Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Needham Question
The Needham Question
The Needham Question
Chinese iron workers smelting iron ore to make pig iron and
wrought iron. This illustration is an original from the Tiangong
Kaiwu encyclopedia printed in 1637, written by the Ming Dynasty
encyclopedist Song Yingxing (1587-1666).
At the start of the nineteenth century China was the leading
civilization on Earth and seemed set to remain as such. China had
the largest population, an advanced system of administration, the
largest trade and the greatest wealth. Angus Maddison has
estimated that China in 1820 represented one third of the whole
world economy. China had used her great inventions of paper,
printing, the compass and gunpowder to great effect. No nation
could seriously rival China’s armed services or navy. And yet,
somehow Europe quickly caught up and overtook China in only a
hundred years. The question as to why China did not remain pre-
eminent is called the ‘Needham question’.
Joseph Needham ➚ (1900-95) was the foremost scholar of China
in the West. He had started his research work at Cambridge
University as a biochemist but after he became entranced by a
young Chinese laboratory assistant his great intellect turned to
China and for the last fifty years of his long life he sought to create a systematic study of Chinese science and
civilization. After World War 2 he began working under a United Nation initiative in China; he had access
to books that had not been previously studied by Europeans. He met and conversed with many Chinese
scholars about the development of science and technology. Needham jotted down his famous question in
1942 ‘Science in general in China - Why did not develop?’
Many have proposed answers to the Needham question and I summarize their analysis here. With China
now poised to take center stage as the top nation there is a view that the period 1840-1980 should be
considered as no more than a temporary blip rather than terminal decline. The question has wider
implications than just China, as the same fate could befall us all in the future.
In the mid 15th century China seemed to believe it had all the science it needed - everything of use was
adequately explained by the theories of five elements, yin-yang and the Yi Jing (I Ching). When the Jesuits
arrived at Beijing in 1601, they saw an enlightened, prosperous country that they judged to be superior to
Europe in almost every way. The only area where Europeans seemed to have the upper hand was mathematics
and, derived from that, astronomy. When MacCartney visited China in 1793 with gifts that failed to impress,
the European perception was that little had changed in China at the macro level since Marco Polo’s visit
(1275-92). So by 1920 Westerners were able to make the claim with some justification that China had ‘no
science’ and it was true that China did not have the grounding in pure science that was so crucial to Western
technological development.
Here are some of the factors that scholars have been proposed as answers to the Needham question:
1. COMPETING STATES
European scientific development took place when there were many states competing for supremacy and
survival. Any engineering or scientific advance could give them the edge in conflict or trade. This is a form of
Darwinism, as such competition drives rapid evolution. While Europe was in competitive turmoil China had
no rivals and felt no need to reform. This is the strategy of many living things, when they have developed to
securely occupy an environmental niche they may stay unaltered for millions of years. This theory is
supported by China’s own early history. The Warring States period [476-221BCE], although disruptive and
bloody, brought in many innovations and the development of guiding philosophies that remain relevant to
this day.
2. POPULATION PRESSURES
China’s population has always had a high population, by 1840 it stood at 400 million - already about one third
of today’s figure. Nearly all suitable land was being farmed and so there was a constant threat of famine. With
so many people with little or no work to do there was no commercial benefit from mechanization; it was
always cheaper to hire someone than to buy and run a machine. This was in contrast to Europe, where there
was still untouched land to be developed and the cost of labor was significant. In the Industrial Revolution
machines that tilled the soil and machines that weaved textiles made many workers redundant. In China there
was violent opposition to the introduction of steamboats and railways as they removed employment from
millions of already poorly paid people.
CONCLUSIONS
Some of taken issue with Needham's question on the basis that it is far too simplistic. How can all the events
of China and the west leading to the divergence be anyway compared? What is meant by 'development', is it
just industrial use of technology? In which case China had modern techniques for example in
the Jingdezhen potteries long before the Industrial revolution. Or is it the reliance in China on empirical
studies rather than pure, abstract mathematics as developed in the west? Even though the question is in itself
somewhat flawed it is interesting to speculate on the key factors.
All these proposed answers to the Needham question, except the last one, do seem to have some merit. It
would be easy for me to conclude by saying that no single factor wins out and that the true answer is some
combination of them. If I am forced to choose the best candidate to answer the question it must be (5)
‘Locked in stasis’. Having recently read Lao She’s thought provoking book ‘Cat Country’ it is hard to escape
the fact there was in the early 20th century a sense of being trapped in tradition, locked into old ways because
that was how everything had always been done. The lessons of the Republican period (1911-1949) also sheds
some light; reforms were introduced, western science was taught and western factories built but these attempts
at change never took firm root and failed to prosper. I put this down to a defeatist attitude that had invaded
all layers of society - that there was no point in trying to modernize, it was all bound to fail. Only the re-
invigoration of national spirit that came with the foundation of the People’s Republic in 1949 was the
necessary self belief created that China could succeed in the modern world. It is the underlying aspiration of
people that ultimately makes all the difference. China had truly stood up.