A Chinese Scientific Revolution?

[Faeelin]

Western culture allowed for the production of some "geniuses"...
Issac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci types because the culture allowed
for free thinkers. While Chinese was about respect for things past.

As opposed to in Europe, where people created an intellectual movement around reviving the glory of the Roman Empire?

Umm.

 

[Faeelin]

1) Lack of the all-important merchant class, which in European societies were the prime movers and consumers of information. Confucianism venerates the ruler and the peasants, but does not attach very much value to merchants.

Hmm. I'd argue that it's a lack of capitalism, rather than merchants. China had plenty of merchants, but no banks.

But, why do I need banks to have science?

" While this may be somewhat of an exhaggeration, China did not have the decentralization or tolerance that allows for independent science. Most of Chinese science was government directed, and often aborted or modified as so not to rock the dynastic boat.

Curious. When did the government order the removal of a more accurate idea?

3) Flat-out bad intellectual framework. As previously mentioned, the large influence of Taoism and subsequent mystrical undertones attached to much of the "science", meant scholars often posited opinions as fact, with absolutely no basis for them. Basically, they didn't have the Scientific Method, or anything close to it, and without that, you flat-out will NOT get an IR. Its worthwhile to note all the early Jesuit visitors to China trumpeted Sinic superiority in agriculture, arts, literature, architecture, politics, etc. The one area they claimed Europeans were vastly superior in was science.

5) Cultural pride. Chinese society was so very ethnocentric and self-glorifying (with some good cause) that when they had chances to adopt new technology from the Europeans, they did not, on the basis that Chinese society was so obviously superior, the gwailo barbarians could neve produce anything worth keeping.

But this clearly isn't true; Jesuit learning caused a minor revolution in thought in China.

 

[Smaug]

I actually had to write a full length research paper on the subject of Chinese science and technology fairly recently. The main reasons China didn't develop an industrial revolution were (in no particular order)...

1) Lack of the all-important merchant class, which in European societies were the prime movers and consumers of information. Confucianism venerates the ruler and the peasants, but does not attach very much value to merchants.

2) Far too centralized. I believe it was Joseph Needham who described much of Chinese government as "a Moloch state, a great octopus with tentacles reaching into every village and every hut." While this may be somewhat of an exhaggeration, China did not have the decentralization or tolerance that allows for independent science. Most of Chinese science was government directed, and often aborted or modified as so not to rock the dynastic boat.

3) Flat-out bad intellectual framework. As previously mentioned, the large influence of Taoism and subsequent mystrical undertones attached to much of the "science", meant scholars often posited opinions as fact, with absolutely no basis for them. Basically, they didn't have the Scientific Method, or anything close to it, and without that, you flat-out will NOT get an IR. Its worthwhile to note all the early Jesuit visitors to China trumpeted Sinic superiority in agriculture, arts, literature, architecture, politics, etc. The one area they claimed Europeans were vastly superior in was science.

What's kind of interesting is how China managed to produce so many innovations despite its handicaps. The explanation I believe in points out very few of these inventions were really "scientific", they were more extremely clever solutions to practical problems. Chinese society places a great value on cleverness and literacy, and with such a huge population of people, a lot of whom are better educated and have access to more resources than anywhere else in the world, it is pretty probable that they will create a lot of smart solutions. Stuff like the steel-tipped plow, bucket conveyor belt, compass- these are not creations requiring any sort of ideological framework. A smart peasant farmer could easily make the logical connection between the strength of steel, and the weakness of wooden-tipped plows. This is not to say China didnt have great intellectual thinkers, just that said thinkers had to work a lot harder to get results than a post-Renaissance European counterpart with access to a better intellectual framework. To paraphrase Dirk Kotter, China was the best inventor until the Europeans invented the best way to invent things.

