Over the last few decades, two developments have brought fundamental changes to the study of the humanities. The digital revolution triggered the construction of huge databases, universally accessible and searchable on an unprecedented scale. As a consequence, new ways of thinking in wider contexts and organizing research on a larger scale came within reach of disciplines that had previously mostly been active on an individual level and focusing on particular phenomena. Moreover, applications of new scientific methods led to breakthroughs in fundamental humanities issues such as environmental and biological data that were essential for living conditions and for the formation of collective identities. The increased collaboration between disciplines led to major innovations.

For the most part, modern China’s institutions and modes of knowledge have been shaped and predominantly influenced by the West. Since the modern Chinese knowledge system is an integral and inseparable part of that dominant western system, an immanent critique will view Chinese problems not as extraneous, but as intrinsic to modernity, to the world-system or globalization. This article traces the genealogy of modern European modes of knowledge under the rubrics of ‘liberal arts’, as the origin and basis for modern China’s institutions and modes of knowledge, and then examines China’s ‘liberal arts’ as institution and modes of knowledge from the early years of the twentieth century to the present. The paper’s objective is to question the relationship between (Eurocentric) universalism and Chinese exceptionalism within the dominant modern Western institutions and modes of knowledge today.

This article illustrates that due to the complexity of educational practices and of the educational system, their scientific study constitutes a crossroads for dialogue and possible conflicts among a variety of disciplines. The article focuses on school education. A first illustration shows how analyzing and improving classroom practices requires collaboration with and among different sub-disciplines of psychology. In the next section the recent domain of educational neuroscience is discussed as a crossroads of educational science, psychology and neuroscience. Thereafter, it is argued that research on mathematics education calls on the contribution of many disciplines such as mathematics, pedagogy, the psychology of cognition and math-related beliefs, and anthropology. The final example focuses on educational technology that requires interaction between educational science, psychology, computer science, economics, etc.

The nature of liberal arts education merits renewed attention and consideration, especially in the context of the modern university in both Hong Kong and mainland China, where there is growing recognition that quality education standards should be improved, and an interdisciplinary approach to education and research is the way forward. The liberal arts spirit is an illustration of the power of inspiration and transformation, and through engaging with different perspectives, students are enabled and encouraged to pursue independent study, which boosts their creativity and critical thinking. As a catalyst and facilitator, liberal arts education that encompasses fresh global perspectives and connections has proved its worth over the years. However, since it is sometimes easy to lose sight of some of the fundamental principles essential to university education, we need to realize that too little interaction between science and the humanities has widened the two-culture divide, and the question is how to reconcile, or better still combine, the two. The two-culture debate, although suffering neglect for a long time in China, is of profound relevance and implications for the modern university. It can be observed that participatory interaction inherent in the dynamism of pedagogical engagement is increasingly promoted as the preferred mode of teaching students, who have benefited from broad-based learning as the embodiment of liberal education. Overcoming rigid disciplinary exclusiveness is positively correlated with empowering students with broad knowledge and skills to succeed in the future.

The point of departure for this article is the principle of the separation of powers, formulated long ago by the Frenchman Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu. It is argued that this principle is important for the governance of universities, entailing a balance between university boards, university presidents and university senates. To this end, the article presents evidence about the governance structure of two highly-ranked US universities, UC Berkeley (UCB) and Stanford University. It reports on board compositions, the selection of presidents and the role of academic senates. The conclusion is that the principle of the balance of powers (‘shared governance’ as it is called at UCB) has served the two universities well. Therefore, despite differences in other conditions, such as their endowments, other universities might benefit from the evidence reported.

Two tendencies in present-day higher education in China, namely the neglect of the humanities and liberal arts and their incorporation of officialized programmes, are bringing about a change in the values that the humanities and liberal arts foster, and are making for unclear programming. A case in point is the practice that has identified higher education as a tool, overemphasizing its functions and ‘usefulness’ for the nation. It is reasonable to consider higher education from the perspective of national interests. Nonetheless, the author of the current article contends that the overemphasis on function and ‘usefulness’ runs counter to the nature of higher education that endeavours to cultivate a student’s humanity. The author will also argue that one of the principal methods for this humanization is to learn about human nature and to know how to follow one’s good conscience. That is, students have to be educated to know their essential human character and the various demands that are embedded in all intellectual and moral virtues and all language games, and abhor and refrain from any practices that violate them. In this sense, the humanities and liberal arts can provide various human experiences that would be a great help for students to know and to learn the above-mentioned human nature and virtues.

This article is adapted from a speech delivered at the ‘2016 University Presidents Forum’ on 7 April 2016. Modern human society confronts two great challenges: one from the conflict between nature and humankind, the other from the clash of different civilizations. As one of the most innovative components of society, research universities should shoulder the responsibilities for, and contribute to the sustainable development of, human society and the peaceful development of the world. One possible road to take for research universities is to accelerate building innovative universities, and hand-in-hand develop an innovation network with other innovative components of society. Here, the concept of an innovative university, beyond the perspective of a single innovative component, refers to a university with an innovation capacity as well as an organizer, connector and coordinator of various innovative components, (1) adding value through innovation and creating excellence; (2) acquiring the competitiveness for resources, and optimizing and upgrading itself; and (3) developing the capability of consolidating high quality resources through openness, sharing and collaboration. However, research universities should realize that neither the capacity of acquiring nor consolidating high quality resources can be achieved by an individual university or universities in a single region. That means future innovation should be made through networks. Only those who have access to the key nodes of the network can stand on the central stage of the global innovation system. Thus, an innovative university plays an irreplaceable role in the formation and function of such an innovation network to sustain its position in the global innovation system. These are the mission and responsibilities of the leading research universities.

