For scholars and readers interested in the political, military, or intellectual history of the Ming dynasty, Wang Yangming is a figure of undeniable importance. And in contemporary mainland China, even those with little knowledge of Ming history may have encountered his name on various occasions and might even be able to comment on his life or philosophy. This widespread recognition is largely attributable to the so-called “Wang Yangming fever” that has swept across China in recent years—an intellectual trend encouraged, and to some extent orchestrated, by the government. George L. Israel, professor and author of Studying Wang Yangming: History of a Sinological Field, has termed this phenomenon “the Renaissance of Wang Yangming Studies in the People’s Republic of China.”Footnote ¹ In his view, this renaissance has been sponsored by the authorities “for the purpose of promoting pure scholarship on Chinese traditions, placing tradition in the service of political policies and ideological legitimation, and increasing the global presence of knowledge about Chinese history and philosophy” (244). In fact, since East Asia’s entry into the modern era, Wang Yangming’s xinxue—often translated as the “Learning of Mind”—has been repeatedly invoked to inspire social movements and advance political agendas, first in Japan and later in China. Thus, since the late nineteenth century, throughout regions shaped by the Confucian tradition, Wang Yangming has come to function not merely as an object of historical or philosophical inquiry, but also as a recurring symbol of social reform.

This fervor surrounding Wang Yangming in East Asia subsequently spilled over to the West. Although Europeans became aware of Wang relatively early—probably at the end of the sixteenth century—serious scholarly studies of his life and thought in North America and Europe did not emerge until the beginning of the twentieth century and only began to flourish after the 1940s. From the early twentieth century onward, academic works and scholars from East Asia acted as both catalysts of and active contributors to the development of Wang Yangming studies in the West. Devoid of the socio-political symbolism that characterizes Wang’s reception in East Asia, studies on him in the West have remained largely within professional academic circles—rigorous in approach, yet consequently less accessible to or resonant with the broader public.

The trajectory of Western scholarship on Wang Yangming up to 2020, as briefly outlined above, is meticulously traced, analyzed, and evaluated by Professor Israel in his book Studying Wang Yangming. While a limited number of articles have reviewed or listed Wang Yangming and Learning of Mind studies in Western languages, Studying Wang Yangming is, to my knowledge, the first and only book-length treatment of the subject. As such, it is poised to become an essential guide for anyone seeking to navigate and build upon the substantial body of Western scholarship on Wang Yangming. The volume is organized into seven chapters. The first four follow a chronological framework, each dedicated to a distinct period: Chapter 1 spans 1600 to 1916; Chapter 2, 1914 to 1950; Chapter 3, 1950 to 1980; and Chapter 4, 1980 to 2020. The remaining three chapters adopt a thematic approach, focusing on publications from the most recent period. Chapter 5 surveys historical studies, Chapter 6 examines religious interpretations, and the final chapter delves into philosophical and comparative-philosophical approaches.

The periodization of Wang Yangming scholarship into four distinct phases, as outlined above, is logically constructed on the basis of both the volume and the intellectual character of the works produced in each era. The chapters clearly demonstrate that not only Wang and his thought, but also the scholarship concerning them, have been profoundly shaped by historical contexts and intellectual developments across different periods. Up until the early twentieth century, Wang remained largely unknown in the West. A small number of researchers—many of them Christian missionaries—took notice of him as a somewhat prominent figure of the Ming dynasty, yet few engaged seriously with his theories. This neglect was largely attributable to the fact that Wang’s branch of Neo-Confucianism had fallen into disfavor after the late Ming, particularly during the Qing. Another contextual factor was the preference of Western missionaries, beginning with Matteo Ricci and his fellow Jesuits, for classical Confucianism predating the Qin. They employed it as a resource for preaching the Gospel in China, while dismissing Neo-Confucianism from the Song merely as “a type of metaphysics or materialistic philosophy” (166).

The revival of interest in Wang, both in the West and the East, was in fact initiated by a socio-political movement in Meiji Japan that sought to construct a national morality as part of the country’s broader “nationalist project of nation-building” (23). This trend in Japan, in turn, reminded intellectual circles in contemporary China of Wang’s importance, while also bringing him “to the attention of missionaries living in East Asia as well as academics following the East Asian and Chinese scene” (56). More systematic studies of Wang’s life and philosophy subsequently appeared, together with translations of his works into Western languages, and scholars from Japan and China began to sporadically publish studies on him in English.

