51

Long-Term Considerations
on Constructing Academic Discourse
ZHANG Qing*

Now is not the first time that the problem of constructing Chinese academic
discourse has been raised. This problem has repeatedly arisen ever since theadvent of modernity in China. In essential form, it arose when, at the end of
the Qing dynasty (1644 1911), China, as a result of outsider inﬂuence, faced
challenges that had never before occurred in its three-thousand-year history.
As the Zhuangzi states, “Scholars, with their controversies, will rend theempire asunder.”1 It is in this context that modern Chinese scholarship has
developed. Hence, it is necessary to consider this background in discussing
the long-term development of modern Chinese thought and scholarship. On
this basis we can assert that knowing the origin of the problem not only helps
us to understand it, but also enables us to see that such a problem, eventoday, will provoke spirited discussion, and that we may have to reorient ourwork accordingly. Otherwise, we will end up repeatedly raising issues of thepast and will ﬁnd it diﬃcult give the problem depth.
Subject knowledge, marked by its disciplinary focus, is for China a
Western import. But “Western knowledge” and “Western disciplines” arehistorical categories that are not clearly demarcated. Moreover, from the
beginning, the Western knowledge imported into China has always had a
Chinese element added in.
Obviously, today’s academic discourse directly shines light on the gradual
growth of modern knowledge. Moreover, in gradually establishing modern
disciplines characterized by specialized knowledge, China borrowed from theWest. Two things are worth paying attention to here: (1) How was theWestern concept of disciplines transmitted to China? (2) How did China* Professor Zhang Qing is former Chair of the History Department at Fudan University
and former President of the Society.
1 道術將為天下裂 (Zhuangzi 莊子, “Tianxia” 天下).

52

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 8 2017

introduce the Western concept of disciplines? We pursue this question ofWestern imports because there is no known Western background. Moreover,in the growth of China’s modern knowledge, there are clear Japaneseelements, in addition to Western elements.
Disciplines determine the form of historical space and time. Like Chinesedisciplinary knowledge, Western disciplinary knowledge developed over thecourse of a long process.2 One thing is clear: the sciences did not all develop
at the same pace. It is generally accepted that “astronomy came ﬁrst. Thencame physics in the sixteenth century. Chemistry was developed in the eighteenth century.” And biology “developed only in the nineteenth century.”3
Immanuel Wallerstein revealed that in the latter half of the nineteenth
century, there were three tendencies that helped institutionalize science: (1)Universities established departments (or at least professorial positions) using
the names of disciplines. (2) National, and later international, scientiﬁc organizations were established. (3) Libraries began to use disciplines to organize
books by category. Many of the disciplines in the social sciences that we areaccustomed to today—disciplines such as anthropology, economics, history,
political science, and sociology—did not exist prior to the nineteenth century.
It was only in the latter half of the nineteenth century that these disciplines
became institutionalized.4 This shows that disciplinary knowledge in the Westas well was a product of the transformation of society.
In the growth of modern China, disciplinary knowledge was intimately
connected with each wave of transmission of Western learning to such an
extent that we have to trace back to the transition from the Ming to Qing
dynasty in order to discover its origins. From this alone, we can see that there
has always been input from the receiving culture, that there never was puretransmission of knowledge. The transmitters, owing to their status, had wide
discretion as to which areas of Western science to introduce to China, even toextent that they would suit Western knowledge to the Chinese framework forknowledge. And the receivers often took foreign knowledge and incorporated
it into a framework for knowledge with which they were familiar. The Jesuits
transmitted the understanding of knowledge of ﬁfteenth- and sixteenthcentury Europe. So, for example, A General Outline of Western Learning 西學凡, by the Jesuit Giulio Aleni (1582 1649), can be regarded as the essen2 David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific
Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to
A.D.1450 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
3 Abraham Wolf, A History of Science, Technology, and Philosophy in the Sixteenthand Seventeenth Centuries (London: Allen and Unwin, 1935).
4 Immanuel Wallerstein 华勒斯坦, Xueke, zhishi, quanli 学科 · 知识 · 权力 (Disciplines,
Knowledge, and Power) (Beijing: Sanlian Shudian, 1999), pp.213 226.

