Harvard on China: The Apologetics of Imperialism Joseph Esherick The classic works on modern China-by Harold Isaacs, and that the employment of foreigners to administer China's Edgar Snow,Jack Belden,even Mao Tse-tung himself-have all customs was in fact "one of the most con structive features of led us to believe that the revolutionary ferment which surged the treaty system."6 Similarly,in 1913,when Yuan Shih-k'ai through China in the twentieth century was the result of rural was forced to turn the administration of China's salt gabelle impoverishment,cconomic stagnation and governmental over to foreigners in order to secure foreign financial support weakness and decay.All of them stressed the crucial role of for his effort to eradicate Sun Yat-sen's Kuomintang,the Western and Japanese imperialism which had reduced China to result was "the modernization of the Chinese salt such a sorry state in the first half of the twentieth century. administration."7 Finally,for any who might have feared that Recently,however,a growing number of American the foreigners were modernizing urban society and political scholars-a remarkable percentage of whom have been trained institutions while the peasantry was suffering in increasing at Harvard and had their works published by Harvard's East poverty,Ramon Myers has assured us that"There is not any Asian Research Center-have put forth a radical new version of evidence that peasant living standards before 1937 China's modern history.Imperialism,it seems,was largely declined....8 beneficial to China.On the economic side,Chi-ming Hou In short,imperialism fostered economic development, assures us that "..foreign capital was largely responsible for progressive Western-style nationalism and institutional the development of whatever economic modernization took modernization.The Chinese may have suffered wounded pride place in China before 1937."Furthermore,"the often-held and cultural shock at having modernization so abruptly forced assumption that the traditional or indigenous sector of the down their throats,but basically what the West did was both Chinese economy (handicrafts,small mines,junks,etc.) necessary and good.The anti-imperialism of both the KMT suffered severe decline as a result of foreign economic and the CCP was thus short-sighted-the result of a failure to intrusion lacks factual basis."2 understand the beneficent inevitability of Western-type John Schrecker's study of Germany in Shantung fully modernization. endorses these conclusions: While the conclusions of these Harvard studies need not the direction of tbe German impact was positive. be accepted as definitive,they cannot be dismissed out of Tsingtao,a tiny,isolated fishing village in 1897,bad hand.An extensive monographic literature,backed by become a major port by the time the Germans left.It bad thorough research and patient scholarship,has made the an efficient administration and modern public services and Harvard school the source of today's "normative science"in scbools.It also bad up-to-date facilities for transportation, the China field.Scholars interested in developing alternatives communication and banking.As a result,commercial to the Harvard paradigm will have to produce works of similar activities flowered,and there was even some industrial scholarly quality in a varicty of key areas-the handicraft growtb.It was German capital,skills,personnel and industry,the treaty port economy-before a viable alternative international contracts which laid the foundation for this to the Harvard paradigm can be presented.This essay has a more modest aim:to identify some of the pitfalls of the development. Harvard approach and to advance some tentative suggestions For Schrecker an even more important contribution of for an alternative paradigm. Western imperialism was its encouragement of the spread of Throughout,the focus of discussion will be the role of nationalism which became "the most significant development imperialism in nineteenth and twentieth century China.Surely of the last decades of the Ch'ing."Nationalism became no exercise is more difficult than the effort to factor out and possible only when the West taught China to perceive her measure in isolation the role of one particular force in the problems "not in traditional terms but rather within the organic development of a nation's history.One cannot expect framework of new ideas and categories derived from the to get back to imperialism as the "first cause"or "prime West."4 mover"of some particular historical development.One can, Foreigners were similarly responsible for China's however,attempt to assess the role of imperialism in institutional "modernization."John K.Fairbank,the founding interaction with the complex of forces shaping the father of the Harvard school,has noted that the Imperial development of modern Chinese history,and demonstrate that Maritime Customs Service "assisted China's effort at imperialism was something more than the misunderstood, modernization within the framework of the treaty system.,"5 maligned scapegoat of Chinese nationalism. 