Book Reviews
Review of Zhai zi Zhongguo: Chongjian youguan “Zhongguo” de lishi
lunshu（Dwelling Here in China: Reconstructing the History of theConcept of China）, by Ge Zhaoguang. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju,
2 0 11 . [宅兹中国: 重建有关「中国」的历史论述／葛兆光著. 北京市:
中华书局, 2011. RMB 39.00元, 330页]For more than the past twenty years, Ge Zhaoguang has stood at theforefront of Chinese scholarship. In his two-volume work Zhongguo sixiangshi（Chinese Intellectual History）, a work garnering considerable attention, he broke through the traditional great-man approach to Chinese intellectual history and pioneered an intellectual history focused on knowledge andideas — the common knowledge used by the masses in ordinary society.
Having completed this grand opus, he found himself “thoroughly
exhausted.”1 Nonetheless, issues raised by his research in intellectual history
led him to delve into a new area without so much as taking a breather. Aftera few years he produced the present volume, Zhai zi Zhongguo: Chongjian
youguan “Zhongguo” de lishi lunshu（Dwelling Here in China: Reconstructing
the History of the Concept of China）. Though this is a small book consistingof only three parts and eight chapters, the issues it discusses are weighty
indeed. As the author says in the preface, the issues he takes up concern suchgreat matters as the world, Asia and China, scholarship and politics, selfidentification and self-exclusion, individual country histories and regional
history, etc. Nearly all these issues do not exist on the same level. As theauthor stresses, this book is a multilevel history viewed from sundry perspectives. Using issues that he encountered and had considered over the years anddrawing on his experience at the National Institute for Advanced Humanistic
Studies at Fudan University, he promotes the development of Chinese scholarship. Ge Zhaoguang seeks not to contemplate and struggle with issues
himself. Rather, he wants Chinese scholarship to develop in new directions
and develop new fields. This work can be said to be the author’s program forthe new fields he proposes. Hence, evaluating this important work is not aneasy task. Here I will merely present my reactions by reading this book withthe hope that these comments add to the discussion.

1 Ge Zhaoguang, Zhai zi Zhongguo, “Zixu”（Preface）, p. 1.

104

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

1. The Multiple Perspectives of This Book
The author, in his Preface, clearly states his purpose, namely, to discuss“how we should adhere to China’s position while at the same time transcending China’s circumstances to reconstruct the history of the notion ofChina in the global or Asian context.”2 This scholarly pursuit occupied theauthor for several years. In fact, these four concepts — China’s position,
China’s circumstances, the global context, and the Asian context — conflictwith one another. Finding a consistent position in the face of these conflicts is
no easy task. Yet it is this multidimensional perspective that is the distinguishing feature of this book. It is herein that the value of this book lies.
The author first replies to a question raised by the Westerners, namely,
What is China? Is China the ever changing nation-culture-polity of Chinese
history, or is it a nation-state with clear borders, a citizenry identifying withit, and an unbroken tradition?3 This is the central topic of the book. In fact,
China and the West have several completely different perspectives on how to
identify China and Chinese history. The present book, in sorting out andevaluating each of these perspectives, also looks at their usefulness and points
out their deficiencies and problems.
First, the received view of the Chinese is that China is a multiethnic state
unified from ancient times, namely, the multiethnic state whose main ethnic
group is the Han people and whose borders are those of present-day China.
This is the assumed view in most Chinese discussions of the past, and it has
hardly ever been called into doubt, yet it is a view that the Westerners haveraised all sorts of questions about. We have to reply to these questions; wecannot turn a blind eye and a deaf ear toward them. This is an importantelement of the author’s reply to the questions of the Westerners. In politics
we must explain, and in scholarship we must demonstrate. Lame arguments
and fallacious reasoning only invite opposition and do nothing to move thedebate forward. In this book, the author has a subconscious antipathy of suchunquestioned assumptions. He does not think that situational demands orpolitical fairness set a standard by which scholarly work is to be judged.
Hence, he wants to “reconstruct the history of the notion of China.” In thisbasic assumption lies the unique value of this book, for it enables us to castaside much of the confusion in past perceptions and to reply more effectively
to Western questions.
Next, when they raise questions, the Westerners offer theories and perceptions of various forms, which the author sorts out for us. Most Western
scholars of China studies are proficient at pointing out theoretical explanatory
2 Ge Zhaoguang, Zhai zi Zhongguo, “Zixu,” pp. 3 - 4.
3 Ge Zhaoguang, Zhai zi Zhongguo, “Xushuo”（Introduction）, p. 4.

Book Reviews

105

models, such as the theory of conquest dynasties of the 1940s, the theory of
the tribute system of the 1960s and 1970s, and the regional-characteristics
theory of the 1980s and later. Each of these theories exerted a profound andfar-reaching influence. Even today, one can still see patent traces of these
theories. After these theories came to China, some scholars adopted themwholly, without any analysis. Though this wholesale importation had somepositive effect, these theories were of no help in acquiring a clear understanding of the development of the notion of China. The author, while
respecting the idea of a search for theories, is unsparing in his criticism of
their problems. Use of a theoretical model to explain Chinese history leaves
one with the feeling that facts are being selected to fit the theory. Every
theory has a degree of suitability, yet it also inevitably has its limitations. In
studying and explaining a historical trend, the author does not give priority totheory. Rather, he seeks to return to the original state of history, to adopt thebasic historical attitude of reviving the true state of history. Say nothing ofJohn K. Fairbank’s impact-response model, tradition and modernity model, or
imperialism approach, even Paul A. Cohen’s regional or provincial studies,
which seek to study Chinese history from a Chinese perspective,4 are coloredwith Western ideas. After all, do not urban-history studies, social-history
studies, and the methods of historical anthropology come from the West? The
author thinks that such Chinese-historical studies within the Western theoretical paradigm, that is to say, views of Chinese history acquired through a
comparison of China and the West, are in fact nothing more than a reflectionof Western studies, enabling one to see only the surface and general contoursof history. They cannot clarify the full sweep of history or allow a detailed
view of history. Such studies have their use, but they are not a necessary orsole standard by which to measure our perceptions of Chinese history. Hence,
this book implicitly provides a way to reply to Western assertions. This is
another important feature of this work.
Third, since one cannot rely on the conclusions of prior Chinese-stylescholarship, and since Western theories have their limitations, the author
pursues a program of returning to the sequence of the development ofChinese history to discuss in detail the internal and external factors leading tochanges in Chinese history, using the East Asian or Asian perspective toprobe China’s perception of its periphery and the outside world and the
periphery’s perception of China, and then coming up with his own views.
This multidimensional approach, while avoiding the inadequacies of a unitary
4 See “A China-Centered History of China,” in Paul A. Cohen, Discovering
History in China: American Historical Writing on the Recent Chinese Past
（New York: Columbia University Press, 1984）.

106

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

approach, enables one to see historical developments in all areas and thereby
derive a more realistic apprehension. The results can be said to be a systematic inference, with a totally new perception. As a matter of fact, using
China’s perceptions of the periphery and the periphery’s understanding ofChina amounts to more than just pursuing a scholarly viewpoint; it expands
the scope of research on the history of China, breaking through “discoveringhistory in China”（see n. 4）, and thus offsetting its inadequacies. By deciphering the Korean, Japanese, and Annamese courts’ understandings andperceptions of China, as well as changes in these understandings and perceptions over time, we can gain insight into some features of Chinese history
itself. Regardless of whether there was a common Asian or East Asian identity, since there was an identical or similar historical background, peripheral
countries such as Japan and Korea, under the watchful eye of such institutions as Confucianism, Buddhism, and literary Chinese learning, preserved
many Chinese sources, and the literati in these countries strongly identified
with Chinese history in their thought. Only from the modern age did China,
Japan, and Korea take different historical paths. As the author says, throughthe watchful eyes of neighboring East Asian countries, we can more clearly
perceive the fine details of Chinese culture, and thus have a greater probability of approaching historical reality. This is the methodology that the author
has vigorously pursued. It is also a field of research that the author has arduously proposed in recent years. And this book provides the guiding principles
of research in this field.
In addition, this book also touches on the doctrines of religions and theviewpoints of various regions. The entire book consists of three parts andeight chapters. Part 1, “Understanding China through History,” presents theperspective of Chinese history itself. Part 2, “Crisscrossing Asia, East Asia,
and China,” presents the Asian perspective. And part 3, “A Methodology for
Understanding the History of Asia and China,” discusses theoretical issues in
his methodology for researching Chinese history. He thus covers various
levels of history and sundry perspectives on history. Just as a physical object
is three-dimensional, so history is multidimensional, multifaceted, and multilayered. Hence, from multiple perspectives, there naturally are multiple
explanations in the elaboration of Chinese history. Accordingly, we must
engage in multiple studies of the events of Chinese history and offer multiple
explanations. This is perhaps the author’s basic point and his original purposein writing this book.

