Chinese Sociology: State-Building and

the Institutionalization of Globally

Circulated Knowledge 1st Edition Hon
Fai Chen (Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/chinese-sociology-state-building-and-the-institutionali
zation-of-globally-circulated-knowledge-1st-edition-hon-fai-chen-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Economics of Pandemics: Exploring Globally Shared

Experiences S. Niggol Seo

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-economics-of-pandemics-
exploring-globally-shared-experiences-s-niggol-seo/

Minorities and State-Building in the Middle East: The

Case of Jordan 1st Edition Paolo Maggiolini

https://ebookmass.com/product/minorities-and-state-building-in-
the-middle-east-the-case-of-jordan-1st-edition-paolo-maggiolini/

Challenges and Opportunities for Chinese Agriculture:

Feeding Many While Protecting the Environment 1st ed.
Edition Wensheng Chen

https://ebookmass.com/product/challenges-and-opportunities-for-
chinese-agriculture-feeding-many-while-protecting-the-
environment-1st-ed-edition-wensheng-chen/

Seeing the Unseen: Behind Chinese Tech Giants' Global

Venturing Guoli Chen

https://ebookmass.com/product/seeing-the-unseen-behind-chinese-
tech-giants-global-venturing-guoli-chen/
The Third Revolution: XI Jinping and the New Chinese
State Elizabeth Economy

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-third-revolution-xi-jinping-
and-the-new-chinese-state-elizabeth-economy/

The Building of Chinese Ethnicity in Rome: Networks

without Borders Violetta Ravagnoli

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-building-of-chinese-ethnicity-
in-rome-networks-without-borders-violetta-ravagnoli/

Incomplete State-Building in Central Asia: The State as

Social Practice Viktoria Akchurina

https://ebookmass.com/product/incomplete-state-building-in-
central-asia-the-state-as-social-practice-viktoria-akchurina/

Knowledge Management Toolkit, The: Practical Techniques

for Building a Knowledge Management System Amrit Tiwana

https://ebookmass.com/product/knowledge-management-toolkit-the-
practical-techniques-for-building-a-knowledge-management-system-
amrit-tiwana/

Historical Sociology of State Formation in the Horn of

Africa: Genesis, Trajectories, Processes, Routes and
Consequences Redie Bereketeab

https://ebookmass.com/product/historical-sociology-of-state-
formation-in-the-horn-of-africa-genesis-trajectories-processes-
routes-and-consequences-redie-bereketeab/
SOCIOLOGY TRANSFORMED
Series Editors: John Holmwood and
Stephen Turner

CHINESE
SOCIOLOGY
State-Building and
the Institutionalization
of Globally Circulated
Knowledge
Hon Fai Chen
 Sociology Transformed

Series editors
John Holmwood
School of Sociology and Social Policy
University of Nottingham
Nottingham, UK

Stephen Turner
Department of Philosophy
University of South Florida
Tampa, USA

“In this concise and well-researched book, Chen Hon-Fai offers a fascinating
new conspectus of the discipline’s history and current situation. The role of the
state and transnational networks in shaping Chinese sociology are carefully ana-
lyzed. So too are the attempts of several pioneering individuals to indigenize the
discipline. Everywhere, the turbulent politics of China affects the sociological
scene. A stimulating contribution to the study of sociology as a global phenom-
enon, Chen Hon-Fai’s probing new book is highly recommended.”
—Peter Baehr, Professor of Social Theory, Lingnan University, Hong Kong

“Chinese Sociology is an essential analysis of the development of the discipline on

mainland China, adding to the existing literature on Hong Kong and Taiwan
with a historical imagination informed by an institutional perspective. Drawing
thoughtfully on the best current work in the sociology of ideas and knowledge,
Chen Hon-Fai manages to think comparatively and sociologically about main-
land Chinese sociology while also highlighting the contributions of the most
important Chinese scholars and their distinctive ideas, findings, research pro-
grams and institution building successes and challenges.”
—Neil McLaughlin, Professor of Sociology, McMaster University, Canada
The field of sociology has changed rapidly over the last few decades.
Sociology Transformed seeks to map these changes on a country by
country basis and to contribute to the discussion of the future of the
subject. The series is concerned not only with the traditional centres of
the discipline, but with its many variant forms across the globe.

More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/14477
 Hon Fai Chen

Chinese Sociology
State-Building and the Institutionalization
of Globally Circulated Knowledge
Hon Fai Chen
Department of Sociology and Social
Policy
Lingnan University
New Territories, Hong Kong

Sociology Transformed
ISBN 978-1-137-58219-5 ISBN 978-1-137-58220-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58220-1

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017949216

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Pattern adapted from an Indian cotton print produced in the 19th
century

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW,
United Kingdom
 Acknowledgements

I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to Peter Baehr. He suggested me

to write this book and helped me expand my studies in the comparative-
historical analysis of intellectual life. He is a respectable scholar, a reli-
able mentor, and an exemplary role model. Besides, I am grateful for the
series editors John Holmwood and Stephen Turner, for granting me this
good opportunity to write and reflect on the Chinese sociological tradi-
tion. My appreciation also goes to Neil MacLaughlin for his generous
comments at an initial stage of my research, and the anonymous review-
ers for their useful suggestions on the book project. I benefit a lot from
the discussions with my Lingnan colleagues during our informal lunch-
time seminars. I am indebted to the editorial and production teams for
their patience and professional assistance. Flora Lo, Man Kit, and Gary
Yip offer me indispensable help in preparing some of the primary data
and secondary literature for this study.
Last but not least, my academic career would not have begun ­without
the supports and guidance of Prof. Wong Suk-Ying of the Chinese
University of Hong Kong. A warm and pleasant family life is no less
­crucial for a young academic, and for that reason I dedicate this book to
my mother and my wife.

v
 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Achievement Without Coherence: The Rise of Chinese

Sociology 9

3 Dramatic Rebirth: The Suspension, Reestablishment,

and Institutionalization of Chinese Sociology 29

4 Paradigm Shift: Sociological Theory and the Studies

of Social Transformation 53

5 Diversity Within Limits: Post-positivism, Gender Studies

and the Sociology of Consumption 83

6 Friends, Not Enemies: The Globalization

and Indigenization of Chinese Sociology 107

7 Conclusion 133

Bibliography 139

Index 143

vii
 List of Tables

Table 6.1 Doctoral degrees of Chinese sociologists

in 8 major universities 111
Table 6.2 International collaborations by doctoral degrees
of Chinese sociologists in 8 major universities 112

ix
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract The history of Chinese sociology is a contingent process in

which globally circulated knowledge, above all the American sociologi-
cal tradition, has been adapted to the changing contexts of China from
the 1890s to the present. Since the beginning, Chinese sociologists have
devoted considerable efforts to assimilate the concepts, methods and
approaches of Western sociology while retaining their distinctive iden-
tity and addressing their specific problems. An institutional approach is
pertinent to the analysis of this historical and sociological process, as it
focuses on how academic community and its intellectual production are
being shaped by the state, universities, research institutes, professional
associations and other agencies.

Keywords American sociology · Chinese sociology

Globally circulated knowledge · Institutional approach
Knowledge assimilation and production

In many ways, Fei Xiaotong (1910–2005) was the embodiment of

Chinese sociology and its development in the twentieth century. Fei was
among the first batch of Chinese students receiving a more systematic
local training in sociology, thanks to the incipient growth and institu-
tionalization of the discipline from the 1920s onward. He was graduated
from the Yanjing University, a renowned American-run liberal arts col-
lege that was the center of sociological research in China prior to 1949.

© The Author(s) 2018 1

H.F. Chen, Chinese Sociology, Sociology Transformed,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58220-1_1
2 H.F. Chen

Upon return from his overseas studies in Britain, Fei’s works on rural
China soon attained international fame and became the landmark of
the “Chinese school” of sociology. But after 1949, Fei’s fortune under-
went an abrupt reversal as “bourgeois sociology” constituted the target
of ideological attacks that culminated in the Cultural Revolution. After
almost three decades of total suspension, sociology’s potential value for
economic reform and socialist modernization was for the first time rec-
ognized by the socialist state. Sociology was thus reestablished and Fei’s
academic status restored, as he served as the leading representative of the
discipline in countless committees and delegations. This also marked the
beginning of a new and unprecedented level of policy and social inter-
vention on the part of Chinese sociologists: Fei himself was appointed as
the chief advisor of small town studies and development. Throughout his
life, Fei personified not only the ebb and flow of Chinese sociology, but
also its “problem consciousness,” that is, a practical emphasis on the use
of sociological knowledge for the effective solution of social problems. In
Fei’s own words, Chinese sociology was distinguished (and legitimized)
by its “realism in the pursuit of knowledge” (congshi qiuzhi).
Toward the end of his life, however, Fei showed a keen interest in the
fiction The Celestine Prophecy, a 1993 national bestseller by the American
novelist James Redfield translated into Chinese in 1997. Having read the
novel twice, Fei gave an account of his fascination during an interview in
2003. Generally unimpressed by literary works, his attention was never-
theless caught by the author’s name, James Redfield. Fei thought he was
the grandson of Robert Park, the American sociologist who in the early
1930s visited the Yanjing University and taught Fei about the impor-
tance of the direct observations of social life. Margaret Park Redfield,
putatively the novelist’s mother, was the editor of the English translation
of Fei’s Earthbound China and China’s Gentry, when Fei first visited the
USA in the early 1950s. Fei believed that he met little Redfield and his
parents during their visits in Tsinghua University and Yanjing University
in the same period. Though James Redfield later became a classics pro-
fessor at the Committee on Social Thought of the University of Chicago,
Fei’s hunch was that he could be the author of the novel. But the sis-
ter of James the classicist later clarified to Fei that he was mistaken (Fei
2003: 64–65).
Another reason for Fei’s interest in the novel resided in its popu-
larity in the USA, which seemed to confirm his emphasis on “cultural
self-awareness” at the final stage of his academic career. The Celestine
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

