Navigation ab zweiter-Ebene
A Review of Chinese Development Studies
Since the West broke down the door to China, Chinese scholars have received experiential and theoretical support from the West, (1J used to criticize Chinese culture, to delineate and evaluate China's present condition, and to formulate the goals and practical course of China's development.
When we critically analyze the fruits of research by scholars influenced by this tendency, we find that although the Western theories used by Chinese scholars differ and their theoretical sources are diffuse, in applying them to research an China's development the same problems arise[ZJ : using questions from the West’s course of development and the issues which Western theories propose to answer in order to formulate the questions arising from Chinese course of development; confusing effect and cause by taking various factors abstractly surmised from after the West’s entry into modern society as the preconditions for Chinas own modernization; regarding Chinese tradition as an obstacle to China's transformation into a modern society and completely negating it ; neglecting to address those issues which did not constitute problems in the West’s endogenous form of development but which do constitute problems for Chinas model- led development; treating as given Western theories which have not been subjected to analysis and criticism as well as theoretical hypotheses that have not been verified by China's experience, and then using them to deliver equivocal judgements an Chinese social reality.
If we go beyond the level of asking what have been the tendencies adopted by Chinese scholars and what questions they have addressed, and if we do more than allow analysis to float at the level of superficial prognoses or simplistic determinism's about what approach Chinese scholars must or ought to adopt, [3J and we attempt to unveil the deeper intellectual formation behind this idea, then the question becomes as such :First , why have Chinese scholars adopted this approach in studying China's development? Second, why in applying Western theories and concepts to study the issues of China's development have the above problems arisen? These are the questions to be addressed in this paper.
Generally , there are two explanations as to why Chinese intellectuals have insisted an seeking support from Western experience and theory. One explanation rests an the consequences of Western external aggression toward China. In Edward Shils' words, at present, the whole intellectual world outside the West, even the most creative parts of that world, is in a state of provinciality. It is preoccupied with Western achievements, it is fascinated and drawn to the intellectual output of the West. Even Japan, the Soviet Union and China, which in their different ways have many greatly creative intellectuals, are concerned with the West, and not just for reasons of state or for military or strategic reasons. They are transfixed by its shining light. They lack intellectual self - confidence and self - esteem. (43 Joseph Levenson is even more categorical, stating that the breakdown of traditional society is the result of the Western impact, the same Western incursion that ruffled and finally ruined Chinese confidence in it's intellectual self - sufficiency, [5) making them appeal to the salvation of Western thought. Another explanation rests an Chinese intellectual's response to the impact of the West in seeking survival in national strength and prosperity or completing the transformation of traditional society into modern society and so seeking answers in Western experience and thought. Although these two explanations differ, basically they both belong to a model adoption paradigm which proposes that the modern West offered an experiential and intellectual model for traditional China. Hence, because they lacked intellectual self - confidence or for the sake of China's development, Chinese intellectuals had to adopt Western experience and theory. Nevertheless, if we carefully examine these seemingly cogent explanations against the entirety of non -Western societies, we discover the flaws in such explanations, because some non -Western intellectuals in the same relation to the Western model as China's intellectuals did not adopt the same approach as them. In other words, the model of the West was a necessary but insufficient condition for the approach adopted by Chinese intellectuals .
