44
(Fei Hsiao-t’ung) ( 1979 ), writing in the 1940s, described sociological debates in
Chinese universities as being “between pedants showing off their knowledge” and
noted that they were based on “facts and theories derived from Western society” (p.25).
Two scenarios coexist ironically in East Asia. On one hand, East Asia’s indige-
nous knowledge has been seldom presented as established and coherent sets of beliefs
and has been largely devalued and/or ignored as processes or coherent methods of
learning and teaching. Those who are using local materials and Western theoretical
frameworks cannot successfully incorporate their indigenous traditions. On the other
hand, East Asian societies are well positioned to develop their own social theories by
their wealth of unique cultural heritages and their huge demographic and geographi-
cal size with sufficient center of gravity to operate with relative autonomy. The region
is known for its rich intellectual traditions particularly in human and social sciences.
On the basis of its abundance of social knowledge and a long tradition of social
respect for scholarship, such a possibility is much facilitated by the region’s remark-
able development over the past decades which provide rich food for thought and
ideas. Our contemporary turbulent and unpredictable world and times are also ideal
for East Asian struggles to create new forms of knowledge and power (Yang 2005 ).
A successfully built East Asian social science identity would not only contribute
significantly to the social and intellectual development of East Asian societies but also
lift international social research to a substantially higher level. Some Western thinkers
have expressed the need for non-Western social science development and have called
for reassessing Western social theories. For example, Brenkman ( 1987 ) appeals to
“relativize and reinterpret the Western tradition, which has taken its claim to univer-
sality” (p.230). Huntington ( 1996 ) has emphatically pointed out that modernization
thesis is “misguided, arrogant, false, and dangerous,” projecting “the image of an
emerging homogenous, universally Western world” (p.28). He reiterates that Western
civilization is precious not because it is universal but because it is unique (p.35) and
that “culture follows power” and “Imperialism is the necessary, logical consequence
of universalism” (p.41). Placing higher expectations on China, Perry ( 1999 ) hopes
that the study of China can mature from a “consumer field” (dependent for its analyti-
cal insights upon imports from the study of other countries) to a “producer field”
(capable of generating original analyses of interest to comparativists in general).
Some individual scholars have achieved highly in this aspect. Gregory Chow
( 1997 ), a Chinese American economist base at Princeton University, has challenged
some mainstream beliefs by studying China’s practices. He finds that the successful
experience of the township and village enterprises in China is sufficient to challenge
the dogma that only private enterprise in a capitalist economy can be efficient
(p.321). China’s current legal system, which is seen as poorly developed in Western
perceptions, has been working well for China’s internal economic development, and
less than strict enforcement of a law can sometimes be beneficial (p.323). It is said
that China is ruled by people and not by law. This statement does not necessarily
imply that the Chinese system is bad (p.324). In fact, he argues, in a society empha-
sizing the collective good, government leadership is stronger, and its effects require
more careful study. Democracy in the sense of a government of the people, for the
people, and by the people can be practiced under a one-party rule (p.325).
R. Ya ng