Endlessly Amazed
Endlessly, you know, amazed
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,379
- Location
- Arizona, USA
(Mods – I cannot decide the best place to post this – please move to wherever you think best. Thanks.)
Needham’s great question on the Chinese failing to produce the industrial revolution has come up several times here in Forteanaland. This has intrigued me enough to take a brief look and respond.
I have not read any part of Needham’s 27 volumes on China. His great question about why China did not spearhead the industrial revolution has been answered at least several times, in great detail, and to the satisfaction of many historians who do not share Needham’s:
Plus, he was a Cambridge don, formally honored, Member of the Royal Society, British Academy, a Great Man, etc. This seems to me, an American, to be much more important in the UK and of that time (1930-1980) than in other countries, and in more recent times. The near reverence he was held in was a great inhibitor to answer his great question – and in so doing, be in public conflict with Needham, who was a powerful and well-connected figure. I have had the experience of being in public conflict with respected academicians in my own field, and it certainly takes much resolve over years. I was fortunate in that I did not have to worry the conflict would hurt my chances at tenure (I left academia to run various research projects).
I am by inclination, education, and employment an interdisciplinarian. This means that I assume every orientation to research has both benefits and drawbacks. Especially my own. This necessary caution or modesty is necessary if one is to do good research. Needham would have done better research if he had more modesty, and had not been a Sinophile and Marxist. Of course, if he wasn’t a Sinophile and Marxist, he may not have spent close to 50 years writing about Chinese culture and science.
I have been lucky enough to know several British-educated academicians, and several well-educated, smart, fervent Marxists. This exposure has perhaps given me a slightly better understanding of this orientation than I would have otherwise had.
I found this brief 130 page paper to be robust; but this is outside of my field of expertise. I suggest that the conclusion starting on page 117 be read first as an overview.
An Examination of the Needham Question: Why Didn't China Have a Scientific Revolution Considering Its Early Scientific Accomplishments? (cuny.edu)
In contrast to Needham, I offer the Durants’ eleven volume “The Story of Civilization.” Will and Ariel Durant were contemporaries of Needham, but were American historians. They were not specialists in any culture or era, but instead presented a good comparison and contrast of different worldwide cultures and the resultant sciences. Their work is not perfect, it is not complete, it contains biases clearly presented – but it remains a good grounding of the history of cultures and the history of science – and the connection between the two. I have read all eleven volumes at least twice in my life.
Let the smack-down begin!
Needham’s great question on the Chinese failing to produce the industrial revolution has come up several times here in Forteanaland. This has intrigued me enough to take a brief look and respond.
I have not read any part of Needham’s 27 volumes on China. His great question about why China did not spearhead the industrial revolution has been answered at least several times, in great detail, and to the satisfaction of many historians who do not share Needham’s:
- Marxist philosophy – especially the early and mid-century variety in English universities
- Love of all things Chinese and loyalty to Chinese students he met at Cambridge
- Assumption that his understanding, especially of the role of Chinese culture and political organization, was near complete (he lacked modesty)
- Deep exploration of Chinese history and culture, but shallow exploration of other cultures, especially the Americas, Africa, and Islam. A mile deep and an inch wide. Needham had no demonstrated ability to equitably compare and contrast on this topic.
- An inability to admit to his own biases. This was a common occurrence in highly respected academicians of the mid-twentieth century. This is fatal to science, especially in areas of study dealing with cultural and political history because biases in these areas are part of the human condition.
Plus, he was a Cambridge don, formally honored, Member of the Royal Society, British Academy, a Great Man, etc. This seems to me, an American, to be much more important in the UK and of that time (1930-1980) than in other countries, and in more recent times. The near reverence he was held in was a great inhibitor to answer his great question – and in so doing, be in public conflict with Needham, who was a powerful and well-connected figure. I have had the experience of being in public conflict with respected academicians in my own field, and it certainly takes much resolve over years. I was fortunate in that I did not have to worry the conflict would hurt my chances at tenure (I left academia to run various research projects).
I am by inclination, education, and employment an interdisciplinarian. This means that I assume every orientation to research has both benefits and drawbacks. Especially my own. This necessary caution or modesty is necessary if one is to do good research. Needham would have done better research if he had more modesty, and had not been a Sinophile and Marxist. Of course, if he wasn’t a Sinophile and Marxist, he may not have spent close to 50 years writing about Chinese culture and science.
I have been lucky enough to know several British-educated academicians, and several well-educated, smart, fervent Marxists. This exposure has perhaps given me a slightly better understanding of this orientation than I would have otherwise had.
I found this brief 130 page paper to be robust; but this is outside of my field of expertise. I suggest that the conclusion starting on page 117 be read first as an overview.
An Examination of the Needham Question: Why Didn't China Have a Scientific Revolution Considering Its Early Scientific Accomplishments? (cuny.edu)
In contrast to Needham, I offer the Durants’ eleven volume “The Story of Civilization.” Will and Ariel Durant were contemporaries of Needham, but were American historians. They were not specialists in any culture or era, but instead presented a good comparison and contrast of different worldwide cultures and the resultant sciences. Their work is not perfect, it is not complete, it contains biases clearly presented – but it remains a good grounding of the history of cultures and the history of science – and the connection between the two. I have read all eleven volumes at least twice in my life.
Let the smack-down begin!
Last edited: