In the past 50 years, generations of scholars in China have made great efforts in making the study of the 1911 Revolution an internationally-known subfield of modern Chinese history. After the publication of many works, research on the 1911 Revolution might have seemed to have reached its limit: discovering new sources, developing new arguments, and creating new paradigms became increasingly difficult. Yet still, from 2000 to 2009, research on the 1911 Revolution made impressive progress.
This new progress resides mainly in the following five areas: sorting out historical facts, compiling historical sources, debating paradigms for studying the history, conceptualizing the nature of the revolution, and clarifying the relationship between the New Policies Reform and the revolution.
The above achievements were obtained for a number of reasons. The continuous devotion by the 1911 Revolution focus groups, the discussions taken place at conferences commemorating the 90-year anniversary of the revolution in 2001, the new interest in other related topics covering the 1911 era, the launching of the Qing History Project, and the application of Western analytical tool in studying Chinese history all contributed a great deal to the development of the study of the 1911 Revolution.
Chinese scholars also laid out four directions for future study on the topic of the 1911 Revolution to help identify new arenas of research. They are: to integrate the political history with social history, to find the commonalities and differences of the 1911 Revolution in various places in China and accurately interpret the social transformation of modern China, to apply multiple approaches in understanding the revolution processes, and to get beyond the old mindset in studying Chinese history. All these reflect the serious thinking scholars have done on this important topic. and.
I. Scholarly Achievements
As mentioned above, from 2000 to 2009 the new progress of the 1911 Revolution study mainly resides in five areas, the last three of which I want to discuss in detail.
The Paradigm Debate: Revolution or Modernization
On January 11, 2006, an article titled “Modernization and Chinese History Textbooks” was published in China Youth Daily, which signified the open clash between the two paradigms for studying modern Chinese history. Yuan Weishi, the writer of the article, announced “modernization” as a different paradigm from “revolution” in studying Modern Chinese history. Yuan openly opposed the “Boxers-style” patriotism and urged his readers to seriously reflect on this patriotism, which he considered “blind.” Warning scholars against the habit of “vulgarizing revolution,” he asked them to put Chinese revolution in the global context of modernization and measure revolution against a standardized yardstick of modernization. In a similar vein, Yuan argued that “the 1911 Revolution did not achieved much.” Besides “accelerating the transformation of ideas for the Chinese people,” it did not help China transform into a democratic and legalistic polity. On the contrary, for Yuan, the Qing government in its constitutional reform was more likely to have led China into a democratic and legalistic polity. Yuan considered the 1911 Revolution as disrupting the modernization process started by the Qing court’s New Politics Reform.
In clear contrast to Yuan Weishi’s exaltation of “modernization” over “revolution,” Zhang Haipeng, Chairman of the Chinese Historical Association, launched a rebuttal against Yuan’s modernization paradigm. In the two articles, “Rethinking Modernization and Chinese History Textbooks” and “The Theme of Modern Chinese History is Anti-Imperialism and Anti-Feudalism,” which Zhang published in China Youth Daily on March 1, 2006, Zhang argued that “revolution” was still the main theme of modern Chinese history. Revolution, Zhang argued, is “the premise for modernization.” Zhang then proposed to take revolution as the main approach in studying Chinese history. At the same time, he gave some credit to the modernization approach and argued that scholars should also adopt the modernization approach in understanding specific socio-economic developments in modern Chinese history.
Most scholars followed Zhang Haipeng’s approach. For example, Guo Shiyou, in his article “The Inner Connections between the 1911 Revolution and the Late Qing Reform,” pointed out that the revolution and the reform were closely related. The reform itself encountered a number of difficulties—scarce revenue, the decline of political authority and the demise of administrative capability—and all those factors determined that the dynasty’s last-gasp reform was doomed to fail. The 1911 Revolution did not “interrupt” the modernization started with the reform.
Nature of the 1911 Revolution
“What was the nature of the 1911 Revolution?” had long been a heatedly debated question in the field of the 1911 Revolution study. This question received renewed attention in the past ten years. Scholars spent much energy in asking the following questions: Who were the main carriers of the revolution? What was the social force behind the revolution? What was the goal of the revolution? In answering these questions, scholars’ attention seemed to be narrowed down to interrogating the “bourgeois” nature of the 1911 Revolution.
