Inheritance of Tutoring and Academic Research--Selected Works of Sanlian

Author: Fei Xiaotong
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2002-07-01
Features: The book is divided into three parts: 1. Recollections of scholars such as Wu Wenzao, Shi Lugu, Malinowski, and Pan Guangdan whom the author studied under; 2. Supplemental Notes—Rediscovering Park's Sociology; 3. A review of the author's own journey in rebuilding sociology and anthropology. Through the narration of these contents, Fei Lao presents profound reflections and insights of an elderly scholar who participated in the entire process of sociology and anthropology in China—from its inception, development, setbacks, to its reconstruction—showcasing the different developmental experiences of this discipline in China and the United States. Excerpt: My Time in England I went to England as a government scholarship student from Tsinghua University in 1936. I enrolled at the London School of Economics and Political Science to study anthropology. I graduated and returned to China in 1938. What I want to recall here is this period of my time in England. However, as the train of thought carried me along, many things related to this period came to mind, and I wrote them down without being bound by the topic. First, let me tell you how I got the chance to study abroad. In the 1930s, when I was studying in university, almost all the young people around me considered studying abroad as the ideal path. This mindset reflected the anxieties of young people in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial old China. The threat of unemployment after graduation became increasingly severe, and relying solely on a university diploma meant having no guarantee of a livelihood or career in society. To climb up to the upper echelons of a more prosperous and stable class, one had to go a step further after leaving university—study abroad. No matter how many embarrassing things you might have done in foreign countries, returning after a trip would make others look at you differently, and your value would increase tenfold. Studying abroad had become something like the imperial examination in disguise. Some university students became obsessed with it, losing their sense of direction. These images are perhaps very familiar to those who have read The Story of the Stone. However, there was a difference between studying abroad and the imperial examination: in the feudal era, the range of people who could dream of "making it big" with the imperial examination seemed broader. At least, traditional plays reflected that the top scholar was not so unreachable in the public imagination; enduring ten years of hard study could turn a scholar's plain blue robe into a dazzling purple one. Studying abroad, however, was not that easy. It was a capitalist thing, emphasizing investment and cost. It was cheaper to study in Japan, costing at least 500-600 silver dollars a year, but studying in the West would cost 5,000 or more. If you wanted to earn a foreign doctorate, it would take at least two or three years. Without a few hundred thousand silver dollars, you could only sigh in despair. Studying abroad costs money, but where does it come from? There were different types of funding, such as "government-funded," "self-funded," and "public-funded," among others. In the early days, the Qing government sent students abroad to cultivate talent in foreign affairs, but many people of status were reluctant to leave their homeland or travel to foreign lands, and even fewer were willing to pay for their children to study abroad. Therefore, the expenses of all students abroad were covered by the government, making them "government-funded students." Upon returning, these students often had a smooth career, and foreign scholars were more sought after than domestic ones. "Excellence leads to officialdom" was the code of conduct for intellectuals at the time, and returning from studying abroad meant having official positions to hold, attracting a rush of followers. Gradually, the opportunities for government-funded studies were monopolized by high-ranking officials, who used them to educate their own children and consolidate their power. Those with no connection to the powerful officials who selected students for government funding were left out in the cold. Those who could afford it but had no access to government funding had no choice but to pay for their children's education themselves, making them "self-funded students."