406
stated, namely that 'from the 1870s to the 1920s, the rural economy in Jiangsu and Guangdong, especially in areas that produced export crops, saw considerable prosperity' (p. 202) and that this prosperity must have translated into a higher standard of living for the majority of farmers and owner-cultivators, as well as tenants' (p. 202) until the early 1930s when the effects of the world depression came to be felt in China and 'created a situation in which both landlords and tenants felt that they had been unjustly treated', (p. 207). What this implies is again obvious. As Faure unreservedly states, ‘As it was, rural China was poor not because there was excessive trade, but because there was not enough of it', (p. 21). Indeed, Faure's central thesis is a familiar one among the 'optimists'. His work is original in the sense that it explores trade conditions in two provinces (Jiangsu and Guangdong) in a comprehensive manner, and presents new evidence through his documented case-study to strengthen the 'optimistic' viewpoint. It will certainly be welcomed by protagonists of the 'optimistic' school.
Being a polarized partner in the debate, it is not surprising to find that Faure adopts an uncompromising stance towards the 'pessimistic' argument which, according to him, rests basically on field studies in the 1920s and 1930s that are far from being unbiased records of observation and highly influenced by contemporary emotions', (p. 3). On the issue of documentation, Faure actually stands on the horns of a dilemma; for he has little choice but to rely on the same pool of available source materials which he is so sceptical about. That Faure can manage to build up his 'optimistic' case is partly due to the fact that historical data can be interpreted differently, based on the historian's own frame of mind. As a matter of fact, two historians using the same source may come up with vastly different conclusions, just as two contemporary observers of reality may have very different assessments of the same situation. Besides, the pool of data is enormous and diversified in content. China is too vast a country to provide for homogeneity in economic texture and behaviour. Conditions may vary not only between provinces but within a province, between two neighbouring counties and even within a single county. There thus exists a vast and sometimes conflicting body of qualitative and quantitative information on various aspects of rural China which, when selected with a fixed purpose in mind, can add weight to either the 'optimistic' or 'pessimistic' viewpoint. This controversy, when examined from a methodological perspective, does indeed shed light on the nature of historical debate in general. It is rooted in the historian's selection and interpretation of historical facts. As the eminent
406
stated, namely that 'from the 1870s to the 1920s, the rural economy in Jiangsu and Guangdong, especially in areas that produced export crops, saw considerable prosperity' (p. 202) and that this prosperity must have translated into a higher standard of living for the majority of farmers and owner-cultivators, as well as tenants' (p. 202) until the early 1930s when the effects of the world depression came to be felt in China and 'created a situation in which both landlords and tenants felt that they had been unjustly treated', (p. 207). What this implies is again obvious. As Faure unreservedly states, ‘As it was, rural China was poor not because there was excessive trade, but because there was not enough of it', (p. 21). Indeed, Faure's central thesis is a familiar one among the 'optimists'. His work is original in the sense that it explores trade conditions in two provinces (Jiangsu and Guangdong) in a comprehensive manner, and presents new evidence through his documented case-study to strengthen the 'optimistic' viewpoint. It will certainly be welcomed by protagonists of the 'optimistic' school.
Being a polarized partner in the debate, it is not surprising to find that Faure adopts an uncompromising stance towards the 'pessimistic' argument which, according to him, rests basically on field studies in the 1920s and 1930s that are far from being unbiased records of observation
and highly influenced by contemporary emotions', (p. 3). On the issue of documentation, Faure actually stands on the horns of a dilemma; for he has little choice but to rely on the same pool of available source materials which he is so sceptical about. That Faure can manage to build up his 'optimistic' case is partly due to the fact that historical data can be interpreted differently, based on the historian's own frame of mind. As a matter of fact, two historians using the same source may come up with vastly different conclusions, just as two contemporary observers of reality may have very different assessments of the same situation. Besides, the pool of data is enormous and diversified in content. China is too vast a country to provide for homogeneity in economic texture and behaviour. Conditions may vary not only between provinces but within a province, between two neighbouring counties and even within a single county. There thus exists a vast and sometimes conflicting body of qualitative and quantitative information on various aspects of rural China which, when selected with a fixed purpose in mind, can add weight to either the 'optimistic' or 'pessimistic' viewpoint. This controversy, when examined from a methodological perspective, does indeed shed light on the nature of historical debate in general. It is rooted in the historian's selection and interpretation of historical facts. As the eminent
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.