Prophecy, according to Fei, was an attempt on the part of the Western

people to come to terms with their own culture and its problems
such as secularism, materialism, and the unrestrained exploitation of
earth resources. Fei was particularly drawn to its prophecies regarding
the coming crisis and great awakening of the world at the turn of the
twenty-first century. Though remaining within the Christian framework
of brotherly love, the novel proposed that birth control, automation,
and communism could be some possible ways to redeem the humankind.
These directions, Fei believed, concurred with the current policies and
developments of China (Fei 2003: 64–67).
For Fei, therefore, The Celestine Prophecy was interesting because it
was not a novel in the conventional sense; in Fei’s reading, it was a self-
conscious reflection on Western culture by an author deeply familiar with
the course of Western history. The novel was in fact an anthropological
essay in literary guise (Fei 2003: 68). One might wonder if Fei was again
fundamentally mistaken, this time about the novel’s genre. In the eyes of
the Western readers, The Celestine Prophecy was composed in the spirit of
Eastern mysticism underlying the New Age movement. Fei was not alto-
gether unaware of the mystic element in the work, as he was at the time
reflecting upon what Chen Yinke, a renowned Chinese historian, once
called “ecstasy and contemplation” (shenyou mingxiang) in prefacing a
great intellectual piece. But Fei understood it not so much as a flowing
state than a capacity to see through the appearance to perceive the essen-
tial truth. According to Fei, his conclusion was inspired by Robert Park’s
dissatisfaction with Franklin Giddings’ behavioral approach to sociol-
ogy (ibid.: 61–62). An exotic but somewhat common experience for the
Chinese humanities scholars was inadvertently reinterpreted from the
rational-critical perspective of American sociology.
Despite (or rather because of) Fei’s misreading of the novel, this
anecdote served to reveal the rich fabric of Sino-American intellectual
exchanges in the twentieth century and the enduring problem of the
cross-cultural diffusion of ideas and knowledge. It was startling to rec-
ognize that Fei’s encounter with Robert Park was so profound, both
personally and academically, that it could not fail to channel his inter-
est toward “literary” work in the last years of his life. But the forma-
tive experience of American and more broadly Western sociology did not
imply forgetfulness on Chinese culture and identity. Imported ideas were
assimilated, consciously or not, to the bedrock of Chinese experiences in
technological, economic, social, political, and cultural development. But
4 H.F. Chen

the converse was also true: the rational-critical ethos of Western sociol-
ogy was no less significant than the practical thrust of the Chinese intel-
lectual tradition in shaping Fei’s orientation and worldview. And yet the
two-way traffic was never smooth and straightforward, as the diffusion
and adaptation of sociological knowledge and its background assump-
tions were full of misunderstandings, be they creative or not.
This study aims to chart the history in which globally circulated socio-
logical knowledge is adapted to China’s peculiar and ever shifting intel-
lectual-political context from the late nineteenth century to the present.
Ever since the inception of Chinese sociology, the problem of indigeniza-
tion or “sinicization” of Western intellectual frameworks has constituted
a core concern of Chinese scholars. Various attempts have been made to
assimilate the tenets of Western (in particular American) sociology while
retaining a Chinese intellectual identity. Instead of a simple and direct
transmission of knowledge, the making of Chinese sociology as an aca-
demic discipline involved the selection and synthesis of particular con-
cepts, theories, and methods. How successive generations of Chinese
sociologists explored different models of sociological knowledge, what
choices they made, and the diverse strategies on which they embarked
to promote disciplinary growth, warrants an extended and analytical
treatment. On the basis of a detailed historical investigation, this study
seeks to contribute to a cross-cultural optic on the emergence and fate
of sociological traditions. The histories of American, British, French, and
German sociology have already been amply scrutinized; more recently,
those experiences have been complemented by fine studies of less known
yet vibrant traditions in countries such as Australia, Portugal, and South
Africa (Harley and Wickham 2014; Silva 2016; Sooryamoorthy 2016). A
comparable history of the Chinese case is timely. It promises to enlarge
this growing body of comparative literature and offer new insights into
how sociological traditions of the West were and are appropriated in the
making of non-Western sociology.
While focusing on a non-Western case, this study augments the insti-
tutional approach characteristic of historical accounts of Western sociol-
ogy. According to my understanding, to follow the institutional approach
is to treat sociological knowledge as the historical product of intellectual
communities, which are shaped by the state, universities, research insti-
tutes, professional associations, and other agencies of higher education.
Studies in the broad tradition of sociology of knowledge, inaugurated by
Karl Mannheim (1936) and developed by Robert Merton (1970), have
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

sought to illuminate the relationship between structural conditions and

intellectual outcomes. Exemplary works in this tradition include Randall
Collins’ (1998) account of the rise and fall of philosophical systems in
terms of the intellectual competition for limited attention space, Pierre
Bourdieu’s (1988) analysis of the French academic field and the struggle
for symbolic power therein, and Charles Camic’s (1986, 1989) historical
essays on the cognitive and social processes in the formation of American
social sciences. Recently, Camic et al. (2011) employ the sociology of
knowledge in dialogue with the burgeoning field of science studies. The
latter’s emphasis on the role of scientific practice (Latour 1986; Barnes
et al. 1996) can be readily extended from the realm of natural science
and technology to social scientific knowledge (MacKenzie et al. 2008).
Despite the variety of concepts and approaches, a primary aim of the
sociology of knowledge is to inquire how the production of knowledge
is shaped by social and existential conditions (Merton 1945). This study
focuses on the institutional factors.
Stimulated by these works, this study will examine the development
of Chinese sociology by highlighting the historical and institutional fac-
tors shaping its course. More analytically, I will chart the material, sym-
bolic and organizational resources, including funding supports, cultural
and intellectual traditions, and networks, associations, and other forms
of social relationship that were available for Chinese sociologists in seek-
ing to advance and institutionalize sociological knowledge. How major
shifts in state policy shape the allocation of these resources and thereby
the course of Chinese sociology will constitute the focus of this study.
While there are impressive studies on the history of Chinese sociology
(some notable examples are Wong 1979; Cheng and So 1983; Zhang
1992; Yan 2004; Dirlik et al. 2012; Qi 2016), they mostly offer a gen-
eral overview of the discipline. The hazy treatment of the disciplinary
past is reinforced by the increasing professionalization of Chinese sociol-
ogy from the 1990s onward, which has served to legitimize a positivist
conception of knowledge accumulation as linear progress. What remains
to be analyzed is the relationship between institutional and intellectual
changes underlying the formation and transformation of sociology in
China. While this problem is also central to post-colonial studies, the
advantage of an institutional approach resides in its openness regarding
the relative autonomy of disciplinary development vis-à-vis its material,
social, and organizational basis.
6 H.F. Chen

In the following chapters, I will follow the chronological order of the

historical development of Chinese sociology, while at the same time pur-
suing particular themes in the production and transformation of socio-
logical knowledge. I will begin with the formation of Chinese sociology
from 1898 to 1949, during which some initial efforts were made to
institutionalize the discipline (Chap. 2). Then I will proceed to review
the suspension of sociology in Mao’s China from 1953 to 1979 and
its subsequent reestablishment throughout the 1980s. How a central-
ized institutional matrix revolving around the state was established, and
how various cultural, political, and social resources were mobilized, will
be examined (Chap. 3). The following two chapters will be devoted to
an intellectual history of some leading and emerging fields of study in
Chinese sociology. A paradigm shift from modernization to marketiza-
tion theory occurred at the turn of the twenty-first century, which was
largely triggered by a group of American Chinese scholars. The paradigm
shift had repercussions not only on the studies of social stratification and
social transformation, but also on methodology, gender studies, and soci-
ology of consumption (Chaps. 4 and 5). Our discussion will then move
to the aspects of globalization and indigenization, which unfold along-
side each other in the case of Chinese sociology. While transnational
research networks are established with professional and public sociolo-
gists in America, Hong Kong, and mainland China, Chinese sociologists
are looking back to their disciplinary history for past lessons in indigeni-
zation (Chap. 6). Finally, the concluding chapter will sum up the study
by highlighting the role of the state and its negotiation with the aca-
demic sociologists.
To avoid undue complications and possible confusions, in this study
“Chinese sociology” will refer specifically to the sociology in mainland
China. The development of sociology in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and
Macau will be discarded insofar as it does not impinge directly upon the
case of mainland China. The rationale lies in the diverse configurations
and trajectories of sociological development in these places, which had to
do with their colonial heritages among other historical and institutional
factors (see Tzeng 2012 for an excellent study of sociologies in Hong
Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore). A comparative-historical analysis of soci-
ological traditions in Chinese societies will be an interesting topic that
awaits future studies.
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

References
Barnes, Barry, et al. 1996. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. London:
Athlone.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Camic, Charles. 1986. The Matter of Habit. American Journal of Sociology 91
(5): 1039–1087.
Camic, Charles. 1989. Structure After 50 Years: The Anatomy of a Charter.
American Journal of Sociology 95 (1): 38–107.
Camic, Charles, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont (eds.). 2011. Social Knowledge
in the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cheng, Lucie, and Alvin So. 1983. The Reestablishment of Sociology in the
PRC: Toward the Sinification of Marxian Sociology. Annual Review of
Sociology 9: 471–498.
Collins, Randall. 1998. Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual
Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Dirlik, Arif, et al. (eds.). 2012. Sociology and Anthropology in Twentieth-
century China: Between Universalism and Indigenism. Hong Kong: Chinese
University Press.
Fei, Xiaotong. 2003. Shiji Laoren De Hua: Fei Xiaotong Juan [Words of
Century-Old Men: Fei Xiaotong], ed. Lin Xiang and interviewed by Zhang
Guansheng. Shenyang: Liaoning Jiaoyu Chubanshe.
Harley, Kirsten, and Gary Wickham. 2014. Australian Sociology: Fragility,
Survival, Rivalry. Basingstoke: Palgrave Pivot.
Latour, Bruno. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
MacKenzie, Donald, et al. 2008. Do Economists Make Markets? On the
Performativity of Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mannheim, Karl. 1936. Ideology and Utopia. London: Routledge.
Merton, Robert. 1945. Sociology of Knowledge. In Twentieth-Century
Sociology, ed. Georges Gurvitch, and Wilbert E. Moore, 366–405. New York:
Philosophical Library.
Merton, Robert. 1970. Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century
England. New York: H. Fertig.
Qi, Xiaoying (ed.). 2016. Special Issue: Sociology in China, Sociology of China.
Journal of Sociology 52 (1): 3–333
Silva, Filipe Carreira da. 2016. Sociology in Portugal: A Short History. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Sooryamoorthy, R. 2016. Sociology in South Africa: Colonial, Apartheid and
Democratic Forms. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
8 H.F. Chen

Tzeng, Albert. 2012. Framing Sociology in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore:
Geopolitics, States and Practitioners. Unpublished thesis, University of
Warwick, UK.
Wong, Siu-lun. 1979. Sociology and Socialism in Contemporary China. London:
Routledge and K. Paul.
Yan, Min. 2004. Yi Men Xueke Yu Yi Ge Shidai: Shehuixue Zai Zhongguo
[A Discipline and an Era: Sociology in China]. Beijing: Qinghua Daxue
Chubanshe.
Zhang, Chuo. 1992. Zhongguo Shehui he Shehuixue Bainianshi [A Hundred Year
History of Chinese Society and Sociology]. Hong Kong: Zhonghua Shuju.
 CHAPTER 2

Achievement Without Coherence: The Rise

of Chinese Sociology

Abstract In the formation of Chinese sociology prior to 1949,

American influences were significant but gradually diminishing in the
process of state-building. In the 1920s, overseas Chinese students were
returning from America and elsewhere to found sociological associations
and journals. Thanks to their linkages with the universities, foundations
and voluntary associations, Republican sociologists made steady progress
in the collection and analysis of social survey data. But the growth of
Chinese sociology began to fluctuate with the expansion of higher edu-
cation in the 1930s. Despite the standardization of curriculum and codi-
fication of knowledge, theoretical synthesis was increasingly decoupled
from empirical studies. Impressive works in community studies were pro-
duced, but the sociological discipline as a whole failed to articulate a sta-
ble basis of knowledge production.

