91

Book Review
Review of Taiwan in Transformation: Retrospect and Prospect, second
edition, by Huang Chun-chieh. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction
Publishers, 2014.
This excellent study of modern Taiwan is a balanced and wise appraisalof the main historical forces that have shaped Taiwan in the past, and an
insightful look into the possible future course of the complex relationshipbetween Taiwan and mainland China. The book is divided into two parts. The
first part, “Retrospect,” contains one chapter on Taiwan under Japanese occupation from 1895 to 1945 and several chapters on postwar changes in thesocial consciousness of farmers and of Confucian intellectuals, particularly XuFuguan 徐 復 觀. The second part, “Prospect,” includes a new chapter on thepostwar mainland experience, a chapter on the development of Taiwanese
consciousness, another chapter on the need for greater historical consciousness on the part of both mainlanders and Taiwanese, and another new chapter
on the postwar rise of individuality in Taiwanese society.
One of the strengths of this book is the combination of passion and balancein the author’s approach to the highly polarized topics of Taiwan’s identityand future course, which have divided the country, and even families, for thelast thirty years. The passion grows out of the author’s deep roots in thecountryside in southern Taiwan, which shaped his affection for traditional
attitudes toward the land. The balance comes from his training as a professional historian. He combines the insights of an insider with the objectivity ofa scholar.
The main thesis of the work is that China and Taiwan will not be able toresolve their differences until both sides more fully understand the historicalcircumstances that led to the present. On the one hand, China needs to understand that even though Taiwan was settled by immigrants from the mainland
hundreds of years ago, its geographic situation as an island and its fifty-year
occupation by an outside imperialist power (Japan from 1895 to 1945) havecontributed to a strong sense of identity that is particularly Taiwanese. On theother hand, Taiwan needs to understand that it shares with China a profoundconnection with the Chinese cultural heritage. China is the fountain of
Taiwan’s cultural identity. In language, history, literature, philosophy, andsocial thought, Taiwan is clearly Chinese. Moreover, after the end of theSecond World War, most Taiwanese looked forward to reunification with

92

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 6 2015

China as a natural process of restoration to the pre-1895 state of affairs. It
was the brutality of the Nationalist (Kuomintang) administration—especially
its massacre of intellectuals and Taiwanese leaders in February 1947 and its
subsequent exclusion of Taiwanese from political power in Taiwan from the1950s to the 1980s—that alienated the Taiwanese and contributed to a senseof identity separate from that of mainland Chinese during those decades.
Thus, in the larger context of the last century, Taiwanese identity was born inprotest, first against the Japanese, then against the Nationalists, and now
against the mainland’s threats to occupy Taiwan by force.
The author’s point is that those who argue for quick unification withmainland China and those who argue for quick independence from mainland
China both fail to understand the complexity of the relationship and the likelihood that quick changes will be catastrophic for both Taiwan and China. For
Taiwan, quick reunification would end the freedom and democracy won by somany decades of arduous effort. For China, quick reunification would end thehope that Taiwan can lead China toward the freedom and democracy necessary for China to flourish.
Quick independence for Taiwan would also be catastrophic, as it wouldalmost certainly provoke China to recover Taiwan by force. Yet any such act
would be disastrous for China as well, since it would destabilize the entire
postwar equilibrium in East and Southeast Asia, isolate China from its neighbors, lead to a potentially dangerous arms race, and raise the specter of armed
confrontation between two nuclear powers, China and the United States.
What about the future? The author is both pessimistic and optimistic. On
the pessimistic side, he cites the change in social consciousness from acommunity orientation to a new form of individualism, which, when taken toexcess, he worries, becomes a destructive form of egocentrism. He fears thatthe bitter polarization of politics in Taiwan and the inability of each party towork with the other for the common good will hamper compromise and leadto irrational and impulsive decisions.
On the optimistic side, he draws on the long heritage of Confucian governance rooted in the moral understanding that the welfare of the people is thebasis of good government. Taiwan’s evolution from an authoritarian system toa democratic one with a free press and the rule of law is a model not only for
China but also for many other countries in the world struggling to cross thatsame institutional divide. Toward the end of the book he even speaks of thepossibility of a Taiwanese renaissance, unleashed by the creativity and innovative thinking of an emerging generation of young people, born and raised
in a free and open society.
So where does this astute analysis of Taiwan’s modern transformation
leave this particular reviewer? Am I inclined to favor the pessimistic or theBook Review

