(Chapter 2)

Author: Paul A. Cohen Present: Stephanie Lei Phoenix Kuan

Introduction
The author reveals the trend existed in the western particularly American - historians of China in 20th century, which they used the tradition-modernity polarity of modernization theory as a framework to interpret the process of recent Chinese history Thus the industrialized westerns presence in China had shifted China from traditional into modern society He is querying some assumptions of this Westerncentered historical view But history is the intersection of people and matters, this oversimplified view can hardly clarify the facts of history How is the appropriate point to the Chinese history?

About the Author

Paul A. Cohen (Chinese name: ) Famous American historian, Edith Stix Wasserman Professor of Asian Studies and History Emeritus at Wellesley College Currently an Associate of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University Research interests: 19th-20th century China and American historiography on China Always shows that the questions most American historians have asked about the China past

Famous books:
Speaking to History: The Story of King Goujian in Twentieth-Century China, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009. China Unbound: Evolving Perspectives on the Chinese Past. London; New York: Routledge Curzon, 2003. History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth, New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Structure
The 19th century western view of China Joseph Levenson and the Historiography of the 1950s and 1960s Redefining the Tradition-Modernity Polarity The residual grip of the 19th century

 theory of western historians The application of modernization

played an increasingly important role in 19th century History was considered as a linear process They thought that the following were irreversible and inevitable
Modernized and globalized process of Industrial Revolution Emergence of democracy and Capitalism Change of scientific thoughts and economic growth

The 19th century western view of China

China which is the most advanced countries in the orient still resisted to change both at that time and the past Western historians had a prejudice of barbarian against the Chinese modernized historical process

Joseph Levenson and the Historiography of the 1950-60s

20th century, the concept of grand narrative was widespread in many American historical and social works
Cohen had chosen Joseph Levenson as the remarkable American historian representative of China study in 195060s Levenson tried to explain the problems of the Chinese historical modernization from a Chinese standpoint

Levenson thinks that China began to change by the huge transitions in the West of 18-19th century; in spite of he tried to get rid of this prejudice

Joseph Levenson and the Historiography of the 1950-60s (cont)

of mid-20 Many famous historical works

century, were still dominated by the perspective assuming that without the Western presence, the East Asian past still underwent only change within tradition, not transformation
th

Levenson took over this model of thinking; however, he focused on the comprehensive western impact to the internal China (pp. 71-76)
Hence, he assumed that the west had promoted the drastic change of China and had weakened its old order So, Chinese revolution was the response to Western constant questions

 hypothesis of the In 1965-70's, the traditional

distinct "Tradition-Modernity" polarity was thoroughly challenged by the scholars

Redefining the Tradition-Modernity Polarity

A new, more complicated pattern had suggested for the relationship of Tradition and Modernity
Cohen criticizes Weber and Levenson had misunderstood the Confucian China; neither their followers, Metzger nor Elvin's argument, because the lack of evidence, was comprehensive enough

The residual grip of the 19th century

that domestic changes Early 1970s, some studies said

taking place in Chinese society long before the Western presence, China didn't functioned by the effects of the developed Western

However, they cant help comparing between Tradition and Modernity

The residual grip of the 19th century (cont)

The problems are

Tradition and Modernity are not two completely opposite systems, excluding any intermediate possibilities Cohen also cites "the assumption of the conservation of historical energy" of Hexter and Tipps, to prove this Western-centered view is indefensible Different traditions cant be generalized by the oversimplified concept

Suggestion: give up this methodology of modernization theory for historical analysis, in place of another less Western-centered mode will be more suitable

Conclusion
Cohen suggests the scholars afterward have to abandon the old thinking mode to reflect Chinese history. He had proposed a relatively objective approach at the fourth chapter, which underlines in two sentences. "Chinese problems set in a Chinese context. These problems may be influenced, even generated, by the West. Or they may have no Western connection at all. (p. 154) But either way they are Chinese problems, in the double sense they are experienced in China by Chinese and that the measure of their historical importance is a Chinese, rather than a Western measure. (p. 154)

Conclusion
Instead of the clear boundaries of comparison of time. In short, we observe into the interior of China, assay and seek for the problems derivatively, not persist in treating them from Western perspective. Besides, we can take advantage of subdividing the path of study - for instance, from the regional, special and provincial centered studies - rather than imposing uniformity on all enterprises. We believe that either the Tradition-Modernity dichotomy or "China-centered" view is still stuck in the Impact-Response pattern. The more accessible way to Chinese history we think is that putting the Western questions on one side firstly, look at each side from others' perspectives, and ultimately examine our own view by western or others questions. Herewith the researches become more objective.

Critique
As A. Feuerwerker had indicated in his review of Cohen's book that Cohen laid too much stress on someone like Levenson who "knew little about China". While Cohen applied the deductive method into Chinese historiography, we could find out that he tried to collect few historical evidences to set up his own theory according to his own needs. He missed the opposite examples which may make his arguments become unreliable. Therefore, the trustworthiness of his arguments is questioned by other scholars. In addition, he challenged and intended to get rid of the existing traditional framework and encouraged others to reflect which method they should use.

Critique
Human being make their own history, vise versa, country also. But, for another viewpoint, if we only talk about China history without any compare, or special review on countrys development, thats nothing worth to discuss, and it is hide comparsion in everybody mind set. Examples as follow: 1. Cohen emphasized Historian should use the Chinese angel of view to see the Chinese matters nature. Actually, Portugal, Dutch or United Kingdom had been continuing the trading with China since Ming Dynasty, and China was affecting by the other countries culture in many years ago. In the logical thinking, it doesnt have Simplex(things) in the world, thats why we objected to Cohens thinking.

Critique
2. Xi Ning Reform in Song Dynasty ()This reform was a big chance to change China economic into a capitalism system. Wang An-shi was the first person who understand The initial concept of Capitalism( ) in the early era, if some of the reform policies success at that time, it would be earlier than Renaissance. The main reason of failure was not Wangs suggestions not good enough, but the old bureaucrat system was one of the big problem, so, it was not saying that China no chance changed by itself, but the old system was not fit for any other new evolution. Qing Miao Fa() Shi Yi Fa()

Critique

() under the China 3. Most of the Shengyuan

Imperial Examination () system since from Han Dynasty, however, it caused most of students never focus on the Deliberation, and this examination was banned until the primary stage in twenty century. That was one of the big reasons why Chinese society doesnt have any famous philosophers or scientists appear during thousands of years. In this case, it was very difficult to develop a new examination or system better than Western countries.

Thank you