why was there revolution in 1911 in china?

北京师范大学北京师范大学教育研究方法讲座系列教育研究方法讲座系列

Lecture 2

The Theoretical Foundations of Comparative-Historical Method in the Social Sciences

Why was there Revolution in 1911 in China?

Why was there Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917?

Why was there Communist Revolution in China in 1949?

Was there any relationship between these revolutions?

Why wasn’t there any Communist revolution in Western European countries in the 20th century?

Why didn’t capitalism initiate in China in the 18-19th centuries?

What is capitalism? Why is it there?

Why did capitalism initiate in Western Europe in the 18-19th centuries?

Why was there industrial capitalism in 19th century in Western Europe?

Why was there financial capitalism in early 20th century in Europe and the US?

Why has there been global-informational capitalism since the end of the 20th century?

What is globalization? Why is it there?

Why was there mercantile capitalism in 16th century in southern Europe?

How and why Korea underwent economic take-off in the 1970s?

How and why Japan underwent economic take-off in 1960s?

How and why Taiwan underwent economic take-off in the 1970s?

How and why Hong Kong underwent economic take-off in the 1970s?

How and why Singapore underwent economic take-off in the 1970s?

How and why PRC underwent economic take-off in the 1980-90s?

What is the Japan or Dragon-head model?

What is the Asian Four-Dragon model?

What is the China Model?

Why did compulsory schooling system initiate in Western European states in the 18-19th centuries?

Why were compulsory schooling systems constituted earlier in France and Prussia than in the UK?

Why did schooling systems in France take a centralized structure, while in England it took a de-centralized structure?

Why was compulsory schooling introduced in Hong Kong in the 1970s?

Why was compulsory schooling introduced in Taiwan in the 1960s?

Why was compulsory schooling introduced in PRC in the 1980s?

Why has there been universal-compulsory, state-controlled, bureaucratic-structured schooling system instituted around the world since the second half of the 20th century?

Why was mother-tongue MOI imposed on the majority of HK secondary schools in 1998 (proposed in 1997)?

Why was non-mother-tongue MOI imposed on all Singapore secondary schools in 1991 (proposed in 1978)?

Why did HK and Singapore take a totally different approach towards their MOI policy?

Why have there been MOI controversies in most of the post-colonial schooling systems, such as HK, Singapore, Malaysia, India, South Africa, Canada, etc.

Why did HKSAR government initiate education reform -- Education for Life and Education through Life -- in 2000?

Why did Singapore government initiate education reform -- Education for Learning Societies in the 21 Century -- in 2000?

Why did Taiwan government initiate education reform --教育改革行動方案 -- in 1998?

Why did the US government initiate education reform --No Child Left Behind Act of 2001?

Why did the British government initiate education reform --The Learning Age -- in 1998?

Why did South-Korean government initiate education reform –Lifelong Education -- in 2002?

Why were there Lifelong-learning education reforms in all these countries at the turn the millennium?

Are the any similarities and differences among the 21st century Education Reforms in all these countries? Why?

Why did discussions about setting up of General Teaching Council (GTC) emerge at the end of the 19th century in the UK?

Why was GTC set up in Scotland in 1965? And why was GTC set up in England 60 years later in 2005?

Why is there no GTC in HK after 25 years since its initiation by the Visiting Panel in 1982?

Why is there no policy discussion about setting up of GTC in PRC even though teachers have been awarded the status of professional ( 專業人員 ) in the PRC Teacher Act ( 中華人民共和國教師法 ) in 1993

Why is there no policy discussion about setting up of professional council of any profession in PRC?

Statement of the Questions

Explaining

Big Structures

Large Processes

Great Communities

Huge Events

Legacies of the Grand Masters: Marx, Durkheim, and Weber

Comprehending Changes in Big Structures, Large Process in the nineteenth century Europe with Big Comparisons: Charles Tilly at the beginning of his book Big Structure, Large Process, Hugh Comparison underlines


Charles Tilly underlines …"Nineteenth-century Europe's great shift in organization set the

frame for this book in two complementary ways. First, those shifts formed the context in which our current standard ideas for the analysis of big social structures, large social processes, and huge comparisons among social experiences crystallized. Second, they marked critical moments in changes that are continuing on a world scale today. …We must look at them comparatively over substantial blocks of space and time, in order to see whence we have come, where we are going, and what alternatives to our present condition exist." (Tilly, 1984, Pp. 10-11)


Legacy of the Grand masters Emile Durkheim’s theory of industrialism Karl Marx’s historical materialism Max Weber’s theory of Occidental rationalism

1864-19201818-1883 1858-1920

Emile Durkheim’s Theory of Industrialism

Durkhiem’s orientation to history: To Durkheim, historical processes are part of the “social facts” that take the forms of externals constraints exerting over individuals and independent manifestation over the society as a whole. (Durkhiem, 1982, p. 59)

Durkheim has theorized the tremendous changes confronting him in the nineteenth century as a process of structural differentiation of industrialism, which entails specialization of production and complex division of labor. More specifically, he conceives these changes would bring the mechanical solidarity, which holds the preindustrial society together, to an end.

