On, October 18, 2024, Research Training Group GRK 2833 “East Asian Futures” members Pao-wen HUANG and Ming-feng WU attended the conference “Modern East Asian Reform Movements and Historical Transitions (近代東亞社會改革思潮與歷史變遷)”, organised by the Hu Shih Research Group and the Chiang Kai-shek Research Group at the Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica in Taipei, Taiwan. The following summary was provided by both participants.
This conference mainly focused on ideological changes in China and Taiwan during the 20th century. Speakers were grouped by different yet connected topics, but covered different time periods or regions.
Professor Lee Su-san’s (李淑珍) presentation, titled “The Modern Chinese Historical Perspectives of Contemporary Neo-Confucianism (1911–1949)” (港台新儒家的現代中國史論), examined how prominent thinkers such as Qian Mu (錢穆, 1895–1990), Mou Zongsan (牟宗三, 1909–1995), Tang Junyi (唐君毅, 1909–1978), and Xu Fuguan (徐復觀. 1904–1982) interpreted major events in modern Chinese political history. Their analysis encompassed significant historical developments including the Xinhai Revolution, Sun Yat-sen’s Three Principles of the People, and the May Fourth New Culture Movement. The presentation put particular emphasis on China’s challenges with democratization and Westernization.
The commentator affirmed the speaker’s research perspective, noting that while Contemporary Neo-Confucianism are typically viewed primarily as philosophers and intellectuals, their political engagement was substantial. For instance, Mou Zongsan’s work Politics and Governance (政道與治道), and his close association with political figures such as Zhang Junmai (1887–1969), demonstrated the thinkers’ significant political experience and concerns. This aspect is well-documented in Peng Guoxiang’s The Practical Concern of a Wiseman: The Political and Social Thought of Mou Zongsan (智者的現世關懷).
However, the commentator adopted a more critical stance toward their political ideals: Contemporary Neo-Confucianism as an intermediate social stratum—neither part of the government nor closely connected to the masses. The commentator questioned the practicality of this political vision by referencing The Battle for China’s Past, which highlights fundamental challenges in modern China, particularly the prevalent issue of illiteracy. The commentator expressed reservations about whether the political concerns and ideals of Contemporary Neo-Confucianism could effectively address the practical challenges facing modern China.
In the same group, Professor Yeh Ting-ting’s (葉亭葶) presentation, “Criticism of the Nationalist Government’s Education Policy by Taiwanese Elites in the Early Postwar Period: A Case Study of Lin Mosei” (戰後初期台灣人精英對國民政府教育政策之批判─以林茂生為例), examined a Taiwanese intellectual’s perspective of educational policies under both Japanese colonial and Nationalist government administrations, with particular attention to the issue of localization.
As a student of John Dewey (1859–1952), Lin’s doctoral dissertation critically examined colonial education policies. In his vision for Taiwan’s future, Lin conceptualized democracy, education, and culture as elements in an interconnected whole, reflecting the influence of his mentor’s philosophical framework. Throughout both the Japanese colonial period and the Kuomintang administration, Lin consistently emphasized the significance of Taiwanese cultural identity and the importance of preserving local languages. However, these aspirations remained largely unrealized.
The commentator suggested a broader contextual analysis of Lin’s work within both Japanese and world history. He raised an important question regarding Dewey’s influence in Japan during the Taishō period: Why did Dewey’s ideas gain less traction in Japan compared to China, despite him giving lectures in both countries? This disparity might be attributed to the distinct intellectual trends of the two nations. The commentator also raised a theoretical question regarding Lin’s anti-colonial stance: as an elite member of the colonized population, what factors contributed to the development of his anti-colonial thought, and to what extent was this influenced by contemporary movements for national self-determination? Furthermore, the commentor noted that the Japanese Empire’s political blueprint and related assimilation policies failed to convince Lin of their merit. The commentator also advocated for analyzing Lin’s political, cultural, and linguistic perspectives within the framework of “ideas in context,” suggesting a comparative approach with other contemporary Taiwanese scholars.