4) Lack of need to innovate. China was so overwhelmingly superior to just about every other state in population, organization, agriculture, and size that they were going to dominate regardless of whether they had technology or not. They could afford to (and often did) abandon promising avenues of technology and thought in interest of stability- the big threat to Chinese society wasnt invasion, it was disunity. In contrast, European princes had to embrace just about every new technology, because if they didnt, their neighbour would, and leave them in the dust.

5) Cultural pride. Chinese society was so very ethnocentric and self-glorifying (with some good cause) that when they had chances to adopt new technology from the Europeans, they did not, on the basis that Chinese society was so obviously superior, the gwailo barbarians could neve produce anything worth keeping.

JMO, but China, and Asia to a point, has always reminded me of a hive type of culture, or the Borg, for lack of a better term. Some absorption of new ideas, but more respect for the way things have always been done.

Chinese peeps, in the early days, considered all other cultures, even other Asian cultures, as foreign devils (for lack of a better term). Thier reverance for the ancestors didn't encourage innovation as much as it did respect for what has already worked. I'm not implying that China didn't make amazing discovery's. I just think that the government would be more resistive to new things, if they didn't understand them.

my two cents

 

[srv fan]

Hmm. I'd argue that it's a lack of capitalism, rather than merchants. China had plenty of merchants, but no banks.

Fair enough. But I think it is significant that merchants were scorned in doctrinaire Confucianism.

But, why do I need banks to have science?

Pure science doesn't necessarily need banks. But applied science in the form of technology and possibly an industrial revolution certainly does. Where do you get funding foryour factories? Certainly not from a government that had a history of cancelling projects in the interest of stability (Ming abandonment of treasure fleets and outlawing of foriegn trade.)

Furthermore, private banks are a sign of financial freedom, which often goes hand in hand with intellectual freedom (interesting that this is not the case in modern China). Think of all the scientific developments in Europe that depended on the participation of the "new" (not baronial) rich class.

Curious. When did the government order the removal of a more accurate idea?

Its not even so much that the government would actively ferret out progress and destroy it. Rather, traditional Chinese society has an incredible propensity for stability, sometimes at the cost of development. I'm not trying to dredge up some Orientalist garbage about the "inscrutable East", but there is something resilient to root-level change in Chinese culture- the Mandate of Heaven to make sure an able ruler is on the throne, the enormous bulk of Mandarins to keep moral traditions intact, Confucian reverence of ancesters and the past, etc. Somhow, despite Mongol invasions, Lu Shan rebellions, Warring States period, China always manages to reemerge as a united entity with largely the same society as before.

The effect of this resiliency on science is that often, the advanced discoveries China made were more effectively exploited by others. Look at the differing impact of gunpowder on China and Europe. When gunpowder hit Europe, the entire sociatal model got quite literally blown up. No more feudal lords defying central authority from behind castle walls, no more chivalry, no more omnipotent Catholic church. Yet in China, the birthplace of gunpowder technology, nothing even close to that level of societal change occured. Gunpowder was introduced to some degree, but it really didnt impact Chinese culture at all.

But this clearly isn't true; Jesuit learning caused a minor revolution in thought in China.

True, but much of the progress was confined within Beijing, and there was a significant counter-movement to the influx of ideas Jesuit influenced Chinese were coming up with. People like Wen Ting (1635-1721) tried to claim that there could be nothing worthwhile invented as a result of this mini revolution, as China had already discovered everything noteworthy in the world (see his book Pearls From the Red River). And many of the Jesuits remarked on how though many of their Chinese colleagues were undoubtedly brilliant, that the rest of the country would dismiss their findings simply because they were new. Louis Le Comte, an early Jesuit missionary and scholar, puts it best: "The vast majority of Chinese are fond of the most defective piece of antiquity than of the most perfect of the modern."

Even if some enlightened individuals were willing to reform, you still have too many people who would dismiss new European/Chinese inventions and ideas as modern perversions.

