The Approach and Direction of Research on the Socio-Economic History of Ming and Qing Dynasties During the Forty Years of Reform and Opening-Up

Liu Zhiwei

His research fields are the social and economic history of Ming and Qing dynasties and traditional Chinese rural society. His main works include Between State and Society: The Lijia Subscription System and Rural Society in Guangdong Region of the Ming and Qing Dynasties and Searching for China in History: Regional History Dialogue in Research on Epistemology.

Only when you really walk on the land of China can you truly experience what China looks like. All theory should come from practice. Whether it is Fu Yiling’s research on Chinese social and economic history or Fei Xiaotong’s social anthropology investigation， they must all go down to the grassroots of society in China. Here we can accurately observe the context， mechanism， and theories of Chinese society. China is rich in layers and diversity， and we hope to gain a stronger understanding. This set of books is a collection of scholarly reviews based on extensive “walking” experiences. This book contains topics that the author thinks about while he is reading， focusing on the research of social and economic history， the value of local literature， regional practice， “Qimin society”， and traditional villages. It reviews the tradition， path， and direction of social and economic history research in the past 40 years， combining social and economic history research and regional research.

Streamside Lights: A Prospect of Social and Economic History Research

Liu zhiwei

Beijing Normal University Press (Group) Co.， LTD.

2020.6.5

49.00 (CNY)

During the past 40 years of reform and opening-up， significant progress has been made in the study of Chinese dynastic history， and the study of Chinese history has undergone tremendous changes in general. The same goes for my research on the socio-economic history of the Ming and Qing dynasties. In a sense， changes in this area of research may be more notable than those in the study of other dynastic history or of history of particular themes. It is not because we have done better jobs than the scholars in other fields， but rather due to the fact that the socio-economic history of Ming and Qing dynasties was a brand-new research field developed within the “New History” system of the 20th century. No such field existed in the traditional study of history. Though originally without a solid academic foundation， let alone a systematic theory or methodology， the study of the socio-economic history of Ming and Qing dynasties has developed over the recent decades， building not only a basic research question framework but also a preliminary self-contained system in terms of methodology. It has formed academic topics and research paradigms different from the traditional study of history.

However， as far as the study of the socio-economic history of the Ming and Qing dynasties is concerned， the 40 years of reform and opening-up should not be regarded as a separate phase divided by breaks or transitions. In fact， for at least the first two decades， roughly from the late 1970s to the late 1990s， the study of the socio-economic history of the Ming and Qing dynasties essentially followed the path set in the 1950s and 1960s. (One cannot， however， declare that after the 1990s， the influence of this path indefinitely diminished. In a sense， we are still following the path， even today.) To say that the reform and opening-up is a milestone for transition， we are referring to the transition of returning to， instead of going away from， the path of the 1950s and 1960s. We could all remember that the reforms in various industries were aimed at “setting things right” at the beginning of the reform and opening-up. The “right things” refer to those that were from the 1950s and 1960s， opposing the chaos that was caused by the destruction of academia during ten years of domestic turmoil and the subsequent insinuation-focused historical studies based on the “Confucianism vs. Legalism dispute”. In this regard， since the end of the 1970s， the study of the socio-economic history of the Ming and Qing dynasties has mainly been a continuation of the academic lineage of the 1950s and 1960s. It thrived in the atmosphere of “making economic development the central task” at that time. Active scholars include two generations， i.e.， the older pioneers who laid the foundation of the study in the 1950s and 1960s and a younger generation who followed suit since. These scholars published a number of works within a decade or two after the end of the 1970s， based on their proposed topics with accumulated research experiences during the 1950s and 1960s. The works summarized the research findings since the 1950s and 1960s， constructing a relatively comprehensive system of knowledge and explanation regarding the socio-economy of the Ming and Qing dynasties. So influential is this system that it still dominates the intellectual understanding of the socio-economic situation in pre-modern China today. Although younger researchers refer less and less to the findings of the period mentioned above， they are unable to break free of or go beyond the core scope and basic principles of this system. For example， topics such as the sprouting of capitalism， the dynastic state with centralized authoritarianism， the landlord-based economy/small-scale peasant economy， land ownership/tenancy relationship， commodity economy， market structure， town/city development， and overseas trade were all proposed in the 1950s and 1960s， but not systematically explained until the 1980s and 1990s. These topics have been and continue to be the themes and basic contents of the study of the socio-economic history of the Ming and Qing dynasties today.