Keywords American influences · Community studies

Higher education system · Social survey · State-building

Along with other social sciences, sociology was introduced in China at

the turn of the twentieth century, when the Qing dynasty was encoun-
tering relentless military attacks and imperialist offensives from the West.
The Chinese cultural and political elites were painstakingly searching
for a viable way to transform China into a modern nation comparable
in wealth and power to the “civilized” states of Europe, America, and

© The Author(s) 2018 9

H.F. Chen, Chinese Sociology, Sociology Transformed,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58220-1_2
10 H.F. Chen

Japan. It was under this world-historical context that Western sociology

came to be identified as the intellectual basis of a total reconstruction
of the social and political order in China. From 1898 to 1903, Yan Fu
translated and introduced Herbert Spencer’s The Study of Sociology to the
Chinese literati. While the classics of Western liberalism, including for
instance Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, Montesquieu’s Spirit of the
Laws, and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, constituted the main corpus of
Yan’s translation, he gave these works a nationalist reading in the form of
footnotes and commentaries. By highlighting collective rather than indi-
vidual freedom, Yan’s overall purpose was to alert his compatriots to the
universal forces of competition and evolution, and hence the necessity
and urgency of social, political, and cultural reforms (Schwartz 1964).
From the outset, the inception of Western sociology was entangled
with the political movements and ideological divides in China. Reformist
intellectuals invoked sociology in articulating their visions of “society”
(qun) as the moral and collective foundation of constitutional monar-
chy. Sociology was literally rendered as “the study of group” (qun xue),
which found a similar expression and hence a source of legitimacy in the
Confucian canon. Kang Youwei, the leader of the reform movement,
included qun xue in the curriculum of his private academy in 1891. Tan
Sitong, who belonged to the radical wing of the reformist intellectuals,
used the word “sociology” (shehui xue) in his philosophical and political
treatise An Exposition of Benevolence in 1896, though the term seemed to
be his personal invention rather than being adopted from the West (Sun
1948 [2010]: 9–10). Liang Qichao wrote a polemical essay on qun and
planned to follow up with a compendium on the same subject. As intel-
lectual and political activists, these proto-sociologists did not so much
observe than construct the object of society and the domain of sociology.
Above all, their ideas were put into practice in the so-called “study socie-
ties” (xuehui), which were joined by like-minded intellectuals and offi-
cials and regarded as a microcosm of society per se (Chen 2017).
Under the New Policy (xinzheng) of the Qing government in the
early years of the twentieth century, an increasing number of Chinese
students were pursuing overseas studies (Reynolds 1993). Owing to
physical and cultural proximity, Japan was one of the favorite destina-
tions for the Chinese students. The number of Chinese students in
Japan had been rapidly proliferating from 100 in 1899 to 8000–9000 in
1905–1906 (Harrel 1992: 2). Under the influence of Japanese teachers
and revolutionaries, the Chinese students were exposed to radical social
 2 ACHIEVEMENT WITHOUT COHERENCE: THE RISE … 11

thoughts such as anarchism and Marxism. They also learned about the
modern social sciences, particularly international law out of their con-
cern about the unequal treaties imposed on China. Sociology was also
of major interest, which was reimported from Japan to China with the
return of Chinese students. The previous reformist notion of qun xue
was soon superseded by shehui xue, a Japanese translation adopted and
popularized by the Chinese revolutionary Zhang Taiyan. Apart from fin-
ishing the first complete Chinese translation of Herbert Spencer’s The
Study of Sociology in 1902, Zhang also translated an introductory text by
the Japanese sociologist Nobuta Kishimoto in 1900 (Sun 1948 [2010]:
13–15, 300). Since then, various Japanese works came to be translated.
The works of American sociologists such as Lester Ward and Franklin
Giddings also appeared in China through secondary translation.
Despite its growing popularity among the radical Chinese intel-
lectuals, sociology was not formally taught in the university until
1906, when the first sociology courses were offered at the St. John’s
University in Shanghai (Dai 1993: 1; Ma 1998: 1). Foreign textbooks
were used without modification in accordance with the local circum-
stances in China. The Imperial Academy, which was the predecessor of
Peking University, listed sociology in its curriculum, but whether and
how it was delivered remained unascertainable. Thanks to the ideo-
logically charged climate, and the intellectual heritage of classicism in
late Qing, there had been few original or systematic attempts to pro-
duce scientific knowledge about Chinese society. What radical scholars
like Liu Shipei offered were mostly textual and philological studies of
Chinese history under the evolutionary framework of Social Darwinism
(Yao 2006). Sociology in the revolutionary period was nothing more
than a Spencerian philosophy of history stuffed with Chinese historical
materials.

American Influences and the Rise of Chinese

Sociological Community
In the decade after the 1911 revolution, the development of Chinese
sociology had borne the strong stamp of American institutions. Most
universities offering sociology courses were funded or run by American
missionaries, to the extent that some characterized early Chinese soci-
ology as “American missionary sociology” (Wong 1979: 11). In that
period, the missionary universities in China were governed by the laws
12 H.F. Chen

of Virginia, according to which they were granted the rights to design

their own curriculums. This arrangement offered the major impetus for
American missionaries to establish universities in China (ibid.: 13). In
1913, the first sociology department was set up at the Hujiang College
(Shanghai College) by the American Methodist Episcopalians. As of
1925, there were altogether 10 missionary universities that offered soci-
ology teaching. Among them, the most prestigious sociology department
and graduate school were hosted by the Yanjing University (Yenching
University). Since its founding in 1922, Yanjing sociology had offered
up to 31 courses, far outnumbering that of other missionary universi-
ties (King and Wang 1978: 38; Wong 1979). Local Chinese universities
such as Peking University and Qinghua University (Tsinghua University)
started to teach sociology as late as 1916 and 1917 respectively (Dirlik
2012: 3; King and Wang 1978: 38). In 1921, Xiamen University estab-
lished the first Chinese-run sociology department (more precisely a joint
department of history and sociology) in China (Ma 1998: 45; Li 2012:
69).
Apart from religious purposes, the educational activities of American
missionary universities aimed at a better understanding of Chinese soci-
ety and on that basis the implementation of social and moral reform.
To these ends, most of the teaching and research were delivered by
American missionaries cum sociology professors. An example was
Fr. George N. Putnam, who was assigned by the American Maryknoll
Mission to be sociology professor at Lingnan University in Guangzhou.
In Yanjing, John Stewart Burgess taught not only sociology but also
Christian ethics in the theology school. Burgess also collaborated actively
with other Christian institutions such as the Y.M.C.A. and the China
Association of Christian Higher Education. While Yanjing and other mis-
sionary universities deliberately refrained from explicit religious incul-
cation, a moral and practical emphasis was implanted in sociological
teaching and research in Republican China.
Apart from missionaries, some major universities in America also con-
tributed to the early development of sociology in China. Two notable
examples were the Princeton-Yenching Foundation and the Harvard-
Yenching Institute. Founded in 1906, Princeton-in-Peking bore the pur-
pose of delivering social services and studying urban conditions in China.
It was later moved to Yanjing and renamed the Princeton-Yenching
Foundation, which was devoted to studies in political science and sociol-
ogy. On top of this regular platform, every year Princeton sent out two
 2 ACHIEVEMENT WITHOUT COHERENCE: THE RISE … 13

sociologists to Yanjing and helped it set up the sociology department. In

a similar vein, Harvard and Yanjing co-founded the Harvard-Yenching
Institute in 1928, with the objective of promoting studies of Chinese
culture and facilitating inter-cultural exchanges (Wong 1979).
Another crucial support for early Chinese sociology came from the
Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), which was funded by the Rockefeller
Foundation. The institute was a non-governmental organization estab-
lished in the USA in 1925, which endeavored to promote democracy
through studying the societies of the Pacific peoples, including America,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China, and Japan (Chiang 2001: 226).
In China, the IPR constituted one of the most important sources of
overseas financial support for social science development. Among the 8
countries it sponsored, China received the greatest amount of research
expenditure, specifically 164,913 US dollars out of a total sum of
316,953 (ibid.: 227). To further enhance the growth of social sciences
in China, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund started to offer
block grants to Yanjing University and Nankai University in 1928 and
1932 respectively (Wong 1979: 15). Between 1913 and 1934, China
was the largest non-American recipient country (USD 37,481,104) of
the Rockefeller Funds (Chiang 2001: 230). In 1934, the funding mode
changed to project-based grants, thereby offering an incentive for indi-
vidual Chinese sociologists and social scientists to bid research projects.
Research funding was also available from the Nationalist government,
but it was modest compared to American and international sponsorships
(Wong 1979: 34).
While American institutions assumed a predominant role in the
early development of Chinese sociology, the first generation of Chinese
sociologists were being trained up overseas. As these young scholars
were returning to China, a gradual shift took place in the composition
of the sociological community from the 1920s onward. The teach-
ing staffs in sociology had been mostly American, as the discipline was
mainly taught at the missionary universities. J.A. Dealey, D.H. Kulp II
and H.S. Bucklin of the Hujiang College, Rev. Wesley M. Smith of the
Soochow University, G. Dittmer of the Qinghua University and John
Steward Burgess of the Yanjing University were some notable exam-
ples. An exception was Kang Baozhong, a local Chinese scholar trained
in Japan and became a sociology professor at the Peking University in
1916. But the situation was reversed in the 1940s, when Chinese soci-
ologists became the majority and only a handful of overseas sociologists
14 H.F. Chen

were left. Based upon a survey by Sun Benwen in 1947, there were 131
local Chinese and 12 Americans among the 143 professors of sociology
in China (Sun 1948 [2010]: 317–320).
What was noteworthy here was the American educational back-
ground of returning Chinese sociologists. According to the same sur-
vey in 1947, 71 out of 131 Chinese sociologists (54.2%) were trained
in America, compared to 13 in France, 10 in Japan, 9 in Britain, 4 in
Germany and 1 in Belgium. Among the top 11 universities in China, 40
out of 70 Chinese sociologists (57.1%) were educated in America, with
only 13 professors having no overseas degree. In Yanjing, all teaching
staffs were holders of American degree (Hsiao 1990: 137–138). Finally,
in his survey of the educational background of 15 leading Chinese soci-
ologists of that period, Wong (1979: 34) found that 10 of them received
their doctoral or master degree in America, above all Columbia, whereas
the remaining 5 got their doctoral degrees from the London School of
Economics and Political Science in Britain. All these figures suggested
that Chinese sociology was still highly influenced by America despite the
emergence of an indigenous sociological community (Chen 2009).