2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Author’s Research Topics
A multiple perspective aims at a multifaceted history. The author points
out that understanding Chinese history requires knowledge of three areas,

Book Reviews

107

namely, history, culture, and politics. “From the viewpoint of history, China isan entity whose spatial borders change. From the point of view of cultural
identity, China is a community with a clear and stable culture in its coreregion, though the boundaries of the periphery may be somewhat fuzzy. Fromthe point of view of the political system, ‘China,’ as many people use thename, refers to a dynasty or a government, but this dynasty or government, in
terms of political significance, is not the same as China the country, and iscertainly not the China mentioned in historiography.”5 The author thus clearly
divides China studies into three areas. This division enables us to return to
the long flow of history and see Chinese history as a dynamic process ofdevelopment, and also see the multifaceted issues of Chinese history. Hence,
this book asserts that to understand Chinese history, we need to study
different levels of history, with a special focus on the level of the history ofideas and the history of thought.
The historical viewpoint emphasizes regional shifts in China. That is, wecannot entirely rely on the borders of a given time to understand the bordersof the historical China, since the borders of China in every dynasty weredifferent. The borders of China during the Han dynasty were completely
different from those of the Tang dynasty, and those of the Yuan dynasty werecompletely different from those of the Ming dynasty. We have to adopt a
historical attitude. If we ignore the peculiar features of particular historicalperiods and rely entirely on our present understanding, we will end up with
one-sided views of other ages’ perceptions and evaluations of Chinese historical issues brought about by shifting borders. Part 1, “Understanding China
through History,” seeks the special features of the different ages of Chinese
history from a historical viewpoint. On the formation of the state, the Westhas consistently maintained that the nation-state is a modern phenomenon.
This viewpoint comes, of course, from Western society and history. Using thistheory to explain Chinese history gives rise to many problems, such as aproblem that Western Sinologists delight in discussing. As these Sinologists
view matters, throughout Chinese history there have only existed such dynasties as the Han, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing; there has never been atruly modern China. This view in fact involves placing theory before
evidence and selecting facts to fit the theory, since using this point of view to
explain Chinese history and the formation of the Chinese nation has severe
limitations. After extensively analyzing Song historical circumstances, theauthor points out, “Historically, a state that has borders has a definite territory, and a state that has territory constitutes a nation-state with international
relations. Owing to pressure from other increasingly powerful states, China
5 Ge Zhaoguang, Zhai zi Zhongguo, “Xushuo,” Appendix 1, p. 35.

108

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

gradually formed from the Song dynasty on. Chinese firmly identified withthe culture of this nation-state, and its historical tradition already had a solid
foundation. Moreover, ethical living in China was uniform and widespread,and the sphere of governmental administration was quite definite. Hence, theChinese nation-state is not necessarily connected with Western ‘modernity,’either spatio-temporally or in terms of subject matter.”6 Thus, Western modernity is conceptually ill-suited for explaining the Chinese nation-state, because“China did not develop from an empire into a nation-state. Rather, in theawareness of a borderless ‘empire’ was the concept of a limited ‘state,’ and in
the cognizance of the limited ‘state’ was preserved the image of the‘empire.’”7 This argument is quite important. It not only frees us from suchtheoretical interference from the West, but also provides an important conclusion obtained from the concrete details of Chinese history. It also puts on
display the author’s extraordinary penetration and strong theoretical constructiveness. By freeing ourselves of the Western theoretical control, taking as ourpoint of departure the details of Chinese history, and elucidating the special
features of Chinese history, we have eclipsed the relevant Western theories.
Though historically the dynasties of China had shifting borders, this in
no way affected the clear and stable identification of the people of the central
regions with Chinese culture. This is the central point of the present work. Be
it shifting borders or rising and falling dynasties, or even the division andunification of Chinese territory or the movement of peoples — no such events
determined the standard of judgment for Chinese history: identification withthe culture. Precisely because there was this identification with the culture, wehave in Chinese history this historical regularity of long division leading tounity（fen jiu bi he）, as well as the Mongol Yuan dynasty and Manchu Qing
dynasty unifying the country. More than four centuries of division during theWei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties period led to the thriving andprosperous Sui and Tang dynasties. Any theory that denies identification with
Chinese culture and favors another level of explanation is unreasonable andinapt. This cultural identification found expression within historical China andwithout as well, that is, in China’s relations with the periphery. In parts 1 and
2, the present work explores the profound influence of this cultural identification. Whether it be Chinese perceptions of peripheral regions prior to the
6 Ge Zhaoguang, Zhai zi Zhongguo, “Xushuo,” “Houxiandai lishixue: Cong
minzuguojia zhengjiu shenme lishi?”（Postmodern Historiography: What Typeof History Should We Save from the Nation-State?）, pp. 25 - 26.
7 Ge Zhaoguang, Zhai zi Zhongguo, “Xushuo,” “Ru he zai Zhongguo lishi zhong
lijie lishi Zhongguo”（How Should We Understand Historical China in Chinese
History?）, pp. 28 - 29.

Book Reviews

109

arrival of Matteo Ricci or Korean or Japanese perceptions of China after theseventeenth century, the central issue is identification with Chinese culture.
Hence, this perception of and connectedness with Chinese culture is an
important standard for understanding Chinese history and an important
perspective for grasping the premodern East Asian world. This cultural identification not only found expression in the tribute system and in depictions offoreign lands; it was also reflected in maps. The author points out that
premodern Chinese descriptions of foreign lands “were not based on contemporary individuals’ knowledge of actual reality but rather were imaginative
creations about ‘China’ and the ‘four barbarians’ of the world as understood
through the tribute system.”8 This is a profound conclusion. One can see thatthe author construes the issue of cultural identification as an importantmeasure of the multifaceted nature of historical development and as thecentral research topic of this book.
The third level of historical research is research on political history, andthe author, of course, sees this level of research as important. But the present
work stresses that if we ignore cultural identification in Chinese history andidentify China with a particular dynasty or government, the results willappear very biased. The author thus firmly denies such Western theories as thetheory of conquest dynasties, the theory of nationalism, etc. He especiallydenigrates the tendency in the West to separate off from Chinese history the
Yuan and Qing dynasties, dynasties founded by minority nomadic peoples,rashly rending the holism of Chinese history and ignoring the core issue ofChinese cultural identification in Chinese history. For in Chinese history, raceand ethnicity were never a criterion for judging Chinese history, whereas
culture and cultural identification were. This fundamental viewpoint of thepresent work, a new perspective for the new age, derives from and develops
Chen Yanke’s “race and culture” thesis and Tu Weiming’s theory of “cultural
China.” Some Western Sinologists are satisfied with fragmentary knowledge
and partial understanding of Chinese history and are incapable of seeing thetotal picture of Chinese history and its overall characteristics, and this leads
them to introduce distortions. Hence, this book emphasizes that research inChinese history requires knowledge of three complementary and interconnected areas. Only by adopting a multilevel, multiperspective method of
elaborating Chinese history and understanding the connections of these threeareas can we grasp the nature of China and Chinese history. If we grasp one
aspect without knowing the rest, we will be unable to see the obvious and
8 Ge Zhaoguang, Zhai zi Zhongguo, chapter 2, “Shanhaijing, zhigongtu he lüyouji
zhong de yiyu jiyi” （Recollections of Foreign Lands in The Classic of
Mountains and Seas, Tribute Paintings, and Travelogues）, p. 83.

