This important study concerns a key journal of the late Qing, Guocui xuebao (Journal of national essence, published 1905–11). The journal's authors included prominent intellectuals like Zhang Taiyan, Liu Shipei, Deng Shi, Huang Binhong, and Ma Xulun. Given their tremendous contributions to history, politics, publishing, art, and other fields, their journal demands serious attention. However, as Tze-ki Hon writes, Guocui xuebao has often been dismissed as a conservative throwback whose preoccupations became irrelevant after the rise of the so-called New Culture. In this concise yet rich study, Hon cautions us to resist the urge to retrospectively mislabel Guocui xuebao. Instead, we should appreciate and study further the contributions its articles made to radical political and cultural discussion of its heyday, hoping to restore China's national glory through the revolutionary process.
Hon argues for the essential newness of the journal's project, evidence of the “plurality in the early stage of Chinese modernity,” where “multiple players acted and interacted to define the boundaries and meanings of ‘China,’ ‘the Chinese,’ ‘the Chinese nation,’ and ‘the Chinese state’” (p. 15). Youthful literati without imperial degrees, the journal's contributors elevated the freshly conceived realm of culture and assigned themselves an innovative social standing as its interpreters. The term “national essence” (borrowed loosely from Meiji discourse) was by no means a nostalgic signifier; instead, it evoked the activist intellectual's impatience with late-Qing careerism, and promoted rigorous engagement with the pressing cultural, historical, and political affairs of the day.
Ambitious to serve as the voice of their generation, these young men were pragmatic exploiters of the new media transforming China's coastal cities. Mechanically produced periodicals circulated intellectual trends, enhancing what Liang Qichao termed the sense of “nations coexisting like next-door neighbors and continents linking together like friends in the same room” (p. 17). Mindful of global competition and the struggle for national survival, they urged readers to engage in political debate. Their essays modeled a process of building upon the literati's excellence in historical studies, literature, and philosophy while embracing global concerns. The ultimate goal was to leverage public discourse to strengthen China's diplomatic and national situation, particularly with a view to ending Qing control.
The vision of modernization through scholarly leadership first prompted the founding of the Association for the Preservation of National Learning in Shanghai. Its journal Guocui xuebao quickly became a rallying point for revolutionary intellectuals and hosted lively discussions of radical political and historical theories. Its articles made key contributions in debates over the definition of the new nation-state; the then-current Sino-Babylonianism theory; the application of Zhou dynasty philosophy to modernization; the promotion of local self-government; and historical documentation of the Ming-Qing transition, of great relevance for advocates of revolution.
Among these debates, the “Western origin of Chinese civilization” theory, or Sino-Babylonianism, remains a fascinating episode. Preposterous in light of recent archaeology, the theory attracted many supporters but not, Hon cautions us, because of any essential attraction to the idea of Mesopotamian origins. Rather, historians emphasized the significance of their intrepid Han forebears, whose journeys east and west were precursors of the worldly cosmopolitanism they fervently promoted. Historians were also inspired by how the theory's originator, Terrien de Lacouperie, utilized an intriguing blend of philology, archaeology, and history. This multidisciplinary perspective enhanced ongoing debates about Zhou dynasty history and its relevance in an age of reform. Indeed, rather than signaling a desire to turn back the clock, Zhou studies represented a commitment to the public sphere and promoted an innovative federal political system. Similarly, in its publications of sources and commentary from the late Ming, Guocui xuebao invoked the tragedy of foreign conquest to incite anti-Qing revolution. (Luckily for the authors, publication in Shanghai offered some protection for such radical views.)
As Hon summarizes the contributions of Guocui xuebao, he returns to his initial question, namely how such groundbreaking thinkers could be so quickly dismissed by the next generation. Part of the reason for this rapid turnaround, he argues, is ambivalence about the 1911 revolution promoted by Guocui xuebao. Rather than establishing a robust constitutional state under the leadership of the intellectual elite, the revolution was hijacked by dictatorial interests. It appeared to weaken the nation and led to a rapid decline in the literati's political, social, and economic position.
Yet, as Hon notes, the question that animated the journal, namely the definition and deployment of China's national essence, is as crucial as ever. The currents of globalization and the struggle for national survival that preoccupied the journal's contributors have only intensified. The query they posed—that of “how can China be both globally competitive and truly unique?”—is more salient than ever (p. 119). Only by investigating the original question, Hon suggests, will it be possible to formulate a satisfactory answer.
