Organizer: Jacqueline Megan Greene, Gettysburg College Chair: Julia C. Strauss, University of London Discussants: Yu-Fa Chang, Academia Sinica; Julia C. Strauss, University of London
This panel will analyze the institutional history of Academia Sinica and the relationships that Chinese intellectuals in the ROC have forged with the state, other institutions and academicians. It will serve as a window through which to examine institution-building, the state-sponsored academy, the intellectual-state relationship and intellectual history in the ROC. The papers by Chen and Greene investigate the relationship between the Academy and the state. Chen Shiwei will examine the founding of the Academy within the context of the intellectual and political scenes of China in the mid to late 1920s. Megan Greene will evaluate the creation and evolution of the Taiwan Research Institute within the context of contemporary Taiwan politics. Chang P'eng-yuan's paper will investigate the ties between the Academy, the Ford Foundation and a group of American academicians and the impact of this relationship on the intellectual development of the Institute. Together, the papers in this panel will shed light on Academia Sinica's role in modern China and contribute to our understanding of the political, institutional and intellectual history of modern China.
Politics and the Founding of Academia Sinica in 1927
Shiwei Chen, Harvard University
Established in 1927, Academia Sinica was the highest multidisciplinary research institution under the direct control of the Nationalist government. Unlike Western academies, which were founded primarily on the basis of scientific developments, the establishment of Academia Sinica was a highly politicized resolution by the GMD Nanjing regime in an increasingly centralized system. My paper will investigate the founding of Academia Sinica and its interaction with the Chinese state at the critical juncture of 1927. I will argue that the founding of Academia Sinica was not the outcome of unplanned, uncoordinated decisions, but a highly politicized resolution produced by the GMD Nanjing regime at a crucial historical moment.
The paper consists of two parts. Part one discusses China's central academic system and the growth of scientific societies in the early Republican period. I show that in the pre-1927 years, China's central academic system never enjoyed the degree of success that Western scientific communities possessed. Without a unified, strong national government, it was difficult for China to accomplish scientific institutionalization.
Part two deals with politics and the founding of Academia Sinica in 1927, a year in which the GMD underwent an internal split and was simultaneously challenged by the Northern warlords. It was during this moment that GMD state-building and the advancement of scientific institutionalization became inextricably linked, when the interests of Jiang Jieshi and a group of scientific elites and GMD elder statesmen coincided. From that point on, the founding of Academia Sinica became a top priority of the Nanjing regime's national reconstruction.
Building a China Study Base in Taiwan: Ford Grant to the Institute of Modern
History, Academia Sinica, 1962-1971
P'eng-yuan Chang, Academia Sinica
Let me summarize the idea of the paper that I intend to present. Recently I have completed a manuscript on the intellectual interflow between the academics of American China studies and the Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica. The story starts from the ten-year (1962-1971) Ford grant (US $420,000) to the Institute of Modern History. I tried to answer why John K. Fairbank and C. Martin Wilbur supported the grant to the Institute. They wanted to build up a China study base in Taiwan which, as a Chinese cultural society, was accessible to American scholars after 1949, the year of the takeover of mainland China by the Communists. The Ford grant helped to strengthen the research facilities of the Institute, raised the living standards of its staff and enabled its younger scholars to be sent to visit other academic centers and have the chance to pursue advanced studies abroad. I tried to compare some aspects of historiographic thought of Fairbank, Wilbur and Kuo Ting-yee, the director of the Institute of Modern History who played an important role in the intellectual interflow. My conclusion is that the last three decades' academic trend in Taiwan has been influenced heavily by the American side, especially with respect to methodology.
Taiwan Studies and Contemporary Taiwan Politics: The Case of the Taiwan Research
Institute of Academia Sinica
Jacqueline Megan Greene, Gettysburg College
Not long ago, Taiwan studies were carefully regulated in the ROC. Now, Taiwan studies have grown to the point that research critical of Nationalist rule is being done in state-funded institutions. This paper will examine the establishment of one such institution, the Taiwan Research Institute at Academia Sinica. It will examine the founding of the Taiwan Research Institute in the context of the historical relationship between Academia Sinica and the state. It will also analyze the creation of the Taiwan Research Institute in terms of contemporary Taiwan politics. What can the establishment of the Taiwan Research Institute tell us about the changing nature of Taiwan's politics?
First, this paper will examine the role of the state in the creation of the Taiwan Research Institute. Academia Sinica is a state-funded research institute which is directly overseen by the Executive Yuan. The Academy has historically walked a tightrope between its obligations to the state and its commitment to the intellectual autonomy of its members. What can the establishment of the Taiwan Research Institute and the evolution of the Institute's research agenda tell us about the contemporary relationship between Academia Sinica and the state?
Second, this paper will evaluate the creation of the Taiwan Research Institute in the context of recent changes in ROC politics. What does the establishment of the Institute tell us about ROC politics? Was the Institute created in response to certain political pressures, or was it explicitly intended to have an impact on politics in Taiwan?