 

[abas]

The effect of this resiliency on science is that often, the advanced discoveries China made were more effectively exploited by others. Look at the differing impact of gunpowder on China and Europe. When gunpowder hit Europe, the entire sociatal model got quite literally blown up. No more feudal lords defying central authority from behind castle walls, no more chivalry, no more omnipotent Catholic church. Yet in China, the birthplace of gunpowder technology, nothing even close to that level of societal change occured. Gunpowder was introduced to some degree, but it really didnt impact Chinese culture at all.

So maybe gunpowder has nothing to do with changes in Europe?

 

[NapoleonXIV]

So maybe gunpowder has nothing to do with changes in Europe?

Interesting comment. Please elaborate.

 

[srv fan]

Bump diggity

Faeelin and abas, i would love to hear more of your respective arguments.

 

[abas]

Interesting comment. Please elaborate.

Just if the gunpowder made changes in one society but not in other then this must rise question why. Maybe using gunpowder is not cause of changes but only made possible by some other causes. Look the foots in European warfare begun to rise independently and gunpowder only gave some additional strenth to them.This had given some space to elaborate those new guns and its use to such point that they actualy have influenced warfare by themselves.

 

[Keenir]

all-important merchant class, which in European societies were the prime movers and consumers of information. Confucianism venerates the ruler and the peasants, but does not attach very much value to merchants.

Not valuing the merchants, isn't the same as not having merchants. (as a class or not)

 

[Keenir]

Chinese peeps, in the early days, considered all other cultures, even other Asian cultures, as foreign devils (for lack of a better term). Thier reverance for the ancestors didn't encourage innovation as much as it did respect for what has already worked. I'm not implying that China didn't make amazing discovery's. I just think that the government would be more resistive to new things, if they didn't understand them.

Then how did they discover & innovate so much with gunpowder?

Where did paper come from? (oh yeah, China)

 

[rewster]

Gunpowder is a military technology and as such I think it might not be the best example here, as Europe, a big mess of small nations, is much more likely to be changed by a military technology then a large, stable mega-nation like China. China had some enemies, but they were relatively small and not likely to pose a threat, whereas every European country needed to get ahold of gunpowder as soon as they heard of it in order to not get crushed by the ones that did get ahold of it.

Then again, maybe gunpowder is the best example, as most historians seem to equate military technology with overall civilizational achievement... thus we have the Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc., rather than the Pottery Age, the Writing Age, and the Medicine Age.

 

[Faeelin]

Fair enough. But I think it is significant that merchants were scorned in doctrinaire Confucianism.

But again, this depends; the Song dynasty, during which NeoConfucianism emerged, purposely went out of its way to support commerce; and in the middle and Late Ming, merchants became more respectable. (A bit like Europe, where it became a respectable occupation once there were enough of them).

Heck, during the Qing the fall of the Ming was blamed on them becoming too commercial.

Pure science doesn't necessarily need banks. But applied science in the form of technology and possibly an industrial revolution certainly does. Where do you get funding foryour factories? Certainly not from a government that had a history of cancelling projects in the interest of stability (Ming abandonment of treasure fleets and outlawing of foriegn trade.)

To be fair, the treasure fleets were an awful idea; and the ban on foreign trade was later rescinded.

Agree that China needs a banking system for an industrial revolution.

Furthermore, private banks are a sign of financial freedom, which often goes hand in hand with intellectual freedom (interesting that this is not the case in modern China).

I dunno; you could make a case that China was intellectually freer than Europe. How would the King of France reacted if his nobles converted to Buddhism?

True, but much of the progress was confined within Beijing,

But as this was where the missionaries themselves were, this isn't too surprising, surely.

And then there's the suspicion Jesuits were viewed with, as a result of their actions in China.

And many of the Jesuits remarked on how though many of their Chinese colleagues were undoubtedly brilliant, that the rest of the country would dismiss their findings simply because they were new. Louis Le Comte, an early Jesuit missionary and scholar, puts it best: "The vast majority of Chinese are fond of the most defective piece of antiquity than of the most perfect of the modern."

Yea, this is a problem. But it's not an insurmountable one, IMO. Certainly the Chinese were willing to adopt innovations like cannons when necessary.