Imperialism: Reality or Myth?, Discovering History in China
"Imperialism: Reality or Myth?", Discovering History in China by Paul Cohen
In the chapter, Paul Cohen critiques the writings of various theorists on the subject of the economic effects of Western Imperialism in China and why China failed to modernize while other countries that experienced imperialism, such as Japan, succeeded. Some say that imperialism is at the root of all of China’s problems while others believe that imperialism’s role was limited especially in the political realm. However, Modernization Theory, which says that all countries will eventually become democracies, is very important for each of these viewpoints.
In the 1960s, tragedies like Vietnam began getting many young people in America angry and doubtful about American policies in Asia. James Peck, a young graduate student, wrote a paper in 1969 and shocked the elders of the field with its criticisms. Peck’s main argument was that modernization theory was being used to justify America’s brutal actions in in the postwar era, patronize the Chinese revolution and disguise imperialism’s affects.
The Traditional China specialists that Peck was criticizing said that external forces were identical in Japan and China, so we should look at the internal cultural aspects to understand why China failed to adapt while Japan succeeded. China was too self-sufficient and self-confident and so failed to modernize. Imperialism was a myth the Chinese invented to sooth their hurt egos.
Peck said that external factors, namely imperialism, were at fault. China had to bear much stronger imperialism than Japan, and so no revolution could possibly take place. Peck thought that Western economic power in China wasn’t beneficial as previously argued because the West used exportation and control of markets to impede modernization.
John K. Fairbank, the chief target of Peck's attack, published a reply in 1970. One of the points that Fairbank argued against Peck on was that just because American imperialism had bad points, didn’t mean that Marxism didn’t have bed points as well, so criticism of one shouldn’t necessarily lead to the idealization of the other.
Cohen says that Peck’s view actually had a lot in common with the approaches that he criticizes except in labeling aspects as good or bad. Peck argued that throughout its history China has been incapable of fundamental change despite many revolts. In the early 19th century Western capitalism started change in China, but then stopped the changes that were not in their interests. The Chinese fought imperialism with communism. Peck says that without Western intrusion, the revolution would never have been able to take place and China would never have changed.
Cohen thinks that Peck boxed himself in because his argument seemed to suggest that because of China's stagnate state, it wouldn’t have been better off without Imperialism. Cohen also argued that internal changes in China were already underway by the time of the Opium War, including urbanization, growing literacy rates, and expansion of the gentry class, but that Peck refused to see such changes because he didn’t want to let America off the hook.
The author then evaluates a book published in 1977 by Frances Moulder which argued that Japan's development was because of its relative autonomy within the world economy, and China's underdevelopment was because it was incorporated into the world system as a dependent satellite. She says that traditional society theorist exaggerate differences between Japan and China which had a similar agrarian society, political process, and pattern of economic transformation. Moulder also argues that the manner of incorporation was different; China was more incorporated than Japan and so found it hard to liberate themselves. Finally, Japanese industrialization occurred because of the establishment of a centralized national state and state support of industrialization which were possible because of autonomy that China didn’t possess. Cohen said that Moulder ignored the differences in values, beliefs and world view, and that saying China and Japan were similar is like saying a bird and fish are alike because they are not a monkey.
Today, many economists believe that Chinese economy was too large, self-sufficient, and poor to be affected by Imperialism. Some argue that China saw no economic downturn during that time while others argue that economic downturn happened but for reasons unrelated to imperialism. Some even say that Imperialism had positive affects but the Chinese Government limited the affects. Rhodes Murphey argued that China was too large and its citizens too spread out to be affected like Japan which was smaller and had most of its citizens living in small accessible areas, that China retained its sovereignty except in small areas like their Ports, and that the Chinese economy was too strong to lose go foreign economies. Cohen agreed with Murphey that the fact that China experienced semi-colonialism instead of full colonialism like in India was important.
Cohen says that theorists have to explore whether the Western powers wanted to establish full colonial control over all or part of China but were unable to because of internal factors, or whether the powers were not motivated or were unable to establish complete control, irrespective of the internal Chinese context. Murphey assumes that the former is true but Cohen argues that the Great Powers didn’t want to colonize China, not only because of China’s size, but because of their own circumstances such as the fact that Great Britain already had its hands full with India.
Cohen listed faults with the way research has been conducted. First, researchers use national averages and fail to look at regional differences which can have profound effects on the economy. Second, scholars are using the definition of imperialism as full colonization of one country over another. This was not the case in China which suffered from partial colonization in the form of multiple-colonialism where many countries were partially colonizing it. This situation was further complicated by the fact that China was colonized by the Manchu at the same time. This faulty definition leads to many irrelevant questions being asked and relevant questions being left out. Third, researchers are encumbered with political aims such as the desire to blame the West instead of understanding China. Fourth, most theories or the definitions they use are too vague and imprecise to be of much use. Finally, theorists ethnocentrically assume that economic development is a good thing and that China “failed” to industrialize.
In conclusion, Cohen states that Imperialism as the master key to Chinese history is a myth because it was just one of many factors, but we really have to find a proper definition for imperialism before we can decide whether imperialism as a whole is a myth.