Long-Term Considerations on Constructing Academic Discourse

53

tials of courses of instruction of European universities. But Chinese accommodations are readily apparent.5 Hence, when we discuss Chinese absorptionof Western knowledge, we should realize that “Western knowledge” and“Western disciplines” are both historical concepts, and that from the startwhen China absorbed Western knowledge, it added Chinese elements.
Not only that, this transmission of knowledge diluted the national
distinctiveness of knowledge, to the point where late Qing talented individuals no longer felt constrained about acquiring Western disciplinary knowledge. A changed situation never before experienced in China’s 3,000-year
history thus arose in Chinese science. Zhang Taiyan 章太炎 (1868 1936), in“The Origin of Study” 原学, the ﬁrst essay in the revised version of his
Compelled Writings, wrote, “Looking at the sky and seeing how vast and hazy
it is, those who would take a scientiﬁc position feel that they have nothing torely on. Hence they rely on topographical similarities, regulations andcustom, or the properties of materials, in order to express themselves, and on
this basis call themselves a school of thought.” Taiyan already felt that in anage when people could reach the four corners of the earth, the age of using
topographical similarities and material properties to determine the direction of
study had already passed. “Nowadays those who engage in the technical arts
often consider society and its regulations and customs, in order to discern
their direction.”6 After reading The Theory of Evolution 天演論, the translation
by Yan Fu 嚴復 (1854 1921) of Thomas Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics, Sun
Baoxuan 孫寶瑄 (1874 1924) wrote, “The diﬀerence between Chinese scholarship and Western scholarship is that Chinese engage more in the study ofthe past, and Westerners engage more in the study of the future. What is thestudy of the past? Archaeology, for example. What is the study of the future?
Administration and natural science are two examples. In explaining the Way,
one can investigate the knowledge of the past, but I do not oﬀer this as an
5 Xu Zongze 徐宗泽, Ming-Qing-jian Yesuhuishi yizhu tiyao 明清间耶稣会士译著提要(A Synopsis of Jesuit Translations and Writings during the Ming and Qing Periods)(Shanghai: Zhonghua Shuju, 1949), p.289. Some commentators point out that it wasquite reasonable for Xu Guangqi 徐光启 (1562 1633), Li Zhizao 李之藻 (1565
1630), and Yang Tingyun 杨廷筠 (1562 1627), the three pillars of Chinese
Catholicism, to adopt a receptive attitude toward the Jesuits’ Christianizedastronomy (an astronomy incorporated into their system of theology), in order toshow that they accepted and wanted to study an advanced Western science (see Sun
Shangyang 孙尚扬 and Zhong Mingdan 钟鸣旦 (Nicolas Standaert), 1840 nian qiande Zhongguo Jidujiao 1840年前的中国基督教 [Chinese Christianity before 1840][Beijing: Xueyuan Chubanshe, 2004], p.206).
6 Zhang Taiyan 章太炎, “Yuan xue” 原學 (The Origin of Study), in Qiu shu xiang zhu
訄書詳注 (Compelled Writings, with Detailed Notes) (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji
視天之鬱蒼蒼， 立學術者無所因立學術者無所因。各因地齊
各因地齊、 政俗
政俗、 材性
Chubanshe, 2000), pp.37 43. 視天之鬱蒼蒼發舒，而名一家發舒而名一家。/ 今之為術者
今之為術者，多觀省社會
多觀省社會、因其政俗
因其政俗，而明一指
而明一指。

