Abstract

The book is an attempt to approach John King Fairbank's new Sinology and its influence from a cultural point of view. As the most prominent figure in Chinese Studies circle in the United States, Fairbank has devoted all his life to the East Asian Studies, especially Chinese Studies, earning him the title of the founding father of modern Chinese Studies in the United States. Fairbank has always focused on a cultural approach to study China, making his Chinese Studies distinctively grand, which looks at the Chinese history as a whole and holds that tradition is closely connected to the present, and there is a culture constant in the changes and transformation of the country.

Fairbank's idea of Confucianism is his key to understanding Chinese history, especially modern Chinese history. According to Fairbank, Confucianism has always remained the mainstream of traditional Chinese culture, and its development spans the whole Chinese history, leaving its mark on Chinese thoughts, culture and institutions, and deeply embedded in Chinese people's ethics, customs, and national character. Confucianism is first a personal principle; it aims to make every person a moral one; Confucianism is also a political thought of traditional China, according to which a Chinese emperor gains legitimacy of his rule through his high morality and good reputation. Conducive to traditional China's stability and development, Confucianism also served as the root against China's modernization. First, the Confucian philosophy is focused on the society and the relationship between people rather than on conquering nature; second, law under Confucianism aims to protect and preserve the hierarchical and social order, thus law becomes part of the whole, failing to provide strong protection for the development of modern industry and commerce. The slogan of“Chinese learning for the essence, Western learning for practical use”proposed in the Restoration of the 1860s was not able to bring China to modernization.

Fairbank also studied the relationship between Confucianism and the Chinese revolution. The inwardness of Confucianism has led to many conflicts when the Chinese culture and Western culture met and clashed in modern time, which in turn has led to revolution. However, both the conservatives and the reformists tried to find and gain strength from Confucianism, making it the target of revolution at one time, and the theoretical basis for revolution at another. When talking about Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao, two of the most famous reformists in late Qing, Fairbank argues that some of their thoughts with revolutionary ideas have actually come from Confucianism's ideals of the Da Tong Society and the New People, which in turn imposed direct impact on Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party. The Great Taiping Rebellion was not able to accomplish a revolution to another dynasty just because it failed to gain support from Confucians. Anyone who wants to achieve victory in revolution in China, therefore, has to learn how to make use of Confucianism. The Republic of China was established after the 1911 Revolution, but the Confucian ideas passed down from the old empire hindered the development of political reform. The Guomindang Party-led Nanjing Government restored worshiping Confucius and reiterated the traditional Confucian ethics of sense of propriety, justice, honesty and honor, but Jiang Jieshi was only using Confucianism to practice one-party dictatorship, and no answers could be found in Confucianism to resolve the problems of adapting China to modernity.

Confucianism is also linked with the Communist victory in China. Fairbank argues that the principle of“uniformity of theory and practice”is shared by both Confucianism and Marxism; in addition, the self-criticism approach advocated by the Communist Party finds similarity in self-cultivation of Confucianism. The tradition of Confucianism is echoed by Communism in China in some aspects of their thoughts.

The Confucian tradition is also demonstrated in the time-honored tributary system, which shows the royal rights centralism awareness. A derivative of Confucianism, the tributary system is only an expanded Confucian social order to the outside. Confucianism is closely related to the Imperial Examination System:first, Confucianism provides the ideological basis of the importance of education; second, as an effective way to select bureaucrats through Confucianism, the Imperial Examination System ensures those selected conform to the orthodox ideas of the ruling class, making it a great political invention. Fairbank points out, nevertheless, the various problems of the Imperial Examination System itself in the late 19th century as well as the practical problems, limitation on the qualified number of candidates, for instance, has blocked many talented people outside the government, has led to rebellions and was finally abolished in 1905.

On the whole Confucianism obstructed the development of modern China，yet it has some progressive elements in itself, for example, the humanism tradition of Confucian scholars opposing evil rule, which may serve as a positive force to modernization. However, the traditional China's value of humanism is focused on social behavior rather than on individual performance of the Western humanistic tradition, so it helps to establish a patriarchal rule and allows for highly centralized autocracy.

The concept of“All under Heaven”（t'ien-hsia）does not come from racial singularity of the Chinese people but rather from Confucianism. Though related closely to Confucianism, the concept of“All under Heaven”has been deeply embedded in the heart of Chinese people, making it stand out of the Confucian tradition. A monistic philosophy, Confucianism advocates great uniformity from thoughts to ruling structure. Besides, the non-alphabetical nature of the Chinese language, though having many defects compared with the Western alphabetical languages, possesses a unique advantage of being able to overcome obstacles of dialects and other language barriers, thus conducive to the formation of a unified thought pattern and political pattern, which in turn promotes the formation and development of China as a grand unified country“All under Heaven”. Playing a key role in the formation and development of grand unified thought pattern, Confucianism and Legalism are the roots of China's political centralism. In addition, the nationalistic nature of China and the implosion caused by population growth also help to form a grand unified pattern of the country. The“All under Heaven”rule does not reject rule by a foreign nationality, however; in history of China a synarchy model appeared several times with a power-sharing pattern between the Han nationality and other nationalities, reaching its peak in Late Qing when a synarchy was formed under the treaties.