110

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

will find ourselves lost in a labyrinth of bias and narrow perspective. Hence,
though a linear, complex history can explain some aspects of Chinese history,
it can hardly grasp the overall characteristics inherent in Chinese history. The
author emphasizes a multidimensional perspective, the three most importantlevels of which are the perspectives of history, culture, and politics.
Yet geographical borders cannot define the scope of research on Chinese
history. When systematically researching the thread of internal developmentof Chinese history, by looking at perceptions in the periphery — especially
Korea, Japan, and Southeast Asia — we can supplement the deficiencies of an
exclusive interest in Chinese history by itself. This approach is not only
superior to researching Chinese history under the Western paradigm; it also
expands the scope of research on Chinese history and gives expression to thespecial features of multifaceted research in this area. In this work theauthor — whether discussing Japanese peripheral studies at the turn of thetwentieth century or advocating a comprehensive research methodology oftaking into account everything from the western regions to the easternseas — displays this multifaceted, multiperspective, multidimensional mannerof research. It appears in his perspectives, is reflected in his source materials,
and finds expression in the research topics he discusses. Thus, the great
contribution of this book lies in its breaking through received judgments anddefinitions to open up entirely new vistas and directions for development.

3. Questions
At first glance, the present work’s theoretical stance does not seem verystrong in comparison with other works, but a close reading leaves one feelingthat this book reveals a broad research perspective, opens up entirely newvistas in research in Chinese history, and offers a vast theoretical framework
based on a solid foundation of specialized research. Within this theoreticalparadigm, it is worthwhile to reevaluate many theses, and restudy many
issues, in Chinese history. Precisely for this reason, the excellent guidanceand superior scholarship contained in this work are well worthy of careful
study. Any work, of course, has its strong points as well as its deficiencies.
Especially in a work of broad theoretical import like this, it is difficult foreven the most knowledgeable author to avoid one slip among a thousand
concerns. That said, here I will raise a few doubts that occurred to me in thecourse of reading this book.
In the preface, the author explains that “Zhai zi Zhongguo”（Dwelling
Here in China [the Central Kingdoms]）in the title comes from the inscription
on the He Zun, a Western Zhou bronze wine vessel discovered in 1963 in
Baoji, Shaanxi, thereby hinting at his reverence for the Western Zhou dynasty（11th cent. - 771 BCE）
. For sure, Western Zhou had the most important influ-

Book Reviews

111

ence on China, for Western Zhou played a crucial role in the formation of theChinese people and in the establishment of China’s institutions and ideas. The
history of China as a relatively integrated whole began with the Shang（16th - 11th cent. BCE）and Zhou（11th cent. - 256 BCE）dynasties. The book’s
subtitle is “Chongjian youguan ‘Zhongguo’ de lishi lunshu”（Reconstructing
the History of the Concept of China）. This gives the reader the impressionthat the work discusses historiography on the whole of Chinese history. But
the whole book mainly focuses on Chinese history from the Song period（960 - 1279） on. It is a response to relevant Western, mainly American,
Sinological theses. Though the book occasionally mentions historical andrelated theses pertaining to periods prior to the Song period, in general it does
not systematically discuss them. It builds on a foundation of specialized
research and is somewhat different from the general run of monographs.
Hence, this criticism is perhaps a bit of nitpicking, but when I look at the titleof this book, I always feel that the contents of the book have not lived up to
the billing of the title. Hence, if in the future the author were to supplement
his work by considering pre-Song history and relevant theses so as to make itcover all of Chinese history, the theory of this work would be improved andthe reader would have a deeper understanding of the whole of Chinese
history.
The author is an important scholar of Chinese intellectual history, and thepresent work comes out of his research of that history. In this work the author
greatly stresses ordering the history of scholarship and understanding intellectual history. The three areas that the author emphasizes in China studies —
history, culture, and politics — all ultimately matter in terms of identification,that is, identifying with Chinese history, identifying with Chinese culture, andidentifying with Chinese politics. This in some sense is a development of theauthor’s approach to research in the history of Chinese thought, and in fact,
this whole book is quite relevant to Chinese intellectual history. This can beclearly seen in the titles of some of the chapters, such as chapter 1, “TheOrigin of an Awareness of China in the Song Period: Early Sources of
Nationalism in the Early Modern Age”; chapter 2, “Recollections of Foreign
Lands in The Classic of Mountains and Seas, Tribute Paintings, andTravelogues: Sources of, and Changes in, Chinese Awareness of Foreign
Lands before and after the Arrival of Matteo Ricci”; and chapter 3, “Old
Maps as Artifacts in the History of Ideas.” These titles all clearly express
approaches to research in the history of Chinese thought. This relevance toChinese intellectual history is a feature of this book. Thus, the author, inreconstructing the history of the notion of China, does so from the point ofview of intellectual history. This is an important point, for this approach gives
rise to many new conceptions. Though R. G. Collingwood（1889 - 1943）once

112

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

said, “All history is the history of thought,” the level of intellectual history
cannot take the place of the level of the actual happenings of history. Hence,
only paying attention to intellectual history and ignoring the actual happenings of history can give rise to problems.
For example, in discussing identification with East Asia, the author states,“If there really was identification with East Asia, it occurred before the midseventeenth century.”9 This assertion creates two problems. First, what is
identification with East Asia? Is it identification with Confucian culture? Or isit political identification or identification with an economic community? The
truth is that at different levels, we should give different responses. With thediversification of culture since the start of the modern age, identification with
East Asia has become more complicated, but economically the region is
becoming increasingly interconnected day by day. Receiving greater emphasis
today in the East Asian community are economic and geographical factors.
Hence, East Asian debates of the present and East Asian debates prior to theseventeenth century logically should be on different levels and from different
vantage points. Second, prior to the mid-seventeenth century, was there any
identification with East Asia? In answer to this question, we have a later time
limit, but not an earlier time limit — an issue that the book does not clearly
discuss much. We know that prior to the seventeenth century the Ming
dynasty made efforts to establish a Chinese world with the Ming court as its
center. It was this order that people identified with in East Asia. But what
were the circumstances in dynasties before the Ming, such as the Yuan, Song,and Tang dynasties? This is a topic worthy of detailed investigation.
The present work also states, “During the Ming and Qing periods, Japan,
Korea, and China, in transitioning from being one cultural family to going
their separate ways, reflected the final collapse of the Orient, that is, an East
Asian identification based on the culture of China. This gradual going ofseparate ways seemed to embody a great internal breakup of the Oriental
culture.”10 This perception is a grasp of some features of intellectual history,
but it is hardly a statement of all the features of history, since this breakup
was not all that perspicacious. Though there were some cultural rifts, theyhardly amounted to a breakup. The elements of division were insufficient torupture the great East Asian network of Confucian culture. Rather, they were
only enough to raise doubts and rebellions against East Asian unity, but
because the influence of the West was still quite uncertain, nothing new cameof these rebellions. Indeed, Nishijima Sadao’s four pillars of the East Asian
9 Ge Zhaoguang, Zhai zi Zhongguo, “Xushuo,” p. 12.
10 Ge Zhaoguang, Zhai zi Zhongguo, chapter 4, “Xifang yu Dongfang, huozhe shi
Dongfang yu Dongfang”（West and East, or East and East）, pp. 152 - 153.

