Kaozheng

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Kaozheng (Chinese: 考證; lit. 'search for evidence'[1]), alternatively called kaoju xue (考據學; 'evidential scholarship') was a Chinese school of thought emphasizing philology that was active during the Qing dynasty (1644–1912) from c. 1600 to 1850. It was most prominent during the reigns of the Qianlong Emperor and Jiaqing Emperor; because of this, it is often also referred to as the Qian–Jia school (乾嘉學派).[2] Their approach corresponds to that of modern textual criticism, and was also associated with empiricism as regards scientific topics.

History and controversies

Some of the most important first generation of Qing thinkers were Ming loyalists, at least in their hearts, including Gu Yanwu, Huang Zongxi, and Fang Yizhi. Partly in reaction to the presumed laxity and excess of the late Ming, they turned to Kaozheng, or evidential learning, which emphasized careful textual study and critical thinking.[3]

Rather than regarding kaozheng as a local phenomenon around Jiangnan and Beijing, it has been proposed to view it as a general trend in development of Chinese scholarship in light of contribution of Cui Shu (1740–1816).[4]

Towards the end of the Qing and in the early 20th century, reform scholars such Liang Qichao, Hu Shih and Gu Jiegang saw in kaozheng a step towards development of empirical mode of scholarship and science in China. Conversely, Carsun Chang and Xu Fuguan criticized kaozheng as intellectually sterile and politically dangerous.[5]

While the late 20th-century scholar Yu Ying-shih has tried to demonstrate continuity between kaozheng and neo-Confucianism in order to provide a non-revolutionary basis for Chinese culture, Benjamin Elman has argued that kaozheng constituted "an empirical revolution" that broke with the stance of neo-Confucian combination of teleological considerations with scholarship.[4]

Influence in Japan

The methods of kaozheng were imported into Edo-era Japan as kōshō or kōshōgaku. This approach combined textual criticism and empiricism in an effort to find the ancient, original meanings of texts. The earliest use of kaozheng methods in Edo Japan was Keichū's critical edition of the Man'yōshū. These methods were eventually used by the Kokugaku to argue that modern science was indigenous to Japan; they also contributed to the Kokugaku critique of Buddhism.[6]

See also

References

Citations

  1. ^ Quirin (1996), p. 36, n. 9.
  2. ^ Yao (2015), p. 488.
  3. ^ Mote (1999), pp. 852–855.
  4. ^ a b Quirin (1996), pp. 37–38.
  5. ^ Quirin (1996), pp. 36–37.
  6. ^ Josephson (2012), pp. 109–117.

Bibliography

  • Liang, Ch'i-ch'ao (1959). Intellectual trends in the Ch'ing period. Translated by Hsü, Immanuel C. Y. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. OCLC 445782.
  • Yao, Xinzhong (2015). The Encyclopedia of Confucianism. ISBN 978-1-317-79349-6 – via Google Books.
  • Josephson, Jason (2012). "The Science of the Gods". The Invention of Religion in Japan. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-41235-1.
  • Krebs, Edward S. (1998). "Liu's Prison Essays". Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 48–50. ISBN 978-0-847-69014-5 – via Google Books.
  • Pioneer of the Chinese Revolution: Zhang Binglin and Confucianism. Translated by Fogel, Joshua A. Stanford University Press. 1990. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0-804-76664-7 – via Google Books.
  • Mote, Frederick W. (1999), Imperial China, 900–1800, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-44515-5
  • Quirin, Michael (1996). "Scholarship, Value, Method, and Hermeneutics in Kaozheng: Some Reflections on Cui Shu (1740–1816) and the Confucian Classics". History and Theory. 35 (4): 34. doi:10.2307/2505443. JSTOR 2505443.
  • Spence, Jonathan D. (1990). The Search for Modern China. W. W. Norton. pp. 103–105. ISBN 978-0-393-30780-1.
  • Tam, Gina Anne (2020). Dialect and Nationalism in China, 1860–1960. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-77640-0.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaozheng&oldid=1211172744"