Abstract
The concepts of national identity and Chinese imperialism are among the most essential postulates of Chinese cultural framework. The first explorations of these issues were taken by the ancient Chinese philosophers, while the culmination of their development took place in the late 17th century, when the imminent danger of foreign invasion became evident for the Chinese Empire.
Wang Fuzhi is recognized as one of the most prolific Chinese scholars and political thinkers. Although his main accomplishments took place during the decline of the Ming Dynasty, nevertheless he managed to articulate the frameworks of Chinese national identity and the role of Confucianism in it. Many years after, General Chiang Kai-Sheik tried to adapt similar patterns for the construction of the new Chinese State.
This study seeks to outline the similarities and differences in the philosophical doctrines of these political actors. Furthermore, this paper identifies similar patterns in terms of understanding the concepts of National identity, Chinese Imperialism, Confucianism and the scope, to which General Kai Sheik adopted them from the works of Wang Fuzhi.
Introduction
The main objective of this course is to outline the limits of what is considered a genuine Chinese National identity. This concept is recognized to be of paramount importance for the development of a successful country, where the people are treated equally and the main objectives of the state authorities is to ensure the balance of power, to remove all barriers, which inhibit the common people to succeed in life, and to preserve its ethical and cultural heritage for future generations. In order to accomplish this objective, the works of several prominent Chinese people will be analyzed in the study, making specific focus on General Chan Kai-shek, whose accomplishments and exploits took place in the early 20th century, and a prolific philosopher of the late Ming Dynasty Wang Fuzhi, whose works composed the spectrum of Confucianism ideas and systematized them comprehensively for the future generations (King, 2004, 81). The objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite a significant historical gap, General Chiang Kai-Sheik adapted his philosophical framework regarding Chinese Imperialism and National Identity from the works of Wang Fuzhi. In particular, it demonstrates that Chiang regarded China as a universal empire and homeland for the Chinese People, which main mission is to protect them and preserve its sense of national identity. Furthermore, the paper explores the aspects connected with the role of Confucianism in the formulation of Chinese National Identity.
Before the paper is advanced further, it is important to emphasize the fact that slight disagreements between these two people existed in the field of religion. While Kai-Sheik strongly advocated that the patters of traditional Confucianism should be followed, his counterpart Wang embraced the beliefs of Neo-Confucianism, suggesting that influx of the new ideas will be useful for the people.
Lastly, it is essential noting that General Kai-Sheik was not always consistent in his statements. At the very dawn of his movement in 1929, he actively campaigned for making Tibet the part of China. In 1959 he asserted that
recognizing the freedom of Tibet.
Academic validity of his works is fervently disputed by the scholars, who argue, that his works are rather propagandistic, than historical sources. However, we consider that primary sources reflect the true political and social intentions of the General. Here, his opinions and philosophical understandings on China are important, and analysis of the speeches is recognized as one of the most efficacious solutions for this objective. Their nature and implementation are taken into consideration, and, therefore, they can be considered legitimate for the needs of this paper.
Chang Kai-Sheik and Wang Fuzhi
The biography of Wang Fuzhi has not been sufficiently explored. The most recent findings illustrate that he was born in Hunan province in 1619, and his death took place in 1693, leaving many of his philosophical treatises unfinished (Carr, 2000, 96). General Chiang Kai-Sheik’s main accomplishments took place in the 20th century, but his philosophical patterns were very similar to those, expressed by Wang in the early 17th century.
This section of the paper explores convergences and divergences of their ideas. The focal point of the analysis is made on the role of Confucianism, Chinese National Identity and Imperialistic China.
