organizations and the daily life of city residents, and the role of the state power through medical procedures and physical control.63 Feng Xiaocai, taking the rumors of “Japanese poisoning” in Shanghai during the May 4th Movement as an example, tried to explore ordinary citizens’ response to the May 4th Movement from a social psychological perspective, arguing that the lower-​class people’s response to the May 4th Movement might be more of a collective panic action caused by the rumors of Japanese poisoning, which in the eyes of the “elites” who vigorously promoted the “nationalist movement” was the very embodiment of “people’s morale.”64 At present, the research orientation of the history of the Republic of China is still undergoing changes, and more new achievements are expected, particularly that many younger researchers and graduate students are getting involved.

4.5  Problems to be solved Even with its lively research and multitude of achievements, several problems remain unsolved in the studies of the history of the Republic of China due to its short time span and various other factors. First, there is a need for dialogue and discussion. At present, the studies of the history of the Republic of China seem to be focused more on case studies, and on topics that are rarely touched upon and using historical materials seldom used in the past. Its advantages lie in expanding research fields and filling in research gaps, while its disadvantages lie in the lack of interaction and discussion, which is why in recent years there have been few discussions and debates on the overall history of the Republic of China. Besides, scholars are reluctant to repeat research on the same topic except for some occasional writing, which is particularly true of the younger scholars. This has more or less affected the discussion of related issues. As far as my personal reading is concerned, a much repeatedly discussed and valuable topic in recent years is the Guangzhou Merchant Corps Incident in 1924, which have been studied mainly from the perspective of the Guangdong government and Sun Yat-​sen, whereas the recent research explores the causes and consequences of the incident from the perspective of the Guangzhou Merchant Corps, pointing out that the traditional view is not supported by strong evidence that Britain and

A history of the Republic of China  127 the Northern and Southern warlords conspired to instigate the incident, and that while the Comintern is one of the dominant factors in the incident, the incident is directly connected to the special political and social background of modern Guangdong and the historical development characteristics of the merchant corps.65 Owing to the influence of the politicization of academic criticism in the past and the consideration of the possible social repercussions criticism might incur, scholars are mostly cautious about academic criticism, hence serious academic criticisms and discussions are rarely heard. However, in recent years in the discussions on the Zhejiang Autonomy Movement during the Republic of China, Feng Xiaocai put forward a different view from the previous studies, and which Shen Xiaomin refuted in turn arguing that the previous conclusion was justifiable in the light of historical facts and not to be easily overturned in its claim that the failure of the Zhejiang Province’s Autonomy Movement was the result of the warlords stifling autonomy and futile efforts by the literati before the military force as well as warlords’ reluctance to implement the provincial constitution. Moreover, Shen Xiaomin went further to examine Feng Xiaocai’s inappropriate use of historical materials.66 Second, in what position is research on the history of the Republic of China supposed to be placed? It is generally understood as a study of the history of the ruling class in the Republic of China, and to a certain extent, a special history rather than a general history study in its normal sense. The problem thus arising therefrom is that some historical events and figures in the Republic of China may neither appropriately be incorporated in such a research framework nor get fully accounted for, such as the relationship between the history of the Republic of China and the history of the Communist Party of China. Huang Daoxuan, in his research on the fifth “encirclement and suppression” during the civil war between the KMT and the Communist Party of China, tried to offer a new interpretation by placing it in a broad historical background and viewing it from the perspective of social history.67 Deng Ye in his research on Fu Zuoyi’s political transformation before and after the peaceful liberation of Beijing showed that Fu Zuoyi’s coming over from the KMT army had a strong duality in that his two-​handed preparation strategy was to leave room for a possible resurgence, which was also a phenomenon unique to the transition period.68 Owing to the fact that the research on the history of the Republic of China has its own particularity and lacks depth, it is yet to be fully integrated into the framework of a general history system. Perhaps the conditions are not mature. In the coming years the history of the Republic of China will be dealt with as both a specialized history and a general history. With the passage of time and the deepening of research, the positioning of the Republic of China history research as well as its research system and targeted subjects will eventually be resolved, and a broader space for the research will be opened. Third, research fields have to be further broadened. Currently research gaps still exist despite a remarkable expansion of the research fields. A few

128  WANG Chaoguang important historical periods and issues remain to be explored in depth. For example, in spite of a few general works69 on the period of the Beijing government and focused research on diplomatic relations therein,70 specific topical research is still needed. Many events and figures of the Beijing government have yet to be studied in depth.71 Many issues during the period of the Beijing government still need justifiable interpretations, such as evaluation of the parliamentary system. For another example, while the research on the War of Resistance against Japan was mostly focused on the war itself, very limited studies have been done on the occupied areas, especially on their economic, social and cultural situations. In this regard, in spite of the research results in recent years,72 there is still a lot of room for further research, and the same is true of research on the ten-​year period prior to Kuomintang rule.

4.6  Prospects It has been 30  years since the beginning of research on the history of the Republic of China, with great achievements and new ideas continually coming out. Yet due to the short time span of its growth, such research has yet to reach its maturity, as a lot of areas and issues still need to be dealt with in depth. That is there ought to be continued exploration and exploitation of rich historical materials, further expansion of research areas and scope, new insights on important issues, and strengthening exchanges with overseas researchers. It can be expected that the prospective research is as follows: First, the traditional areas of the history of the Republic of China, such as political history, economic history, and diplomatic history, will still attract many researchers, with their inadequacies being continuously shown up. New areas such as social history, cultural history, institutional history, and regional history are gradually becoming the focus and will be further developed. Second, on account of the fact that history studies of the Republic of China started late with many gaps left unexplored and the research atmosphere transformed, case studies will still play an important role. The progress of case studies will contribute significantly to the future position of the history of the Republic of China in general historical research. Third, while focusing on case studies, we need also concentrate our discussion on general questions going from specificity to generality, so that case studies are applied to both confirming historical facts and exploring questions. Fourth, archives collections of the history of the Republic of China at home and abroad are increasingly being made accessible, and international academic exchanges are more and more frequent, serving as an impetus to both macro and micro-​studies, which in turn will enhance exploration of the history of the Republic of China. Fifth, with the development of higher education, every year a large number of PhD and postgraduate students choose the history of the Republic of China as the topic of their theses, which will continue to promote the development of its history in general and the expansion of research topics in particular.

A history of the Republic of China  129 Finally, the current changes in social needs for and cognition of historical research will, to a certain extent, promote changes in the selection and orientation of historical research on the Republic of China, and in which various media will also play a notable role.

Notes 1 The results of the research on the history of the Republic of China described in this chapter generally date from the founding of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949 to the end of 2008. They mainly cover the study of the political history of the Republic of China, studies of the military, economy, ideology, culture, Sino-​foreign relations, figures, and the research by scholars in Taiwan, the Hong Kong Region and foreign countries is only discussed when necessary due to the limited space. 2 Some historical materials and research works of the Republic of China published in this period are of great value and are still used by scholars today. Please refer to the relevant discussion. 3 In 1930, the Nanjing national government decided to establish the Preparatory Committee of the National History Museum. In 1947, the National History Museum was officially established in Nanjing. It was devoted to the collection and collation of the historical materials of the Republic of China and its history study. However, due to the fact that the country was still in war at that time, the National History Museum did not do much practical work. 4 There were two main opinions on the periodization of modern Chinese history at that time: one was that the period between 1840 and 1919 should be classified as modern history, whereas that between 1919 and 1949 as contemporary history; the other was that the period between 1840 and 1949 should be classified as modern history. The former periodization was supported by the majority. At present, most scholars have accepted the latter in their research, but in school teaching the former is still in use. 5 A few works made reference to the source:  Yan Zhongping’s Statistical Data of Modern Chinese Economic History, Wu Chengming’s The Investment of Imperialism in Old China, Chen Zhen et al.’s Historical Materials of Modern Chinese Industry, Peng Zeyi’s Historical Materials of the Modern Chinese Handicraft Industry, Zhang Youyi’s Historical Materials of Modern Chinese Agriculture, Wang Jingyu and Mi Rucheng’s Historical Materials of the Modern Chinese Railway, Xu Yisheng’s The Statistical Data of Modern China’s Foreign Debt. Although these materials are all categorized as “modern times,” a considerable part of them are statistical data of the Republic of China. Owing to the limited length of this chapter, the citations in the first and second sections of this chapter do not indicate information concerning edition. Please refer to the corresponding part in Modern Chinese History Studies in the Past 50 Years. 6 The author has not made a detailed investigation on the titles of the books, but it seems that after 1949, the Republic of China as a neutral title starts to be used in this book. 7 The discussion in this section is generally presented in terms of these two stages, but for the convenience and coherence of narration, there are occasional cross narrations.

130  WANG Chaoguang 8 Please refer to The History of the Republic of China (Vol. 1 of Part I); A History of the Revolution of 1911; The Proceedings of the Symposium on the 70th Anniversary of the Revolution of 1911. 9 The History of the Republic of China (Vol. 1 of Part I), p.439. 10 The History of the Republic of China (Vol. 1 of Part II); The History of the National Protection Movement; Xie Benshu, A Biography of Cai E; Dong Fangkui, Liang Qichao and the National Protection War; Jin Chongji, The political forces in the National Protection Movement; Zeng Yeying, The preparation and beginning of the National Protection Uprising in Yunnan, Historical Research, 1986 (2). 11 Pei Changhong, Nishihara Kaizumi loans and Terauchi Cabinet’s policy towards China; Zhang Bofeng, Anhui warlords and their relationship with Japanese imperialism, Historical Research, 1982 (5), (6). 12 Sun Sibai, On the studies of warlord history and some related issues, Guizhou Social Sciences, 1982, (2); Yu Xintun, Japan’s dual diplomacy in the War of Warlords of Zhi(li) and Feng(tian), Nankai Journal, 1982 (4); Ding Yongnian, Practical and realistic evaluation of Zhang Zuolin, Seeking Truth, 1982 (5); Deng Ye, Research on China’s rejection of the treaty at the Paris Peace Conference, Social Sciences in China, 1986 (2). 13 Peng Ming, An outline of the Northern Warlord studies, Teaching and Research, 1980 (1); Lai Xinxia, Guo Jianlin, and Jiao Jingyi, Several issues in historical studies of the Northern warlords, Academic Monthly, 1982 (4). 14 Shen Jiawu, The development of national capital in the period of the Northern warlords based on the registration of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, Historical Archives, 1984 (4); Zhang Jingru et al., The society and revolution in the reign of the Northern warlords, Teaching and Research, 1986 (6). 15 Liu Yongming, The Kuomintang Members and the May 4th Movement, China Social Sciences Press, 1990; Huang Jinhua and Qi Liangyan, A view on the leaders and the attribute of the May 4th Movement, Theoretical Investigation, 1988 (5). 16 He Li, A History of the War of Resistance against Japan, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2005; Guo Dajun, The evolution of the Kuomintang govern­ ment’s policy towards Japan from September 18th Incident (1931) to August 13th Incident (1937), Historical Research, 1984 (6); Li Yibin, Changes in the Kuomintang government’s policy towards Japan after the North China Incident, Republican Archives, 1989 (1); Chen Qianping, On the national defense construction by the KMT government before the War of Resistance against Japan, Journal of Nanjing University, 1987 (1); Le Jiaqing and Jiang Tianying, On the KMT government’s preparation before the War of Resistance against Japan, Fudan Journal, 1987 (5); Yuan Xu et al., On the front battlefield in the initial stage of the War of Resistance; Ma Zhendu, An investigation on the causes of the Songhu (Shanghai) Battle of August 13th; Jiang Kangmei, A review of the Defending Battle of Wuhan; Guo Xuewang and Meng Guoxiang, A review of the decisive battle of Zhongtiaoshan, Modern Chinese History Studies, 1985 (4), (5); 1986 (6); 1987 (4). 17 Gao Defu, On the tariff autonomy policy of the Kuomintang government, Journal of Historical Science, 1987 (1); Fan Xiaogang, On the tariff reform of the Kuomintang Nanjing Government, Zhejiang Journal of Finance and Economics, 1987 (2); Yu Baotang, On the currency reform of the Kuomintang government in 1935, Journal of East China Normal University, 1982 (4); On the legal tender monetary policy of the Kuomintang government, Historical Archives, 1983 (4); Zhu Zhenhua, A re-​evaluation of the “currency system reform” in 1935, Modern

A history of the Republic of China  131 Chinese History Studies, 1987 (1); Zheng Huixin, The motivation of the currency system reform in 1935 and its relationship with imperialism, Journal of Historical Science, 1987 (1); The Proceedings of the Symposium on the Republican Archives and the History Studies of the Republic of China, The Archive Press, 1998. 18 Xu Yan, The formation of two battlefields in the War of Resistance against Japan and their mutual relationship, Modern Chinese History Studies, 1986 (4). 19 Yu Zidao, The evolution of the strategy of China’s front battlefield towards Japan, Historical Research, 1988 (5); The operational direction in the early stage of China’s front battlefield, Military History Research, 1987 (4); Wang Jianlang, A review of the military strategic policies of the Kuomintang in the early stage of the War of Resistance against Japan, Fudan Journal, 1985 (4). 20 Wang Huilin, Several issues in the studies of history of the War of Resistance against Japan, Journal of Beijing Normal University, 1985 (4). 21 Yan Ruping and Zheng Zemin, On Chiang Kai-​shek in the War of Resistance against Japan, in The Proceedings of the Symposium on the Republican Archives and the History Studies of the Republic of China, The Archive Press, 1998. 22 Cai Dejin, On the relationship between Chiang Kai-​shek and Wang Jingwei in the War of Resistance, in The Proceedings of the Symposium on the Republican Archives and the History Studies of the Republic of China, The Archive Press, 1998. 23 Xu Dixin and Wu Chengming, Preface to History of Chinese Capitalist Development (Vol. 1), Social Sciences Academic Press, 2007; Ding Richu, On “bureaucratic capital” and “bureaucratic bourgeois class,” in The Proceedings of the Symposium on the Republican Archives and the History Studies of the Republic of China, The Archive Press, 1998; A  review of the Southwestern Economy Symposium, Researches in Chinese Economic History, 1986 (1). 24 Ding Richu and Shen Zuwei, On the state capital during the War of Resistance against Japan, Republic Archives, 1986 (4). 25 The History of the Republic of China (Vol. 5 of Part II), Zhong Hua Book Company, 2011; Yang Tianshi, Looking for History Overseas, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2001; Yang Kuisong, A New Exploration of the Xi’an Incident, Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2006; Chen Qianping, On the “HMS Amethyst” Incident, Journal of Nanjing University, 1998 (2); Based on a large number of archives and historical materials collected at home and abroad, Yang Tianshi demonstrated that the so-​called “conspiracy documents” of the Soviet Union that Zhang Zuolin took as evidence when he inspected the Soviet Embassy in Beijing in 1927 were all forgeries, revealing the inside story of some contradictions among various factions within the Kuomintang in the mid-​1930s. Yang Kuisong focused on the archives of the Communist Party of Choina and the Comintern, revealing some of the untold stories about the Xi’an Incident while having corrected the inaccurate statements. Chen Qianping made a detailed research on the causes and consequences of the “HMS Amethyst” Incident by using British archives. 26 Feng Xiaocai, Re-​examining “nonresistance,” The Journal of Studies of China’s Resistance War against Japan, 1996 (2); Cai Dejin, Reflections on several issues of the Lugou Bridge Incident, The Journal of Studies of China’s Resistance War against Japan, 1997 (3). 27 Qi Houjie, An exploration of the guerrilla warfare behind the enemy by the Kuomintang, Military History Research, 1990 (1); Han Xinfu, On the guerrilla battlefield against Japanese aggression, Republican Archives, 1990 (3); Zhang Yepei, On the position of the Kuomintang army in the battlefield behind the

132  WANG Chaoguang enemy in Shandong; Tang Liguo, Several issues in the guerrilla warfare against Japanese aggression, The Journal of Studies of China’s Resistance War against Japan, 1996 (1), 1997 (1). 28 Wen Rui and Su Dun, Re-​evaluating the front battlefield of China’s War of Resistance against Japan in 1944; Liu Wushu, On the strategic counterattack on the front battlefield of the War of Resistance against Japan, The Journal of Studies of China’s Resistance War against Japan, 1996 (4), 1995 (3). 29 Zong Yumei, A review of the economic construction of the Nanjing national government from 1927 to 1937, Republican Archives, 1992 (1); Cheng Daode, On the foreign negotiations for tariff autonomy in the early stage of the Nanjing national government; Zhang Sheng, On tariff reform at the early stage of the Nanjing national government, Modern Chinese History Studies, 1992 (6), 1993 (2); Jia Wei, The founding of Sanqingtuan (the Youth League of the Three Principles of the People, shortened as the Sanqingtuan hereafter) and the countermeasures of the Communist Party of China; The relationship between the Kuomintang and the Sanqingtuan and the origin of their contradictions; The end of the Sanqingtuan and the merger of the party and the league, Modern Chinese History Studies, 1995 (2), 1994 (4), (1); Zhang Baijia, On Chongqing Negotiations, Modern Chinese History Studies, 1993 (5); Yang Kuisong, The struggle between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party and Marshall’s mediation in 1946; Wang Zhaoguang, Studies on the Kuomintang’s decision of the Northeast after the victory of the War of Resistance against Japan, Historical Research, 1990 (5), 1995 (6); Xue Xiantian, Studies on the post-​war Northeast and the trend of Sino-​Soviet relations, Modern Chinese History Studies, 1996 (1); Ren Donglai, On the Sino-​American Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation in 1946, CPC History Studies, 1989 (3); Tao Wenzhao, The Sino-​American commercial treaty:  a case study of the economic factors in the postwar U.S. policy towards China, Modern Chinese History Studies, 1993 (2). 30 Huang Yiping, The economic policies after the Revolution of 1911 and Chinese modernization, Academic Monthly, 1992 (6); Yu Heping, A  review of the economic legal system construction in the early years of the Republic of China, Modern Chinese History Studies, 1992 (4). 31 Du Xuncheng, The interruption of the state capitalism in the period of the Northern warlords government, Historical Research, 1989 (2); Shi Bo, The Revolution of 1911 and the development of Chinese national capitalist economy, Hubei Social Sciences, 1991 (8). 32 The History of the Republic of China, Vol. 5 of Part II. 33 In 1998, a number of research papers were published on Modern Chinese History Studies, such as Rao Donghui’s “Preliminary studies on labor legislation of the Beijing government in the Republic of China,” Yan Changhong’s “The reform and evolution of funeral rites and customs in the Republic of China,” and Chen Yunqian and Ye Qing’s “On the transformation of urban marriage in the Republic of China” (Modern Chinese History Studies, 1998 (1), (5), (6)), which was a sign of attention to social history by the leading journal. These papers reflected in-​depth studies on a less-​studied side of social life in the period of the Republic of China, which enabled us to understand the social development thereof from different perspectives. 34 Thanks go to Zhao Lidong and Luo Min of the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences for their help in providing reference materials for the third and fourth sections.

A history of the Republic of China  133 35 Luo Zhitian, A reinterpretation of the old and new of the North and South and the success of the northern expeditions, Open Times, 2000 (9); The evolution of the military and political pattern of the North before the Northern expeditions (1924–​1926), Historical Review, 2003 (1); The formation of “the righteous striking the unrighteous”:  the military integration of the South before the Northern expeditions and the change of the offensive and defensive situation between the two sides, Social Sciences in China, 2003 (5). 36 Yang Tianhong, An analysis on the relationship between the Kuomintang and the aftercare conference, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2000 (3). 37 Feng Xiaocai, The negotiation of the Shanghai Incident, the May 30th Movement and the government of 1925, Historical Research, 2004 (1). 38 Liang Shangxian, The Kuomintang suppression of the peasant movement and its effect, The Kuomintang and the local civil corps in Guangdong, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2002 (2), 2003 (6). 39 Qiu Jie, The Canton Merchants’ Corps and its Uprising—​a re-​examination from the perspective of the merchants corps, Historical Research, 2002 (2). 40 Ao Guangxu, A dream of merchants’ government—​an investigation on the history of the Canton Merchants’ Corps and great corporatism, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2003 (4); The Communist International and the Merchants Corps incident, Social Sciences in China, 2003 (4). 41 Wang Qisheng, Party Members, Party Power and Party Struggle: The Organizational Form of the Kuomintang in 1924–​1949, Shanghai Bookstore Press, 2003; On the social structure and grassroots organizations after the reorganization of the Kuomintang; The organizational transformation of the Kuomintang after the Movement of purifying the party, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2000 (2), 2003 (5); The relations between the party and the government: the operation of KMT’s party governance at the local level (1927–​1937), Social Sciences in China, 2001 (3). 42 Jiang Pei et  al., A  review of the “party-​state” system of Chinese Kuomintang, Historical Research in Anhui, 2006 (1). 43 Yang Kuisong, Sun Yat-​sen and the Communist Party—​a historical investigation based the Russian factors; To “tolerate” or “separate” with the Communist Party?—​the origin and process of the split of the Kuomintang on account of “tolerating the Communist Party” in 1925, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2001 (3), 2002 (4); A re-​examination of the Kuomintang’s “purifying the party” at Nanjing in 1927, Historical Research, 2005 (6). 44 Deng Ye, The United Government and the One-​ party Political Tutelage—​ the Political Struggle between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China from 1944 to 1946, The Social Sciences Literature Press, 2003; The negotiation of the United Government and Chinese politics at the end of the War of Resistance, Social Sciences in China, 2002 (5); A study of the Second Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the Kuomintang; The Northeast and the Siping Decisive Battle; The Nanjing Negotiation and the end of the second Kuomintang-​ Communist Party Cooperation, Historical Research, 2000 (1), 2001 (6), 2002 (2); On the political nature of the negotiation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party in Chongqing, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2005 (1). Wang Zhaoguang, The setback of China’s democratization process in the early spring of 1946—​a study centered on the CPPCC conference and the relationship between the KMT and the Communist Party; The important turning point of the KMT’s policy towards the Communist Party after the war—​the second plenary session of

134  WANG Chaoguang the Sixth Conference of the Central Committee of the KMT, Historical Research, 2000 (6), 2001 (4); The changes of war and peace: the evolution of China’s current situation from the Chongqing negotiation to the CPPCC conference; A study on the economic cooperation and negotiation between China and the Soviet Union in the Northeast after the war, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2002 (1), (6); The fierce dispute over the diplomacy with the Soviet Union and the Northeast after the war, Republican Archives, 2006 (3). 45 Yang Tianshi, Looking for a Real Chiang Kai-​shek, Shanxi People’s Publishing House, 2008. 46 Huang Daoxuan, A research on Chiang Kai-​shek’s “pacifying the interior before resisting foreign aggression,” The Journal of Studies of China’s Resistance War against Japan, 2000 (2). 47 Some of these archives and historical materials have been published, such as The Communist Party of Soviet Union (Bolshevik), Comintern and China’s National Revolutionary Movements (1920–​1925), The Communist Party of Soviet Union (Bolshevik), Comintern and China’s National Revolutionary Movements (1926–​ 1927), A Collection of the Comintern, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) and China’s Revolutionary Literature (1926–​1927) (translated and compiled on the mainland and by the first research section of the Party History Research Office of the CPC Central Committee), Beijing Library Press, 1997–​ 1998; In the Taiwan region were published President Chiang Kai-​shek’s Archives, Records of Yan Xishan’s Telegraph Archives, Taipei “National History Museum,” 2003–​2008. 48 Jin Yilin, Regional concepts and factional conflicts: an Investigation focused on the leaders of Guangdong nationality of the Kuomintang in the 1920s and 1930s; The second fall of Chiang Kai-​shek and his resurgence; Historical Research, 2005 (3), 2006 (2); From Wang Jiangwei and Hu Hanmin’s alliance to the cooperation between Chiang Kai-​shek and Wang Jingwei—​focusing on the peace talks between Nanjing, Guangdong and Shanghai in 1931; Yan Xishan’s anti-​Chinag Kai-​shek activities before and after the confrontation between Nanjing and Guangdong, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2004 (10), 2005 (5). Luo Min, From opposition to negotiation: the Southwest and the central government before and after the Fujian Incident, Historical Research, 2006 (2); Seeking a way out in “contradictory policies”—​Hu Hanmin and the Southwest situation after the Fifth Plenary Session of the Fourth Conference of the Central Committee, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2007 (5). 49 Chen Hongmin, The Interpersonal Relationship and Politics in Correspondence: Reading “The Hu Hanmin Correspondence in the Harvard-​Yenching Library,” The Joint Bookstore, 2003; On the relationship between Guangdong, Guangxi and Fujian Incident, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2001 (4). 50 Wu Jingping, A review of Jiangsu and Shanghai Finance Committee; The Shanghai Banking Association during the period from the September 18th Incident to the January 28th Incident, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2000 (1), 2002 (3). 51 Zhu Ying, Research on the Merchant Movements and modern history of China, Tianjin Social Sciences, 2005 (4); Huo Xinbin, The KMT-​Communist struggle and class division:  an empirical investigation of the industrial and commercial relations in the period of the Guangzhou National Government, Historical Research in Anhui, 2005 (5); Qiao Zhaohong, The merchant associations and merchant movements in the early period of the Great Revolution, Journal of Literature,

A history of the Republic of China  135 History and Philosophy, 2005 (6); Li Baihuai, The merchants’ interest groups: the Merchant Associations—​a contrastive study of Chengdu and Shanghai, Social Science Front, 2005 (1). 52 Wei Guangqi, Government and Autonomy—​China’s County Governments in the First Half of the 20th Century, The Commercial Press, 2004. 53 Wen Rui, The initial transformation of the social management of the local grass-​ roots governments in the first half of the 20th century—​Taking Jiangxi, Fujian and Guangdong as an example, Journal of Literature, History and Philosophy, 2004 (1). 54 Wang Zhaogang, On the county autonomy of the Nanjing national government, Historical Research in Anhui, 2001 (2). 55 Cao Chengjian, The implementation and effects of Chongqing local autonomy under the new county system in the 1940s; The Nanjing national government’s local autonomy policy and its implementation from the Late 1920s to the early 1930s; The adjustment of local autonomy policy by the Nanjing national government in the early 1930s, Journal of Sichuan Normal University, 2000 (6), 2003 (1), (5). 56 Wang Xianming, The county government construction movement and the rural social changes in the 1930s—​taking the county government construction of five experimental counties as samples for analysis, Journal of Historical Science, 2003 (4). 57 Zhang Wei, Civil corps, schools and town halls—​the construction of the rural grass-​roots political power in Guangxi in 1930s, Agricultural History of China, 2005 (3); Between the official intentions and public opinions: the village conferences in Guangxi in the 1930s, Journal of Historical Science, 2006 (8). 58 Wang Hanzhong, On the tax collectors in the Republic of China—​case study of Northern Jiangsu, Republican Archives, 2001 (3). 59 Li Julan, A discussion of the construction of district political power in the period of the Republic of China, Historical Review, 2005 (1). 60 Li Lifeng, The operational efficacy of the civilian examination system in the Republic of China, Historical Archives, 2004 (1); Several issues of the civil servant examination system of the Nanjing national government, Journal of Historical Science, 2004 (1); Modernity and its limit:  a review of the civilian examination system in the Republic of China, Historical Research in Anhui, 2004 (4). 61 Wang Qisheng, The comics in and of the Northern Expedition; Li Gongzhong, The open commemoration:  the representation and practice of the architectural spirit of Sun Yat-​sen’s Mausoleum, Journal of Nanjing University, 2004 (4). 62 Wang Chaoguang, The origin of the film censorship system of the Republic of China; The censorship control and guidance:  a study of the Shanghai Film Inspection Commission; Modern Chinese History Studies, 2001 (3), 2004 (6); The film censorship by the national government after the War of Resistance, Journal of Nanjing University, 2001 (6); The censorship of films in occupied areas during the War of Resistance against Japan, The Journal of Studies of China’s Resistance War against Japan, 2002 (1); The politics in films—​a study of the Central Film Inspection Commission in the mid-​ 1930s, Historical Research, 2006 (2); “An account of the ‘Not Be Afraid of Death’ Incident and the precedent of prohibition of American film Insulting China,” in Cities and Villages in Modern China, Social Sciences Academic Press (China), 2006. 63 Yang Nianqun, Recreating the Patient:  Space Politics in the Conflict between Chinese and Western Medicine (1832–​1985), The Renmin University of China

136  WANG Chaoguang Press, 2006; The establishment of Beijing’s “Health Demonstration Zone” and the transformation of urban space functions, Beijing Archives Series, 2000 (4). 64 Feng Xiaocai, Shanghai lower-​class people’s response to the May 4th Movement: focusing on the rumors of “Japanese poisoning,” Social Science Research, 2005 (3). 65 Qiu Jie, The Guangzhou Merchant Corps and the Merchant Corps Incidents—​ a re-​examination from the perspective of merchant corps, Historical Research, 2002 (2); Zhang Hongwu, The evolution of the relationship between Guangdong Merchant Corps and the Revolutionary Government of Guangdong in 1924, Journal of Sichuan Normal University, 2002 (1); Ao Guangxu, The Comintern and the Merchant Corps Incident, Social Sciences in China, 2003 (4); The dream of a merchant government—​a historical Investigation on the Guangdong Merchant Corps and great corporatism, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2003 (4). 66 Feng Xiaocai, The ideals and interests:  a new probe into the Constitutional Autonomy Movement in Zhejiang Province, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2001 (2); Shen Xiaomin, On the Autonomy Movement in Zhejiang Province—​ with a discussion with Feng Xiaocai, Journal of Historical Science, 2003 (10). 67 Huang Daoxuan, Exploring the causes of failure of the fifth combating encirclement and suppression campaign: not taking the military policy of the Communist Party of China as the main line, Modern Chinese History Studies, 2003 (5). 68 Deng ye, The duality in Fu Zuoyi’s political transformation, Historical Research, 2005 (5). In fact, Zhu Zongzhen pointed out earlier that we now usually talk about Fu Zuoyi’s uprising in Peking. Yet according to the historical materials published in recent years, Mao Zedong did not agree to give Fu Zuoyi the political name and status of “uprising.” After the peaceful liberation of Peking, Fu Zuoyi accepted the political line of the Communist Party of China after a period of thinking. At that time, in the complex environment of military and political struggle and after years of bloody war, it was not easy for both sides to establish peace. However, it is easy to simplify the complicated struggle of that time when things have changed. (Zhu Zongzhen’s A preliminary study on the political nature of Fu Zuoyi’s acceptance of the peaceful settlement of Peking, in Modern China Vol. 7 edited by Ding Richu and published by Shanghai Lixin Accounting Publishing House, 1997) 69 For example, Lai Xinxia et  al., A History of the Northern Warlords, Nankai University Press, 2000; Guo Jianlin et  al., A Short History of the Northern Warlords Government, Tianjin Classics Publishing House; Mo Jianlai, A History of the Warlords Rule in Anhui, Tianjin Classics Publishing House, 2004. 70 Jin Guangyao et al. (eds.), The Chinese Diplomacy in the Period of the Northern Warlords, Fudan University Press, 2006. 71 A new achievement is Su Zhiliang et  al. (eds.), Yuan Shikai and the Northern Warlords, Shanghai People’s Press, 2006. 72 Yu Zidao, A Complete History of Wang Jingwei Puppet Regime, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2006; Wang Qiang, Xinminhui as an Organization of Chinese Traitors, Tianjin Academy of Social Sciences Press, 2006; Pan Min, Research on Japanese Puppet Grassroots Government (1937–​ 1945), Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2006.

5  Economic history YU Heping

In the 70  years since the founding of the PRC, modern economic history research in China has made great achievements, but it also gone through a difficult and tortuous process. During the 17 years before 1966, it developed rapidly with the full development of socialist economic and cultural construction. During the ten years from 1967 to 1976, it was severely frustrated. During the 22 years after 1977 (especially 1979), it prospered under the drive of China’s opening to the outside world, economic system reform and the upsurge of socialist modernization, becoming an important breakthrough in the study of modern history. Since the beginning of the twenty-​first century, with the advent of the new era of reform and opening up and modernization, it has taken on a new look of developing in depth and forging ahead.

5.1  Development in the early days of the PRC After the founding of the PRC, the discipline of modern economic history entered a new era dominated by Marxism together with the whole history discipline. With the support of the Chinese government, academic research has been carried out in a planned, organized and focused way. New research teams have been established, considerable research results achieved, a complete and systematic discipline system formed, and a gratifying development climax presented. 5.1.1  The basic situation of the disciplinary development First, at the initiative of the state, departments of scientific research, business administration and education started the construction and research of modern economic history in a planned way. In 1953, the newly-​established China History Research Committee decided to compile and publish a set of information books on China’s modern economic history, under the specific responsibility of the Economic Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (now the Economic Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, hereinafter referred to as the Economic Research Institute). In 1960, Mao Zedong proposed that “it is very necessary to write a history of

138  YU Heping Chinese capitalism.” In the same year, Zhou Enlai personally handed over the writing task to Xu Dixin, who was working in the Central Administration for Industry and Commerce at that time, and instructed him that “if this book is well written, it will be helpful for the study of Marxist political economics and of great significance to the education of China’s youth.”1 This guiding deployment has greatly promoted the construction and research of the discipline of modern economic history. Since 1954, Yan Zhongping from the Economic History Section of the Economic Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences had been in charge of editing the “Chinese Modern Economic History Reference Series.” Before and after 1966, Selected Statistical Data of Modern China’s Economic History, as well as monographic materials on industry, agriculture, handicraft, foreign trade, railways, foreign debt and public debt, and so on were published in succession. At the same time, the Economic Research Institute also started various monographic studies, which have become the core force in the study of China’s modern economic history. Hosted by Xu Dixin, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce had cooperated with the Economic Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and other units since 1958. They organized the industrial and commercial administrative departments of Shanghai, Wuhan, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Qingdao, Harbin and other cities to set up specialized agencies to carry out the compilation of the “Series of Historical Materials on Chinese Capitalist Industry and Commerce.” By the 1960s, five kinds of historical materials had been published. Since 1960, Xu Dixin and Wu Chengming had organized relevant personnel from the Central Administration for Industry and Commerce and various economic research institutions to prepare the compilation of The Development History of Chinese Capitalism. Driven by the above two leading research works, other relevant scientific research, teaching and management institutions had also organized research and teaching personnel to learn the relevant theories and political economics of classical Marxist writers, and add them to the research and teaching of modern Chinese economic history. They had also edited and published some information books and textbooks, and some colleges and universities had also offered courses in modern Chinese economic history. The Institute of Economics of the Shanghai Academy of Sciences compiled Historical Materials on Typical Capitalist Enterprises in Shanghai and published four kinds of works before 1966. The Research Group of the General Administration of Customs of the Ministry of Foreign Trade edited and published 15 volumes of “Materials on Imperialism and China’s Customs.” More and more people in the teaching and research units of some universities joined in the study of modern economic history, edited and wrote some materials and works of considerable academic value. Second, the awareness of discipline construction has been strengthened and the concept of discipline has been clarified. Some scholars pointed out

Economic history  139 the importance and necessity of strengthening the study of modern economic history to the deepening of economic and historic research. For example, Yan Zhongping pointed out in his article that modern economic history was the foundation of general history and the history of subjects such as political history, military history and cultural history. However, this discipline was a weak link in both economic research and modern history research. Without strengthening the research of this discipline, other special history and general history will hardly advance in depth.2 Some scholars discussed the research objects and methods of national economic history and its relationship with political economics and history. For example, Sun Jian proposed that the research object of the history of national economy was mainly the law of the evolution of a country’s production relations. Although it would study the interaction between production relations and productive forces, its research category did not include productive forces, which was relevant to and but different from political economics and history.3 Other scholars have expressed their views on the concept of economic history as a subject. Although their views were different, they all had a basic consensus:  China’s modern economic history was a marginal subject between history and economics, using research methods of history and economics and taking production relations as its main research object to explore the development and change laws of modern social economy. Third, considerable research results have been achieved. In these 17 years, 61 monographs, 38 information books and more than 570 papers were published, the important ones of which include: Wu Jie’s History of China’s Modern National Economy, Shang Yue’s Preliminary Study on the Germination and Evolution of China’s Capitalist Relations, Qin Benli’s History of Imperialist America’s Economic Invasion of China, Wu Chengming’s Investments of Imperialism in Old China, Wei Zichu’s Imperialism and Kailuan Coal Mine, Fu Zhufu and Gu Shutang’s China’s Primitive Capital Accumulation, Zhou Xiuluan’s Development of China’s National Industry During World War I, Zhang Yulan’s History of China’s Banking and Yang Peixin’s Inflation in Old China, and so on. Seen from the contents of these research results, two research focuses have been formed: the first is to highlight the imperialist economic invasion of China, on which 14 related works and information books and 78 papers have been published, each accounting for about 14 percent of their total numbers. The second is the upsurge of capitalist economy research, on which 56 related works and information books and more than 220 papers have been published, each accounting for 56 percent and 40 percent of their total numbers respectively. 5.1.2  Main issues under discussion In these 17  years, the study of modern economic history has opened up many new fields, and heated discussions from different viewpoints have been launched, thus promoting the study of various related issues.