However， we could not draw from the above the conclusion that the study of the socio-economic history of Ming and Qing dynasties has not undergone a great transformation in the 40 years of reform and opening-up， nor should we deny or downplay the significance of such transformation among all transformations in Chinese historical studies. While the previously mentioned continuity in the path taken since the 1950s and 1960s is certainly carried forward as a legacy， its actual influence and significance lie in enlightening the generations to come.

First of all， the two generations of scholars mentioned earlier， while continuing to move forward with the research directions they had set in the 1950s and 1960s， deepened their understanding and summarized their research findings. Not only did they form a more systematic explanation under the framework of the questions already raised， but they also brought out many issues and doubts found in the research. These issues could not be justified by the original theoretical framework or be in accordance with the historical facts. There were also other deductions derived from the established logic or supported by newly discovered historical materials and facts. All of these gradually sprang up in the 1980s and 1990s. Research at that time shared the same dilemma: on the one hand， the established theories seemed convincing and infallible， but on the other hand， more and more detailed and complicated facts were discovered during research. These facts often contradicted the established theories in logic， even leading to paradoxes. As a result， the study of the socio-economic history of Ming and Qing dynasties had to make efforts to connect the historical facts with the established theories in order to propose a revision or new explanations of the theory. For instance， the theoretical assumption of the longstanding feudal society contradicted the historical fact of remarkable socio-economic development and transformations in the Ming and Qing dynasties. Other examples that were in need of new historical perspectives， propositions， or explanatory logic， included but were not limited to the relationship between the following: landlord-based economy and commodity economy， small-scale peasant business and big landlord’s ownership of lands， dissolving of personal attachment of producers and the development of clan society， the nature of the national market and the degree of development of the domestic market， and the prosperity of the municipal economy in Jiangnan (regions south of the Yangtze River) and the nature of the social economy of Jiangnan. The search for answers to the questions above even potentially led to the pursuit of new directions in the study of new socio-economic history. Unsatisfied with dogmatic historical interpretations， the older generation of scholars not only dug deeper based on decades of research， laying a steady foundation， but also advanced the establishment of a historical facts-based explanatory system of socio-economic history. From an objective perspective， their efforts opened up new fields for research and laid the foundation for the academic transition over the next 20 years.

Another important driving force for this academic transition was exploration made by a new generation of researchers during the 40 years of reform and opening-up. The year 1978 witnessed the restoration of the postgraduate system， through which a group of young people entered into the research field of the economic history of the Ming and Qing dynasties. Guided by the two generations of scholars mentioned above， they directly inherited the research approaches established by their predecessors， while making great efforts to explore advancing directions. At that time， the eagerness to search for new directions and approaches for historical research prevailed in Chinese academia. Theories and methods developed in the various disciplines of postwar philosophy and social science touched the minds and opened the eyes of researchers.

Meanwhile， many achievements in the study of the socio-economic history of the Ming and Qing dynasties in Europe， America， and Japan provided inspiration and stimulation to a new generation of scholars in Chinese mainland. During the first 20 years， such an academic atmosphere allowed the younger generation of scholars to expand their horizons and deepen their thinking as a first step， based on older generations’ problem awareness as well as their study methods. New questions with interpretations were proposed， and new research areas were being explored， all of which gradually led to an updated framework of socio-economic， historical studies. For the next 20 years， as these young researchers matured， research directions and topics became clearer. Their students started to make increasing contributions to expanding new domains within the updated framework.

In this respect， when reviewing the progress of the study of the socio-economic history of Ming and Qing dynasties during the past 40 years， we， on the one hand， should consider the legacy of academic tradition; on the other hand， we need to stay sensitive to grasp the new research directions gradually developed based on the continuation of such tradition. “New directions” found while following the “traditional path” could be regarded as one of the features in the development of this research field during the 40 years of reform and opening-up. From the perspective of historical studies as a whole， the “traditional path” itself was first a “new direction”， constructed based on new materials for new research questions from the very beginning. That is why another “new direction” was not impossible to find. The so-called “new developments” in the recent 20 years have mainly been the studies of new materials， which have contributed to the continuous renewal of research questions.