Emile Durkheim’s Theory of Industrialism

However, “Durkhiem seems undecided” in what comes next. “On the one hand he observes that in practice nothing seems to have taken its place; that the actual condition of industrial society is one of unfettered egoism, confusion, disintegration and chronic anomie. On the other hand he argues that in principle the division of labour does in itself generate a new basis for solidarity,” namely organic solidarity. (Abrams, 1982, P. 26)

Karl Marx’s Historical Materialism

Marx’s orientation to history: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please, they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past." (Marx, 1962, P. 252; Quoted in Abrams, 1982, P. 34)

The materialist conception of history: "The whole of what is called world history is nothing but the creation of

man by human labour." (Marx,; Quoted in Abrams, 1982, P. 35) “The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the

production of means to support human life - and the basis of all social exchange of things produced - is the basis of all structure." (Engels, 1962; Quoted in Abrams, 1982, P. 35)


The basic components of historical materialism (Cohen, 1978; Wright, Levine and Sober, 1992) The Primary Thesis on the relationship between force of production and

relation of production of a society The Base/Superstructure Thesis on the relationship between the economic

structure of a society and its legal and political structures and forms of consciousness.

Analytical Marxists' reconstructing the Base/Superstructure Thesis: (Wright Levine and Sober, 1992) Structural determinism: Inclusive historical materialism Functional explanation: Restrictive historical materialism


Analytical Marxists' reformulating the Primacy Thesis: (Wright, Levine and Sober, 1992) The compatibility thesis (1): use-compatibility or development-

compatibility The development thesis (2) The contradiction thesis (3) The capacity thesis (4) The transformation thesis (5) The optimality thesis (6)


Reorganizing the Six Theses into Four Components of the Theory of Change The necessary conditions for change, i.e. Thesis (1) The direction of change: Thesis (2) & (3) The means through which change is achieved: Thesis (4) Sufficient conditions for change: Thesis (5) & (6)

Reconstructing the Primary Thesis Strong historical materialism: Maintaining all four components, i.e. six

theses Weak historical materialism: Maintaining only theses (1) to (4) only Quasi-historical materialism: Maintaining only (1), (2) & (3).


Analytical Marxist’s Typology of Historical Materialism

Base/Superstructure Thesis

Inclusive Restricted

Primacy

Thesis

Strong

Weak

Quasi


Two methodological orientation of Marx's historical materialism Orthodox Marxism conceives historical materialism as

scientific method discovering universal law of social change Western and analytical Marxism conceives the development

of capitalism in selective economies in Europe in the nineteenth century as but an episode in the genealogy of capitalism in human history


Two definitive natures of capitalism: As perceived by orthodox Marxists, the nature of capitalism

is of the exploitative nature of class structure, which will subsequent leads to inevitable class struggle and class revolution.

As perceived by humanist Marxians, the nature of capitalism is it its alienating imperatives on human existence, which demands liberation subsequently transformation into autonomous and meaningful lifeworld

Max Weber's Theory of Occidental Rationalism

Weber's conception of historical and social realities and cultural science: Paradox between finite human minds and infinite realities "Life confronts us in immediate concrete situations, it

presents an infinite multiplicity of successively and coexistingly emerging and disappearing events, both 'within' and 'outside' ourselves. The absolute infinitude of this multiplicity is seen to remain undiminished even when our attention is a single 'object', for instance, a concrete act of exchange, as soon as we seriously attempt an exhaustive description of all the individual components of this 'individual phenomenon', to say nothing of explaining it causally." (Weber, 1949, P.72).


