Probing Needham

◆Abstract：One of the intriguing issues of Joseph Needhams Science and Civilisation in China is why the scientific revolution and the Industry Revolution did not originate in China. To make this heuristic question historically answerable， this paper distinguishes the connotation of "science" and "technology"， and tries to explain this question from the perspective of Marx's historical view， that is， cultural tradition. Although there are many obstacles that hinder the development of modern science and technology in China， the conservatism of our cultural tradition， namely Confucian culture， and its suppression of human nature plays a decisive role in this process.

◆Key words：Needhams Grand Question; Confucian culture; single authority

1 Introduction

In his book Science and Civilisation in China，Needham raised a famous question： Why had China been overtaken by the West in science and technology， despite their earlier successes？ In Needham's words， “Why did modern science， the mathematization of hypotheses about Nature， with all its implications for advanced technology， take its meteoric rise only in the West at the time of Galileo？”， and why it “had not developed in Chinese civilisation” which in the previous many centuries “was much more efficient than occidental in applying” natural knowledge to practical needs？ A large number of domestic and foreign experts have explored Needhams Grand question from different aspects. The geographical endowment hypothesis insists that China is surrounded by mountains， deserts and oceans on all sides， forming a closed system. Therefore， due to the lack of communication， Chinese science gradually degenerates and even lags behind;language determinism holds that modern science did not develop in China because of the inherent defects of Chinese characters;while Needham's theory of social morphology argues that the reason why modern science did not first come into being in China was the rise of the new capitalist social system in Europe.

2 The essence of Needhams Grand Question

Needham's question of "why modern science and technology was not born in China" is a reflection on the contradiction on development logic between Chinese ancient and modern science and technology， and its obviously raised based on the modern Westerners' understanding of science and technology. So in order to answer this question， we should first figure out the connotations of science and technology. Although Bernard believes that "science is difficult to define because it embodies different essential characteristics" （Bernal， 1981：6） ， modern scholars generally believe that science is a rational understanding of the laws of the objective world， including a theoretical system sublimated from production experience and labor skills. Based on logic， mathematics and experiment， it is systematic in form and conceptualized and formulated in expression. While technology is the method and principle of solving problems， which means that people use the existing things to form new things or change the functions of existing things.

According to the above definitions， science aims at understanding nature and exploring the unknown， while technology is based on the understanding of nature and uses the knowledge obtained to transform nature and make it serve human beings. Both science and technology take nature as the object， but strictly speaking， the purpose of natural science research is to understand nature， including exploring all kinds of phenomena in nature， analyzing all materials existing in nature， and revealing the internal laws and interrelations that dominate natural phenomena. By contrast， technology focuses on the use of nature， and it aims at transforming nature so as to make it adapt to the increasingly complex and higher standard of human life （Zhou， Wang， 2004：23）. Obviously， the basic difference between "science" and "technology" is that the former is theoretical and speculative， and the latter is practical and empirical.

Therefore， Needham's statement that "China's science and technology has been at the leading level in the world before the 16th century" is not tenable. Although before the 16th century， China had brilliant achievements in iron smelting， printing， gunpowder， mathematics， astronomy and so on， most of these achievements were obtained by the accumulation and summary of technical experience， and the way of narration and expression was mostly skilled experience description. So these achievements are essentially the accumulation of perceptual knowledge without the characteristics that modern science should have. Although the experiences and technical achievements described in some famous works like Mohist Canons and Important Arts for the Peoples Welfare are regarded as foundations for the rise of modern science （Shen， 1981：112）， they are either a detailed description of natural phenomena or a systematic summary of practical experience. They lack of scientific concepts， laws and logical reasoning， and do not put forward a systematic and complete theory.

Though Needham's description is not completely consistent with the facts， what we need to ponder on is that since ancient China's achievements in empirical science far exceeded those of the West， which should have laid a good perceptual foundation for the development of natural science， why did China not take the lead in the real sense of science and technology as people imagined， but far behind the West？ Therefore， Needhams Grand Question should be better described as follows： Before the 16th century， China far surpassed the West in the development of experience and technology， but why didn't modern natural science firstly appear in China？

3 Single Authority and Confucian Culture

Needhams Grand Question can be explained from the perspective of institutional change and technological development. According to North's institutional change theory， under the given system， the power holders will encourage the capital in the society to concentrate on the knowledge with higher profitability; and the new knowledge will gradually affect the evolution of knowledge stock， which will further change the relative price of production factors. If the system changes， it can only be because the later system will be more beneficial to those in power， and then the updated system will develop new knowledge. So far， the mutual influence of system and knowledge shapes the long-term growth of knowledge， and then determines the economic growth.