140  YU Heping (1)  China’s primitive capital accumulation Discussions on this issue began in early 1956 and ended in 1965. The central issues of the discussions are as follows: does China have primitive capital accumulation? What are its characteristics and essence? Most scholars held that China had a process of primitive capital accumulation, taking place mainly after the Opium Wars. At that time, some bankrupt farmers and craftsmen flowed into new industries. The government and bureaucrats invested some of the wealth obtained through violence in industry. The capital of some compradors and businessmen had also turned to industrial investment, and occupied an extremely important position in it. Foreign capital invasion had created China’s commodity and labor markets. China’s primitive capital accumulation had the following characteristics: foreign capital played a part in it; exploitation of small producers was particularly ruthless; its speed was slow and insufficient, and its scale was large but the volume was small; the primitive accumulation and capital accumulation advanced side by side.4 A  few scholars argued that there existed no process of primitive capital accumulation in China and their reasons were as follows: farmers and artisans were in a plight of being oppressed and bankrupt, so it was impossible for them to make primitive accumulation; most of the monetary wealth of bureaucrats, landlords and businessmen was used for land purchase, commercial speculation and usury. Even if a few people invested in national industries, it was only the transformation and accumulation of capital, not the accumulation of primitive capital; the government suppressed national industries and could not be used as a tool for primitive capital accumulation.5 Some other scholars suggested that China’s primitive capital accumulation had gone through two stages: the first stage started from the middle of the sixteenth century at the same time as the budding of capitalism, and ended before the Opium Wars, characterized by being ethnic, spontaneous, scattered and tortuous. The second stage began after the Opium Wars and was characterized by its semi-​ colonial and semi-​feudal nature.6 (2)  The national market Discussions on this issue mainly took place between 1961 and 1963, the focus of which was whether the national market was formed or not, when it was formed and what its nature was. Most scholars held that modern China formed a national market, but they had different opinions on the formation time and development process. Some thought that since the middle of the Ming Dynasty, with the development of the commodity economy, a unified national market had been formed gradually. Some held that it had been formed gradually since 1840. Some suggested that it began to take shape at the end of the nineteenth century and developed greatly after the 1920s, pointing out that although this national market was semi-​colonial, its existence could not

Economic history  141 be denied.7 Some other scholars also believed that China had never formed a national market and only a semi-​colonial domestic market emerged after 1840, which was in a divided state due to the imbalance of economic development, the disunity of currency and prices, imperialist competition and warlord wars.8 (3)  The Westernization Movement and China’s capitalism At the end of 1961 and the beginning of 1962, Jiang Duo published three articles successively, which triggered a fierce debate. After pointing out that the Westernization Group’s enterprises had restrictions and obstacles on national capital due to their strong monopoly tendency, Jiang Duo emphasized that they had stimulated and promoted national capital because of its imitation of Western capitalist production methods. He also argued that the system of “official-​supervision and merchant-​management enterprises” and “official and merchant jointly managed enterprises” was a necessary process in the initial stage of capitalism under the social conditions at that time, which was conducive to the germination and development of national capital. There existed obvious contradictions between them and foreign capital.9 Jiang Duo’s article drew many different views. For example, Mou Anshi pointed out that the Westernization Group’s enterprises only carried out technological reforms and did not change feudal production relations. Therefore, they cannot be said to follow the Western capitalist mode of production. Shao Xunzheng thought that the color of bureaucratic capitalism in the Westernization Group’s enterprises was very clear. The Westernization Movement mainly sheltered comprador bureaucratic groups and the upper class of the national bourgeoisie, but provided little protection for the middle and lower classes. Zhang Guohui argued that the system of “official-​supervision and merchant-​ management enterprises” was a combination of bureaucrats and compradors of the Westernization Group. Its essence was the bureaucratic comprador group’s monopoly and distribution of modern enterprises, which formed the early bureaucratic bourgeoisie and hindered the development of national capitalism.10 There also existed a third point of view, for example, Xia Dongyuan thought that although the Westernization of military industry had developed into the bureaucratic comprador type, it had a fairly capitalist nature. Li Yunyuan and Wang Jingyu believed that the process of establishing various enterprises by the Westernization Group was not merely the formation process of bureaucratic capital, but the differentiation of it, which needed to be noticed. There were many ways and means for the germination of modern industry of Chinese national capital. Pure private ventures were one type, and the enterprises transformed from the official-​managed enterprises, official-​ supervised and merchant-​ managed enterprises and official and merchant jointly managed enterprises were another type, which was more important and dominant.11

142  YU Heping (4)  The germination and development of Chinese national capitalism Discussions on this issue focused on examining the relationship between the germination of modern machine industry and the budding of capitalism and foreign capital. One view was that the germination of capitalist industry had little to do with the budding of capitalism. Because China’s handicraft workshops were severely damaged after the Opium Wars, few of them could be transformed into the machine industry. The modern machine industry was not a continuation of capitalism that had been nurtured before the Opium Wars, but was founded under the stimulus of foreign capital, relying on the power of the feudal country and the investment of bureaucrats, businessmen and compradors.12 Another view was that the two were closely related. In the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, China’s small handicraft industry had already been well developed, and there were private and government-​run handicraft workshops in many areas. The private workshops had prepared certain conditions for modern industry of national capital. Although the government-​run workshops were purely feudal, they played an important role in the germination of modern industry in the second half of the nineteenth century. These workshops might continue to exist and gradually develop into modern industries, or switch their production in competition with foreign goods. Even though some of them were forced to shut down, their capital, technology and workers flowed to other modern industries. Therefore, the invasion of foreign capital could not cut off the link between the budding of capitalism and modern industry, and the workshop handicraft industry was an important way to form modern industry.13 The third view was that they did have relations but were not very close. Some major industries basically did not go through the workshop handicraft stage, but directly used machines for production. However, most industries passed through this stage, and some still remained at this stage for a long time. According to the number of entrepreneurs, 80  percent of capitalist industry in modern China consisted of artisanal workshops. Since there was such a connection between artisanal workshops and modern industry, foreign capital could not completely cut off the connection between them, which only prevented budding capitalism from developing independently. The foundation of China’s social economy and its changes under foreign aggression were the first reason for the emergence of China’s modern industry.14 (5)  The national bourgeoisie and the comprador bourgeoisie Research on the national bourgeoisie involves two issues. The first one is about the time of its formation. There were two viewpoints, both of which were put forward on the basis of examining the number of enterprises and investors of national capital. Some believed it was formed in 1870s and others thought it was formed before and after 1895. The latter view also regarded the Reform Movement of 1898 as a confirmation that the national bourgeoisie

Economic history  143 had become an independent class. The second is about stratification. All relevant studies held that the national bourgeoisie had three tiers: upper, middle and lower. There were also scholars holding the four-​gradation theory, that is, the middle gradation of the three-​gradation theory was further divided into upper and lower sub-​gradations, with the upper sub-​gradation being larger industrial and commercial capitalists, middle bankers and bosses of big money shops (Qian Zhuang), and the lower sub-​gradation being medium-​ sized industrial and commercial capitalists, small bankers and small and medium-​sized shop owners.15 The comprador bourgeois research during this period drew the following conclusions: first, it divided the process of formation and development of the comprador bourgeois into three stages, that is the period before 1912 was the initial formation and development stage, the period from 1912 to 1927 was the development stage; the period from 1927 to 1949 was the stage in which the comprador bourgeois developed into bureaucratic bourgeoisie. Second, it defined the nature and function of the comprador bourgeois as a product of the combination of foreign capitalist forces and Chinese feudal forces and a reactionary class totally attached to foreign capital, representing China’s most reactionary relations of production and hindering and destroying the development of social productive forces. However, some scholars argued that the comprador bourgeois had some similarity with the national bourgeoisie and were able to transform into each other under certain conditions. Third, it held that comprador bourgeois was an important partner and supporter of foreign invasion of China.16 5.1.3  A noticeable tendency In the first 17 years after the founding of the PRC, research on modern China’s economic history had achieved fruitful results and made distinct progress, but there still existed some problems worth investigating, that is, the “double hundred” policy was not implemented well and the spirit of academic research serving reality was not correctly understood, which caused academic research to be excessively affected by realistic politics, resulting in the phenomenon of making simple logical reasoning based on certain political principles. For example, in the study of foreign capital in China, in order to meet the needs of the anti-​imperialist struggle at that time, researchers had no intention of studying the normal economic and trade relations between Chinese and foreign capital, and completely ignored the objective effect of foreign capital input on the social and economic changes in modern China. In the discussion of China’s primitive capital accumulation, simply starting from Mao Zedong’s theoretical principle that “China would slowly develop into a capitalist society as well without the influence of foreign capitalism,” researchers completely negated the view that China’s primitive capital accumulation process mainly took place after the invasion of foreign capital. In the study of Chinese capitalism and bourgeoisie, starting from serving the class struggle and the socialist transformation of capitalist industry and

144  YU Heping commerce at that time, researchers seldom discussed the positive role they played in the development of modern Chinese society. Concerning the status and level of development of Chinese capitalism, although admitting that there was a short stage of development, researchers still started from the backwardness of semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal society and completely attributed its development to Chinese people’s anti-​imperialist struggle and the relaxation of aggression by imperialist powers due to the World Wars, and seldom analyzed this issue from the perspective of international conditions and changes in the domestic social system and economic mechanism. In the study of the role of the modern Chinese government in the development of the capitalist economy, there existed a phenomenon of completely denying its role just because of the political nature of the government. For example, in the study of the Westernization Movement, some scholars, starting from the class struggle and the feudal and reactionary nature of the Qing government, held that the Westernization Movement launched by the Qing government, which was reliant on foreign capital and technology and aimed at suppressing the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Movement, was only a self-​help movement by the Qing government to save its feudal ruling status, a reactionary traitorous movement and thus had no progressive nature at all. Another example is the research on the roles of the economic policies formulated by the governments of the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China. From the perspective of the reactionary and feudal nature of these governments, researchers either simply denied their roles or denounced them as “mere formalities.” To point out these problems today is certainly not to say that research on the modern economic history of China does not need to serve the real society, nor is it to say that the research results at that time are not desirable, but to sum up experiences and lessons. The emergence of the above-​mentioned problems was generally caused by the times. Although they are inevitable, we should learn lessons from them. In terms of research methods, the studies during this period were dogmatic and lacked the spirit of seeking truth from facts. They adopted the value criteria of class, politics, the class and political struggle to measure the backwardness or progressiveness, recession or development of the economy, and even rejected the economic criteria and economic laws. In terms of the academic orientation, the researchers did not implement the “double hundred” policy thoroughly. In order to cater to the situation, they attached too much weight to some issues and too little to others, and praised their side highly while restraining others forcibly. They could not treat the researchers with different research perspectives and different academic viewpoints equally and democratically and give them the right to discuss, nor could they give them moral encouragement to forge ahead, which had caused great harm to the development of modern economic history research.

5.2  Stagnation during the period from 1966 to 1976 In the ten years after 1966, economic construction was regarded as “revisionism.” Insinuating historical study was on the rampage. Rich and colorful

Economic history  145 Chinese history had been turned into a monotonous history of the Confucian-​ Legalist struggle and class struggle. Under this background, the study of modern economic history, focusing on the process of China’s modern economic development, had been relegated into limbo. The research projects that had been started before were forcibly suspended. New research topics were nowhere to be found, and real academic research was completely static. As far as the research results are concerned, only one monograph and nine articles have been published during these ten years, the amount of which was unbelievably small. History of Jiangnan Shipyard, the only monograph published during this period, was produced by Shanghai People’s Publishing House in 1975, the contents of which mainly reflected on how the proletariat in modern China developed into the most revolutionary and enlightened class by narrating the historical facts of the workers’ anti-​imperialist and anti-​ feudal struggles. This book was originally part of the manuscript of Factory History of Jiangnan Shipyard completed in 1964. Because of the needs of the political situation at that time, content about the factory’s establishment and development process was deleted, and content slandering and attacking Liu Shaoqi, which was not in the original, was added. The original manuscript which had been completed in 1964 was not published by Jiangsu People’s Publishing House until 1983. Among the nine articles published, three were about the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom’s Holy Exchequer (Sheng Ku) system and class and land relations in the rural areas of Jiangsu and Anhui; two were about the working class; another two were about imperialist economic aggression and capitalist exploitation, and a further two were about the economic development in the north of Heilongjiang and east of the Wusuli River, catering to the needs of the Sino-​Soviet border dispute. Obviously, these articles were published only because they had certain reference value to the class struggle or the international struggle at that time. During this period, there hardly existed any academic discussions, only “criticism” and “forbidden zones.” For example, the Westernization Movement was used as a target to criticize the “slavish comprador philosophy,” and the Westernization Movement and the Westernization Group became synonymous with “worshipping foreign things and fawning foreign countries” and “flunkey of imperialism,” to which no one was allowed to hold any objection, and the history of the Westernization Movement had become a “forbidden area” for researchers.

5.3  Reflection and prosperity after reform and opening up After 1976, the study of modern economic history was rapidly restored and developed. The research projects that were interrupted ten years ago were restarted, and the completed but unpublished works and materials were able to be published. Driven by the upsurge of socialist modernization economic construction with Chinese characteristics, many new research projects were funded and started one after the other. On the basis of inheriting from and reflecting on the previous studies, the research on modern economic history

146  YU Heping entered a new stage of deepening research on the old topics, continuously exploring new fields, actively carrying out international academic exchanges and becoming increasingly prosperous. 5.3.1  The basic situation of the disciplinary development First, with the climax of national economic construction and the in-​depth development of historical, economic and sociological studies, the study of modern economic history has received more and more attention from scholars. In 1981, Liu Danian first wrote an article pointing out the importance and necessity of strengthening the study of modern economic history for the in-​depth study of modern history. He argued that modern China’s economic history is the foundation of all modern history research. If historical research is to be truly based on materialism, it is necessary to study economic history seriously. In previous modern history studies, all major historical issues on which correct judgments have been formed were supported by the research results of economic history. For this reason, he solemnly pointed out that the study of modern economic history should be the most important topic and the breakthrough for in-​depth study of modern history. Later, Jing Junjian and Yan Zhongping also published articles and speeches on this issue, fully affirming that the study of economic history will be of great significance to the establishment of broad political economics and the establishment of China’s economic history as a discipline in the international academic circles.17 The understanding and viewpoints they put forward on strengthening modern economic history research have been widely recognized and responded to by the circle of economic history, which has promoted the development of research on modern economic history to a certain extent. Second, the research team engaged in teaching and researching modern economic history has been expanding. The history and economics departments of many universities have added courses in modern economic history. Some colleges and institutions have begun to continually recruit masters and doctoral students. A group of scholars who were originally engaged in general history, economics, agroforestry, sociology, and even natural science began to dabble in researching modern economic history. In order to promote academic exchanges, they have set up relevant academic organizations. In 1983, the “Editorial Committee of China’s Modern Economic History Series” was established at the National Historical Planning Conference. Several issues of Research Materials on China’s Modern Economic History and Series of Materials on China’s Modern Economic History were edited and published. In December 1986, the Chinese Economic History Society was established, under which the Modern Chinese Economic History Association was set up. At the same time, many provinces and cities also set up economic history research societies and academic groups on specific topics. For example, the Research Society of Economic History of the Central Revolutionary Base, China Business History Research Association, the Research Society of the

Economic history  147 Economic History of China’s Ethnic Minorities, the Research Society of Chamber of Commerce History, Zhang Jian and Nantong Research Center and Research Center on China Customs History, and so on. These academic organizations have made a lot of academic exchanges and have played a certain role in promoting the development of academic research. Third, research methods and perspectives have been innovated continuously. In order to adapt the research of modern economic history to the needs of the times and improve its research level and international academic status, many researchers including Yan Zhongping, Wu Chengming, Peng Zeyi, Zhang Zhongli and Zhan Xiangyang, and so on. have paid more and more attention to the research methods. They all wrote articles in the early 1980s emphasizing the need to improve the research methods of economic history and proposed that researchers should expand their horizons, instead of discussing China, modern times and economy as they stand. Economic and statistical methods should be adopted to carry out quantitative analysis. Attention should be paid to typical cases so as to get the big picture from small details. Among the above-​mentioned scholars, Wu Chengming and Liu Fuding made more contributions. They put forward a series of new opinions, for example, Wu Chengming suggested applying the science of historical data, textual research, historical materialism, econometrics, development economics, Central Place Theory, sociology, system theory and other theories and methods to the study of economic history, which was very instructive to the improvement of economic history research. Liu Fuding’s adoption of various econometric methods was also of great reference value.18 In addition, some other new theories and methods have also been adopted, such as the modernization theory, science of law, urban sociology, economic sociology, economic ethics, civil society theory, price theory and real estate theory. The application of these new theories and methods has played different roles in expanding research horizons, innovating research perspectives and deepening and rationalizing the analyses. Fourth, the research field has been considerably expanded. With the gradual development of the country’s economic system reform and economic construction, as well as the continuous innovation in economic history research methods, the research field of modern economic history has presented a trend that research overall came up with new ideas and monographic studies became more and more diversified. For example, new studies have been carried out in fields that had been almost blank in the past, such as industrialization, the enterprise system, enterprise culture, enterprise groups, production technology, real estate, price structure, consumption structure, industrial structure, urban economy, rural economy, regional economy, international balance of payment, investment from overseas Chinese, population economy, economic association, civil society, economic policy, economy of the Republic of China, the economy of the revolutionary base area, the customs system and marine economy. What is more, new developments have been made in the fields which had been studied in the past. For example, in the study

148  YU Heping of agricultural history, new developments were made in the study of land reclamation, management of landlords and modernization of agriculture; in the study of the handicraft history, new developments were made in the study of the interactive relationship between the handicraft industry and modern industry; in the study of business history, new developments were made in the study of trade associations and business habits; in the study of financial history, new developments were made in the study of trust, insurance, securities and exchanges; in the study of traffic history, new developments were made in the study of ports, highways, aviation and posts and telecommunications; in the study of the national market, new developments were made in the study of rural markets, urban markets, regional markets, national markets, production goods markets, labor markets, capital markets, technology markets, information markets, real estate markets, and so on; in the study of economic history of ethnic minorities and border areas, not only have more ethnic groups and regions been involved, but also the development models have been discussed. Studies in the fields of Sino-​foreign economic relations, foreign capital, bureaucratic capital, comprador capital, the bourgeoisie, the economy of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Westernization Group’s enterprises, the landlord economy and other fields, which had been studied more in the past, not only have been deepened further, but have also disposed of the one-​sided and rigid research modes and developed in a systematic, comprehensive and realistic direction. Fifth, a number of high-​level and pioneering outstanding works have emerged. In the 21 years from 1979 to 1999, a total of 760 works and 6,260 papers were published. In the seven years before 1985, nearly 140 kinds of works and 1,600 papers were published, with an average of 20 kinds of works and 229 papers published each year, which greatly exceeded the total number published in the first 30 years of the PRC. The number of papers published was 1.5 times that of the first 30 years. In the 14 years after 1986, the growth rate was even faster, with an average of 44 monographs and 333 papers published each year. As far as their contents were concerned, there were overall research works, such as the three-​volume History of Chinese Capitalism edited by Xu Dixin and Wu Chengming (People’s Publishing House, 1985, 1990 and 1993), Modern China’s Economic History (1840–​1894) (People’s Publishing House, 1989) edited by Yan Zhongping, Modern China’s Industrial History of China (Chongqing Publishing House, 1989) edited by Zhu Cishou, and Socio-​ Economic History of the Republic of China (China Economic Publishing House, 1991)  edited by Lu Yangyuan and Fang Qingqiu. There were also pioneering monographic historical studies, such as works on the regional (rural) economic history of North China, Northeast China and South China compiled by Han Xiang, Yuan Shuyi, Kong Jingwei and Duan Benluo, works on the history of the customs written by Chen Shiqi, Dai Yifeng and others, works on the history of chambers of commerce in Shanghai, Suzhou and the whole country written by Xu Dingxin, Ma Min, Zhu Ying, Yu Heping, works on the econometric history of economic development, price structure, international balance of payments, and so on, written by Liu Fuding, Wang Yuru,

Economic history  149 Zhang Donggang and Chen Zheng, works on the history of the shipping industry written by Fan Baichuan, Ling Yaolun, Zhang Houquan, Zhu Yingui and others, and works on the history of economic thought written by Ma Bohuang and Ye Shichang. 5.3.2  Main issues under discussion At this stage, the academic discussions on modern economic history mainly focused on two aspects. One was the reflection on and deepening of the previous discussions, namely, new discussions on old topics. The second was the discussions on the important issues in the research of new fields. Concerning the new discussions on old topics, the following issues were mainly discussed. (1)  Issues concerning Sino-​foreign economic relations Regarding Sino-​foreign trade, Ding Richu and Shen Zuwei held that the violent predatory trade was intertwined with normal trade operated according to economic laws, and the latter had been the mainstream in terms of the long-​term trend. Although this kind of Sino-​foreign trade had produced some unfavorable factors for China, it had, after all, objectively played a positive role in China’s economic development and social progress. Zhang Zhongli and Li Rongchang argued that Sino-​US trade was different from Sino-​British and Sino-​Japanese trade in that it had more free trade colors, obtained significant comparative advantage and played a role in promoting the rise of import substitution and export-​oriented industries and technology import. Regarding foreign investment in China, Ding Richu believed that the bank and transportation services, loans, modern machinery and equipment and technical training it had provided to the Chinese were conducive to Chinese capital. However, foreign investment also tried hard to crush or annex similar Chinese enterprises, which had excluded Chinese capitalism. However, the latter phenomenon only existed in a certain period or a local range, and might weaken or disappear when the conditions changed. Therefore, from the perspective of macro history and overall foreign capital, its promoting effect on Chinese national capitalism was the main one after all. Cao Junwei held that Sino-​foreign joint ventures also had their positive side: they expanded capitalist production relations and eased China’s capital shortage. Nie Baozhang and Chen Jiang thought that although the foreign capital shipping industry had threatened the development of the national shipping industry, its impact, shock and stimulation on China’s feudal society played an objective role in promoting the germination and development of the national shipping industry.19 (2)  Issues concerning the relationship between the traditional economy and capitalist economy Many scholars held that budding capitalism in traditional handicraft industry, especially the cotton textile industry, silk weaving industry, well salt

150  YU Heping industry, oil extraction industry and the ceramic industry, not only continued to exist under the influence of foreign and domestic capitalist economy, but also developed and became an organic component of the national capitalist industry, providing certain conditions concerning workers, technologies and market for the germination and development of machine industry, and some of them even gradually transformed into machine industry.20 Traditional commerce and banking businesses, especially those dealing in foreign goods and agricultural and sideline products, had taken on the nature of capitalist commerce and banking business since the Opium Wars. The commodities they dealt in were gradually based on capitalist production. The scope of market circulation had gradually expanded. The profits they obtained had become part of the average capitalist profits. The relations of production also had the nature of obvious capitalist employment. The mode of operation gradually adopted new methods such as sale on commission, consignment, exclusive sale, auction, wholesale and credit settlement.21 Although the agricultural economy was still dominated by traditional agriculture, the new capitalist agriculture developed slowly as well. For example, the number of operational landlords, rich peasants and land reclamation companies gradually increased. New technologies and equipment for farming, irrigation, fertilizer and seeds were gradually promoted; the degree of commercialization of agricultural products in the vicinity of trading ports and railway lines increased continuously. The per capita output of agriculture was not always in a declining state, but rose and fell at times, and generally showed an upward trend. The proportion of capitalist agriculture in the total output value of agriculture also increased gradually, reaching the highest level of 10 percent in 1936.22 (3)  Issues concerning the domestic market The research progress made at this stage was mainly shown in the following five aspects. First, it proved that the commercial growth rate of agricultural products in modern times was much faster than before the Opium Wars, and showed a state of accelerated development, thus expanding the commodity market of agricultural products. Second, it estimated the gross domestic product of some stages and some years. For example, Wu Chengming estimated the total value of market commodities in the five base periods of 1870, 1890, 1908, 1920 and 1936 to be 10.4, 11.7, 23.0, 66.1 and 12.02 billion taels (Gui Yuan) and the average annual growth rate to be 1.20 percent, 1.14  percent, 6.28  percent and 2.89  percent respectively.23 Third, it discussed the regional hierarchical structure, channels of commodity circulation, transaction scale and local characteristics of rural markets in North China, Sichuan, Jiangsu and Guangxi, and so on, as well as the development process, transaction modes, functions and characteristics of urban markets in Shanghai, Tianjin, Wuhan and Chongqing, and so on. On the study of production factors markets, Zhang Zhongli and other scholars held that in modern Shanghai, the means of production market, labor market and capital

Economic history  151 market had been completely formed, and the technology market and information market had also begun to appear. Wang Yuru, on the other hand, thought that by the 1940s, the production factor markets had taken shape in economically developed areas, but they were still not fully developed. Zhao Jin also discussed the operation modes of major real estate markets in China and their relationship with the financial business and the government. Fourth, it studied the market price system, the main contents of which included: price changes and their laws during the Republic of China; the law of price change of urban real estate and its regulating and promoting effects on urban land use, urban “construction revolution” and other aspects; the non-​existence of scissors difference between the prices of industrial and agricultural products; the impact of falling interest rates, the widening gap between the wages of industrial and agricultural workers and rising land prices on resource allocation and industrial structure optimization. Fifth, it studied market demand. For example, Zhang Donggang estimated the long-​term changes in the total national consumption demand, total agricultural investment, and recurrent expenditure of the government from the 1880s to the 1940s, as well as some cross-​sectional statistical data, holding that the overall demand in modern China was on the rise. Low-​level fluctuation, small growth rate and unreasonable structural changes were its basic characteristics. However, it also had a corresponding promoting effect on economic development and structural changes.24 (4)  Issues concerning the Westernization Group’s enterprises Most scholars thought that the official-​supervision and merchant-​management enterprises were capitalist in nature, but they had different opinions on what kind of capitalism these enterprises belong to. Liu Danian, Huang Yifeng, Jiang Duo, Wang Xi, Zhang Guohui, Huang Rutong, Fan Baichuan and others all adhered to the viewpoint that they belonged to the bureaucratic capital. Ding Richu, Shen Zuwei, Li Shiyue, Hu Bin, Zhang Yaomei and others thought that they belonged to the national capital, or the state capital. Their argument was that the ownership of these enterprises belonged to the state, and although they were feudal in operation and management, they did not have the nature of comprador or monopoly, and could not be compared with the bureaucratic capital of the Kuomintang government.25 Wang Jingyu, Xia Dongyuan, Dong Caishi and others put forward the coexistence theory of the early bureaucratic capital (embryonic form) and the early national capital (embryo), holding that the two came into being at the same time, permeated each other, transformed into each other and developed in different ways.26 (5)  Issues concerning the development level of the capitalist economy Through a large number of quantitative studies, many scholars refuted the previous view that since the politics was getting darker and darker, it caused

152  YU Heping the continuing decline in the economy, holding that although the development of the modern Chinese economy was difficult and tortuous, on the whole it was still growing gradually. They also put forward the theory of the modern Chinese economic growth cycle and pointed out that China’s economy still grew at different rates during the period from the end of the First World War to the outbreak of the Anti-​Japanese War and the period after the end of the Anti-​Japanese  War.27 (6)  Issues concerning the bourgeoisie Some scholars pointed out that there was no distinction between the bureaucratic bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie during the Westernization Movement. Ding Richu explicitly put forward the “one class” theory, holding that there was no bureaucratic bourgeoisie or comprador bourgeoisie. The comprador not only could transform into the national bourgeoisie, but also was a part of it. The division of the national bourgeoisie into the upper, middle and lower tiers and the identification of its political attitude according to this division was inconsistent with historical facts, which was the result of mechanically linking political attitude with economic status. Some scholars also suggested that the study could reveal the true nature of the bourgeoisie more clearly if we started from the perspective of capital groups and bourgeois groups.28 The following two issues were mainly discussed in the fields that had been newly opened up. The first one is about the chambers of commerce and other economic organizations. Concerning the research on the history of chambers of commerce, the following issues had been discussed more: (1) the nature and attribute of the chambers of commerce. Zhu Ying thought that the chambers of commerce in the late Qing Dynasty had the nature and characteristics of “official supervision and merchant management.” Yu Heping argued that they were only a kind of corporate association run by the merchants. (2) The organization of the chambers of commerce and their relationship with the guilds. Ma Min and Zhu Ying thought that the fundamental purposes, basic functions, organizational structures and overall characteristics of the chambers of commerce were completely different from those of the guilds. However, Yu Heping held that the potential adaptability of the guilds to modern society after the Opium Wars was a homogeneous factor in the combination of the guilds and the chambers of commerce. The two had a similar and interdependent relationship in coordinating the members’ relationship, the relationship between the officials and the merchants, economic management and self-​maintenance of interests, and so on, and they had been organically combined. (3) The role of chambers of commerce in promoting early modernization. Zhu Ying, Ma Min and Xu Dingxin comprehensively discussed its promotion effect on the economy. Yu Heping examined its role from the perspectives of improving the capitalist economic order, contributing

Economic history  153 to the political participation of the bourgeoisie and the national independence movement, as well as the emergence and development of merchant diplomacy. (4) The relationship between the chambers of commerce and the growth of the bourgeoisie. From the perspective of the organization and political activities of the chambers of commerce, Zhu Ying proposed that the birth of the chambers of commerce was an important symbol of the initial formation of the bourgeoisie. Yu Heping argued that the birth of chambers of commerce in various regions of the late Qing Dynasty brought the bourgeoisie into a transitional stage from the spontaneous state to a state of self-​ reliance, and the establishment of the National Federation of Chambers of Commerce in the early Republic of China brought it into a basic stage of self-​reliance. (5)  The relationship between the chambers of commerce and the government. Wang Di thought that in the late Qing Dynasty this relationship was mainly characterized by mutual dependence and cooperation in revitalizing industry. Yu Heping held that from 1904 to 1930, it showed a trend of changing from the relationship between the management and the managed in conformity with legal provisions to the relationship between control and anti-​control above the law. Zhu Ying thought that at the end of the Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Republic of China, the chambers of commerce and the government interacted with each other beneficially.29 On the research of guilds, trade associations, same-​place societies and other economic organizations, Xu Dingxin and Yu Heping thought that after the Opium Wars, the organizational nature and functions of traditional guilds gradually changed toward modern organizations and became capitalized. Guild organizations established by some emerging capitalist industries had more of a modern capitalist organizational nature. Same-​place societies had increasingly adopted modern organizational forms since the end of the Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Republic of China. Their functions had also changed from the traditional focus on “saving the dying” and maintaining friendship to “saving the alive” and supporting the economic interests of their countrymen, and had driven the traditional countrymen’s organizations to change in this direction. A large number of economic associations established in the early years of the Republic of China with the aim of revitalizing industry were modern economic associations based on the identification of same goals and interests and striving for the realization of common goals and interests, which played a certain role in social mobilization in the economic modernization at that time.30 The second one is about economic modernization. As for the promotion factors of economic modernization, some scholars thought that the external stimulation of Western capitalism was the decisive factor, while the internal budding of capitalism was the secondary factor, because it was far from reaching the level of triggering an industrial revolution and could not push China onto the road of modernization. Other scholars thought that internal factors also played an important role. For example, the changes in economic structure during the Ming and Qing dynasties have shown the

154  YU Heping potential natural form of modernization. The government’s mercantile policy and a large number of handicraft workshops were the real internal factors of industrialization. Regarding the obstacles to economic modernization, some scholars thought that the invasion of Western capitalism was the main factor, which distorted China’s economic modernization. Other scholars argued that the Western invasion was no doubt an important factor, but the decisive factor was still within China. The rulers failed to carry out comprehensive reform quickly, but unreasonably interfered in and manipulated the new enterprises. The traditional culture also restricted the exertion of certain advantages. Some scholars believed that both the internal and external factors existed, but their roles were different. With regard to the overall situation of China’s economic modernization, Luo Rongqu held that it was a dependent growth trend, which was manifested in the following aspects:  it was fully integrated into the world capitalist economic system and was put at the edge of this system; the modern industry of China centered on coastal treaty port cities, and its main body was light industry, which could only survive and develop in the cracks of foreign-​funded enterprises. Foreign capital occupied a dominant position in China’s modernized economic sector and in China’s more modernized regions. The vast rural areas were involved in the commodity economy system, but the development speed of commercialization lagged behind that of industry; economic growth was a kind of dual economy combining native and foreign factors; modern industry grew slowly and developed abnormally. Traditional economy had always occupied the dominant position.31 With regard to the differences in economic modernization between China and foreign countries, Zhu Ying and others thought that the bourgeoisie was the dominant force in the economic modernization of Japan, Europe, the United States and other Western countries; officials and businessmen cooperated closely; economic legislation was timely, complete and efficient; economic associations were synchronized with the modernization process. They had clear promotion functions based on democracy and freedom and were protected by the legal system. Japan’s industrialization had a strong initiative, transplanting both Western production technology and economic systems, using government power to carry out a large-​ scale primitive accumulation of capital. Agricultural modernization and industrialization advanced side by side and promoted each other. Foreign trade and commerce not only developed rapidly, but also became an important driving force for industrialization. However, in modern China’s economic modernization, the bourgeoisie had never been able to undertake this mission independently. The relationship between the government and merchants was extremely unstable. Sometimes it was good but sometimes it was bad. The economic legislation lagged behind, and was incomplete and inefficient. The emergence and development of economic associations were inconsistent with the modernization process and lacked the protection of democracy and law. The start-​up of industrialization was extremely passive. It only transplanted Western production technology but not the economic

Economic history  155 system. It failed to give full play to the role of the government in the primitive accumulation of capital. Agricultural modernization lagged behind and had not become a strong pillar of industrialization. Although foreign trade and commerce had made great progress, they could not fully play their due role in promoting industrialization under the semi-​colonial social and economic system. Zhu Yingui also thought that the difference in the development path and outcomes between the China Merchants’ Steam Navigation Company and Japan’s Mitsubishi Corporation was caused mainly by the different intervention policies of the two governments in personnel training, fund raising and management systems, and so on. The Japanese government’s intervention policies were comprehensive and long-​term, while the Chinese government’s policies were just the opposite. Yan Lixian thought that the growth of demand and the expansion of the market were the main driving forces for the germination and development of Japan’s early industrialization and its transition to a large modern industry. However, the low surplus rate of agriculture and the extremely underdeveloped domestic circulation system were the sticking points that caused China’s early industrialization and its transition to modern large-​scale industry to stagnate and lag far behind Japan.32

5.4  Innovation and development at the beginning of the twenty-​first century 5.4.1  The basic situation of disciplinary development and innovations in research methods After entering the twenty-​first century, the study of modern economic history continued to develop in depth. From 2000 to 2007, a total of 480 works was published, with an average of 60 works per year, significantly exceeding the previous stage. About 2,260 papers were published, with an average of 283 papers per year, which was slightly lower than that of the last 14 years of the previous stage. With the deepening of research and the development of the times, research methods and perspectives have been innovated and the research field has been greatly expanded. In the research of some topics, the new feature of attaching importance to both academic tracking and social connections has been presented, which has brought about a better combination of academic research and the times. In this stage, the most important innovation was that socio-​economic history had attracted increasing attention from academia. The early study of modern economic history was mainly a part of macroeconomics. Its research objects were mainly limited to departments, industries, enterprises and statistics, and its research methods were mainly the methods adopted in economics. Although the term socio-​economic history appeared before and after the founding of the PRC, the understanding of its subject concept was not clear, and the contents involved were mainly limited to business groups, guilds and classes, and so on. From the 1980s and 1990s, socio-​economic history

156  YU Heping had begun to receive attention. The Economic History Research Office of the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences took socio-​economic history as its main research direction. Some scholars advanced ahead and published works in this field, such as Socio-​Economic History of the Republic of China (China Economic Publishing House, 1991) edited by Lu Yangyuan and Fang Qingqiu. Although some works did not use the term “socio-​economic history” in their titles, their contents had obviously been expanded to “socio-​economic history.” For example, Wang Jingyu’s Modern Economic History of China (1895–​1927) (People’s Publishing House, 2000) and Liu Kexiang and Wu Taichang’s Modern Economic History of China (1927–​1937) (People’s Publishing House, 2010)  had all increased or strengthened the content with the characteristics of socio-​economic history, such tenancy relations, employment status, productivity and its reform in the agricultural economy, and tax, finance, public debt, industrial and commercial policies and regulations in government policies. In monographic studies, many achievements with this characteristic had been presented, mainly focusing on the economic system, economic policies and regulations, the enterprise system, enterprise culture, production technology, economic organizations like chambers of commerce, peasant associations, economic associations and trade associations, and the status of agriculture, rural areas and farmers and their modernization. Other works focused on the integration of economic history and social history, either examining society from the perspective of economic history, or examining the economy from the perspective of social history. Wu Chengming, a well-​known scholar, pointed out that at present, there are three major schools in the study of China’s economic history. One school focuses on discussing economic development from history itself and attaches importance to the evolution of laws and institutions. One school attaches great importance to explaining the economic development process from the perspective of economic theory, even the econometric analysis. One school attaches great importance to the changes in social and cultural thoughts and has its own system. Wu also made it clear that he was “in favor of the formulation of socio-​ economic history” on the grounds that “economic development and institutional innovation will inevitably lead to changes in social structure, social group organization and behavior. Changes in social structure will also affect economic development.”33 In short, socio-​economic history as an independent discipline has been recognized by the academic community. Of course, so far there is no clear concept of its academic category, which needs further discussion. Using new institutional economics to study modern economic history has been another method innovation in recent years. Du Xuncheng used this method more. He used the concepts of induced changes and mandatory changes to study the changing process of the modern financial system.