Social Survey and the Institutional Basis of Chinese

Sociological Research
With an incipient Chinese academic community, successive attempts
were made to build up the intellectual and institutional foundation of
Chinese sociology from the 1920s onward. A relatively neglected figure
in this regard was Yu Tianxiu (Yu Tinn-Hugh), who obtained his doc-
toral degree in sociology at Clark University in 1920. Upon his return to
China in 1921, Yu founded the Chinese Sociological Society and edited
the Shehuixue Zazhi (Chinese Journal of Sociology), the first specialized
journal of sociology in China. Published by the Shanghai Commercial
Press, its objectives were to introduce sociological knowledge and offer
critical commentaries on family, population and other social problems.
These objectives bore the influence of the May Fourth movement of
1919, which was led by the professors and students in Peking University
with the aim of reconfiguring traditional Chinese culture with “science”
and “democracy” (Cheng and So 1983: 473). Yet there were still few
contributions from professional sociologists to the Chinese Sociological
Society and its journal. In composing a bibliography of recent sociologi-
cal works, the Chinese Journal of Sociology (1922 1(1): 123–131) had to
 2 ACHIEVEMENT WITHOUT COHERENCE: THE RISE … 15

include a large number of popular essays from New Youth, a literary mag-
azine closely related to the newly founded Chinese Communist Party.
The limited development of Chinese sociology at this stage was
rooted in the still scattered character of the indigenous sociological com-
munity and hence the absence of a critical mass. Sociologists of the day,
including Yu himself and the eugenicist cum sociologist Pan Guangdan,
lacked a stable position at the universities in Beijing and Shanghai. As a
rule, they had to take up teaching jobs in other universities and depart-
ments. Neither Beijing nor Shanghai were yet congenial ground for soci-
ology. For while Peking University was dominated by the philological
tradition of late Qing scholars and their modern disciples, the University
of Shanghai was populated by the advocates of socialism and Marxian
sociology (Yeh 1990). From this perspective, the difficulties encoun-
tered by Chinese Journal of Sociology and the Chinese Sociological Society
resulted mainly from the institutional underdevelopment of the univer-
sity system, and an intellectual climate dominated by the critical studies
of Chinese classics and a surging socialist current.
Though Yu Tianxiu was cautious in avoiding the possible confusion
of sociology with socialism, his writings and public speeches at times
adopted the Marxian language of exploitation and imperialism. Yu’s
style was increasingly objectionable to the Nationalist Party as it began
to purge the Communists. It almost led to the official banning of the
Chinese Sociological Society. With limited membership and financial
resources, in 1927 Yu passed the baton of leadership of the Society to
Xu Shilian (Leonard S. Hsu), who was the first Chinese chairman of
the sociology department at Yanjing. The association and its journal
were then renamed the Yanjing Sociological Society and Shehuixuejie
(Sociological World).
Xu Shilian’s predecessor in Yanjing was John Stewart Burgess, who as
we have noted was an American missionary cum social scientist. In 1921,
Burgess and his collaborator Sydney D. Gamble published Peking: A
Social Survey (in English), which was the report of a large-scale survey
of Beijing households and their social life. With a comprehensive cov-
erage on population, government, health, education, commerce, enter-
tainment, prostitution, poverty, prison condition, and Christian activities,
the method and scope of the survey were modeled upon Charles Booth’s
study of the working class in London (Wong 1979: 13). In fact, Burgess
was the first American scholar to conduct a social survey in China,
which had gradually become the hallmark of Chinese sociology and the
16 H.F. Chen

intellectual tradition Xu inherited when he took over the departmental

leadership at Yanjing (Arkush 1981: 27; Trescott 2007: 261). Most of
the early social surveys were designed by professors and carried out by
Chinese students under their supervision. Before the 1921 household
survey, in 1912 Burgess and his students conducted a survey on 302
rickshaw men in Beijing under the commission of a Christian organi-
zation, the Society for Social Improvement in Peking (Wong 1979:
13). The reform impulse was also evident in the 1921 household sur-
vey, which was intended to offer advice for the social welfare program
in Beijing and also to support Christian social workers (Gransow 2003:
503).
From the mid-1920s onward, the task of conducting social surveys had
been shifting from American to Chinese sociologists, who nevertheless put
the same emphasis on direct observation of social life and practical recom-
mendation on family, welfare, population, and other social problems. The
largest and best known survey research of the period was the Ding County
Investigation conducted by Li Jinghan (Franklin C.H. Lee) in 1933. The
survey produced a huge dataset covering 3.78 million respondents and
a whole range of topics pertinent to their rural life, including geogra-
phy, history, local government, communities, industry, commerce and
finance, family, education, tradition, and custom (Li et al. 1987: 623).
The research was supported by the China Association for the Promotion
of Popular Education, a voluntary group under the popular education
and rural construction movements led by Y. C. James Yen (a Chinese
Christian) and Liang Shuming (a neo-Confucian scholar). Li’s study
was widely regarded as the beginning of the social survey movement, as
it was followed by a wave of survey researches by Chinese sociologists,
including Li Jinghan’s A Survey on the Situation of Peking Rickshaw
Pullers in 1925, and Tao Menghe’s An Analysis of the Cost of Living
in Beijing in 1926 (Roulleau-Berger 2016: 20). From 1927 to 1935,
Chinese sociologists completed over 9000 survey projects.
What factors contributed to the spectacular achievement of the social
survey movement? From an institutional point of view, a network of uni-
versities, associations, and foundations played a strategic role here. In the
capacity of the social research director at the China Foundation for the
Promotion of Education and Culture (which was founded with American
war indemnities), Li Jinghan was recruited as a faculty member of the
Yanjing sociology department in 1926. With a broader basis of students
and research volunteers, Li soon became the pivotal figure in the social
 2 ACHIEVEMENT WITHOUT COHERENCE: THE RISE … 17

survey movement. Under the leadership of Li and other Yanjing soci-

ologists, the department had published 68 survey reports in Sociological
World and other channels between 1922 and 1934 (Huang and Xia
2008: 54–64). As a distinctive mode of organizing research activity,
team-based social surveys fit well with the liberal arts mission of Yanjing,
which put a premium on close teacher-student relationships and the
provision of social service to the community. What also favored Yanjing
was its status as a private Christian college, by virtue of which it could
secure a more regular flow of financial resources from the Rockefeller
Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, and other American and interna-
tional agencies. Finally, Yanjing’s linkages with local Chinese associations,
including the aforementioned popular education and rural construction
movements, served to enable and facilitate large-scale regional surveys.
Taken as a whole, what made Yanjing the center of survey research was
its position and skill in maintaining bicultural collaborations with foreign
and local groups (Rosenbaum 2015).
Important as it was, Yanjing and its organizational networks did not
exhaust the social survey movement. Non-Christian, non-American
scholars such as Chen Da of Qinghua University also made huge contri-
butions to labor and household surveys. Zhongshan University offered
a rural survey program in 1920 (Trescott 2007: 262). Generally speak-
ing, most sociologists of the day simultaneously served as university
professors and research directors in voluntary associations or research
institutes. John Steward Burgess was a professor in Yanjing and a mem-
ber of the Y.M.C.A., whereas Chen Da of Qinghua and Tao Menghe
of Peking University were in charge of the Institute of Social Survey
in Peking. Thanks to this double status, a collaborative network could
be formed between the various educational institutions. But compared
to private universities, voluntary associations and overseas foundations,
the state only assumed a subordinate role in offering research supports
in this period. While the Nationalist government had been appoint-
ing the board of trustees for the China Foundation for the Promotion
of Education and Culture, in 1926 it was merged with the Institute of
Social and Religious Research in New York to provide regular sponsor-
ship to the Institute of Social Survey in Peking (Wong 1979: 15).
A major intellectual accomplishment of the social survey movement
in China was to go beyond the introduction and translation of Western
works by applying sociological theories and methods to the studies of
Chinese society (Li et al. 1987: 622). But the survey method began to
18 H.F. Chen

invite criticism as it was increasingly adopted. Most were directed against

its empiricist tendency, as the massive collection of facts did not yield a
coherent picture of social life or a consistent solution to social problems.
Without the guidance of a conceptual framework, the social surveys were
often nothing more than fact-finding regarding the history, geography,
population and other spheres of life in a given region. But a closer look
at the historical evidences would serve to qualify these complaints. It was
true that the sociology curriculum at Yanjing was designed to prepare
students for conducting social surveys (Sociological World 1929: 283–
285). Under Xu Shilian’s supervision, however, some of the students
devoted themselves to studies of Chinese social thought and Chinese his-
tory from a sociological perspective. The survey method was not anti-
thetical to sociological theory; the latter indeed underwent significant
development in the subsequent period.

Sociological Theory and the State-Sponsored

Codification of Knowledge
With the end of warlordism and partial unification of China in 1927,
the Nationalist government decided to reform the higher education sys-
tem and provide stronger institutional support for academic disciplines,
including sociology. In the meanwhile, a new batch of overseas Chinese
students was returning from America and Europe. In 1929, a group of
Chinese sociologists teaching in Shanghai and Nanjing, including Sun
Benwen, Wu Jingchao and Wu Zelin, founded the Southeast Sociological
Society and its official journal, Shehuixuekan (Journal of Sociology). This
was welcomed by Xu Shilian and other sociologists in Beijing, who pro-
posed to merge the new society with the Yanjing Sociological Society
into a nationwide association. The proposal was officially passed in
1930, and the new association adopted the name of Chinese Sociological
Society (Li 2012: 72; Dai 1993: 91). Sun Benwen served as the first
chairman and chief editor of its journal. Up to 1949, the Chinese
Sociological Society had held 9 annual conferences, and its membership
was more than doubled from 66 to 160 between 1930 and 1947 (Li
et al. 1987: 619).
At a broader institutional level, the close relationship of Chinese soci-
ologists with private foundations and voluntary associations was being
replaced by a higher level of interaction with the state. A new sociology
department was housed by the National Central University in Nanjing,
 2 ACHIEVEMENT WITHOUT COHERENCE: THE RISE … 19