Nevertheless, scholarship on Wang Yangming in the West—particularly in the United States—began to flourish in a substantial sense only after the Second World War. As the author explains, “many factors lie behind the appearance of this dynamic scholarship: big-picture historical developments in China prior to those decades, funding for research on China during the Cold War, and the unique biographies of scholars who wrote about Wang Yangming” (91). A number of scholars of Chinese origin, such as Wing-tsit Chan, Carsun Chang, Julia Ching, and Tu Weiming, relocated to the West as a result of political upheavals in China. Possessing both a deep understanding of China’s intellectual traditions and a belief in their universal significance, they began translating and studying Wang’s philosophy, and comparing it with Western intellectual traditions. Together with Western colleagues such as William Theodore de Bary, they helped establish the field of Chinese intellectual history in North America, within which the study of Wang Yangming became one of the central components. The scholarly achievements of this formative period far surpassed those of earlier decades and laid a solid foundation for further developments after the 1970s. The past forty years, as analyzed in the book, have witnessed a relative decline in traditional intellectual history, yet at the same time produced a growing body of research on Wang Yangming framed within diverse paradigms and methodologies. In an age of deepening globalization, scholars from across the world have increasingly engaged in dialogue and exchange, leading to both the expansion and diversification of the field of Wang Yangming studies.

The sheer volume and methodological diversity of works produced in the most recent period necessitate a topical examination—a task that comprises more than half of the book. The final three chapters are each dedicated to a distinct sub-field, exploring not only Wang Yangming himself, but also his first-generation disciples, as well as modern “New Confucians” deeply influenced by the heart-mind intellectual tradition. In these chapters, the author provides detailed discussions of the works under review, moving beyond mere summaries to include evaluative comments and critical observations. At times, the author also suggests promising directions for future research, such as comparisons of the Learning of Mind and Daoism. Chapter 5 examines studies conducted within the relatively traditional framework of historical research or sinology, particularly those written from the perspective of intellectual history. The next two chapters are devoted to research paradigms that emerged mainly after the 1970s and have come to dominate the field of Wang Yangming studies. Both the religious and the philosophical approaches to Wang’s doctrines and concepts demand expertise extending well beyond Chinese history or sinology. For instance, when comparing the Learning of the Mind with Christianity, Buddhism, or various strands of Western philosophy—from ancient Greek thought to modern phenomenology—specialized knowledge of these traditions proves indispensable. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the reader encounters the names of many scholars outside the immediate circle of Chinese studies. This development underscores a larger trend: Wang Yangming’s teachings are no longer regarded solely as a Chinese intellectual tradition embedded in the historical context of the Ming dynasty, but increasingly as a spiritual heritage of universal relevance and value.

Despite the growing body of research since the 1980s, the study of Wang Yangming in the West—particularly in the United States—appears today to be constrained, if not endangered, by many factors. As the author observes, these include “academic trends and a de-emphasis on intellectual history, the job market, biases in the Western academy—especially philosophy departments—and the persistent challenge for any student East and West trying to develop the skills to work with Ming sources and publish them in English, French, or German” (114). Perhaps added to all these are recent geopolitical tensions and domestic political developments in certain Western countries, which may also decrease enthusiasm and funding for the broader study of China in the West.

Professor Israel’s book offers a comprehensive and richly detailed panorama of scholarship on Wang Yangming in the West since the seventeenth century. Drawing on works not only in English but also in French and German, and by scholars from North America, Europe, China, and Japan, the author presents an impressively wide-ranging body of sources. The sheer quantity of works examined is remarkable, and the author goes beyond descriptive summaries to provide critical evaluations. Moreover, he contextualizes these studies within their historical settings, analyzing the distinctive features of each period and the intellectual and political conditions that shaped them. The volume is not without minor flaws. For instance, Chinese characters for certain Chinese and Japanese scholars and books are occasionally misprinted (e.g., pp. 74, 99, 118), and the name of the German scholar Fabian Heubel is erroneously rendered as Herausgeben von Fabian (105). Yet such technical lapses in no way detract from the book’s scholarly value or its significance for the field.