Economic history  157 The so-​called induced changes referred to the spontaneous changes in non-​ governmental circles caused by the unbalanced system. Mandatory changes referred to changes caused by government decrees. When the government was in a weak position like the Beijing government of the Republic of China, induced changes might still occur, while mandatory changes would rarely occur. When the government was in a strong position like the Nanjing National Government, mandatory changes occurred easily. There were two types of mandatory changes:  the first was the mandatory change based on induced changes. It was a positive alternation in which the government could only respect the original basis of the market and decide its own actions to remedy the defects of the market. The other type was the mandatory change. It was a reverse alternation, in which the government enforced its own unilaterally formulated policies to protect the interests of the ruling party rather than to remedy the defects of the market. He also studied the relationship between Confucian ethics and the enterprise system, holding that the moral background was closely related to transaction costs. The family enterprise system adopted by private businessmen when setting up enterprises could minimize the chance that the moral background would stimulate the rise of transaction costs, in which Confucian ethics undoubtedly played a very important role. However, Confucian ethics also had a negative impact on enterprises. In the absence of a cohesive core, family-​owned enterprises would always split up, and thus reduce their competitiveness, resulting in the bankruptcy of the enterprise in the hands of the second generation. Through investigating changes in the management system of the modern Shanghai banking industry from customary law to written law, he argued that the Shanghai Banking Association was a trade organization that conducted self-​governance by customary law, which embodied the institutional characteristics of the so-​called “third party implementation mechanism” proposed by some Western scholars and could be regarded as a typical case of new institutional economics.34 The social network of the new economic sociology, or the perspective of the commercial network, has also been adopted from time to time. For example, Ying Liya inspected the network organization and function of Tianjin Chamber of Commerce, holding that the Tianjin Chamber could play the role of reducing transaction costs in the regional market due to its relatively perfect networked organizational system.35 Wang Hongman thought that in the rear areas during the Anti-​Japanese War, a three-​tier wartime financial network system was initially formed with China’s four banks and two bureaus as the core, provincial, urban and county banks as the satellite network, and simple savings banks and postal remittance offices as the most basic units. This was the national treasury network from the central government to the local grass-​roots level during the war, thus making the southwest region’s economy restricted by external factors while obtaining a rare opportunity for development.36 Zhang Si held that throughout the nineteenth century, North China had a traditional market network formed by importers and exporters, storehouses, intermediate merchants in the mainland, urban

158  YU Heping and rural fairs and retail shops, and urban and rural consumers, which effectively promoted the development of long-​distance trade between open ports and North China.37 There were also some scholars studying the relationship between railways and the formation of trade networks. Dai Yifeng inspected the social and economic networks in the South China Sea and Southeast China, holding that the initial form of this transnational network of Chinese people was the transnational trade network of Chinese merchants. After entering modern times, it gradually evolved from a single trade network to a composite network composed of a variety of networks such as the trade network, the immigration network, the financial network and the social network, which had both promoted and restricted economic development in the Southern Fujian region.38 5.4.2  The extension of the research field and the presentation of new viewpoints (1)  Research on “three rural issues” The so-​called “three rural issues” refers to the issues concerning agriculture, rural areas, and rural people, which have always been an area of concern in the study of modern economic history in China. In recent years, under the influence of the national policy of “three rural” constructions, more attention has been paid to them, mainly involving the following two aspects. First, some new ideas have been put forward. In terms of the quality of farmers, Liu Xinghao argued that although the heavy burden of land rent, taxes, usury and the extraordinary hardship of farmers’ lives severely restricted the process of agricultural modernization in Hu’nan from 1912 to 1937, the improvement of the education level of farmers and the trend of non-​agriculturalization played a certain role in promoting agricultural modernization.39 Wang Xianming et al. held that the social composition of employment relations in the rural areas of Shanxi in the early twentieth century involved all major strata of rural society. The roles of employees and employers were not completely fixed, and “insufficient social differentiation” was not only the cause of the generalization of employment relations and the non-​fixed employment status, but also the fundamental reason why the employment group could not form a relatively independent stratum.40 In terms of farmers’ economic burden, different opinions were put forward on the old saying that the rent rate was higher than 50 percent. By studying the “actual received rate” of the rent, Gao Wangling proposed that the actual received rent rate only accounted for 30 percent or a little more of the output.41 Xing Bingyan supported Gao Wangling’s estimation based on the records in Dian Yu Ji collected by Shanghai Municipal Archives.42 However, Shi Zhihong’s research still supported the old estimation. He used the survey data of four villages in Qingyuan County of Hebei Province in 1930, 1936 and 1946 to estimate the land rent rate, holding that the grain rent rate was 38 to 45 percent

Economic history  159 and the money rent rate was 45 to 54 percent.43 In the aspect of rural social governance, Hu Yingze investigated the customs and systems of water wells in northern areas such as Shanxi, Shaanxi and Henan since the Ming and Qing dynasties with more than 200 examples of water well inscriptions and data collected through interviews. She argued that the multiple relationships generated by the northern rural water wells made cooperative interdependence necessary with the geographical relationships prominent and the blood relationship declining, and formed a set of relatively strict rules for wells and water drawing which were internalized into the orders of rural society, thus playing an important role in the construction of community space, the regulation of social order, the management of the community’s population, the construction of public space, the influence on inter-​village relations and so on.44 Han Maoli discussed the water rights guarantee system and its operation in Shanxi and Shaanxi, pointing out that the water rights guarantee system was a non-​governmental organization aimed at obtaining water resources, which peasant households could join voluntarily to seek the protection of their own water rights and occupied an important position in rural society.45 The second was to make a comprehensive and systematic study of the “three rural” issues by examining the rural construction movement during the Republic of China. Several monographs like Zheng Dahua’s Rural Construction Movement in the Republic of China (Social Science Literature Publishing House, 2000), Li Defang’s Research on Rural Autonomy in the Republic of China (People’s Publishing House, 2001), and Xu Xiuli’s History and Current Situation of Rural Governance in China: Taking Dingxian, Zouping and Jiangning as Examples (Social Science Literature Publishing House, 2004) have been published successively. More related papers were published as well, covering not only Hebei and Shandong which have been studied before, but also Jiangxi, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Anhui, Fujian and other provinces. These works and papers put forward some new opinions. For example, Yu Heping thought that the main purpose and contents of the rural construction movement was mainly to carry out autonomous and democratized system reform in rural politics, to undertake enterprise-​oriented and market-​oriented construction of joint-​stock cooperatives in the agricultural economy, and to provide universal education of knowledge and culture to improve the quality of farmers, which showed a modern mode of rural transformation.46 Zhang Bingfu pointed out that the rural construction movement opposed imitating and copying Western models, which was a good idea worth learning in the new century.47 Sun Shijin thought that Yan Yangchu’s experiment in Dingxian County showed the consistency of the government and the masses in reconstructing the state authority at that time.48 Zheng Lizhu initially demonstrated the different measures and effects of the KMT and the CPC on the “three rural” issues.49 Zhao Quanmin held that the cooperative movement carried out by the national government after 1928 was a “mandatory institutional change” under the leadership of the government, which reflected more the will of the government.50 Li Yumin et al. held that the degree of perfection

160  YU Heping and positive significance of cooperative economic policies were worthy of recognition, but their performance in actual implementation was obviously insufficient, the main reasons of which lay in the misunderstanding of the value and attributes of cooperatives, the lack of effective organizational guarantee, authoritative resources and financial support, and the autocratic nature of political power.51 Zhang Shuting thought that before the Anti-​Japanese War, rural cooperatives could not become the peasants’ own organizations because of the shortage of self-​raised funds and the fact that members’ loans were mostly from outside.52 Zhao Quanmin et  al. pointed out that rural cooperative undertakings were mainly promoted by government power and bank capital, which made cooperatives “alienate” and become the “agents” of bank capital in rural areas. While promoting the flow of surplus capital from cities to villages, credit cooperatives were constrained by the realistic political system environment, which had resulted in the coexistence of evolution and changes in the “big development” of credit cooperatives and the continued prevalence of usury in rural lending relationships.53 (2)  On the study of enterprise history After the reform and opening up, especially after the establishment of the modern enterprise system, the study of modern enterprise history has become a new and noticeable direction in the study of China’s modern economic history. However, most of the related studies were still limited to the study of the development history of individual enterprises. Around 2000, it began to develop toward a broader and deeper direction, with many innovations and developments in research methods, research fields and academic viewpoints, which were mainly reflected in the following three aspects. The first is about the shareholding system of modern enterprises. For example, Modern Chinese Enterprises:  Systems and Development (Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press, 1999), edited by Shen Zuwei, discussed the development and changes of enterprise system at the legal level. Zou Jinwen’s Research on the Changes of Company Theories (People’s Publishing House, 2002) made a preliminary study of the company systems and thought in the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China from the perspective of economics. Li Yu’s Study on the Company System Construction in the Late Qing Dynasty (Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press, 2002)  studied the mutual adjustment relationship between “official supervision” and “merchant management” in the construction of company systems in the late Qing Dynasty, the legal principle and function of The Company Ordinances and the restrictive factors in the construction of company systems. Zhang Zhongmin’s Hard Changes:  A Study of the Company Systems in Modern China (Hu’nan People’s Publishing House, 2000)  discussed the organizational form of the traditional enterprises, The Company Law, the evolution of the company forms, the quantity and distribution of the companies, the types and characteristics of companies, the raising of company equity and

Economic history  161 the “guaranteed dividend system,” the evolution of governance structure and management systems of the companies. Several important related papers were also published, for example, Zhu Yingui’s “The First Batch of Joint-​ Stock Enterprises in Modern China” (Historical Research, No.5, 2001), which examined 36 joint-​ stock enterprises emerging during the Westernization Movement. Considering them to be the first batch of joint-​stock enterprises in modern China, this paper compared them with traditional enterprises and Western joint-​stock enterprises in aspects like the procedures required for the establishment of these enterprises, the forms, contents, ways and means of issuance and trading of shares, and the regulations of these enterprises. Zhu Yingui in another article, “Characteristics of Modern China’s Joint-​ stock Enterprises—​An Investigation Centered on Capital Operation” (Social Sciences in China, No. 5, 2006) held that these modern joint-​stock enterprises had not only the general operational characteristics of Western enterprises, but also strong traces of Chinese characteristics and traditional economic elements. Ning Quanhong’s “Similarity in Form but Not in Spirit—​The Destiny of the Company System in Modern China” (Lanzhou Academic Journal, No.11, 2006)  argued that the process of introducing the Western company system in the late Qing Dynasty showed that the company system was “distorted” after it was introduced in China, resulting in their similarity in form but not in spirit. Li Yuren’s “On the Stock System of Joint Stock Companies Limited During the Beiyang Period” (Republican Archives, No.3, 2006) thought that the stock source of the company in the period of the Republican Beijing Government had changed compared with that in the late Qing Dynasty. The second is about the management of enterprises. Studies on this issue included both general research and individual research. Here are some distinctive papers. Chen Zhengping’s “An Analysis of the Industrial Structures of Modern Dasheng Enterprise Group” (Jiangsu Social Sciences, No.1, 2001) studied the industrial structure mode of Zhang Jian’s Dasheng Enterprise Group and thought that it had the characteristics of centering on the machine textile industry, combining industry and agriculture, and pluralistic development. This kind of management strategy could not only make the enterprises self-​sufficient, but also promoted the all-​round development of Nantong’s economy. Chen Zhengping’s “On the Dasheng Model in the Development History of China’s Modern Enterprise Systems” (Research on Chinese Economic History, No.2, 2001)  discussed the historical position of Dasheng’s company system and held that Dasheng had made a series of system innovations in establishing socialized large-​scale production through the joint-​stock system and establishing an open and strict enterprise management mechanism. The formation of the “Dasheng model” marked not only the end of the era dominated by the “government-​run” model in the development history of China’s modern enterprise system, but also the beginning of a new era when the private model would become the mainstream. Gao Xinwei’s “On the Insider Control Model of Modern Companies” (Tianjin Social Sciences, No.4, 2006) examined the internal personnel relations of joint-​stock

162  YU Heping companies and concluded that after the company system was transplanted to China, the formal system of controlling “insiders” did not play its due role, and this task was mainly completed by traditional means. Gao Xinwei and Gao Dan’s “On the Self-​Protection Mechanism of Minority Shareholders in Modern Companies” (Lanzhou Academic Journal, No.4, 2006) examined the self-​protection mechanism of minority shareholders in modern companies, holding that minority shareholders made more use of indirect methods and relied more on informal systems to impose their restrictions on companies. The third is about the enterprise culture. This issue has attracted the attention of some researchers, but the actual research was still relatively weak. In terms of overall research, some scholars held that Chinese national enterprises had created the unique enterprise culture suitable for China’s national conditions in the first half of the twentieth century. It was by virtue of this culture that some ethnic enterprises had grown, developed and expanded continuously, and were able to compete with foreign enterprises enjoying super-​economic rights. To a certain extent, this enterprise culture had saved the national interest and blocked the leakage of sovereignty.54 Regarding modern advertising research, several monographs were published including Zhao Chen’s Modern China’s Advertising Culture (Jilin Science and Technology Publishing House, 2000), Huang Zhiwei and Huang Ying’s Modern China’s Advertising (Xuelin Publishing House 2004 Edition) and so on. Zhu Ying’s “The Emergence and Development of Modern China’s Advertising and Its Impact” (Modern History Research, No.4, 2000) discussed the emergence and development process of modern advertising, pointing out that many Chinese businessmen had skillfully used advertising to expand their businesses, and were even able to remain invincible in fierce competition with foreign capital, which had played a certain role in promoting the development of modern industry and commerce. On the research of modern trademarks, the successively published monographs included Zuo Xuchu’s A Brief History of Modern China’s Trademarks (Xuelin Publishing House, 2003), Famous Entrepreneurs and Famous Brand Trademarks (Chongqing University Publishing House, 2009)  and Hou Xiaopan’s Stories of the Trademarks—​Modern Chinese Trademark Art (Chongqing University Publishing House, 2009). The former introduced the origin of China’s trademark laws and regulations, trademark agencies, trademark registration and management and other governments’ management of trademarks, and systematically introduced some famous trademarks. The latter used the research methods of iconology, semiotics and formal analysis to discuss the development history, graphic style, design modes and the source of creativity of modern trademarks, as well as the corresponding relationship between trademark graphics and modern graphic design. It also discussed the symbolic meaning, artistic style and characteristics of the times of trademark designs from the aspects of social culture, economic structure, consumption psychology and conceptions. Xie Yumei’s “On the Creation, Use and Protection of Famous Trademarks in Modern Wuxi Enterprises” (Journal of Jiangnan

Economic history  163 University, No.4, 2007)  revealed the decisive role of scientific management, service time of trademarks, fields of product sales, establishment of enterprise information networks, advertising and other factors in the creation of famous trademarks, as well as the promotion role of famous trademarks in the promotion of enterprise popularity, the establishment of a good reputation and market development after the creation of the famous brand. (3)  On the study of economic organizations The research in the previous stage was mainly limited to guilds, merchant groups and chambers of commerce. During this stage, the research had greatly expanded based on the track of the previous stage. First, the research of guilds has been extended to the research of professional associations, among which the study of the Shanghai Bankers’ Association was the most prominent one. The results of the overall research mainly include the following works: Modern China’s Professional Associations and the Current Trade Associations edited by Zhu Ying (Renmin University of China Press, 2004), Wei Wenxiang’s The Intermediate Organization—​Research on Modern Industrial and Commercial Associations (1918–​1949) (Huazhong Normal University Press, 2007), Li Bohuai’s Traditional Organizations under the Cloak of the Modern System—​Research on Industrial and Commercial Associations in Chengdu during the Republic of China (Sichuan University Press, 2006) and Zheng Chenglin’s From the Two-​Way Bridge to the Multilateral Network—​Shanghai’s Banking Association and Banking Industry (1918–​1936) (Huazhong Normal University Press, 2007). Papers written by Wu Jingping and his students Wang Jing and Zhang Tianzheng, including “Reorganization Crisis of Shanghai Bankers’ Association” (Historical Research, No.2, 2003), “Shanghai Bankers’ Association from the September 18th Incident to the December 18th Incident” (Modern Chinese History Studies, No.3, 2002), and “A Brief Discussion on the Shanghai Bankers’ Association and the Construction of Chinese Commercial Banking System in the 1920s” (China Economic History Research, No.2, 2005), also strongly promoted this research. Second, the research on merchant groups has been deepened. In recent years, the study of Ningbo merchant groups has been the most prominent one among merchant group research. The existing research results involved three aspects. The first was the holistic study, such as Ningbo People in Shanghai (Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2000 edition) by Li Jian, which examined the formation, development and growth of the Ningbo Merchant Group in Shanghai, as well as its various social and economic activities and achievements. Zhang Shouguang’s Beyond the Tradition—​Modernization of Ningbo Merchant Group (Southwest Normal University Press, 2000 Edition) examined the process of the Ningbo Merchant Group’s transformation from a traditional commercial group to a modern capitalist industrial and commercial group by integrating Chinese and Western industrial and commercial cultures in modern times. Le Chengyao’s Modern Ningbo Businessmen and

164  YU Heping Social Economy (People’s Publishing House, 2007) examined the development and business activities of Ningbo merchant groups in various parts of the country and their effects on the social and economic development of their cities and regions. Tao Shuimu’s Study on the Zhejiang Merchant Group and Economic Modernization in Shanghai (1840–​1936) (SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2000) systematically discussed the position and role of the Zhejiang Merchant Group, with the Ningbo Merchant Group as its main part, in the evolution of economic modernization in Shanghai, and summarized their experiences and lessons in managing industry and commerce. The second was the study of the history of Ningbo merchant groups in different trades such as clothing, finance and shipping. The third was the case study of famous Ningbo businessmen. Third, the scope of modern chambers of commerce research has been widened. The more innovative one was the research on commercial arbitration, merchant diplomacy and merchants’ alliances. On the issue of commercial arbitration, the research results of this period mainly included papers by Ma Min, Zheng Chenglin, Yu Heping and Tao Shuimu,55 the contents of which involved the following aspects:  process of the emergence, establishment, development and changes of the commercial arbitration offices (the commercial tribunals) established by the chambers of commerce; the commercial arbitration functions, procedures, benefits, norms and principles of the commercial arbitration offices; the merchants’ consciousness and practice of judicial participation and judicial independence reflected in the establishment and development of the commercial arbitration offices, and their complex multi-​dimensional relationship of symbiosis, integration and conflict with official judicial concepts and systems; the construction of the commercial arbitration office of Hangzhou chamber of commerce in the late Republic of China. Concerning businessmen’s diplomacy, the research in this period has also been expanded and deepened. For example, Yu Heping inspected the merchants’ diplomatic participation in the May 4th Movement and its position in the modern history of Chinese merchant diplomacy, holding that since then, the diplomatic activities of Chinese merchants have changed from passive to active, from indirect to direct, from dependence to independence, and have become increasingly frequent, internationalized, autonomous, politicized, unified and rational.56 Yu Heping and Jia Zhongfu’s “On the Participation of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce Delegation in the Pacific Business Conference” (Historiography Monthly, No.7, 2004) held that the participation of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce delegation in the 1922 Pacific Business Conference was the first direct diplomatic activity of Chinese businessmen, which promoted the diplomatic strategy of the Chinese business community to unite with the United States and Japan, and enhanced the awareness of Chinese businessmen to move toward the world. Jia Zhongfu’s Merchant Groups of China and America and Modern National Diplomacy (1905–​1927) (China Social Sciences Press, 2008)  examined the diplomatic activities between Chinese and American businessmen, their

Economic history  165 influence, and their interaction during the period from 1905 and 1927. Song Meiyun’s “Tianjin Chamber of Commerce’s Foreign Relations and Urban Economic Development in the Early 20th Century” (Nankai Economic Research, No.3, 2000)  examined Tianjin Chamber of Commerce’s activities such as overseas inspection, international trade, notary and supervision service, and information exchange in the early twentieth century. Wei Guodong’s “Investigation of Tianjin Chamber of Commerce’s Activities Before and After the Washington Conference” (Social Science Research, No.2, 2007) held that during China’s preparation for the Washington Conference in late 1921, Tianjin Chamber of Commerce explained its wishes through legal channels, which functioned as the counterbalance to and support for the government’s diplomatic activities. Concerning merchants’ alliances, Zhang Yigong’s “Preliminary Study of Merchants’ Alliances” (Historical Research, No.3, 1992)  explored the rising process of merchants’ alliances and their relationship with chambers of commerce. Feng Xiaocai’s The Merchants’ Movement Before and After the Northern Expedition (1924–​1930) (Taipei Commercial Press, 2004,) examined the actual mentality and actions of various participants in merchants’ alliances and the Merchants’ Movement, and analyzed the conflicts of interest between the KMT Headquarters, the merchants’ alliances, the chambers of commerce, the trade unions and other organizations, and the similarities and differences of their participation in the Merchants’ Movement. Peng Nansheng and Li Lingli’s “On Hubei Merchants’ Alliance during the Great Revolution” (Journal of Jianghan University, No.3, 2006)  held that participating in the national revolution through the merchants’ alliance was helpful for businessmen to cast off traditional shackles of “business is business” and promoting the formation of businessmen’s awareness of political participation. Li Bohuai’s “Merchants’ Alliances, the Interest Groups of Merchants—​A Comparison Between the Merchants’ Alliances in Chengdu and Shanghai” (Social Science Front, No.1, 2005)  made a comparative study of the merchants’ alliances in the central inland city of Chengdu and coastal cities like Shanghai, holding that the Chengdu Merchants’ Alliance did not develop under the support of the KMT, nor did it become the KMT’s “temporary party tool” in its attempt to control the capitalists. Instead, it emerged and developed in the struggle with the Chengdu General Chamber of Commerce. It was an interest group of merchants that truly campaigned for the interests of the merchants and eventually led the reorganization of the old Chamber of Commerce. In addition, Wei Wenxiang studied the status and role of non-​governmental economic organizations such as chambers of commerce and trade associations during the Anti-​Japanese War, and pointed out that the wartime economic control of the national government relied on the non-​governmental organizational resources of merchant groups to a certain extent.57 Zheng Chenglin inspected the founding process, main political participation and economic activities of the National Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the Republic of China after the Anti-​Japanese War, so as to see through the

166  YU Heping intricate relationship between the chambers of commerce and the Nanjing National Government after the Anti-​Japanese War.58 Of course, it should be pointed out that although China’s modern economic history research has opened up many new fields since 1979, due to the restriction of the original research foundation and data conditions, the layout of research topics is very unbalanced, resulting in the phenomenon that there are low-​level repetitions in many research fields, but many weak links and even blank areas lacking in-​depth research in some less researched fields. Generally speaking, the research on social economy, productivity, circulation, consumption and other fields is relatively weak. The research on economic systems, economic legal systems, enterprise management, enterprise groups, economic organizations and economic network is in the ascendant, while there is little research on real estate, cultural industry, foreign-​funded enterprises, enterprise culture and human resources. Although many research achievements have been made in the fields of market, finance, commerce, rural economy and economic organizations, the research topics are not balanced. For example, concerning market economy, there are more studies on the commercialization of agricultural products, market scale and market regional structure, but fewer studies on production factor markets, technology markets and information markets. Concerning the financial industry, there are more studies on credit institutions such as banks, money shops and exchange shops, but fewer studies on insurance, trust and securities. With regard to commerce, there are more studies on the quantity, nature and function of commercial capital and internal and external trade, but fewer studies on commercial habits, promotion methods and financial management. Concerning the rural economy, there are more studies on North China, the Jiangnan Region and South China, but fewer studies on other regions. Concerning economic associations, the studies mainly focus on the organizational nature, structure, economic and political functions of the three local chambers of commerce and professional associations in Shanghai, Tianjin and Suzhou before 1927, but pay little attention to the situations after 1927, other important local chambers of commerce and professional associations, as well as their urban management, industry governance and international exchanges. As for other economic organizations, research is even scarcer, or almost blank. Strengthening the research in these weak areas is undoubtedly an important task in the research of modern economic history in the future.

Notes 1 Xu Dixin and Wu Chengming. (Eds.). (1985). The Development History of Chinese Capitalism (Vol. 1). People’s Publishing House, “General Preface.” 2 Yan Zhongping. (1956). A Weak Link in the Study of Modern Chinese History. People’s Daily, July 17. 3 Sun Jian. (1957). Objects, Methods and Tasks of National Economic History Research. Economic Research Journal (2).

Economic history  167 4 Fu Zhufu and Gu Shutang. (1956). China’s Primitive Capital Accumulation. Journal of Nankai University, (1); Cong Hanxiang. (1962). On the Primitive Accumulation of China’s National Capital. Historical Research, (2); Huang Yifeng. (1962). The Forms and Characteristics of Primitive Accumulation of Capital in China. Jianghai Journal (3); Chen Jiang et al. (1962). China’s Primitive Accumulation. Jianghan Journal (3). 5 Wu Chunwu. (1961). The Primitive Accumulation of Chinese Capital. Academic Monthly (3). 6 Guan Mengjue. (1958). Preliminary Explorations of China’s Primitive Capital Accumulation. Shanghai People’s Publishing House. 7 Yang Zhixin. (1962). China’s National Market Came into Being in the Late Ming Dynasty. Academic Monthly (10); Li Jiashou. (1963). On the Formation of China’s National Market. Guangming Daily, May 13; Kong Jingwei. (1961). Whether a Unified Market Was Formed in Chinese Society Before the Opium Wars, Academic Monthly (5). 8 Chen Shiqi. (1961). Did Modern China Have a National Market? China Economic Studies (5). 9 Jiang Duo. (1961). On the Stimulation of the Westernization Movement on Early National Capital. Wen Wei Po, December 28; Jiang Duo. (1962). On the Contradiction between the Westernization Movement’s Economic Activities and Foreign Aggressive Capital. Wen Wei Po, January 12. 10 Mou Anshi. (1962). On the Effect of the Westernization Movement on China’s Early National Capital. Wen Wei Po, May 17; Shao Xunzheng. (1963). The Relationship Between Westernization Movement and Capitalist Development. New Construction (3); Zhang Guohui. (1964). Relationship between Officials and Businessmen and the Germination of Capitalism in Modern China’s Coal Mining Enterprises. Historical Research (3). 11 Xia Dongyuan. (1958). On the Nature of Modern Military Industry Run by the Qing Government. Journal of East China Normal University (1); Li Yunyuan. (1957). The Germination of Modern Industry of Chinese National Capitalism. Financial Science (3); Wang Jingyu. (1963). Looking at the Relationship Between Westernization Movement and Capitalist Development from the Perspective of Shanghai Cotton Cloth Mill. New Construction, August. 12 Fan Baichuan. The Bitter Experience and Destiny of the Chinese Handicraft Industry After Foreign Capitalism Invasion. Historical Research (3). 13 Sun Yutang. (1957). The Emergence of Modern Chinese Industry in the Second Half of the 19th Century. Materials on Modern China’s Industrial History (Vol. 1), Science Press, “Preface.” 14 Wu Chengming. (1965). The Emergence of the Chinese Bourgeoisie. Economic Research Journal (9); Dai Yi, (1965). The Relationship Between Modern Chinese Industry and the Old Handicraft Industry. People’s Daily, August 20. 15 Guo Moruo. (1962). Historical Manuscript of China (Vol. 4), People’s Publishing House; Zhang Wanquan et al. (1963). When Did the Chinese National Bourgeoisie Come into Being. Academic Monthly (9); Fan Wenlan. (1979). Modern Chinese History. People’s Publishing House; Jian Bozan. (1964). Outline of Chinese History (Vol. 4). People’s Publishing House; Fan Baichuan. (1955). On the Components of Chinese Bourgeois. Collected Papers of the Third Research Office of the Institute of History, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Vol. 2).

168  YU Heping 16 Huang Yifeng. (1964). Research on the Comprador Bourgeoisie in Old China. Historical Research (3); Wu Dan’ge. (1964). On the Backwardness and Reactionary Nature of Comprador Capital in Old China. Guangming Daily, August 12; Nie Baozhang. (1979). The Germination of the Comprador Bourgeoisie in China. China Social Sciences Press. 17 Liu Danian. (1981). Where to Break Through the Study of Modern Chinese History. Guangming Daily, February 17; Jing Junjian. (1983). Strengthening Research on China’s Economic History Is an Important Strategic Task to Develop Economics. Economic Research (10); Yan Zhongping. (1987). Opening Speech at the Founding Conference of the Chinese Economic History Society. Researches in Chinese Economic History (1). 18 Yan Zhongping. (1986). Ten Lectures on Scientific Research Methods. People’s Publishing House; Wu Chengming. (1996). Market, Modernization and Economic History. Yunnan University Press; Wu Chengming. (1985). Quantitative Issues in the Study of Chinese Economic History. Historical Research (3); Liu Fuding et al. (1997). Economic Development in Modern China. Shandong People’s Publishing House, Introduction. 19 Zhang Kaiyuan and Zhu Ying. (Eds.). (1990). Foreign Economic Relations and China’s Modernization. Huazhong Normal University Press; Ding Richu. (1989). On Economic Modernization. In: Papers on Shanghai Study (Vol. 2). Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press; Cao Junwei. (1988). Reconsideration of Modern Sino-​Foreign Joint Ventures. Guangdong Social Sciences (4). 20 Peng Zeyi. (1984). Workshop Handicraft in Modern China’s Industrial Capitalist Economy. Modern Chinese History Studies, (1); Xia Lin’gen. (1984). On the Changes of Cotton Textile Handicraft in Modern Shanghai. The Journal of Chinese Social and Economic History (3); Duan Benluo. (1984). 18 Years of Evolution of Silk Weaving Handicraft in Suzhou in Modern Times. Modern Chinese History Studies (4); Wang Jingyu. (1988). Modern China’s Handicraft Industry and Its Position in the Germination of Chinese Capitalism. Researches in Chinese Economic History (1); Xu Dixin and Wu Chengming. (Eds.). (1990). The Development History of Chinese Capitalism (Vol. 2). People’s Publishing House. 21 Zhu Ying. (1985). Development Characteristics and Influence of Modern Chinese National Commercial Capita. Central China Normal University Journal of Postgraduates, (1); Huang Yiping. (1986). The Germination of Modern Chinese National Commercial Capital. Modern Chinese History Studies, (4); Zhang Guohui. (1989). A Study of Money Shops (Qian Zhuang) and Exchange Shops (Piao Hao) in the Late Qing Dynasty. Zhonghua Book Company. 22 Ding Changqing. (1984). On the Development Level of Capitalism in Modern China’s Agriculture. Nankai Journal (6); Liu Kexiang. Commercialization of Agricultural Products in the Vicinity of Trading Ports and Railway Lines from 1895 to 1927. Collected Paper of Economic Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (11); Wu Chengming. (1989). An Investigation of China’s Agricultural Productivity. Researches in Chinese Economic History (2); Yu Heping. (1993). Transforming Traditional Agriculture. In: Zhang Kaiyuan. (Eds.). Examination Through Comparison:  Research on Early Modernization in China. Zhejiang People’s Publishing House. 23 Xu Dixin and Wu Chengming. (Eds.). (1990 and 1993). The Development History of Chinese Capitalism (Volumes 2–​3). People’s Publishing House; Cao Xingsui. (1996). A Study of the Rural Economy in Southern Jiangsu of Old China. The

Economic history  169 Central Compilation and Translation Publishing House; Wu Chengming. (1985). Chinese Capitalism and Domestic Market. China Social Sciences Press; Wu Chengming. (1994). An Estimate of Commodity Quantity in Modern China’s Domestic Market. Research in Chinese Economic History (4); Du Xuncheng. (1989). An Estimate of the Circulation of Commodities in China’s Domestic Market in the 1930s. Researches in Chinese Economic History (4); Shen Zuwei. (1995). Expansion of Commodity Circulation in China’s Domestic Market from 1895 to 1927, Modern China (4). 24 Cong Hanxiang. (Eds.). (1995). Villages in Hebei, Shandong and Henan in Modern Times. China Social Sciences Press; Xie Fang. (1990). Rural Commodity Economy and Social Changes of Sichuan in the Late Qing Dynasty and Early Republic of China. Journal of Sichuan University (4); Tang Wenqi. (1992). Discussions on Jiangsu’s Rural Market in the Late Qing Dynasty and Early Republic of China. Jianghai Journal (5); Zhang Zhongli. (1994). Some Characteristics of Modern Shanghai’s Market Development. Quarterly Journal of Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences (2); Zhang Zhongli. (1990). A Study of Modern Shanghai City. Shanghai People’s Publishing House; Luo Shuwei et al. (1993). History of Modern Tianjin City. China Social Sciences Press; Pi Mingxiu et al. (1993). The History of Modern Wuhan City. China Social Sciences Press; Wei Yingtao et al. (1991). The History of Modern Chongqing City. Sichuan University Press; Zhao Jin. (1994). On the History of Chinese Urban Real Estate. Nankai University Press; Jia Xiuyan and Lu Manping. (1992). Price History of the Republic of China. China Price Publishing House; Wang Yuru. (1997). A Study of Price Structure in Modern China. Shaanxi People’s Publishing House; Zhang Donggang. (1997). Trends in Total Demand and Economic Development in Modern China. Higher Education Press. 25 Ding Richu and Shen Zuwei. (1983). On the State Capitalism in Late Qing Dynasty. Historical Research (6); Li Shiyue and Hu Bin. (1982). Li Hongzhang and the China Merchants’ Steam Navigation Company. Historical Research (4); Li Shiyue and Hu Bin. (1985). Looking at the Historical Role of the Official-​ Supervision and Merchant-​ Management Enterprises from the Perspective of Kaiping Mining Company. Modern Chinese History Studies (5). 26 Wang Jingyu. (1983). On the Germination of Two Parts of Chinese Capitalism. Modern Chinese History Studies (3); Xia Dongyuan. (1982). On Multilateral Relations of the Westernization Movement. Shanghai Social Sciences (9); Dong Cai Shi. (1984). Westernization Movement Must Be Corrected in Name. Seeker (5). 27 Wu Chengming. (1981). A  Brief Account of the Development of Chinese Capitalism. In: Collection of Chinese Academic Papers. Zhonghua Book Company; Zhang Zhongli. (1983). On the Development of Chinese National Capital in the 1920s. Shanghai Social Sciences (10); Wang Yuru. (1987). On China’s Economic Development Between World War I  and II. Research in Chinese Economic History (2); Xu Dixin and Wu Chengming. (Eds.). (1985). The Development History of Chinese Capitalism (Volume 2 and 3). People’s Publishing House; Liu Fuding. (1997). Economic Development in Modern China. Shandong People’s Publishing House. 28 Ding Richu. (1988). On “Bureaucratic Capital” and “Bureaucratic Bourgeois.” In: Collected Papers of the Symposium on Archives and History of the Republic of China. Archives Publishing House; Ding Richu. (1987). Comprador Businessmen, Compradors and the Chinese Capitalist Class. Wen Wei Po, March 17; Wang Shui. Comprador’s Economic Status and Political Tendency. In:  Collected Papers of

170  YU Heping the Institute of Economics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Vol. 7); Zhang Kaiyuan. (1983). Some Opinions on Improving the Methods of Chinese Bourgeois Research. Historical Research (5). 29 Xu Dingxin. (1983). On the Origins of the Chambers of Commerce in Old China. The Journal of Chinese Social and Economic History (1); Xu Dingxin. (1991). History of Shanghai Chambers of Commerce. Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press; Ma Min and Zhu Ying. (1993). A Duet of the Traditional and Modern Times—​ A Case Study of the Suzhou Chamber of Commerce in the Late Qing Dynasty. Bashu Publishing House; Zhu Ying. (1987). Look at the Preliminary Formation of Bourgeois from the Birth of Chambers of Commerce in the Late Qing Dynasty. Jianghan Forum (8); Zhu Ying. (1997). The Society and State in Transitional Period. Huazhong Normal University Press; Yu Heping. (1991). Chambers of Commerce and Chinese Bourgeoisie’s Self-​reliance. Modern Chinese History Studies (3); Yu Heping. (1993). Chambers of Commerce and the Early Modernization of China. Shanghai People’s Publishing House; Wang Di. (1987). On the Establishment of Chambers of Commerce in the Late Qing Dynasty and the Relationship between Officials and Businessmen. Journal of Historical Science (4). 30 Xu Dingxin. (1989). The Evolution of Several Guilds and Early Forms of Chambers of Commerce in Shanghai in the Late Qing Dynasty. In:  Research Materials on Modern Economic History of China (Vol. 9), Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press; Yu Heping. (1991). The Modernization of Guilds in the Trade Ports after the Opium Wars, Historical Research (6); Yu Heping. (1998). The Formal Modernization of the Same-​Place Societies in Cities after the Late Qing Dynasty. Research in Chinese Economic History (3); Yu Heping. (1989). Industrial Group Activities in the Early Years of the Republic of China. Zhonghua Book Company; Yu Heping. (1998). Sun Yat-​sen and His Times. Zhonghua Book Company; Yu Heping. (1992). The Revolution of 1911 and the Social Mobilization of China’s Economic Modernization. Sociological Research (5). 31 Zhang Kaiyuan and Zhu Ying. (Eds.). Foreign Economic Relations and China’s Modernization. Gao Yabiao and Wu Danmao. (1989). Cultural Constraints and Solutions in the Process of Modernization. Beijing Social Sciences (1); Luo Rongqu. (1993). New Discussions on Modernization. Peking University Press. 32 Zhang Kaiyuan and Luo Fuhui. (Eds.). Examination Through Comparison: Research on Early Modernization in China. Zhejiang People’s Publishing House, Chapters 2 and 3; Zhu Yingui. (1994). State Intervention in Economy and Modernization of China and Japan. Oriental Press; Yan Lixian. (1999). Early Chambers of Commerce and Industry in China and Japan and the Domestic Market. Peking University Press, 1999. 33 Wu Chengming. (2001). Economic History:  Historical View and Methodology. Researches in Chinese Economic History (3). 34 Du Xuncheng. (2002). Comparison of Changes in Modern Chinese and Foreign Financial Systems. Researches in Chinese Economic History (3); Du Xuncheng. (2005). Confucian Ethics and Modern Chinese Enterprise System. Journal of Finance and Economics (1); Du Xuncheng. (2006). A Preliminary Study on Modern Shanghai’s Customary Law in the Banking Industry. Historical Research (1). 35 Ying Liya. (2004). Networked Organizations and Transaction Costs in Regional Markets—​A Case Study of Tianjin Chamber of Commerce (1903–​1928). Nankai Economic Research (5).

Economic history  171 36 Wang Hongman. (2004). The Joint Office of Four Banks and the Southwest Regional Financial Network. The Journal of Chinese Social and Economic History (4). 37 Zhang Si. (2004). Foreign Trade and Traditional Market Network of Tianjin and Yantai in the 19th Century—​Taking the Import and Distribution of Foreign Yarn and Cloth as an Example. Historical Review (4). 38 Dai Yifeng. (2005). South China Sea and Social and Economic Changes in the Modern Southeast Region—​Centering on Southern Fujian Region. Historical Review (2). 39 Liu Xinghao. (2006). Analysis of “Three Rural Issues” from 1912 to 1937. Guangxi Social Sciences (10). 40 Wang Xianming and Niu Wenqin. (2006). Rural Hired Workers in Shanxi in the Early 20th Century. Historical Research (5). 41 Gao Wangling. (2002). Re-​Discussion on the Rate of Rent Collection. Studies in Qing History (2). 42 Xing Bingyan. (2004). The Practice of Rent Reduction in Songjiang and Qingpu During the Republic of China and the Social and Economic Order in Rural Areas—​One of the Studies on Dian Yu Ji collected by Shanghai Municipal Archives. Journal of Shanghai Normal University (4). 43 Shi Zhihong. (2003). Tenancy and Employment Relations in Rural Areas of the North China Plain in the 1930s and 1940s—​Taking four Villages in Qingyuan County of Hebei Province as an Example. Researches in Chinese Economic History (1). 44 Hu Yingze. (2006). Water Wells and the Rural Society in North China—​Based on the Field Investigation of Rural Water Wells in Parts of Shanxi, Shaanxi and Henan Provinces. Modern Chinese History Studies (1). 45 Han Maoli. (2006). Geographical Environment and Water Rights Guarantee System in Modern Shanxi and Shaanxi. Modern Chinese History Studies (1). 46 Yu Heping. (2006). The Reconstruction Model of Rural Construction Movement in the Republic of China. Modern Chinese History Studies (4). 47 Zhang Bingfu. (2006). Three Rural Construction Models in the Republic of China: Comparison and Reference. Xinjiang Social Sciences (2). 48 Sun Shijin. (2006). Dingxian Experiment and Rural Revival Movement. Journal of Historical Science (7). 49 Zheng Zhuzhu. (2007). On the “Three Rural” Policies in Shanxi-​Chahar-​Hebei Border Region During the Anti-​ Japanese War. Journal of Hebei University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition) (3); Zheng Zhuzhu. (2004). Study on the “Three Rural” Issues in the Kuomintang-​Controlled Areas During the Anti-​ Japanese War. Chongqing Social Sciences (4). 50 Zhao Quanmin. (2006). The Will of the Government: On the Value Orientation of China’s Rural Cooperative Movement in the 1930s and 1940s. The Journal of Chinese Social and Economic History (1). 51 Li Yumin and Luan Xuefei. (2006). National Government’s Cooperative Economic Policy and Its Evaluation. Journal of Northeast Normal University (4); Li Yumin. (2006). The Causes of Defects in National Government’s Cooperative Policy. Social Science Journal (4). 52 Zhang Shuting. (2006). Several Issues on China’s Rural Cooperative Finance Before the Anti-​Japanese War. Journal of Fujian Normal University (2).

