Liang Qichao of the Qing Dynasty and his Vision of China’s Future
Autumn Kowitz
Paper #2 Draft #2
Section AA
6.07.2004
Born in 1873, Liang Qichao felt a responsibility for his generation to help reform itself into a modern state able to compete with, and defend itself from, the onslaught of the West and their ideas.The Qing dynasty, in power at the time, turned to an associate of Liang Qichao, Kang Youwei, to help the Guangxu emperor make such reforms[i].Kang Youwei enlisted the help of Liang Qichao in this matter.However, in 1898 the empress dowager, fearing the reforms were siphoning off her power, ousted the Guangxu emperor, forcing Kang and Liang to flee the country to in the hopes of escaping her wrath[ii].Liang went on to spend five months in the where he observed American society and government with an eye on how could employ American ideas to aid its attempt at modernization[iii].In America Liang discovered that the path to ‘s modernization was two-fold.needed both a major governmental overhaul as well as subtle cultural reform to reach its dream of industrialization, wealth and modernization.
The Chinese government desperately needed to be reformed during the late Qing dynasty.Many educated scholars had varying ideas on exactly how to accomplish this seemingly monumental task.Liang Qichao searched for ideas in that could possibly act as models for .[iv]However, soon after arriving in , Liang realized that many flaws existed in American political and social systems.
The first defect he points out is the major poverty epidemic, which was exceptionally prevalent in
New York
during the period.[v]The number of people living in poverty in
New York
shocked Liang.He cited that about 230,000 people lived in small apartments with no ventilation or daylight.The buildings had a foul stench, and Liang found them very deplorable.[vi]He was very surprised that the most “prosperous city in the world” could also be the “bleakest”.[vii]He goes on to cite that the areas considered the poorest in
New York
also had the highest death rates and infant mortality rates in the city.[viii]The fact that the American system allowed such poverty amongst its own people turned into one of the major reasons Liang could not accept the American model as a strong example for .However, these were not considered to be the most shocking statistics Liang encountered.
Near the end of Liang’s description of
New York
‘s poverty epidemic, he presents some interesting figures concerning the distribution of wealth across the country.He explains that according to statistics of the socialists only 200,000 people in hold 70 percent of the country’s wealth, leaving the other 79,800,000 with the remaining 30 percent.[ix]This statistic surprised Liang more than any other.He found it exceedingly strange that the people tolerated this disparity, and deduced that should this trend continue, a turn to socialism would be unavoidable.[x]He thought the massively unequal distribution of wealth pointed to a greater problem of American hypocrisy.If all men were free and equal, how then could the disparity be justified?As far as the larger governmental model of was concerned, it would not be advantageous to the Chinese people to adopt if it meant such a gaping disparity in economic distribution by its very nature.
Another aspect of the American system Liang heavily criticized was the institution of the industrial trust, where one or few people or companies own all of the capital within a specific field.He found this phenomenon similar to the problem of unequal division of wealth.The industrial trusts, in Liang’s eyes, were an evil concept, thought up by selfish capitalists who enjoyed profits more than they respected the principles of fairness.He cites that 80 percent of the capital of was controlled by trusts.[xi]He went on to say that was the “premier capitalist nation in the world, and American capital amounts to half that of the entire world.”[xii]If America owned 50 percent of the world’s capital and 80 of that was controlled by trusts, it would amount to 40 percent of the entire world capital in the hands of trusts.This showed Liang that the disparity of wealth distribution was a problem rooted in the West, which had begun to make itself known to the world, as international trade and contact figured more prominently in the world order.He felt China would probably be the worst victim of these trusts, adding to his dissatisfaction with the American governmental model.[xiii]
Through his observations of the American system, Liang decided it was not the solution to bring about the necessary governmental reforms in China.The disparity of economic distribution illustrated through trusts and wealth statistics alarmed Liang.It was not a phenomenon that would benefit China, and it seemed to be an unavoidable consequence of the American ‘pure capitalism’ model.He also believed the American model was not ideal for China for reasons involving the nature of Chinese character.Based on his observation of the San Francisco Chinese community and the Chinese community in China, he was unconvinced that the latter was ready for freedom.[xiv]In his final conclusion on the topic of massive governmental reform in China, Liang thought the Chinese first needed to be ruled by a strict, despotic style of government, which would force the people to unify and prepare them for the responsibilities and consequences of freedom.[xv]However, their version of freedom would need to rectify the latent hypocrisy inherent in the American system.
In Liang’s view, modernization in China neededto occur not only through governmental reform, but also through changes in the cultural subtleties of the Chinese people.He did not think the Chinese would be ready for freedom unless they changed many of their attitudes and practices in everyday life, which in turn would help China reach better productivity and stronger social cohesion.