A number of scholars denied that the 1911 Revolution was a bourgeois revolution. For example, historian Zhang Xianwen argued that it should not be so considered; rather, the it was a political revolution with the goal of establishing nationalism and democracy (minzu minzhu geming). Also, historian Guo Shiyou believed that the 1911 Revolution was a political revolution resulting from the coalescence of two forces: the anti-Manchu force and the anti-autocracy pro-democracy force. Guo also marshaled specific evidence for the argument that the 1911 Revolution was not bourgeois at all. First, Sun Yat-sen’s principle of “curbing capital” (jiezhi ziben) made it questionable to claim that the 1911 Revolution represented bourgeois interests. Second, many top revolutionary leaders did not truly identify themselves with the principle of promoting “equality” (pingdeng) and “human rights” (renquan). Third, whether the bourgeoisie class truly benefited from the 1911 Revolution was dubious. Clauses in the 1912 Regulation for Electing National Assemblymen, which was passed by the Provisional Senate made up of Revolutionary Alliance members, actually prevented the capitalists from easily participating in politics.
If the problematic characterization of the 1911 Revolution as a “bourgeois revolution” caught scholars’ attention, Chinese scholars also started clarifying the connotation of the term “bourgeois” in the past ten years. Historian Ding Youwen and his colleagues, after summarizing previous scholarship, urged scholars to be clear about what they meant when using the term “bourgeois.” “Bourgeois” can be used to refer to Western political ideals, such as democracy and human rights. In this sense, Sun Yat-sen and his revolutionary comrades can be said to be “bourgeois” politically. At the same time, “bourgeois” can also be used to describe the commercial and industrial capitalists. In this sense, Sun Yat-sen and his revolution against the Qing cannot be said to be “bourgeois” socially because not many commercial and industrial capitalists supported his revolution; rather, the Late Qing New Policies reform were more socially “bourgeois.”
New Policies Reform and the 1911 Revolution
In the past ten years, the end-of-Qing New Policies Reform became the new scholarly fascination in Chinese academia. Not only historians, but also political scientists and legal theorists, worked on this subject attentively. Among the studies concerning the New Policies Reform, studies on constitutionalism and legal reform were the most popular of them all. There was the study on late Qing self-governance by Ma Xiaoquan, the study on the reform on China’s litigation system by Zhao Xiaohua, the study on the experiences of the Chinese legal reformers by Cheng Liaoyuan, the study on the working of Zhejiang Provincial Assembly by Shen Xiaomin, and the study on the activities of the Law Drafting Institution (xiuding falv guan) by Chen Yu. Most of these studies on the reform actually incorporated the 1911 Revolution within their scope of study and many convincingly examined the intricate relations between the reform and the revolution.
章先生在2010年AAS
II. Reasons for the Achievements
First, in China, a number of focus groups continued taking researching on the 1911 Revolution as their vocation. In particular, Huazhong Normal University, led by historian Zhang Kaiyuan, continued putting out new works on the 1911 Revolution. From 2000 to 2009, at least 7 monographs were published on the subject. These monographs comprehensively delineated the relation of the 1911 Revolution to the general political atmosphere in China and demonstrated the historical role that the revolution played. Besides these scholarly monographs, Huazhong Normal University continued its publication of the Anthologies on the 1911 Revolution, a journal devoted to the newly discovered historical sources. Besides Huazhong Normal University, other Wuhan research institutes were also active. The 1911 Revolution Study Society (Xinhai geming shixuehui) in Wuhan continued its publication of Historical Studies on the 1911 Revolution, a journal devoted to articles on the 1911 Revolution. And the Wuchang Revolution Research Center (Wuchang xinhai geming yanjiu zhongxin) continued publishing the Newsletters on the 1911 Revolution Study, a newsletter reporting new studies on the topic. Besides Wuchang, another research center was Guangzhou. Sun Yat-sen University continued with its focus on studying Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution and came up with a new series titled “Scholarship on Sun Yat-sen and the Modern Chinese History.” In addition, the Sun Yat-sen Center affiliated to Guangdong Academy of Social Sciences took the lead and organized scholars in publishing an important collected volume, titled Democratization in China and the 1911 Revolution.
From 2000 to 2009, a number of well-established 1911 Revolution scholars continued with their interest in the topic and produced new works. Scholars such as Ma Min, Zhu Ying, Sang Bing, and Lin Jiayou either deepened their previous research or expanded their interest in new territories on the topic. As a result, a number of key scholarly works were published, and all these illuminated understandings of the Sino-Japanese diplomatic relationship in the 1911 Revolution, 1911 Revolution in Zhejiang, studies on Tang Caichang, Zhang Zhidong, roles of the merchants and commercial assemblies in the 1911 Revolution, and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, it is to be noted that the 1911 Revolution was also a popular topic for recent dissertations in history departments in China. A number of fresh dissertations, working on, for example, the Manchu experience during the 1911 Revolution, the urban political cultural experience of the revolution, and the notions of political party during the era, all demonstrated the future and the viability of the 1911 Revolution as a historical topic.