172  YU Heping 53 Zhao Quanmin and Xin Ping. (2006). Capital Structure and the “Alienation” of Cooperatives—​An Investigation based on China’s Rural Social Changes in the 1930s and 1940s. Journal of East China Normal University (2); Zhao Quanmin. (2006). Evolution and Changes: An Analysis of the Impact of Cooperatives on Rural Credit Relations—​Focusing on China’s Rural Credit Cooperatives in the First Half of the 20th Century. Jianghai Journal (5). 54 Wang Yongping. (2004). Enterprise Culture Construction in Modern China’s National Enterprises. China Economist (6); Wang Yongping and He Hongbin. (2007). An Analysis of the Enterprise Culture of Modern China’s National Enterprises. The Journal of Chinese Social and Economic History (4). 55 Ma Min. (2002). On the Changes of Businessmen’s Judicial Consciousness Before and After the Revolution of 1911. In: Association of Chinese Historians. (Eds.). The Revolution of 1911 and China in the 20th Century. Central Literature Publishing House; Zheng Chenglin. (2002). Study of the Commercial Arbitration System in the Late Qing Dynasty and Early Republic of China. In: Association of Chinese Historians. (Eds.). The Revolution of 1911 and China in the 20th Century. Central Literature Publishing House; Yu Heping. (2004). Construction of the Commercial Arbitration Systems of Chambers of Commerce in the Late Qing Dynasty and Early Republic of China. Academic Monthly (4); Tao Shuimu and Lang Lihua. (2003). On the Commercial Arbitration of Hangzhou Chamber of Commerce in the Late Republic of China. Journal of Business Economics (11). 56 Yu Heping. (2000). The May 4th Movement and Merchant Diplomacy. Modern Chinese History Studies (2). 57 Wei Wenxiang. (2006). Businessmen’s Groups and Economic Control in Kuomintang-​Controlled Areas during the Anti-​Japanese War. Research in Chinese Economic History (1). 58 Zheng Chenglin. (2006). On the National Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the Republic of China after the Anti-​Japanese War. Journal of Central China Normal University (5).

6  Military history LIU Tong and MAO Haijian

The modern history of China from 1840 to 1949 was full of foreign invasions, internal struggles, and endless wars. In the Opium Wars, which is considered as the beginning of this period, the Qing Army was defeated by the British Expeditionary Force with a rather limited number of troops and weapons. After the end of this period, the Chinese People’s Volunteer Corps had a very fierce fight with the so-​called “UN Troops” led by the United States on the Korean War battlefields. In the 70  years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, academic circles in China have conducted extensive research on the military history of this period, publishing thousands of papers and hundreds of works, many of which are brilliant, but on the whole, the research has not yet reached a satisfactory level.

6.1  The initial work The first batch of research achievements in modern Chinese military history are about the war history and army history of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA). After the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), this army, which had gone through 22 years of war and kept abundant archives, began to sum up its historical experience under the direction of the Central Military Commission of the PRC. In October 1949, the former Command of the Northeast Military Region compiled the Military Data of the Three-​ Year Northeast Liberation War to recount the basic process of the Northeast Liberation War. This book gave a detailed description of the organizational evolution, personnel changes and equipment of the 12 armies under the Fourth Field Army and the ten military regions under the Northeast Military Region. It also gave an account of all the major battles based on the summaries and records of the battles at that time. This work consisting of nearly 1 million characters not only provided many first-​hand materials for later research, but also established a paradigm for the compilation of such works. From 1952 to 1956, each army headquarters of all the military regions of the PLA compiled its own War History of the Third Revolutionary Civil War. After 1956, each corps of the troops participating in the Korean War also compiled its own War History of the Korean War. The main characteristics of this batch of

174  LIU Tong and MAO Haijian works are that most of the writers and compilers have experienced these wars personally and thus are familiar with the situation, so they could not only give detailed and accurate descriptions of the combat process, political and ideological work and military construction of their own army, but also truthfully record the failures and lessons. History of the Korean War compiled by each corps was not as rich as the History of the War of the Third Revolutionary Civil War both in content and extent due to its hasty preparation. With the establishment of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Military Academy and the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences in Nanjing and Beijing in the mid-​and late 1950s, there were specialized institutions for the study of the history of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. For teaching purposes, the Military Academy has compiled the Selected Examples of Battles concentrating on important battles in the history of the PLA. Besides describing the basic combat processes, it paid more attention to the theoretical analysis of the decision-​making and tactics. The War History Research Department (later renamed as the Military History Research Department) and the Library and Information Office (later renamed as the Military Library) of the Academy of Military Sciences collated archival materials and edited several volumes of Selected Materials of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army during the Second Revolutionary Civil War and Selected Materials of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army during the Third Revolutionary Civil War. Both these two sets of large-​scale data books were edited, collated and composed skillfully and thus are of high practical value. At the same time, in order to compile the history of the major field armies during the War of Liberation, the relevant military regions set up their own war history editing offices. In addition to the collection of documents and materials, these offices also interviewed senior generals, conducted monographic studies, and completed the first draft of the War History and the Selected Materials of War History of the four field armies around 1962. All the above-​mentioned research was carried out confidentially within the army, except that samples were submitted to relevant senior commanders and relevant senior teaching and research institutions for reference. All the research results were archived. Since the late 1950s, some senior generals of the People’s Liberation Army have suffered rough treatment in politics, and their historical achievements had gradually become forbidden areas for researchers. The “left” ideology in the 1960s even put Mao Zedong, an outstanding figure in our military history, in an uncompromising position, so the researchers working in the history of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army encountered great difficulties. The initial achievements made by the research on the military history of the late Qing Dynasty was the construction of historical materials. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, modern history has gradually become a prominent subject. The Association of Chinese Historian assembled the forces of the national academic community to edit the Data Series on Chinese Modern History. In the 1950s and 1960s, The Opium Wars, The

Military history  175 Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, The Nian Army, The Westernization Movement, The Sino-​French War and The Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​1895 (The Second Opium War and The Northern Warlords were published in the 1970s and 1990s respectively) were published in this series. Quite a lot of content concerning military history was included in these large data books. However, researchers in non-​military systems had less expertise in military science and less interest in military history. Although military history plays an extremely important role in the history of the late Qing Dynasty, in the writings on the history of the late Qing Dynasty published in the 1950s and 1960s, military history often served as a foil to political history, foreign relations history and even economic history. In the study of modern Chinese history in the 1950s and 1960s, the history of the Republic of China was the weakest link, while the study of military history of the Republic of China was almost blank. However, since the early 1960s, the National Committee and local committees of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) had successively set up committees on literature and history materials and many senior Kuomintang (KMT) generals had started to write military memoirs. These materials had been published in the series Selected Collection of Literature and History Materials at all levels since the 1960s. A  considerable part of them are of high historical value and can make up for the shortage of archival documents. By the 1990s, under the background of reform and opening up, the history of the Republic of China, especially the history of the Anti-​Japanese War, became a hot topic in academic research and many monographs and papers were published. To sum up, the study of modern Chinese military history in the 1950s and 1960s was still in its pioneering period. Although few mature research works were published, good results were achieved in sorting out historical materials, which provided a relatively solid foundation for later studies.

6.2  The beginning of the research The ten years that began in 1966 cut off almost all the academic research in China, and modern Chinese military history was no exception. Since the late period of the ten years (from 1966 to 1976), the research work on it had been partially resumed, and the data book Evolution of Compilation and Practice of New Forces in the Late Qing Dynasty published by the Zhonghua Book Company in 1978 was one of its results. Most of the content of this book was selected from the Qing Dynasty archives in China’s First Historical Archives with proper and practical compilation. The History of the Chinese People’s Struggle to Defend the Seaboard published by Beijing Publishing House in 1979 obviously still retained the aura of that era, and its political nature diluted its academic nature. However, as the first monograph in China describing the self-​defense counterattacks in the Xisha Islands from 1840 to 1974, it still has some reference value to the study of naval and coastal defense

176  LIU Tong and MAO Haijian issues. Before long, the study of China’s modern military history, like other disciplines, grew rapidly. Research on the Sino-​Japanese War and the related naval history sprang up in the first place. In 1981, Qi Qizhang’s The Beiyang Fleet (Shandong People’s Publishing House), Sun Kefu and Guan Jie’s Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​ 1895 (Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House) were published. In 1982, Historical Materials on the Navy of the Late Qing Dynasty (Ocean Press) edited by Zhang Xia and Yang Zhiben was published. In 1983, Qi Qizhang’s collection of papers A Historical Review of Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​1895 (Shandong Education Press) was published. In 1984, Sun Kefu and Guan Jie’s The History of Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​1895 and Biography of Characters in Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​1895 (Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House) were published. At the same time, many papers on this topic were published as well. This topic has been the first hot spot in the study of modern Chinese military history. It has initially established a knowledge system about the Sino-​ Japanese War of 1894–​1895 and the navy of the late Qing Dynasty, and has greatly promoted the following studies. The other hot spot springing simultaneously is the study of the military history of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. In 1982, Li Chun’s two-​volume Overview of the Military History of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was published (Zhonghua Book Company). In the meantime, dozens of researchers, including Zhang Yiwen, Shu Yi and Shen Weibin, published hundreds of papers on the battles and strategic decisions of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. Although other fields did not cause as much attention as these two fields, there also published some works like Mou Anshi’s The Opium Wars (Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1982) and History of the Jiangnan Shipyard (Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 1983) edited by the Economic Research Institute of Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, which also had some content on the military history. The Modern Military History of China (Liaoning People’s Publishing House, 1983)  edited by Zhang Yutian, Chen Chongqiao and others is the first tentative work on the military history of China, covering all aspects of military history from 1840 to 1919. The weak point of this book, as many critics have pointed out, is that its military characteristics are not highlighted, reflecting that research in various fields of China’s modern military history was insufficient at that time. As a comprehensive work on this topic, it could not reach the expected level for the time being. However, the three-​volume War History of Modern China (Military Science Publishing House, 1984 and 1985)  compiled by the Third Office of the War Theory Department of the Academy of Military Sciences is quite remarkable because of its strong military characteristics. This book gives an account of all previous internal and external wars from 1840 to 1919, and makes a preliminary analysis of the gains and losses of their strategy and tactics. It also includes 34 color maps of battle fields. It could be considered as a mature work on this topic. The most authoritative work during this period is probably the War History of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (Military Science Publishing

Military history  177 House, 1987). This large three-​volume book was formally compiled after 1976 based on the compilation of relevant historical materials in the early 1960s. The editors of this book have held extensive consultations and made repeated revisions to ensure its accuracy and seriousness at a very high cost. Battle maps and various statistical tables were also found the end of this book. Readers’ favorable comments on this authoritative book can be heard from time to time, but it is a pity that the editors did not talk much about the experience and lessons learned from the war history of PLA. It is worth noting that professional journals on military history also appeared during this period. In 1985, the Chinese People’s Revolutionary Military Museum started an informative bimonthly Military History Review. In 1986, the Shanghai Air Force Institute of Politics started an academic quarterly Military History Research. In the same year, Military History, originally a supplement to Military Research, was also changed to an academic and informative bimonthly sponsored by the Military History Research Department of the Academy of Military Sciences and published independently. China’s modern military history is the focus of the above publications. In 1987, The Journal of Studies of China’s Resistance War Against Japan, an academic quarterly, was founded by the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which also devoted considerable space to military history.

6.3  Refinement of the research Since the middle and late 1980s, the study of modern Chinese military history has been refined. Researchers no longer focused on the overall comprehensive research, but started to pay more attention to various factors in key historical changes. Monographic studies have been gradually deepened as well. From then on to 2009, about 1,000 books of different content and over 10,000 papers of varying standards had been published. Constrained by the limits of this chapter, there will be no discussion of these papers published during this period. Interested readers could refer to some already published comprehensive reviews.1 The following is just a brief summary of some representative academic monographs, and some excellent works may inevitably be left out. 6.3.1  War history of the late Qing Dynasty War was the most important event in the history of the late Qing Dynasty. All works on the history of the late Qing Dynasty would be related more or less to the war history of that dynasty. Many related works had been published, the most noteworthy being the History of the Sino-​ Japanese War of 1894–​1895 by Qi Qizhang and published by the People’s Publishing House in 1990. This book is characterized by its textual research. Its description of tactical actions has reached the level of “camp” and is the most accurate among similar works. In 2005, History of the Sino-​Japanese War of

178  LIU Tong and MAO Haijian 1894–​1895 edited by Guan Jie and others, mentioned in previous sections, was renamed Comprehensive History of the Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​ 1895 and published by Jilin People’s Publishing House with continuous revisions and supplements. This book was divided into six volumes focusing on different aspects of the war such as the prewar period, the war, the postwar period, the ideological trend and figures, which represents the most extensive and in-​depth summary of the current domestic research on this topic. The Collapse of the Heavenly Dynasty:  A Re-​Study of the Opium Wars, written by Mao Haijian and published by SDX Joint Publishing Company in 1995, is also characterized by its textual research of facts and skillful tactical analysis. Zhang Yiwen’s Military History of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom (Guangxi People’s Publishing House, 1994) focused on the war history. But it broke through the scope of the war history and conducted specific research on the military system, training, supply, tactics and strategy of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. Huang Zhennan’s An Examination of the Battles in the Sino-​French War (Guangxi Normal University Press, 1998) made a comprehensive comparison of historical materials from China, France and Vietnam, which is quite worth reading. Hu Yuhai’s A Study of Foreign Military Forces in Northeast China Before the September 18 Incident (China Social Sciences Publishing House, 2006) made a detailed textual research on Japan and the Soviet Union’s military occupations and struggles in Northeast China, and also revealed the historical changes of the military pattern in Northeast China before the September 18 Incident, which was very distinctive. 6.3.2  The history of the Army of the late Qing Dynasty Not much has been published in this field and the most outstanding include Long Yunsheng’s History of the Xiang Army (Sichuan People’s Publishing House, 1990) and Fan Baichuan’s History of the Huai Army (Sichuan People’s Publishing House, 1994). Both these books had drawn on complete materials and made detailed descriptions of the origin, organization, funding and faction groups of the Xiang Army and the Huai Army respectively. However, their discussions on the military characteristics, especially the army-​building principles and conventional tactics, were not deep enough. The Beiyang Army, which was entirely kitted out with Western-​style equipment and organized in Western-​style systems, is more significant in military history, but nothing significant has been published on it. 6.3.3  History of the navy The navy was the first modernized armed force in Chinese history, on which many studies had been conducted. The most notable work is Jiang Ming’s Fleet Flying with Dragon Flag:  History of the Rise and Fall of the Modern Chinese Navy (SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2005), which has been revised several times to fully reflect the rise and fall of Chinese modern navy and

Military history  179 summarize its historical experiences and lessons. Other important works include Jiang Ming’s Logbook of the Historical Facts of Modern Chinese Navy (1860–​1911) (SDX Joint Publishing Company, 1995), Chen Shulin and Chen Zhentao’s General History of the Navy of the Republic of China (Haichao Publishing House, 1993) and The Modern Chinese Navy (Haichao Publishing House, 1994) and Qi Qizhang’s The Rise and Fall of the Navy of the Late Qing Dynasty (People’s Publishing House, 1998). From these works we can see the progress in the research. The Modern Chinese Navy, the writing of which was organized by the Navy Command, limited its time range to 1949 and covered both the navy of the late Qing Dynasty and the navy of the Republic of China. Its chapters contained vivid military features. China’s coastal defense appeared earlier than the navy. Yang Jinsen and Fan Zhongyi’s History of China’s Coastal Defense (Ocean Press, 2007) recorded the history of China’s coastal defense, but its focus was on modern coastal defense. 6.3.4  History of the air force In this field, the most comprehensive and systematic book is probably Ma Yufu’s China’s Military Aviation (1908–​ 1949) (Aviation Industry Press, 1994), which contains a special chapter on the Soviet Union and America sending airmen to aid China during the Anti-​Japanese War. The Air Force of Contemporary China (China Social Sciences Press, 1989) gave a comprehensive introduction to the history of the Air Force of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Several commendable works published in recent years include Chen Yingming and Liao Xinhua’s Fighting Bloody Battles in the Sky: History of the Chinese Air Force’s Resistance to the Japanese (Aviation Industry Press, 2006)  and Lin Hu’s Battles to Defend Our Motherland’s Airspace (People’s Liberation Army Publishing House, 2002). The former gave a detailed introduction to the history of the joint operations of the Chinese, American and Soviet air forces during the Anti-​Japanese War, and gave a detailed introduction to the air force equipment of that time as well. The latter comprehensively introduced the Air Force’s operations after the founding of the PRC. Because of the author’s professional identity, he referred to the combat records of that time to introduce and summarize these combats, which was extremely technical and authentic. Other works of reference value published during this period include Li Linshan and Wang Yehong’s War History of the Air Force of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (Blue Sky Publishing House, 2001). 6.3.5  The Red Army and its war history The most praiseworthy research results in this field include History of the First Front Army of the Chinese Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army, History of the Second Front Army of the Chinese Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army, History of the Fourth Front Army of the Chinese Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army and History of the 25th Army of the Chinese Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army,

180  LIU Tong and MAO Haijian which were organized by the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party of China, compiled by the Editorial Committee of the War History of the First Front Army, Second Front Army and Fourth Front Army of the Chinese Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army and published by the People’s Liberation Army Publishing House from 1989 to 1993. In addition, Selected Materials on the War History of the Second Front Army and Fourth Front Army were also compiled and published. Xiao Ke’s Profile of the Red Army led by Zhu De and Mao Zedong (CPC Central Party School Publishing House, 1993) made exploration into and reflections on the organizational line, army-​ building principles and relevant strategies and tactics during the founding of the Red Army through the author’s personal experience. The Long March is the most important historical event in this period and has become the most important topic of many researchers. The History of the Long March of the Red Army compiled by the First Department of the Party History Research Office of the CPC Central Committee (Liaoning People’s Publishing House, 1996)  is the first comprehensive and systematic monograph on this topic. The five-​volume Complete History of the Long March of the Chinese Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army compiled by the Institute of Military History of the Academy of Military Sciences (Military Science Publishing House, 2006)  collected all the newly published historical materials and research results, making it the epitome of Long March research. Historical Records of the Long March edited by Zhang Shujun and Huang Yibing (Jilin People’s Publishing House, 2006) broadens the thinking of academic research through the textual research of some facts and the introduction of the controversial issues of the Long March in the way of “historical notes” and “statements of a school” while making the historical records. As for the monographic research, Qin Sheng’s History of the Long March of the Northwest Red Army (Chinese Communist Party History Publishing House, 2007) made a specific exploration into the Western Route Army within a limited scope. Yan Jingtang’s Three Years of the Guerrilla War in the South (People’s Liberation Army Publishing House, 1997) made a systematic and comprehensive introduction to the hard work of the troops who did not take part in the Long March but insisted on fighting in Jiangxi base areas. 6.3.6  War history and army history of the Anti-​Japanese War Compared with other similar works, the three-​volume History of China’s Anti-​Japanese War edited by the Military History Research Department of the Academy of Military Sciences (People’s Liberation Army Publishing House, 1994) are more comprehensive and accurate. Zhi Shaozeng and Luo Huanzhang’s The Anti-​Japanese War of the Chinese Nation (Military Science Publishing House, 1987) and Wang Xiuxin and Guo Dehong’s History of the Anti-​Japanese War of the Chinese Nation (Chinese Communist Party History Publishing House, 1995) paid special attention to the positive role played by

Military history  181 the KMT troops in the front battlefields. Wang Fu’s four-​volume Japan’s War of Aggression Against China (Liaoning People’s Publishing House, 1990) made use of the Japanese data, which is quite unique. Zhang Tinggui et al.’s A Brief History of the Development of the Anti-​Japanese Forces of the Communist Party of China (People’s Liberation Army Publishing House, 1990) described the development history of the Eighth Route Army, the New Fourth Armies, the Anti-​Japanese Allied Forces and their base areas and guerrilla zones, and also undertook textual research on the organizational evolution, important operations and achievements of these armies. The Eighth Route Army edited by Yue Siping (Chinese Communist Party History Publishing House, 2005) is the most comprehensive and in-​ depth monograph on this research. The Development History of the New Fourth Army edited by Ma Qingwu and Tong Zhiqiang (Shanxi People’s Publishing House, 1997) and A Brief History of the New Fourth Army edited by Wang Fuyi (Chinese Communist Party History Publishing House, 1997) are all comprehensive monographs on the study of the New Fourth Army. Tong Zhiqiang’s On the New Fourth Army (Shanghai Science and Technology Literature Publishing House, 2005)  is a collection of essays and has put forward new opinions on some controversial issues courageously. Frontal battlefield research has made the most outstanding achievements in the Anti-​Japanese War research since the 1990s. History of Chinese Expeditionary Force edited by Xu Kangming (Military Science Publishing House, 1995) made a comprehensive and in-​depth study on the history of Yunnan-​ Myanmar expeditionary warfare during the Anti-​Japanese War. The “Anti-​Japanese War Series” published by Guangxi Normal University Press since 1993 brought together the achievements of a group of young and middle-​aged scholars, of which Lin Zhibo’s Great Victory: Documentary Report of the Taierzhuang Battle showed the author’s remarkable skills best. In recent years, with the gradual deepening of the research on the frontal battlefield of the Anti-​Japanese War, research on the history of the Anti-​Japanese War has become more and more comprehensive and objective. Zhang Xianwen’s History of China’s Anti-​Japanese War (Nanjing University Press, 2001)  is a representative work of the latest achievements. Xu Kangming’s History of the Sino-​ Myanmar-​ India War of Resistance Against Japan (People’s Liberation Army Publishing House, 2007) supplemented the previous works with new content about joint Sino-​ US operations. 6.3.7  History of the War of Liberation Since the late 1980s, with the approval of the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party of China, editorial offices for the war history of the field armies in the War of Liberation have been set up one after another to sort out, revise or rewrite the war history of the field armies written in the 1960s. History of the Second Field Army, History of the First Field Army, History of the Third Field Army and History of the Fourth Field Army

182  LIU Tong and MAO Haijian were published by the People’s Liberation Army Publishing House from 1990 to 1998. The 5-​volume History of the National War of Liberation compiled by the Military History Research Department of the Academy of Military Sciences (Military Science Publishing House, 1997)  has been considered as a comprehensive and systematic work in terms of both military history and war history. From 1997 to 2007, Documentary of the Northeast Liberation War, Documentary of the East China Liberation War, Documentary of the Northwest Liberation War, Documentary of the Central Plains Liberation War, Documentary of the North China Liberation War and Documentary of the Central South Liberation War edited by Yuan Dejin and Jin Lixin have been successively published by People’s Publishing House. These works studied the process of the War of Liberation in terms of war zones, which complement the previous works on the history of the war. History of the Central Plains Breaking-​Through edited by Hubei Military Region (Military Science Publishing House, 1996)  recounts the heroic war history of 1946 and is a monograph on the analysis of regional war history. The three major battles in the War of Liberation are an important topic for interested researchers, and the notable works are The Liaoning-​Shenyang Decisive Battle which is a three-​ volume compilation of research and documents (People’s Publishing House, 1998), and History of the Huaihai Campaign (He Xiaohuan et al., Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1993). There are also many good works on the study of individual battles, for example, Liu Zhenhua’s The Battle of Hainan (Liaoning People’s Publishing House, 1994). It not only contains historical narration but its appendices contain combat archives; Yang Di’s Creating the Miracle of Fighting Across the Sea—​A True Narration of the Decision-​Making and Command of the Battle to Liberate the Hainan Islands (People’s Liberation Army Publishing House, 2000) reflects the characteristics of the battle from the perspective of the headquarters through the author’s personal experience; Hong Xiaoxia’s Blood Sacrifice to Jinmen (Hong Kong New World Publishing House, 2001) is a monograph on the battle of Jinmen, combining interviews and historical materials. 6.3.8  History of the Korean War History of the Chinese People’s Volunteer Corps’ War in Korea (Military History Research Department of the Academy of Military Sciences, Military Science Publishing House, 1990)  and Contemporary China Series:  The War of Korea (China Social Science Publishing House, 1990) are works of long-​ term research conducted by specialized agencies, whose descriptions are quite comprehensive. Since the 1990s, this topic has become the focus of military history research. On the basis of the above-​mentioned two works and through in-​depth research and revision, the Military History Research Department of the Academy of Military Sciences published the three-​volume History of the Korean War (Military Science Publishing House, 2000), going a step further in terms of the depth and breadth of content. As for the research conducted

Military history  183 by individual scholars, Xu Yan’s The First Battle—​Historical Review and Reflection on the Korean War (China Radio and Television Publishing House, 1990)  contains many personal reflections of the author which are of great significance. Shen Zhihua’s Mao Zedong, Stalin and the Korean War (Guangdong People’s Publishing House, 2007) is a breakthrough in the study of the Korean War from the perspective of international relations based on the declassified archives of the Soviet Union. 6.3.9  History of the military system The history of the military system is supposed to be a key topic of military history research, but has turned out to be a regrettable weak point in the research of modern Chinese military history. History of China’s Military System (Elephant Press, 1997), co-​authored by the Institute of History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the Military System Research Department of the Academy of Military Sciences, has touched upon the modern military organizational system, military education and training, the military legal system, the military service system, the logistics system and military attaché system, but is still incomplete. The research on logistics history is relatively advanced under the promotion of the General Logistics Department of the People’s Liberation Army. Since 1983, the PLA Logistics Institute (later renamed the Logistics Command Institute) and other institutions have begun to edit Selected Logistics Materials of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, 18 volumes of which have been published by Golden Shield Publishing House up to now. Other relevant works include History of Modern Chinese Military Logistics (1840–​ 1927) edited by Chen Chongqiao and Zhang Yutian (Golden Shield Publishing House, 1993), A Brief History of Logistics of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army edited by Qiao Guanglie (National Defense University Publishing House, 1989), A Brief History of Logistics of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army during the Revolutionary War edited by Xu Qingru (Golden Shield Publishing House, 1990), History of Logistics of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army edited by Wu Xuehai (Golden Shield Publishing House, 1992), A Brief History of the Logistics of the Korean War edited by Zhou He (Golden Shield Publishing House, 1993), and The Logistics History of the Second Field Army of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army edited by Liu Luming (Golden Shield Publishing House, 1995), and so on. Among them, History of Logistics of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army is compiled on the basis of data compilation, consisting of four volumes describing respectively the Agrarian Revolutionary War, the Anti-​Japanese War, the War of Liberation and the logistics history of contemporary China, which is more solid and discusses the historical experience. Compilation of the Logistics History of the Korean War uses history as a teacher history, and pays attention to the formulation of theories. In terms of military education, History of Modern Military Education in China edited by Shi Quansheng (Southeast University Press, 1996) is also worth reading.

184  LIU Tong and MAO Haijian 6.3.10  Biographies and memoirs Owing to the particularity of modern Chinese history, military figures are often political figures. There have published many biographies of relevant figures, but few of them highlighted the military features of the personages. Among them, special attention should be paid to Zhu De’s Biography edited by the Central Literature Research Office, Peng Dehuai’s Biography, Liu Bocheng’s Biography, He Long’s Biography, Chen Yi’s Biography, Luo Ronghuan’s Biography, Xu Qianqian’s Biography, Nie Rongzhen’s Biography, and Ye Jianying’s Biography edited by the corresponding editorial groups of marshals (all published by Contemporary China Publishing House). All these biographies are written rigorously through detailed textual research. Biography of Peng Dehuai, Biography of Chen Yi and Biography of Liu Bocheng have more prominent military features, which are related to the colorful military careers of these marshals. However, due to the strict rules and regulations on the compilation of biographies at that time, all these marshals’ biographies were still too brief. Since the 1990s, biographies of senior generals have broken through the word limit. Biography of Su Yu and Biography of Chen Geng (Contemporary China Publishing House, 2007) have greatly increased in length and the descriptions have become more detailed. Mao Zedong and Lin Biao written by Hu Zhefeng and Yu Huamin (Guangxi People’s Publishing House, 1998) gave an objective account of Lin Biao’s military career. Fourteen volumes of Biographies of the PLA Generals edited by the Editorial Department of the “Xing Huo Liao Yuan (Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire) Series” have been published by PLA Publishing House, including biographies of more than 100 senior generals. The seven-​volume Biography of Senior Generals of the Republic of China edited by Wang Chengbin and others (People’s Liberation Army Publishing House, 1991) includes more than 30 generals of the Beiyang Warlords and the KMT. It is difficult to count accurately the total number of published memoirs of military figures. As far as the author is concerned, Su Yu’s Memoirs of Wars (PLA Publishing House, 1998)  is of special value because it includes Su Yu’s military thoughts. Peng Dehuai’s Self-​Report (People’s Publishing House, 1981), Huang Kecheng’s Self-​Report (People’s Publishing House, 1994) and Xiao Ke’s Memoirs (People’s Liberation Army Publishing House, 1997) are all written in a frank manner which enables readers to feel the honesty of the authors. 6.3.11  The compilation of data The Continuation Chinese Modern History Data Series:  The Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​ 1895, edited by Qi Qizhang and published by Zhonghua Book Company from 1989 to 1996), has a total of 400,000 characters. The Continuation Chinese Modern History Data Series:  The Sino-​French War edited by Zhang Zhenkun consists of about 300,000 characters, five volumes of which have been published by Zhonghua Book Company since 1995.

Military history  185 The above two books are characterized by their emphasis on the collection of foreign historical data. The seven-​volume Historical Data on the Opium Wars edited by China’s First Historical Archives (Tianjin Ancient Books Publishing House, 1992)  and the 16-​volume Historical Data on the Qing Government’s Repression of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom edited by China’s First Historical Archives (Social Science Literature Publishing House, 1994)  have made significant supplements and revisions to the previously published data compilations. Historical Data on the Navy of the Republic of China edited by Yang Zhiben et al. (Ocean Press, 1987) was published early, but is still quite useful. Since the 1980s, Literature and History Publishing House has compiled the memoirs written by former senior KMT generals under the organization of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and other organizations for monographic works. It has published more than ten collections, such as Record of Personal Experiences in the Encirclement and Suppression of the Central Soviet Area, Record of Personal Experiences in Encircling and Blocking the Red Army’s Long March, From the September 18th Incident to the July 7th Incident and On-​the-​Spot Record of Millions of the KMT Army’s Coming on the CPC’s Side. Historical Data Series of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army is compiled by various headquarters, major military regions, various services and regiments, and the Academy of Military Sciences under the leadership of the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party of China. It is a huge compilation of historical data with a total of about 200 million characters and is divided into 43 special topics and 250 fascicles. Since 1994, the Liberation Army Publishing House has published ten fascicles, including Three Years of Guerrilla War in the South, The Eighth Route Army, New Fourth Army, The Battle to Cross the Yangtze River and Logistics Work. Researchers will be able to basically master all historical data and major archives in various fields of PLA history when all the volumes have been published. 6.3.12  Reference books Encyclopedia Sinica:  The Military Volume (China Encyclopedia Publishing House, 1989) and China Military Encyclopedia (Military Science Publishing House, 1997) are large-​scale reference books compiled by various headquarters, major military regions, various services and regiments and the Academy of Military Sciences under the organization of the Central Military Commission of the CPC, a considerable part of which is related to China’s modern military history. The entries in these two books basically cover all the important battles, services and regiments and their development, the evolution of the army organization and the résumés of senior commanders during this period, interpretations being concise and accurate. The Organizational Evolution and Listing of Leading Members at All Levels of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army compiled by the Military Library of the Academy of Military Sciences (Military Science Publishing House, 1990) made a detailed listing of all the

186  LIU Tong and MAO Haijian organizations of the People’s Liberation Army above regiment level and their leading members during the Agrarian Revolution War and the Anti-​Japanese War, and all the organizations of the People’s Liberation Army above division level and their leading members during the War of Liberation, which is quite accurate and convenient to use. The above introduction, to a large extent, is merely a listing of titles of the books. The summaries and evaluations are only the author’s superficial and general views and may not be accurate. There is another point that must be clarified, that is, the classification introduced above is largely based on the existing research results, and is very different from the disciplinary classification of modern Chinese military history.

6.4  Urgent need to establish the disciplinary system The study of modern Chinese military history is lagging behind other disciplines of modern Chinese history. One of the most important reasons for this is that a complete disciplinary system of military history has not yet been established. Existing studies focus on the war history and history of army construction, especially the war and army history of the PLA. The reason lies in the fact that modern Chinese military history is an interdisciplinary subject, which requires researchers in modern Chinese military history to have multidisciplinary training. However, most historians of non-​military systems have not received any military training, which makes their research lack military characteristics. Researchers in the military system used to lack historical training at the very beginning. However, since the 1980s, they have made great improvements in terms of historical knowledge and skills through study and accumulation. Some successful milestones are War History of Chinese People’s Liberation Army. With the deployment of the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party of China, the Academy of Military Sciences and many military colleges have set up research institutions and teaching and research sections on the war history. The major units of the People’s Liberation Army have set up various temporary or relatively long-​term editorial and research institutions dedicated to the study of the history of the People’s Liberation Army. As a result, many reliable works on war history and army construction history of the People’s Liberation Army have been published. However, a big problem is that many research departments of military institutions are not open to the public. For example, History of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s Communication and History of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s Infiltration into the Enemies compiled anonymously by the Headquarters of the General Staff are important monographs combining descriptions and data compilation. Most of the content of works can be found in publicly available publications, but it will be extremely difficult for the researcher to find them. In addition, military archives are rarely open to the public, making

Military history  187 it impossible for many universities and social sciences researchers to conduct in-​depth research, which restricts the development of military history research. However, there were no special teaching and research institutions for the study of military history of the late Qing Dynasty, the Northern Warlords and the KMT. Researchers in these field could only get national funding through applying for research projects. Although some of their achievements had reached a very high level, the achievements were relatively few and lacked systematicity. It is also the reason why we can often see “non-​professional” researchers in the study of modern Chinese military history. Both the depth and systematicity of the research on China’s modern military technology, military system, military education and training, military art and military thought need to be improved. From 1840 to 1949, the Chinese army had completed the transformation from the era of mixed use of cold and hot weapons to the era of multiple services and regiments. However, the existing writings on the weapons and equipment used by the Chinese army during this period are still unable to reflect the actual situation of this transformation. In addition, studies on the introduction, research and development, production and matching of weapons and equipment in this period were even much fewer. The research on some military enterprises focused more on the economic history rather than on the history of weapons and equipment, or just took them as the background to the history of the ordnance industry of the People’s Republic of China. Without an in-​depth study of the history of weapons and equipment, it is impossible to explain the organization and basic tactics of the Chinese army during this period, because the latter is based on the former. If further analysis is made, the discussion of military art and military thoughts is based on the study of military organization and tactics. For this reason, this chapter highlighted as much as possible the importance of logistics history research. The Logistics History Series published by Golden Shield Publishing House under the promotion of the General Logistics Department has made logistics history almost the best-​developed research field second only to war history and the history of military construction. Different from modern China’s politics, economy, culture and many other aspects, by the time the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949, China’s military power was one of the strongest in the world. The Opium Wars and the Korean War are two major landmarks in China’s modern military history. To illustrate this historical evolution, it is not possible to rely on short-​term and unilateral research only. The establishment of a relatively complete disciplinary system is a task that researchers in modern Chinese military history must solve in the twenty-​first century. Looking at the war history and military history of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, which are the most fruitful fields, we can say that their success is due to organized and collective compilation, which enables researchers to complete a high-​standard volume in a relatively short time. But the basic defect of this method is the lack of individuality. Taking all peer-​ review suggestions into consideration, editors are most likely to delete the

188  LIU Tong and MAO Haijian authors’ unique insights, which makes the book appear comprehensive but dull. For example, the content concerning the international setup of power during the Cold War in the first volume of the three-​volume History of the Korean War compiled by the Academy of Military Sciences was deleted in view of foreign-​related issues. Compared with the other two volumes, its content is very unbalanced, which is really a loss. In the study of military history, the academic contention and free development of different schools cannot only keep the discipline of military history constantly updated, but also provide useful materials for the development of military science. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army has been a model in Chinese and world history because it keeps on fighting despite failure. It was this bitter experience that has nurtured PLA’s ability to finally defeat the “UN Army” led by the United States on the Korean battlefield, despite making great sacrifices once again. However, in many books describing the history of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, we cannot feel this power. Marching all the way with triumphant songs can only be seen in the theater. True history is always a mixture of joy and sorrow. What makes the author feel this deficiency more is the biographies of military figures of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, in which almost all of them are depicted as far-​sighted and invincible heroes. War is the most real thing in the world. It would be absurd for scholars to talk about the war in a bookish manner. However, in a considerable number of such books, these military figures were all depicted as white-​faced scholars and readers cannot imagine them being pragmatic, sly, brave and plain, peculiarities the military figures of the People’s Liberation Army. Mao Zedong was the greatest military strategist in modern China. The study of Mao Zedong’s military career and military thought has always been prominent in modern Chinese military history. However, the over-​theoretical narration and analysis have made him lose his charismatic personal charm. When we read his military biography, we cannot have the same fascination as when we read Napoleon’s military biography. Some sensitive issues and forbidden areas in the study of modern history become more problematic in military history. For example, In Su Yu’s Memoirs of Wars, which is widely recognized as a work of high academic value, the author avoided the Huai Hai Campaign, making readers feel that there is something the author does not want to reveal. In the biographies of many PLA figures, we find that there exist different narrations and explanations concerning the same event. Xu Xiangqian’s Looking Back at the History told a different story from others about some sensitive issues in the Long March. If we compare the biographies of different figures, we can unveil the truth of many important events. The reason for these differences is the different positions adopted by the authors of these biographies. These differences need to be settled before the history can be regarded as objective and fair. Authors also have the responsibility to express their own views on popular “documentary” literature sold by the newsstands and bookstores. Under the

Military history  189 impact of commercialization, many topics of modern military history have inevitably become the “selling points” of commercial speculation, which is not at all surprising. However, what surprises me is that some professional researchers of military history are also involved in it. Plagiarism has never been eliminated in history, but professors are not allowed to copy other people’s work. The so-​called commercial “on-​the-​spot reports” will not decline for the time being, but professional military history researchers must abide by professional ethics and academic norms. Otherwise, the readers cannot distinguish their scholarship from reading their works. Researchers involved in the writing of “documentaries” will slowly die in the hearts of other researchers.