As to why Chinese scholars have encountered these problems in applying Western theory and concepts to studying China's modernization, there are no ready - made answers but some pertinent points which may provide some enlightenment. Lin Yusheng's examination of the May Fourth period Chinese intellectuals ' totalistic negation of tradition and blind acceptance of Western thought explains it as originating in the Chinese traditions' own monistic or intellectualistic mode of thought which borrowed thought and culture to solve problems. On this basis he also criticizes the intellectual mode of mechanically, monastically accepting Western concepts that arose from within this tradition. In discussing Yan Fu's vision of wealth and power, Benjamin Schwartz observes that his concern with wealth and power and his response to the Faustian spirit of Western civilization formed the basis of all independent intellectual schools at the time, regardless of whether these schools considered themselves socialist, liberal, or neo - traditionalist. (6J Even more astutely, Zhang Hao points out the filtering function of saving the nation: under aggressive encroachment, "suddenly save the nation consciousness became pervasive. Trapped within this consciousness, Chinese intellectuals began to accept Western thought on a large scale. It is notable that the sources of this Western thought were very diverse; some arising from nationalism, some from liberalism, some from romanticism and other movements, but all these currents of thought underwent the filtration of mass consciousness in being assimilated. Due to this filtration, much of this Western thought was no longer in its pristine form. "C71
Clearly, Lin Yusheng's explanations and criticisms are not only partial because they declare that Chinese intellectuals' mode of thought - did not come under the direct influence of Western thought,(8~ but also the scope of his explanation is clearly limited and incapable of explaining the other questions we have raised. Schwartz and Zhang Hao's explanations are more apposite to our questions. However, logically speaking, the vision of prosperity and strength which they find at the base of various kinds of thinking or the filtering effects of save the nations consciousness only touch an the possibility of Chinese intellectuals seeking support from Western theory and experience, when this possibility eventuated, the possibility of these theories being misunderstood or distorted in the course of their introduction. But this remains ineffectual in answering the questions we have raised, questions which did not arise out of misunderstanding or distortion.
However, what must be emphasized is that these viewpoints have made two significant contributions to answering the questions : (1) that Chinese intellectuals should evince these problems in their studies is possibly the outcome of a dominant intellectual framework, although this framework is not the viewpoint or consciousness they describe; (2) these problems manifested in the work of Chinese intellectuals can be analyzed and explained an a case - by - case basis using different viewpoints and methods , but this is of no assistance in analyzing and criticizing the entire intellectual framework lying behind them.
Accordingly, the theoretical hypothesis of this paper is that Chinese scholars' search for support from Western experience and theory was a sufficient condition for accepting an intellectual framework which took this model as given in studying China's development, and the domination of this intellectual framework or model, and that Chinese intellectuals should in studying the problems described above has a close causal relationship with the dominance of this intellectual framework and its intrinsic errors. We shall describe this as the modernization framework. What should be stressed is that this modernization framework clearly possesses the components of an intellectual mode or an oracular role, and so is unlike the various modernization theories proposed by Western intellectuals, although there are intrinsic logical inter-linkages between the two. As well, this framework differs from unverified axiomatic propositions because it and the hypotheses it entails can be verified, analyzed and critiqued. However, to undertake a comprehensive testing and analysis of the theoretical hypotheses advanced in this paper would require an inventory and analysis of over a century of Chinese intellectuals' various studies concerning China's modernization, something clearly beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, the author will use case studies to test the above hypotheses, situating these hypotheses in the context of theoretical research an civil society in China's modernization conducted by mainland intellectuals since the early 1990s. This analysis implies at least two things: (1) if our hypotheses are substantiated, then the least we can say is that the modernization framework of our development studies, in certain respects continues to have an effect in the 1990s, thus enabling us to responsively revise and critique this framework; (2) if our hypotheses are not substantiated, through pointing out the-misleading questions in the framework of modernization and offering a basic analysis and critique of it, at least will be of assistance to Chinese civil society theorists and others engaged in development studies in remaining vigilant towards the consequences which this framework might have in their own work.
A Critique of the Modernization Framework
Before proceeding with our case study of research an Chinese civil society, the logic of exposition requires that we must first define the so - called modernization framework .
As we have noted above, this modernization framework is different from the various modernization theories proposed by Western scholars, but it is Western scholars' considerations about modernization which constitute the intellectual source of this framework. Historicists (Kant, Spencer), typological (Tonures, Durkheim,Weber) and structural- functionalist (Parsons, Levy) theories all form the theoretical sources of the modernization framework. Although, these versions of modernization differ and their methods diverge, generally the Western modernization framework is founded an the following two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: All the countries in the world can be divided into traditional and modern societies an the basis of the West's achievements in modernization. This is the familiar traditional - modern dualism. As Theda Skocpol explains, it is an historical ideal type only subsequently applied to studies of different countries.