North's institutional change theory can also be applied to technological innovation. When those who get vested interests in politics and economy think that institutional change can bring benefits， they will tend to change the system to achieve knowledge and technological innovation; on the contrary， if technological innovation will cause the risk of losing existing power， the authorities will design the institution to hinder innovation and economic change. Therefore， the reason why modern science did not firstly originate in China may be that the authority's preference for the existing system makes the rigid system inhibit the development of science and technology.

China is a vast land. If those in power want to carry out single authority in such a large area of territory， they must get the cooperation of local bureaucrats. On the one hand， the bureaucrats should be compatible; on the other hand， the ruling cost should be as low as possible. Under this management mode， China has gradually embarked on the road of Confucian culture.

Compared with Mohism， Legalism and Taoism， Confucianism has obvious advantages. Taoism advocates that the rulers should not interfere with the people， but the governance of the ancient empire and the maintenance of authority all depend on the continuous taxes. So Taoism is obviously not applicable. Mohism  emphasizes all-embracing love and exaltation of the virtuous. This noble rule may work in a small scope in a short time， but it is not very operational to govern a huge empire for a long time. Legalists believe that unified laws and regulations should be implemented throughout the country. This kind of ruling lacks flexibility in operation and interpretation， and it is against the interests of the rulers that the royal family should be punished as the common people.

Different from the above three ideas of governance， Confucianism advocates heavenly way and unification. By molding God， it convinced people that the emperor was "the son of God"， so that people can accept his rule sincerely. Also， the doctrine of Confucian principles regulated bureaucratic politics and patriarchal clan system. It managed the grassroots of the empire through something like “joint liability” to ensure the implementation of the will of the government. Furthermore， Confucianism is an ideology with "benevolence" and "propriety" as its core. It regulates interpersonal relationship by virtue of spontaneous moral commandments， and its application and interpretation are flexible and can be adapted to particular time and local conditions. Through the mutual restraint of bureaucrats and the control of moral concepts， Confucian culture enables the central government to firmly grasp its power and maintain its absolute authority.

4 The negative influence of Confucian culture on the development of science and technology

It is true that Confucian culture has played a positive role in maintaining the long-term stability and unity of the country and the formation of good moral relations between people， so Confucianism can spread in China for such a long time. The unity and stability of the country objectively promotes the development of science and technology， but from the perspective of the overall impact of Confucianism on the development of science and technology， its disadvantages still outweigh the benefits.

4.1 Homogenizing peoples thought

Confucian philosophy has always been based on ethics， focusing on self-cultivation and harmonious relationship between people， as well as the governance of society， but rarely care about and explore the knowledge of nature. "In ancient China， there was hardly any natural philosophy system comparable to Aristotle's Metaphysics and Herakleitos and Parmenides' Nature"（Qian， 1998）. Under this circumstance， Chinese philosophy has become a unitary system with human as the core. This kind of system is difficult to promote the development of natural science; at the same time， it inhibits the consciousness and motivation of human innovation.

From the perspective of scientific history， "Almost every major scientific discovery and theory has its important philosophical background"（Qian， 1998）. If a country wants to make achievements in the field of science， it must have a diverse philosophical basis. However， the dominant Confucian culture has seriously hit China when China is just in the initial stage of science. First of all， people's fixed thinking caused by the single philosophical background is not conducive to the development of science. Besides， the idea of alienating nature advocated by Confucianism has hindered China's leap from practical techniques to theoretical science.

4.2 Controlling the direction of people's subjective initiative

In the feudal society， the institutionalization of Confucianism made the evaluation and selection standard of talents deformed， and the governments selection standard of intellectuals would largely affect their subjective initiative. Obviously， the imperial examination system based on Confucian works would inevitably encourage the majority of scholars to be keen on reciting classics， and few would pay attention to "useless" natural science knowledge.

Confucianism not only affects the direction of the efforts of the excellent literati， but also changes the life goals of ordinary people. Because the knowledge of Confucianism will bring about official fortune， wealth and talent， quite a large number of people would attempt to read those classics， and no one would really consider about our nature. Whats more， Confucian doctrine makes people act cautiously and always consider the impact on family and friends， which stifles most people's ideas of bold innovation.

4.3 Making China's education system deviate from the scientific track

Influenced by Confucianism， the education and examination system in China's feudal society deviated from the scientific track. It did not promote the development of China's science and technology; to some extent， it even played a restrictive role.

In terms of educational objectives， the government cultivated Confucian talents to govern the country; in terms of educational content， the main educational content of academies was Confucianism， which seldom involved production and scientific knowledge. In the Han Dynasty， Dong Zhongshu suggested three cultural measures： promoting imperial academy， developing official schools， and taking “understand human relations” as the general goal of school education. The academies of Tang， Song， Yuan， Ming and Qing Dynasties also taught Confucianism only， and did not regard the cultivation of scientific and technological talents as their priority.