Book Reviews

113

world — Chinese characters, Confucianism, Buddhism, and the Chinese traditional legal system — were still in place, as before, and though there were
fissures in East Asian identification, with the result that the East Asian world
was not as unified as under the Ming dynasty, still this cultural spherepersisted. And from the mid-eighteenth century, these fissures gave way torevival of pre-sixteenth century unity. Thus, in the early nineteenth century,
both Japan and Korea, when first confronted with Western attacks, adopted apolicy of national seclusion, and China, Japan, and Korea all remainedcommitted to Confucian culture. To take Korea as an example, perhaps Korea
did not identify with Qing China as much as it identified with Ming China,
but this does not imply that Korea totally lacked identification with Qing
China. Though early in the Qing period Korea harbored strong rebellious
sentiments against the Qing court, by the late Qianlong period（1736 - 1795）,
it started to change. While in its discourse it continued to call the Qing court“barbarians” （yidi）, in terms of actual actions, it greatly changed how it
regarded the Qing court, which it now regarded as a suzerain. Hence, when in
the modern period Korea faced invasion from the West and Japan, Korea
turned to the Qing court for support. And the Qing court lived up to its duty
to protect Korea to the point where war broke out between China and Japan（the First Sino-Japanese War） in 1894-1895 when their interests collided.
From this one can see that history never follows a straight line, nor does it
totally develop in one direction. There are many reversals and complications.
The present work points out, in relation to the above, that some Koreansthought, “What came after the Ming dynasty was not China.”11 This is one ofthis book’s most important perspectives. This perspective relies mainly on an
essay by Kim Chong-hu（1721 - 1780）challenging Hong Tae-yong（1731 1783）, pioneer of the Northern School, in which he criticizes Hong Tae-yongfor his association with the Qing scholar Yan Cheng（1732 - 1767）. While thisline of thinking represented the thought of some Koreans of the time, as
Hong Tae-yong said in response to this criticism, this line of thinking is notpractical. Hong Tae-yong criticized Koreans who thought of themselves as a“little China,” as engaging in parochial arrogance. He forcefully stated thematter thus: “We in the east are the barbarians! . . . Why call for such ataboo?”12 That is to say, quite a number of people did not think that Korea
was culturally superior to Qing China. After all, Koreans were called
11 Ge Zhaoguang, Zhai zi Zhongguo, chapter 4, “Xifang yu Dongfang, huozhe shi
Dongfang yu Dongfang,” p. 153.
12 Hong Tae-yong, “Utae Chikchae sŏ”（Another Reply to Kim Chong-hu）, inTamhŏn sŏ（Collected Works of Hong Tae-yong）（Seoul: Minjok Munhwa
Ch’ujinhoe, 1999）, vol. 3, p. 67.

114

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012“barbarians”（yi）. Compared to Kim Chong-hu, Hong Tae-yong represented a
new generation of literati coming to the fore. This new generation of literati
took the former remote identification with China and gradually aligned it
closer to Qing China. With the appearance of the Northern School and under
the leadership of such men as Yi Tŏk-mu（1741 - 1793）, Pak Che-ka（1750 1805）, and Pak Chi-wŏn（1737 - 1805）, Korean literati cast their lot with Qing
China and positively interacted with Qing scholars. At the height of suchinteraction, their dealings greatly exceeded Korean dealings with Ming
scholars. Hence, Kim Chong-hu’s statement “What came after the Ming
dynasty was not China” was no more than a statement; it did not reflect thereality of history at all.
SUN Weiguo
College of History, Nankai University











Review of Kinsei Higashi Ajia kaiiki no bunka kōshō （Cultural
Interactions in Maritime East Asia during Premodern Times）, by
Matsuura Akira. Kyoto: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 2010.［近世東アジア
海域の文化交涉／松浦章著. 京都：思文阁出版, 2010, ¥9,000, 448頁］

This book, with copious illustrations and maps, ample quotations from
Chinese and Japanese primary sources, and detailed analysis, is a masterfultreatment of the cultural contacts among East Asian countries during theMing and Qing periods. It makes a major contribution to the development ofa promising new discipline: cultural interaction studies. Departing from thetraditional approach, which examines international relations from the viewpoint of a single country or two countries, this new discipline treats East Asia
as a complex and multilayered cultural entity. It pays attention to the formation of culture and its spread to other countries. But more important, it also
attempts to answer the fundamental question of how different cultures within
East Asia were transformed when they encountered one another.
The book under review is a collection of sixteen articles published from2002 to 2009. The author has carefully revised these articles before incorporating them into this collection. He has also organized the articles into fourparts, each examining a specific topic.

Book Reviews

115

The four articles in part 1 deal with issues concerning cultural contacts
between Qing China and Japan. There are detailed discussions of the Qing
court’s changing policies toward maritime activities and how these changes
affected Tokugawa Japan, which lacked formal diplomatic relations with
China and secluded itself from international contacts. Yet Japan at that time
did not live in total isolation from the outside world. Although the Japanese
shogunate officially banned Japanese commoners from maritime trade, it
allowed Chinese merchants to trade at Nagasaki, which served as a window
for Sino-Japanese cultural exchanges. When Japan eventually opened its door
to the outside world, the Japanese government established a shipping line
between Japan and Shanghai as a channel for trade, transportation, andcommunication with Qing China. The Qing court tried to open a similar line
to be operated by its own steamboats, but the Japanese government blockedthat effort.
Part 2 of the book, also consisting of four articles, focuses on culturalinteractions between Qing China, Korea, and Ryukyu. These articles revealthat interactions between two countries could also take place in a third
country. In 1534 envoys from Korea and Ryukyu visited the Ming court. They
took the opportunity to know not only their host, but also one another.
Moreover, cultural interactions were the business of both officials andcommoners. In the case of China, people from coastal Fujian Province played
an important role. Detailed discussions of the economic backgrounds of thesepeople offer a convincing explanation for their motive in leaving home toseek a new life overseas.
Part 3 of the book touches on how cultural interactions were conducted
between Qing China and Tokugawa Japan. The first case is that of Ichikawa
Kansai（市河寛斎）, a late-Edo period poet who authored Zuien shishō（隨園詩鈔 Selected Poems from Suiyuan）. When compiling his work, Ichikawa did
not simply transcribe all the poems from the original Chinese work, Suiyuan
shihua（隨園詩話）, by Yuan Mei （袁枚）. Instead, he acquired the Xiao
Cangshan fang shichao （小倉山房詩鈔）, another work by Yuan Mei, andselected from it only certain poems for inclusion in his own work. Ichikawa’spractice indicates that when introducing Chinese literary works to Japan,
Japanese scholars did not embark on wholesale cultural importation from
China. Rather, they were selective when borrowing from China. This was avery important aspect of Sino-Japanese cultural relations.
Participants in cultural interactions were not confined to intellectuals in
China and neighboring countries. Commoners with minimum education in
Chinese were also a part of this process. Asian sailors on the high seas sometimes suffered shipwreck. When they were rescued by local authorities in
China, Korea, Japan, Ryukyu, or Vietnam, they would stay for a short period

116

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

in the host country. With the help of interpreters, local officials would interview these sailors to establish their identity before repatriating them. During
such an interview, some of the sailors would use Chinese characters toprovide information on the culture, politics, and economy in their homecountries. Records of these interviews in primary sources serve as a reminderof the various forms of cultural interactions among countries where Chinese
was the written language.
We should not assume, however, that the connotations of Chinese terms
used in the context of cultural interactions were static and unchanging. The
term maiban（買辦）is a case in point. Commonly rendered in English as“comprador,” a maiban before 1842 was a Chinese who procured provisions
and other necessities for foreign merchants whose ships anchored in
Guangzhou. These agents also acted as middlemen for these merchants when
they wanted to sell their cargoes or purchase Chinese goods. Yet they were
not hired by foreigners but employed by one of thirteen Chinese trading firms（hang）in Guangzhou. And these firms were controlled by the Qing court.
The role of a maiban before 1842 thus revealed monopoly and control as partof the nature of the Qing foreign-trade system. This system was replaced byfree trade after 1842, when the Qing court was forced to open five seaports toforeign traders. There were still compradors in this new system. But they
were now hired by foreigners as interpreters and middlemen, and were nolonger employees of a Chinese firm. Although Chinese records still used theterm maiban to refer to these people, the function and role of a maiban was
now different from that of his predecessor before 1842.
The brief stay of sailors in foreign countries and their contact with local
authorities does not mean that cultural interactions in premodern times were
sporadic. There were foreigners who made sustained efforts at learning the
Chinese language and culture. And their efforts are an important characteristicof the interactions in question. Examples of such foreigners include James
Flint, a member of the British East India Company, and George Thomas
Staunton, son of a member of the British delegation to Qing China in 1793.
Cultural exchanges were multilayered activities. They had scholarly,
economic, as well as material dimensions. The four articles in part 4 of thisbook examine the movement of such goods as books, porcelain, live pigs, andtea between Qing China and Japan, and its impact on the two countries. From
1801 to 1809, Chinese merchants doing business in Nagasaki purchased andbrought home some Japanese books. These were Japanese editions of Chinese
works. Some of the original Chinese works had long been lost in China, butcopies had been preserved and reprinted in Japan. These Japanese works
facilitated Chinese scholars’ textual study of Chinese works that had previously been unavailable in China. This scholarly aspect of Sino-JapaneseBook Reviews