Hypothesis 2: Human history is destined to develop along a single track made up of connected sections each of which is strictly different in character. According to the traditional - modern dichotomy, this development is manifested as a progression from traditional to modern society, or as John LaPalombara puts it, The very words modern or modernity imply a social Darwinian model of political development. They suggest that change is inevitable, that it proceeds in clearly identifiable stages, that subsequent evolutionary stages are necessarily more complex than those which preceded them. (9]
This traditional - modern dichotomy and the progressive view, traditional inevitably becoming modern, have sustained all sorts of modernization theories and originally arose from Western scholars' speculations an the stages of Western society's industrial and technological revolution. But in being used to explain the development of non - Western societies and in being adopted by non - Western scholars, this thought and theory has abandoned the intellectual restraints in which it arose and becomes a universal - intellectual framework for the transformation of all traditional societies into modern ones, our so - called modernization framework.
However, it must be pointed out that, historically, the modernization framework underwritten by a view of global development as Westernization was not accepted by Chinese intellectuals in a totalistic, once - and - for - all fashion. The course of modern Chinese history shows that Chinese scholars' acceptance of this framework evolved against the background of their discovery of the West through the evolution of ideas of Sinocentricism, the oriental spirit - Western matter dichotomy (in Chinese tiyong) and Westernization and was popularized during the period of the May Fourth new culture movement , subsequently being strengthened through Chinese scholars' assimilation of a range of modernization theories. Of course, it would be tempting to imagine that this modernization framework was clearly expressed in the minds of each intellectual, or was faithfully and systematically understood by them, but the general case was that it was taken an a priori and left unexamined in the depths of Chinese intellectuals' thought, and this was reflected in their thinking and research.
Undoubtedly, the modernizing thought that was the product of the viewpoint of Western scholars, was later adopted by Chinese intellectuals at the cognitive level as their intellectual framework, by this stage functioning according to its own logic. Or, as in Foucault's power - knowledge construct, the modernization framework established itself as the intellectual construct for Chinese intellectuals' discovery of the West, at the same time inducing Chinese intellectuals to produce a range of intellectual mutations under its dominance. In reality, the logical expression of these two related facets was that, first, the adoption of the modernization frameworks injected a legitimate coerciveness into the Western model for China. Under this coercive model, Chinese intellectuals' utterly uncritical acquisition of experience and theory from the West was perceived as rational , even essential . Second , it meant that Chinese scholars' studies an China's development had to pass through the filter of this intellectual framework, and the contextualizing or modalizing effects of this modernization framework also left the brand of this framework an the results of that research.
The key question of this part is not only that we must recognize the effects of the - modernization framework an our research, but also that we must advance an analysis and critique this framework. In this way, its substantive function in our studies are evident from all angles. It is unfortunate that in their headlong rush into studies of China's development, Chinese scholars have not made this modernization framework itself the object of their studies, offering analysis and critique. Regarding the analysis and critique of this framework, we can apply the various viewpoints advanced in criticisms of modernization theory and its hypotheses since the 1960s and in the global anti - modernization trend described by Alitto Guy. (1°) These points can be summarized as follows : First , the modernization framework's simplistic partitioning of the world into modern and traditional countries implies that what is not modern is necessarily traditional. The crux of this sweepingly arbitrary treatment lies in how to define modernity, but the definition in question rests precisely an factors abstracted from the West’s experience of development and its achievements. Hence, the traditional - modern dichotomy contains an implicit West-centrism. Second, the traditional - modern dichotomy is a pure type gained through abstraction, but it is through this pure dichotomy (that does not actually exist) that people have construed the world. In a sense, this is replacing historical factuality with logical rationality. Furthermore, as a result of this dichotomy's neglect of the factual experience, and even its disregard of the important findings in empirical research and anthropological and historical knowledge , it completely denies that most complex phenomena of modernity latent in tradition and, conversely, the ongoing existence of tradition in modernity. Third, the modernization framework postulates an unchanging, unilinear track of historical progress. The key point here lies in converting the fortuitous in the West's development experience into a universal historical inevitability. This not only implies that the world must strive to catch up with the standards of Western achievements, but also that the mode of those attainments also has universal validity. This implicitly denies the possibility that countries with different conditions and cultures have distinctive modernization paths. Fourth, through its arraying of historical development and its belief that the condition for the fulfillment of modernization is the abandonment and negation of tradition, the modernization framework defines tradition in a holistic and homogeneous way, regarding tradition as totally backward and an obstacle to catching up with modern development. Undoubtedly, this neglects the profoundly positive resources for modernizing transformation latent in tradition.
