The idea of "Chinese Learning as Substance, Western Learning for Application" () was initially proposed by Feng Guifen in his Xiaopinlu kangyi (Protests from the cottage of Feng Guifen), written in 1861 after the Second Opium War. At the time, leading Chinese thinkers were interrogating how to approach the threat posed by encroaching Western states. Feng argued for China's self-strengthening and industrialization by borrowing Western technology and military systems, while retaining core Neo-Confucian principles. These ideas were further elaborated on by Zhang Zhidong in 1898 in his book Quanxue pian as "Traditional (Chinese) learning as substance, New (Western) learning as application" (âÂÂèÂÂå¸çºé«Âï¼Âæ°å¸çºç¨âÂÂ). âÂÂZhongti xiyongâ became a popular slogan used in the late Qing Reforms, including the Self-Strengthening Movement and Hundred Days' Reform. The concept was widespread among intellectuals in the late 19th and early 20th century, and it remains relevant in the modern studies of China-West cultural relationship.
After the Anglo-Chinese First Opium War (1839âÂÂ1842), Wei Yuan advocated for China to learn âÂÂshipbuilding techniques and weapons productionâ from the west in order to subdue foreign invaders (âÂÂ師夷é·æÂÂ以å¶夷âÂÂ). He wrote about this idea in his book Illustrated Treatise on the Maritime Kingdoms (ãÂÂæµ·å½å¾å¿ÂãÂÂ)in 1843. In the latter half of the 19th century (and early portion of the 20th century), there was heated debate in China about how the country could survive the threat from foreign powers and move towards modernity. As the Qing Dynasty moved closer to collapse, two general camps of thought emerged: Conservatives thinkers who rejected the utility of modern military methods, and the Progressionists who were eager to not only adopt Western technology but also Western political systems like parliamentary sovereignty.
The proposal of âÂÂChinese Learning as Substance, Western Learning for Applicationâ by Zhang Zhidong (å¼ ä¹Âæ´Â, 1837âÂÂ1909) in 1898 in his book Quanxue Pian (ãÂÂÃ¥ÂÂå¦ç¯ÂãÂÂ"Exhortation to Learning") was seen as a reconciliation between the conservatives and the progressionists. Zhang stated that âÂÂit was necessary to maintain the orthodox Confucian basis of society, and if Western thought was to be accepted then [it could] only [be] in order to strengthen the material basis of society, particularly military equipment in view of the European encroachment in China since the First Opium War (1839-42)". Some scholars criticized âÂÂChinese substanceâ as a conservative point of view that only reinforced Chinese Confucian traditions, while others viewed the slogan as an open door for legitimate western studies and a positive step towards China's modernization.
After the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895, the Reformists proposed a new cultural concept of âÂÂthe Integration of China and the WestâÂÂ, diverting from the original theory of âÂÂChinese Substance, Western Application.â Scholar Yan Fu asserted that "Chinese learning and Western learning both have their unique substance and application. If one treats the Chinese and the Western separately, then they both make sense; if one merges them together, then they both lose their meanings." (ä¸Âå¦æÂÂä¸Âå¦ä¹Âä½Âç¨ï¼Â西å¦æÂÂ西å¦ä¹Âä½Âç¨ï¼ÂÃ¥ÂÂä¹ÂÃ¥ÂÂ并ç«Âï¼ÂÃ¥ÂÂä¹ÂÃ¥ÂÂ两亡). Kang Youwei, Liang Qichao, and other members of the Hundred Days' Reform also broke through the restrictions of âÂÂChinese substanceâ and strived to adopt the western political systems, industrialization, and capitalism.
The Chinese philosopher Liang Shuming (1893âÂÂ1988) did not agree with âÂÂChinese Substance, Western ApplicationâÂÂ. To Liang, culture was a holistic expression of one unified underlying human attitude, so he denied an easy blending of Chinese and Western cultures. On one hand, he is a defender of Chinese culture. He believed Chinese and Western cultures were incompatible. Chinese culture is aimed at exploring autonomous moral principles and human nature, whereas the Western essence - the emphasis on liberty and rights - is derived from these particular aspects of human nature or actually belongs to the realm of moral principle.
On the other hand, however, Liang ultimately advocated âÂÂa complete acceptanceâ of Western culture because he believed only Western science and technology could solve the dilemma of China. In his book Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies(ãÂÂä¸Â西æ¹æÂÂÃ¥ÂÂÃ¥ÂÂå ¶å²å¦ãÂÂ), he argued that if China was going to import Western science and government, it had to import and adopt Western culture as well. The solution with which he concluded his lectures muddled the central issue: to "completely accept Western culture while fundamentally reforming its mistakes".