Confucianism
General Chiang Kai-Sheik was among the strongest adherents of Confucianism. He recognized it as a philosophical teaching, which could unite the Chinese people and protect them against the influence of the Western culture. Moreover, he always emphasized the fact that neo-Confucian philosophy, which became widespread in those days China, distorted the original meaning of Confucius teachings
Wang Fuzhi was also one of the most ardent followers of Confucianism. This prolific author completed many commentaries on the classics of Confucianism, gradually developing his own philosophical system (King, 2004, 64). His natural spheres of interest included metaphysics, poetry, politics and moral philosophy. There is a common opinion among the scholars that he was strongly influenced by the works of neo-Confucianist Zhang Zai and his teachings. In contrast to him, general Chiang rejected the ideas of neo-Confucianism,
The most viable solution proposed by the General in terms of cultural unification of the country, was returning to the traditional ideas of Confucianism, which make the foundations of the Chinese National identity framework. Furthermore, General Kai Sheik shared the belief of Wang that the country can be strong terribly as long as it preserves some common cultural characteristics, which were completely lost by the Chinese people at the end of the 20th century. In other words the reasons of those devastating defeats from the Japanese should be sought not only in the military inferiority of the country, but in the lack of strong emotional and cultural ties between the Chinese recruits. These ties can be easily restored, in the country returns to the ideas of classical Confucianism and discards the negative elements of the Western and the Japanese civilizations (Crozier & Chou, 1976, 94). General further developed his main moral foundation, which states that China is strong as long as people maintain strong moral standards and formulate their behavioral patterns in full accordance with traditional Chinese cultural framework.
Imperialistic China
General Kai Sheik never agreed that China should be an empire. One of his famous quotations is that
“China has no desire to replace Western imperialism in Asia”
However, it is important to highlight the fact that Kai-Sheik recognized imperialistic rule as important. In other words, he advocated for the adoption of imperialistic solutions and methods of governance, while abandoning imperialistic ideology.
The presence of chaos, poor political governance and anarchy are always replaced by the periods of relative political stability and financial prosperity of the country. Kai Sheik adapted the view of Wang that the degree of prosperity and stability directly depends on the virtue of the country's ruler, with Wang shifting to the ideas of imperialism, while Kai Sheik disguised his ambitions under the concepts of democracy and electoral rights for the Chinese people (Ebrey, 1993, 403). Wang actively advocated the idea that the power and independence of the local feudal landlords should be reduced by all costs (King, 2004, 78), with the most effective method being taxation and increase in government's capacities of Emperor. In particular, he stressed that:
“The discussion about enfeoffment system is a good example of a dispute, in which the proponents of two extremes engage in profitless argument” (De Bary, 31).
Centralization of power and strong hierarchical rule was recognized by him in the key determinants of effective imperial development, which was recognized as the most sacred value for the growing Chinese generations. As he elaborated in his works further, only the empire has enough capacity to preserve their national identity on the Chinese nation and to prevent the dissolution in the numerous local tribes, groups and counties. These ideas were further supported by General Kai Sheik, who stressed that “broad autonomy of the regions is perilous for the country” (Taylor, 2009, 26).
Wang Fuzhi emphasized the role of geography for understanding the true motives of national Chinese identity. Subsequently, general Chiang Kai Sheik acknowledged to follow the same motives, as Wang Fuzhi did. In particular, both of them sought to protect the cultural heritage of the ancestors from the negative influence of the outsiders and foreigners. Another strong similar motive of them was the desire to re-instate the Chinese empire within its historical boundaries from the ocean to the Great Wall (Ebrey, 1993).
His works, however, did not specify the exact boundaries of the Chinese Empire, but the imperialistic nature of the Chinese state was always highlighted in his scriptures (Wang, 1998, 32). Writing that
“If the Chinese do not draw lines of demarcation in order to set themselves apart from the barbarians, terrestrial order is violated” (De Bay, 31)
Wang highlighted the importance of establishing specific boundaries of China. Those boundaries were an absolute necessity for effective protection against the invaders, and Kai Sheik adapted this idea for his campaign. Japanese and Europeans were regarded as armed and cultural invaders respectively, and explicit demarcation was justified as a means of protection.
Wang specifically emphasized that China of those dates was the conglomerate of people with different cultural, religious and social traditions and customs (King, 2004, 53). They shared the same language, which was in fact quite different across the various regions of the country (Carr, 2000, 94). However, the author recognized the fact that only united China could withstand the advents of the foreign invaders both, the Mongols/Ottomans and the Europeans. He regarded Chinese Empire as the method for protecting the interests of the people, who shared common interests, common language and for whom the preservation of Chinese national identity was the task of supreme importance.
