Kaozheng (Chinese:考證;lit. 'search for evidence'[1]), alternatively calledkaoju xue (考據學; 'evidential scholarship') was a Chinese school of thought emphasizingphilology that was active during theQing dynasty (1644–1912) fromc. 1600 to 1850. It was most prominent during the reigns of theQianlong Emperor andJiaqing Emperor; because of this, it is often also referred to as theQian–Jia school (乾嘉學派).[2] Their approach corresponds to that of moderntextual criticism, and was also associated withempiricism as regards scientific topics.
Nearly all of the representatives of thekaozheng movement were Ming loyalists, refusing to accept offers of government positions from the Qing dynasty.[3] The Kaozheng school began in the late Ming, criticizing the subjectivism ofYangmingism. After the fall of the Ming,kaozheng scholars blamed this subjectivism for the collapse of the state and thus called for practical study of objective realities to replace subjectivism, directly leading to critical studies of the Confucian source texts for their original meanings.[4] Some of the most important first generation of Qing thinkers wereMing loyalists, at least in their hearts, includingGu Yanwu,Huang Zongxi, andFang Yizhi. Partly in reaction to the presumed laxity and excess of the late Ming, they turned tokaozheng, or evidential learning, which emphasized careful textual study and critical thinking.[5] Thekaozheng movement has been compared to the European phenomena ofHistorism,Enlightenment, orBiblical criticism, seeking reform and deconstruction of royal-centric and optimistic narratives by "returning to the sources" through source criticism.[3] Thekaozheng movement was also closely linked to theHan learning movement which sought to reject Neo-Confucianism for the Han dynasty commentarial tradition.[3]
Thekaozheng movement was centered around the Jiangnan area.[4] Rather than regardingkaozheng as a local phenomenon aroundJiangnan andBeijing, it has been proposed to view it as a general trend in development of Chinese scholarship in light of contribution ofCui Shu (1740–1816).[6] The movement began to lose momentum in the late 18th-century, but not before triggering the rise ofNew Text Confucianism and the statecraft (經世;jingshi[7]) movements, which criticized the originalkaozheng scholarship while adopting its critical methods.[4]
Towards the end of the Qing and in the early 20th century, reform scholars suchLiang Qichao,Hu Shih andGu Jiegang saw inkaozheng a step towards development of empirical mode of scholarship and science in China. Conversely,Carsun Chang andXu Fuguan criticizedkaozheng as intellectually sterile and politically dangerous.[8]
While the late 20th-century scholarYu Ying-shih has tried to demonstrate continuity betweenkaozheng andneo-Confucianism in order to provide a non-revolutionary basis for Chinese culture,Benjamin Elman has argued thatkaozheng constituted "an empirical revolution" that broke with the stance of neo-Confucian combination ofteleological considerations with scholarship.[6]
The methods ofkaozheng were imported intoEdo-era Japan askōshō orkōshōgaku. This approach combined textual criticism andempiricism in an effort to find the ancient, original meanings of texts. The earliest use ofkaozheng methods in Edo Japan wasKeichū's critical edition of theMan'yōshū. These methods were eventually used by theKokugaku to argue that modern science was indigenous to Japan; they also contributed to theKokugaku critique ofBuddhism.[9]
Authority control databases: National |
|---|