On the one hand, ‘interdisciplinarity’ in all its formats, ranging from multi- to transdisciplinarity, has become the focal point of research agendas and a high priority of many funding bodies, while, on the other hand, universities by and large still remain discipline-oriented. This ‘tension’ is especially manifest between ‘science’ and ‘culture’ in the sense of bridging gaps between disciplines and research domains. The main roles of the Humanities and Social Sciences can be said to be the development of critical and independent thought, the identification and dissemination of important social and cultural values, as well as challenging widely held assumptions and beliefs. This article focuses on new ‘interpretations’ of knowledge seen as the fundamental link, which can, within university programmes, raise the awareness of the importance of the Humanities and Social Sciences on one hand, but, more importantly, also put into a much wider context the different ‘knowledges’ necessary for the contemporary understanding of how ‘science’ should be geared towards the individual, society, as well as the global community at large.*

This article discusses John Milton’s Paradise Lost, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and the contemporary film Ex Machina as a coherent group concerning the boundaries of knowledge and the perils of scientific Prometheanism. The development of AI (Artificial Intelligence) should be delimited and contained, if not curtailed or banned, and scientists ought to proceed in a responsible and cautious manner. An obsessive or excessive pursuit of knowledge, aiming to equal God and create humanoid beings, constitutes the essential feature of scientific Prometheanism, which can end in catastrophic destruction. Both Frankenstein and Ex Machina stringently critique scientific Prometheanism as one aspect of modernity, and expose the real dangers that AIs pose to the very existence of humanity and civilization. In Paradise Lost, Milton provides the epistemological framework for Frankenstein and Ex Machina. The article concludes that the union of science and arts in science fiction (films) can be very productive.

Post-humanism has recently come to China and challenges traditional humanism and the humanities. The author first offers a reflection on the evolution of humanism in modern Chinese intellectual history. To the author, we are now in a ‘post-theoretical era’, in which the function of theory is no longer so powerful and ubiquitous as it used to be. It is then argued that the rise of the ‘post-humanist’ trend in the West during the past decades indicates that, in the present era, humankind is only one of many species on earth, whose existence and development, to a large extent, depend on natural law. At the same time, post-humanism tells us that humankind may no longer be able to control some of its own creations. The author concludes by calling for digital humanities to bridge the gap between science and humanities and to establish a new relationship between the two.

Interdisciplinarity has entered the agenda of researchers, teachers and policy makers and will remain there in the future. This does not mean that interdisciplinarity is understood the same way, let alone is appreciated everywhere. Researchers are challenged by increasingly complex problems in culture, nature and society beyond disciplinary boundaries; higher education has to cater to a volatile job market where known disciplines no longer define their own niches in terms of topics or practices for their candidates; and decision makers are confronted with challenges that do not respect ideologies of political parties and reports based on mainstream knowledge. In this context, interdisciplinarity is an ongoing re-consideration of the creation, the communication and the application of knowledge uniting the perspectives of research, teaching and decision making. While most discussions on interdisciplinarity focus on its theoretical and methodological complexity in an exclusively contemporary perspective, this article will discuss interdisciplinarity in a historical perspective as central to European history of knowledge as well as in an intercultural perspective.*

It is argued in this article that the dialogue between science and humanities is not just an option, but rather a necessary act. In China, New Confucianism has accomplished its creative transformation through its dialogue with science, and the development of science and technology has also benefited from humanities – New Confucianism included. In the global confrontation of growing environmental crisis, science alone cannot solve all the problems. What kind of role can New Confucianism play along with science in addressing the environmental issues? How will a re-interpretation of tianrenheyi (unity of man and nature), which is a core Confucian concept, contribute to the critique of anthropocentrism and the cross-cultural reformation of ecological thought? Bearing in mind both the cosmopolitan consciousness and the eco-environmental sensibility, a New Confucian ecological humanism is proposed and analysed in response to the global environmental problem.

Ever since the mid-twentieth century, there has been a prevailing tendency of eliminating the author’s existence in his or her text, as well as the existence of his or her intention. The practice of negating the meaning of the author’s intention and thereby imposing arbitrary interpretations on the text to serve the critic’s own interpretive purpose, has led contemporary literary hermeneutics onto the wrong road of relativism and nihilism. It is sensible for us to identify an impact of scientism on such a hermeneutic tendency. However, no matter how we try to deny and dissolve the author’s intention, its being in the text is a hard fact that always determines the text’s quality and value and influences the readers’ understanding and interpretation. The author’s intention runs through the whole process of the text’s creation, displaying itself in all the plans and designs of the text, such as its language, structure and style. It is a false question to ask whether intention exists in literary creation, and the idea that the other person can be totally independent of the author’s intention to assert the meanings or significance of the text will finally lead us to nowhere but sheer subjective imagination. Any serious and responsible critic must research in depth to first bring out the author’s intention, and then bring out the text’s historical and social milieus. This is the foundational step towards fair and justified interpretation of the text. Since literary works are the objectification of the authors’ thoughts and mind power, we, whatever theories we are interested in, should give the author and his or her intention due respect. This is undoubtedly a scientific attitude toward literary studies.

In the Western world, the humanities have been under pressure for the last two or three decades. There are various reasons for this, which have to do with the changed status of humanities disciplines within universities, but also with the public at large. Employment prospects are deemed slimmer for humanities graduates than for STEM graduates. Aging populations requiring more health and old age provisions, and globalization increasing economic competition, are leading to economization and rationalization in the world of academe, relegating the humanities often – quite naturally, so to speak – to the end of the funding chain. Still, there are good reasons to continue funding, and promoting, the humanities. These reasons have to do with questions of identity, but also of economics.*