Scholasticism and Politics in Late Eighteenth Century China

-28SCHOLASTICISM AND POLITICS IN LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CHINA Susan Mann Jones The Center for Par Eastern Studies The university of Chicago K'ao-ohenj^/^lg^lso-called empirical research) scholarship of the eighteenth century is being reevaluated by a number of scholars who have boon confused and unconvinced by the generalities used to describe it. One result of this has been a revision of the view that draws a sharp dichotomy between the pedantic empirical research of the eighteenth century and the pragmatic statecraft writings of the nineteenth century. The classic descriptions of eighteenth eentury scholarship have held that the activities of the scholarly ecmiauaity at that time were symptomatic of a retreat from political repression. In order to avoid involvement in the purges surrounding the literary inquisition , and in order to preclude some inadvertent criticism of the Manchus or their policies (so thi3 argument goes), scholars shunned current political and social topics and turned instead to historical and classical studies that were purely textual. Such pursuits were not only neutral politically, but were approved and heavily endowed by 2 the mid-Ch'ing court. Particularly vitriolic attacks in this vein are made by contemporary Chinese writers, many of whom view the -29elite of the eighteenth century as having been booking while the country burned, rising to belated action in the nineteenth century statecraft schools. These critics echo the charges that scholars of the eighteenth century shunned controversial and contemporary subjects in general, in favor of the safe ground of Han commentaries and valuefree etymology. It is now recognized that such views are both oversimplified and inadequate. In the first place, the eighteenth century was a period in which a great deal of statecraft writing was done, a fact attested by the list of authors in the classic statecraft collection of the early nineteenth century, the Huang-ch'ao ching-3hih wen-pienily)j )fy. ç. X. fc)¡k » or in Hsfi Tung» a lh. ^fxLcollection of writings on local government, the Mu-Iing snu chi-yao %. f ® ^-zr · Further, k'ao-cheng studies generated much excitement ani little criticism among scholars of the time, even when they did engage in writings critical of the political scene. Finally, e.nti-íJanchtt feeling was perheps at the lowest ebb in the entire Ch'ing period during the Ch'ien-lung reign. Even literary inquisition did not arouse a notable outcry; in fact it won approval from one of the most prominent intellectuals of the time.5 Probably the most tangible direct effect of the inquisition on scholarship was its suppression of studies -30of the north and northwest frontiers and of military or naval defense, both subjects still sensitive to Manchu ears. All of these considerations recall the problem of the relationship between scholarship and politics, and scholars and government. Despite the frequency with which we make reference to the "Confucian state, " the relationship between Confucian scholarship and the practice of government administration in traditional China is not well understood by Western scholars. It is now acknowledged that the two were not antithetical; that a Confucian education did not impair 7 one's ability to be a skilled administrator. Indeed the processes of self-cultivation advocated by the Ch'eng-Chu school, and the insistence upon the unity of knowledge and action in even the introspective teachings of Wang Yang-ming, provided the philosophical basis for much of the scholar's D involvement in government. Unquestionably the late traditional educational system saddled students with pedantic concerns that were of no use to them in their official duties. Contemporary Chinese critics complained themselves about the pedantic nature of education for the examinations. They had few complaints, however, about classical studies as a tool for sharpening the intellect. The problem of reconciling what seemed to be Confucian pedantry with political dissent was first posed to me some -31years ago when I began to study the writings of Hung Liang-chi /'v Vu ci . Bung's writings, comprising some twenty modern volumes, fall into two broad categories. Most of them are K'ao-cheng studies, especially studies in historical geography, all of which are oriented toward linguistics. Hung' s interest in Kweichow waterways, for example, was...