Note 1 E.g. Shen Weibin, Xia Lingen and Zhu Xuecheng. (1987). Review of Research on Modern Chinese Military History. In: Collection of Essays on Modern Chinese Military History. Military Science Press; Kong Deqi. (1998). A Review of Studies on Modern Chinese Military History in 1987. Studies on Military History (1); Zhang Yiwen, Liu Qing and Pi Mingyong. (1991). An Overview of Research on Modern Chinese Military History. Tianjin Education Press; Department of Foreign Military Research of the Academy of Military Sciences. World Military Yearbook (This yearbook had a column on military theory research in all its volumes from 1993 to 1998. Each column was roughly 15,000 to 20,000 words long, aiming to introduce the general content and main viewpoints of the papers on China’s modern military history in the relevant years); Jiang Ying. (1994). New Progress in the Study of Modern Chinese Military History. Study of Military History (1); Jiang Ying. (1995). New Progress in the Study of Modern Chinese Military History in Recent Two Years. Study of Military History (4). The author of this chapter also referred to the above articles, and we hereby express our sincere thanks to the authors.

7  Intellectual history GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao

In the 70  years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the study of modern China’s intellectual history has made great achievements through twists and turns, the development of which can be roughly divided into two stages:  the first stage is from 1949 to 1976 and the second from 1977 to now. For a long time, the May 4th Movement has been set as the lower limit of China’s modern history both in research and teaching, and the period after the May 4th Movement has been considered as the contemporary era. Correspondingly, the lower limit of modern China’s intellectual history naturally ended at the May 4th Movement, and thought appearing after it will belong to the category of the contemporary Chinese history. Therefore, this chapter will mainly focus on the period before the May 4th Movement, but it will touch upon the period after it as well, which needs first to be explained here.

7.1  The pioneering study beginning to take shape With the founding of the PRC, Shanghai Times Publishing House published Fei Min’s A Brief History of the Development of Modern Chinese Thought in November 1949. Adopting the Marxist viewpoint, the author narrated the development process of modern thought from the Opium Wars to the New Democratic Revolution, and briefly introduced the origin and development of several significant threads of thought from Utopian Socialism to New Democracy in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom in modern times and their mutual relations. This is the first book publishing systematical discussions on modern China’s intellectual history since the founding of the PRC. In 1955, Shi Jun, Ren Jiyu and Zhu Bokun compiled Teaching Outline of Modern China’s Intellectual History and had it published by the People’s Publishing House, the contribution of which mainly lies in making useful attempts to establish the basic theoretical framework of modern China’s intellectual history. Under the guidance of Marxism and Mao Zedong’s thoughts, the authors systematically and comprehensively discussed the objects and contents of modern China’s intellectual history, the purpose of learning and studying it, the social and historical conditions under which modern thought

Intellectual history  191 came into being and the development route of anti-​imperialist and anti-​ feudal thought. Its publication has promoted the study of modern intellectual history, attracted attention from academia and provoked discussion on the basic issues of modern intellectual history. Wang Renzhi and Xu Zongmian pointed out that the Teaching Outline of Modern China’s Intellectual History has three defects:  first, the objects of research are not comprehensive. It is correct for this book to take the history of the emergence and development of anti-​imperialist and anti-​feudal thought during the old democratic revolution as the research objects, while it is incomplete to think that “the new economy, new classes and new political forces generated by modern Chinese society are the material basis for the emergence and development of modern Chinese thought,” because they are only the material basis for the emergence and development of new and advanced thought in modern China. In addition to the new progressive thought, reactionary thought in modern China also reflected the old economy and politics, and ideology of slavery serving imperialism. The Outline attributed the development history of modern China’s ideology to the struggle between the revolutionary ideological line and the reformist ideological line, but did not discuss the whole process of the development of progressive thought in the struggles against imperialism and feudalism, which is also one-​sided. This is because the former struggle is only the struggle within the new progressive thought, while the latter struggle is the theme of modern China’s intellectual history. Second, the context of the ideological development is incomplete. The editors did not systematically explain the inheritance relationship of thought in various periods, the formation of ideological trends, and the development and decline of ideological trends. Instead, they introduced the thought of different thinkers one by one and lacked a comprehensive analysis and discussion of the whole ideological trend. Thus, they could not grasp the whole picture of social thought thoroughly and comprehensively. Third, the internal relationship between thought and the social and historical conditions under which it were born was not revealed. It was the lack of an in-​depth and specific explanation of the social and historical environment at that time that did not fully explain how thought came into being and was developed.1 The above opinions are very insightful. They do not only compensate for some deficiencies in the outline, but also promote the study of modern China’s intellectual history. Issues like the struggle between old and new ideas, the relationship between thinkers and ideological trends and the spread of Western bourgeois thought in China have always been worthy of attention in the study of modern China’s intellectual history, and some of them have yet to be interpreted. At this stage, no systematic works on modern intellectual history were published, while the research on the thought of historical figures was quite active. In addition to the many papers published in newspapers and magazines, Selected Papers on the Research on Modern Chinese Thinkers compiled by the Chinese History Teaching and Research Section of Renmin University

192  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao of China (SDX Joint Publishing House, 1957), Selected Papers on Modern China’s Intellectual History compiled by the Philosophy Department of Peking University (Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1958) and Research on Kang Youwei and Tan Sitong’s Thoughts written by Li Zehou (Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1958) were also published. The range of figures involved in these papers and works is very extensive. Not only have important figures such as Lin Zexu, Gong Zizhen, Wei Yuan, Hong Xiuquan, Kang Youwei, Liang Qichao, Sun Yat-​sen, Zhang Taiyan, Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao been studied, but also minor figures such as Feng Guifen and Song Shu. Some of these papers and works proposed unique views on the analysis of the thought of these individuals and are thus of great academic value. These studies are helpful in the further study of their thought and lay a good foundation for the systematic writings of modern China’s intellectual history. In the study of the thought of historical figures, there are different opinions on the thought of some of them. For example, there are different views on whether Gong Zizhen’s political and economic thought have capitalist tendencies, the class nature of Wei Yuan’s thought, whether Feng Guifen is a reformist with bourgeois democratic thought or a reformist from the landlord class, the date and evaluation of Kang Youwei’s Da Tong Shu, the evaluation of Liang Qichao’s thought in his last years, and whether Tan Sitong’s philosophical thought is materialistic or idealistic, indicating that there was a warm atmosphere of academic contention at that time. However, judging from the arguments listed above, it is not difficult to find that it is mainly the class attribute of the thought of historical figures, which also reflects that their it was still relatively narrow and there was a simplistic tendency in understanding and grasping class views and class analysis. In 1965, some publications criticized Sun Sibai’s article “Analysis of Chen Duxiu’s Early Thoughts” (History Teaching, No.10, 1963), highlighting the dogmatic and simplistic tendency under the influence of the “Left” line of thought. During the period from 1966 to 1976, the “Gang of Four” launched the campaign to “comment on Legalism and criticize Confucianism” for political needs, and the articles that appeared under its influence considered Gong Zizhen, Wei Yuan, Zhang Taiyan and other thinkers as Legalists and exaggeratively drew into them in the struggles between Confucianism and Legalism, which seriously distorted academic research. Works on the specific fields of intellectual history have also been published. Zhao Jing and Yi Menghong’s History of Modern Chinese Economic Thoughts (Zhonghua Book Company, 1964–​1966) is the first monograph on modern economic thought. Works on reformism include Ye Huosheng’s Struggles Against Reformism in Modern Chinese Revolutionary Movements (Renmin University of China Press, 1956)  and Hu Bin’s Modern China’s Reformist Thoughts (Zhonghua Book Company, 1964). The latter systematically examined the rise and fall of bourgeois reformism in modern China and divided it into four stages. The first period from the Opium Wars to the 1860s is the fermentation stage. During this stage, some more enlightened

Intellectual history  193 bureaucratic landlord-​class intellectuals, represented by Gong Zizhen, Lin Zexu and Wei Yuan, began to differentiate themselves from orthodox feudal ideology. Although their political and academic views were not divorced from the feudal system, they provided rich ideological data for the following bourgeois reformists. The period from the 1860s to the beginning of the Sino-​ Japanese War of 1894–​1895 is the stage when reformist ideas came into being and developed initially. Famous reformist thinkers of this period include Feng Guifen, Wang Tao, Xue Fucheng, Ma Jianzhong, Zheng Guanying and others. Politically, they advocated the parliamentary system of the Western bourgeoisie. Economically, they advocated the development of national industry and commerce. However, they did not form a complete ideological system yet. The period from the Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​1895 to the Reform Movement of 1898 is the stage of rapid development. Reformists represented by Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao pushed reformist thought to a climax and developed it into a political movement. The period from the Reform Movement of 1898 to the 1911 Revolution Movement is the declining stage. After the failure of the Reform Movement of 1898, a few people such as Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao still adhered to the reformist line and attacked democratic revolutionary thought. In the debate between these two sides, the reformists were defeated and their influence gradually diminished. Although this conclusion is not accurate in all its aspects, it is quite pertinent to the analysis of thinkers in different periods or at the same time by comparing them vertically and horizontally, seeking similarities and differences, and finding out their own characteristics. Liu Danian’s “A Page of Modern China’s Intellectual History” (New Construction, No.12, 1962)  systematically discussed the social ideological trends during the Opium Ward. Through the study of Lin Zexu, Huang Juezi, Gong Zizhen, Wei Yuan, Yao Ying, Bao Shichen, Zhang Mu and others, this article pointed out that they dared to face up to reality, expose and criticize the decadent feudal system, advocate resistance to the invasion of foreign powers and learn from Western countries to enrich the country and strengthen the army. This ideological trend became the beginning of the modern Chinese people’s struggle against imperialism and feudalism. The author also pointed out that the debate between bourgeois reformism and feudalism, the debate between bourgeois revolutionaries and reformists, and the New Culture Movement launched by some petty bourgeoisie and bourgeois intellectuals before the May 4th Movement are the three climaxes of the ideological emancipation of modern China, all of which were carried out in the direction indicated by social ideological trends appearing during the Opium Wars.

7.2  The ascendant systematic study The ideological emancipation of intellectual history researchers themselves is a prerequisite for the study of intellectual history. After China’s reform and opening up in the late 1970s, under the guidance of the ideological line

194  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao of emancipating the mind and seeking truth from facts, historians began to break through the shackles of dogmatism and attempted to study history with accurate Marxist historical materialism. The study of modern intellectual history presented unprecedented prosperity. Many papers and books were published and their depth and breadth is beyond comparison to previous studies. Over the past 30 years, the study of modern intellectual history is obviously different from the previous period in that a number of systematic works on modern China’s intellectual history have been published. There is a developing and changing process in the framework of these works, which can be further divided into three stages:  (1) from 1978 to the end of the 1980s, the works on modern China’s intellectual history focused on the thought of thinkers, that is to say, their frameworks were mainly composed of thinkers who were active before the May 4th Movement in 1919; (2) from the late 1980s to the mid-​1990s, the focuses of related works changed from the thought of historical figures to ideological trends before the May 4th Movement. (3) Since the late 1990s, the time range covered by related works has been extended from before the May 4th Movement to the eve of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. This change reflects the deepening of the study of modern intellectual history from one aspect. The general situation of the research at each stage will be reviewed separately below. In 1978, History of Modern Chinese Philosophy edited by Hou Wailu was published by People’s Publishing House. Although this book has “history of philosophy” in its name, its real focus is on the history of thought (the history of political thought in particular). This book has the following remarkable characteristics: first, it explored the ideological roots of historical figures from a philosophical perspective, grasped the fundamental origins of their thought and explained the track of their ideological changes. For example, when discussing Wei Yuan’s social and political thought, the author started with a detailed analysis of Wei Yuan’s naive materialist epistemology and view of historical evolution to reveal the origin and limitations of Wei Yuan’s ideas of political reform and anti-​aggression, and thus enabled readers to have a deep understanding of his thought. When discussing the philosophical thought of these figures, the authors often went deep into epistemology, history and other aspects to avoid simple generalities. When discussing their thought, the authors often traced their origins. For example, when talking about Gong Zizhen’s thought, the author introduced the materialist view of nature of Xun Kuang, Wang Chong and Wang Anshi and pointed out their inheritance relationship. Their thought is based on reality, but we must draw nourishment from the existing ideological materials and explain the inheritance relationship to reveal their ideological characteristics thoroughly. Second, this book laid stress on revealing the organic and essential connections between the thought of each period and the social history at that time, explained more

Intellectual history  195 deeply the causes of the thought, accurately grasped the characteristics of the thought of each period and made in-​depth and detailed analysis. For example, the authors held that social thought before the Opium Wars was characterized by the rise of statecraft, while after the Opium Wars, it was characterized by the patriotic thought of anti-​aggression. The former was the appeal of a part of the advanced landlord class reformers who were facing a serious social and national crisis in the last days of feudal society for reform to eradicate the social problems. The latter reflected a few patriotic intellectuals summing up the lessons of failure and thinking about the future after the Opium Wars. Third, this book paid attention to the influence of imported modern Western philosophy and social thought in Chinese ideological circles. In addition to the scattered introduction of relevant content, this book set up a chapter on imported bourgeois idealist philosophy and its ideological influence before and after the 1911 Revolution, giving a more detailed introduction to this thought and its dissemination in China, which are essential for a comprehensive understanding of modern thought. The authors also noticed early Chinese scientists, such as Li Shanlan and Xu Shou, who introduced modern Western natural science to China, and discussed these materialistic scientists’ criticism of the traditional view of destiny. Fourth, it introduced backward reactionary thought in various modern periods in a more comprehensive and systematic way, and discussed their struggles with progressive thought. Since this book was written under the special political climate in the late period of the “Cultural Revolution,” some of its evaluations of people and events now seem simplistic and subjective. However, its positive impact on the study of modern Chinese intellectual history and the writing of systematic works should never be underestimated. Most of the systematic works of modern intellectual history that appeared after History of Modern Chinese Philosophy were categorized as “political intellectual history.” Since the early 1980s, more than ten books have been published one after the other. Shao Deming’s History of Modern China’s Political Thoughts (Law Publishing House, 1983)  was published earlier, followed by Sang Xianzhi and Lin Qiao’s History of Modern China’s Political Thoughts (Renmin University of China Publishing House, 1986)  and Bao Chengguan’s book (Jilin University Publishing House, 1991) with the same name. As for papers on modern political thought and the political thought of relevant figures, the number is even larger. These works revealed the historical process and general trend of the development of China’s modern political thought, holding that modern Chinese political thought is the criticism and rejection of the view of China as a traditional feudal state and the theories, ethical codes and moral concepts aimed at safeguarding this state view such as “the divine right of kings,” the “Three Cardinal Guides” (i.e. ruler guides subject, father guides son and husband guides wife) and the “Five Constant Virtues” (i.e. benevolence, righteousness, propriety, knowledge and sincerity). It is also the history of the formation and development of the bourgeois state

196  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao view and its eventual failure through practice. The publication of these works has played a positive role in promoting and perfecting the study of modern intellectual history. Another main thread of modern Chinese political thought is anti-​aggression patriotism. Safeguarding national sovereignty and resisting foreign aggression are the basic issues related to the fate of the country. Most of the advanced thinkers in modern times put forward their ideas on these issues and tried to carry them out, but failed in the end. The first feature of China’s modern political thought is its complexity. In just 100-​odd years, China had gone through an intellectual development which had taken Europe hundreds of years. Social and political thought has leaped from feudalism to socialism. All classes and political factions put forward their own political ideas. When mainstream thought was surging, latent tributaries were also emerging. Today’s standard-​bearer of the progressive ideological front could have become tomorrow’s defender of old-​fashioned ideas. Some inherited the tradition, others borrowed from foreign countries, and some mixed Chinese and Western cultures. Political thought became a colorful kaleidoscope. The second feature of China’s modern political thought is its superficiality and roughness. The political thought of modern China was basically put forward in response to the urgent political problem of saving the nation from extinction. The urgency of the real struggle did not provide enough conditions for thinkers to build their theoretical systems. More often than not, thinkers would form political plans to solve real problems first, and then they started to find the philosophical support to build their own ideological system. Thus, it is impossible for them to form mature and complete ideological systems. Over the years, the research scope of the history of political thought has been gradually expanded from mainly attaching importance to the bourgeoisie, the landlord class reformers, the peasant class, and even the Boxers about whom few data could be found, from mainstream progressive political thought to backward reactionary political thought which had occupied the dominant position for quite a long time. The evaluations made by researchers have also become more objective and realistic. For example, while evaluating anarchism, researchers not only pointed out its negative effects, but also affirmed its contribution in opposing despotism, criticizing feudal culture and introducing Marxism preliminarily under the specific historical conditions in China. In terms of writing methods, some researchers took historical figures and factions as their main theme, while others took the ideological trends; some researchers made macro-​level discussions, while others took micro-​ level perspectives and conducted case studies. Of course, there are still many problems that need to be discussed in the history of modern Chinese political thought. For example, there exist great differences in terms of its research object and scope, which require further effort. With the publication of a number of works on modern intellectual history, academia has further deepened its understanding of the study of modern China’s intellectual history and put forward some pertinent opinions. In his

Intellectual history  197 article “Several Issues in the Study of Modern China’s Intellectual History” (Collected Papers on Chinese Cultural Studies, Fudan University Press, Vol. 1, 1984, pp. 265–​286), Jin Chongji fully expounded his views and proposed that breakthroughs should be made in four aspects: (1) the development and evolution of various modern social ideological trends and their interrelations should be studied as the key topic. (2) Researchers should focus on the 20-​odd years from the Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​1895 to the May 4th Movement, because these 20-​odd years are a period when different thoughts kept surging. (3)  Researchers should probe deeply into the relationship between modern Chinese philosophy and political thought. Jin Chongji held that for a long period of time, the dominant philosophy in the progressive ideological circles of modern China had always been idealism (especially subjective idealism), but not materialism. Yan Fu was the first to provide modern China with a relatively complete materialist ideological system and had a wide influence on the ideological circles, particularly because he translated Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life and added lots of his own comments to it. (4)  Researchers should study various important schools of Western modern social and political thought and philosophical thought, especially those schools that had an important influence on modern Chinese ideological circles and their influence on China. We also need to focus on the influence of Japanese modern ideological circles on China, because Japan at that time had a great influence on them. The author’s views are apposite to the problems existing in the study of modern China’s intellectual history at that time. For example, in the past, we always held that progressive thinkers tended toward materialism in philosophy, while idealists must be old-​fashioned in political thought. Therefore, when studying advanced figures, we always searched for their materialistic elements, ignoring the complexity of this problem. These propositions are indeed topics worthy of in-​depth discussion. During this period, people had discussed modern intellectual history from many perspectives, and carried out thorough and meticulous studies. For example, Wang Linmao believed that in the progressive ideological trend of modern China, there are four turning points in the alternation between the old and the new and each had its own representatives. Gong Zizhen and Wei Yuan were at the turning point of the feudal society, and appealed for “reform” and “learning from foreigners to compete with them,” which for the first time impacted on the old creeds of the feudal rulers and became pioneers of modern ideological emancipation. Feng Guifen followed Gong and Wei’s thought and began to break through the “statecraft of the sage rulers of the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties,” pointing out many aspects more clearly in which China was not as developed as the Western countries (the “barbarians”). He advocated learning from the Western countries more clearly, and became a pioneer in reformism. Tang Caichang, a radical reformist, broke through the reformist thought and started the struggle to overthrow the Qing Dynasty after the failure of the Reform Movement of

198  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao 1898, but he still could not give up reformist thought completely. After the failure of the 1911 Revolution, Zhu Zhixin began to break away from the ideological system of the old Three People’s Principles and gradually came close to Marxism. All these above-​mentioned figures are representatives of progressive ideas continuing from the past and opening a way for the future in a specific period. Whether these conclusions are in line with objective reality is debatable, but after all, questions were raised by researchers, which is indeed helpful for further research.2 In 1988, Zhang Xiqin published Modern China’s Intellectual History (Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House, 1988). In the same year, Li Huaxing published a book with the same title (Zhejiang People’s Publishing House, 1988). Both these two books systematically displayed the whole picture of the development of modern Chinese thought and they have both similarities and differences: (1) A common feature shared by these two works was that they both displayed the context and development trend of modern Chinese thought. Zhang Xiqin thought that overthrowing the rule of imperialism and feudalism, saving and transforming China, making China independent and prosperous, and freeing the people from suffering were the common wishes of modern Chinese people and the theme of modern China’s intellectual history. He also argued that the mainstream of modern China’s intellectual history was to learn from the West, import Western capitalist civilization, gradually realize that capitalism could not remedy China, and eventually accept Marxism and head for the socialist road. Li Huaxing held that the center of modern China’s intellectual history should be the anti-​imperialist and anti-​feudal social and political ideology, and an important topic in modern Chinese ideological circles was learning from the West. Through arduous exploration, the vote of confidence was finally given to Marxism, which is the choice made by both the people and history. (2) They both investigated the ideological changes from the perspective of culture. Zhang Xiqin thought that the process of modern China’s acceptance of Western civilization was also a process of re-​understanding, re-​evaluating, clearing and reforming China’s traditional culture. Bourgeois thinkers had thoroughly compared Chinese and Western cultures, and launched a “moral revolution,” “literary revolution” and “historical revolution,” trying to transform the traditional Chinese cultural and psychological structure. The author has made a detailed review of these aspects. According to Li Huaxing, Chinese people’s learning from the West has gone through three levels of cultural changes: material culture, system culture and ideological culture, which is a process of deepening from surface to inside, from shallow to deep. Modern thinkers and reformers finally realized that only by improving the nation’s quality and carrying out deep ideological and cultural changes could China’s social changes be promoted. Although these two authors paid attention to different aspects, they both examined the changes in thought from the deep cultural level, which had not been considered by previous monographs. (3) They both absorbed new research results. For example, both of them commented on the Westernization

Intellectual history  199 Movement to some extent, but their views were different. Zhang Xiqin believed that modern China had experienced six ideological trends including the Westernization Movement to find a way out for the future. However, Li Huaxing argued that there were three advanced ideological trends in modern China, and the thought of Westernization was not one of them. All these discussions cannot be found in previous works on modern intellectual history. Now we will have a look at the research conducted from the late 1980s to the mid-​1990s. The framework of books on modern intellectual history from 1978 to the end of the 1980s focused on thinkers or focused mainly on thinkers and gave consideration to social ideological trends as well. However, almost all the works after the end of the 1980s adopted the social ideological trends as their framework. In the 1950s, Wang Renzhi and others raised the issue of the relationship between thinkers and ideological trends. After 1976, Hou Wailu began to use “ideological trend” in his History of Modern Chinese Philosophy to sum up the thoughts of a certain historical period and to summarize the characteristics of some thoughts. An earlier monograph on the whole history of modern Chinese thought under the title of “ideological trend” was Wu Jianjie’s Modern China’s Ideological Trends and Their Evolution (Wuhan University Press, 1989). The author held that previous monographs and teaching materials on modern China’s intellectual history focused on various representative thinkers and their representative works according to their periods and sects, which could not reveal the basic clue and law of alternation, development and evolution of the trends in modern China’s political thought. Therefore, this book mainly focused on several progressive ideological trends instead of thought of different thinkers in modern history. It discussed social criticism, reformist thought and patriotic reformist thought of the landlord-​class reformers during the Opium Wars, the peasant revolutionary thoughts of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Westernization thoughts in the second half of the nineteenth century, reformist thought in the Reform Movement of 1898, social thought in the Revolution of 1911, the decline of bourgeois democratic revolutionary thought and the introduction of Marxism. Although there are questions such as whether the clues and regularity of the development and evolution of modern Chinese thoughts can be fully reflected by discussing only a few progressive thoughts, this attempt is undoubtedly beneficial. Later, a book entitled Social Thought in the Late Qing Dynasty (Fujian People’s Publishing House, 1990 edition) edited by Wu Yannan and others was published. Although the book is limited to the period from the Sino-​Japanese War to the 1911 Revolution and is not the whole history of modern China, most of the important ideological trends in modern Chinese history are included, including patriotism, reformism, revolutionary democracy, constitutional monarchy, the thought of saving the nation by education, the thought of saving the country by industry, the thought of saving China’s national essence, anarchism and early socialism. The classification of ideological trends in this book has its own characteristics, but also needed

200  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao extra scrutiny. For example, patriotism is the backbone of modern China’s intellectual history, running through all times and being reflected in various ideological trends, so whether it is appropriate to be listed separately and juxtaposed with other ideological trends remains to be discussed. In the mid-​1990s, the number of books with “social thought” in their names increased. These included, Qi Qizhang’s History of Modern China’s Social Thought (Shandong Education Press, 1994), Hu Weige’s Study of Modern China’s Social Thought (Northeast Normal University Press, 1994), Li Renkai’s Modern China’s Social Thought (Hebei People’s Publishing House, 1996), and Gao Ruiquan’s Modern China’s Social Thought (East China Normal University Press, 1996), and so on. Most of these works took ideological trends as their clues and basis for classification, and their classification of ideological trends is also similar. Here, we will not introduce them one by one, but will only introduce two works whose frameworks are different from those of others. The first is Hu Weige’s Study of Modern China’s Social Thought. In terms of structure, it not only discussed modern China’s social thought in turn, but also treated it as an important part of modern Chinese social thought. This book focused on the following issues: (1) the beginning, main line, process and ending of the social ideological trends in modern China; (2) the relationship between Western culture, Chinese traditional culture, social consciousness, intellectual groups, great thinkers and modern China’s social thought; (3)  the origin, content, evolution and influence of several major social ideological trends. This book avoided the shortcomings of discussing each representative thinker and his representative work by periods and sects and discussing each ideological trend in sequence. Although the depth of its discussion and some of its conclusions may not be accepted by other researchers, its content is richer than the books just stating each ideological trend in sequence. The second is Social Thought in Modern China edited by Gao Ruiquan. This book composed of 12 monographic studies, and its content is obviously different from the above-​mentioned works on the history of modern China’s social ideological trends. The 11 ideological trends discussed in this book are humanitarianism, evolutionism, positivism, voluntarism, liberalism, cultural radicalism, cultural conservatism, anarchism, nationalism, the thought of the Buddhist revival and China’s modernization, Christian missionary work and the “spread of Western learning to the East” in the late Qing dynasty. Comparatively speaking, although some political thought is included in this book, it attached more importance to philosophical and cultural thought. Marxism or socialism are not included in this book. The acceptable reason for this was given in the editor’s postscript. However, because Marxism has had great influence in modern China, it may be a defect for a book on social trends in modern China to ignore it. It is also necessary to point out that the lower time limit of modern Chinese history is not the May 4th Movement but the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, which is also different from the above-​mentioned works on history of philosophy, political thought, ideology and social ideological trends.

Intellectual history  201 Most of the works on intellectual history from the May 4th Movement to the founding of the People’s Republic of China can be categorized as the history of political thought, such as the History of Modern China’s Political Thought edited by Lin Maosheng, Wang Weili and Wang Yalin (Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House, 1984) and the History of Modern China’s Political Thought written by Wang Jinwu and Li Ziwen (Jilin University Publishing House, 1991). The former is a monograph that systematically discussed the history of modern China’s political thought. It held that in the period of the new democratic revolution, the core of political thought of various classes, political parties, organizations and their representatives was the issue of nation-​building, and the proposition of various nation-​building programs and policies and the struggle between them constituted the basic content of the history of modern China’s political thought. Therefore, taking the interrelation and struggles among the three founding theories and the propositions of three classes, i.e. the big landlord and big bourgeoisie, the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat, as the basic clue, this book systematically discussed the major political parties and their political thought in modern Chinese history. The latter changed the writing style of the history of modern China’s political thought, which was always written in the style of general history, and systematically discussed the four main threads, i.e. the Three People’s Principles, New Democracy, Liberalism and Feudal comprador fascism, in order of appearance, trying to show the main body of modern China’s political thought in a complete and systematic way and conduct in-​depth research upon it. This method of writing has its own advantages. However, since political thought in these 30 years was extremely complicated, if a history of China’s political thought reflected only a few main strands, it could highlight the prominent points but could not cover all thought. Gao Jun, Wang Huilin and Yang Shubiao’s A Review of Modern China’s Political Thoughts (Huaxia Publishing House, 1990)  have idiosyncratically not used the word “history” in its title. The book discussed more than 20 varieties of influential political thought in the 30 years from the May 4th Movement to the founding of the People’s Republic of China chronologically, including China’s New Democratic Revolution Theory, China’s Anarchism, Hu Shi’s Pragmatism, China’s Utopian Socialism, China’s Guild Socialism, Sun Yat-​ sen’s Three People’s Principles, Statism, the Dai Jitao Doctrine, the Western Hills Group’s political thought, China’s fascism, the political thought of KMT Reorganizers, the political thought of the Third Party, the political thought of the Human Rights Movement Group, the political thought of the Rural Construction Group, Chinese Trotskyist Political Thought, the traitor’s “New Democracy,” the political thought of the Warring States School, and so on. It not only expounded the emergence and development of various kinds of political thought, but also analyzed and evaluated it, which was much more innovative. Finally, we will have a look at the research from the late 1990s to the early twenty-​first century. Different from the previous works on modern China’s

202  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao intellectual history, the lower time limit of the works published in this period is the founding of the People’s Republic of China, and two of them are worth our attention. The first is Modern China’s Social thought edited by Wu Yannan and others (Hunan Education Press, 1998). This book consists of four volumes and more than 2 million characters, spanning more than a century from the Opium Wars to the founding of the PRC. It is by far the longest and largest monograph on the systematic study of modern China’s social ideological trends. Its main characteristics are as follows: (1) It has systematically and comprehensively demonstrated the diversity, integrity and evolution of modern China’s social ideological trends, correctly understood their mainstreams and directions, revealing that saving China from subjugation, revitalizing it, reforming it and taking the road of modernization form the core of modern social ideological trends. Patriotism is the motive force of these social ideological trends, and scientific socialism finally takes the leading position in various social ideological trends. At the same time, it also took into account the neutral and reactionary ideological trends, and linked them with the social environment and the changes in people’s psychology at that time. (2) This book examined social ideological trends from a cultural perspective. It argued that the development and evolution of modern social thought were intertwined with the conflict and integration of Chinese and Western cultures. Only by scientifically understanding Chinese and Western cultures could we correctly find the direction of Chinese culture. It also made detailed comments on the ideological trends and debates in the cultural field, which were rarely mentioned in other works on modern China’s intellectual history. For example, the mysticism, non-​Christian religions and other ideological phenomena discussed in this book had never been covered in previous works. The second is Modern China’s Ideological Course (1840–​1949) edited by Peng Ming and Cheng Xiao (Renmin University of China Press, 1999), which has three distinctive features. First, the authors regarded the ideological trend as a spiritual system formed by connecting cognition of different levels, and shifted the main axis of intellectual history research from the analysis of historical figures to the much broader analysis of group consciousness. Second, the authors put forward a new view on the division of the evolutionary course of ideological trends in the past 100 years, holding that with the change and development of the dominant consciousness of the times, China’s modern ideological trends had gone through four stages:  (1) The period from the Opium Wars to the Sino-​Japanese War of 1894–​1895 was the budding stage of reformist thought; (2) The period from the Sino-​Japanese War of 1894 to the Revolution of 1911 was the stage of denying traditional ideas. (3)  The period from the May 4th Movement to the mid-​1930s was the stage when the ideological circles readjusted their direction of thinking and experienced profound differentiation and combination. (4) The period from the mid-​1930s to the founding of the PRC was the stage when the new democratic ideology of the Communist Party of China represented by Mao Zedong bloomed and

Intellectual history  203 bore fruit. No one has made such a division before, so it should be considered as a new exploration. However, whether the division is appropriate or not is still a question that remains to be studied further. At last, the authors argued that the history of modern China’s ideological trends is essentially a cognitive history of Chinese people’s self-​discovery, self-​awakening and self-​selection of the national way of life, which is in line with the historical reality and is quite innovative. Since the twenty-​first century, the study of modern China’s intellectual history has also experienced a process from systematic study to time-​phased study, and then back to systematic study again. This period is conducive to deepening the systematic research on modern China’s intellectual history. For example, He Zhaowu et  al.’s History of Chinese Thoughts (Hubei People’s Publishing House, 2007)  sorted out the development of Chinese thought from the pre-​Qin period to the eve of the May 4th Movement, discussed the inheritance and development of each kind of thought in each period, reflecting the rich connotation of Chinese thought and culture over the past thousands of years, which is a useful attempt to study of China’s intellectual history. Another example is Ge Zhaoguang’s China’s Ideological History (Vol. 2) (Fudan University Press, 2000), which discussed the process of the final establishment and gradual disintegration of Chinese ideological circles from the seventh century to the nineteenth century. As far as modern thought is concerned, the book held that in the sixteenth century China began to gradually enter the era of “Thousands of Nations” from previously regarding itself as being “the center of the world.” However, deep cracks gradually appeared between thought and belief. When the Qing Dynasty came to power the surface cracks were filled in unified thinking on the level of public and political discourse was temporarily reconstructed. However, this tradition, which was split between the public and private fields, finally began to disintegrate under the pressure and temptation of strong warships and powerful arms of the big powers. China was defeated by Japan in 1895. Being filled with this particular indignation and humiliation, China started to pursue prosperity along Western lines and embarked on the road of learning from the West, thus stirring up various ideas such “saving the nation” and “enlightenment,” “nationalism” and “cosmopolitanism,” “radicalism” and “conservatism.” During this period, there were also many achievements in time-​phased research, such as Zhang Rulun’s Study of Modern Chinese Thought (Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2001), Chen Zhefu’s History of Chinese Thought in the 20th Century (Shandong People’s Publishing House, 2002), Wang Xingye’s Development Track of Modern China’s Thoughts and Culture (China Literature and History Publishing House, 2003), and Zheng Dahua’s Intellectual History of the Late Qing Dynasty (Hunan Normal University Publishing House, 2005), and Intellectual History of the Republic of China (Social Science Literature Publishing House, 2006). With the deepening of the research, academic circles started to discuss issues such as the problems existing in the research of modern intellectual

204  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao history, its possible direction and its connotation as a discipline. In the past, works on the history of modern China’s intellectual history were basically only the development history of modern thinkers’ thought and concepts, and this situation appealed to academic circles by breaking through the history of intellectual history and social history, and paying attention to the interactive relationship between thought and society. For example, Liu Zehua and Pang Pu hold that the study of the interactive process between thought and society is not a general study of both thought and society, nor is it a mechanical addition of the study of thought and the study of society, but an interaction and blending of the two. The key point is to present “society with thoughts,” “thoughts of society” and “the process of socialization of thoughts and the ideologicalization of the society.”3 Some other scholars point out that the disciplinary construction of intellectual history needs to deal thoroughly with three major issues and nine major relationships. The first is the problem of its discipline attributes, including the three major relationships between intellectual history and three other disciplines, i.e. philosophical history, cultural history and academic history. The second is the issue of the principle of value neutrality, which includes the three relations of fact judgment and value judgment, mainstream discourse and non-​mainstream discourse, intellectual history and the history of social evolution. The third is about the spirit of the times, including nationalism and cosmopolitanism, empiricism and idealism, tradition and modernity.4 There are mainly two views on the object and content of research on modern intellectual history. One holds that the study of intellectual history should focus on elite ideology, because the main purpose of the study of intellectual history is to explore the role and influence of human ideology on human history. Starting from the study of elite ideology, it may be easier to find a solution to this question. Moreover, the thought of real elite thinkers in history included general social thought, while general social thought resulting from social customs, etiquette and other aspects cannot typically reflect the ideological concepts and spiritual features of an era due to its dispersion and impurity. Another view holds that intellectual history should not only study elite ideology, but also general social ideology. We should study not only the metaphysical “Tao,” but also the physical “Devices.” We should not only do “addition” but also “subtraction.” We should study the ideas that were once very important in history but disappeared later. We should pay attention to the thought of the masses and their interaction with the thought of the elites. With regard to the research methods of intellectual history, scholars’ propositions are as follows: first, we should draw extensively on other disciplines and the research methods of Western intellectual history. We should grasp the methods of highly valued works through intensive study, instead of simply copying other people’s dogmas and formulas. Second, we should base our study on modern China. The main problems to be studied should be about China’s own ideology and its internal structural evolution and development in modern times. External factors are only one of the conditions for changes

Intellectual history  205 in modern China’s thought, and can only act through the internal responses of Chinese society. Third, we should have a broad vision. Modern China’s thought had been developed while China was moving toward the world. We should study all kinds of cultural conditions affecting modern Chinese thought in general. In addition to the internal cultural conditions, we must also grasp the basic context of the development and changes of Western cultural concepts, cultural styles, and even thoughts and ideological trends of the non-​Western countries, especially the colonial countries, in modern China.5

7.3  The prosperous monographic study During the second stage from 1977 to the early years of the twenty-​first century, in addition to the remarkable achievements made by the publication of a large number of systematic works, the study of modern China’s intellectual history has made great progress in the study of case studies of thinkers and the specialized fields of thought. As for the study of thinkers, the early concentrated research could be found in Li Zehou’s On Modern China’s Intellectual History (People’s Publishing House, 1979). This book focused on the thought of Hong Xiuquan, Kang Youwei, Tan Sitong, Yan Fu, Sun Yat-​sen, Zhang Taiyan, Liang Qichao, Wang Guowei and Lu Xun, all of whom were representative of their own times. However, the author did not stop at the case study of these thinkers, but combined and unified them with the ideological trends of the whole society, thinking that one could not understand the status and significance of individual thinkers without looking at the ideological trends, and it would be difficult to see the specific depth reached by the ideological trends of the times without an in-​depth analysis of the main representative figures. Therefore, the author particularly expounded three great streams of thought that had promoted the development of modern Chinese history, i.e. the thought of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Reformists and the Revolutionaries. Li Zehou’s other book is On Contemporary China’s Intellectual History (Oriental Press, 1987), which mainly discussed the thought of some important figures in contemporary history, and involved academic debates, literary thought and other issues as well. There are many disputes in the academic circles about some of his judgments made in this book. For example, many scholars have criticized his view of “saving the nation overpowering enlightenment” and argued that this statement did not conform to the historical reality of modern China. Judging from the development of modern Chinese thoughts, it was precisely the “saving of our nation” that had brought the enlightenment. The climax of a national salvation movement could always effectively arouse or promote the arrival of a great enlightenment movement. This is a regular phenomenon in modern Chinese history which had been proved by the Reform Movement of 1898, the Revolution of 1911, the May 4th Movement and the December 9th Movement, and so on.