On the contrary， western education emphasizes natural science knowledge. Astronomy， geography and many other courses taught by western universities belong to the category of natural science. We can see that ancient Chinese inventors made achievements mainly through summing up experience in production practice， while many Western scientists have pursued further studies in universities.

Aristotle once pointed out that science originates from three elements： surprise， idleness and freedom. Surprise refers to active thinking about the cause and effect of things; leisure refers to putting time into thinking in a sustained and systematic way; and freedom means that people should enjoy the freedom of thinking in the process of pursuing knowledge. Only when one has the right to think freely can he be a real free man. Pitifully， under the rule of Confucian culture， rote teaching method suppressed students' curiosity， frequent imperial examinations and the government's encouragement to memorize Confucian classics consumed most of people's energy， and the strict principle of feudal moral conduct deprived people of their right to think freely. Under such social conditions， the progress of science and technology completely lost its foundation and motivation， and fell into a state of stagnation.

5 Conclusion

This paper ponders on Needhams Grand Question in a distinctive way. First， while most essays try to explain this question directly， this paper first distinguishes the meaning of science and technology， so as to fetch the essence of this question. Second， while some essays focus on the high-level equilibrium hypothesis， the geographical endowment hypothesis or the property rights hypothesis， this paper attempts to use North's institutional change theory and Aristotle's view of science to find the fundamental factor for the slow development of science in China.

Based on the analysis of Needhams Science and Civilisation in China and ancient Chinese political system and culture， this paper yielded two major findings：

a.Technology is empirical， while science is theoretical. So the essence of Needham's Grand Question should be： Why did the advanced techniques in ancient China not promote the development of modern natural science？

b.The Confucian culture brought by single authority is the fundamental factor that hinders the development of natural science. It restricted the thoughts and behaviors of both the ruling class and the grassroots people， and stifled the germination of Chinese natural science.

It should be acknowledged that some ideas of Confucian culture are beneficial to the cultivation of personal morality and the development and governance of the country. However， when western modern science and technology were developing rapidly and gradually showing its power in the whole world， the rigid institutionalized Confucian culture had brought China into the dark age of science. Therefore， China needs to learn a lesson from the darkness it has gone through， change the "institutionalization" of philosophy into "pluralism and openness"， and learn from the advanced science and technology of the West.

References

[1]Aristotle.（2005）.Metaphysics.Shanghai：Shanghai Peoples Publishing House.

[2]Bernal，J.D.（1981）.Science in History.Beijing：Science Press.

[3]Chen，R.（2016）.Probing Needhams Grand Question via Aristotles Perspective of Science.Education Research Monthly， 1， 12-17.

[4]Chen，Y.（2009）.Restrictions of Ancient Chinese Science by Confucianism and Taoism：Also as An Answer to Needham's Grand Question.Journal of Tsinghua University （Philosophy and Social Sciences）， 1， 116-126.

[5]Douglass，C.N.（1990）.Institution，Institutional Change and Economic Performance.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

[6]Lin，J.（2017）.The Cultural Interpretation of Needham Puzzle and Qian Xuesen's Question.The Journal of Humanities， 12， 1-6.

[7]Meng，J.（2019）.Cultural Analysis of Needham Puzzle. Social Science Front， 5， 57-64.

[8]Meng，X.（2002）.The Practical Significance of the Research on Needham Puzzle.Science & Technology Progress and Policy， 9， 52-54.

[9]Needham，J.（1954）.Science and Civilisation in China.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

[10]Niu，C.，Leng，C.，Bai，L.（2012）.Solving the Needham Puzzle：Based on the Educational System of Ming and Qing Dynasties.Academic Exchange， 11， 214-217.

[11]Shen，Z.（1981）.Brief History of Science and Technology.Beijing：China Youth Publishing Group.

[12]Xiong，B.，Ye，B.，Cai，B.（2018）.The Needham Puzzle： Evidence？.Journal of Zhejiang University （Humanities and Social Sciences）， 1， 173-182.

[13]Zou，C.，Wang，Z.（2004）.Science and Technology Cannot be Combined into One.In：Yu，X.，Deng，Y.（Eds.）.Speech by Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Sciences：the Spirit of Science.Beijing：Science Press.

[14]Zhu，R.，Qiu，G.（2003）.On the Difficulties of Modern Chinese Science from the Perspective of Institutionalized Confucianism — An Answer to the Needham Puzzle.Academics in China， 4， 155-162

作者簡介

方毅平（2000—），女，汉族，福建莆田市人，大学生，本科在读，单位：福建师范大学外国语学院，研究方向：英语师范。