Abstract
Since the 1980s the intellectual development in the People’s Republic of China has been characterized by several deep changes related to the opening up of the country towards the West. These changes have been so profound, compared with the time after 1949 that it is not exaggerating to speak of a new period in the history of Chinese thought. For a better understanding of this development a brief survey of the periods of intellectual development before 1978 is necessary.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and references
Socialism, Socialist Ownership, Leading Role of the CCP, Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong-Thought. Compare Deng Xiaoping tongzhi guanyu jianchi sixiang jiben yuanze fandui zichanjiechi ziyuhua de lunshu (Comrade Deng Xiaoping on the Four Basic Principles and against bourgeois liberalization) (Beijing, 1989), p. 1. For a detailed explanation of the ‘Four Basic Principles’ see Sixiang jiben yuanze dacidian (Dictionary of the Four Basic Principles) (Chengdu: jungong yinshuachang, 1992).
Cf. Wolfgang Bauer, ‘Aspekte deutscher Philosophie im modernen China’, Deutsch-chinesische Beziehungen vom 19. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart, ed. by Kuo Heng-y and Mechthild Leutner (München: Minerva 1991), pp. 23–42
as well as the bibliography by Wolfgang Bauer, Peng Chang and Michael Lackner, Das chinesische Deutschlandbild der Gegenwart: A. Deutsche Kultur, Politik und Wirtschaft im chinesischen Schrifttum 1970–1984: Eine Bibliographie (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1989)
and Wolfgang Bauer, Peng Chang and Stephan von Minden, Das chinesische Deutschlandbild der Gegenwart. Eine Bibliographie 1985–86 (Stuttgart: Steiner 1991).
Cf. Wolfgang Bauer, Aspekte deutscher Philosophie im modernen China. In: Deutsch-chinesische Beziehungen vom 19. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart, Ed. by Kuo Heng-y and Mechthild Leutner (München: Minerva Publikation, 1991), S. 23–42.
Werner Meissner, Die Rezeption der westlichen Philosophie in der VR China, 1887–1992. Eine Bibliographie (Münster: Lit Verlag, 1996).
Zhou Yang, ‘Guanyu Makesizhuyi yixie lilun wenti de tantao’ (An investigation into several theoretical questions of Marxism), in: Renminribao (People’s Daily) (16 March, 1983), p. 4–5.
Cf. He Lin, ‘Feixite de aiguozhuyi he minzhuzhuyi’ (Fichte’s patriotism and democratism), Zhexue yanjiu (1979), no. 5, pp 42–48; same: The patriotism of the three great German philosophers - Goethe, Hegel, Fichte (Beijing, 1989).
Liang Zhixue, ‘Fichte in China,’ Dialektik (1987), no. 14, pp. 339–344.
Cf. Chen Shaoming, ‘Heige’er zhexue yu xiandai xinrujia (Hegel’s philosophy and contemporary Neo-Confucianism’, Zhexue yanjiu (1992), no. 2, pp. 60–6.
Cf. Werner Meissner, China zwischen nationalem ‘Sonderweg’ und universaler Modernisierung — Zur Rezeption westlichen Denkens in China (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1994), pp. 147ff.
See Zhao Baoxu, ‘The Revival of Political Science in China’, PS (Autumn 1984), vol. 17, no. 4 pp. 745–57.
Cf. Kenneth Lieberthal, ‘China and Political Science’, PS, vol. 14, no. 1 (Winter 1986), p. 70/78, FN 28.
For further details see Werner Meissner, Die Rezeption der westlichen Politikwissenschaft in der VR China, 1987–1992. Eine Bibliographie (Münster: Lit Verlag, 1996).
Cf. Perry Link, ‘The Thought and Spirit of Fang Lizhi’, The Broken Mirror. China after Tiananmen, ed. by George Hicks (Chicago: St James Press, 1990), pp. 100–14.
Fang, Lizhi, Zhexue shi wulixue di gongju (Shanghai: Renmin 1985).
Cf. the article by Cao, Xinlu, ‘Kexue neng baituo zhexue ma? Ping Fang Lizhi fandui Makesi zhuyi zhexue di niulun (Can the sciences get rid of philosophy? Criticism of Fang Lizhi’s distortions directed against Marxist philosophy)’, Renminribao (26 November 1989), pp. 1, 3.
Cf. Meissner, Philosophy and Politics in China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990).