An examination of Chinese Research an Civil Society
As was noted above, Chinese civil society research began in the early 1990s, being launched with a paper in Social Sciences in China and steadily emerging as an intellectual trend concerning China' s development. The theoretical standing of this trend must be clarified by examining the basic background of the Western concepts and theory as they were adopted by Chinese scholars.
(1) As they entered the 1990s, China's intellectuals were engaged in serious theoretical reflection, including analysis and criticism of the theories of Chinese development, neo-authoritarianism and democratic Avangardism. In a certain sense, this evidenced the shift of Chinese intellectuals from romantic extremism and the search for instant results to rational thought and steady choices. The crux of this shift lay in Chinese intellectuals search to cast aside the domination of a state - centric, top -down elite road and turn to a concern for social forces, seeking to abandon the illusion of arriving at democratic politics in one step and turning to sober probing of gradually advancing the social structural base an which democratic politics rests.
(2) In early 1992 , Chinese economic reform entered the new stage of establishing a market economy, giving rise to the studying of questions concerning resource flows, social differentiation, transformation of state functions, social integration, and establishing within the sphere of society the possibility of actual realization. In terms of experience, the key lay in advancing the new questions of establishing the boundary between state and society or constructing the relationship between state and society, demonstrating the crisis of a state - based comprehensive theory. In other words, it meant the emergence of certain theories capable of analyzing and explaining these questions raised in the real progress of China's development.
(3) From the 1980s, both the Western and Eastern Europe experienced a vogue for debates an civil society in response to the problems that each faced. "This intellectual trend in the West and Eastern Europe is a revival of the civil society theory of a century ago, it is a criticism and adjustment of the extreme tension between state and society over the previous century. Hence. at a practical level, the objective lies in the effort to affect a readjusted relationship between the state and the civil society which has survived until the present" (Deng, 1993a) . The significance of this phenomena is that the explanatory power of civil society theory regarding state - society relations and the Western route to civil society have been regarded as having succeeded in Eastern Europe, suggesting the universality of this theory and its corresponding route, and it is this which has formed the model for present - day Chinese theorists.
Under this model of Western civil society, responding to the realities of China's course of reform and, even more crucially, internally driven by the transformation in Chinese scholarly thought, Chinese theorists have introduced Western concepts and theories of civil society and set about using them to explain and research China's Problems. According to this rough summary, we can basically define Chinese civil society research as an inquiry into the developmental course entered upon by China. This discussion and research undoubtedly has many significant aspects, but here what must be emphasized are the problems present within it , because these problems could become obstacles to the furthering of this research.