93

optimistic prediction? In the short term, I can see plenty of evidence for thepessimistic perspective, especially in view of the tendency of weak governments on both sides of the Taiwan Straits to exploit emotional nationalism tocover up their own inadequacies.
Yet there are also grounds for optimism, especially in the long term. My
optimism comes from a lifetime of thinking and writing about world history
as well as Chinese history. If one looks at the larger forces acting upon
human civilization over time and the increasing power and complexity ofhuman technology, there appears a pattern of change in human governancethat is hidden when one’s focus is only on the recent past or only on one
region in the world. That pattern is the increasing participation in governanceby a progressively larger portion of the human population, in other words,democracy. In the field of economics, that pattern of increasing bottom-up
decision making was first articulated by Adam Smith in the Wealth ofNations, wherein he argued that as a natural consequence of the increasing
complexity of the Industrial Revolution, the most efficient way of organizing
human productivity became a free market, in which decisions were made byindividuals in pursuit of their own self-interest, rather than by the state.
Where does this pattern come from? It seems to be rooted in history itself.
In the origin and development of human organizations, from hunter-gatherer
societies through the agricultural revolution, the rise of states and empires,and the Industrial Revolution, this pattern exhibits the following characteristics:• Movement from simplicity to complexity. (Improved technology enables
increasingly complex human organizations.)• A complementary and dynamic balance of opposite forces, each of which
requires the other to function. (All historical actors, from the lowest serf tothe mightiest king, act within a network of relationships.)• Self-organization from the bottom up, without the intervention and guidanceof a higher authority. This principle of self-organization is responsible forthe astonishing creativity of nature and man. (Adam Smith’s free market,alluded to above, is the quintessential example of a self-organizing
process.)• Greater complexity produces greater power and opportunity, but at the priceof greater vulnerability. (The Internet confers greater opportunities butgreater vulnerabilities as well.)• Human societies, to manage (and reduce) such vulnerabilities, constantly
develop new institutions of greater cooperation and communication. (Newtechnologies of communication require vastly more complex institutions toprotect against the abuse of these new technologies.)

94

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 6 2015

So how does all this apply to my relative optimism about democracy inTaiwan and, more important, eventually in China? If the evolutionary
processes of history I have sketched above are valid, then a highly complex
system—say a nation like Taiwan or China—simply cannot function effectively by concentrating power at the top. When the government is in chargeof the commanding heights of the economy (or of politics), as in postwar
India, Maoist China, or the Soviet Union, the ultimate outcome is likely to bestagnation. In a complex system, the amount of information needed at thebottom of the system to respond flexibly and successfully to constantly
changing circumstances is beyond the power of the top to manage. For any
such system to respond effectively to sudden change requires creativity andinnovation, initiative and responsibility, by those at the bottom on the front
lines of whatever activity the system is engaged in. In an authoritariansystem, where power is administered by fear and force, and where there is notransparency or accountability as provided by a civil society with a free press
and the rule of law, those at the bottom do not have the freedom or incentive,and those at the top do not have accurate information, to make realistic decisions. Hence, an authoritarian system, no matter how efficient it may be at thebeginning, is doomed to a gradual process of decline and stagnation simply
because, over time, it becomes inefficient and ineffective at best, and incompetent and corrupt at worst (Singapore, beware!).
Thus, China must democratize if it wants to develop fully its own potential. The Communist Party cannot continue its present monopoly of power
indefinitely. And Taiwan needs to show the way. My fervent hope is that
more Taiwanese politicians and intellectuals will one day understand—perhaps by reading this book—how significant their role is on the global
stage. If China does not enter the family of democratic nations—and it can
only do so with the guidance and model of Taiwan—then the future health ofthe entire global geopolitical order will be in peril. That is the true significance of this wonderfully balanced book by Huang Chun-chieh. He fully
understands the larger role that Taiwan needs to play on the global stage, andis trying to encourage his readers in Taiwan and elsewhere to accept theConfucian mantle of responsibility that their heritage has bestowed uponthem. I applaud his insight, and his courage.
Alan T. WOOD
Professor of History, University of Washington Bothell