When the Republic of China was established, the soaring nationalism aroused by imperialistic invasion expected a government with a unified common defense, yet the national interests were faced with a grim reality similar to that of the old empire of the Qing Dynasty, that is, districts such as Tibet and Mongolia were under the threat of breaking away from the country. Finally Mongolia acquired autocracy through Russian influences; in Tibet, the suzerainty of China over the district was reinforced by firm measures in Qing Dynasty; in Xinjiang, the Qing government adopted a policy of divide-and-rule and maintained effective control over the region. After the Republic of China was established, Xinjiang in general stayed outside the power struggle of China, yet remained part of the country. Left from miserable experiences in the modern history of China, the issues of Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, Tibet etc. are all related to national sovereignty, some already resolved, some remaining unsettled. Fairbank's study of the traditional“All under Heaven”thought is conducive to American people's better understanding of China's stand and attitudes towards the above issues, and provides reference for Washington in making appropriate policies on China.

One major contribution of Fairbank's new sinology is that the new approach, having a regional study nature, shakes the Orientalistic approach of traditional Sinology to its foundation. The China-Centered Approach was in fact based on a critical inheritance of Fairbank's new sinology. According to Edward W. Said, the Orient is almost a fabricated place for the Europeans，which is the Other against the existence of the West and an exterior existence different from self. This distinction between the East and the West has existed from ancient times. Due to limitations of Orientalism and Eurocentrism, the Westerners are preoccupied with concepts and impressions of China, which in turn impose influences, big or small, on Sinology. With a profound insight into the differences between the Eastern culture and the Western culture, Fairbank points out that these two cultures first differ greatly in their respective attitude towards the relationship between man and nature, which has led to different courses of the two cultures. The Chinese culture and the Western culture have more differences than similarities. Based on Confucianism, the Chinese culture acquires an extraordinary stability and inertia, lasting through the whole Chinese history. This stable traditional order lasted until the 19th century, when a strong Western culture intruded in and cast its impact on it. The“Impact-Response”Model proposed by Fairbank has a strong explanatory power for China's modern history, yet some problems do exist:first, the model has an inner contradiction, when Fairbank stresses on the inertia of the traditional Chinese culture, he also points out that the Chinese culture is not absolutely stagnant, though there are limits to the changes that take place within a certain range, how to define the range and its relation with changes that take place is more a substitution of historical results for the exploration of historical reasons, rather than objective observations; second, the kernel of the model is also Orientalistic, which looks at China as an external existence of the West, and assumes a perspective of Eurocentrism;third, the generality of the model makes it difficult to account for the complexity of history, and is likely to be too general and too absolute in the concept of West when discussing the Western impact, and too abstract when discussing China's response. Therefore, the model may give an even and singular understanding of historical reality. Based on the“Impact-Response”model, the“Tradition-Modernity”model also assumes that traditional China is a stagnant society, which is able to transform to modernity only by the strong impacts of Western intrusion. The third model is called“imperialism approach”, which builds its model by criticizing the former two models, and maintains that imperialism is the root of various problems in modern China. A major advocate of this model, James Peck challenges the“Tradition-Modernity”model and argues that the modernity theory is but an ideology utilized by the China experts in the United States to defend and justify the American political, military and economic intrusion into Asia after World WarⅡ. Based on the three models of Chinese studies, Paul A. Cohen proposes a“China-centered approach”, which holds that all the above three models are based on West-centrism, according to which all the important changes in modern history of China could only be caused by the Western impact. The“China-centered approach”, on the contrary, explains some phenomena that are difficult to be explained by other models by assuming the specific context of China and considering the regional differences and social class differences.

Fairbank uses“Sinocentrism”to describe traditional China's foreign relationship, maintaining that Sinocentrism has been the basis of traditional China's foreign relationship due to China's being the center of Asia in terms of historical development, area, wealth and power and its great influence on the cultures of peripheral countries. The concept of Sinocentrism conforms to the“Impact-Response”model he proposes, which is related to the“China-centered approach”proposed by Cohen, though with some differences:first, both are“swinging inward”models; second, “Impact-Response”model serves as the basis of“China-centered approach”; third, the modifications Fairbank made later on his earlier“Impact-Response”model show some tendencies and characters of“China-centered approach”.“China-centered approach”does fill up some blind zones left by former models'limited perspectives by advocating coming back to China and study China from the perspective of China itself, but problems remain:first, is it possible to employ an absolute Chinese perspective to study China in China studies overseas? Second, is this perspective necessary? Third, what are the reasons behind all these anxiety and worries of the perspectives of the observer? In fact, assuming the perspective of the observer is only natural and reasonable in overseas China studies; second, the“China-centered approach”is conducive to forming diversified research perspectives, covering the blind zones left by subjective and West-centered models, yet it also has its limitations, such as exaggerating some innate qualities of traditional China and making them absolute, so as to underestimate the foreign impact and adaptability of Chinese culture; third, the anxiety and worries reflect some“original sin”of some China studies scholars.

The changes of China studies models reflect the course of development of China studies. These approaches are complementary as well as evolutionary. The multiple perspectives of models fill up the gaps of one single perspective，helping to form a more objective understanding of China for overseas China studies as well as of a better understanding of the development of current China studies for us. Fairbank's new Sinology brings traditional Sinology to the state of Chinese Studies, and provides a brand new cultural perspective, with which people outside China achieves a better understanding of the country.

Key Words:John King Fairbank; New Sinology; Chinese Studies;Cultural Approach; “Impact-Response”Model