with Sun Benwen serving as its head. Sun also served in the Ministry
of Education from 1930 to 1932, while Chen Hansheng, a sociolo-
gist at Peking University, was appointed as head of the newly founded
Department of Sociology at the Institute of Social Sciences, Academia
Sinica. While the missionary universities had been enjoying a special
status under the laws of Virginia, in 1930 the Nationalist government
decided to unify the university system and apply nationwide educational
policies to private and public universities alike. In 1938, the Ministry of
Education issued the first standardized curriculum, in which sociology
was designated as an elective course for all students in the faculties of
arts, science, law, and education (Hsiao 1990: 136). A required course
in anthropology and a new subject area of social administration were
included in the national sociology curriculum (Zheng and Li 2003: 104–
105). Before 1929 most of the sociology departments were not affiliated
with any faculty; now it was classified under the faculty of arts or law.
Though the Nationalist Government acknowledged sociology, politi-
cal science, economics and law as social sciences, it rejected the idea of
establishing a faculty of social science (Wong 1979: 20; Yan 2004: 36;
Zhang 2002: 409).
A remarkable impact of the nationalization of higher education was
an increase in student intake in the sociology departments. According to
official statistics, in 1934 there were 483 university students majoring in
sociology, making up 7% of the total in China. Sociology was ranked as
the fifth most popular subject after Chinese literature, Western literature,
history, and education (Wong 1979: 19; Li et al. 1987: 617). In the
1940s, the number of sociology major students reached its peak around
1000–1500 (King and Wang 1978: 38; Zheng and Li 2003: 105). In
the Department of Sociology at Qinghua, a total of 82 sociology major
students were graduated from 1932 to 1947, of whom 74 were male and
only 8 were female. It was noteworthy that 20 graduates worked in the
government and 15 worked in sociology departments and related organi-
zations, testifying to the strong linkages between sociology and the state
(Su 2004: 159–164).
Closely related to the standardization of the sociology curriculum
was the codification of sociological knowledge. In terms of intellectual
impact, the nationalization of the university system offered an incen-
tive for Chinese sociologists to build a more solid and coherent theo-
retical foundation and thereby to enhance the academic status of their
discipline. In 1929, Sun Benwen set out to compile a book series on
20 H.F. Chen

social control, social organization, social change, rural sociology, urban

sociology, research methodology and other sociological topics. It
was published in 15 volumes under the title of An Outline of Sociology
in 1931, of which 3 were written by Sun himself and 12 were writ-
ten by 9 other Chinese sociologists. Underlying this codification effort
was Sun’s vision of “synthetic sociology,” which aimed to encompass a
whole range of themes and approaches in the study of society. In this
regard, Sun published The Principles of Sociology in 1935 and The History
of the Development of Contemporary Sociology in 1947, in which differ-
ent schools of sociology were introduced, discussed and synthesized.
Though not all sociologists would follow Sun’s synthetic approach, they
were more eager to write introductory texts in sociology and its various
subfields. By 1947, around 1000 books had been published on sociology
and other relevant topics, of which 67% were related to social problem
and social policy and 13% were pure sociology and social thought (King
and Wang 1978: 38; Wong 1979: 23).
In addition to textbooks and research monographs, Western socio-
logical classics such as Durkheim’s The Rules of Sociological Method,
Marx’s Capital, William Ogburn’s Social Change, Raymond Firth’s
Human Types and Karl Mannheim’s works in the sociology of knowledge
were translated (Wong 1979: 24). The wide range of these translations
reflected a latent trend of the period. As the sociological community
was expanding from Beijing and Shanghai to Nanjing and elsewhere, it
offered an opportunity for the diversification of sociological knowledge.
Though American sociology remained the dominant model, some sociol-
ogists were experimenting with different schools and national traditions
in Western sociology. An example here was Hu Jianmin, a sociologist in
Shanghai with an academic training in France instead of America. As a
former student of Maurice Halbwachs, Hu published an introductory
series on Durkheimian sociology in the Journal of Sociology (1930 2(1):
139–148; 1930 2(2): 151–174; 1931 2(3): 152–157). Similar efforts
were made by Wu Wenzao, who began his academic career in the early
1930s by introducing the sociological traditions of France, Germany,
Britain, and America (Wu 2010).
On the whole, however, the discussions of American and European
sociology were couched in highly general terms. Methodological issues
such as the differences between statistics and case studies were only
briefly addressed. Outside their professional circle, Sun Benwen, Chen
Xujing and others were able to contribute to the intellectual debate on
 2 ACHIEVEMENT WITHOUT COHERENCE: THE RISE … 21

Western and Chinese culture by drawing upon the new concept of cul-
ture developed by American sociologists and anthropologists in the
1930s. But a remarkable tendency of the more specialized articles in the
Journal of Sociology was an emphasis on theoretical synthesis and a rela-
tive neglect of empirical studies—a reversal of the status quo ante dur-
ing the social survey movement. In this light, one of the major academic
accomplishments of Chinese sociology in the 1930s was the compilation
of book series and textbooks, while the attempt to work out a theoretical
synthesis was still by and large premature.
A possible explanation for the predilection for armchair theorizing lay
in the division of labor between sociology and social administration on
the one hand, and theoretical work and empirical research on the other.
With the progressive march of state-building, the administration of social
affairs was increasingly regarded as the specialized field of social welfare
officers, while the implementation of large-scale research projects was
primarily reserved for the newly founded Academia Sinica. Established
under the instructions of the Nationalist government in 1928, the
Academia Sinica housed the Institute of Social Sciences that in turn
consisted of two subdivisions in ethnology and economics in Nanjing,
and another two subdivisions in sociology and law in Shanghai. While
the Institute of Social Survey headed by Chen Da, Li Jinghan and Tao
Menghe was once the spearhead of survey research, in 1934 it was incor-
porated into the Institute of Social Sciences, Academia Sinica (Gransow
2003: 502–503; Li 2012: 71). Under this new division of academic
labor, sociologists were assigned with the supporting role of teaching
general sociological knowledge to professional social workers and social
researchers. Taking up this supplementary task might secure financial
resources for sociology departments, but it also implied a higher level of
dependency on the state’s educational and social policies.
Although sociology as an academic discipline grew progressively at
the turn of the 1930s, it encountered some serious drawbacks alongside
the marked increase in enrollment and funding (Zheng and Li 2003). A
crisis occurred when the sociology department at the National Central
University was temporarily closed down by the Nationalist government
in 1932 and then again in 1936 (Au-Yeung 2000). Some other univer-
sities also closed their sociology departments in the same period. One
possible factor was that the Nationalist government was skeptical about
the worth of sociology as a separate science, especially as it was focusing
on the building of industrial and military infrastructures. But according
22 H.F. Chen

to Sun Benwen’s observation, the hesitation mainly came from the con-
fusion of sociology with socialism (Dirlik 2012: 6; Zheng and Li 2003:
104). Especially between 1934 and 1937, sociology had experienced
considerable pressure under the anti-Communist New Life Movement
mobilized by the Nationalist Government (Hsiao 1990: 136). The
government’s attitudes began to stabilize only as Sun Benwen openly
pledged for value neutrality and aligned academic sociology with the
state goals of social reform and social engineering (Dirlik 2012: 9).