54

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 8 2017

example of knowledge of the past.”7 Here we can see late Qing scholars
seeking, through their eﬀorts in Chinese and Western scholarship, to createknowledge without national diﬀerences 國無異學.
In this learning without national diﬀerences, a universal notion of learning
學 replaced traditional notions of the Way 道 and substance 體, and wasdeveloped in discussions about universality and modernity. Yan Fu criticized
the idea of “Chinese substance and Western function” 中體西用, writing,“Chinese learning has its own substance and function, and Western learning
has its own substance and function. Separate them, and we can maintain both.
Combine them, and they will both end up on the ash heap of history.” Heemphasized, “What China lacks is Western learning. Hence, it is clear that
Western learning is the urgent task at hand.”8 Appropriate education proceeds
according to the level of knowledge (primary school, middle school, highschool). In On the Power of Knowledge to Change the World 論學術之勢力左右世界, Liang Qichao 梁啟超 asserted, “In Heaven and Earth, there is only one
power. What is it? It is called wisdom. It is called knowledge.”9 Here heclearly attributes the diﬀerences between China and the West to learning andsees the competition between China and the West as lying in the ﬁeld oflearning. Furthermore, he thought that learning is not new or old, nor does it
have a Chinese or Western perspective. He also saw Chinese and Western
intellectual interaction as having reached a temporary resting place. Wang
Guowei 王國維 (1877 1927) saw the controversies over useful versus uselessknowledge, over Chinese versus Western learning, over traditional versus
modern learning as all arising from lack of clarity regarding the signiﬁcanceof learning: “Those who speak of learning nowadays argue over new versus
old learning, Chinese versus Western learning, useful versus useless learning.
But I say to everyone, learning is not new or old, Chinese or Western, usefulor useless. Those who use these descriptors do not learn and do not know

7 Sun Baoxuan 孫寶瑄, Wangshanlu riji 忘山廬日記 (A Diary of the Master of Wangshan
Studio) (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 1983), vol.1, p.156. 今日中西學問之分界 中人多治已往之學
分界，
中人多治已往之學， 西人多治未來之學
西人多治未來之學。 曷謂已往之學曷謂已往之學？ 考古是也
考古是也。 曷謂未來之
學？ 經世格物是也
經世格物是也。惟闡道之學
惟闡道之學，能察往知來
能察往知來，不在此例
不在此例。
8 Yan Fu 严复, “Yu Waijiaobao zhuren shu” 与〈外交报外交报〉主人书 (Letter to the editor,
Diplomatic News), in Yan Fu ji 严复集, edited by Wang Shi 王栻 (Beijing: Zhonghua
中學有中學之體用，西學有西學之體用
西學有西學之體用，分之則並立
分之則並立，
Shuju, 1986), vol.3, pp.557 565. 中學有中學之體用
合之則兩亡。/ 中國所本無者
合之則兩亡
中國所本無者，西學也
西學也，則西學為當務之急明矣
則西學為當務之急明矣。
9 Liang Qichao 梁启超, Lun xueshu zhi shili zuoyou shijie 论学术之势力左右世界 (Onthe Power of Knowledge to Change the World), in Yinbingshi heji 饮冰室合集(Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1989), photographic reporduction, vol.1, “Wenji zhi liu”
文集之六, pp.110 116. 天地間獨一無二之大勢力
天地間獨一無二之大勢力， 何在乎
何在乎？ 曰智慧而已矣
曰智慧而已矣， 學術而已矣。

Long-Term Considerations on Constructing Academic Discourse

55

what learning is.”10
As one can readily see from these quotes, Western learning 西學 became
the new learning 新學, and the contest between China and the West became
the contest between the old and the new. As one writer notes, “Westernlearning transcended the tension between Chinese versus Western identity andacquired a more universal name: the new learning.”11 One can discern thistransformation in the appearance of series of books with titles mentioning the
new learning in place of books with titles mentioning Western learning.
Among books promoting the new learning was one titled The Court
Encyclopedia of the New Learning 皇朝新學類纂 (1901) and another titled The
Great Encyclopedia of the New Learning 新學大叢書 (1903), modeled onJapanese works and thus showing that Japan at the turn of the twentiethcentury had gradually become the nation from which China absorbed the newlearning. With the transition from “Western learning” to “the new learning,”
the universality of learning became more apparent. This universality not only
was compatible with China’s status as a backward nation, but also ﬁxed thearea of competition among nations in ﬁeld of knowledge. Late Qing literati
gradually came to accept that the competition between Chinese and Westernculture would be determined on the battleﬁeld of learning.
In times of epistemological crises in modern China, transfers of power
often found expression as transformations of the episteme. Nevertheless, wemust also realize that the construction of the modern episteme is a global,
universal aﬀair.
China accepted modern knowledge, with its disciplinary focus, for manyreasons, but the most basic is that Chinese culture experienced an epistemological crisis in the modern period. An epistemological crisis as expounded by
Alasdair MacIntyre is similar to Thomas Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm crisis.
People who live in one cultural tradition become immersed in its models andframeworks for perceiving and understanding the world. When the worldchanges so that they no longer understand it and their former concepts andframeworks no longer seem to help and indeed become obstacles to under-