Furthermore, Wang advocates the idea that China is united not by some geographical boundaries, but the boundaries of a common culture, traditions, religions and customs (Theodore, 2000). He wrote that
“there are in the world two great of demarcation to be drawn: that between Chinese and between the gentleman and the mean man” (De Bary, 31).
Under the concept of “gentleman” the one should understand culturally identified people, and not the Chinese people only, while “the mean men” are anyone, who infringes upon cultural and territorial integrity of a country. To be more specific, the author analyzes not the exact geographical places where the Chinese people lived, but the way of their living, they are customs, practices and military affairs. The author also gives specific emphasis to the fact that as long as the people speak the same language, follow the same matrimonial rules and fear the same enemies, all they can be considered Chinese( King, 2004, 43).
Both Wang and Kai Sheik agreed that other nations are entitled to freedom and sovereignty as well. General wrote that
“ in our relations with other nations we seek national independence and freedom” (Ebrey, 403),
stressing that as long as sovereignty of the Chinese is respected, peaceful coexistence and cooperation is possible. Furthermore, the Chinese Empire and other nations can easily form strong alliances and units in order to repel any aggressive attacks of that nomadic tribes, and others who position a common dangers for the free states. These states and units will be effective unless the states share common goals and the parties and do not infringe upon the interests of each other's. However, it is essential to place a focus on the fact that Wang recognize that those unions are permissible only when they are completed with some military objectives. Under any circumstances, the outsiders should not be allowed to penetrate into the Chinese society and dissolute its culture.
Chinese National Identity
General Kai Sheik was a fervent advocate of the idea that National Identity of the Chinese People would be developed through the development and implementation of Confucianism philosophy. He wrote, that to preserve
“our cultural heritage, government’s intervention to the mundane affairs of the people should remain minimal” ( De Bary, 2014).
Similar ideas have been expressed by Wang many years ago. Understanding national identity is also strongly connected with the role of the government in the society. Wang strongly advocated the idea that the government should be beneficial for the people living in it, and not for the people who are in power. It is obvious from his works, this philosophical doctrine was strongly supported subsequently by the general Chang Kai Sheik (Carr, 2000, 132). He suggested the ideas that our life is the continual cycle of renewal, which involves the engagement of human society. The role of the humans in history is pivotal (Crozier & Chou, 2000, 56), because namely the humans are determining the way our civilization progresses and develops further. The development of civilization within specific geographical boundaries strongly connected with the aspect of national identity, which, in its turn is shaped under the influence of commonly held interests, beliefs and the presence of common enemy (Carr, 2000, 144). As suggested by Wang China possessed all those features, being constantly intimidated by the aggressive nomadic tribes of the West. He also realized that though expansively spread geographically, the Chinese people were the same in all the provinces, therefore the unification of all Chinese people was more than a necessity in order to preserve national identity.
The motives of national identity are easily identified in the methods Wang proposed to be utilized in the relationships between the Chinese people and the outsiders . In particular, under no circumstances the Chinese authorities should intend to invade foreign countries (King, 2004, 52), but China must remain in its existing boundaries and respect the sovereignty of other countries.
The ideas of separation between the Chinese and non-Chinese culture expressed by Wang was strongly supported by his political successor General Chiang Kai Sheik (Taylor, 2009, 81). In his immortalized text “Nationalism and Traditionalism” the general severely criticized the aspects of individualism and materialism, suggesting them as the main factors which leads to the degradation of the national morality and cultural identity of the Chinese people (Theodore, 2000, 62).
Furthermore, his statement that
“the main emphasis of our movement is to consolidate the ethnic groups of the Chinese people” (De Bary, 2014)
is illustratively demonstrating his adherence to the postulates formulated by Wang many years ago. Unification of China with the objective to preserve common cultural heritage and national identity was prioritized by the both philosophers.