Weber's conception of historical and social realities and cultural science: … "All the analysis of infinite reality which the finite human

mind can conduct rest on the tacit assumption that only a finite portion of this reality constitutes the object of scientific investigation, and that only it is 'important' in the sense of being worthy of being known." (Weber, 1949, P. 72)


Weber's conception of historical and social realities and cultural science: … "We have designated as 'cultural sciences' those disciplines

which analyze the phenomena of life in terms of their cultural significance. …The significance of cultural events presupposes a value-orientation towards these events. The concept of culture is a value-concept. Empirical reality becomes 'culture' to us because and insofar as we relate it to value ideas." (Weber, 1949, P. 76) "Culture is finite segment of the meaningless infinity of the world process, a segment on which human beings confer meaning and significance." (Weber, 1949, P. 81)


Weber's materialistic-spiritualistic approach to history and culture: In the concluding sentence of his famous empirical study The Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism. Weber writes


Weber's materialistic-spiritualistic approach to history and culture: In the concluding sentence of his famous empirical study The Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism. Weber writes

"It is, of course, not my aim to substitute for one-sided materialistic an equally one-sided spiritualistic causal interpretation of culture and of history. Each is equally possible, but each, if it does not serve as the preparation, but as the conclusion of an investigation, accomplishes equally little in the interest of historical truth." (Weber, 1958, P. 183)


Weber agrees with Marx that the definitive nature of their epoch (i.e. nineteenth-century Europe) is the rise of capitalism. However, Weber differs substantively from Marx in discerning the essence of capitalism. According to Randell Collins, one the prominent Weberian in the US, these essences are (Collins, 1980) Rational accounting and methodical enterprising and

production Calculability Predictability


Institutional components of rational capitalism Private appropriation of means of production and

entrepreneurial organization of capital Rational technology Free labor Unrestricted market Calculable law Public administration of bureaucratic state

Components of rationalized capitalism

Intermediate conditions

Background conditions

Ultimate conditions

Entrepreneurial organization of capital

Rationalized technology

Free labor

Unrestricted market

Calculable law

Methodical Non-dualistic economic ethic

Bureaucratic state

Citizenship

Literate administrators

Favorable Transportation & communication

Writing & record-keeping

Coinage

Centrally supplied weapons

Self-supplied, disciplined army

Greek civic cults

Judaic prophecy

Christian proselytization

Reformation sects

Church law & bureaucracy

Weber’s Causal Chain of the Rise of Capitalism

Contemporary Paradigm in Comparative-Historical Method in the Social Sciences

Vision and Method in Historical Sociology (1984) Marc Bloch Karl Polanyi S.N. Eisenstadt Reinhard Bendix Perry Anderson E.P. Thompson Barrington Moore Immanuel Wallerstein Charles Tilly


Theda Skocpol and Margaret Somers’s codification (1980)

Typology of comparison Parallel demonstration of theory Contrast of context Macro-causal analysis

Parallel Comparative

History

Macro-Analytical Comparative

History

Contrast-Oriented Comparative

History

bounded generalization

C C C

theme

C C

theory

C C C(a) Theory/theme

applied to each case(b) concern with explanation

(c) comparison across cases intrinsic

Triangle of Comparative History


Theda Skocpol and Margaret Somers’s codification (1980)

Typology of comparison Parallel demonstration of theory Contrast of context Macro-causal analysis

The Triangle of Comparative HistoryA Cycle of Transitions

3.Parallel

Comparative History

2.Macro-

Analytical Comparative

History

1.Contrast-Oriented

Comparative History

hypotheses developed into general theory

limits set to overly general theory

contrasts suggest testable hypotheses

Cycle of Transition


Charles Tilly’s Codification (1983) Levels of analysis in comparative-historical method

World-historical levelWorld-system levelMarcohistorical levelMicrohistorical level

Tilly advocates that the marcohistorical level should be the attainable and fruitful level for social scientists to work on (Tilly 1984, P. 64)

1929-2008


Charles Tilly’s Codification (1983)… Tilly’s typology of Comparative-historical studies

Individualizing comparisonUniversalizing comparisonVariation-finding comparisonEncompassing comparison

(Tilly, 1984, p. 81)

(No. of cases)

(No. of conceptual properties)

(Tilly, 1984, p. 81)

(No. of cases)

(No. of conceptual properties)

MOI policy in HKSAR

MOI policy in British colonies

in south Asia

MOI policy in all

Post-colonial societies

Language policy in HKSAR

Legitimationcrisis

in HKSAR

Legitimationcrisis in

competition states


Charles Tilly’s Codification (1983)… Tilly’s typology of Comparative-historical studies

Individualizing comparisonUniversalizing comparisonVariation-finding comparisonEncompassing comparison

Ontological and epistemological assumptions on marcohistorical comparison


James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer’s codification (2003)

Mahoney and Rueschemeyer characterize “comparative historical analysis as defined by three emphases – a concern with causal analysis, the exploration of temporal processes, and the use systematic and contextualized comparison typically limited to a small number of cases.” (Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, 2003, p. 14)

Lecture 2The Theoretical Foundations of

Comparative-Historical Method in the Social Sciences

ENDEND

why was there revolution in 1911 in china?

Documents