10 Wang Guowei 王国维, “Guoxue congkan” xu 国学丛刊
国学丛刊，序 (“China Studies Series,”
Preface), in Wang Guowei yishu 王国维遗书 (Shanghai: Shanghai Shudian
今之言學者，有新舊之爭
有新舊之爭，有中西之爭
有中西之爭，有有用之學與
Chubanshe, 1983), vol.3, p.202. 今之言學者
11

無用之學之爭 余正告天下曰
無用之學之爭。
余正告天下曰：學無新舊也
學無新舊也，無中西也
無中西也，無有用無用也
無有用無用也。凡立此名者
凡立此名者，均不學之徒，即學焉而未嘗知學者也
不學之徒
即學焉而未嘗知學者也。
Luo Zhitian 罗志田, “Chuanjiaoshi yu jindai Zhong-Xi wenhua jingzheng” 传教士与近代中西文化竞争 (Missionaries and the Modern Competition between Chinese andWestern culture), Lishi yanjiu 历史研究 1996, no.6: 77 94.

56

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 8 2017

standing, this cultural tradition is in an epistemological crisis.12 In times of
epistemological crises in modern China, transfers of power often foundexpression as transformations of the episteme. That is, the grounded intellectual resources and epistemological foundations for discussing ideas about
the practical world and society came to be based on the development of
disciplinary knowledge, and tradition ceased to serve as a resource for
China’s episteme. As one author made clear, one of the decisive changes that
occurred during this period was that grounded discussion of ideas aboutsociety gradually forsook traditional intellectual resources and adopted
modern ideas closely associated with the European Enlightenment. Suchdiscussion made use of such ideas as equality, freedom, and the people tospin political narratives about society, and it sought grounded intellectual
resources for the discussion in the new disciplines of sociology, anthropology,
political science, and other social sciences.13
And yet this transformation of the episteme did not arise indigenously. In
fact, from the nineteenth century on, the construction of the modern episteme
has been a global aﬀair. It began in the central societies of Europe, whichthen exercised their technological power over peripheral societies. Edward
Shils regarded this as one of the surprising changes of modern societies, andhe emphasized that this sort of change was the result of not only of the
spreading inﬂuence of central societies on peripheral societies but also of
peripheral societies’ admiration of central societies.14 The changes that haveoccurred in Chinese society and culture in the last century are a direct resultof the center-versus-periphery conﬁguration that has emerged in the global
human community from the nineteenth century on. As Chinese society gradually lost the beliefs, values, and symbolic order that it formerly defended, it
looked to the central societies for a model to construct outward-looking
beliefs, values, and symbolic order. Hence, the modern episteme in its
12 See Shi Yuankang 石元康, “Chuantong, lixing yu xaingduizhuyi” 傳統
傳統、理性與相對主
義 (Tradition, Rationality, and Relativism), in his Cong Zhongguo wenhua dao
從中國文化到現代性：典範轉移
典範轉移？ (From Chinese
xiandaixing: Dianfan zhuanyi? 從中國文化到現代性
Culture to Modernity: A Paradigm Change?) (Taipei: Dongda Tushu, 1998), pp.3
28.
13 See Liu Xiaofeng 劉小楓, “Zhongguo wuzhengfuzhuyi yu xiandai wutuobang siwei”
中國無政府主義與現代烏托邦思維 ( Chinese Anarchism and Modern Utopian
Thinking), Ershiyi shiji 二十一世紀 (Chinese University of Hong Kong), no.27(February 1995): 43 52.
14 Edward Shils, Center and Periphery (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975).
I rely here on Ye Qizheng 葉啟政, “Bianchuixing yu xueshu fazhan: Zailun kexue邊陲性與學術發展：再論科學中國化再論科學中國化 ( Peripherality and theZhongguohua” 邊陲性與學術發展
Development of Science: A Reexamination of the Sinicization of Science), in
Xiandaihua yu Zhongguohua lunji 現代化與中國化論集 (Taipei: Guiguan Tushu,
1990), pp.221 262.

