Peking University, Nov. 6, 2011: Was the 1911 Revolution necessary?
How to handle the relationship between revolution and reform?
How to understand the changes and constancy of a society?
These are the questions brought about in a panel session of Beijing Forum titled “Revolution, Reform and Social Transformation: Historically Rethinking the Chinese Model”.
Held at Yingjie Exchange Center of Peking University (PKU) on November 5, 2011, the session invited famous historians from both foreign countries and China to lead people into the speculation of revolution and reform.
Rethink the 1911 Revolution
Against the general background that this year is the 1911 Revolution’s 100th anniversary, the first speaker, Joseph W. Esherick, professor of Modern Chinese History from the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), firstly questioned the necessity of that revolution. “In the conferences I attended before, since they were for celebrating the revolution…nobody ever talked about this.” He listed those great achievements attained in contemporary China, such as the growth of cities, industrialization, the living standard’s improvements, and then doubted the revolution: “They in many ways has been more a product from the era of reform than the era of revolution.”
But Professor Esherick still admitted the necessity of the 1911 Revolution’s eruption. He analyzed it from the perspective of contradictions between civilians and officials, the latent outrage among soldiers, the increasing amount of previous revolutionaries, and so on.
Prof. Joseph W. Esherick from UCSD
The last speaker, Bernadette Yu-ning Li, professor of Asian Studies and Asian American Studies at St. John's University in New York City, rethought that Revolution from a novel perspective - the role that women played in the revolution and their transformation. “Could the Revolution happen without women?” She aroused this interesting question for us to ponder upon women’s importance in that era, as well as that in the current society.
Change and Constancy
According to the second speaker, PKU Professor Qian Chengdan from the Department of History, the constancy of a society is the existence of conflicts and contradictions. Therefore, what varies constantly - and what is much more important - is the way by which people solve those conflicts.
Qian thoroughly introduced us England’s unique way to democracy. At first, the country carried out a bloody revolution and overthrew the king; but when people found the congress still didn’t gain substantive rights, they explored a peaceful way to solve it - “Glorious Revolution started a new way to tackle bitter conflicts, which was its greatest significance.”
Qian’s colleague, Professor Wang Tianyou saw change and constancy differently. He took reform as constancy and revolution as change. “Revolution shouldn’t be mentioned so constantly; it’s not constancy. Only when the society gets trapped in a dead corner, should the revolution be used to drag the society out and create circumstances for a reform, which is the real constancy.”
Then how can conflicts be settled successfully — to make the reform successful? Professor Qian Chengdan pointed out two key words, “compromise” and “responsibility”. “The two contradictive sides should both get something without deadweight loss, no matter who plays the leading role…And both sides should harbor a responsibility for civilians, the society and the nation, only by which can the two sides find a good way to solve conflicts.”
After hearing speeches from the four speakers, scholars present had a discussion around the central topic. They discussed about how the Qing dynasty’s poverty had an impact on 1911 Revolution, used the example of French Revolution to debate, and talked about different understandings of revolution and reform in Chinese and western cultures…
The panel session finally ended. Yet considering the contemporary society with both changes and constancy twisted, the related thoughts and discussions on those topics will still be in demand.
Reported by: Liu Yineng
Edited by: Arthars