206  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao At this stage, research on the thought of the representatives of the times like Sun Yat-​sen, Liang Qichao, Zhang Taiyan and Zhang Shizhao have received more attention from scholars and made considerable progress. Sun Yat-​sen’s Three People’s Principles have always been the focus of academic research. Through a systematic investigation of Sun Yat-​sen’s conception of people’s livelihood, especially after a careful comparison with historical materialism, Jiang Dachun’s “An Analysis of Sun Yat-​sen’s Conception of People’s Livelihood” (China Social Sciences, No.2, 2000) argued that Marx’s conception of history was a materialist and dialectical practical conception of history, while the essence of the conception of People’s Livelihood was a pluralistic and dynamic view of subject evolution, whose basic connotations had two aspects: first, people’s livelihood is the center of history, showing that Sun Yat-​sen’s views on the content and basic structure of social history highlighted people and considered people as the subject of history; second, human survival is the law of social evolution, showing Sun Yat-​sen’s understanding of the law of historical development and its driving force, that is, the original driving force of social evolution is the livelihood of the people, “human survival” and the “Principles of People’s Livelihood.” The progress in the research of Liang Qichao’s thought is mainly reflected in the research on his ideological development after the Reform Movement of 1898. Since Liang Qichao’s ideological development was closely related to his experience of exile in Japan, it is the right path to explore the origin of his enlightenment thought based on his experience in Japan. Zheng Kuangmin’s The Eastern Learning Background of Liang Qichao’s Enlightenment Thoughts (Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House, 2003)  made an in-​ depth discussion on the kinship between Liang Qichao’s thoughts and Japanese ideological circles, pointing out that Liang Qichao’s enlightenment thought, new people’s thought, civil rights thought, nationalism and the theory of national organism, which had great influence on modern China’s politics, ideology, culture and academia, had all been influenced by Japanese thinkers. Liang Qichao regarded Japan as an intermediate channel to spread Western learning in China, so the ideological elements of many Japanese thinkers infiltrated his thoughts. Zheng Kuangmin’s clarification and analysis of these elements are helpful for a deeper and more accurate understanding of Liang Qichao’s thoughts. Regarding Liang Qichao’s ideological and cultural orientation, Zheng Shiqu pointed out in his article “Liang Qichao and the New Culture Movement” (Modern Chinese History Studies, No.2, 2005) that Liang Qichao’s reflection on modernity had a new ideological pivot after his tour in Europe, insisting on opposing the “view of omnipotent science” and the total negation of traditional Chinese culture, and advocating that the spirit and methods of Western science should be used to reevaluate and reorganize the national heritage in order to develop a new culture, which showed that his relation with the original leader of the New Culture Movement was that they would seek common ground while agreeing to differ, but still keep their own independent status.

Intellectual history  207 Zhang Taiyan’s thought has always been the focus of academic research. Zhang Zhaojun’s The Modern State of Confucianism—​A Study of Zhang Taiyan’s Confucianism (Social Science Literature Publishing House, 2002) put Zhang Taiyan’s Confucianism into the dynamics of the long history of Chinese Confucianism, and discussed it against the background of the modern transformation of Confucianism and the modern evolution of Chinese traditional culture. The author analyzed the academic evolution, ideological origin, evolution process of Zhang Taiyan’s Confucianism, its relationship with the modernization of Confucianism, and the political, contemporary and social nature of Confucianism, pointing out that since the various schools of modern Confucianism shared important commonalities, it was necessary to grasp and objectively evaluate the position of Zhang Taiyan’s Confucianism in the ideological system of modern Confucianism while confirming his own characteristics. In his article “A Brief Review of Zhang Taiyan’s Social Thought” (Research on Historical Theories, No.3, 2005), Shi Gexin pointed out that Zhang Taiyan’s social views were deeply influenced by Western sociological thought, but were not constrained by it. On the basis of his own understanding, Zhang Taiyan had integrated evolutionism, history, political science, traditional Confucianism, various schools of thought in ancient China, Buddhism and other ideological content, and formed a set of unique views on the origin, combination, development, change of human society, criticism of real society, pursuit of ideal society and other issues. Zhang Shizhao was a well-​known political commentator who had paid close attention to and conducted a study of modern democratic politics earlier in the period of the 1911 Revolution. Zhang had caused a sensation by advocating “destroying the Party to rebuild it.” Chen Yuxiang’s “Zhang Shizhao’s Political Party Ideas and Theory of ‘Destroying the Party to Rebuild it’ ” (Zhejiang Social Sciences, No.4, 2000) systematically summarized and analyzed Zhang Shizhao’s propositions and views of the political party, and pointed out that emphasizing the party program and promoting the British-​style cabinet system of political parties were the greatest characteristics of Zhang Shizhao’s political party thought, and proposing the theory of “destroying the party to rebuild it” was the logical result of the development of this thought. Owing to the lack of necessary conditions for the establishment of democratic politics in modern China, Zhang’s propositions are bound to be fruitless. Zou Xiaozhan’s “Comments on Zhang Shizhao’s Liberal Political Thought During the Period of His Being the Editor-​in-​ Chief of Jiayin” (Modern Chinese History Studies, No.1, 2000) analyzed and outlined Zhang Shizhao’s liberal thought during this period: Zhang systematically cleaned up the relationship between the state and the individual with the theory of utilitarianism, and refuted the autocratic centralization theory; Zhang defended the value of democratic politics and put forward the theory of reconciliation to build the country. Zou Xiaozhan thought that Zhang Shizhao paid attention to the strength of the country on the one hand and the freedom and rights of individuals on the other. On the one hand, Zhang

208  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao believed that China should take the road of democratic politics; on the other, he was also trapped by China’s actual conditions. Zhang hoped that China could undertake political transformation in a peaceful and orderly way, but he had to recognize the legitimacy of the revolution under realistic pressure. Zhang’s ideological confusion was of typical significance to Chinese liberals at that time. Over the 30-​ odd years of China’s reform and opening up, the depth and breadth of research in various specialized ideological fields have been expanded continuously, covering almost all aspects of modern intellectual history. For example, on legal thought there is Zhang Jinfan’s History of Modern China’s Legal Thought (China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1984); on philosophical thought there is Feng Qi’s History of Modern China’s Philosophy (Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1989); on Buddhist thought there is Guo Peng’s History of Modern China’s Buddhist Thought (Bashu Publishing House, 1989); on military thought there is Wu Xinzhong and Zhang Yun’s Modern China’s Military Thoughts and Military Construction (Military Science Publishing House, 1990); on journalistic thought there is Hu Taichun’s History of Modern China’s Journalistic Thought (Shanxi People’s Publishing House, 1987); on literary thought, there is Ye Yi’s Essays on Modern China’s Literary Thoughts (Fudan University Publishing House, 1985). I would like to make a brief introduction to the research status of the following topics. Concerning the history of modern democratic thought, representative works include Xiong Yuezhi’s History of Modern Chinese Democratic Thought (Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1986)  and Geng Yunzhi’s Western Democracy in Modern China (China Youth Publishing House, 2003). The characteristics of the former are as follows: (1) It was rich and comprehensive in content, discussing not only the democratic system of government, but also the occurrence, development, characteristics and influences of all thought opposed to despotism, such as free thought, equality thought, decentralization thought, rule of law thought, thought in opposition to feudal laws and regulations and Confucius who was regarded as the spiritual pillar of feudalism. (2) It stated the essential difference between the meaning of ancient “min zhu” (the owner of the people) and modern “min zhu” (the power of the people) and analyzed the evolution of the connotation of “democracy” and “civil rights” in modern China. The author pointed out that although the focus of ancient China’s democratic thought was to oppose despotism, it had something in common with modern democratic thought and should be considered as the historical basis for the acceptance of modern Western democratic thought. China’s democratic thought came directly from Western bourgeois democratic thought. Modern Western democratic thought not only denounced the autocratic system, but also provided the blueprint for a modern democratic country and people’s rights. (3)  The author comprehensively explored the evolution of modern bourgeois democratic thought, holding that it had gone through five stages: preparation (on the eve of the

Intellectual history  209 Opium Wars), emergence (after the 1870s), development (after the Sino-​ Japanese War of 1894–​1895), maturity (in the first decade of the twentieth century) and transformation (from the founding of the Republic of China to the May 4th Movement). During these five stages, it had gone through four alternate negative experiences of a democratic republic and constitutional monarchy, reflecting the Chinese people’s ideological understanding of democracy from shallow to deep, from the surface to the interior. On this basis, the author revealed the inherent laws and characteristics of the development of China’s modern democratic thought: modern China first adopted the Western parliamentary system for the purpose of resisting powerful countries, which appeared ahead of the process of national capitalism. This gave modern democratic thought its obvious characteristics of pragmatism, affecting the complete understanding and systematic absorption of modern Western democratic thought. However, the ideals of freedom and equality that did not seem to be directly related to saving the nation are relatively neglected, and because of which the New Culture Movement raised the banner of democracy even higher. Only the Communist Party of China could establish true socialist democracy in China and would further refine the democratic system. Although some of these conclusions may not be accepted by researchers, it is undeniable that this is a unique academic monograph based on careful research. The characteristics of the latter work are as follows:  (1) from the perspectives of ideology and system, cognition and practice, it examined the efforts and attempts made by China’s advanced elements to change the country’s backward autocratic monarchy and establish a Western-​style democratic system (including a constitutional monarchy or a republic) which could open their eyes to the world. (2) It systematically inspected the development of the Chinese people’s democratic cognition since the Opium Wars, as well as the historical process of development, evolution and experimentation after the introduction of Western democratic thought and democratic regimes into China. (3) Based on the investigation of the understanding and practice of modern China’s democratic politics, the author argued that the greatest characteristic of the democratization process in modern China was that the understanding and practice of modern China’s democratic politics did not synchronize with each other, and there existed a peculiar paradox. Concerning modern nationalism, the following have been successively published: Tang Wenquan’s Awakening and Misunderstanding:  A Study of Modern Nationalism in China (Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1993), Tao Xu’s Nationalism in the Late Qing Dynasty (People’s Publishing House, 1995), Luo Fuhui’s Essays on China’s Nationalism (Huazhong Normal University Publishing House, 1996)  and Luo Zhitian’s Undercurrents in Troubled Times:  Nationalism and Republican Politics (Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House, 2001), and so on. In addition, more related papers have also been published. These studies discussed the formation, characteristics and defects of traditional Chinese nationalism, as well as its important changes in modern China, and put forward consensus views. Tao

210  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao Xu examined some traditional Chinese national conceptions such as the geographical conception of the centrality of Chinese culture, the concept of the superiority of Chinese culture, the concept of the Ji Mi (Loose Rein) policy and the Huai Rou (Conciliatory Policy), the concept of “distinguishing between Xia (China) and Yi (barbarians, i.e. the foreign nations),” and their changes in the late Qing Dynasty. He systematically expounded that some of the traditional national conceptions were eliminated because they did not meet the requirements of society and the times, while others changed greatly under new historical conditions. This new modern national consciousness prepared conditions for the formation of nationalist thought at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. Tao Xu also pointed out that the important source of nationalism in the late Qing Dynasty was the modern nationalism in Western countries, and its direct cause was the aggravation of the national crisis in China and the need for the development of capitalism. Bourgeois nationalist thought was the backbone of nationalist thought in the late Qing Dynasty. The different ethnic views and debates of reformists characterized by the unity of the Manchu and Han and revolutionaries who revolted against the Manchu had a great impact on the national democratic revolution. Luo Fuhui discussed the awakening of the national consciousness of the Chinese rural people in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Movement, the struggle against foreign religions and the Boxer Movement, as well as its great influence on modern national struggles. Although they could not find the correct path of national liberation due to their class status and level of understanding, they were an important force for the Chinese nation to strive for national independence. Luo Zhitian analyzed the mutual echoing, infiltration and interaction between ideology and politics in the early years of the Republic of China, pointing out that the resistance and construction of modern nationalism were complementary and inseparable. Geng Yunzhi’s “Nationalism in Modern China’s Intellectual History” (Journal of Historical Science, No.6, 2006)  held that the concept of modern nationality mainly included the following factors: the region of long-​term common activities, the common culture formed in history, and the national identity caused by long-​ term closely linked economic, political and cultural life. The development of nationalism in modern China has generally experienced three levels. First, before and after the Opium War, Chinese people had not yet abolished the ancient national conception of “distinguishing between Hua (China) and Yi (barbarians, i.e. the foreign nations)”; the second is the rapid development of modern nationalism stimulated by the invasion of Western powers. Third, by the early 1920s, the new context of struggling for a new world order of ethnic equality had been added to Chinese nationalism. The objectivity and historical rationality of nation and nationalism cannot be denied. However, we should pay attention to the manifestations of nationalism, affirm sound nationalism and rational nationalism, and oppose national nihilism and national chauvinism. We should oppose both worshiping foreign things and fawning on foreign countries and blind xenophobia. Li Wenhai’s “ ‘Nationalism’ Requires a

Intellectual history  211 Specific Historical Analysis” (Journal of Historical Science, No.6, 2006) held that nationalism was a kind of political concept, political goal and political pursuit with national rights and interests and national feelings as its core content. It was a historical category. There was great variation in the content and function of nationalism between different historical periods, different historical figures and different political factions. Therefore, a specific historical analysis should be made of nationalism. In modern China, nationalism mainly played a positive role, but at the same time its negative role and influence should never be ignored. Anarchist thought in modern China has attracted more attention from researchers after China’s reform and opening up, and thus more achievements have been made public. In the early days of reform and opening up, there were a number of academic works on the study of China’s anarchism and its advocates, such as Hu Shengwu and Jin Chongji’s Chinese Anarchist Thought in the Early 20th Century (Hunan People’s Publishing House, 1983), Yang Tianshi and Wang Xuezhuang’s “The Split of the Revolutionary Alliance and the Reconstruction of the Restoration Society” (Modern Chinese History Studies, 1979, No.1), and Zhang Lei and Yu Yanguang’s “On Liu Shifu” (Modern Chinese Figures, Vol.1, China Social Science Publishing House, 1983). At the end of the 1980s, several monographs on anarchism were published successively, such as Xu Shanguang and Liu Jianping’s History of China’s Anarchism (Hubei People’s Publishing House, 1989), Lu Zhe’s Historical Manuscript of China’s Anarchism (Fujian People’s Publishing House, 1990), Jiang Jun and Li Xingzhi’s Modern China’s Anarchism Thought (Shandong People’s Publishing House, 1991)  and Tang Tingfen’s Study of China’s Anarchism (Law Publishing House, 1991). Although these works had a slightly different understanding of the clues of the development of anarchism in modern China, they were basically the same in general, that is, they all thought that the period from the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century was the period of introducing anarchism. The period from 1907 to the May 4th Movement was the period of its formation and development, and the period from 1923 to 1941 was the period of disillusion. Among these works, Jiang Jun and Li Xingzhi’s book was written according to the development sequence of anarchism from its importation to its end in China, which was clear and systematic. The authors believed that China’s anarchism was mainly an ideological faction characterized by the combination of petty-​bourgeois socialism and democracy, which not only promoted the slogan of preventing capitalism, but also made certain anti-​ feudal and democratic remarks. It played different roles in different historical periods and thus could not be simply denied. Tang Tingfen’s work, on the other hand, dissected China’s anarchism in a horizontal way, which obviously had the characteristics of monographic studies. Tang made a more in-​ depth discussion one by one on the rise and collapse of Chinese anarchism, its ideological content, its historical conditions for formation, its ideological sources, and its relationship with bourgeois revolutionaries and Marxism,

212  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao and put forward her own opinions and laid a certain foundation for future studies. The history of modern ethical thought was separated from the history of philosophy, but it did not become an independent discipline until the 1980s. Earlier monographs on the history of modern ethical thought include Zhang Xiqin et  al.’s History of Modern China’s Ethical Thought (Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House, 1984), Xu Shunjiao et al.’s Research on Modern Chinese Ethical Thought (East China Normal University Publishing House, 1993) and Zhang Qizhi et al.’s Changes in Modern Ethical Thoughts (Zhonghua Book Company, 1993). The first two monographs focused on the study of the ethical thought of historical figures, including the ethical thought of bourgeois and proletarian figures during the new democratic revolution. The third monograph set its lower time limit to the May 4th Movement, touching upon both the trends in social ethical thought and the thought of famous thinkers. The authors clearly pointed out that China’s modern ethical thought originated from the Westernization Movement and developed in turn during the historical process of the Reform Movement of 1898, the Revolution of 1911 and the May 4th New Culture Movement. They held that the construction of ethical thought had never become the theme of the times because the survival of the nation had always been the most urgent issue in modern China, which was also the reason why modern China had never established an ethical thought system with Chinese characteristics combining the essence of Chinese and Western ethics. The authors also put forward some theoretical and difficult problems to attract researchers’ attention. For example, among China’s traditional feudal ethics, which parts are feudal dross and which parts are living treasures? How should we inherit them selectively? Why did the ethical thoughts of many famous thinkers in modern China have a process of evolution from divorce or rebellion against traditional ethics to return or retrogression? Since not all Chinese traditional ethics can be used to rejuvenate the national spirit and the complete copy of Western ethics cannot adapt to China’s modern national conditions, what theoretical form should China’s modern ethics ideological system take? How should we construct it? How should we combine Chinese traditional ethics with the fine works of modern Western ethics? The raising of these questions is obviously beneficial to the in-​depth study of modern ethical thought and even modern intellectual history. Although the rise of the historical study of modern academic thought came slightly later than that of the modern ethical thought, it has made considerable achievements. Only four monographs on the study of modern Neo-​Confucianism have been published, namely, Gong Shuduo’s History of Neo-​ Confucianism in the Qing Dynasty (Guangdong Education Press, 2007), Shi Gexin’s Study of Neo-​Confucianism in the Late Qing Dynasty (Commercial Press, 2007), Zhang Chenyi’s Study of the Huxiang (the Dongtinghu and Xiangjiang Region) Neo-​ Confucianism Group During the Reign of Xianfeng (Central University for Nationalities, 2007), and Zhang

Intellectual history  213 Zhaojun’s Neo-​Confucianism and Study of Confucian Classics in the Late Qing Dynasty and Early Republic of China (Commercial Press, 2008). Many research papers were also published on other strands of academic thought. For example, on the transformation of modern academic thought, there was Liu Wei’s “Jiao Xue Tong Yi and Kang Youwei’s Early Study of Confucian Classics and Its Turn” (Historical Research, No.4, 2005)  and Sang Bing’s “Return to Historical Reality from a Top-​Down Perspective: The Impact of Sociology and Anthropology on Studies of China’s Early Modern History” (China Social Sciences, No.1, 2005). Liu Wei’s article argued that Jiao Xue Tong Yi reflected a trend of combining ancient and modern thought based on the philosophy of statecraft. The failure of the “Joint Petition of Imperial Examination Candidates to the Emperor” changed Kang Youwei’s thought on Confucian classics, made him adjust the upward route of the Confucian classics, and opened up a new theory and strategy to protect the country, preserve the nation, and protect Confucianism by “uniting the civil rights” of each individual. What was consistent with this thought was his reinterpretation of Confucius and the establishment of his standpoint of Confucian classics in Jiao Xue Tong Yi. Sang Bing’s article pointed out that the intellectuals of the Qing Dynasty put forward the concept of “the history of the people” and realized the importance of using the archaeology and sociology newly arising in the West to make up for the shortage of ancient history. Through the explorations made by the scholars of the Republic of China, the confluence of the “downward vision” of history and the downward focus of sociology and anthropology had gradually brought about the embryonic form of the reconstruction of “the history of the people.” However, there also appeared confusing tendencies, an important one of which was that historiography was based on historical materials, while archaeology and anthropology basically had no documentary records of their own and both emphasized field work. To solve this confusion, we must “return to the historical scene.” With regard to the future trend of China’s modern academic changes, Ma Tianxiang’s “Conversion and Convergence: A General Introduction to Modern China’s Learning” (Journal of Hu’nan Normal University, No.2, 2000)  pointed out that in the conflicts between Chinese and Western cultures, the basic characteristics of China’s modern learning over the past 100 years were “conversion” and “convergence.” Its content included how to evaluate the tradition, how to introduce the West and what kind of future culture should be fostered. Re-​evaluation of the tradition was the basis and core content of the academic changes in modern China; selective introduction of foreign theories was a condition for changes; the future construction of Chinese culture was the result of changes. The main approach was to take restoring ancient ways as the form, innovation as the content, and the comparison of Chinese and Western cultures as the method, to complement each other, to combine the ancient and the modern, to build a tradition modern learning that was both realistic and practical, and to form a new pattern of modern learning. On the issue of the differentiation of Chinese traditional academic categories in the

214  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao late Qing Dynasty, there was Zuo Yuhe’s From the Four-​Category Learning to Seven-​Branch Learning: The Division of Learning and the Establishment of Modern China’s Knowledge System (Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House, 2004), which held that the change from “four categories” to “seven branches” was an important sign of the change of China’s learning from the traditional academic form to the modern one. The modernization of traditional learning and the Sinicization of Western learning were the keys to the transformation of China’s traditional learning into modern learning. Liberalism and conservatism in modern times have always been hot topics in the study of modern intellectual history. Regarding the dispute over “problems and doctrines,” some scholars have suggested that Hu Shi and other new intellectuals intentionally distinguished the causes of “problems and doctrines,” mainly aiming at the Anfu Clique that dominated the Beijing regime at that time. Because the Anfu Clique also took socialism and anarchism as its research objects. Hu Shi thought that since different cliques could not inform each other very well in terms of “doctrines,” there might be a choice of studying specific issues. Some ideas which have been thought to be conflicting were not necessarily so contrary to the involved parties at that time. They even had something in common. Whether China’s problem should be solved locally or globally was an issue covering much broader aspects. The social composition and concrete thinking of supporters and opponents were quite complicated, and it was difficult to reduce them to a simple dichotomy. At that time, the groups of Chinese Marxists and Liberals were still in the process of formation, and it was difficult for them to come up with systematic and consistent views.6 Some other scholars examined the influential liberal publication Independent Review from the perspective of the transformation from traditional “scholars” to modern “intellectuals.” They argued that the academic activities of a group of scholars gathered by the Independent Review in the 1930s and the “power network” formed by their involvement in public affairs showed that the intellectuals were trying to re-​establish their position in modern society by reestablishing the dignity of knowledge. However, in the process, the “elite consciousness” derived by intellectuals built an open and potential “power network.” They opened up channels at the upper level, but lost their “affinity to the people,” resulting in the strong “dependency” of the new role and identity of the intellectuals.7 As for the study of conservatism, many monographs have been published, such as Li Xizhu’s The Prototype of Conservative Thought in the Late Qing Dynasty—​The Study Of Wo Ren (Social Science Literature Publishing House, 2000), Yu Dahua’s The Study of Cultural Conservatism in the Late Qing Dynasty (People’s Publishing House, 2001), and Li Shitao’s Intellectuals’ Standpoints—​The Turbulence Between Radicalism and Conservatism (Shidai Literature & Art Publishing House, 2000). Li Xizhu’s book was a unique feature since it took Wo Ren as the center and the relations between modern Chinese and Western ideology and culture as the background to explore modern China’s ideological origins and evolution from the Chinese native ideological traditions. It pointed out that

Intellectual history  215 the conservative thoughts of modern China were the resistant response of the traditional culture to the challenge of Western learning spreading to the East, reflecting the cultural mentality or ideological orientation of maintaining traditional culture and opposing the import of Western culture. As one of the focuses in the study of modern China’s intellectual history, the theoretical study of Marxism and New Democracy also made new explorations. For example, Zhang Taiyuan’s “Liberalism and Marxism: The Attitude of Independent Review Towards the Communist Party of China” (Historical Research, No.4, 2002)  pointed out that the comments of Independent Review on the CPC had led the liberals and Marxists who originally belonged to the new ideological camp to different paths after a period of argument and cooperation. By the 1930s, influenced by socialism and the trend of learning from Soviet Russia, the liberals’ attitudes toward the CPC had changed greatly, which were reflected in this publication by its obvious duality:  in a specific context, it had the “sympathy and approval” for the CPC; but from the standpoint of nationalism and liberalism, it expressed its “criticism and opposition.” At that time, China’s two major political forces were gradually opposing each other. With the growth and decline of their respective forces, the former attitude may cause some free intellectuals around this publication to “turn left” and engage in cooperation with the CPC. The latter attitude may cause them to “go to the right” and join the Kuomintang government. Zheng Dahua and Tan Qinghui’s “Socialist Ideological Trend of Chinese Intellectuals in the Early 1930s” (Modern Chinese History Studies, No.3, 2008)  believed that the direct causes of the rise of the socialist ideological trend in the Chinese intelligentsia at that time were as follows: first, the economic and political crisis in the capitalist world from 1929 to 1933, and the capitalist countries’ reinforced economic plunder of China weakened the attraction of capitalism gradually; second, the brilliant achievements made by the Soviet Union during “the first five-​year plan” period quickly demonstrated the attraction of socialism; third, Japan’s aggression against China suddenly aggravated the national crisis. This trend of thought included heated discussions about the Soviet Union and socialism, the reasons for the success of the Soviet Union’s “first five-​year plan” and the three different levels interrelated with but different from each other in the pursuit of socialism. This trend reached a climax between 1932 and 1933, then gradually declined and was finally submerged in the tide of the Anti-​Japanese War. Compared with the “May 4th” period, socialist thought at this time had two remarkable characteristics: the first was that it had a strong aura of planned economy; the second was that it lacked theoretical achievements. As for the theory of New Democracy, previous studies have laid particular stress on its analysis and evaluation during the period of the new democratic revolution, but paid less attention to its development and abandonment after 1949. In particular, they have failed to make an overall study by connecting its creation, development and abandonment. Wang Zhi et al.’s “Creation and Abandonment of the New Democratic Theory” (CPC’s Literature, No.1, 2000)  examined

216  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao the whole process of gestation, formation, development and abandonment of the New Democratic Theory, holding that the premature abandonment of the theory made the foundation work of developing the commodity economy and absorbing the positive results of capitalism come to a hasty end. Other scholars have linked it with the trend of modernization. For example, in his article “The New Democratic Theory and Debates on China’s Modernization in the 1930s and 1940s” (CPC History Studies, No.2, 2000), Zhang Yong argued that the New Democracy Theory was the guiding theory for China’s transition from passive modernization to active modernization. On the basis of absorbing and criticizing other modern thought, it had become richer and more complete. Of course, due to the limitations of social and historical conditions, it was doomed to have the general characteristics of China’s modernization thought at that time. As for the research on other social thought, there was Jiang Pei’s Study on the Thought of the Warring States School (Tianjin People’s Publishing House, 2001). Jiang Pei did not agree with the previous view which completely negated the thought of the Warring States School, and put forward different opinions on its basic characterization, the evaluation of its historical view of cultural forms, the relationship between traditional political criticism and realistic politics, the advocacy of national consciousness and the criticism of the play Wild Rose, and so on, holding that the thought of the Warring States School highlighted the social functions of intellectual groups in modern times, and its historical view of cultural forms was to fully maintain the independence and individuality of Chinese culture on the premise of absorbing Western culture and not following the old routine. The thought of a planned economy, anti-​modernization and physiocracy, which did not attract people’s attention in the past, also entered the research scope of scholars. For example, Huang Lingjun’s “The Thought of ‘Planned Economy’ in China’s Ideological Circles in the 1930s and 1940s” (Modern Chinese History Studies, No.2, 2000)  has made a detailed examination of the background, process, main contents and influence of the influential “planned economy thought” that emerged in China’s ideological circles after the early 1930s. The author believed that the advocates of this trend included both the KMT elites and liberal intellectuals, who tried to avoid serious economic crises and sharp social contradictions through government intervention, and regarded the “planned economy” as the only way which must be approved for human society. This trend of thought led to the subsequent pattern of “big government and small society” in politics. It also caused people to think about the planned economy and the political conditions on which it was realized, believing that the planned economy must be combined with democratic politics in order to truly promote the development of social production. Chen Huizong’s “Comparison of Liang Shuming and Gandhi’s Modernization Thoughts” (New Oriental, No.7, 2000) analyzed the similarities and differences between Liang Shuming and Gandhi’s modernization thoughts. The author held that Liang Shuming’s basic views were the same as Gandhi’s in rejecting modern industrial civilization, criticizing

Intellectual history  217 Western culture, advocating native culture and rural reconstruction. However, there were certain differences. Liang Shuming did not reject industrialization as Gandhi did. Concerning rural reconstruction, Liang did not repel industrialization, but opposed over-​ industrialization, and advocated scattered, small and medium-​sized industrialization. Zhao Quanmin’s “On the Thought of Physiocracy in the Late Qing Dynasty” (Social Science Research, No.6, 2000) held that since 1860, with the establishment of new industries, the development of foreign trade, the booming commodity economy and the expansion of the market, people of insight had gradually realized the supporting role of agriculture for industry and commerce, and thus formed the “agriculture-​oriented consciousness” under the new situation, trying to promote the transformation of agriculture by establishing agricultural schools, publishing agricultural newspapers, setting up peasant associations, teaching agricultural administration, sending students to foreign countries and extensively translating Western books on agriculture. This thought of physiocracy and the practice of promoting agriculture had played a certain role in transforming traditional agriculture and promoting the technological, meticulous and specialized development of Chinese society.

7.4  Some reflections Over the 70 years since the founding of the PRC, especially the 40 years since the reform and opening up, the achievements made in the study of modern China’s intellectual history are incomparable to those made in the first 50 years of the twentieth century. It can be said that modern China’s intellectual history was not truly established and continuously developed until the founding of the PRC. In order to promote the continuous development the research on modern China’s intellectual history, the following reflections are put forward on the basis of a brief review of the past 70 years. First, over the past 70  years, in terms of systematic works, the study of modern China’s intellectual history has gone through a change from discussing the thinkers and their representative works in chronological order to discussing the thinkers according to the ideological trends they belonged to, from intellectual history or political intellectual history to the history of social ideological trends, which is a groundbreaking change. However, we cannot say that the style and structure of modern Chinese intellectual history is perfect now. Because studies based the order of ideological trends and the order of thinkers have a similar limitation, namely little or even no attention is paid to popular thought. There is also a question worth thinking about. What is the relationship between intellectual history, the history of political thought and the history of social ideological trends? Are their research questions the same or different? As the name implies, intellectual history has a wide range of specialisms and should include political, economic, cultural and other aspects of thought. Political thought is only one of them, and social ideological trends or social thought are not

218  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao equivalent to political thought. However, as far as the published works on modern Chinese thought are concerned, there seems to be little difference because they are all mainly about political thought. Modern Chinese society was a semi-​colonial and semi-​feudal one, facing dismemberment and national subjugation. National independence and people’s liberation had been the themes of the times, so it is not surprising to highlight political thought. However, the highlighted history of political thought is not the only category of modern China’s intellectual history and cannot cover all the aspects of it. Moreover, there is no agreement on the research scope of modern Chinese intellectual history. For example, some researchers argue that modern China’s intellectual history should study the historical process and regularity of the metabolism of various kinds of thought (especially social and political thought) in this period. It seems that this is still a question that needs serious discussion. Second, almost all the works published since the 1990s on modern China’s intellectual history are named after “social ideological trends.” However, researchers do not agree on what social ideological trends are. For example, some researchers believe that the so-​called social ideological trend refers to the ideological trend that reflects the social, political and economic situation of the time and has great influence on a certain hierarchy, class or the whole nation within a certain period of time. However, some researchers believe that the social trend of thought in modern China refers to the trend of thought with a capitalist tendency and nature that appeared in Chinese society. There are obvious differences between these two sayings. What is more, the relationship between social ideological trends and sociology is another question. For example, concerning the research scope of the history of China’s social thought, some scholars propose that the history of China’s social thought is a branch of the social sciences that studies internal historical process, characteristics and regularity of the germination, development, inheritance and mutual collision and integration of the ideas, conceptions or theories on social life, social problems and social models formed by Chinese people in their social production and life practice.8 This definition is different from the previous two definitions of social thought. The scope of research on modern China’s social ideological trends is also worth further discussion. Third, over the 70  years after the founding of the PRC, especially the 40  years since the reform and opening up, research on modern intellectual history has made some remarkable achievements, but there also exist obvious deficiencies, for example, the quality of researchers still needs to be improved. Both history and historical figures are objective reality, but researchers all have their own subjective ideas. It is not easy to be realistic and accurately evaluate the thoughts of the individuals. Since researchers’ main references

Intellectual history  219 are collected works bequeathed by historical figures, and the researchers are liable to have their own preferences in the research process, i.e. they will elevate the “good” thoughts and plead for the “bad” ones, which should be avoided. The study of intellectual history requires that researchers should have broad academic training, especially high theoretical thinking ability, so that they can handle all ideological materials objectively, but also make in-​depth and persuasive analysis and exposition on some important theoretical issues. For another example, some researchers often one-​sidedly pursue new opinions, new ideas and new methods rather than conduct in-​depth and solid research. They often follow some fashionable foreign theories blindly and only know how to apply or simply imitate the so-​called new methods and new ideas overseas, turning history into hermeneutics and intellectual history into a channel through which they can expound their own thoughts. Studies like this cannot really add value to the development process of modern thought. As a result, it is difficult to see high-​quality and influential achievements in the research field of intellectual history. Fourth, according to academic circles’ thinking on the development trend of intellectual history research in recent years, the following points should be noted for future intellectual history research: first, interdisciplinary research and comparative research should be further strengthened, and the integration of intellectual history with cultural history, social history and political history should be properly handled in particular; we should study the ideological figures of a certain period under the social and cultural background of that time, and make horizontal comparative studies between the thinkers being studied and other thinkers at home and abroad of the same time. Second, research on the history of modern political thought may not be able to make a big breakthrough in the short term, but in recent years, the research on the history of cultural thoughts in the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China has been in full swing and has become a hot topic of general concern for scholars. More and more cultural and ideological figures have been put on the research agenda. The study of the history of modern cultural thought will also be an important direction to deepen the study of modern political and intellectual history in the future. Third, case studies of modern social thought and ideological figures are not only very active today, but are also an important field in the study of modern thought in the future, and will become more and more specific and in-​depth and thus cannot be ignored. Fourth, we will continue to carry out free discussions on major ideas in modern China’s intellectual history, such as democratic ideas, scientific ideas, evolutionary ideas and autonomous ideas in order to facilitate the progress and development of modern China’s intellectual history.

Notes 1 Review of Teaching Outline of Modern China’s Intellectual History. Philosophy Research (1), 1956.

220  GONG Shuduo, DONG Guicheng and QIU Tao 2 Wang Linmao. (1985). Four Turning Points in Modern China’s Intellectual History. Seeking Truth (5). 3 Liu Zehua. Conducting Interactive and Overall Research on Thoughts and Society The Interaction between Thoughts and Society. History Teaching (8); Pang Pu. (2001). The Interaction between Thoughts and Society. History Teaching (8). 4 Xu Sumin. (2005). “A Maid Holding the Torch”—​On the Three Major Issues and Nine Major Relationships in the Disciplinary Construction of Modern China’s Intellectual History. Journal of Nanjing University (2). 5 Summary of Symposium on Research Methods of Modern Chinese Ideological History. Historical Research (1), 2003. 6 Luo Zhitian. (2005). Difference in Similarity: A Re-​Consideration of the Controversy over “Problems and Doctrines.” Modern Chinese History Studies (2); Luo Zhitian. (2005). Overall Transformation and Piece-​by-​Piece Transformation: The Second Re-​ consideration of the Debate on “Problems and Doctrines.” Historical Research (5). 7 Zhang Qing. (2002). The Construction of “Academic Society” and Intellectuals’ “Power Network.” Historical Research (4). 8 Experts and Scholars Make Discussions on the History of China’s Social Thoughts. Guangming Daily, March 26, 1999.

8  Studies on cultural history LIU Zhiqin

In the early 1980s, the most striking phenomenon in Chinese academic circles was the revival of cultural studies, a research craze for a series of major cultural issues including cultural history and theory, cultural construction and prospects. Accordingly, higher education institutions, scientific research institutions and non-​governmental organizations took cultural studies as a research focus, and it was a trend for cities, enterprises, campuses and streets to concentrate on cultural construction, making it a remarkable research theme with a huge number of participants, topics and publications. Cultural studies has become an increasingly important part of academic research, literary and artistic practice, socialist spiritual civilization construction and even social transformation in contemporary China. Cultural studies once flourished after the May 4th Movement in the 1920s and the debate on certain issues lasted for 20 to 30 years, but faded in 1950s. Until the 1980s, cultural studies regained researchers’ interest, with similar overlapping and interlaced topics compared with studies in the 1920s, even including the first batch of advanced intellectuals’ quests after the Opium Wars. Nevertheless, studies in the 1980s are not simple repetition and extension of those of the 1920s. After going through all the vicissitudes of life, the breadth and intensity of cultural studies at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-​first reached an unprecedented level both in terms of quantity and depth. This chapter is not to attempt to make an overall evaluation of the surging ideological trends in the study of modern cultural history, but to review the research topics, arguments and varied opinions from the academic perspective, thereby sorting out different schools of disputes and prompting readers to further study.