There were also discussions on the relationship between public opinion and government policies. Dr. Shiuon Chu’s (徐兆安) presentation, “Dialect Returning Home: He Rong and the ‘Non-Coercive’ Methods of the Mandarin Promotion Movement in Taiwan” (何容與國語運動在台的「非強迫」手段) argued that some unofficial intellectuals had the power to advance language unification movements by applying pressure to dialectical speakers in Taiwan after 1945.
Professor Han Cheng-hua’s (韓承樺) presentation, “The Internal Transformation of Political Movements: The ‘Mass Psychology’ Craze in Modern China” (政治運動的內轉化：近代中國「群眾心理」熱潮) aimed to understand why mass psychology became popular in 1920s China, how Chinese intellectuals interpreted psychology and translated it into Chinese, and how the Nationalist Party used psychology in their governance.
The 1920s witnessed a surge of interest in mass psychology among Chinese intellectuals, marking a significant shift in how they conceptualized political movements and social change. This phenomenon, as Han demonstrated, was not merely an adoption of Western ideas but rather a complex process of interpretation and adaptation. Chinese thinkers actively engaged with Western psychological theories, particularly through the translation and reception of seminal works such as Gustave Le Bon’s The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (烏合之眾). This process sparked a profound transformation in how Chinese intellectuals understood the relationship between individual psychology and collective behavior.
Central to Han’s analysis is the exploration of how traditional Chinese concepts of “heart/mind” (心) underwent significant reinterpretation when confronted with Western psychological theories. This reveals a fascinating dialogue between indigenous Chinese thought and imported Western concepts. Rather than simply replacing traditional understandings, Chinese intellectuals developed sophisticated syntheses that drew upon both established wisdom and modern psychological insights. This intellectual fusion had far-reaching implications for how political movements were conceived and executed in modern China.
The KMT Party’s incorporation of psychological principles into their governance strategies represents a practical manifestation of this theoretical evolution. Han’s research reveals how political leaders consciously applied psychological insights to mobilize masses and shape public opinion. This practical application of psychological theories in governance marked a significant departure from traditional approaches to political leadership and mass mobilization.
The relationship between national identity and mass psychology emerges as another crucial theme in Han’s work. Chinese intellectuals grappled with questions of how psychological understanding could contribute to nation-building and the formation of modern Chinese identity. This intersection of psychology and nationalism played a vital role in shaping political discourse and action during this period.
There are also essays on Hu Shih (胡適, 1891–1962), exploring his views on Westernization, the Communist Party, and Japan. Professor Chang Kun-Jiang (張崑將)’s essay “An Elaboration on the Significance of Hu Shih’s Perspectives on Japan” (胡適的日本觀衍義) challenged Zhai Zhicheng’s (翟志成) characterization of Hu’s views on Japan as inconsistent and unclear. Chang argues that Hu’s perspectives instead underwent a systematic evolution that was responsive to changing historical circumstances.
This evolution becomes evident through three key aspects: First, Hu’s early engagement with Japanese intellectual circles—particularly his interactions with Natsume Sōseki (1867–1916)—revealed an initially positive but perhaps naive view of Japan’s achievements. Second, his intellectual exchange with contemporaries like Dai Jitao (戴季陶, 1891–1949) over Japanese thinker Yamaga Sokō’s ideas (1622–1685) showed how different Chinese intellectuals interpreted Japanese thought. Finally, the 1930s marked a turning point, especially after Japan’s withdrawal from the League of Nations, when Hu adopted a more confrontational stance in his role at the Institute of Pacific Relations.
Further research opportunities include examining Japanese perspectives on Hu’s ideas and comparing his engagement with Japan to other Chinese leaders, such as Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek, who had markedly different approaches to documenting their Japanese experiences.
Overall, this conference encouraged scholars to explore the ideological shifts of intellectuals in 20th-century China and Taiwan, shaped by the historical context of their time.