A Brief Account of the Transformation in Style of Learning in the Late Ming Dynasty

Abstract

There is a strong contemporary interest in discussing issues of culture in China. These discussions commonly focus on the problem of searching for cultural roots. Regarding the meaning of this “search for roots” (xungen 寻根), there are many different accounts. One of these accounts concerns the question of whether China’s modernization is merely a passive response to the assault of Western culture, or whether the development of China’s long-standing culture has internal historical roots or a “living source” (huoshui yuantou 活水源头). If the latter, did this internal source for the renewal of a national cultural life exist in the distant past or did it develop in recent times? How should it be sought? Is it possible to develop science and democracy through seeking a “return to the root to open up the new” (fanben kaixin 返本开新 ) from within the orthodox Confucian tradition? Or is it necessary to thoroughly cast off all old traditions to be able to reconstruct and give new life to a national culture? The implications of these questions are very broad and have given rise to many debates. The author holds that although the gradual introduction of Western learning beginning in the 17th century had a great stimulatory effect on the development of modern culture in China, fundamentally, China’s modernization and cultural metamorphosis can only be a necessary result of long-term developments of Chinese history. For many years, we have been continually stuck in the intellectual swamp of the dilemma between “total Westernization” (quanpan xihua 全盘西化) and “conserving the national essence” (baocun guocui 保存国粹). Along with various forms of “displacement of substance and function” (tiyong cuozhi 体用错置), we are never able to escape from the mode of thought that views China and the West as going their separate ways, ancient as opposed to modern, and substance split asunder from function. In this we fail to distinguish the difference within sameness and the sameness within difference of the Chinese and Western trajectories of development, and we fail to seriously investigate the specific path taken by the Chinese intellectual enlightenment. Thus, faced with the violent impact of Western culture, we have frequently been too busy with its importation while neglecting its digestion and connection. We seldom think to unearth those cultural sprouts within our national tradition that share the same qualities in a different mode, constantly being unable to accurately or to practically grasp the historical points of connection between traditional culture and modernization. In contemporary discussions, locating the real starting point for China’s historical process of leaving behind medieval culture has become a point of debate. Scholars question whether the shifts in cultural and intellectual trends during the transition from the Ming (1368–1644) to the Qing