Social Anthropology and Community Studies in the War

Period
Parallel to the attempts to develop a theoretical system, a breakthrough
in sociological research took place in Yanjing. It was initiated by Wu
Wenzao, who became the chairman of Yanjing sociology department
in 1933. Through his personal network, international scholars such as
Radcliffe-Brown and Robert Park were invited to give visiting lectures
and training workshops at Yanjing. With such exposure, Wu eventually
worked out a new research program that combined human ecology in
the tradition of Chicago sociology with the functionalist school of British
social anthropology. Under Wu’s supervision, a group of young schol-
ars began to produce distinguished studies in Chinese society using
the fieldwork method. One of his students was Fei Xiaotong, who was
referred to Bronislaw Malinowski for doctoral studies in anthropol-
ogy at the London School of Economics. Upon his return to China in
1939, Fei soon became the proponent of community studies and field
investigation in Chinese sociology, and won international acclaim with
the publication of Peasant Life in China (1939) and Earthbound China
(1949). Under his influence, community studies of the period focused
on particular villages or ethnic communities in China. Some of the rep-
resentative works included We Zhelin and Chen Guoyun’s The Life of
the Black Miao Nationality in the Lu Mountains in 1940, Zhang Zhiyi’s
Handicraft Industry in Yi Village in 1943, Xu Yitang’s The Luo People in
the Xiaoliang Mountains in 1944, and Shi Guangheng’s The Workers of
Kun Factory in 1945 (Li et al. 1987: 624).
With this impressive record, it might not be an exaggeration to
conceive the 1940s as the golden era of academic sociology in China.
It was even proposed that “before the Second World War, outside
North America and Western Europe, China was the scene of the most
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
being of a temper exceedingly rude, began to repent of informing me
of it; and seemed resolved to take some, and let the rest be
embezzled away; for as far as I could learn he had hidden it in a
place unknown to any one but whether in the confusion when
everything was carried off, he had stopped it, or carried it away,
elsewhere, I know not, for he would not tell me. But strange, you will
say, must have been the confusion when a barrel of gold fell into his
hands, and no one the wiser. However, I determined to quitt my
hands and conscience of it; and much search being made for it at
this time, I went and told one Mr. Harrison, a Priest,[447] about it, and
what such a man intended to do, and beg that he would keep an eye
on him: but he, being a little before me, overheard me, and turning
back knocked me down with a stick, and swore, that he would kill me
the first opportunity. But the Priest, taking my part endeavoured to
pacify him, desiring him to desist from thoughts of the money, and
shew him where it was. The man, however, remained obstinate, and
said he was resolved to have some of it, since the Prince’s affairs
seemed now desperate; alleging that his Father and himself had
been ruined for loyalty. They then both agreed to go together; but
what afterward passed, I know not.
Recovering myself from the fall he gave, I went towards the
ships, in order to get on board that night, and in going I was so
happy as to meet with the Duke of Perth, who, seeing me in a most
piteous condition, called me to him, and, after embracing me, and
giving me most agreeable consolations, said: ‘Dear Mr. Daniel, I am
truly sorry for you; but I assure you that you shall go along with me,
and if we are so fortunate as to get to France, depend upon it, that I
shall always be your friend.’ In reply I begged His Grace not to be in
pain about me; for the loss of me was only the loss of my life, not
having one dependant upon me; and assured him that I was truly
resigned to God’s holy will; and thanking His Grace for his kindness
and concern for me, wished we might be so happy as to reach
France. And now, after we had staid some time upon the sea-shore,
waiting for the boats, three were sent to fetch us; but we were
obliged to wade breast-deep into the sea, before we could get on
board of them. While we were lying on the shore—the Duke, poor
man! wrapped up in a blanket!—a Highlander by accident let the
snuff of his tobacco-pipe fall into a barrel of gun powder; which
blowing up, with a great number of stones about it, one of them flew
so near my ear, that I could not hear at all for three hours after. This
explosion alarmed us at first, as we supposed the English had
returned to attack the French ships again: but happily no other
mischief was done, except that the Highlander lost his life.
The boat the Duke was in, put off immediately; and another
coming took me in, with many more, and carried us to the Bellona,
where we remained at anchor till two o’Clock the next morning, when
we sailed for France.[448] The chief of those in our ship were Sir
Thomas Sheridan;[449] Mr. Sheridan, his nephew;[450] and Mr. Hay.
[451] We were twenty-five days in sailing to France, and met with no
opposition during our voyage. I was exceedingly seasick, and having
no pockets, and every one thinking I should die, I gave a purse of
money to Mr. John Hay’s servant, telling him, if I died, to keep it; and
if I survived to carry it for me to France; which he carefully did for
me. In the ship I was in, there raged a contagious distemper, which
carried off sixty-seven in twenty-five days: and about the tenth day of
our voyage, I saw the body of my friend and patron the Duke of
Perth, thrown over-board; which afflicting sight, joined with my
violent sickness, I expected would have put an end to my life. But
what I thought would have killed me, perhaps contributed to save my
life in that pestiferous ship; as my continual vomiting may have
hindered any thing noxious from taking any effect upon me. But what
is very surprising, for twenty-two days I had not one call of nature,
which I affirm upon honour. And now after all my adventures dangers
and fatigues, I at the end of twenty-five landed in France, where, to
my satisfaction, I have lived since, in the expectation daily of seeing
what I have ever wished to see.
Postscript
Having now finished my Narrative, I hope the truth of what I have
written will make up for the faults that may be found in it, and that the
candid Reader will find matter of admiration and esteem in the
behaviour and actions of one so dear, whom I had once the honour
to serve. I shall conclude with
Fuimus Troies, et erimus iterum.
Trojans we have been, and will again
to the satisfaction of all good men!
NEIL MACEACHAIN’S NARRATIVE OF
THE WANDERINGS OF PRINCE
CHARLES IN THE HEBRIDES
The misfortunate battle of Colloden being fought upon the 16th of
April, 1746, his royal highness seeing that the day was irrecoverably
lost, concluded that his only business was to endeavour the saving
of himself out of the hands of his enemies: whereupon, having
retired to a neighbouring eminence, hard by the place of action,
accompanied by a few of Fitz-James’s horse, there, having made a
little stop, not knowing whither to direct his course when luckily one
Edmond Burk, the servant of one Alexander MacLeod,[452] son of
Mr. John MacLeod, of Muiravine Side, rod accidentally by them,
thinking to find his master among them, whom he had not seen since
the beginning of the battles. His master (who happened to be there
present with the prince), knowing him to be very well acquaint with
all the different rods of the highlands, ordered him to lead them the
safest and surest road to Glengarry. Whereupon the prince,
accompanied by Master O’Sulivan,[453] Mr. Allan MacDowell,[454]
priest, and the said Alexander MacLeod, marched westward, and
arrived that night about eight o’clock to Thomas Gortlickshorge,[455]
a gentleman of the name of Fraser, in Stratharagaig,[456] where he
met, as it was said, with my Lord Lovat, and supt with him there that
night.
After supper the prince reckoning it dangerous to stay so very
near the enemy, the first night, we resolved to continue his journey
towards Glengarry; about break of day, finding himself quite fatigued
and worn out for want of rest, he consulted with his fellow-travellers,
whither he might repair with most safety to take some hours repose.
They all concluded that the Castel of Invergary was the surest and
safest place for that purpose, and a great conveniency of
concealment, and (that he) might repose himself without any fear
(there) till such time as he and his party should take further
resolutions. Being then prevailed upon by these reasons, he
immediately repaired thither, where he was received by Glengarry
with the greatest pleasure.[457] When he sufficiently refreshed
himself he took a resolution to proceed still further, fearing to stay
long in one place. He departed that same day from Glengarry, being
the 17th in the evening, and continued his route towards Lochaber,
and came that night to Donald Cameron, of Glenpean’s house,
where he passed the remaining part of the night.
Next day being the 18th, he set out for the Braes of Moror, and
arrived in the evening at Angus Mack Eachan’s[458] house, son to
Alexander McEachan, of Domondrack. He was so much fatigued
that night, that he could neither eat nor drink, and required the help
of a man to support him to his bed. The next day, being the 19th, he
ventured to pass the whole day in a wood near the house, in order to
recruit more strength for a night walk; and accordingly when it was
late, he set out for Arasack, where he arrived about six in the
morning, and went straight to Angus MacDonald’s house in
Borrodale, where he quartered, after his landing, till he marched out
of the country.[459] At his arrival here, he found a great many Mack
Donalds assembled together, who had lately escaped out of the
battle of Colloden—gentlemen of both Glengarry’s and Clanranald’s
families. During the eight days he stayed in that country, he had daily
conferences with young Clanranald, Colonel MacDonald of
Barisdale, and several others of both families, treating which was the
safest place, and surest method for his concealment. After they had
satisfied him as to that, they protested, and assured him he should
have nothing to fear, that they would stand by him if he only would
stay among them to the last man. With this he seemed to be very
much satisfied, till Mr. O’Neil[460] and O’Sulivan,[461] by the advice of
Mr. Allan MacDonald, and one Donald MacLeod, of Galtrigil,[462]
perswaded him in a private council, to quite that country for good,
and all; and as there was no appearance of succeeding further, and
that they lost all hopes of gaining the point they once undertook, it
was better to run for the Lewis, where Donald promised to procure a
ship for them as far as the Orkneys, and there, he assured them to
find a ship to transport them to France. The prince being prevailed
upon by these convincing reasons, ordered a ten-oar boat belonging
to Angus MacDonald of Borodale, to be seized upon, and without
any further consultation, he put to sea about six o’clock at night,
accompanied only by these persons who were the authors of the
new scheme, without acquainting any body of any such design,[463]
till they were seen fairly under sail of the coast.
This night’s voyage was like to cost them dire; for they were not
long at sea when there came on such a terrible roaring of thunder,
preceed’d by such dreadfull flashes of lightning, accompanied with a
prodigious poure of rain, so that the whole elements seemed to rebel
against them, and threatened to send them every moment to
eternity; the wind, which continued to blow fair the whole night,
coming about to the north, quite contrary to their course, about
twelve o’clock at night, made them despair of continuing their
intended voyage any further, and so [they] prepared for death, as
being sure to be shattered upon the rocks of the nearest shore.
Amidst all these dangers he appeared intrepide, and offered his
service to Donald MacDonald and Donald MacLeod, seeing they
were the only two that was of any service in the boat, whilst all the
rest was oblidged to give it up, stiffened and benumbed with cold.
They continued in that agony the whole night, ’till about break of day,
when Rory MacDonald, who stood at the helm all the time,
discerning Benbicula in south-west, where he knew to be one of the
best harbours on that coast, and the wind blowing astern of them, he
piloted them into the harbour of Roshiness, within five long miles of
Clanranald’s house, which being Sunday, and the 29th of Aprile.[464]
They were no sooner landed but they were seen by a herd of
Clanranald’s who stayed in the place always to take care of his
master’s cattle, and seeing a number of men finely clad, and fully
armed, supposing them to be an enemy, he immediately made off,
with a nimble pair of heels, and carried the news of what he had
seen to his master, as he was at dinner with Mr. John MacAuley,[465]
Neil MacDonald,[466] and several other gentlemen. Clanranald,
moved by this unexpected surprise, before he resolved upon any
thing, sent Donald MacDonald to know the certainty of what the herd
had told him. Master MacAulay, who was parish minister in the
country, to satisfie his own curiosity sent one of his auditors to learn
what they were, from whence they came, and where they were
bound for. This fellow, pretending to have been sent thither by
Clanranald, upon a report of a boat’s being land’d there, and to
examine what they were, learned it was the prince who designed to
make for the Lewis in order to make his escape, who came back and
told the minister the same. The minister judging that he could not
meet with a better opportunity to show his zeal and affection for the
government, despatched a courier that same day away to the Herris,
with a letter to his father, who was minister there,[467] charging him
to write immediately upon receipt of his letter, to Mr. Colin
MacKenzie, established minister at Stornoway,[468] informing him of
the same, and ordering him to settle all measures with Seaforth’s
factor there to apprehend the prince at his first landing.
Donald MacDonald, who was sent by Clanranald to learn the
strength of the enemy, as it was believed, having returned,
acquainted him of the matter of fact, assuring, he spoke to Mr. Allen
MacDonald, who ordered him to tell Clanranald to come and see
him, as he designed to go off that night. Whereupon Clan and Neil
MacDonald went privately out of the town, and took their way straight
to Roshiness, where they found the prince, in the house with Mr.
O’Sulvan, O’Neil, Mr. Allen MacDonald, and Donald MacLeod. The
prince received him very kindly, after having communicated to him
his design he took leave of him, and put to sea again that night, with
the same persons that accompanied him thither. The heavens
proved more favourable to them that night than the former, having
met with no danger or opposition, and at daybreak they came in to
Loch Maddy, in north-west, where they skulk’d the whole day, being
the 30th, seeing they durst not venter to sea in the daytime, for fear
to be discovered by the several men of war that guarded the coast at
that time. They set out from Loch Maddy about six o’clock, which
was the ordinary hour they always departed, and landed in Scalpa,
in the Herris, early next morning, being the 1st of May.[469]
 Before they came near a house they took borrow’d names and
employments. Master O’Sulvan took that of Captain Sinclair, the
prince called himself William Sinclair, the captain’s son, O’Neill
changed his name into Neilson, and mate Master Allen named
himself Dalrumple, and Rosman, and Donald MacLeod, master of
the boat yt brought them thither, and swore the crew to attest the
same.
After this ceremony was over, they came to Donald Campbell’s
house, who was the most sponsable gentleman in that part of the
country, but an enemy by his name, and a downright hypocrite in his
heart;[470] and being asked by their landlord what they were, they
told him they were sea-fareing men from the Orkneys, who being
homeward bound from Irland, lost their ship near the Mull of Kintyre,
and most of their crew, and were thereupon forced to freight their
present boat and crew from Mull, as fare as the Lewis, where they
hop’t to find a vessel to transport them safe home to their own
country. The next day, being the 2nd of May, they sent Donald
MacLeod away to Stornaway before them to have a ship ready
freighted, and to get intelligence how the people stood affected, and