Cf. on this the good overview in Brunhild Staiger, ‘Für und wider den aufklärerischen Geist. Zur geistigen Situation Chinas vor und nach dem 4. Juni’, China aktuell (November 1989), pp. 870–8.
Cf. the contribution by Arthur Waldron, Warlordism ‘Versus Federalism: The Revival of a Debate?’, China Quarterly (March 1990), vol. 121, pp. 116–28. The theme was also touched on by Zhao Ziyang’s adviser Yan Jiaqi in his speech Weilai Zhongguo sibu qu (The four stages of the future China)’ at the First Congress of Chinese Students and scholars in the United States (Chicago: 29 July 1989).
Hu Shi, ‘Liansheng zizhi yu junfa gejuda Chen Duxiu (Ch’en Tu-hsiu) (The self-government of united provinces and the particularism of the warlords)’, Hu Shi zuopin (Taipei, 1986), pp. 75–82.
The most important arguments of the Westernizers’ at that time were: The uniformity of a culture and the interdependence of all of its aspects (politics, philosophy, economy and social institutions); the superiority of Western culture–the old Chinese culture on the other hand is not suited for the modern world; Westernization is a general, world-embracing trend–if China wants to take an influential place in the world, then it must westernize itself; certain parts of Chinese culture are already Westernized, but only externally (system of government, traffic system, industry), yet this Westernization is not only insufficient but dangerous because it concentrates only on the material achievements of the West and neglects the spiritual foundations of Western society which are the basis of these achievements. A short but excellent overview of the controversy is provided by Petra Kolonko: The uniformity of a culture and the interdependence of all of its aspects (politics, philosophy, economy and social institutions); the superiority of Western culture–the old Chinese culture on the other hand is not suited for the modern world; Westernization is a general, world-embracing trend–if China wants to take an influential place in the world, then it must westernize itself; certain parts of Chinese culture are already Westernized, but only externally (system of government, traffic system, industry), yet this Westernization is not only insufficient but dangerous because it concentrates only on the material achievements of the West and neglects the spiritual foundations of Western society which are the basis of these achievements. A short but excellent overview of the controversy is provided by Petra Kolonko, ‘The Challenged National Identity. When Chinese Wanted to Become Westerners. The ‘Debate on Total Westernization’ in China 1934–35’, East Asian Civilizations (1983), no. 2, pp. 168–174.
See Samuel Huntington, Political order in changing societies (New Haven and London, 1968), in Chinese, Biandong shehuizhong di zhengzhi zhixu (Shanghai 1987).
Guillermo O’Donnel, Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics (Berkeley 1973).
Cf. Ting Gong and Feng Chen, ‘Neo-Authoritarian Theory in Mainland China’, Issues and Studies (January 1991), vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 84–98;
Harold Waterman, ‘Which Way to Go? Four Strategies for Democratization in Intellectual Circles’, China Information (Summer 1990), vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 14–33;
Marc Petracca and Mong Xiong, ‘The Concept of Neo-Authoritarianism’, Asian Survey (November 1990), vol. 30, no. 11;
Yue Linzhang and Zheng Yongnian, ‘The New Authoritarianism and Political Democratization’, Chinese Sociology and Anthroplogy (Summer 1991), pp. 31–43.
Edward Shihls, Political Development in the New States (The Hague, 1962).
Cf. Yue Lingzhang and Zheng Yongnian, ‘The New Authoritarianism’, pp. 33–4.
So Chen Zhengfu and He Zhiqing explicitly in their book Kongzi, Ruxue yu Zhongguo xiandaihua (Confucius, Confucianism and Chinese Modernization) (Fujian: xinhua 1992), page 238ff: ‘Xiandai xinrujia yu Zhongguo xiandaihua’.
Cf. Brunhild Staiger ‘Chinas Modernisierung und die traditionelle Kultur’, China aktuell (January 1991), p. 31–39.
Cf. Jin Dabai, ‘A Neo-Conservative’s Thought on Neo-Conservatives’, China Focus (1March 1995), vol. 3, no. 3, p. 1,5.
Drew Liu, ‘The Rise of Neo-Conservatism in China’, China Focus (January 1, 1995), vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–2.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1999 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Meissner, W. (1999). New Intellectual Currents in the People’s Republic of China. In: Teather, D.C.B., Yee, H.S., Campling, J. (eds) China in Transition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333983829_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333983829_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-73134-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-333-98382-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)