The ideas of these scholars coincided in their statements that China should be an empire with the well-defined boundaries and set of internal and external policies made by a single, centralized authorities. In his immortalized work Generalissimo Jiang on natural Identity, the General speculated on the fact that several reasons made it impossible for the potential invaders to conquer China, with the natural barriers being of paramount importance. In his writings, he refer to the existence of the Great Wall, constructed by the ancestors of the Chinese people, hereby implying that the frontiers of the empire are explicit and well-defined (Ebrey, 1993, 402).
Although there was a significant historical distance between Wang and General Chiang Kai Sheik, their positions towards the understanding of the concept of Chineseness do seem to be absolutely identical. One of the main differences, however, is that General Kai Sheik strongly advocated the idea of returning to the principles of traditional Confucianism (Taylor, 2009, 74), while Wang prioritized the importance of embracing new ideas and interpretations of Confucianism. The today's implementation of Kai Sheik ideas can be found in the established principles of democracy, equality and people's governance of China.
The most demonstrative sample of that his supported idea of "stable empire" is the relation of Kai Sheik to the independence of Tibet. The general realized that those people were independent and did not have anything in common with the Chinese (Crozier & Chou, 1976, 138). Their aspirations to independence and respect by other nations inspired general to recognize their sovereignty.
It's also important to speculate on the fact that the both scholars realized the importance of knowledge. In particular, Kai Sheik is thought to support the ideas of Tibetan independence, because he was strongly influenced by the Western political ideology, where the concept of democracy and independence for the nations dominate the political agenda of the free nations. Although no active contacts with the Western powers were established in those times, Wang supported the idea that useful findings and scientific explorations of the outsiders could be easily adapted for the necessities of the Chinese Empire. It illustrates, that the approaches to the development of the country were similar for Kai Sheik and Wang, despite more than 400 years between their existences.
Conclusions
Firstly, it can be reasonably concluded that the both thinkers shared similar ideas in regard to what should be understood as Chinese National Identity. This concept revolved around the axis of strong Imperial beliefs and that is, recognizing the importance of Imperial rule for the both safety and prosperity. General Kai Sheik disguised his imperial ambitions under the concepts of democracy and people's rule. While the form was changed, the essence of the imperialism remained intact. Both, Kai Sheik and Wang actively campaigned for the centralization of power, which they regarded as the highest social benefit, which coach united the Chinese people and organize effective resistance against the advancing enemies. No other means of protecting the homeland were it available for the Chinese people.
Secondly, the morale of the Chinese soldiers was substantially based on the principle of Chinese national identity. This issue of national identity, in its turn, is based on the traditional Confucian ideas and values, the idea that has already been expressed by Wang many years ago.
Thirdly, the role of Confucianism was of paramount importance for the both thinkers. They regarded it as the only solution for consolidating the Chinese nation.
General Kai-Sheik based his philosophical beliefs on ideas developed by Wang Fuzhi more 400 years ago. In particular, he emphasized the role of establishing defined and effectively protected boundaries and uniting the Chinese people under the ideas of Confucianism.
In general, Chinese national identity revolve around the axis of Chinese imperialism, Confucianism and cultural values shared by the Chinese people. These postulates remained unchanged from 16th century onwards.
Works Cited
Carr, Brian, and Indira Mahalingam. Companion encyclopedia of Asian philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2000. Print.
Crozier, Brian, and Eric Chou. The man who lost China : the first full biography of Chiang Kai-shek. New York: Scribner, 1976. Print.
Ebrey, Patricia Buckley. Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook. New York: Free, 1993. Print.
King, Peter J. One hundred philosophers : a guide to the world's greatest thinkers. Hove: Apple, 2004. Print.
Taylor, Jay. The generalissimo : Chiang Kai-shek and the struggle for modern China. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009. Print.
Theodore, De Bary William, Richard John Lufrano, Wing-tsit Chan, and John H. Berthrong. Sources of Chinese Tradition. New York: Columbia UP, 2000. Print.
Wang. Modern China an encyclopedia of history, culture, and nationalism. New York: Garland Pub, 1998. Print.