9Harvard on China: The Apologetics of IInperialisIn Joseph Esherick The classic works on modern China-by Harold Isaacs, Edgar Snow, Jack Belden, even Mao Tse-tung himself-have all led us to believe that the revolutionary ferment which surged through China in the twentieth century was the result of rural impoverishment, economic stagnation and governmental weakness and decay. All of them stressed the crucial role of Western and Japanese imperialism which had reduced China to such a sorry state in the first half of the twentieth century. Recently, however, a growing number of American scholars-a remarkable percentage of whom have been trained at Harvard and had their works published by Harvard's East Asian Research Center-have put fonh a radical new version of China's modern history. Imperialism, it seems, was largely beneficial to China. On the economic side, Chi-ming Hou assures us that " ... foreign capital was largely responsible for the development of whatever economic modernization took place in China before 1937.,,1 Funhermore, "the often-held assumption that the traditional or indigenous sector of the Chinese economy (handicrafts, small mines, junks, etc.) suffered severe decline as a result of foreign economic intrusion lacks factual basis."l John Schrecker's study of Germany in Shantung fully endorses these conclusions: . .. the direction of the German impact was posItIve. Tsingtao, a tiny, isolated fishing village in 1897, had become a major port by the time the Germans left. It had an efficient administration and modern public services and schools. It also had up-to-date facilities for transportation, communication and banking. As a result, commercial activities flowered, and there was even some industrial growth. It was German capital, skills, personnel and international contracts which laid the foundation for this development. 3 For Schrecker an even more important contribution of Western imperialism was its encouragement of the spread of nationalism which became "the most significant development of the last decades of the Ch'ing." Nationalism became possible only when the West taught China to perceive her problems "not in traditional terms but rather within the framework of new ideas and categories derived from the West. ,,4 Foreigners were similarly responsible for China's institutional "modernization." John K. Fairbank, the founding father of the Harvard school, has noted that the Imperial Maritime Customs Service "assisted China's effort at modernization within the framework of the treaty system, ,,5 and that the employment of foreigners to administer China's customs was in fact "one of the most con structive features of the treaty system. ,,6 Similarly, in 1913, when Yuan Shih-k'ai was forced to turn the administration of China's salt gabelle over to foreigners in order to secure foreign financial support for his effort to eradicate Sun Yat-sen's Kuomintang, the result was "the modernization of the Chinese salt administration.',7 Finally, for any who might have feared that the foreigners were modernizing urban society and political institutions while the peasantry was suffering in increasing poveny, Ramon Myers has assured us that "There is not any evidence that peasant living standards before 1937 declined......8 In short, imperialism fostered economic development, progressive Western-style nationalism and institutional modernization. The Chinese may have suffered wounded pride and cultural shock at having modernization so abruptly forced down their throats, but basically what the West did was both necessary and good. The anti-imperialism of both the KMT and the CCP was thus shon-sighted-the result of a failure to understand the beneficent inevitability of Western-type modernization. 9 While the conclusions of these Harvard studies need not be accepted as definitive, they cannot be dismissed out of hand. An extensive monographic literature, backed by thorough research and patient scholarship, has made the Harvard school the source of today's "normative science" in the China field. Scholars interested in developing alternatives to the Harvard paradigm will have to produce works of similar scholarly quality in a variety of key areas-the handicraft industry, the treaty port economy-before a viable alternative to the Harvard paradigm can be presented. This essay has a more modest aim: to identify some of the pitfalls of the Harvard approach and to advance some tentative suggestions for an alternative paradigm. Throughout, the focus of discussion will be the role of imperialism in nineteenth and twentieth century China. Surely no exercise is more difficult than the effort to factor out and measure in isolation the role of one panicular force in the organic development of a nation's history. One cannot expect to get back to imperialism as the "first cause" or "prime mover" of some particular historical development. One can, however, attempt to assess the role of imperialism in interaction with the complex of forces shaping the development of modern Chinese history, and demonstrate that imperialism was something more than the misunderstood, maligned scapegoat of Chinese nationalism. 9