Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:37:52.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liang Sou-ming and the Rural Reconstruction Movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Lyman P. van Slyke
Get access

Extract

The name of Liang Sou-ming is perhaps most familiar in connection with his controversial published lectures of the early 1920's, The Cultures of East and West, and Their Philosophies. It is less well known that Liang had an extensive career in the field of rural reconstruction during the 1930's, that he was one of the prime movers of the political coalition which ultimately became the China Democratic League, and that, more recently, he has been under severe attack by communist thinkers for his continuing rejection of Marxism-Leninism as applied to China. Particularly during the time when he was active in rural reconstruction and in national politics, Liang represented movements which stood, or seemed to stand, as alternatives to both the Kuomintang and the Communist solutions to China's problems. The failure of these movements to prevent antagonistic polarization and civil war in China raises some of the most important problems to which a study of Liang Sou-ming gives entry. Here we shall be concerned primarily with the first of these efforts—rural reconstruction.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , August 1959 , pp. 457 - 474
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The author is a graduate student in the Department of History and a junior fellow in the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He gratefully acknowledges the assistance and encouragement of Professor Joseph R. Levenson of the University of California.

1 Tung-Hsi wen-hua chi ch'i che-hsüeh, 8th ed., with appended essays by Li Ta-chao, Ch'en Tu-hsiu, et al. (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1929), 216 pp. Hereafter cited as Tung-Hsi.

2 Chung-kuo min-tsu tzu-chiu yün-tung chih tsui-hou chüeh-wu [The Final Awakening of the Chinese People's Self-Salvation Movement], 3rd ed. (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chü, 1936), p. 24Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as Chüeh-wu.

3 Chüeh-wu, pp. 21–22.

4 Liang Chi has a short biography in Ch'ing Shih Kao [Draft History of the Ch'ing Dynasty], 501.20b-21a. The family's place of registry was Kweilin, Kwangtung, but they resided permanently in Peking.

5 Chao-hua [Morning Talks] (Tsou-p'ing: Hsiang-ts'un shu-tien, 1937), p. 76Google Scholar.

6 Chüeh-wu, pp. 12–13.

7 Liang was editor of the society's journal, Ts'un-chih yüeh-k'an [Village Government Monthly].

8 P'eng remained in Honan where he was later assassinated. Along with Liang Sou-ming and Liang Chung-hua, others who went to Shantung were Wang I-k'oi, Ch'e n Ya-sank, Yü Yü-chik, and Wang P'ing-ch'engl.

9 Tung-Hsi, pp. 3–4.

10 Tung-Hsi, pp. 48–49.

11 Tung-Hsi, p. 54.

12 Tung-Hsi, pp. 53–54.

13 Tung-Hsi, pp. 123–124.

14 Tung-Hsi, p. 189.

15 Tung-Hsi, p. 176. It is a measure of how far Liang had recast Confucianism when ke said that Kropotkin was near to Confucius in his view of man (p. 185).

16 Chüeh-wu, p. 47.

17 For example, Chung-kao chih ti-fang tzu-chih wen-t'i [Problems of Local Self-Government in China] (Tsou-p'ing: Hsiang-ts'un shu-tien, 1935), p. 60. Hereafter cited as Wen-t'i. See also Hu Ch'iu-yuanm, Chung-kuo wen-hua chih ch'ien-fu [The Future of Chinese Culture] (Hong Kong: Tzu-yu shih-chieh ch'u-pan she, n.d.), p. 55.

18 “Ching-shen t'ao-lien yao-chih” [“Essentials of Spiritual Refinement”], in Liang Sou-ming chiao-yü lun-wen chi [The Collected Essays of Liang Sou-ming on Education], 3rd ed., ed. Hsien-chih, Tangn (Shanghai: K'ai-ming shu-tien, 1946), p. 92Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as Chiao-yü.

19 Chiao-yü, p. 82.

20 Liang thought it “remarkable” that such an advanced view should have emerged so early.

21 Sec, for example, Wen-t'i, pp. 36–38. This is in flat contradiction to the hydraulic theory of Chinese society which Liang does not mention.