He Lin (è´ºéºÂ, 1902âÂÂ1992) proposed to take Confucianism as the âÂÂsubstanceâ and Western culture as the âÂÂapplicationâ in his article New Development of ConfucianismãÂÂÃ¥ÂÂ家æÂÂæ³çÂÂæ°å¼Âå±ÂãÂÂ. He later revised his idea in Cultural Essence and ApplicationãÂÂæÂÂÃ¥ÂÂçÂÂä½Âä¸Âç¨ãÂÂinto that âÂÂspiritual and rational thinkingâ is the âÂÂessenceâ and âÂÂall cultures from ancient to modern, from Chinese to foreignâ are the âÂÂapplicationâÂÂ. He thought that China should develop Confucian ideas through the study of Western philosophy. He promoted adapting Western art to enrich Confucian aesthetics, learning from Western religion to enhance Confucian ritual habits, and absorbing Taoism, Mohism, Legalism to enrich Confucianism.
He Lin also criticized the so-called "Chinese standard culture theory," advocating that Chinese people should melt the essence of Western philosophy and culture with a broad horizon and a free, independent spirit. He encouraged Chinese people to study and relish the beauty of Western philosophy and digest it into their own ideological achievements. Thus, they could transcend and discard the Western culture and create their own new culture.
Chinese scholar Li Zehou (æÂÂæ³½åÂÂ, 1930- ) wrote the article âÂÂRandom Thoughts on âÂÂWestern Learning as Substance, Chinese Learning for ApplicationâÂÂâ (Manshuo 'Xiti zhongyong 漫说âÂÂ西ä½Âä¸Âç¨âÂÂ) in 1986, turning around âÂÂChinese Learning as Substance, Western Learning for applicationâÂÂ. Li Zehou stressed that only the real life of the people, the mode of production and economics could be considered as the "base" (substance). âÂÂSubstanceâ is social existence, including material production and spiritual production. Science and technology, which are cornerstones of social development, are therefore part of the âÂÂsubstanceâÂÂ. Chinese âÂÂapplicationâ not only includes the application of Western âÂÂsubstanceâ but also that of Chinese traditional culture.
Moreover, in contrast to Zhang Zhidong, for whom ti (base/substance) and yong (function/application) seem to mark two distinct realms, Li Zehou adheres to the traditional (Neo-Confucian) significance of ti and yong: i.e., they are not two different entities/modes but two aspects of the same issue (ti yong bu er âÂÂä½Âç¨ä¸ÂäºÂâÂÂ) â they cannot be separated into two, which means in his context, modernization is sinification.
Fang Keli (æ¹å Âç«Â, 1938- ) criticized Li's idea as âÂÂold formula only in a new cloak.â Chinese writer Liu Xiaobo condemned Li Zehou because of the latter's advocacy of Confucian ethics and the aesthetics of tianren heyi (the unification of heaven and human). For Liu, beauty resides not in harmony but in conflicts. To reconstruct Chinese national character, Liu insists that we negate thoroughly the three primary theoretical paradigms underlying traditional culture: the Confucian democratic model of minben (for the people), the model personality of Confucius and Yanhui, and the concept of tianren heyi (unification between heaven and humans) "Explicitly placing himself in the tradition of those Chinese modernizers who advocated 'total Westernization'", Liu "accused Li Zehou of trying to revive the 'rationalistic' and 'despotic' Chinese tradition," as scholar Woei Lien Chong explains.
Chinese philosopher Zhang Dainian (张岱年, 1909âÂÂ2004) was an opponent of the "Chinese Substance, Western Application" in the 1930s. He thought this idea misleadingly framed Chinese learning as in opposition to Western learning. In 1987, Zhang introduced the idea of "cultural view of comprehensive innovation". He proposed that âÂÂthe Chinese nation is the main body of building a new socialist Chinese culture, and socialism is the guiding principle of China's new culture. Science and technology are all serving the main body of this nation, and they all serve socialism."
Fang Keli came up with the idea of âÂÂthe spirit of Marxism, the system of China and the application of the Westâ (âÂÂ马éÂÂä¸Âä½Â西ç¨âÂÂ) in 1988. He tried to unify Chinese learning, western learning, and Marxism, using Marxism as the guideline with the subjectivity of Chinese national culture. Deepening the studies of âÂÂcultural view of comprehensive innovationâÂÂ, Fang exerted a more positive effort on the âÂÂNew Cultural Construction of Socialism with Chinese CharacteristicsâÂÂ. âÂÂThe spirit of Marxism" and "the application of the West" should be organically combined with "Chinese essence".
In the 19th century, the Taiping Rebellion was seen as an example of a negative sinification of "Western learning". The Taiping Rebellion can be seen, in parts, as a heretic Christian group, but also as a proto-communist peasant militia based on the Western value of "equality".
Reformers around Kang Youwei attempted institutional and educational reforms according to Western models but with explicit reference to the Confucian tradition, in fact by claiming that reforms were the original agenda of Confucius.
Leading figures such as Cai Yuanpei wanted to open up the new tradition (Marxism) and sought for a harmony between the Chinese cultural tradition and new âÂÂWestern LearningâÂÂ. Radical liberals of the May Fourth Movement rejected the tradition â both the old (Confucianism) as well as the new tradition (Marxism), demanding "complete Westernization", in a new guise.