Long-Term Considerations on Constructing Academic Discourse

57

Chinese variant is simply a reﬂection of Chinese society and culture being
demoted from the center to the periphery. As a result, Chinese society andculture sought to identify and nearly entirely rely on the learning of central
societies. (It is, of course, another matter whether China actually achieved
this goal.)
From historical debates as well, one can see that around 1905, when
China’s civil service examination was abolished, some disciplines, under theguise of “new learning,” promised to save Chinese society politically,
economically, culturally, and educationally. And as the 1923 debate on
science and philosophy of life 科學與人生觀 shows, the various debates raging
in intellectual circles (including historical, social, and cultural circles) allconcerned the development of such disciplines. Here one can sense thesensation that these debates caused. Starting with the debates on ancienthistory 古史辨 in the mid-1920s and 1930s, the idea of China’s three golden
ages, a former important ground for rational arguments concerning Chinesesociety, was dismantled, while construction of China’s scientiﬁc discourse
gradually bore fruit. As Qian Mu 錢穆 (1895 1990) said, “Chinese scientiﬁccircles of the 1930s had already developed a standard of objectivity.”15 To
establish modern disciplines, an objective standard must not only overcome
schools of thought and the master’s discipline; it must also develop relevant
academic institutions and learned societies. In short, it must have an institutional foundation.
Of course, our viewing the construction of modern knowledge as auniversal, global task does not mean that all types of knowledge areuniversal, much less that China’s development of science was simply a matterof transplanting and imitating, but perhaps from this development we canbetter understand the hardships that early Chinese scientists endured. One
cause for concern is that the modern universal knowledge that has molded theChinese humanities and social sciences this past hundred odd years hasmonopolized legitimate ideas about society deployed in arguments and has
become a decisive factor in giving birth to and nurturing modern Chinese
culture. Hence, if we accept the basic orientation of Chinese values and theurgent transformation of cognitive style in the modern period, then we haveto value the work of scholars of that period working in the sciences, for it
was their eﬀorts that established in China the modern system of disciplinary
knowledge.
15 Yu Yingshi 余英時, “You ji feng chui shui shang lin: Qian Mu yu xiandai Zhongguo
猶記風吹水上鱗：錢穆與現代中國學術錢穆與現代中國學術 (Remembering the Breeze on thexueshu” 猶記風吹水上鱗
Water: Qian Mu and the Development of Modern Chinese Scholarship), in his Qian
Mu yu Zhongguo wenhua 錢穆與中國文化 (Qian Mu and Chinese Culture)(Shanghai: Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe, 1994), p.15.