117

trading activities during the Qing dynasty was culturally significant, andtherefore deserves our attention.
When the Qing court relaxed its control over maritime activities after
1684, overseas trade by Chinese merchants from Fujian Province flourished.
In this trade, chinaware was a major item of trade. Such chinaware, however,
was not necessarily from the famous kilns in Jingdezhen, Jiangxi Province,
but often from private kilns in Fujian Province.
Further studies of trading goods also reveal that changes in Sino-Japaneserelations affected not only trading patterns between the two countries, but also
particular economic sectors in Taiwan. A case in point is live pigs. Taiwan
used to acquire large numbers of pigs from Fujian and Zhejiang provinces for
local consumption, and such purchases were part of Qing domestic trade.
After 1895, however, Japan subjected Taiwan to its colonial rule. Japanese
authorities in Taiwan imposed strict control over importation of Chinese live
pigs and encouraged the Taiwanese to raise pigs locally. This policy led to a
sharp decease in the importation of Chinese pigs. Taiwan consequently developed into a major producer of live pigs in Asia in the 1930s and exported live
pigs to China through Hong Kong.
High-quality Taiwanese tea was another major trading item in SinoJapanese trade. Modern scholars have pointed out that Taiwanese tea was soldto such places as Manchuria, Xiamen, and Europe. A closer study of the tea
trade between Taiwan and Xiamen shows that although tea merchants from
Xiamen managed this trade, the final destination of their cargo was not theirhometown, but ports in Southeast Asia. These Xiamen merchants often held
dual citizenship. This allowed them to open branch offices near present-day
Taipei, where they purchased high-quality tea in large quantities at relatively
low prices. They then shipped the tea back to head offices in Xiamen. The tea
was not meant for local consumption, but for exportation to Southeast Asian
countries, where there were large populations of tea-drinking overseas
Chinese.
In studying maritime activities, modern scholars usually focus on official
or private trading activities. Yet there was another form of trading activity:
piracy, which considerably affected maritime Asia. I would like to draw thereader’s attention to another work by Professor Matsuura, Higashi Ajia kaiiki
no kaizoku to Ryūkyū（Ryukyu and Piracy in East Asian Seas, 2008）, and also
to a recent work by my colleague Dr. Ivy Maria Lim, Lineage Society on theSoutheastern Coast of China: The Impact of Japanese Piracy in the 16th
Century（2010）. These two studies on piracy add yet another interesting layer
to our understanding of cultural and economic interactions in East Asia, thus
allowing us to see the interactions in question as a whole.

118

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

WANG Zhenping
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore











Review of Bunka kōshō gaku to gengo sesshoku: Chūgoku gengogaku ni
okeru shūen kara no apurōchi （Cultural Interaction Studies and
Linguistic Contact: The Peripheral Approach in Chinese
Linguistics）, by Uchida Keiichi. Suita, Japan: Kansai Daigaku
Shuppanbu, 2010. [文化交渉学と言語接触 : 中国言語学における周縁からのアプローチ／内田慶市著. 吹田 : 関西大学出版部, 2010. ¥4,200,
357頁]

The present book is divided into three parts: “Introduction: The Peripheral
Approach in Chinese Linguistics as an Area of Cultural Interaction Studies,”“Part 1: Linguistic Research in the Periphery,” and “Part 2: Modern EastWest Cultural Interaction as Seen from Iconography.”

Introduction
The introduction loudly proclaims the establishment of the new disciplineof cultural interaction studies, and then forcefully presents the distinctions
between periphery and center, individual and general, special and universal, indeveloping its thesis. That thesis can be summarized as follows.
Cultural Interaction Studies To start off, what are cultural interaction
studies? Let us listen to what the author, Uchida Keiichi, has to say.
Cultural interaction studies, at least in the case of the history of SinoJapanese cultural interaction, was formerly conducted within a twonation framework. In fields of research as well, knowledge was accumulated in the separate academic silos of such disciplines as linguistics,
philosophy, ethnology, religion, literature, and history, and a means ofgrasping the overall picture of cultural interaction was lacking. In
contrast, the cultural interaction studies that we propose seeks to transcend states, nations, and individual disciplines; assumes a composite
body of culture found in all of East Asia; and attempts to grasp thetotality of cultural interaction from a synthetic perspective while keeping
an eye on cultural formation, propagation, contact, and change within

Book Reviews

119this cultural sphere.（P. 3）
That is, in this new discipline, since we are dealing with interaction, we
necessarily assume a framework of two or more nations, but we attempt tograsp East Asia as a totality and carry out research on an appropriately grandscale.
The Periphery and the Center To realize this grand conception, we haveto adopt an approach from the periphery, we are told. What is the periphery?
The author writes,
Well, in many matters, if one looks just at the center, one often cannot
grasp the essence of the matter. In the center of a typhoon, there is nowind; the wind blows in the periphery. The ancients put the matter well.
For instance, in Japan, we have the sayings “The base of a tall lamp isdark”（Tōdai moto kurashi）and “The onlookers of a game of go seeeight moves in advance [that is, more than the players themselves]”（Okame hachimoku）. And China has the sayings “Participants are
perplexed, while observers see clearly”（Dang ju zhe mi; bang guan zheqing）and “We do not see the full face of Mt. Lu; we only climb up aside of the mountain”（Bu shi Lushan zhen mianmu; zhi yuan shen zai cishan zhong, Su Shi [1037 - 1101]）.（P. 4）

The Periphery and the Center, the Individual and the General, theSpecial and the Universal
The author continues,
In linguistics, the connection between periphery and center is similar tothat between individual and general, and that between special anduniversal. To present my conclusion up front, the members of these pairs
are not opposites. Rather, they supplement each other. The relationship is
not one of this or that, but one of this and that.
But most linguists who study a particular language（such as Chinese,
Japanese, or English）limit their research to that particular language. In
contrast, general linguists harbor the conceit that general linguistics is a
guiding theory, that it can solve the problems of individual languages.
（Pp. 10, 11）
He thus severely criticizes the present state of linguistics research.
The author quotes the Japanese linguist Tokieda Motoki（1900 - 1967）:
The universal and the special do not exist as opposites to each other.
Within every special phenomena there are universal aspects. This can besaid not just of Japanese, but of everything in general. An investigation
into the special phenomena of Japanese also clarifies the universal
aspects of language in general.