22 Hsiang-ts'un chien-she li-lun [The Theory of Rural Reconstruction] (Tsou-p'ing: Hsiang-ts'un shu-tien, 1937), p. 175. Hereafter cited as Li-lun. It is hardly necessary to say that this resolution did not solve all problems. If rationality is the criterion for acceptance, irrationality is implied as the criterion for rejection, not essential difference. But this would have placed all solutions on the same footing. There is some uncertain evidence in his later writings (esp. Li-lun) to suggest that Liang was aware of this problem, but I have nowhere seen him come face to face with it. These and other questions could probably be answered if Liang's last major work could be consulted. Entitled Chung-kuo wen-hua yao-i [Essentials of Chinese Culture], it was published in Chungking in a small edition about the time the Communists crossed the Yangtze. So far as I now know, it is unavailable outside the mainland.

23 Chiao-yü, p. 90. Liang also realized that this exempted him from the fallacies of the 19th-century t'i-yung synthesis in which certain elements of Western culture, such as industrial and military technology, were to be grafted onto traditional Chinese culture (however defined). Understanding that essence and function are two sides of the same coin, and knowing the function he wanted, Liang made the appropriate definition of essence.

24 The similarities were real and extensive enough to have persuaded some scholars that no significant change took place. A typical statement of this view is found in Shang-ssu, Ts'aia, Chung-kuo ch'uan-t'ung ssu-hsiang p'i-p'an pu-pien [Supplement to the Criticism of Chinese Traditional Thought], 2nd ed. (Shanghai: T'ang-ti ch'u-fa she, 1950), 101 ppGoogle Scholar.

25 In this regard we may note that although Liang is generally viewed as a traditionalist, he himself did not think the label appropriate. The fact that he had initially been attracted to Western thought and to Buddhism and only later found his way back to th e Confucian tradition meant to him that he had accepted “traditional” elements on their merits, not simply because they were a part of his past. His program of reconstruction would “send forth new shoots from an old root,” but he considered tradition for its own sake “a dead thing.”

26 Chüeh-wu, pp. 331–341, and Hsiang-ts'un chien-she ta-i [Main Ideas of Rural Reconstruction] (Tsou-p'ing: Hsiang-ts'un shu-tien, 1936), pp. 8–9Google Scholar.

27 “Changes I Have Undergone in the Last Two Years,” trans, from Kuang-ming jih-pao, Nov. 2, 1951, in “The Case of Liang Shu-ming,” Current Background, No. 185 (Hong Kong: American Consulate-General, June 16, 1952), 8. Hereafter cited as “Changes.”

28 Li-lun, p. 43.

29 Chüeh-wu, p. 209.

30 Chao hua, p. 35.

31 Chao hua, p. 139.

32 Chüeh-wu, pp. 214–215.

33 Wen-t'i, p. 28.

34 Chüeh-wu, p. 185.

35 Chüeh-wu, p. 178.

36 Chüeh-wu, pp. 176–177.

37 Li-lun, p. 415ff.

38 Chüeh-wu, p. 164.

39 Chüeh-wu, p. 182.

40 Wen-t'i, p. 54.

41 Chüeh-wu, pp. 164–166.

42 Li-lun, p. 280.

43 Chüeh-wu, pp. 125–126.

44 Wen-t'i, pp. 35–38.

45 Li-lun, p. 55.

46 Wen-t'i, pp. 22–23.

47 “Changes,” p. 14.

48 “Tui-yü Tung-sheng shih-chien chih kan-yen” [“Heartfelt Words about the Affair in the Eastern Provinces”], in Chung-Jih wen-t'i yü ko chia lun-chien [The Sino-Japanese Problem and the Views of Various Writers] ed. An-p'ing, Ch'up (Shanghai: Shin-yüeh shu-tien, 1931), p. 262Google Scholar. Liang often compared himself to Gandhi.

49 Ru-ho k'ang-ti [How to Resist] (Wuchang: Hsiang-ts'un shu-tien, 1938), p. 13Google Scholar.

50 “She-hui pen-wei ti chiao-yü hsi-t'ung ts'ao-an” [“A Draft for a Socially Based System of Education”], Chiao-yü, p. 149.

51 Dewey's influence was by no means limited to educational matters. Liang once said that there was nothing in Dewey's thought incompatible with his own view of Confucianism, but he did criticize Dewey for an apparent moral relativism. See “Tu-wei chiao-yü che-hsüeh chih ken-pen kuan-nien” [“Basic Concepts of Dewey's Educational Philosophy”], Chiao-yü, pp. 7–26.