to send them word accordingly; which project would have had the
intended success, were it not for the imprudence of Donald, and
MacAulay’s malicious letter.
As soon as he was arrived at Stornaway he set about putting his
commission in execution, and discharged himself so well of that duty,
that he got a ship freighted that same evening, and wrote back to the
prince, who remained still at Scalpa, to repair thither as soon as
possible, but unwarily having gone to drink a bottle with the captain
of the ship, reposing too much trust in him, he disclosed to him all
the secret, whereupon the captain told him, if he should load the ship
with gold he would not employ her for that purpose: Having said this,
he went and published in all the streets of the town that the
pretender (as he called him) was to come to town privately next
night, and if Mr. MacLeod had not escaped out of the town he had
certainly been apprehend’d that night. The prince, who knew nothing
of what was passing before him, he set out upon the 3 of May for
Stornaway afoot, leaving orders with his crew to return home to the
mainland and restore the boat to the owner. That day he suffered a
vast deal of cold and fatigue, the day being so extreme bad; Donald
MacLeod mett him about a quarter of an mile without the town, and
told him it was dangerous for him to venter into it by reason they all
got notice of his approach, and were in an uproar all under arms,
and that all this was the effect of Mr. MacAulay’s letter.
The prince, raging with anger and fear, retired that night to my
Lady Kildin’s house,[471] which lay about half a mile off without the
town, and there he passed the remaining part of the night,
notwithstanding that a great manny of the mob made a dreadful
noise about the house a great part of the night. Having held a
consultation with the lady what was properest to be done, she told
him that his only safety consisted in returning to Benbicula again,
under Clanranald’s protection, since his project in coming thither
misgave. In order thereunto, she procured them a boat to cross Loch
Stornaway, which was a nearer cut to return to Scalpa; where he left
his boat and crew, having taken leave of the worthy lady, he set out
about four o’clock in the morning, crossed the Loch, and arrived
back at Donald Campbell’s house, that night, which was the 4th of
May.[472] He was no sooner arrived but he found all the crew was
gone except two, upon account the country people threatened to
apprehend them.
The prince fearing to make a stay in any man’s house, who found
out what he really was, and reckoning it impracticable to find as
many men as would manage his own boat so soon as he would
require [them], especially in the heart of an enemy’s country, he
bought a small boat from Donald Campbell, whom it was said he
bribed by giving him a sum of mony for to hold his tongue, and
disown that he knew what he was. It seemed very difficult for them
now to get safe into Benbicula, by reason the chanel was pestered
with the English navy, sent there a purpose to hinder the prince or
any of his party to make their escape. He set out upon the 5th from
Scalpa, and rowed along the coast the whole night; as they passed
the mouth of the Finnasvay bay, they observed a ship in the harbour
which they belived to be the Baltimore sloop of war, Thomas How
Captain, a brother to my Lord How in Irland, and being seen from
aboard the Baltimore she immediately sent off one of her long boats
in pursuit of them, and chased them the whole night; about 5 aclock
in the morning she came up pretty close to them, the prince terrefied
at the approach of the enemy begg’d of the rowers to pull away
strongly for fear to fall a sacrifice in the hands of these ravenous
wolves, whereupon they ran in upon a ridge of rocks they observed
betwixt them and the land, and there sculked close by one of the
rocks to observe what course the Baltimore was to take next, while
all of a sudden they saw her change her course, not able to find
them out. Despairing of success she returned to her harbour.
The prince and his party, taking fresh courage, being free from
danger that day, they determined as it was near day to draw nearer
the land, and sculk there, ’till it was late, that the men might refresh
themselves, for the fatigue of the ensueing night; they approached to
the shore, and found it to be a desert island, about two leagues from
the continent of the Herris, where they found no living creature. They
were turned of provisions so short that a lippie of gradan
oatmeal[473] was all that remained to them to satiate their hungry
appetites, which some of the men took, put some water about it with
a little salt, and fell a eating of it. The prince seeing them eat it as
hearty as if it had been better cheer, ask’d them whither it tasted
better than it look’t, they answered if he would only try it, he would be
as well pleased with it as what they were, whereupon, calling for a
little of it, he eat it as contentedly as the most delicate dish that ever
was served upon his table, saying at the same time that it tasted
pretty well, considering the ugly appearance it made. It was not long
after, when Providence cast more plenty in their way, for one of the
crew, who was more curious than the rest, having gone to take a
view of the island, found in the farther end of it abundance of cod
and ling, half a barrel of salt and a pot. Although they were starving
the whole day for hunger, yet they durst not make a fire, by reason
they thought it dangerous to raise a smock upon the island, lest
being seen from the continent it might discover them. When it grew
dark the prince ordered the crew to carry some of the fish to the
boat, when not a man, either simple or gentle obeyed him,[474] he
himself went in a passion, and carried half a dozen of them in his
arms, and threw them in the boat, saying since they were all so
gentle and scroupelous, that he would take the sin upon himself, and
show them the exemple; the whole crew dash’d and confused, would
have load’d the boat if he permitted them. Now being about six
o’clock, they put to sea, and landed in Benbicula the next day, a little
after sunrise, in the very same harbour which they left some days
before the 6th of May.
He set his foot no sooner ashore[475] but he sent an express for
Clanranald, who came next night, having taken none with him but
Neil MacDonald, who was there with him before. Upon Clanranald’s
arrival, he seemed quite easie and told him that Providence had sent
him under his protection, where he hoped to be sheltered, and that
he was to throw himself in his hands to dispose of him as he thought
fit. Clanranald assured him he had nothing to fear, and that he would
find a place for his concealment, where none should have the least
opportunity to see him, but such as he should employ to carry to him
whatever he wanted.
After he had sufficiently refreshed himself for some days, it was
thought dangerous to make any longer stay at Roshiness, because
being a place much frequented by boats from the neighbouring
countrys, they would be soon discovered; for this reason, he was
conducted from thence to Bareness, about three miles from
Roshiness, where he had the conveniency of a little hutt of a house
that was in the place, the entry of which was so very narrow, that he
was forced to fall upon his knees, and creep in upon his belly, as
often as he entered. This habitation not pleasing him, he begged of
Clanranald to send him into some Christian place wherein he could
have more room, and use more freedom and ease, for in that
monstrous hole he could never have satisfaction, which he said the
devil had left because he had not room enough in it.
The next day being the 10th of May, it was determined to send
him to Corrodall, a little pleasant glen in South-West,[476] belonging
to Neil MacDonald, where there was two country-houses, and
conveniency enough for his concealment. Neil was appointed for to
conduct him thither, whom he desired to remain still with him. About
eleven aclock at night, they set out with Neil, who was their faithful
guide, towards Corrodale, where they arrived next day about six in
the afternoon; when they came near the house, Neil left him under a
rock while he went in to see if there were no strangers there; and
finding none but Ranald, his brother,[477] who had come thither the
day before by Neil’s own orders, he presently returned where he left
the prince, and conducted him to the house.[478] He seemed
extraordinary well pleased with the house, which he swore look’t like
a palace in comparison of the abominable hole they had lately left.
He sat upon a seat of green turf that was made up for him that same
evening, and after taking a refreshment of gradan bread-and-
cheese, and goats milk, upon which he fed very hearty, he desired
his feet to be washed, being extreme dirty, and very much galled by
his night walk; after which he smok’t a pipe of tobacco and went to
bed, which being heather and green rushes, he slept soundly ’till
twelve next day.
During this stay at Corrodale, which was five weeks,[479] his
ordinary conversation was talking of the army, and of the battle of
Colloden, and the highland chieftains whose lamentable case he
deplored very much. One day as he was taking a walk in the
morning with Neil MacDonald only, the subject of their discourse was
describing to Neil the battle of Colloden, wherein he said his horse
was shot under him; for (says he) as I was riding up to the right wing,
my horse began to kick, at which I was much surprised, being very
quiet, and peaceable formerly, and looking narrowly to him to see
what was the matter with him, I observed the blood gushing out of
his side. Oh! oh! says I (speaking of the horse), if this be the story
with you, you have no less than reason to be uneasie, whereupon I
was oblidged to dismount and take another. Then the conversation
rowlled upon the order of the battle, and how he was forced to
condescend to give the right hand to the Atholl-men and others,
which he knew to be the MacDonald’s right, meerly by the
perswation of my Lord George Murray, and several others, but
however he did a great deal of justice and honour to the Mack
Donalds, by assuring Neil they were the last that abandoned the
field; and, moreover, that they would have had certainly been cut all
to pieces, had not the pickets come to their relief, to whom he said,
they owe an eternal obligation.
He blamed always my Lord George as being the only instrument
in loseing the battle, and altho’ that he, the morning before the
action, used all his rhetorick, and eloquence against fighting, yet my
Lord George outreasoned him, ’till at last he yielded for fear to raise
a dissension among the army, all which he attributed to his infidelity,
roguery, and treachery.[480] He always flattered himself that the
highlanders were still upon foot to hinder the enemy from harrassing
their countrys, and conceived great hopes that they would be able to
stand it out, ’till they got a relief from France. He was so fond to
know what was passing among them, that he sent his boat twice to
Mudort[481] for intelligence, and hearing of a skirmish betwixt Cluny
MacPherson and a party of the elector’s troops in Badanack, of
which Cluny had the better, it gave him no small joy: he had notice
given him likewise that Borrisdale, upon whose courage and conduct
he lay a great stress, was at the head of about three thousand men
in Glenkuaak.[482] All these, and manny such like stories kept him
still in top spirits, together with the expectation of a French landing in
England, where he perswaded himself the Duke of York was landed
at the head of ten thousand French, and assured those who durst
not contradict him of the same.
It gave him a great deal of pleasure to look to the ships that
passed in the Chanel every day, which he flattered himself to be
French, though they were really some of the English fleet sent thither
to guard the coast, and hinder any of the Highlanders to escape, and
would have Neil to go and pilot to some harbour that they might not
be lost. It was wonderfull how he preserved his health all the time,
notwithstanding all the fatigue and troubles he underwent and the
bad usage he met with very often; for I have not seen him one hour
sick all the time I have had the honour to accompany him, save only
eight days he was troubled with a flux, which kept him very busie
while it lasted; he had always a good appetite, and could eat any
meat that came in his way, as well as those who was accustomed to
it from their infancy. He took care to warm his stomach every
morning with a hearty bumper of brandy, of which he always drank a
vast deal; for he was seen to drink a whole bottle of a day without
being in the least concerned.
He took a vast delight, when it was a good day, to sit up a stone
that was before the door of the house, with his face turned towards
the sun; and when he was desired to move from thence fearing to
get a headache, he ordered them to pack about their business, that
he knew himself what was good for him, better than they could
describe, that the sun did him all the good in the world.
Notwithstanding his melancholy fits, yet at other times he was so
hearty and merry, that he danced for a whole hour together, having
no other musick but some highland reel which he whistled away as
he tripped along. It happened one day as he was walking along the
coast with Neil and the rest of the gentlemen, being an excessive hot
day, they spied a number of young whales approaching pretty near
the shore, and observing them to make straight for the rock whereon
they sat down, he sent immediately for his fusee, and as they came
within his reach he fired at them; and being informed some time
before that Neil was an incomparable good swimmer, he ordered him
to strip and hall ashore the whale, which he swore he had shot dead.
Neil, in obedience to his orders and to humour him, began to strip
very slowly till he saw the whale which had received no hurt out of
sight.
During his stay at Corrodale, Clanranald paid him several visits,
as also all the gentlemen of the country, who sent him presents of all
they possessed. As he now despared of any assistance from
abroad, and wishing to be out of the Highlands, he thought of setting
about getting a ship to transport himself out of the kingdom. In order
thereunto, he sent off Mr. O’Neil and Captain Donald MacDonald,
Clanranald’s son, who joined him at his return from the Lewis, in
order to go to France, thinking to get passage from the Lewis
privately, to either Sweden or Denmark, from whence they were to
pass into France.
Having received fifty guineas each to defray their charges, they
set out for the Herris, where they were no sooner arrived but O’Neil,
who was there with the prince before, was immediately known, and if
he had not made his escape back to Benbicula, he had been
apprehended without going any further, whereupon he returned to
the prince, who did not care much for him ever after. Captain
MacDonald, who pursued his journey towards the Lewis, met with
the same fate at Stornaway, there, having found his uncle, Alexander
MacLeod,[483] he carried him with him to his own house, where he
lay concealed for a long time after, and returned to the prince no
more.
The enemy, who was not idle all this time to inform themselves
about him, got sufficient intelligence that he was in Wist, disposed of
themselves so that it seemed impracticable for him to escape. That
he might lose no time, he sent Neil as minister plenipotentiary to
Boystile,[484] to treat with him to procure a boat for him, and
sufficient hands for to manage it, in case of accidence—for now he
was to attempt to gain the mainland, seeing there was no safety for
him in Wist. Boystile, who did not go near him all the time for fear of
suspicion, sent him back word with Neil, that he himself would come
in person and consult with him what was properest to be done.
Boystile came next day, and was received by the prince with open
arms, and found some of the gentlemen of the country who came to
see him the day before, of whose number was Hugh Macdonald, of
Ballissher, from North Wist,[485] who was ready to sacrifice his life
and fortune for the prince’s safety (I say), Boystile at his arrival found
all these lying in their bed, very much disordered by the foregoing
night’s carouse, while his royal highness was the only one who was
able to take care of the rest, in heaping them with plaids, and at the
same time merrily sung the De Profundis for the rest of their souls.
[486]