120

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

He then, without reserve, pours scathing criticism on English linguists as well:Those who study language, whether they be linguists of a particularlanguage or general linguists, should reconsider Tokieda’s discussion of
the relation of the special and the universal. Many of Japan’s English
linguists especially need to digest this discussion well. When structural
linguistics was fashionable, they headed in that direction. When that lostits appeal, they embraced transformational grammar. Then when that did
not work, they moved on to case grammar. Then cognitive linguistics
became all the rage.（P. 13）
The Individual = the General, or the Special = the Universal Since linguistics arose from within the Indo-European languages, the author casts doubt onwhether it is really universal.
In the Indo-European languages, in general, the sentence has a subject,
and the subject carries out the action. From this fact, they reason in apriori fashion to the conclusion that the sentence consists of a subject
and a predicate. Even Noam Chomsky, who led a revolution in linguistics, blithely assumes the S = NP + VP structure in his analyses.（P. 15）
He thus dispatches Chomsky with one fell stroke, and with the return strokeof his sword, he cuts down the notion that one can explain even simple,
everyday Chinese sentences with the S = NP + VP analysis:
But in Chinese and Japanese, this pattern does not necessarily hold. In
Japanese, some scholars assert, the subject can be suppressed. And in
Chinese, one cannot explain the following examples with the subjectpredicate pattern.
Qianbian lai le yige ren.（Someone came out in front.）
Boli sui le.（The glass broke.）
Zheli de shui keyi he.（The water here can be drunk.）
Xia yu le.（It started to rain.）
Such examples of sentences expressing existence or appearance, of thenatural passive, and of topicalized sentences do not fit the subject-predicate pattern. That being the case, the S = SP + VP rule applies only toindividual languages and is not an essential feature of all languages.（P.
15; some Chinese examples omitted by this reviewer）
In That Case, What Should We Do? The author advocates starting fromthe basic question, What is language?
In the study of Chinese grammar, the deep study of individual
phenomena does indeed yield progress in the field, but what is lacking isa systematic overview of the whole structure of Chinese grammar. We
have a pile of studies on whether le（the perfect particle）can appear twice

Book Reviews

121

in a sentence, whether zai（to exist）can be used in the progressive form,
when de（a particle indicating modification）is used to attach a modifier
to a head noun, and what the difference is between a complement and aparallel modifier, etc., without any explanation of what a sentence is, orwhat a subject and predicate are. But more than anything else, what is
missing is the essential question of what language is. What is missing isa view of language, or to exaggerate, a worldview. Can this be calledscholarly progress?（P. 5）
Things do indeed stand as Uchida has indicated. But is it not extraordinarily
difficult for researchers to put the his suggestions into practice?
Determination to Establish a New Field of Study To conclude his
Introduction, the author quotes Suzuki Satoru:
In scholarship, adopting a thesis on the nature of a discipline is agamble.... This gamble frightens scholars. Those who hold back, who gowith whatever theory happens to be popular without adequately investigating, can safely pursue their careers in academia, but such a rudderless
career is not the path of true scholarship.1
What comes through here is the author’s determination to burn his bridges
and face the challenge of establishing a new field of research.
The are other points in the Introduction worthy of mention, but since I
have limited space, I will move on and present a brief introduction to Parts 1
and 2 of the book.

Part 1: Research on Chinese in the Periphery
Here too there are many points worthy of mention, but I must limit myself
to the following two.
The Monumental Landmark of Nineteenth-Century Chinese
Grammatical Research: Crawford’s Wenxueshu guanhua As one tryingout the peripheral approach, I find myself drawn to Westerners’ early
linguistic and grammatical studies and the thirty or so grammars and textbooks studied by the author. Among them, the most highly rated is
Wenxueshu guanhua（Mandarin Grammar, 1869）, by T. P. Crawford（GaoDipi）and Zhang Ruzhen. According to Uchida, this work has the following
three special features:“A important feature is that the present work treats measure words as an
1 Suzuki Satoru, “Keishiki to kinō no higan o tsuku taikeiteki bunpō ron”（ASystematic Grammar That Goes beyond Form and Function）, Honyaku no
sekai, June 1982: 25.

122

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012independent part of speech”（p. 99）.
“Worthy of notice is that this work clearly acknowledges the existence ofwhat today are called verbal-sequence sentences”（p. 102）.
“Another important feature is that sentences with the preposition ba areconsidered one type of verbal-sequence sentences”（p. 103）.
Summarizing, he writes, “Overall, this book is the most systematic nineteenth-century Chinese grammar written in vernacular Chinese prior to theappearance of Ma-shi wen tong（Chinese Grammar by Ma Jianzhong）. In thissense, this work is truly a monumental landmark in Chinese grammar”（p.
111）.
Discovery of a New Source: Bi Huazhen’s Yanxu caotang biji In his tireless efforts to develop a new discipline, the author came across some newsources, for example, Bi Huazhen’s Yanxu caotang biji（Notes from a Yanxu
Thatched Cottage）. Bi’s work was first introduced to the world by He
Qunxiong in Chūgokugo bunpōgaku kotohajime （The Origins of Chinese
Grammar）（Tokyo: Sangensha, 2000）. Up to that point, it was thought that
Ma-shi wen tong was the first systemic grammar by a Chinese author. Hence,
this earlier publication of a Chinese grammar by a Chinese author attracted
much attention. Though He Qunxiong pointed out the existence of Bi’s work,
he could not find the work itself. But Uchida did find the work. The circumstances of the discovery, he writes, were as follows:
In the Catalogue of the London Missionary Society Collection of the
National Library of Australia（2001.3）, there is a work titled Lunwen
qianshuo（Theses and Introductions）. I ordered the microforms of thisand another work. When it arrived, I was shocked to find that Lunwen
qianshuo was none other than the work that I had sought for so many
years, Yanxu caotang biji.（P. 114）
The discovery of Yanxu caotang biji may have been fortuitous, but because of
Uchida’s investigative spirit, Fate smiled on him.

Part 2: Modern East-West Cultural Interaction as Seen from Icons
Enticing Titles One after Another A look at just the titles of part 2 piques
one’s interest as to what the chapter contains. To wit,
Chapter 1: “Zixingche”
Chapter 2: An 1880 Theme Park and “Zixingche”（Roller Coaster）
Chapter 4: The Origins of Chinese Panel Comics
Chapter 7: The Word “Xiezhen”（Portrait）in China, Along with the Word
“Huaxue”（Chemistry）
Chapter 8: “There Are Even Bulletproof Vests”

Book Reviews

123

Chapter 9: Ironman No. 1
Chapter 11: The Clock Tower: Notes on the Expression of Time in Modern
Chinese
Chapter 12: China’s X-Ray Heritage
These titles had me flipping through the book to find out what they wereabout. Even when I initially laid my hands on this book, I found myself
involuntarily dipping into Part 2 first.
“Zixingche”（Bicycle） At first glance, the title “Zixingche” does not seemin any way special. Yet surprisingly, the illustration of a zixingche in Zhu qi
tu shuo（An Illustrated Dictionary of Instruments, 1627）shows that the wordreferred to automobiles. The question then becomes, When did “zixingche”
come to designate bicycles? According to the author’s investigations, inJiaohui xin bao（Church News）, vol. 2, no. 92（1870）and Zhang Deyi’s Ou
Mei youji（Travelogue of Europe and America, 1868）, the word was used tomean bicycles, but this usage seems to have been not widespread. As
evidence of limited usage, we can look at the English-Chinese and ChineseEnglish dictionaries published by Shangwuyin Shuguan from 1902 to 1936.
There we find that “jiaotache”（literally, tread vehicle）and “ziyouche”（literally, unconstrained vehicle）were used to mean bicycle, and “zixingche” does
not appear at all, according to the author（p. 250）. Not only that, “zixingche”
was used to mean roller coaster, to one’s surprise（chap. 2）.
This book, full of the author’s enthusiasm for developing a new field of
research, is quite good. Unfortunately, however, there are a few places where
the author’s interpretations of original passages give rise to doubts, and there
are also some misprints, although not as many as in previous works. Yet theseblemishes do not detract from the value of the work.
SATO Haruhiko
Kobe City University of Foreign Studies











124

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

Posttheoretical Research in the History of Japanese Thought
Review of Riben jinxiandai sixiangshi（A History of Modern JapaneseThought）, by Liu Yuebing. Beijing: Shijie Zhishi Chubanshe, 2010.
［日本近现代思想史／刘岳兵著. 北京: 世界知识出版社, 2010. RMB
52元, 463頁］