8.1  Cultural fever stemming from historical reflection The May 4th New Culture Movement was the first wave of cultural studies in China, which became sluggish due to the political and military turmoil during the 1930s and remained regrettably ignored even during the period of peace and construction after 1949. From the 1950s to the early 1980s, there was not

222  LIU Zhiqin even one university setting up cultural history courses, or even an institution studying cultural history in China. Although studies on cultural history did gain a few achievements and development, for instance, abundant cultural materials were accumulated and sorted. It was quite a pity that there was no comprehensive monograph. According to The Catalogue of Chinese Cultural Research1 published in the early 1980s, the only comprehensive research work on cultural history from 1949 to 1980 was The Outline of Chinese Cultural History by Cai Shang-​si, which was a bibliographic review in the strict sense. It is an indisputable fact that construction of the cultural history discipline has long been delayed even though Mao Zedong proposed to compile a book on Chinese cultural history as early as in 1941. From the perspective of discipline construction, cultural history, a comprehensive discipline of history and culture, is an emerging academic field of modern China with the characteristics of symbiosis with social history. Owing to the influence of some trends of thought after the birth of the PRC in 1949, sociology was banned and thus social history declined. Quite similarly, culturology was abolished and accordingly cultural history was affected. Mistakes in theoretical guidance and bias in discipline construction directly led to the interruption of cultural history research. The rise and fall of cultural studies is closely related to the destiny of the country. The favorable turn of the country has naturally become a turning point for cultural study. The reflection on the ten years (from 1966 to 1976) and the rethinking of the country’s condition drove scholars to carry out cultural reflections. In the early summer of 1980, the editorial office of the Guangming Daily held a symposium of the theorists in Beijng, at which participants painfully pointed out that in such a country which entered socialism from a semi-​feudal and semi-​colonial society, we must not only fight against the remnants of feudalism, and the whole party must also vigorously carry out investigation, re-​ consider the national and the global conditions, and gradually explore a path to the victory of building a modern socialist China. On February 13, 1981, the editorial office of Guangming Daily held a forum on the “Study on China’s National Conditions” to call for theoretical workers to study the national conditions in depth, which was a rethinking of China’s current situation and history, and subsequently resulted in the upsurge of studying Chinese traditional culture. Different from previous academic debates, the culture craze this time was spontaneous. Scholars’ enthusiasm for cultural issues was not out of administrative instructions or the call of a certain person, but a mass craze based on people’s living experience to explore the rise and fall of Chinese culture and its future. Its development process also reflects the laws governing the operation of culture itself. Literature was the first to become the focus of cultural thinking. During the initial period of rectifying chaos in the late 1970s, a batch of literary works sharply reflected on major social issues, such as Scars (which is about people’s

Studies on cultural history  223 awakening), The Class Adviser (a slamming of the “Left” route’s devastating impact on teenagers’ psychology), An Open Love Letter (a challenge to the traditional ethical concepts), causing great sensation and controversy. These works aroused people’s resonance with a profound sense of life and a strong spirit of the times, even though they were not written by famous authors, nor by anyone with superb writing skills. The fundamental ideological contents of these works are the disclosure of various traumas and reflection on the historical origins of the “Left” behaviors and feudal remnants. This first wave of literature in the new era acquired the name of “scar literature” or “awakening literature” incorporating love, hatred, anger and resistance of the general public. The series of works varied in quality and some works had even been subject to various criticisms, which did not cover up its role as the mainstream literature for the social and cultural significance in shaking the role of orthodox culture and starting to reflect upon history and culture rather than criticism of the political reality. The following cultural and root-​seeking novels also gained public popularity for cultural reflection. Therefore cultural fever emerged in the literary world. The natural sciences took the lead in reflecting on the reasons why modern Chinese science was backward from the perspective of cultural tradition. In October 1982, Natural Dialectics Newsletter (sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Sciences) held a seminar in Chengdu, which was the first time scientists proposed to explore the reasons from cultural tradition. Some participants held that more than 80 percent of China’s scientific and technological achievements were technological, in which technologies serving for the national government and landlord economy (for instance:  communication, transportation, the calendar, land measurement, the military and so forth) accounted for 80 percent, therefore, the non-​openness of the technical structure increased the difficulty of technology transfer. The cultural system featuring Confucianism and Taoism determined that the core of the scientific theoretical structure was the organic view of ethical extrapolation, in which theory, experiment and technology were isolated rather than promoting each other; therefore no revolution in science and technology emerged. Some participants believed that modern China lacked the social conditions for modern science because of the exclusion of talents and the abandonment of science and technology due to Chinese feudalism, and the educational system. Some other participants compared the differences between Chinese and Western academics and proposed that Greek culture characterized by seeking knowledge fostered a culture of pursuing the truth and loving independence and freedom while there was no such academic and cultural system independent of political consciousness in Chinese culture which was centered on ethics, which was the key reason why China could not produce a modern scientific system.2 As is known to all, China’s social reform started in the economic field and the introduction of foreign investment was a crucial decision in economic reform. The rapid development of science and technology in the contemporary

224  LIU Zhiqin world opened people’s eyes and spurred people to realize that the revitalization of China demanded the fundamental change of science and technology. Natural science is human beings’ cultural activity of exploring, utilizing and transforming nature. Ancient science and technology in China had long been in the leading position in world history, but fell behind from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The reasons why modern science did not emerge in China first raised scientists’ concern. In the papers of the aforementioned seminar, the analysis of the reasons for the backwardness of modern science may not be sufficient, but analyzing from the perspective of cultural tradition was superior to merely attributing political and economic reasons. It went deep into the core structure of traditional culture and explored how China’s value orientation, mode of thinking and national psychology could not adapt to modernization. What was also remarkable about the seminar was its participants (most were natural scientists and philosophers, while few were history scholars). The issue of modern science, which ought to be an indispensable part of the focus of modern history, was first studied by natural scientists rather than historians, thereby a challenge and spur to the current situation of historical research. In December 1982, the first symposium on cultural history research was held in Shanghai, and a number of renowned scholars in philosophy, history, literature, art, and archaeology attended to discuss how to bridge the gap in the study of Chinese cultural history. The scholars pointed out that research disregarding the general picture of the Chinese cultural history would not only hinder the development of research in various disciplines, but also hinder the understanding of China’s unique civilization. For instance, scholars had not reached a consensus on such issues as the characteristics of Chinese civilization and the historical status of Chinese culture. Without understanding the historical process of a culture, it was difficult to understand the entire mental state and the social profile of a nation. Therefore, scholars at the symposium proposed to immediately carry out special research on cultural history by joint effort and promote the revival of cultural history research.3 After these two conferences, cultural studies seemed to develop quickly, but did not receive a warm response apart from brief reports. Different from general fashion, cultural fever requires the accumulation of academic research rather than a mere spur of the moment. Nineteen-​eighty-​four saw the real development of cultural research, with Collection of Chinese Cultural Research and Collected Works of Studies on Chinese Modern Cultural History (the first batch of cultural history research in the PRC), and “Chinese Cultural History Series” and “Chinese Modern Cultural History Series” published by Shanghai People’s Publishing House and the Zhonghua Book Company respectively. The monographs and columns in newspapers on cultural history, folk culture groups and c­ ultural salons sprang up subsequently, and so did international, national and regional seminars. Conferences on cultural development strategy held in Shanghai, Guangzhou and Wuhan effectively promoted the public’s culture fever. People of various

Studies on cultural history  225 occupations, classes and ages proposed a range of issues, such as, building community culture, corporate culture, campus culture and business culture. Such theoretical issues as the relationship between culture and economy, culture and philosophy, culture and politics, culture and life, culture and science, culture and ecology attracted the attention of an increasing number of scholars. There is no doubt that the rise of cultural history is the result of development, since large-​scale economic reform played a decisive role in 1984. In the mid-​1980s, China was in a new era of comprehensive change led by economic reform, whose purpose was to develop a commodity economy to promote the transformation from a traditional planned economy to a market economy. The new top-​down system contradicted the old concept, and yet the problem could not be solved by administrative means. At the Third Plenary Session of the Twelfth CPC Central Committee, Deng Xiao-​ping pointed out that the habitual forces of small production still had an effect on the public: they tended to follow the beaten track, were content with the status quo, and were unwilling to accept new things, thereby refusing to pursue development and progress. The concept of small-​scale agricultural production contradicted and conflicted with the new system, and even distorted the new system, which hindered the process of China’s modernization. The reform of the economic system did not only greatly change economic life, and people’s lifestyle and mental states as well. An article on the Chinese Community Party’s official publication Red Flag remarked in 1986: “The current exploration of cultural development is another philosophical and cultural movement of exploring the path of socialist development, following the large-​scale discussion一practice is the only criterion for testing truth.”4 From reflection upon traditional culture, comparison between Chinese and Western cultures and analysis of national psychology, we explored the factors conducive to modernization and thus established new cultural concepts and attitudes that were compatible with the socialist commodity economy, which powered modernization spiritually. Therefore, cultural fever was manifested in the form of study on cultural history and cultural reflection, which is an inevitable choice of social transformation. In retrospect, cultural fever in the literature field, then natural science and social science fields, and peaked in theoretical research. The process reflects the law of cultural evolution. Culture is an umbrella term covering the three main academic systems:  natural science, social science and the humanities, which promote the development of cultural studies at different levels with their specific attributes. Generally speaking, literature is the most sensitive reflection of the trend of cultural thinking; natural sciences show the process of modernization in the most active posture; social sciences make a historical summary of traditional culture and modernization rationally and focus on the relationship between traditional culture and Western culture. Therefore, culture infiltrated into various disciplines which in turn promoted cultural studies. This comprehensive and integrated research trend is the general

226  LIU Zhiqin direction of cultural research modernization. Cultural history, originally belonging to the historical category, has such a practical significance in the contemporary era that it fully demonstrates the profound historical feature and zeitgeist of cultural fever.

8.2  Research focus in the late twentieth century From the 1980s, cultural fever spread into society from the academic field, coming into reality from history, and developed from discipline reflection to future design, demonstrating a new trend of contemporary cultural thought with unprecedented active views and insights. It examined the following six major issues: 1. The first focus is the controversy over the characteristics of traditional culture, which aimed to evaluate traditional culture and then understand the national conditions and subsequently reform nationality. Major views are as follows: (1) Controversy over humanism. Some scholars claimed that humanism is the opposite of godlyism. According to their arguments, Chinese culture is centered on ethics and politics while lacking a theological and religious system, thereby being more humanistic. On the contrary, Western culture believes that man is an independent individual with reason, emotion and will, and each person can only be responsible for his own destiny, thereby emphasizing freedom, equality, dignity and rights. From this perspective, Chinese culture has not formed an independent personality. The traditional Chinese culture regards man as a member of the group, an individual who has the need for survival in the group with ethical consciousness and mutual assistance. Emphasizing benevolence, tolerance, harmony and obligation, traditional Chinese culture expands from the interpersonal relationship to the relationship between man and nature, and gradually forms the cultural characteristics of unity of heaven and man, and the integration of subject and object. From this perspective, Western culture lacks social personality. The unity of the two is a reasonable choice given their respective strengths and weaknesses.5 Some other scholars held that the mainstream of traditional Chinese humanistic ideas is monarchism-​oriented, which was based on Confucianism. Even though attaching importance to people and caring people are not the ultimate purpose but a means to ensure the stability and consolidation of the monarch, monarchism is part of humanism, rather than two opposing ideological systems. However, modern Western humanism is the opposite of monarchism. The contrast between Chinese and Western humanistic thought lies in the different foundation:  the development of modern Western humanistic thought is based on the commodity economy while ancient

Studies on cultural history  227 Chinese humanistic thought is based on the natural economy which gave birth to paternalism rather than democracy. According to this view, the essence of humanism is to treat people as a tool of morality, exclude people’s materiality and instinctive desire and thus merely strengthen monarchism.6 (2) Controversy over human relations. The so-​called humanistic ethics in ancient China refers to the relationship between people, which is a hierarchical system based on the monarch-​ subject relationship and the father-​son relationship. The basic human relations are monarch-​subject, father-​son, husband-​wife, brothers, friends, with a corresponding moral code for each relation. A person should be filial to the father at home while loyal to the monarch at the royal court, which are his absolute obligations. In this model, people’s value can be realized only by being affiliated to others and be subject to power. The concept of affiliation, combined with self-​reflection, depresses personality to the maximum intensity and thereby it is difficult to awaken the self-​consciousness of human rights, which is widely divergent with Western humanism. Yet, the concept of affiliation increases interdependence and coordination between people and results in a strong affinity for the family and the country. The integration of personal destiny with the interests of the family and the county is conducive to the cohesion and extension of the Chinese nation. Therefore, the characteristics of Chinese culture can be more accurately expressed with the idea of human relations.7 2. The second focus is on how to assess traditional culture. Owing to the fierce and repetitive changes in modern Chinese society, there was often a confrontation between promoting traditional culture and completely negating it, and compromise between the two poles. At the end of the twentieth century, the confrontation underwent new development with the rise of cultural research and the spread of new-​Confucianism overseas. (1) Some scholars believe that the more open the country is, the more we must carry forward the traditional culture. Only by promoting its unique national culture, can we properly treat and absorb foreign cultures, and only by opening up can we renew the traditional culture. No matter for a developed or a developing country, cultural development is a unity of its national and cosmopolitan character. Modernization with the sacrifice of traditional culture is by no means the goal of modernization; therefore, China will lose its characteristics and foundation of being an independent country in the world if it abandons its unique national culture, and on the contrary, the more open China is, the more we must promote its unique traditional culture.8 (2) Some scholars insist breaking with the traditional culture. They held that Confucianism should not be regarded as the “basic spirit of Chinese culture” any more. Instead, a new culture ought to be created

228  LIU Zhiqin to establish a modern system. In this era of great historical turbulence, the most powerful way to carry forward traditional culture is discarding tradition. The first step in establishing a new modern cultural system is to shake up, disintegrate and ultimately eliminate the old system.9 (3) Some scholars maintain that only breaking through tradition can we innovate. For a long time, our attitude toward traditional culture is critical inheritance, that is to take its essence and remove its dross, which has become a mechanical theory after being simplified and abused in reality, for the structure of culture is regarded as a mixture of various components, rather than an entity with an internal connection, and culture can be divided into different parts and each part can be taken in or arbitrarily removed. Therefore, those scholars believed that the deeper the traditional culture was criticized, the more we can distinguish between the essence and the dross, and the new culture could not be created without breaking through the traditional culture.10 3. The third focus is the controversy over the role of neo-​Confucianism. Neo-​Confucianism is an international school of Chinese culture that seeks to achieve modernization by integrating Western culture with Confucianism. Inheriting the ethics of Lu Jiu-​yuan and Wang Yang-​ ming, neo-​Confucianism attaches importance to the traditional moral and ethical values, and aims to promote the true spirit of Confucianism. Yet it is more advanced than Confucianism in treating orthodox doctrines and ways of thinking. What neo-​Confucianism preaches is also the third stage of the development or the third revival of Confucianism. Major representatives of the school are:  Xiong Tian-​li, Liang Shu-​ming and Zhang Jun-​li as the first generation, Xu Fu-​guan, Tang Jun-​yi and Mou Zong-​san as the second generation, and Du Wei-​ming as the new generation. After the reform and opening up, the thoughts of neo-​Confucianism raised a lot of concern in mainland China. (1) Some scholars hold that neo-​ Confucianism has two functions. Jiang Yi-​hua (1990) claimed that the positive significance of neo-​ Confucianism was that it embraced modernization while being skeptical about Western modernization, and it criticized the tradition and subsequently tried to reform and restructure it. The shortcomings were: its attitude to modernization was rather romantic and lacked historical reality; the negative impact of traditional Confucianism in real life was underestimated while the positive role was idealized, resulting in the fact that the essence of non-​Confucian culture was rejected blindly, which would ultimately limit or harm the creation of new culture.11 (2) Some scholars believed that neo-​Confucianism was useless. Although the thoughts of neo-​Confucianism and its supporters emerged continuously for decades, it had little effect on the advancement of history

Studies on cultural history  229 since it was divorced from the cause of the general public.12 Zheng (1989) held that neo-​Confucianism attempted to cope with the ever-​ changing situation from the standpoint of Confucianism and fell into insurmountable theoretical contradictions, thereby having little positive effect on society.13 Zhu (1987) claimed that neo-​Confucianism could not get anywhere, since the people-​oriented theory it advocated was mere a means for rulers to win people’s hearts rather than democracy which was incompatible with science.14 (3) Some scholars contended that the doctrines of neo-​Confucianism were absurd. The structure and function of Confucianism were fundamentally conducive to the maintenance of feudal monarchy and cultural autocracy, which would hinder the process of modernization if combined with the small-​scale peasant consciousness, patriarchal ideology, bureaucracy and officialism.15 4. The fourth concern was a review of the course of cultural modernization. (1) Controversy over the starting point of cultural modernization. After the founding of the PRC in 1949, it was generally believed that after the Opium Wars, China entered a semi-​feudal and semi-​ colonial society and accordingly a modern culture came into being. However, in the 1980s, a group of scholars in Wuhan headed by Xiao Sha-​fu proposed that the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties were the real starting point of cultural modernization, since early democratic consciousness emerged, natural science was given importance, and a new learning style of emphasizing reality, evidence and practice was formed during that period. In terms of political and academic tendencies, the culture during the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties had already experienced the nature of self-​criticism against feudal autocracy and ignorance, based on which, a batch of insightful thinkers and enlightenment emerged.16 In contrast, some scholars insisted on analyzing cultural phenomena from the perspective of social history and claimed that the previous study was basically limited to the elite culture, thereby needing to be expanded. The modernization of society was often guided by the modernization of culture, and the latter was fundamentally based on the former. What is more, the process of the two ran simultaneously but need not have started at the same time. According to their theory, the modernization of Chinese culture began in the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties, but broke off and restarted later. The early Chinese enlightenment was different from the Western humanistic enlightenment in that it was the enlightenment of political ethics, which was mainly manifested in skepticism and criticism of the creed of being loyal to the emperor.17 This argument actually raised an objection to the American scholar John K. Fairbank’s “impact-​response” model of modern Chinese history in that Fairbank’s model ignored the transformation of Chinese society and culture.

230  LIU Zhiqin



(2) Controversy over the characteristics of modern cultural history. One argument was that the distinctive feature is variability. Those scholars analyzed the changes in modern cultural structure and came to the conclusion that after the Opium Wars, Western culture spread in China, collided, intersected and merged with Chinese culture, resulting in a varied culture. The profound changes in the structure of Chinese culture were mainly due to the fact that civil rights and the idea of equality gradually made effects in such fields as philosophy, law, politics, education, history and literature, which weakened the authority of the feudal hierarchical ethics, which was the fundamental difference between modern culture and ancient culture. In addition, the division of ancient culture is relatively simplified, and the input of modern bourgeois ideas and research methods changed the original disciplinary system, formed a new scientific system and thus opened up new fields and disciplines.18 Some scholars analyzed the content of modern culture, and believed that the Sino-​Japanese War was a turning point in that with the deepening of the national crisis, the rise of the patriotic movement to save the country promoted the new cultural movement, and subsequently the literary revolution, the vernacular movement, the revolution in the science of history. Saving the nation through education and saving the nation through education science sprang up, and therefore, a new anti-​imperialist and feudal cultural system and a new group of intellectuals came into being. Modern Chinese culture was formed with the process of China becoming a semi-​ colonial and semi-​feudal society, and from the very beginning, it was closely connected with the attempt to change the destiny of the nation and seeking independence, democracy and science with patriotism prominent.19 (3) Controversy over the interpretation of “Chinese Learning for Foundation and Western Learning for Application.” In the modern history of China, most scholars held a negative opinion on the policy of “Chinese Learning for Foundation and Western Learning for Application” due to the failure of the Westernization Movement and Wuxu Reform Movement. After the 1980s, a new view was put forward that “Chinese Learning for Foundation and Western Learning for Application” was to introduce Western culture but maintain the Confucian tradition, thereby realizing the self-​renewal of Chinese culture and its modernization through absorbing and assimilating Western culture. The policy seemed to be a paradox. It played a significant role in cultural modernization at that time.20 Yet, scholars who were against it claimed that “Chinese Learning for Foundation and Western Learning for Application” was fundamentally the proposition of conservatism.21

Studies on cultural history  231





Some scholars addressed this issue from the context of Chinese culture and argued that the policy showed the prevailing mindset for intellectuals to deal with Sino-​Western cultural relations. The initiation, formation, transformation and disintegration of “Chinese Learning for Foundation and Western Learning for Application” reveals the hard process of cultural innovation in modern China which provides a new perspective for the study of modern cultural history.22 (4) Controversy over the role of the Westernization Movement in the modernization of China. In the 1980s, from the perspective of modernization, a new argument about the Westernization Movement was proposed that it was under the influence of the world trend and the inevitable result of the development of Gong Zi-​zhen and Wei Yuan’s idea of “Apply Learning to Practical Problems” which shook traditional feudal ideas to a certain degree. The thoughts introduced in the Westernization Movement might not have been necessarily scientific, but were the most advanced during the period between the failure of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Uprising and the initiation of the Reform Movement. The debates between the Westernizationists and the Die-​hards manifested the conflicts between Chinese and Western culture, since the former was a farming culture and the latter an industrial culture. The Westernization Movement did not help China learn much from the West, but after all, it began a new chapter of opening the eye and learning from the West. The characteristics of the Westernization Movement were summarized as:  pragmatism-​ oriented, a contradiction between capitalism and feudalism, and a multi-​layered intellectual movement, while other scholars claimed the movement featured flexibility, learning from foreign countries and building China through industry and commerce.23 (5) Advances in the study of intellectuals. The former research on modern ideology and culture had been focused on individual figures, yet few on the formation, characteristics and functions of modern intellectual groups. Since the 1980s, an array of influential books has been published in this area. Zhong Shu-​he (1985)24 conducted a vertical and horizontal investigation on the history of China’s entering the modern world from a closed society and unfolded the misunderstandings, humiliations and pains the intellectuals experienced in the early period of introducing Western culture, which reflected the conflicts between the modern and traditional culture and served as a bridge for the Chinese to understand the modern world. Zhang Kai-​yuan (1985)25 claimed that during the social transformation, the ideological pioneers showed two tendencies toward the traditional culture: divorce from or return to it, with the former reflecting progress and the latter showing intellectuals’ concerns about

232  LIU Zhiqin the loss of the spirit of an independent nation. Wu Ting-​jia (1987)26 held that modern Chinese intellectuals, passionate about politics and prone to be radical, were the leading force of modern patriotic movements and the academic bearer of the origin of modern ideological and cultural history. Though with advanced thought, modern Chinese intellectuals lack political and economic support, thereby being weak in practice and theory. Li Chang-​li (1993)27 argued that Westernizationists, a new type of intellectual closely related to the modern economy and culture, contributed to the introduction and dissemination of Western science, technology and culture, and the formation of values of advocating social prosperity through reform. Owing to the fact that they were attached to bureaucrats, they were both constrained by the bureaucracy and excluded by traditional intellectuals, leading them to the failure in introducing an open culture and social reform. 5. Reflection and controversy on the spirit of the May 4th Movement. (1) New views on the spirit of May 4th Movement. The dominant view was that the May 4th Movement promoted the new cultural movement with its patriotic and innovative spirit, and democracy and science were the two main features, though some scholars regarded it as a patriotic political movement and others might have considered it as enlightened in culture. Studies at the end of the twentieth century raised objections and argued that the May 4th spirit, as a cultural trend of thought, introduced the idea of freedom rather than being the ideology of the working class, hence its core was the liberal and democratic thought that affirmed individual values instead of the spirit of socialist revolution. Therefore, it was biased in summarizing the essence of Western civilization during May 4th as democracy and science. Some scholars made new interpretations of democracy and science, arguing that democracy was essentially the emancipation of man’s social nature while science was the emancipation of man’s naturalness. Therefore, the May 4th Movement was the first human liberation movement and its spirit was a multi-​dimensional ideological system composed of the awareness of potential danger, reform, individual liberation and Marxism, with saving and transforming China as the core. (2) A national salvation movement versus an enlightenment movement. Some scholars argued that the May 4th Movement included two movements: the New Culture Movement and the patriotic Anti-​ imperial Movement. At the initial stage, the movement aimed at both saving the nation and enlightening the public, while later the changes in the national situation, the interests of the country and the sufferings of people were given more importance than the pursuit of freedom, equality, democracy and civil rights. Therefore, the movement transformed from one of enlightenment to one of concrete

Studies on cultural history  233 and drastic political reform. In the long and arduous political and military struggle, the rights and dignity of individuals were insignificant and unrealistic, resulting in the non-​fulfillment of feudal consciousness and small-​scale farming consciousness, which led to the historical trend and destiny of the movement.28 Other scholars held a different view that the May 4th Movement had great significance in the history of modern China as an anti-​imperialist patriotic salvation movement. As in both the cases of the Wuxu period and May 4th, salvation evoked enlightenment and the latter was for the former. The spirit of the May 4th Movement, democracy and science, ran through the movement and affected the entire era, and even has practical significance in modern times.29 (3) Controversy over the assessment of the May 4th Movement’s role in anti-​tradition. In the past, works attacking traditional culture during the movement had always been regarded as radical anti-​traditional arguments. Some scholars expressed different opinions that the New Culture Movement directed the criticism to the most backward and illiberal part of feudal culture, rather than traditional culture in general. And as a matter of fact, the remarkable parts of traditional culture had never been criticized during the New Culture Movement. However, the avant-​ garde of the New Culture Movement were focused on promoting democracy, science and criticizing feudal culture, while neglecting distinguishing between the essence and dregs of traditional culture. Therefore, it was biased to say that the May 4th Movement completely denied traditional culture. To conclude, the cultural enlightenment during the May 4th period, as it were, emerged under the oppression of imperialism, while the internal ideology was not maturely prepared for it. Utilitarian tendencies of the enlightenment led to emotional and simplistic judgments on eastern and Western cultures, thus it was not convincing to oppose traditional culture with formalistic methods. Political struggles weakened the necessary theoretical research, and the proposal of the slogan, democracy and science, was mainly to create an atmosphere of public opinion more so than a substantive operation. Culture and intellectuals were given great importance, while the economy and the mass base were ignored. Owing to the poor theoretical base, neither the radicals, the liberals, nor the conservatives produced a giant of the age who was representative of the national ideological system. 6. Discussion on the relationship between traditional culture and modernization. (1) The conflict between tradition and modernization. Some scholars believed that the development of modern Chinese culture did not completely transform the tradition of Chinese culture, the negative factors of which deposited and came into play in China’s

234  LIU Zhiqin





modernization. The conflict between tradition and modernization were manifest in the following ten areas:  the conflict between the requirements of building a network-​based social structure and the unification of traditional culture; conflict between equality and hierarchy; conflict between ruling by law and ruling by man; conflict between modern democracy and patriarchal concept; conflict between individuals’ comprehensive development and collective principle; conflict between the need for creation and conservative psychology; conflict between openness and closedness; conflict between the sense of competition and the Doctrine of the Mean; conflict between the principle of material interests and the ethics-​centered principle; conflict between social consumption needs and honoring the virtue of thrift. All the aforementioned conflicts can be regarded as the conflict between two civilizations:  modernization challenged the ancient civilization. Therefore, how to help the traditional culture break through the dilemma and gain new vitality has become a major issue in cultural modernization.30 Other scholars argued that the cultural crisis implied the traditional culture was facing an opportunity of regeneration and prosperity rather than a denial of it. The key to solving the problem in constructing a new cultural value system adapted to modernization and intellectuals needed to establish a spirit of seeking truth and reflect on Chinese and Western cultures.31 (2) Controversy over the view that tradition is a tool for modernization. In 1988, neo-​authoritarianism emerged, supporters of which argued that tradition had the function of preventing moral bankruptcy, hence a powerful tool for integrating social order in the modernization of a traditional country. The decline and disintegration of traditional value systems and the rise of anti-​tradition radicalism in modern China prevented traditional culture from giving full play to its functions of restraining people’s behavior and stabilizing social order, thereby aggravating the difficulty of modernization. From this perspective, Liang Chi-​chao, Kang You-​wei and Zhang Tai-​yan’s proposition of worshiping Confucianism after the 1911 Revolution was in fact an attempt to achieve autonomy and modernization with traditional values.32 (3) Controversy over “Chinese Learning for Foundation and Western Learning for Application.” Some scholars contended that social existence, production mode, real life and the corresponding theoretical form were the foundation. Though modernization was not equal to Westernization, the essence of Western learning was modernization. Marxism was a scientific theory derived from Western social existence, which could also be regarded as Western learning, while Chinese learning was how to apply Western learning to China’s specific situation. The process of China’s modernization not only required a

Studies on cultural history  235



fundamental change of economy, politics and culture, but needed to preserve the reasonable factors of the tradition. As a matter of fact, “Sinicization of Marxism-​Leninism” and “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” were two cases of “Chinese Learning for Foundation and Western Learning for Application.” Supporters of this argument further claimed that “Chinese Learning for Foundation and Western Learning for Application” clearly supported reform and opening up. In this case, the main part of “Western learning” was commodity economy, and development of the commodity economy would inevitably lead to a series of issues contradicting China’s traditional system,33 which was refuted from two aspects. Some scholars held that was a “whole Westernization” argument, the essence of which was to completely rebuild Chinese culture with Western civilization,34 while other scholars asserted that “Chinese Learning for Foundation and Western Learning for Application” had a tendency to Westernization, but not total Westernization. Instead, its meaning was ambiguous and did not exceed the binary thinking mode of “foundation versus application.”35 (4) The argument of “comprehensive creation.” Some scholars suggested that it was possible to create a new Chinese cultural system by integrating the various elements of ancient Chinese culture and modern foreign culture, given the fact that the structure of the traditional Chinese cultural system had disintegrated and a new socialist culture had taken initial shape. The following reasons were why the creation of a new Chinese cultural system was necessary: first, the old system of Chinese culture was outdated and obsolete, therefore the only choice was to destroy it and rebuild a new one through taking in the elements of advanced foreign culture; second, it was neither possible nor objective to completely abandon traditional Chinese culture and be completely Westernized, since national independence and cultural independence were inseparable; third, both Western culture and Chinese culture had their own advantages and disadvantages, and the comprehensive creation by integrating both their advantages was the best and reasonable choice. Therefore, the history and current situation require creating a new socialist culture in China with both national features and spirit of the time, which calls for an open mind and welcoming attitude toward the outstanding elements of both the ancient Chinese culture and foreign culture.

8.3  Changes in cultural studies at the end of the twentieth century Cultural fever cooled down at the end of the 1980s, and in the 1990s, some hot topics returned to the preserve of professional researchers. Changes of research focus are mainly in the following three aspects.

236  LIU Zhiqin 1. Traditional Chinese culture and classics returned as the focus of study. Although the cultural fever in the 1980s had subsided, Chinese classics, an important part of Chinese cultural history, did not cool down in the 1990s, and on the contrary, became a hot research interest. A good case in point is that Peking University established the Chinese Traditional Culture Research Center and published Study of Chinese Classics, which kindled the study of Chinese traditional culture. Whereafter, a large number of ancient books were reprinted or republished, professional journals of Chinese studies came out one after the other, and subsequently, an increasing number of scholars began to study traditional culture, including a generation of young researchers. Therefore, some scholars regarded it as the renaissance of Sinology after the May 4th Movement. Controversy over the relationship between tradition and modernity ran through culture fever and Sinology fever, though in different contexts. The renaissance of Sinology was a counter-​ attack against the trend of anti-​tradition in the 1980s, and a cultural force to compete with Westernization, rebuild the public’s faith in Chinese traditional culture and counteract the negative effects brought about by the market economy. It was acknowledged that drastic social changes, transformation from an agricultural society to a modern industrial society and transition from a planned economy to a market economy, caused the imbalance of social order and loss of humanistic spirit, and people began to seek traditional morality. Meanwhile, the re-​ interpretation of traditional Chinese culture by overseas neo-​Confucian schools enhanced the confidence of Chinese people, and the loss of morality in Western postmodern society shocked mainland China. All of the aforementioned factors contributed to traditional culture’s return to the focus of study, through which people discovered nutrients with modern value from traditional culture and explored restoring its ethos. Generally speaking, the trend of Sinology during this period was more rational than that during the May 4th Movement while more critical than neo-​Confucianism. Though it achieved certain results in sorting out ancient books, the biases in the study focus have long been criticized. Then, how can Sinology fever be evaluated during this period? The national nihilism that completely denied traditional culture in the 1980s was a deviation, while it was also a mistake to preach the theory of the superiority of Chinese traditional culture and regard Confucianism as the sole tool to save world civilization. Then come the questions: how to treat traditional culture scientifically, how to keep a balance between criticizing old conventional ideas and promoting the essence of traditional culture, how to build the socialist spiritual civilization with the virtue of the outstanding achievements of Western culture, how to evaluate the study of Chinese classics. The key lies in the relationship between traditional culture and modernization. The argument of repelling and replacing

Studies on cultural history  237 Marxism with Chinese classics obviously exaggerates the role of traditional culture, and blurs the academic and political boundaries, thereby failing to solve the theoretical problem. It can be speculated that the study of traditional culture will attract more scholars in future research. 2. The rise of popular culture and prosperity of socio-​cultural studies. The great development of the socialist commodity economy and orientation of the market economy in the 1990s have transformed people’s social psychology from focusing on ideology to economic life, which is another factor for the cooling of cultural fever that, as it is, is dilution of political complexion and diversification of cultural perspectives. Thanks to the modern media technology, cultural products manufactured for mass consumption were commercialized and entertainment-​oriented instead of traditional preaching, which made a huge impact on the elite culture. After all, there has been a long history of distinguishing high and low culture, mainstream and non-​mainstream culture, and mass culture has long been regarded as the latter. Yet, it is in the modern time that mass culture unfolds its significant social value. In the cultural structure where elite culture is the mainstream, the gap between high and low culture is unavoidable, however, socialist culture, which is working people-​oriented, narrows the gap. The development of the socialist market economy and modern science and technology promoted the growth of a new cultural market, and the rise of mass culture changed the traditional cultural pattern led by high culture. The emerging cultural industry with information technology as its production and means of communication flooded the market with a huge number of film, audio, multimedia and electronic products, compounded with the popularization of academic achievements, which all contributed to the fact that cultural consumption was no longer the privilege of the elite, but also the living needs of ordinary people. It was modern industry and urban civilization that created a large number of ordinary consumers whose choice determined the orientation of the cultural market. Mass culture, consisting of subcultures, has become the main component of Chinese culture. The study of cultural history has become available for ordinary people, and even leisure reading after tea, and history researchers have become ordinary reader-​oriented rather than spokespeople of saints, which all challenged historical study tradition which was originally dedicated to studying the rise and fall of dynasties and the law of human society. The content of cultural history has been transformed from scholars to ordinary people, including their lifestyle, basic necessities of life (clothing, food, shelter, and means of transportation), social interaction and interpersonal relationships. These lively contents appealed to readers, which prompted researchers of cultural history to adjust their research focus, thereby common aspects of ordinary people became research topics, and were even funded by the National Social Science Fund. Socio-​cultural history opened up a

238  LIU Zhiqin brand-​new research field and thus brought new development opportunities for the construction of cultural history. Subsequently, various books of folk customs, daily life, public entertainment, and describing various forms of beings such as farmers, craftsmen, monks, hermits, swordsmen, thefts, beggars, and the rest, became major publications, which not only enriches the study of cultural history, and the subject of historical studies as well. The tendency of mass culture to dominate the socio-​cultural structure called for the creation of its own theoretical and academic system. “Records of Social and Cultural Changes in Modern China”36 was a cornerstone in this field, which took the changes in mass culture, people’s lifestyle and social trends as research objects, explained socio-​cultural phenomena from the perspective of ideological history, and proposed issues such as studying history from lowlife, issues of secular rationality and the socialization of elite culture, as well as the changing relationship between upper and lower cultures. China’s socio-​cultural history will surely obtain substantial development in the twenty-​first century and will attract worldwide attention with its national characteristics. 3. The development of the discipline of cultural history has been unbalanced since Liang Chi-​ chao proposed establishing it in the 1920s, and was suspended for 30 years from the 1950s to the 1970s. Till now, the gap has been filled and weak links strengthened, thus to gradually break the original pattern. A  number of influential monographs on cultural history have been welcomed by readers, books on the general history of culture, cultural theory, culture of various dynasties, regional culture, minority culture, custom culture, corporate culture, science culture, and various book series on culture have been published successively and became popular readings more so than mere academic monographs, thereby avoiding biased study during the May 4th period and promoting the development of contemporary social sciences and humanities with cultural research infiltrating into multiple disciplines. Another remarkable result is that a group of young and middle-​aged researchers stood out and formed a number of cultural research teams with theoretical foundation and rich knowledge. The study of cultural history is becoming a prestigious science with its unprecedented advantages in research talents and results. More importantly, since the 1980s, cultural studies have entered society from the academic circle, the contents ranging from history to reality, and developed from subject reflection to the design of socialist spiritual civilization, which all show its unprecedented role in promoting the transformation of human concepts and improving national cultural quality. The underlying factors are: at first, the construction of a socialist spiritual civilization, taking the improvement of national psychological quality as the starting point and destination of cultural development strategies provides social conditions which were not available during the May 4th period; second, cultural studies in this period provided historical references from

Studies on cultural history  239 both the merits and demerits of national cultural psychology, thereby avoiding bias and practicability of the cultural debates like during the May 4th period; third, the May 4th era was to awaken suppressed slaves to stand up, break the shackles of the feudal system and restore human status, while the awakening of human subjectivity in the 1980s required human self-​realization, transformation of concepts, increasing human value and exerting human potential, as Marxism points out that the basic principle of communist society is the comprehensive development of humans and a higher level of awakening movement.