First , Chinese civil society theorists believe that the West' s developmental experience is of a civil society constructed an the basis of a free economy and, further, the realization of political democratization an the basis of this civil society. This sensibility strongly suggests the hypothesis that for Chinas modernization trajectory the Wests route to political modernization is universally effective. This belief is specifically expressed in Chinese civil society studies in the following ways:
(1) Chinese civil society theorists believe that the fundamental reason for the numerous setbacks that China has encountered in the process of political modernization lies in having chosen the wrong route to modernization. In broader terms, it lies in the fact that during its process of development China did not find a rational route to constructing a structure for salutary interaction between state and society. Therefore, they criticize neo - authoritarians for seeking individual charisma for being mutually repellent with a democratic political structure, while they also criticize that radical democratic theory which reversing cause and effect, makes democratic politics a precondition for solving all other problems (Deng & Jing, 1992,p.59; Xiao, 1993, p. 183 ; Xia,1993 , p. 176) . In a certain sense , this is all quite persuasive. However, the problem is that the route which Chinese civil society theorists choose is an utterly Western one, and clearly choosing this route does not stem from local experience and knowledge, but stems from an acceptance that the Western mode of political democratization is universally valid. (11) In these studies, this presupposition is reflected in the total doubtlessness that Western institutions, structures or arrangements can be transplanted to China.
(2) Although Chinese civil society theorists generally recognize that civil society is merely a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for political modernization, the deep imprint of the successful experience of Western civil society an their minds has made them give only cursory consideration to these other problems (Deng & Jing, 1992; Shi, 1994; Lu, 1994) . In other words, in effect this dissolves what for China is the pivotal question of necessary or sufficient conditions in the optimism that China can construct a Western - style civil society, and has led to neglect of analysis into the complex phenomena of why some non - Western countries (including early twentieth - century China) built civil societies or the embryos of civil societies, but did not enter into political modernization.
(3) Chinese civil society theorists not only view constructing civil society as a means of effecting political modernization, but also view constructing civil society as a goal in itself. To borrow Timothy Garton Ash's description of Eastern Europe, for them, building a civil society was itself the goal, and also the means of democratic change. (1z~ The essential point is that when we examine how Chinese civil society theorists delineate this goal we discover that the goal is delineated in terms based an Western theorists defining Western societies. (133 Hence, research invariably approximates between Chinese empirical realities and Western concepts, and this is especially pronounced in the selection of those aspects from China's complex experience corresponding to Western definitions for broad examination, while neglecting certain aspects of substantive significance for Chinas development. Moreover, these theorists still frequently conduct controversies among themselves inspired by the definitions of their particular Master Thinker or issues which do not touch an China's development.
(4) Closely related to the above point, Chinese civil society theorists generally accept the market economic basis of the construction of civil society, and this market economy is characterized by strictly delineated private property rights(Deng & Jing, 1993; Sun, 1992; Xia, 1993; Jiang, 1993). However, the very least that we can say with certainty is that the Chinese model of a cooperative - based economy with unclear property rights in the midst of abandoning the traditional planned economy is clearly unlike the typical Western private economic model based an clear property rights, and is unlike the Eastern European model of outright transition to the Western model relying an clearly defined property rights. This incontrovertible fact shows that, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether the Chinese model of the market economy can actually like the West’s free market economy nurture a civil society, even if its can nurture a civil society, a civil society based an the Chinese model would certainly differ from the Western mode of civil society. However, as a result of their use of an empty concept of the market economy, gained through strained comparisons between the market economy that China is in the midst of building and the Western capitalist free market economy and by abrogating the substantive differences between the Chinese and Western market economies, as an analytic tool, even as the proposed basis for Chinese civil society, Chinese civil society theorists have not only neglected substantive analysis of the economic arteries of constructing a Chinese civil society, they have also neglected substantive analysis of the character and functions of the Chinese civil society with the Chinese model of the market economy as its basis.
