On July 11 of this year, the Central Daily News carried an article by Mr. Hsieh Tung-min arguing that "if we maintain the current situation in Chinese studies, we cannot avoid falling behind others." The following are my own views on Chinese studies on Taiwan.
The era of the anti-Japanese war and of the communist rebellion dealt a terrible blow to Chinese studies. Who had time to devote to sch recuperation on Taiwan, scholarly culture revived. After 1956, universities established graduate schools in the humanities, bringing up a new generation of scholars, after a twenty-year gap. This situation was even more serious because of the limits on thought, material backwardness, and destruction by the Red Guards in the mainland.
This gap naturally created doubt regarding the legacies of history, and the consciousness which had guided tradition lost its power to direct. The pursuit of stability and strength led to the adoption of practical values as guides. The resulting "economic miracle" is indeed exciting, but the many dangers lurking within it are also worrisome. Fortunately, education has accompanied economic prosperity and produced abundant talent, much of which has gone into Chinese studies. There have been evident achievements over the last thirty years enabling traditional thought to compete on good terms with the current of practical thinking, which gives hope that it will be able to become the leading current in the future.
In the past the research environment was not so good, data hard to come by, and methods less than thorough. Scholars pursued their own goals, lacking collective strength. Scholars focused on philological studies. Later camstudies of the Classics and of Chou era (1121-245 B.C.) philosophy. These relied on close textual research and laid deep roots for future work in the study of literature, history, thought, and language. Recently more scholars have entered the fields of thought and literature, with modern literature, and literary criticism and theory getting particular attention. Nevertheless, moving away from the Classics is not necessarily a good thing: these are like the trunk of a tree; if the branches are thriving while the trunk withers, the whole direction of growth could get out of control.
Methodologically, past work focused on inductive scholarship. Collecting and collating materials was difficult in itself; few went on to think more deeply. From the point of view of scholarly values, data collection should only be the preparatory work; it is necessary to analyze and judge, refine and extract. Data collection is merely knowledge; only reflection and judgment can be counted one's own scholarship. Without the establishment of such a value system, accomplishments will ultimately remain limited.
Scholarship is necessarily precise, profound and elevated, but it is not just for an elite few. Thus debates over Sung (960-1276) and Ming (1368-1662) philosophy are to see clearly the nature of the common man, and then to bring out mankind's moral nature to raise consciousness on the meaning of life and raise the common quality of life. The view that our theories and values are to be limited to a select few, without provoking a broad response or having a broad influence, must be seriously reconsidered. At least we must take personal stock as to whether the tremendous effort expended finally has the effectiveness of practical values in our society.
I think it is permissible to offer the following concrete suggestions:
First, for society to understand the importance of the promotion of Chinese studies, it is necessary for the government to make a policy decision and to appropriate funds from the central budget. The policy could include inviting scholars to draw up an outline for Chinese studies and grants for specific projects. The mainland Academy of Social Sciences performs this function in the mainland. This kind of central level policy, with funds, certainly has influence and practical effect. It in any case avoids the redundancy and waste of blind individual efforts.
Second, there must be acknowledgement of a goal of "setting a clear path" and "having a practical use". Scholarship is not decoration. Chinese studies is a product of and sign of oriental spiritual culture. These ideas have guided the people of the Orient for thousands of years, and their affirmation is found in the test of practical experience. Today there is yet another "transitional period," which calls for yet again undertaking deep examination--only by balancing the wisdom accumulated over time with the flourishing development of material culture from the West can we assure a peaceful and prosperous future for mankind.
Third, there must be promotion of a collective work plan. With social progress and increases in knowledge, the day of the lone scholar is gone. We must move toward collective and integrated efforts. The problem is that in proposing this kind of collective work plan it requires on the one hand strong government support and on the other broadminded and magnanimous leadership. Factionalism must be avoided, the walls between schools broken down.
Fourth, there must be attention to method. While in the past it was impossible to say there was absolutely no method, still it received little attention. If we want to raise the objectives of scholarship, it is necessary to give it attention. Naturally different subjects require different methodologies, but at least we must acknowledge that mere data collection cannot meet future standards. Reflection, discussion, solving problems, determining truth, and building theory are the methods for high-level research.
Before long it will be unavoidable for our scholars to be weighed against those from the mainland and abroad at conferences where they meet. Of course we must retain our confidence, but I hope that we can produce hard material to support that confidence. Over the past thirty years we have closed the gap which appeared in Chinese studies; we must now work together. And if not us, then who?
