239
that the question stunned him. He did not really answer it. Like Qian, Dennerline was non-partisan, at least in this instance. However, he enumerated some instances of social changes in Qian's home village in Wuxi in recent years and made it very clear that these were changes that Qian had neither allowed for nor understood as he asked the question. As Dennerline explains, there was in Qian's appeal to Chinese culture an appreciation of the Chinese people as he might have found them in his home village, but the future that Qian sought for China was one that expressed more the yearning of the generation of the 1911 Revolution. That generation, one may say, was inspired by the brave new world of the early Chinese republic. The scholars of that generation realised that China had to change to adapt to a modern world, embraced the change and sought to understand their culture as it changed, fully confident that there was hope in the future. They went back to China's past in a sense of optimism, and produced the learning that inspired their students.
The generation that came after 1911 had less reason to be so hopeful about Chinese culture. Those who adhered to the same aspirations would have to want to hold the world still so that the culture that it treasured might continue to be meaningful. They would have to turn inwards, so to speak, and let their faith in their culture take over their ability to adapt it to the changing world. Qian Mu, in this sense, was a herald of the modern world, but that was the modern world of the 1910s.
No doubt, Chinese scholars have much of value to say to the world, but it is unlikely that they will do it without accepting that the world is necessarily changing and without learning about some of these changes. Dennerline reads this message in Qian Mu's writing. It would be gratifying if Qian's students can also rise up to it.
David Faure
239
that the question stunned him. He did not really answer it. Like Qian, Dennerline was non-partisan, at least in this instance. However, he enumerated some instances of social changes in Qian's home village in Wuxi in recent years and made it very clear that these were changes that Qian had neither allowed for nor understood as he asked the question. As Dennerline explains, there was in Qian's appeal to Chinese culture an appreciation of the Chinese people as he might have found them in his home village, but the future that Qian sought for China was one that expressed more the yearning of the generation of the 1911 Revolution. That generation, one may say, was inspired by the brave new world of the early Chinese republic. The scholars of that generation realised that China had to change to adapt to a modern world, embraced the change and sought to understand their culture as it changed, fully confident that there was hope in the future. They went back to China's past in a sense of optimism, and produced the learning that inspired their students.
The generation that came after 1911 had less reason to be so hopeful about Chinese culture. Those who adhered to the same aspirations would have to want to hold the world still so that the culture that it treasured might continue to be meaningful. They would have to turn inwards, so to speak, and let their faith in their culture take over their ability to adapt it to the changing world. Qian Mu, in this sense, was a herald of the modern world, but that was the modern world of the 1910s.
No doubt, Chinese scholars have much of value to say to the world, but it is unlikely that they will do it without accepting that the world is necessarily changing and without learning about some of these changes. Dennerline reads this message in Qian Mu's writing. It would be gratifying if Qian's students can also rise up to it.
David Faure
:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.