The first example of this appears in his description of Central Park in New York City.On this topic he remarks, “The park is in the middle of the city; if it were changed into a commercial area, the land would sell for three to four times the annual revenue of the Chinese government.” [xvi]That comparison must have seemed outrageous to Liang when he first learned of it.However, as he stayed in the city longer, he came to realize how important the park was to the city’s inhabitants.The park symbolized the importance of proper balance between work and leisure, something he felt the Chinese needed to realize in order to create a more productive society.
The issue of the park is important to mention, because it ties directly into the first cultural difference Liang brought up that could lead China to modernization: rest.He first compared the American work week of the period (eight hours a day Monday through Saturday[xvii]) to the contemporary Chinese work week (16 to 17 hours a day, everyday[xviii]), and noticed that even though the Chinese worked quite a bit more than the Americans, the Americans ended up rich while the Chinese did not.[xix]He attributed this disparity to the Chinese lacking “lofty goals”.[xx]He argued, “In any kind of work, the worst thing is to be fatigued.If people work all day all year they are bound to be bored; when they are bored they become tired, and once they become tired everything goes to waste.Resting is essential to human life.That the Chinese lack lofty goals must be due to their lack of rest.”[xxi]Liang also attributed this lack of rest as the reason why Western education was superior to Chinese.[xxii]
Another example of a small cultural difference between the West and China with greater repercussions has to do with societal cohesiveness.Liang Qichao illustrated this through a variety of seemingly small cultural behaviors which when observed together are indicators of such cohesion or the lack thereof.First he observed that when Chinese gather to hear a lecture they often make noise, whereas Americans sit silently together, all listening intently.[xxiii]The American example shows mutual respect between the listeners, allowing everyone to easily hear the lecture.In the Chinese example, on the other hand, the listeners did not seem concerned about others’ being able to hear the lecture.It seems to be an insignificant issue, but upon closer examination it was really alluding to the American sense of shared interests and principles.Sharing common ground in this way was a key element to the unity of the American populous, which Liang saw the merits in, and hoped the Chinese could learn from this model.
Next, he mentioned that when the Chinese ride a bus they often sleep or use a spittoon, but Americans stay alert and are not usually even allowed to use a spittoon.[xxiv]This, again, demonstrates a level of shared respect for the public interest, since busses were public property, as well as a shared ideal between the passengers of the importance of alertness and diligence in public life.Sharing these ideals unified the Americans in ways not yet seen in China, making the unification of the people easier than in a society of scattered people with few shared everyday practices.Spitting on the bus was not an example of unity.It showed a latent disrespect for the common public property, which is quite symbolic of greater disunity amongst the citizenry.It was necessary for the Chinese to unite in small ways such as these, culturally, in order for the changes that come with modernization to work at their most optimal levels.
These examples are all models of the differences that Liang saw as hindrances to Chinese advancement.In order to move forward into modernity, they would need to become a cohesive unit.Should they continue to be “scattered”[xxv], how could they defend China’s sovereignty?China needed to unite both inwardly by means of attitude and outwardly by means of behavior.Though he by no means thought it appropriate for the Chinese to emulate the Americans in every way, he did wish to bring attention to these issues because he saw these details as important indicators of the barriers existing in China’s path to modernity.Such a path needed to consist of heavy governmental reform which he did not find a model for in America, as well as the more subtle amelioration of cultural conscientiousness and practice, to which he thought America could provide a suitable model.
In Liang’s view, emulating the American model of cultural unity was necessary for the larger reformation of government to be successful.The fight for a modern China needed to happen on a very large scale, enveloping the entire government of the nation, as well as on a very small scale, bringing the people together and creating an environment conducive to the high level of productivity needed to modernize China, in order to compete with the Western powers.Liang Qichao did not wish for China to take on the American governmental system which he thought to be unjust.He did, however, see some merit in the more subtle cultural interactions and practices in the lives of the everyday American, and thought some of these things would be valuable to the Chinese in their quest for a modern state.In the end, Liang Qichao did not accomplish his goal of finding a complete solution to modernize China through his examination and study of America as a model of Western ideas, but his work did illuminate certain key initial reforms that he believed could assist in China’s transition into modernity.
[i] Patricia Buckley Ebrey, ed., Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook (New York: The Free Press, 1993).335.
[ii] Ebrey, 335.
[iii] Ebrey, 335.
[iv] Ebrey, 335.
[v] Ebrey, 336.
[vi] Ebrey, 336.
[vii] Ebrey, 336.
[viii] Ebrey, 336.
[ix] Ebrey, 336.
[x] Ebrey, 336.
[xi] Ebrey, 337.
[xii] Ebrey, 337.
[xiii] Ebrey, 337.
[xiv] Ebrey, 339.
[xv] Ebrey, 339.
[xvi] Ebrey, 335.
[xvii] Ebrey, 339.
[xviii] Ebrey, 339.
[xix] Ebrey, 339.
[xx] Ebrey, 339.
[xxi] Ebrey, 339.
[xxii] Ebrey, 339.
[xxiii] Ebrey, 339-340.
[xxiv] Ebrey, 340.
[xxv] Ebrey, 240.
