From Gezhi to Kexue: Scientific Dispositions and the Making of Modern China, 1861–1935

This article explores China’s scientific evolution from the Self-Strengthening Movement to the onset of the Second Sino-Japanese War, highlighting the interaction of traditional Chinese values, Western influences, and indigenous initiatives in shaping what can be termed “scientific dispositions.” During this period, science was pragmatically framed as a means to address national security and modernization, shaped by Western imperialism and domestic instability. Early efforts during the Self-Strengthening Movement emphasized practical knowledge, exemplified by the reframing of gezhi to prioritize military and industrial applications, yet these initiatives lacked a broad intellectual or popular scientific culture. Figures like John Fryer and Xu Shou played key roles in adapting Western knowledge, but science remained a state tool rather than a holistic pursuit, reflecting a Confucian hierarchy that devalued technical expertise. Unlike Meiji Japan’s comprehensive integration of science, China’s approach was narrower and defensive, focusing on sovereignty preservation through technological mastery rather than advancing global knowledge. The overseas education movement marked a transformative shift, inspired by Japan’s modernization and later reinforced by U.S.-bound scholarships that prioritized practical subjects over classical learning. This period saw the rise of a scientific lexicon, institutions, and reforms that aligned education with technological imperatives, laying the foundation for modern epistemological frameworks. By the early twentieth century, a generational shift led by internationally educated intellectuals, such as those in the Science Society of China, championed scientism as a moral and pragmatic imperative, elevating empirical science as a vehicle for national rejuvenation while sidelining metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics. Publications like Kexue fostered a scientific community that advocated deterministic frameworks during debates like the “Science versus Metaphysics” controversy, further solidifying science’s role in societal transformation. Despite its reductionist tendencies, this scientism symbolized a recalibration of China’s intellectual priorities, transitioning from utilitarian state-driven objectives to a professionally grounded, ideologically charged model of scientific engagement.

China’s scientific evolution reflected a dual impulse: a deep respect for its cultural heritage alongside a pragmatic adoption of Western methodologies, as illustrated by the shift from classical learning to “new learning” and the distinction between kexue (science) and keji (techno-science). This synthesis of Western and indigenous traditions was not a passive assimilation but an active reinterpretation that reshaped national identity, fostering intellectual resilience and enabling global integration. Through this lens, China’s “scientific disposition” not only propelled modernization and reinforced sovereignty but also grappled with the ethical and philosophical tensions inherent in scientific reductionism. Ultimately, this period redefined China’s intellectual landscape, establishing a foundation for future developments and asserting its place in global scientific discourse, where scientism became a dual symbol of national pride and survival, reflecting the balance between modernity and tradition.