In 2009 Bian Chongdao and Lin Meimao arranged for the translation ofa Japanese multivolume work on public philosophy, to great acclaim.1 It is in
this context that the young scholar Liu Yuebing published Riben jinxiandai
sixiangshi （History of Modern Japanese Thought） in 2010 for scholars ofJapanese philosophical thought. Liu Yuebing is one of the most productive
scholars of Japan studies in China. After publishing Riben jindai ruxue yanjiu（Studies in Modern Japanese Confucianism）and Zhong Ri jinxiandai sixiang
yu ruxue（Modern Chinese and Japanese Thought and Confucianism）, he went
on to author the 463-page opus Riben jinxiandai sixiangshi（A History ofModern Japanese Thought）, thus producing a trilogy of comparative andspecialized research in three areas of intellectual history.2 His diligence inresearch and industry in writing have thus resulted in extensive achievements.
Lacking such knowledge and not as skilled in the art of the written word, I
undertake a review of Riben jinxiandai sixiangshi with a sense of inadequacy.
First, I must point out that Liu Yuebing’s point of departure is historicalresearch. Yet the approach of historical research is slightly different according
to whether we emphasize historical thought or the history of thought. If weemphasize historical thought, we have to assume a horizontal perspective（that is, a human or modern perspective）and analyze to get at the origin ofideas — their background and philosophical undercurrents. If, on the other
hand, we emphasize the history of thought, we have to assume a verticalperspective and explain ideas in their historical contexts in order to get at thetransmissions and transformations of these ideas in history. Yet regardless ofwhether we emphasize historical thought or the history of thought, we ineither case inevitably encounter a core issue, namely, how to discover andselect source materials concerning the “facts.”
1 Sasaki Takeshi and Kim Tae chang, eds., Kōkyō tetsugaku（Public Philosophy）（Tokyo: Tōkyō Daigaku Shuppankai, 2001 - 2006）. Sasaki Takeshi and Kim
Tae chang, eds., Gonggong zhexue （Public Philosophy）（Beijing: Renmin
Chubanshe, 2009）.
2 Riben jindai ruxue yanjiu（Beijing: Shangwuyin Shuguan, 2003）. Zhong Ri
jinxiandai sixiang yu ruxue （Beijing: Shenghuo, Dushu, Xinzhi Sanlian
Shudian, 2007）. Riben jinxiandai sixiangshi（Beijing: Shijie Zhishi Chubanshe,
2010）.

Book Reviews

125

In “Jiushi niandai Zhongguo de Riben zhexue yanjiu keti”（Topics ofChinese Research in the 1990s on Japanese Philosophy）, Bian Chongdao
points out, “Up to the present, there have been common weaknesses in our
research. The first is a lack of study of original documents. That is, in theiruse of materials, scholars rely on secondary materials and do not directly
refer to original sources. They thus depend on sources cited in the works ofother scholars. By limiting themselves to such secondary materials, theycannot verify their accuracy, nor can they grasp the significance of sourcesfrom larger textual contexts. Hence, it is difficult to avoid being confined toothers’ interpretations. . . . The fourth is that Chinese research on Japanesephilosophy, which is still in its infancy, borrows heavily from the relevant
research of Japanese scholars.”3 These are weaknesses that Liu Yuebing hasemphasized. Why, then, does the present work stress history and in particular
the issue of creating history? One reason, I think, is that he hopes to discovera new historical reality by reanalyzing the source literature; another is that heseeks to overcome the deficiencies in experience and approach of Chinese
scholarship. From this we can deduce that a major feature of this book is toemphasize study of historical documents and incorporate research results inorder to show the richness and possibilities of the history of thought, this inorder to provide material for diverse interpretations for scholars to select anduse. This will allow later scholars to write a Hegelian （or great-events）
history of thought, a great-man history of thought, or a history of thought
focused on various schools of thought（such as the Meirokusha, Academic,
and Kyoto schools）. In this regard, the scholarship of this work is valuable forthe foundation it lays.
The second feature that I would like to point out is that this book organizes
for us a framework for studying the history of thought. This framework is asfollows:
Chapter 1, “The Beginnings of Modern Japanese Thought”
Chapter 2, “The Enlightenment of the Early Meiji Period”
Chapter 3, “From the Promulgation of the Meiji Constitution to the RussoJapanese War”
Chapter 4, “The Development of Japanese Imperialism and the End of the
Meiji Period”
Chapter 5, “Topics of Thought in the Taishō Period”
Chapter 6, “The Intellectual Climate of the Taishō and Early Shōwa
Period”
3 Bian Chongdao, Xiandai Riben zhexue yu wenhua（Contemporary JapanesePhilosophy and Culture）（Changchun: Jilin Renmin Chubanshe, 1996）, pp.
242 - 243.

126

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

Chapter 7, “Issues in Postwar Japanese Thought”
The book thus considers Japanese thought from the Meiji Restoration to theearly Shōwa period up to the end of World War II, going as far back as the
rudiments of modern Japanese thought in the Edo period and foreshadowing
all the way down to postwar contemporary Japanese thought. And in
between, the author follows the structure of a Shakespearian play — introduction, complication, climax, resolution, and conclusion — to narrate history.
Especially when we come to the resolution （the topics of thought in the
Taishō period）and the conclusion（the intellectual climate of the Taishō andearly Shōwa period）, we can see how increasingly radical Japanese thoughtgave rise to contradictions and conflicts auguring Japan’s defeat and need forreflection.
One thing that has to be pointed out is that the focus of this book ispolitical thought. This focus may be intimately connected with the fact that
Liu Yuebing translated Nihon no shisō（Japanese Thought）, which impressed
him with its discussion of the history of Japanese political thought.4 Yet if weread the debates of the Meirokusha thinkers or the Taishō New Woman
thinkers in their larger contexts, we see that they were intertwined with thepolitical thought of the time, that they admit of being considered as part of therichness and possibility of the history of intellectual debate, the history offolk thought, the history of feminism, etc. In other words, the book provides
us with an effective framework for studying the history of political thought,
as well as a rich and possibility-filled framework for studying the history ofthought in such guises as the history of intellectual debate, the history of folk
thought, the history of feminism, etc. The book is thus useful as a reference
and for citation.
The third feature of the book that we can point to is its rich research
perspective. In China up to the present, research in the history of Japanesethought — be it the history of philosophical thought, the history of cultural
thought, the history of literary trends, or comparative history and the historyof cultural interaction — has focused on Confucianism, Buddhism, Shinto
thought, Marxism, the Kyoto School of Philosophy, modernization thought, or
postwar thought. Yet there is no work that presents the whole history ofJapanese thought. But more important, while we know that the history ofJapanese thought — in the transition from Confucianism to philosophy, from
China to the West, and from the West to Japan — has proceeded by importingand incorporating, transforming and reproducing, we have neglected in this4 Maruyama Masao, Nihon no shisō（Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1961）. Translatedby Qu Jianying and Liu Yuebing as Riben de sixiang（Japanese Thought）（Beijing: Shenghuo, Dushu, Xinzhi Sanlian Shudian, 2009）.