58

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 8 2017

Contemporary Chinese disciplines became established as a result of modern
global multidirectional transfers of culture. Hence, disciplines gradually
lost their national diﬀerences, and the scientiﬁc enterprise became thecommon cultural property of all humanity.
If in considering the establishment of academic discourse as a key factorof the modern age, we assert that the issue arose much earlier and thereby
deny that raising this issue at present has much value, we are merely
gesturing at an explanation. Since we cannot discern the nature of the issue atthe source, repeating arguments of the past will not prove very productive inunderstanding the establishment of academic discourse. But by sorting out theprocess whereby modern disciplines became established in China, it is not
diﬃcult to understand that this process was the outcome of multidirectionaltransfers of culture, and that China was not unique in this regard. The process
whereby practical Chinese society and intellectual resources for discussing
legitimate ideas of society gradually departed from traditional forms ofChinese knowledge and adopted modern forms of knowledge not only formed
an important link in the transformation of Chinese academic discourse, butalso constituted a portion of the global development of academic discourse. In
other words, disciplinary knowledge grouped under the headings of thenatural sciences, social sciences, and humanities has gradually lost its
national character and become the common property of all human civilization.
Compared to the natural sciences, the humanities and social sciences havemore of a national character. If we look at China studies, this ﬁeld in othercountries is basically the history of a foreign nation. Whether such histories
were written by Europeans or Japanese or Americans, they have all beendeveloped on the basis of accumulated scholarly traditions. Speciﬁcally, they
have their own particular traditions and senses of the issues, and they havedeveloped their own systems of discourse and their own systems of nomenclature. For example, since social backgrounds and academic traditions
change with diﬀerent generations of scholars and with time, American
Sinologists are discussing how they should follow through on their studies ofChina, how many connections and divergences they should seek in the issues
that concern each generation of Sinologists. As one scholar pointedly asked,“Do only Western historians of China bring their cultural preconceptions into
their research? And do not some explanatory paradigms entrenched in
Chinese academic circles need to be reexamined?”16 In fact, Chinese histories
16 Zhu Zhenghui 朱政惠, “Meiguo xuezhe dui Zhongguoxue yanjiu de huigu yu fansi”
美国学者对中国学研究的回顾与反思 (American Scholars Retrospect and Reﬂect on
Chinese Studies), Jianghai xuekan 江海学刊 2011, no.3: 149 159.

Long-Term Considerations on Constructing Academic Discourse

59of the West have shown the same sort of development.
Though there are many diﬀerences between Chinese and foreign scholarship, today’s academic discourse no longer relies on appeals to authority indiscussions of the past. By “authority” I mean, in addition to academic
training, particulars like country of origin and sex (male versus female). Only
by ridding ourselves of appeals to authority and engaging in scholarly criticism of particular research results can we return to scholarship itself anddiscuss its achievements and shortcomings. To be quite honest, Chinese
discussions and Chinese experiences are in fact often bound up with appeals
to authority, and Chinese scholars frequently engage in nitpicking about
particulars, rather than discussing conceptual matters. Moreover, when discussions exude a certain smug self-righteousness, we had better keep our guard
up. For this sort of attitude often leads to nitpicking about particulars, theidea being that only Chinese can truly understand Chinese history, andChinese society, that research on China carried out by Chinese is superior toresearch carried out by scholars of other nations.
“If a nation lacks a navy, it is nothing to be ashamed of. If a nation lacks
an army, it is nothing to be ashamed of. But if a nation lacks universities,
public libraries, history museums, and museums of ﬁne arts, then it has
something to be truly ashamed of.”17 This quote is from the diary that Hu Shi
kept when he was studying abroad in the United States. It reﬂects the hope of
intellectuals of the time that China would develop academically. Academic
development does indeed require system engineering, and in this regard, othernations have valuable experience in academic development that is worth
studying. There are several reasons why. For one, there are considerable
disparities in the academic resources of other nations. Nowadays many
people criticize China studies programs in other countries, but have weconsidered the long tradition of China studies in the United States, Europe,
and Japan, or the number of research organizations, or the number of China
experts they have trained? And when we look at ourselves, what do we see?
In research on history, many large nations, not to mention the nations of Latin
America and Africa, lack the research organizations and experts of thesenations. For another, there are also disparities in the conditions for academic
research. To do research on Chinese history, to say nothing of the history ofother nations, it is often necessary to visit libraries abroad to make use ofbooks and materials housed there. A third reason is that our academic
research lacks authoritative publications and critical forums to assure its
17 Hu Shi 胡適, Hu Shi liuxue riji 胡適留學日記 (Hu Shi’s Diary of Study Abroad), in
vol.3 of Hu Shi zuopin ji 胡適作品集, no.36m》第36集，(Taibei: Yuanliu Chuban
Gongsi, 1986), pp.4 5.

60

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 8 2017

credibility. I have said this for years, but not many journals and publishingcompanies in China can provide anonymous peer reviews. These are theproblems that we face and need to solve in order to further our academic
discourse.