published_or_final_version / abstract / Chinese Historical Studies / Master / Master of Arts

 This thesis sets to sketch Chinese intellectuals’ sustained efforts to search for an alternative modernity to the Western model throughout the twentieth century, and uncover the interaction between intellectual politics and Chinese modernity discourse by historicizing and contextualizing Chinese modernity discourse. This study starts with delineating the consistence and the inconsistence of Chinese modernity discourses by juxtaposing different historical conditions and examining reappeared trends of thoughts. Three intellectual currents, i.e., cultural conservatism, humanism, and professionalism, which emerged in the May Fourth period and remerged in the post-socialist condition, are examined to mirror the spiral dynamics and the locus of Chinese modernity. Their respective roles in reconstructing Chinese cultural, ethical and academic orders in response to Western model of modernity are highlighted in the research. Cultural conservatism attempts to legitimize the Chinese culture in the framework of global modernity by resetting or reinterpreting the dialectical relation between the whole and part, universalism, and essentialism. Humanism emphasizes the standard, the guidance of authority, and the self-perfection to resist the ethical disorder caused by the so-called “modern spirit”, which is embodied by individualism, romanticism, and the immoderate expansion of desire. Professionalism influences the pattern of producing and reproducing knowledge about modernity by re-standardizing the academic and the discursive fields and by remolding the identity of the agents. After exposing how the “alternative modernity” in China, as a discursive-political device, has been produced and repackaged with various contents and meanings, this thesis proceeds to explore the intellectual pedestal of Chinese modernity discourses from two aspects. First, how do the intellectual strategies of self-positioning and position-taking influence knowledge production and reproduction of the Chinese modernity discourse; second, how articulation and re-articulation of modernity discourse reflect the self-adjustments of intellectual politics as well as identity shifts. Through the comparative and diachronic examinations, it poses that, as Chinese modernity discourse is increasingly served as a symbolic capital or a strategy of intellectual politics, it gradually loses its authenticity or even becomes a signifier without signified. Meanwhile, the state-led modernization practice is reversely becoming homogenous, stable, and less diverse, although the dominant ideology, namely, socialism with Chinese characteristics, is, in itself, hybrid, paradoxical, and strategically manufactured. / published_or_final_version / Comparative Literature / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / Chinese Historical Studies / Master / Master of Arts

published_or_final_version / Chinese / Master / Master of Arts

published_or_final_version / Architecture / Master / Master of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / Chinese Historical Studies / Master / Master of Arts

published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

No description available.

This study is an analysis of changing attitudes towards education in China from the turn of the twentieth century to the May Fourth Movement in 1919. The focus is primarily on popular education (e.g., public lectures, spare-time schools, libraries), although there is discussion of education in general, since an overall context is required in order to highlight changes of attitudes. With the abolition of the traditional civil service examinations, which had been designed to recruit government officials, in 1905 and the implementation of a modern, government school system designed to train a patriotic, loyal and hard-working citizenry, Chinese officials and educators began to stress the importance of general and popular education. In contrast to previous English-language studies that have tended to emphasize the "democratic" aspect of western educational influence on China (especially with relation to the philosophy of John Dewey), this study will seek to show that Chinese educators were attracted to quite different aspects of western educational practice. With regard to the formal school system, Chinese educators praised the centralisation, uniformity, discipline, strict supervision of textbooks and inculcation of patriotic ideals which characterized education in the West. Popular, or social, education, which "reformed" the lower classes by emphasizing hard work, patriotism and public hygiene, was also seen as an important factor explaining the strength of Japan and the West. There was much discussion, for example, of censorship in the West as a useful tool to "reform" popular culture and hence improve the quality of the people. Another development after 1905 was the change in attitudes towards vocational education. Chinese educators, in fact, argued for a closer link between education and economic development. In order to compete in the international arena, they argued, education had to train people who could "earn a livelihood," thus benefitting themselves and the country. The promotion of vocational education was also accompanied by changes in attitudes towards manual labour. Such a trend was fully evident in the work-study movement, which was promoted among Chinese workers and students in France. Another feature of discussions on popular education during these years was the idea that formal school education was not fulfilling its required task, that of training a united and patriotic citizenry. Schools were criticized for fostering elitism, division and individualism. Thus it was hoped that public lectures, for example, would stress the virtues of cooperation, unity and concern for the public good. The work-study movement was designed, amongst other things, to break down the traditional social barrier between intellectuals and workers. This study also helps to place educational debate in China during these years within a wider context—in two ways. Firstly, reference is made to educational debates in the West which were often very similar to the discussions being carried out in China. The debate on vocational versus a humanist education, for example, which raged in Germany at the turn of the century was occurring in China at the same time. In other features of Chinese educational practice at this time, such as the elimination of the Confucian Classics from the primary and middle school curricula and the overriding importance Chinese educators placed on a single-track system in order to preserve a certain egalitarianism in education, China was in advance of countries such as England or France. Secondly, this study will show that the issues debated in China at this time were to have a crucial relevance for educational debates in post-49 China. Such issues included the relative merits of a well-structured, formal school system versus a wider network of less well-equipped spare-time schools, and the importance of intellectuals participating in manual labour. The primary sources used in this study comprise contemporary educational journals, the writings of educators at the time, and educational laws and regulations. In 1909 the first Chinese journal specifically devoted to education—"The Educational Review" (Jiaoyu Zazhi)—was published. During the early years of the Republic, a number of journals on education appeared, most of them only lasting a few years. Such journals contained essays on educational topics, the texts of educational laws and regulations and educational news from individual provinces. These journals, in addition to the 5-volume and 4-volume collections of documents on education edited by Taga Akigoro and Shu Xincheng respectively have proved indispensable to this study. / Arts, Faculty of / History, Department of / Graduate

The purpose of this study is fourfold: to show why and how Communism is emerging in China; to explain the special characteristics of the Chinese Communists and their tactics; to indicate the effect of Communism on the people of China; and to attempt an analysis of the attitude the Chinese Communists manifest toward the United States and Russia. Special emphasis will be laid upon the conflict between the Kuomintang (Nationalists) led by Chiang K'aishek and the Communists led by Mao Tze-Tung.