Book Reviews

127

process the details of Japanese internal contrasts and intellectual shifts. Yet
these details might well be the crux of intellectual history.
In this regard, this book highlights the intellectual conflicts and compatibilities of East and West, touches on the intellectual issues separating theWest, China, and Japan, and focuses on the Chinese experience. In the introduction of this book, the author expends considerable space in explaining thisexperience, but here I think that Liu is just trying to find a new research
perspective by elaborating this point of view, or what we may call Japanesethought as reflected in the Chinese experience. His basic goal is to advancefrom a notion of independently developing intellectual history to a notion ofmodern intellectual history as involving increasingly penetrating bidirectional
exchange. Such bidirectionality can break through the traditional notion of
premodern Japan’s learning from China and modern China’s learning fromJapan, as well as other entrenched modes of thought in each nation, andenable us to reorder modern East Asian intellectual history from the perspective of East Asian cultural exchange.
Liu Yuebing’s research has garnered much attention from Japanesescholars. Prof Azuma Jūji has written the paper “Ryū Gakuhei kyōju nokindai Nihon Jukyō kenkyū” （Prof. Liu Yuebing’s Research on Modern
Japanese Confucianism） specifically to introduce his work. In this bookreview he offers the following evaluation of Liu’s work prior to the publication of the present work: “Mr. Liu’s work is more of a discussion of thehistory of modern Japanese Confucianism than a discussion of the history ofmodern Japanese thought. Hence, we should regard this as a piece of researchin modern Japanese Confucianism, rather than as a piece of research inmodern Japanese thought. But since the history of modern Japanese thought
has mostly ignored Confucianism, Mr. Liu’s work will be highly valued.”5
Perhaps the present work is Liu Yuebing’s first attempt at a large-scale study
in the history of Japanese thought. In reviewing his work, we must consider
this fact, I think. Here I will attempt to state some issues concerning theapproach of research in the history of Japanese thought.
First, what is the methodology of research in the history of thought? In
the introduction to this book, Liu Yuebing asserts that our research approachadheres to a traditional way of narrating history, as opposed to that of an
American history of Japanese ideas or a British Cambridge history ofJapanese thought. Yet his intention is not to criticize the approach of historical research, but to express his disappointment at the state of basic historical
5 Azuma Jūji, “Ryū Gakuhei kyōju no kindai Nihon Jukyō kenkyū”（Prof. Liu
Yuebing’s Research on Modern Japanese Confucianism）, Tōhō, no. 336（February 2009）
: 26.

128

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

narration, the unreliability of research, the lack of introductions to necessary
and common knowledge, and the paucity of translations of the basic literature. In other words, Liu Yuebing seeks to institute a thoroughgoing research
approach to history. I, however, would like to ask, What is the path of development of general history on the one hand and of the history of thought on
the other? These two must be strictly separated. Also, I think that the research
approach to historiography is only one method of researching the history ofthought, even though this approach can be considered the most important. Not
only that, but for this book we have to pay attention to continuities andruptures in the history of thought, and to the special features of Japanesethought. The continuities and ruptures of the history of thought do not alignnicely with different dynasties and reign periods; history as demarcated bygreat historical events is not inevitably the same as the history of thought; andfending off Western thought does not necessarily entail the formation andestablishment of Japanese thought. Especially when we reach the contemporary period in the study of modern Japanese thought, how do we define thecontinuities and ruptures of the modern period, what do we demark as principally Japanese, what falls under the rubric of thought, and what is the value
and significance of history? What we need, I think, is a comprehensive overview that will answer these questions. For these questions have not beenanswered, and this circumstance is somewhat disappointing.
Second, what is the purpose of research in the history of thought? In thiswork Liu Yuebing has included a chronology of modern Japanese thought anda detailed bibliography, thus providing a model for future scholars, but thisbook lacks a basic introduction to the focus and issues of previous research in
the history of Japanese thought and lacks an overview of research in thehistory of modern thought. Though one can understand his desire to present
just the facts, avoid the perplexities of previous research, and give only his
own opinions, this stance no doubt makes this research sink into an ocean of
historical materials and issues, amid which it is difficult to discern theauthor’s views. Indeed, what is the author’s perspective for criticallyassessing thought? This issue may puzzle readers. Take the research on thehistory of Japanese thought by the Japanese scholar Maruyama Masao. As thebasis of his discussion, Maruyama asks, “Why did Japan become the firstnation of the East to modernize?”6 Here I only wish to comment that if we
treat Chinese Confucian thought as a type of political thought and ignore its
self-cultivation aspect, we obviously give short shrift to the Neo-Confucian
6 Maruyama Masao, Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū （Studies in the History ofJapanese Political Thought）（Tokyo: Tōkyō Daigaku Shuppankai, 1952, 1983）,
postscript.p.7

Book Reviews

129

doctrines of Zhu Xi（1130 - 1200）. Not only that, on whether the history ofpolitical thought mentioned by Maruyama can be grouped together with
Confucian political assertions, we need to maintain a cautious and skeptical
attitude. In any case, we have to recognize where we stake our position in our
research of the history of thought. If previous research in the history ofthought was strongly critical, such a critical attitude is now becoming weaker
and weaker almost to the point of extinction. Of key interest is whether or notthere is a specific critical attitude, namely, why the subject of our research
exists and whether its logic is reasonable. In his research, Liu Yuebing seeks
to collect and organize historical materials, and he has produced much admirable research full of humanistic concern and a sense of hardships. But I also
have to point out that collecting and organizing historical materials is notresearch in the history of thought and should not be regarded as the purposeof research in the history of thought.
Third, what is the value and significance of research in the history ofthought? The foundation of thought, rooted in philosophical knowledge,
drives the development of history and the social climate of opinion leading toprogress in society. For modern Japan, such philosophical knowledge camefrom the West, and on the basis of such philosophical knowledge, Japan
oriented its knowledge and established the rationality and methodology of its
thought.7 But what is the value and significance of researching the history ofJapanese thought for us as researchers? Tanigawa Michio, professor emeritusof Kyoto University, once noted, “After World War II, Japanese research inChinese history focused on how to reconstruct Chinese history as a history ofdevelopment,” and he stated, “The ultimate goal of Japanese research inChinese history is to systematize it in accord with the general view of world
history.”8 So, must we annotate our research in the history of Japanesethought to explain how it fits into the context of a systematic Japanese, oreven general world, history? While it can be said that Liu Yuebing’s notion of
bidirectionality transcends this stance, how we establish our views as rationaland methodological in the Western paradigm of knowledge is an important
test of the success of our research in the history of thought.
Establishing one’s views as rational and methodological might involve aJapanese literatus’s working within his understanding of Confucianism, or an
7 Fujita Masakatsu, Gendai shisō to shite no Nishida Kitarō（Nishida Kitarō as（Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1998）, p. 30.
a Modern Thinker）
8 Tanigawa Michio, General preface to “Riben Zhongguoshi yanjiu yicong”（Translations of Japanese Research in Chinese History）, in, for example,
Shimada Kenji, Zhongguo sixiangshi yanjiu（Studies in the History of Chinese
Thought）, translated by Deng Hong（Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe,2009）, pp. 3 - 4.

130

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.3 2012

idea beneficial for China derived from the Japanese intellectual tradition, or
an idea directly imported into China from the West but also compared with its
adoption in Japan. In any case, what we want to maintain is our right tointerpret history. In a Sino-Japanese philosophical conference in Shenyang in
2009, Prof. Bian Chongdao asked, We are studying Japanese philosophy, but
if the Japanese do not accept such a concept, what are we to do? The answer,
I think, is that in our study of Japanese philosophy, we need to establish ourown notions of rationality and methodology within our own logical framework.
I titled this review “posttheoretical research in the history of Japanesethought” as a criticism of postmodernism. Having immersed ourselves in thetheories of the West, we have found that we have lost our own point of viewand have sunken into a state of diffidence. Postmodernism is destructive, andhere we are using it to undermine prior research in the history of Japanesethought operating under a different mindset. But such destructiveness helps us
to break out of the conceptual ruts of Japanese scholarship. As students of thehistory of Japanese thought, we do not need to reject from the beginning the
research approaches of the United States, Britain, or Germany, nor do weneed to embrace from the beginning the research approach of the field ofJapanese studies. Rather, we need to develop our own methodology by
pursuing and cross-applying our approaches, while conscientiously exploringand explaining historical materials.
Somehow or other, we have to develop our own approach, and exploringhistorical materials is always a good first step. The research approach developed by Liu Yuebing explores historical materials to verify the facts, and in
this way seeks to surmount our tendency to rely on others’ scholarship so that
we can directly encounter the historical predicament. While some may thinkthat this is a mistaken path, I think that research in the history of Japanesethought does not offer us an alternate route. We must directly face the historical facts and develop an approach and perspective for research in this field.
In this regard, Liu Yuebing’s informed discussion has clear import for futuresystematic historical research and historical case studies.
WU Guanghui
Department of Japanese Language and Literature
Xiamen University