(5 ) A considerable proportion of Chinese civil society research consists of critiques and equivocations (Xia , 1993 ; Xiao , 1993 ; Zhu , 1994 ; Shi , 1994 ; Lu , 1994) . But an further examination, whether it is a near - at - hand but implausible dream or hindered by great burdens generally they all acknowledge the prerequisites for the construction of civil society as the prerequisite for political modernization has begun to unfold and criticism is largely restricted to the present feasibility of operationalization. What must be stressed here is that the standards upon which these criticisms and equivocations rest are mostly Western theorists' view of civil society or the Western experience of the development of civil society. This implies that the hurdles to constructing a civil society in China are actually those of constructing a Western style civil society in China. Moreover, these hurdles are temporary and surmountable, and if only these hurdles are surmounted, China can construct a Western-style civil society, thereby accomplishing political modernization. Cla)
A deep evaluation of the above tendencies in Chinese civil society studies shows that Chinese civil society studies are, in a certain sense, conducted an the basis of an acceptance of the dichotomization between Western modernization and Chinese tradition. This is most pronounced in that most research denies the positive significance of China's cultural network founded an filial ties in integrating Chinese civil society, neglecting the possibility of forming the qualities of a Chinese civil society out of China's own development experience. As well, Chinese civil society research remains primarily concerned with the problems of accomplishing political democratization but there is no corresponding research regarding democratic politics itself . They basically view Western politics as providing the obvious highest goals. However, it is precisely these goals which Chinese theorists view as not requiring analysis which have received increasing doubts and criticisms from Western theorists themselves.
From this abbreviated analysis of Chinese civil society research, we can derive this conclusion : Chinese theorists considerations of civil society in questions of China's development have been dominated by the modernization framework, and under the influence of this intellectual framework , Chinese civil society studies have manifested the Problems described above.
Research in China's development remains a formidable task. In extending this research not only must we sort and analyze the results of previous research, we must also analyze and critique the intellectual framework and its hypotheses which dominate this research and substantive research models. This paper's theoretical hypothesis is that, under the domination of the modernization framework, research into China's development has given rise to errors, requiring a reconsideration of Chinese development research. Of course, the theoretical hypotheses proposed in this paper await verification through other analyses of research an China's development, and further verification of the contention that this research has come to be dominated by a certain intellectual framework would also be of significance. What must be emphasized is that the third part of this paper which tested the author's hypotheses through analysis of Chinese civil society research, in fact was also a critique of the direction of that research , and the author's own views as a researcher of civil society are , no doubt, among those critiqued. The conviction which I maintain is that Chinese social science must develop, and as researchers perhaps what we need more than ever at the present, is a intellectually conscientious adherence to the Einsteinian critical spirit described by Popper and the scholars responsibility for self - correction and criticism which Isiah Berlin advocated in discussing the tremendous latent dangers in political and sociological doctrines. (15)
Finally, it must be stated that in analyzing the tendency for Chinese development researchers to adopt Western experience and theories and the various Problems which this tendency has given rise to, this paper does not criticize this tendency in itself , and even less so is it a simplistic rebuttal. The criticism is of the modernization framework which has dominated this tendency, because it is the very failings of this intellectual framework itself which has lead to the various failings and distortions that have occurred in our seeking support from the West in our research. Undoubtedly, this touches an the great problem of whether Chinese theorists ought to adopt Western concepts and theories in studying China's development. But this is another Problem which this paper has not addressed. At the least, we can observe that in any serious scholarly topics, depending an any paltry nationalist attitudes to make reckless judgements is not enough. Only through careful epistemological analysis and mid -ranged methodological research can we hope to gain intellectual awareness and advancement of such topics.