52 “She-hui pen-wei ti chiao-yü hsi-t'ung ts'ao-an,” Chiao-yü, p. 149.

53 Chao hua, pp. 167–168.

54 “Ching-shen t'ao-lien yao-chih,” Chiao-yü, p. 73.

55 For more details of Liang's specific application of the Danish example to China, see “Tan-mai ti chiao-yü yü wo-men ti chiao-yü” [“Danish Education and Our Education”], Chiao-yü, pp. 64–96.

56 Wen-t'i, pp. 45–46.

57 Chüeh-wu, p. 244.

58 Li-lun, p. 447.

59 Wen-t'i, pp. 70–75.

60 Wen-t'i, p. 51.

61 “I-nien-lai ti Shantung kung-tso” [“Last Year's Work in Shantung”], in Hsiang-ts'un chien-she shih-yen [Experiences in Rural Reconstruction], No. 3, 2nd ed., ed. kung-tso t'ao-lun hui, Hsiang-ts'un (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chü, 1938), pp. 301–302Google Scholar.

62 The National Economic Council, co-ordinating body for government reconstruction efforts, and the Ministry of the Interior, headed by Kan Nai-kuangt, were able to bring about, in the National Conference on Interior Administration held in Dec. 1932, passage of a resolution favoring the establishment of at least one experimental district in each province. This was passed into law the following year. The resolution gave official sanction to, and was inspired by, the kind of work being done by Liang in Shantung.

63 Chüeh-wu, p. 255.

64 Shantung Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Five Years of Rural Work in Tsou-p'ing, 2nd Ser. (Tsou-p'ing, 1936), p. 5. This plus surtax income amounted in 1934–35 to about Ch$170,000 in Tsou-p'ng and Ch$295,000 in Ho-tse.

65 Five Years, p. 3.

66 “I-nien-lai,” p. 295.

67 “Hsiang-nung hsüeh-hsiao ti pan-fa chi ch'i i-i” [“The Management of the Peasant School and Its Significance”], Chiao-yü, p. 139.

68 Five Years, p. 11.

69 Five Years, pp. 18–22.

70 “I-nien-lai,” p. 294.

71 Five Years, p. 34. The farm was so successful that in 1934 the provincial authorities allotted an additional 680 mou to it.

72 “I-nien-lai,” pp. 298–299.

73 Ku-yü, Wuu, Tsou-p'ing shih-yen hsien hu-k'ou t'iao-ch'a pao-kao [Report of the Investigation of the Population of Tsou-p'ing Demonstration District] (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chü, 1935), p. 139Google Scholar.

74 “Shantung hsiang-ts'un chien-she yen-chiu yuan pao-kao” [“Report on the Shantung Rural Reconstruction Research Institute”], in Hsiang-ts'un chien-she shih-yen [Experiences in Rural Reconstruction], No. I, 2nd ed. (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chü, 1936), p. 35Google Scholar.

75 For example, by Hsüeh-hsiung, K'ungc, Chung-kuo chin-jih chih nung-ts'un yün-tung [The Rural Movement in China Today], rev. ed. (Shanghai: Chung-shan wen-hua chiao-yü kuan, 1934), p. 412Google Scholar.

76 I have been unable to determine the exact moment and circumstances of the closing of the Institute. The July 10, 1937, issue of Min-chien [Among the People] carried news of the RI with no reference to closing. Yet Liang was in Ch'eng-tu in June, where he delivered the lecture “How to Resist” (see note 49). I do not know whether he returned to the RI thereafter. The province was not taken by the Japanese until Jan. 1938. Institute-trained forces which had been placed under provincial command were defeated in their first major engagement. Following the fall of Shantung, Han Fu-chü was sentenced by court-martial to face the firing squad for his inept defense of the province. Some account of these matters may be found in Wang Yu-ch'uan, “The Organization of a Typical Guerrilla Area in South Shantung,” app. to Carlson, Evans F., The Chinese Army: Its Organization and Military Efficiency (New York: IPR, 1940), 139Google Scholar pp.

77 “I-nien-lai,” p. 302.

78 Hu Han, “On Liang Shu-ming,” in “The Case of Liang Shu-ming,” p. 31.

79 “Changes,” p. 12.

80 “Changes,” p. 16.

81 Paauw, Douglas S., “The Kuomintang and Economic Stagnation,” JAS, XVI (1957), 213–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Li-lun, pp. 315–316.