Neil, who was straggling every day about the neighbouring towns
for intelligence, and who never missed to come in seasonable time
with what news he gathered among the people, arrived, as the
Prince, Boystile, and the other gentlemen were very busie and very
hearty taking their bottle. It was always the prince’s custom
whenever Neil returned from any expedition, to learn from him
privately what news he brought before it was made public. Neil told
him that two hundred of the Sky militia, head’d by Hugh Macdonald,
of Armidale,[487] and Alexander MacLeod of Ullish,[488] was landed
at Barra, who was sent thither by my Lord Lowdian. Campbell, and
MacLeod, having had an information that the prince was sculking in
that country, and that these gentlemen’s orders were, after a diligent
search made in Barra, to pass into South Wist, and to stay there
guarding the coasts and foords in the country ’till they were
reinforced by a greater number, and, moreover, that Captain
Ferguson[489] was ordered to the Lewis for the same purpose,
Captain MacKenzie to the Herris, and the Baltimore to cruize upon
the coast of Wist, so that it seemed next to a miracle to have been
able to escape. The prince, who always appeared very gay and
cheerful, notwithstanding his crosses and misfortunes, was very
much dejected at this news; which Boystile observing, begged of him
to be in no ways uneasie, that the danger was not so great as what
he apprehended, and that he, despite of all the search of the enemy,
would procure a place for him where he would not be exposed to the
least danger till such time as a more favourable opportunity offered
for making his escape; and fearing least the enemy might surprise
them, being now three days in the country, Boystile took leave of him
in order to prevent their coming so suddenly till he got time to fit into
some other place.
Neil fearing the fickleness and the inconstancy of the common
people, who might perhaps be perverted from their fidelity to
discover him to his enemies, in hopes of a great reward, did not think
proper to stay there any longer; whereupon, having got into their
boat, which they always had nigh them, they set out about eleven
o’clock at night, without acquainting any body of their design, except
those who were partakers of it, and took the retreat towards
Benbicula, and landed about break of day in Fuyia,[490] a desert
island, about three miles from Roshiness, where they sculked for
eight days.
During their stay in this solitude, he kept a private
correspondence with Boystile about leaving the country, as it
appeared impossible for him to conceal himself any longer from
those cursed villains who left not a stone unturned to find him out.
Boystyle, who used all endeavours to effect his design to get him
safely conveyed to the mainland, lost no time to provide whatever
necessaries their voyage required; when unluckily he himself was
taken prisoner and carried away on board the Baltimore, so that that
design perished, and came to nothing.
Upon the news of Boystile’s being made prisoner[491] he
expressed a great deal of regret for him, saying it was a great pity he
should fall into the hands of such ruffians, who would have no regard
for his merit, for really he was the honestest man (said he) I met with
since my stay in the isles. While he stayed upon the island he went
about the shore once or twice a day, to see if he could find out which
was the most commodious hole or cave for hiding him in case some
of the men of war that kept the channel still came to land any men.
There he had occasion to see the Lady Clanranald, who came from
Roshiness to have the honour of seeing him before he left the
country, and carried along with her to him some of what necessaries
he wanted: he received her very kindly, made much of her, and
thanked her for her generosity, telling her next day at parting that he
would not forget soon what kindness he met with in the country.
They had plenty of bread and other meats during their retreat in that
Patmos, but before the eight days was expired they were obliged to
leave the hole to another party of the MacLeods who landed upon
the island from Skay.
After being chased from thence they had no other resource but to
return towards the south end of the country, upon hearing that the
Skay militia had departed from Boystile’s house two days before,
and were upon their march towards Benbicula, where they flattered
themselves infallibly sure to find him. About eight o’clock at night,
upon the 12th of July, they put to sea from Lochaskivay, and rowed
the whole night along the coast, and as the day began to dawn Neil
advised them to land in Lochskiport, and to stay there ’till it was late;
but the prince, who was eager to be as far on that day as possibly he
could, would not condescend, and so continued their voyage the
whole day. About five in the afternoon they landed at Corrodale,
where they refreshed themselves ’till it was ten, and arrived next
morning at sunrise at the mouth of Lochynort, in South-Wist; they
had not so much as one mouthful to eat that night of any kind, and
having made up a tent of the oars and sail of the boat, he laid
himself down upon a kind of a heather bed that was made for him,
while Neil stood sentry upon the rock before the tent door the whole
night, after he had placed two of the crew whom he could trust most
to about a mile off as an advanced guard.
When it was near day he asked Neil whether it was possible to
find any meat, who told him it was impracticable, by reason the
nearest town lay five miles off, whereupon he roused up the rest,
and got into the boat and rowed to Stialay, a small island near the
entry of Loch Boystile, within three long miles of Boystile’s house,
being the 14th of July in the evening. They were no sooner landed
and the tent made, than Neil posted off immediately to Boystile’s
house for provisions; when he arrived, he found all the family in bed,
and having knocked them up, he acquainted Boystile’s daughter who
came first to the door with the princes being upon the Island of
Stialay, where he had but very ill accommodation. She ran into the
room where her stepmother[492] was in bed, bringing Neil along with
her, who told the lady the miserable condition his royal highness was
in, she got up in the greatest hurry, and sent off what was readiest to
relieve them in the mean time, ’till such time she could get more
prepared against the next night. Neil returned, charging the lady at
parting, to learn what was passing among the enemy, and to inform
them accordingly.
At his arrival he found the boat ashore waiting him, and having
passed to the island, the prince met him at his landing, and asked of
him if he got any meat. Neil told him that he brought some fresh
butter and cheese and a few bottles of brandy. ‘Come, come,’ said
he, ‘give me one of the bottles and a piece of the bread, for I was
never so hungry since I was born’; which being given him, he took
two or three hearty pulls of it before he came near the rest, which
gave him so good an appetite, that he eat that night more than ever
he was seen to eat at three ordinary meals, and all the rest did
proportionably. After supper he called for the brandy-bottles, and
drank the king’s and the duke’s healths; which done, he wrapt
himself in his plaid, laid down, and slept away the remaining part of
the night very soundly.
 Next morning there was a consultation held concerning the
course they were to take from thence. Some were of opinion that
they should venter to run for the continent in the small boat they had,
of which the prince himself approved very much, saying he would
rather drown than fall into the hands of those profligate fellows who
were in pursuit of him. Others were of opinion that the safest step
they could take was, to make for some one of the Southren Isles of
Barra, and the rather because the first party who came after him to
the country landed first in that island, and it seemed very probable
that they would not return there again. They all agreed to this last
proposal, and that no time might be lost, they prepared every thing to
set off next day, if the weather favoured them. This project came to
nothing as well as the former, for the Lady Boystile sent an express
that same afternoon, that one Captain Scott[493] was landed at Barra
from Fort William, with a detachment of regular troops, in order to
join the Skay militia in South-Wist, and that they intended, according
as she was informed, to be at her house by ten o’clock next day,
which she would inform him of, if possible, whatever happened.
This news put them in a greater consternation than ever, which
obliged them to cross over to the other side of Loch Boystile that
night for the more security. Next day about break of day, the prince
sent off Rory MacDonald to learn whither Scott was arrived, and to
bring back word what was passing among them. Rory returned at
eight o’clock, and told the prince that the lady, her daughter, and all
the servants, were tied neck and heel in one house, in order to extort
a confession from them of the prince’s being in the country; while her
seller and all her most valuable effects were left to the mercy of the
ungenerous soldiers, who were busie in carrying the plunder to their
boats. The news of the ladies ill-treatment struck such a terror into
the minds of the timorous crew, that they immediately sunk the boat,
and abandoned the prince and the few gentlemen who accompanied
him. In this desperate condition there was no remedy to be thought
upon, but to dismiss the few gentlemen that accompanied till then,
and retire to the mountains; whereupon having left every body to
shift for himself (of whose number was O’Sullivan, who was left
under a rock with the best part of the prince’s baggage), the prince,
with Neil and MacO’Neil,[494] made for the top of the nearest hill, that
from thence they might have a better view of their enemies motion,
and take further resolution how they were to dispose of themselves
next.[495]
I forgot to tell that when Captain Scott landed in South-Wist,
Hugh MacDonald,[496] who lay in Benbicula then with his party, sent
one of the country gentlemen in whom he could repose a great deal
of trust, to tell the prince privately that, as it seemed now impossible
for him to conceal himself any longer in the country, if he would
venter to be advised by him, though an enemy in appearance yet a
sure friend in his heart, he would fall upon a scheme to convoy him
to the Isle of Skay, where he was sure to be protected by Lady
Margaret MacDonald.[497] The scheme was this: to send his
stepdaughter, Miss Florence MacDonald, to Sleet, to live with her
mother ’till the enemy was out of Wist. The prince at the same time
was ordered to dress in woman’s close, that he might pass for her
servant-maid, and Neil was appointed to take care of both. The
scheme pleased the prince mightely, and he seemed very impatient
to see it put in execution.
But to return to the top of the hill, the prince with Neil and Mr.
O’Neil remained there the whole day. About sunset the prince told
Neil that he entrusted himself in his hands, and that his life and
safety depended upon him, Neil answered that the charge was more
than what his life was worth; but yet, with God’s assistance that he
would find means to preserve him from all danger till every thing was
got ready to leave the country. After this they took a refreshment of
bread-and-cheese, and set out towards the north end of the country,
every body carrying his own share of the baggage, the prince carried
his own few shirts, O’Neill carried his own linnen, and Neil carried
the provision, his own gun and sword, and the prince’s fusee and
one of his holsters, while the other hung upon his own belt. As they
were going on, the prince clapt Neil’s shoulder, often telling him if
ever it was their good fortune to get free of their present troubles, he
would make him live easie all his days for the fatigue of that night.
Neil was informed some days before, that Miss Flora lived with her