Second, besides the focus groups in a few universities, the 1911 Revolution was also a topic dealt with by a large number of other research institutes. In 2001, the 90-year anniversary of the revolution, in almost all provinces in China, some kind of academic conferences took place to commemorate the event. These commemorative conferences greatly facilitated the discussion and the study of the 1911 Revolution. Some provinces, for example Sichuan, produced high-quality conference volumes following the meetings.
Third, other topics relevant to the 1911 Revolution boomed from 2000 to 2009. In conferences like “Social Groups and Economic Organizations,” “The Chinese Way: A Comparative Approach,” “Late Qing State and Society,” “Western Studies and Late Qing China,” “Disasters and Chinese Society,” “Zhang Zhidong and Late Qing Politics,” there were always papers on the 1911 Revolution.
Fourth, the Qing History Project launched in August 2002 became a huge impetus for new research on the 1911 Revolution. The project, by the end of 2006, had produced 40 kinds (320 volumes) of primary sources, 5 pictorials, 2 catalogues, and 5 translated documents. All these have provided a solid foundation for future studies on late Qing politics and 1911 Revolution. A number of scholarly works using these newly published sources have already appeared.
Fifth, the Western “State-Society” analytical model was introduced to China and became absorbed by Chinese scholars. In the past ten years, Chinese scholars chose not question this model in an abstract manner but to actually use it to generate new research topics. Using this model, new research on commercial assemblies, mass media, study associations, and other organizations in the public sphere emerged. In addition, new conceptualizations derived from the model, for example, Sang Bing’s formulation of the concept “middle-level society” (zhongdeng shehui), also produced momentum for study of the 1911 Revolution.
III. New Directions
Chinese scholars also laid out four directions for future study on the topic of the 1911 Revolution to help identify new arenas of research.
First, historian Mao Haijian’s proposal to “integrate political history with social history” received strong endorsement from fellow historians. Mao pointed out that political history focuses on “changes,” but social history mainly describes the rather stable “social life and social structure.” If scholars study only one kind of history and focus only on a certain place and a certain group of people, they cannot actually get the whole picture of history. The only way for them to understand history comprehensively is to “integrate political history with social history.” Thus, before we can determine how certain factors in Chinese society prevented the political revolution in 1911 from achieving its goals, we need to first understand the Chinese society more accurately. Had Chinese society already changed before the political revolution? What had changed and what had not changed ? Was the change only a façade or was it something truly substantial? Only after these questions were straightened out—which required applying the methods of social history—could we actually identify the “Western sources” in the revolution and appreciate the “Chinese elements” in the social structure. And only by doing so could we appreciate both changes and continuities in modern Chinese history and understand the general trend of modern China’s history.
Second, it was important for scholars to have a macro-scope in studying modern Chinese history. On this matter, methodology applied by the California School (jiazhou xuepai) could offer us some inspiration. These scholars start from regional case studies and then link the case studies with macro-level historical questions; they also make sure to compare the Chinese experience with Western experiences so that they can better appreciate the particulars of the Chinese experience. The macro-scope was crucial here because only by having a macro-scope could scholars understand the meaning and implication of a case study. Scholars could be conceptual yet concrete at the same time. Thus, future study on the 1911 Revolution should also involve a macro-scope. To deepen the study, scholars should first find the commonalities and differences of the 1911 Revolution in various places in China, and then compare the Chinese revolution with French and British revolutions.
Third, scholars were to apply multiple approaches in understanding the revolution. Indeed, the story of the 1911 Revolution could be told from many different angles and in many different ways. Each approach had its own strengths and limitations, and there was no one approach that was “all-encompassing.” Thus, scholars should fully recognize such a nature and apply multiple approaches in studying the revolution , not using one approach to replace all other approaches.
At last, scholars needed to get beyond the old mindset in studying Chinese history and “defamiliraize” (que shuxi hua) themselves with their subject matter. Unlike foreign scholars who study China, it was rather easy for Chinese scholars to take things for granted and gloss over a number of important issues. Chinese scholars needed to get beyond the old mindset and gain intellectual curiosity. Only in doing so would the issues not be glossed over and could they dig deeper in their analyses.
In sum, research on the 1911 Revolution made impressive progress in last ten years. A consensus seemed to have been formed: the 1911 Revolution was the first step for China towards practicing democratic politics. The new principles—people as the basis of a polity (yiren wenben), the rule of laws (yifa zhiguo), and people as the sovereignty-holders in a state (renmin zhiguo)—were all announced with the coming of the 1911 Revolution. These important principles for setting up a republic and a modern state are still the standards and goals of social growth for China today. As the 1911 Revolution will soon welcome its 100-year anniversary, we look forward more excellent work being done on this subject.
