Makeham, John, ed., Learning to Emulate the Wise: The Genesis of Chinese Philosophy as an Academic Discipline in Twentieth-Century China

Abstract

The 20th century saw tremendous change and revolution in China, not only politically and economically but also intellectually and culturally. It was a critical period when East met West and the nation faced unprecedented challenges. Intellectual and cultural elites, embracing either Western or traditional learning or both, endeavored to preserve and strengthen the nation and sought new roles for themselves in the context of dramatic political, social, intellectual, and cultural change. A brand new academic paradigm emerged and various academic disciplines in modern terms were formed. The book under review is the first from a series called “The Formation and Development of Academic Disciplines in Twentieth-Century China.” The goal of this volume is to show how the academic study of Chinese philosophy as a discipline was conceived and shaped in the course of its early development in China around the turn of the 20th century (1). John Makeham, editor of the series as well as this volume, has already written a fine book on contemporary academic discourse on Confucianism since the 1980s in mainland China and Taiwan (Lost Soul: “Confucianism” in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2008). The book under review focuses on the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The introductory essay reviews the formal processes involved in creating Chinese philosophy as an academic discipline (3) and provides the reader with concise synopses of the chapters in this volume. It includes an appendix which is the list of subjects offered in the Peking University Philosophy Department from 1914 to 1923. In order to help the reader understand the chapters in the rest of the book, the editor’s introduction provides necessary background information, including the terminologies, categories, and protagonists involved in the stories of the formation of Chinese philosophy, which are told with fascinating historical details and twists in the rest of the book. Makeham helpfully indicates that the book is not “a work of philosophy,” but “a study in Dao (2014) 13:127–131 DOI 10.1007/s11712-013-9363-9