8.4  Disputed issues in cultural studies in the twenty-​first century Since the beginning of the twenty-​first century, cultural studies have become increasingly diverse and issues of the study have become hotly debated. 1. Chinese classics are becoming increasingly popular and thus causing controversy. In the twenty-​first century, a major event in the cultural world is the revival of Chinese classics. Institutes and classes of Chinese classics for various levels ranging from children to college students flourished and were quickly welcomed by the general public, the sudden popularity of which caused much continuous controversy. Some scholars hold the view that to revive traditional Chinese culture, even children must recite Chinese classics and sow the seeds of traditional Chinese virtues in their hearts from an early age so that they will naturally understand the doctrines of Chinese sages when they grow up. Some scholars contend that reciting Chinese classics is forcing children to learn by rote, which is mere obscurantism. Seventy-​two scholars including Xu Jia-​lu, Ji Xian-​lin, Yang Zhen-​lin, Ren Ji-​yu, Wang Meng and others issued The 2004 Cultural Declaration, claiming that each country or nation has the right and obligation to preserve and develop its own traditional culture, while having the right to accept or reject certain factors of a foreign culture in some specific areas, and has the right to express opinions on common global cultural issues as well. The 2004 Cultural Declaration is the third cultural declaration to the whole nation, following The Declaration on Construction of Chinese-​ Standard Culture issued by ten professors including Wang Xin-​ming in 1935 and A Manifesto for a Re-​appraisal of Sinology and Reconstruction of Chinese Culture published by overseas neo-​Confucians including Mou Tsung-​san and Carsun Chang in 1958. However, some scholars question The 2004 Cultural Declaration. Is it more urgent for the country, to save tradition or enlighten the public, or push both forward? Even the scholars signing the declaration disagree on some specific issues. Alternative perspectives include:  traditional Chinese culture cannot solve the problems encountered by Western civilization; civilizations vary on the continuum from backward to progressive, thus it is not justified to just praise traditional Chinese culture while denying the universal values and principles of mankind and equate values of primitive civilization with

240  LIU Zhiqin those of modern civilization; different from the past, the current fever of Chinese classics is not initiated by scholars, but originates from the needs of society: the pervasive anxiety about moral anomie emerging from the bottom of society, which can be seen in the increasing number of children reciting Chinese classics from 5 million in 2003 to 10 million in 2004; cultural renaissance is not retro, but cultural renewal, therefore traditional culture does not replace modern culture, but facilitates its development. Scholars have not reached a consensus on what constitute Chinese classics. Some argue that Chinese classics refers to the teachings of the six arts, that is, The Book of Songs, The Book of History, The Book of Rites, The Book of Music, The Book of Changes and The Spring and Autumn Annals, containing a variety of content such as history, aesthetics, literature, philosophy and politics. Chinese classics is an academic system with Confucianism as the main body and compatible with various schools of learning. Education in Chinese classics is a general education on traditional Chinese culture, including the cultural traditions of various nationalities and regions. Therefore, the content of Chinese classics is very broad and more extensive than what Zhang Bing-​lin and Qian Mu proposed. Some scholars believe that the learning of Chinese classics is a modern concept that emerged after the collision of Chinese and Western cultures in the early twentieth century, and scholars should make the effort to preserve its fine traditions in the pursuit of modernization. In the late Qing Dynasty, the traditional Chinese academic system was reclassified according to the Western discipline system and achieved positive results, however, the dismemberment of the inherent academic system led to the disintegration of Chinese classics. The fever of Chinese classics beginning in the 1990s was the first return to national tradition after being destroyed between 1966 and 1976. People pursued the identification of a spiritual homeland and attempted to establish a sense of cultural self-​esteem, self-​reliance and self-​ renewal in the context of globalization with an aim of building a new system fusing Chinese and Western civilizations. As Shu Jin-​yu (2009) argued we must cherish the legacy passed down by our ancestors, but we have to admit that we have not added much glory to the cultural heritage; compared with the academic and cultural status of developed countries, although we have made great progress, there is no epoch-​making contribution to world academic theory.37 There are also scholars insisting that promoting the learning of Chinese classics is to save traditional culture, but it is ridiculous to rebuild Confucianism’s dominant role in ruling the country and restore national pride in the twenty-​first century. If Chinese classics could strengthen our country, we would have not needed to introduce Western thought and advanced technologies in the arduous journey of modernization.

Studies on cultural history  241 The controversy over the revival of Chinese classics suggests that Chinese classics ought to participate in contemporary cultural construction with a new attitude in the new era. Revival implies the ancient learning is to dock alongside modern education in order to restore its glory. Although Confucianist and Mencius’ theory can serve as a platform for the Chinese nation’s moral sublimation, it cannot shoulder the task of cultural rejuvenation and thus should be integrated with Marxism-​Leninism. 2. Controversy over the prospects of enlightenment. The cultural fever in the 1980s was regarded as the new enlightenment movement after the May 4th Movement, which split into cultural conservatism, neo-​classical liberalism and the neo-​left in the 1990s under the impact of the market economy. The twenty-​first century is considered as the post-​enlightenment era, a brand-​new era after being enlightened. Some scholars argue that the May 4th Movement in the narrow sense is a mass commotion to save the country and has nothing to do with the new culture, while in the broad sense is the New Culture Movement, which does not facilitate or even hinder the establishment of modern China due to the comprehensive anti-​traditionalism and rationalism behind it. The National Revolution, led by young students swayed by the new culture, longed for establishing a democratic system by violence, but in vain even the tradition was destroyed. Therefore, conservatism, a middle ground between radicalism and fogyism, is the right attitude to building a new culture. Conservatism, with Carson Chang, Chen Yin-​ko and Wu Ching-​hsiung as representatives, are firm constitutionalists, who hold a moderate and tolerate attitude toward Chinese learning and Western learning. On the contrary, the activists of the New Culture Movement, such as Chen Tu-​hsiu, Qian Xuan-​tong and Lu Xun, have a rather superficial understanding of Western learning based on secondhand materials acquired during their short-​term studies in Japan. Therefore, radicalists are fearless largely because of their ignorance. The Chinese new civilization must be created by the Chinese themselves on the basis of the original system, and the conservative tradition is worthy of being inherited, maintained and expanded. The scholars who hold an opposite view contend that the over-​criticism about tradition during the May 4th Movement was limited to the elite circle, thereby having little impact on the whole of society. A case in point is that two thirds of the 300 candidates, most of whom were primary or middle school students, chose Confucius and Mencius as their icons in the entrance exam of Jiangsu First Normal School, coupled with a few who worshiped Yan Yuan, Fan Zhong-​yan, Zhu Xi and Wang Shou-​ren, which showed that although there were fierce attacks on feudal etiquette and Confucianism in the late Qing Dynasty and the early Republican period, worshiping Confucius and Mencius was still quite popular among the middle-​and lower-​ level intellectuals. Therefore, it was unfair to attribute the interruption of Confucianism in China and the crisis of moral culture to cultural radicalism during the May

242  LIU Zhiqin 4th Movement, which actually played a significant role in ideological enlightenment and promoting social reform. In view of the various doubts about the May 4th Movement, it was a pity to see some scholars fail to trace the origin of the problem, only by which can we truly go forward in the May 4th spirit. There are also some scholars who believe that the May 4th Movement created a freer atmosphere for debate, and the reasons why it is criticized are as follows: at first, with the rise of cultural conservatism, it was popular to support the view of saving the world by carrying forward tradition among the common people who might know little about the Chinese classics but based their nationalistic sentiment on them; another reason is that it was believed that the May 4th Movement was a violent revolution and led to radicalism. As a matter of fact, the May 4th Movement does not represent a certain doctrine, rather, it just broke through the shackles of feudalism, and likewise, the May 4th spirit is not equal to violent revolution. It should not be the responsibility of the advocates of the new culture to decide which political path prevailed, since they advocate democracy rather than autocracy. In short, the prospect of China still lies in enlightenment and ideological emancipation. The May 4th New Culture Movement is both a movement of fierce anti-​ traditionalism and enlightenment. The activists of the movement are not conservatives, but moderate enlightenmentists, who advocate creating a new culture by integrating both the merits of Chinese and Western civilization. 3. Controversy over cultural awareness. Cultural awareness, proposed by Fei Xiao-​tong, means that people living in a certain culture must understand the origin, characteristics and development direction of their own culture, and have the awareness of its merits and demerits in order to strengthen autonomy in cultural transformation. Fei Xiao-​tong advocates that all nations should share the dream that “each culture coexists in harmony showing its unique characteristics.” Realizing cultural awareness is an arduous journey, during which, only by knowing our own culture and understanding the multiple cultures around us, can we cement a place in the multicultural world and then build a universal rule for the coexistence of multiple cultures. Cultural awareness implies that each culture should hold the attitude of respecting, tolerating and coexisting with other cultures in the present multicultural world. In the current situation of economic globalization, cultural power is becoming an increasingly important part of comprehensive national strength and international competitiveness. Fei Xiao-​ tong’s theory of cultural awareness, a positive response of China’s ideological and cultural circle to economic globalization, is widely acknowledged in the academic community. Some scholars argue that cultural awareness implied the coordinates to measure national culture, with the vertical one being a time axis to look into the future in terms of integration of tradition and creativity, while the horizontal one being a space axis to ascertain the role of national culture, significance of existence and contribution to the world, in the current context. Based on the coordinates, we need to do more to integrate tradition and creativity

Studies on cultural history  243 so as to look into the future with a new perspective. Having the awareness of the culture’s merits and demerits is to strengthen the autonomy in cultural transformation and thereby adapting to the new environment instead of mere restoration. Nowadays, there are people criticizing modern Chinese history for transforming traditional Chinese culture with Western civilization and proposing a Confucian society, which is not the real intention of cultural awareness but xenophobia. In the context of economic globalization, only by widely drawing on other cultures’ successful experience while maintaining our own cultural autonomy, can Chinese culture participate in the construction of global culture and establish the principle of coexistence and joint development with multiculturism, which requires us not to oppose “cultural separatism” (rejecting foreign culture blindly) and “cultural hegemonism” (advocating cultural annexation and unification). There are also researchers who speak highly of cultural awareness, which requires an individual to enhance the ability of self-​reflection, protect and inherit cultural heritage with rational cognition, and each culture to coexist in harmony showing its unique characteristics and adopting other cultures’ merits, which is also a response to Huntington’s theory of the “clash of civilizations.” Other scholars claim that cultures are a universal human spirit, but each manifests its unique characteristics which ought to be appreciated. It is a pity for us to question the universality while promoting convergence even when it is impossible. For instance, the slogan “Beijing opera has conquered the world” overstates the role of cultural ideology and fancies unification. The 2004 Human Development Report rejects the claim that cultural differences necessarily lead to social, economic and political conflict or that inherent cultural rights should supersede political and economic ones. Instead, it provides a powerful argument for finding ways to “delight in our differences,” as Archbishop Desmond Tutu has put it. Therefore, cultural exchange is more of an image than thinking, emotion than conception, and action than slogan. As Tagore brought Indian culture into the mainstream culture and Hemingway facilitated Europe to accept American culture, cultural communication is achieved via such bridges as influential figures rather than national policy or governmental activities.

Notes 1 Department of Cultural History, Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1984). The Catalogue of Chinese Cultural Research. Beijing: Beijing History Society. 2 Editors of the Journal of Dialectics of Nature. (1983). Scientific Tradition and Culture: Reasons for the Backwardness of China’s Modern Science. Xi’an: Shaanxi Science and Technology Press. 3 Unknown. (1984). Minutes of the forum on Chinese cultural history. In X. Fang (Ed.), Collection of Chinese Cultural Research (Volume 1). Shanghai:  Fudan University Press. 4 Rui, X. W. (1986). Cultural development strategy in the reform period. Red Flag.

244  LIU Zhiqin 5 Pang, P. (1986, 6 January). The humanistic spirit of Chinese culture. Guangming Daily. 6 Liu, Z.  H. (1986, 4 August). Monarchism in traditional Chinese humanism. Guangming Daily. 7 Liu, Z. Q. (1986, 28 April). Humanity and modern consciousness. Guangming Daily. 8 Wen, Z. (1990). Several issues on promoting excellent culture: A record of the Tianjin Seminar on Promoting Chinese Excellent Culture. Theory and Modernization (8). 9 Gan, Y. (1986). Tradition, zeitlicbkeit and future. Reading (2). 10 Wang, Y.  H. (1988, 28 November). Tradition versus counter-​tradition. People’s Daily. 11 Jiang, Y.  H. (1990). Reconstruction of Confucianism in China in the 20th century. In History Department of Fudan University (Ed.), Confucianism and Future Society. Shanghai: Fudan University Press. 12 Shi, Z.  L. (1989). Neo-​Confucianism and the living spirit of Chinese culture. Philosophical Research (9). 13 Zheng, J.  D. (1989). Destiny of Confucianism and Neo-​ Confucianism. Philosophical Research (3). 14 Zhu, Y. R. (1987). Destiny of Confucianism. Journal of Jilin University (3). 15 Guo, Q.  Y. (1986). Modernity and Chinese tradition. Journal of Wuhan University (5). 16 Feng, T. Y. (1988). The Dawn of the Orient: The Course of Chinese Culture towards Modernization. Chengdu: Bashu Books. 17 Liu, Z. Q. (1993). The beginning of modernization of Chinese culture. Sociological Study (2). 18 Gong, S.  D. (1985). Changes in modern Chinese cultural structure. Historical Research (1). 19 Shi, G. X. and Wu, J. (1985). Brief introduction to the First National Symposium on Modern Cultural History. Historical Research (1). 20 Tian, W.  J. (1988). A  summary of the Symposium on the Cultural Process of China’s Modernization. Philosophical Trends (1). 21 Fang, K. L. (1997). Cultural conservatism in the 1990s. In J. S. Sha. and S. D. Gong (Eds.), Which Way to Go: Some Issues in Modern Chinese History. Jinan: Shandong People’s Publishing House. 22 Ding, W. Zh. and Chen, S. (1995). Chinese versus Western System. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. 23 Wang, J.  and Zhang, K.  F. (1985). Summary of the Third Symposium on the History of Westernization Movement. Historical Research (6). 24 Zhong, S.  H. (1985). Going Global:  History of Modern Chinese Intellectuals’ Exploration of Western Civilization. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. 25 Zhang, K. Y. (1985). Divorce and Return: An Analysis of the Relationship between Traditional Culture and Modernization. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. 26 Wu, T. J. (1987). Modern Chinese Intellectuals. Beijing: People’s Publishing House. 27 Li, C. L. (1993). The Tragedy of the Forerunner: Research on the Intellectuals of Westernization. Shanghai: Xuelin Publishing House. 28 Li, Z. H. (1986). The dual role of the May Fourth Movement: Enlightenment and national salvation. Towards the Future (1). Li, Z. H. (1986). Three debates in the history of Chinese modern thought. Towards the Future (2). 29 Ding, S.  H. (1989). Several issues about the May Fourth Movement. Historical Research (3).

Studies on cultural history  245 30 Cao, X.  R. (1992). Chinese Culture versus Western Culture:  Re-​examination of Chinese Cultural Choice. Beijing: China Youth Publishing House. 31 Chen, J. M. (1990, 25 February). Construction of a new cultural value system for modernization. Chinese Social Sciences Weekly. 32 Xiao, G. Q. (1988). Cultural anomie and modernization. Reading (10). 33 Bei, J. S. (1988). Chinese learning versus western learning. Philosophical Trends (4). 34 Mo, M. Z. (1986). Chinese learning for foundation and western learning for application or vice versa. Social Sciences (6). 35 Fang, K.  L. (1987). Reflection on Chinese learning for foundation and western learning for application. In W. J. Q. (Ed.), Traditional Culture and Modernization. Beijing: China Renmin University Press. 36 Liu, Z.  Q. (1998). Records of Social and Cultural Changes in Modern China. Hanzhou: Zhejiang People’s Publishing House. 37 Shu, J. Y. (2009, 30 September). Trends of Chinese studies. China Reading Weekly.

Index

academic exchanges 25–​6 academic organizations 146–​7 academic systems 240 agriculture, transformation of 217 air force history 179 American Society for Asian Studies 25 anarchism 211 Anfu Clique, the 214 Anti-​imperial Movement  232 Ao Guangxu 122 Association of Chinese Historians 3–​4, 79, 174 associations for the study of history 19–​20 “awakening literature” 223 bachelor’s degree level 19 “bandits’ alliance” 86 Bao Chengguan 195 Bao Shichen 193 battles and battlefields 115, 118–​19, 173–​4, 182 biographies of military figures 184, 188 Bi Yongnian 98 bourgeois ideology 10 bourgeoisie: bureaucratic or national 152; political status of 49 Boxer Uprising 50, 82, 84, 92 Brezhnev, Leonid 14 Buddhism 208 bureaucratic capital 117, 151 business enterprises 49 Cai Hesen 58 Cai Meibiao 85 Cai Shang-​si  222 Canton Merchants’ Corps Uprising (1924) 121–​2

Cao Chengjian 125 Cao Junwei 149 capital accumulation 140 capitalism, development of 46–​9, 56, 66–​8, 81, 87 Carsun Chang 239 Catalogue of Chinese Cultural Research 222 chambers of commerce 152–​3, 157, 164–​5 Chang Xiao 202 Chen Boda 10 Chen Chongqiao 176, 183 Chen Duxiu 53 Chengdu science seminar (1982) 223–​5 Chen Hongmin 124 Chen Huizong 216 Chen Jiang 149 Chen Qinghua 3, 44 Chen Shulin 179 Chen Tiejun 57 Chen Tu-​hsiu  241 Chen Xulu 51–​2 Chen Yingming 179 Chen Yinke 28–​30 Chen Yin-​ko  241 Chen Yuxiang 207 Chen Zhefu 203 Chen Zhenping 161 Chen Zhentao 179 Chiang Kai-​shek 8, 15, 116, 118, 123 Chinese Academy of Sciences 1–​3, 10–​12, 17–​19, 31, 44, 64, 79 Chinese History Society 19 Chinese Traditional Culture Research Center 236 Ching-​hsiung  241 Cixi, Dowager Empress 66–​7, 87–​8, 98 class struggle 2, 10–​11, 32, 42–​51, 82, 91

Index  247 classic works, Chinese 239–​41 cliques 12–​18, 214 colonialism 46; see also semi-​colonial countries Comintern, the 126–​7 Communist Party of China ( CPC) 6, 16–​18, 24–​5, 30, 52, 58–​9, 62–​3, 76–​8, 83, 92–​3, 102, 118, 121–​4, 202–​3, 209, 215 comprador bourgeois 143, 152 Confucianism 12–​15, 207, 213, 227, 234–​6, 240–​3 conservative thought 92, 214–​15, 241–​2 Cui Zhihai 97 cultural awareness 242–​3 Cultural Declaration (2004) 239 cultural evolution, law of 225 cultural history 21, 237–​8 “Cultural Revolution” 195 cultural studies 221–​43; disputed issues in 239–​43 culture: global 243; high or low 237 culture fever 224–​37, 240 Dai Yifeng 158 Daoguang, Emperor 8, 63–​5 Darwin, Charles 197 democratic revolution 60–​1 Deng Xiao-​ping  225 Deng Ye 123, 127 development gap between China and other countries 66 development opportunities 65–​8 differences, taking delight in 243 Ding Mingnan 83 Ding Richu 149, 152 disciplinary division 64 “double-​hundred” policy 7, 17, 91, 143 double standards applied to historical persons and events 28, 30 dress 31 Du Fu 27 Duan Qirui government 121 economic history, study of 137–​66; expansion of research field 147; decade-​long standstill in scientific research (1966–​76) 12–​13, 144–​5; restoration after 1976 and later development of 24–​5, 145–​55 economic organizations 163–​6 Elliott, Mark C. 72 Emperor’s powers in China 66

Engels, Friedrich 16 enterprise history 160–​3 epitaph on the monument to the people’s heroes 77–​8 ethics 212 events 82, 88, 93; history in terms of 37, 41, 44 evolutionary history 63 Fairbank, John K. 229 fairs 35 Fan Baichuan 178 Fang Delin 98 Fang Qingqiu 148 Fan Wenlan 1, 3, 8–​11, 34, 44, 78–​9, 82, 85, 92 Fan Zhongyi 179 “farewell to revolution” 62–​3 fashion 31 Fei Min 190 Fei Xiao-​tong  242 Feng Guifen 192–​3, 197 Feng Qi 208 Feng Xiaocai 121, 126–​7, 165 feudalism 43, 46–​7, 55–​6, 144, 197, 242 financial system reform 94–​5 “Five Constant Virtues” 195 flags 99–​100 focus for research 235–​6 foreign relations 31, 88; economic 149 “four histories” research 12 “four-​step” theory  46 free discussion 7, 17 “Futian Incident” 23 Fu Zhufu 139 Fu Zuoyi 127 Gandhi, Mohandas 216–​17 “Gang of Four” 84, 88, 192 Gao Jun 201 Gao Ruiqan 200 Gao Xinwei 161–​2 Gao Zhong 96 Geng Yunzhi 208, 210 Ge Zhaoguang 203 globalization 242 Gong Shuduo 212 Gong Zizhen 84, 192–​4, 197, 231 Grand Council, Chinese 68 Great Encyclopedia of China 85 Greek culture 223 Gu Shutang 139 Guan Jie 176, 178

248 Index Guan Xiaohong 93, 96 Guangming Daily 26, 222 Guangzu, Emperor 35, 66–​7, 97–​8 guilds 163 Guo Dehong 180 Guo Moruo 3, 8–​11, 44, 79, 82–​3 Guo Peng 208 Han nationality and culture 8, 71–​2, 83 He Bingdi 69, 72 hegemonism, cultural 243 Hemingway, Ernest 243 hexagonal marketing area pattern 35–​6 He Yucheng 23 He Zhaowu 203 historians, role of 63 historical data 3 historical discussion in the 1980s 45–​55, 61 historical events see events historical facts, clarification of 25 historical materialism 2, 22, 41–​3, 46, 194, 206 historical perspective 37–​8 Historical Research (journal) 9, 12, 41, 51, 83 historiography 25 history, modern see modern history, Chinese “holy treasury” system 100 Hong Xiaoxia 182 Hong Xiuquan 11, 15, 77, 88 Hong Xuanjiao 23 Hou Wailu 194, 199 Hou Yijie 93 Huang Daoxuan 124, 127 Huang Hongshan 96 Huang Juezi 193 Huang Lingjun 216 Huang Xingtao 69–​70 Huang Yibing 180 Huang Zunxian 98 Hu Bin 192 Hu Hanmin 124 Human Development Report 243 human relations 227 humanism 226–​7 Huntington, S. 243 Huo Sheng 48 Hu Sheng 3, 37–​8, 41–​7, 50–​4, 81–​2, 86–​7, 201, 214 Hu Weige 200 Hu Yingze 159

Hu Yuhai 178 Hu Zhefeng 184 “ideological consciousness” of researchers 10 ideological trends amongst thinkers 217 imperial examination system 96 imperialism 3, 11, 43–​7, 58–​60, 78–​9 independence, national 35, 46–​7 industrialization 87, 154–​5, 217 Industrial Revolution, Western 85 Institute of Modern History 1–​3, 12, 18, 31, 44, 64, 79 intellectual history 190–​219; and deepening understanding of modern China 196, 198; two views of 204 interdisciplinary research 219 Japan: influence on China 197, 206; Meiji Restoration 66; resistance against 22 Jian Bozan 3, 7–​11, 44 Jiang Dachun 206 Jiang Duo 7, 49 Jiang Ming 178–​9 Jiangnan Shipyard 145 Jiang Pei 216 Jiang Qing 12–​18 Jiang Tao 63 Jiang Tingfu 33 Jiang Yi-​hua  228 Jia Zhongfu 164 Jin Chongii 197 Jing Junjian 146 Jin Lixin 182 Jin Yilin 124 “joined forces” theory 101–​2 joint-​stock enterprises  161–​2 journals 20, 177 Juang Duo 141 Kang Sheng 10 Kang Youwei 15, 66–​7, 77, 98, 101, 192–​3, 213, 234 Khrushchev, Nikita 14 Kong Xiangji 88 Korean War 173–​4, 182–​3, 187–​8 Kuomintang, the 42, 114–​18, 121–​4 landlords, study of 22 Lao Siding 12 learning style 229; Chinese and Western 241

Index  249 Le Chengyao 163–​4 legal system reform 95–​6 Lenin, V. I. (and Leninism) 29, 58–​9 Liang Chi-​chao  234 Liang Qichao 66–​7, 98, 101, 114, 192–​3, 206 Liang Shangxian 121 Liang Shuming 216–​17 Liang Xiao 12, 17 Liao Xinhua 179 Li Bingheng 101 Li Bohuai 163, 165 Li Chang-​li  232 Li Chun 176 Li Defang 159 Li Gongzhong 125 Li Hauxing 198–​9 Li Hongzhang 66, 84, 88, 92 Li Jian 163 Li Julan 125 Li Ligeng 125 Li Lingli 165 Li Linshan 179 Lin Biao 12–​18, 84 Lin Maosheng 201 Lin Qiao 195 Lin Zexu 81, 193 Lin Zhibo 181 Li Renkai 200 Li Rongchang 149 Li Shanlan 195 Li Shaojiu 23 Li Shitao 214 Li Shiyue 45–​6, 53–​6 Li Shu 14 literary works 222–​3 Liu Danian 3, 44, 51, 82–​8, 146, 193 Liu Di 23 Liu Fengyun 69 Liu Fuding 147 Liu Wei 213 Liu Wenpeng 6, 69 Liu Xinghao 158 Liu Zaifu 62 Liu Zehua 204 Liu Zexu 65 Liu Zhenhua 182 Li Wenhai 210–​11 Li Xiucheng 7, 84, 88 Li Xizhu 93, 97, 214 Li Yu 160 Li Yuandu 81 Li Yumin 159–​60

Li Yunyuan 141 Li Zehou 62, 192, 205 Li Zhiming 97 Li Ziwen 201 Long March 180, 188 Long Yunsheng 178 Lugou Bridge Incident 118 Lu Jiu-​yuan  228 Luo Fuhui 209–​10 Luo Huanzhang 180 Luo Min 124 Luo Rongqu 154 Luo Siding 17 Luo Youzhi 72 Luo Zhitian 38, 121, 209–​10 Lu Xun 241 Lu Yangyuan 148 macro research 36–​7, 102–​3 Ma Jianzhong 193 Ma Min 152 Manchuria 68–​71 Mao Haijian 32, 37, 88, 98, 178 Mao-​style cadre suits 31 Mao Zedong 1, 7, 12, 16–​17, 21, 23, 32, 42–​3, 46–​8, 59, 77–​9, 137–​8, 174, 188, 202–​3, 222 Ma Qingwu 181 market economy system 35, 225, 237, 241; socialist 63 Marx, Karl 1–​3, 6–​10, 14, 25, 29, 206 Marxism 41–​6, 55, 58–​9, 77, 137–​8, 190, 194, 199, 214–​15, 234, 239 mass culture 237–​8 Materialist conception of history 3 Materials on Modern History (journal) 3 Ma Tianxiang 213 May 4th Movement 44, 53–​4, 57, 114–​15, 121, 126, 164, 190, 202, 221, 232–​3, 238–​42 Ma Yufu 179 memoirs 184 Mencius 241 military discipline 186–​9 military history 173–​89; journals of 177; of war against Japan 180–​1; of war of liberation 181–​2 “min zhu” 208 modern history, Chinese: beginning of 2; definition of 76, 85; as a discipline 2, 27–​8; “falling” and “rising” of 55–​8; importance placed on and promotion of 2, 7, 26–​7; new fields of

250 Index research on 21–​2, 26–​7, 31–​8; overseas writings on 26; problems posed by 10; progress made in 2, 6–​7, 24; status as a discipline 55; sustainable development of research on 11–​12 modernization 4, 87; active or passive 216; cultural 224–​9, 233–​6; economic 153–​4 “modernization paradigm” 33–​5 Mou Anshi 141, 176 Mou Tsung-​san  239 multiculturalism 243 national bourgeoisie 142–​3, 152 national capitalism 56, 142 national revolution 241 nationalism 210–​12 naval history 178–​9 neo-​Confucianism 227–​9, 236 New Culture Movement 53, 193, 206, 209, 232–​3, 241–​2 New Deal (1901–​11) 21–​2, 67–​8 New Democracy theory 215–​16 “New Policies” reform 93–​7 Nie Baozhang 149 Ning Quanhong 161 “non-​resistance” concept  118 North China 157–​8 objectivity in historical research 29–​30, 33 Opium Wars 8, 33, 47, 64–​5, 77, 80–​1, 88, 173, 187, 193, 199, 230 ordinary people, history of 21, 237 Overseas Chinese Studies Series 92 Pang Pu 204 patriotism 33, 200 Peng Ming 202 Peng Nansheng 165 People’s Daily 77 People’s Liberation Army (PLA) 173–​4, 187–​8 People’s Republic of China (PRC) 1–​2, 6, 26, 76, 78, 53–​4, 63, 217, 229 periodization 41–​5, 51–​3, 56–​7, 81–​2, 85; criteria for 42–​3 personalities, study of 83–​4, 92, 97, 184, 188 “planned economy” 216–​17 political consciousness 47 political history 21, 30; of the late Qing Dynasty in the 21st century 93–​103

political thought 196, 217–​18 politics serving science 13 postmodernism 236 progressive ideas and trends 46, 197–​8 propaganda 28 prostitution 28 Qian Mu 240 Qian Xuan-​tong  241 Qiao Guanglie 183 Qi Benyu 7, 11–​12, 16, 84 Qin Benli 139 Qing Dynasty: rule by 63–​72, 94–​103; war history of 177–​8 Qin Sheng 180 Qi Qizhang 48, 88, 176, 179, 184, 200 Qiu Jie 121–​2 radicalism 242 recitations 239 “Records of Social and Cultural Changes in Modern China” 238 Red Army 179–​80 Red Flag (publication) 225 reference books 185–​6 reflection 32–​3 reform as distinct from revolution 61–​2 reformist thought 199 Ren Jiyu 190 Republic of China, history of 109–​29; archival materials on 118; factors affecting research on 124–​6; future prospects for study of 128–​9; problems to be solved 126–​8; recent developments 119–​22 research environment, improvement in 91 researchers: academic training of 219; quality of 19, 219 research, theory and methodology used in 6, 16, 26, 33, 92, 147 revolution: nature of 61–​2; use of the term 48 “revolutionary climaxes” theory 45–​54, 82, 87 revolutionary history 34–​5, 91 revolutionary movements 42, 54 revolution, Chinese (1911) 57–​60, 77, 82, 89–​92, 99, 113–​14 revolution, Chinese (1927) 52, 54 Rong Mengyuan 47 rural issues 35, 158–​60

Index  251 Sang Bing 213 Sang Xianzhi 195 “scar literature” 223 “scholars’ revolt” 86 science serving politics 13 scientific research and scientific spirit 12–​13, 17 secret societies 100 semi-​colonial countries 3, 33, 55–​60, 78–​9 seminars, academic 20 separatism, cultural 243 September 18th Incident 124 Shanghai symposium on cultural studies (1982) 224 Shang Xiaoming 96–​7 Shang Yue 139 Shao Doming 195 Shao Xunzheng 3, 44, 141 Shen Weibin 176 Shen Xiaomin 127 Shen Zhihua 183 Shen Zuwei 149, 160 Shi Dakai 15, 88 Shi Gexin 212 Shi Jun 190 Shi Xinheng 95 Shi Zhihong 158–​9 Shu Yi 176 Sinicization 72, 235 Sino-​Japanese War (1894–​95) 66, 176, 193, 202 Sinology, renaissance in 236 Skinner, G. William (and “Skinner model”) 35–​6 social change 31, 48–​9, 62, 198–​9 social history 21, 30–​1 social ideological trends 218 “socialism with Chinese characteristics” 63 social production, promotion of 10–​11 social reform 241–​2 social sciences, high value placed on 18–​19 socio-​cultural history  238 socio-​economic history  155–​6 Song Meiyun 165 Stalin, Joseph 8, 14 statecraft 195, 197 Sun Jian 139 Sun Kefu 176 Sun Shijn 159 Sun Sibai 192

Sun Yat-​sen 30, 77, 83–​4, 89, 101, 113–​15, 123, 201, 206 Su Quanyou 93 Su-​pao case  99 Su Shuangbi 47 Su Yu 184, 188 Tagore, Rabindranath 243 Taiping Heavenly Kingdom movement 10, 26, 31–​2, 46–​8, 54, 65, 77–​92, 100, 144–​5, 176, 190, 199, 205, 210 Taiwan 25–​6, 92 Taizong, Emperor 13 Tang Caichang 197 Tang Shouqian 99 Tang Wenquan 209 Tan Qinghui 215 Tan Sitong 192 Tao Xu 209–​10 Teaching Outline of Modern China’s Intellectual History 190–​1 technological achievements 223 textbooks, historical 41, 44, 82–​3 “three peoples” principle 198, 201, 206 “three step” theory 46, 87, 89 Tong Zhiqiang 181 traditional culture 215, 226–​8, 235–​7, 240, 243 traditional economy 149–​50 traditional learning 214 Tutu, Desmond 243 “two processes” theory 46–​9, 52, 79 “two semis” theory 60, 87 unchangeableness 102 unequal treaties 32 “valley bottom” theory 56–​8 Wang Anshi 194 Wang Chaoguang 125 Wang Chengbin 184 Wang Chong 194 Wang Di 153 Wang Fu 181 Wang Fuyi 181 Wang Hanzhong 125 Wang Hongman 157 Wang Huilin 201 Wang Jingwei 116 Wang Jingyu 49, 56, 141 Wang Jinwu 201 Wang Linmao 197

252 Index Wang Min 99 Wang Mingqian 100–​1 Wang Qingcheng 26, 35–​6 Wang Qisheng 32, 122, 125 Wang Renzhi 191, 199 Wang Rongsheng 85 Wang Tao 193 Wang Weili 201 Wang Xianming 125 Wang Xingye 203 Wang Xin-​ming  239 Wang Xiuxin 180 Wang Yalin 201 Wang Yangming 228 Wang Yehong 179 Wang Yuru 151 Wang Zhaoguang 123 Wang Zhi 215–​16 warlord regimes 21–​2, 52, 114, 121–​2 Warring States school 216 weapons, history of 187 Wei Guangqi 125 Wei Guodong 165 Wei Shaoguang 23 Wei Wenxiang 163, 165 Wei Yuan 65, 231, 192–​4, 197 Wen Rui 125 Western learning and thought 26, 33, 208, 215 Westernization and the Westernization Movement 7, 21–​2, 47, 49, 52, 56, 66, 79–​81, 89–​90, 141, 144, 198–​9, 234–​6 Wo Ren 214 Wu Chengming 138–​9, 147–​50 Wu Jingpin 124 Wu Ting-​jia  232 Wu Xinzhong 208 Wu Xuehai 183 Wu Yannan 199, 202 Wu Zetian, Empress 8 Wu Zeyong 95 xenophobia 243 Xia Dongyuan 52, 89, 141 Xianfeng, Emperor 65, 95 Xiao Ke 180 Xiao Sha-​fu  229 Xie Wei 95 Xiong Wei 83 Xiong Yuezhi 208 Xuantong, Emperor 70, 93

Xu Dingxin 152–​3 Xu Dixin 138, 148 Xue Fucheng 193 Xu Kangming 181 Xu Liting 83 Xun Kuang 194 Xu Qingru 183 Xu Shou 195 Xu Shunjiao 212 Xu Xianqian 188 Xu Xiuli 159 Xu Yan 182–​3 Xu Yi 96 Xu Zongmian 191 Yan Fu 77, 197 Yang Di 184 Yang Jinsen 179 Yang Kuisong 24, 32, 123 Yang Niamqun 126 Yang Peixin 139 Yang Shubiao 201 Yang Tianhong 121 Yang Tianshi 123–​4 Yang Xiuqing 15, 88 Yang Xuanjiao 23 Yang Zhiben 176 Yan Jingtang 180 Yan Tianling 125 Yan Yangchu 159 Yan Zhongping 4, 138–​9, 146 Yao Ying 193 Ye Huosheng 192 Ye Yi 208 Yi Kuang 101 Yi Menghong 192 Ying Liya 157 Yi Xin 66 Yuan Chengyi 57 Yuan Dejin 182 Yuan Shikai 53, 84–​5, 97–​101 Yuan Shuyi 47 Yu Dahua 214 Yu Heping 152–​3, 159, 164 Yu Huamin 182 Yue Siping 181 Zaifeng, Regent 70, 97 Zeng Guofan 66, 84, 88, 92 Zhan Tuanyou 84 Zhang Bingfu 159 Zhang Bing-​lin  240 Zhang Chenyi 212

Index  253 Zhang Donggang 151 Zhang Haipeng 31, 47, 53, 57–​8 Zhang Huateng 57–​8 Zhang Jian 84, 99, 161 Zhang Jinfan 208 Zhang Kaiyuan 47–​8, 99, 231 Zhang Mu 193 Zhang Qizhi 212 Zhang Rulun 203 Zhang Shizhao 206–​8 Zhang Shujun 180 Zhang Shuting 160 Zhang Si 157–​8 Zhang Taiyan 15, 84, 86, 99, 192, 206–​7, 215, 234 Zhang Tinggui 181 Zhang Wei 125 Zhang Xia 176 Zhang Xiqin 198–​9, 212 Zhang Xueliang 118 Zhang Yigong 165 Zhang Yiwen 176, 178 Zhang Yong 216 Zhang Yuitian 176, 183 Zhang Yulan 139 Zhang Yun 208 Zhang Zhaojun 207, 212–​13

Zhang Zhenkun 184 Zhang Zhidong 84, 97, 101 Zhang Zhiongli 149–​51 Zhang Zhongmin 160 Zhao Jin 151 Zhao Quanmin 159–​60, 217 Zhao Xiaohua 95 Zheng, J. D. 229 Zheng Chenglin 163, 165 Zheng Dahua 159, 203, 215 Zheng Guanying 193 Zheng Kuangmin 206 Zheng Lizhu 159 Zhi Shaozeng 180 Zhong Shu-​he  231 Zhou Enlai 12–​13, 17–​18, 138 Zhou Xiulian 139 Zhu Bokun 190 Zhu Cishou 148 Zhu De 184 Zhu Ying 125, 152–​4, 163 Zhu, Y. R. 229 Zhu Zhixin 198 Zou Rong 99 Zou Xiaozhan 207 Zuo Yuhe 213–​14 Zuo Zongtang 84, 88