A Bibliography of Materials an Chinese Civil Society
Deng Zhenglai & Jing Yuejin, Constructing Chinese Civil Society, Chinese Social Sciences Quarterly , No.l (1993)
Deng Zhenglai (a) , Civil Society and the State : Theoretical Boundaries and Two
Types of Structure, Chinese Social Sciences Quarterly, No.5 (1993)
Deng Zhenglai (b), A Study of Taiwanese Discourse an Civil Society, Chinese
Social Sciences Quarterly , No.5 (1993)
Jing Yuejin, Summary of a Seminar an Civil Society and Chinese Modernization,
Chinese Social Sciences Quarterly , No. 5 (1993 )
Xie Weihe, Social Resource Mobility and Social Differentiation: The Objective
Bases for Chinese Civil Society, Chinese Social Sciences Quarterly , No.4 (1993)
Jiang Qing, Confucian Culture: A Rich Resource for Constructing a Chinese -
style Civil Society, Chinese Social Sciences Quarterly , No. 3 (1993)
Zhu Ying , On Some Points of Dispute About Chinese Civil Society , Chinese
Social Sciences Quarterly , No.7 (1994)
Shi Leihua, Modernization and Chinese Civil Society, Chinese Social Sciences
Quarterly , No.7 (1994)
Lu Pinyue, The Progress of Chinese History and the Construction of Civil Society , Chinese Social Sciences Quarterly , No. 8 (1994 )
Chen Jiaming, Hege1's Civil Society and Its Relation with the State, Chinese
Social Sciences Quarterly , No. 4 (1993 )
Yu Keping (a) , Marx's Theory of Civil Society and Its Place in History, Social
Sciences in China , No.4 (1993)
Yu Keping (b) , Socialist Civil Society: An Innovative Research Topic, Tianjin
Social Sciences , No. 5 (1993 )
He Zengke, A Review of Gramsci's Thought an Civil Society, Marxism and
Reality , No. 2 (1993 )
Fang Chaohui, Civil Society and the Legitimacy of the Capitalist States, Chinese
Social Sciences Quarterly , No.4 (1993)
Tong Shijun, Civil Society in the Vision of Post - Marxism, Chinese Social
Sciences Quarterly , No.5 (1993)
Xu Yong, The Genesis of Modern Political Culture, Tianjin Social Sciences ,
(1) Yang Guoshu has observed that Chinese scholars , " when studying Chinese society and Chinese people, invariably lean towards the questions explored by Western scholars, applying the theories established by Western scholars, and uncritically applying their research methods as well. " See Yang Guoshu, Signifying Social and Behavioral Science Research , (Taiwan, 1982).
(2)The most typical examples are Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi, the former revering the Enlightenment tradition of the French Revolution, and the latter assimilating the Anglo- American intellectual tradition represented by Dewey.
(3)Luo Rongqu points out," In recent years, scholars researching the modernization of Eastern countries have arrived at a general point of view: modernization is not a unidirectional historical process, but is a process involving the combination of external stimulation and internal response. More concretely, it is a complicated process of the shock of the West and the Eastern countries own respons--. " See Luo Rongqu, From Westernization to Modernization (Peking University Press, 1990), p.2.
(4 )E. Shils, The Intellectual Between Tradition and Modernity : The Indian Situation (Mouton, 1961) p.13.
(5)J. R. Levenson, Confucian China and Its Modern Fate , Vol. 1(Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1958) , p.145
(6)B. Schwartz, In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West (Harvard University Press, 1964)
(7)Zhang Hao, The Development of Late Qing Thought , (Taibei, 1980) , pp.l-33
(8) Lin Yusheng, The Crisis of Chinese Consciousness (University of Wisconsin Press, 1979) .
(9)John LaPalombara, Bureaucracy and Political Development , (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), p.38
(10)For examples of the numerous critiques of modernization theory, see J. Gusfield, Tradition and Modernity : Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social Change , AJS, Vol. 72 (1967) , pp. 352 - 362 ; R. Bendix, Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered , CSSH, Vol. 15 (1973) , pp. 199 -226.
(11)For a most enlightening discussion of this issue, see Philip Huang, Civil Society in China? The Third Realm between State and Society, Modern China , No. 2 (1993) .
(12)Timothy Garton Ash, The Uses of Adversity (Granta Books, 1989) ,p.246.
(13)See Jing Yuejin, Summary of a Seminar an Civil Society and Chinese Modernization, Chinese Social Sciences Quarterly , No. 5 , pp.197 -198
(14)There is a large body of work regarding this problem, most recently concerning democratic politics. Here the most authoritative work has been that of Jurgen Habermas, see for example his paper, Three Normative Models of Democracy .
(153Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays an Liberty , (Oxford University Press,1969) , pp.118 - 119.
Deng Zhenglai: Chief - editor of Chinese Social Sciences Quarterly and China Book Review.