Disillusioned polisci professor at Fudan believes what he studies and teaches to be a "self-indulgent fantasy" that may be superfluous to human knowledge.
I completely agree and this criticism should extend to academia in general. Despite my love of learning, I'm glad I never entered academia and acquired practical life experiences instead. As I'm planning to start a PhD in the next few years, my goals and perspective are much more realistic now and the approach advocated by this article provides the only meaningful option. I was pleasantly surprised to encounter someone from academia who still knows how to keep it 'real.'
Thanks for the translation of this very interesting text. A lot to agree with.
On the Balzac quote, I was also intrigued as to the original when I read White Deer Plain in a French translation. The original I think is not what you quote from the avant-propos but a passage from Petites misères de la vie conjugale: "le roman est l’histoire privée des nations". The literal translation to English would be "The novel is the private history of nations".
The Chinese title of the work seems to be 夫妻生活的烦恼, which is included in the 23rd volume of the complete works of Balzac in Chinese published by People's Press. The Chinese translation (https://www.tadu.com/book/400626/24309174/) reads “小说是民族的野史”. I can't check if that's also what the Chinese edition of White Deer Plain quotes, but that should be it.
the state funds academia in most places and the state, no matter how free, is unlikely to support ideas that don’t help it self perpetuate. thus the political sciences always serve as a distorted mirror and decorative art. those who go into social sciences with the aim of changing society are surely likely to be disappointed.
Brilliant article by Prof. Liu. Very Chinese, encompassing quotation style (including fetish for Western learning which is best). Western scholars wouldn't be that humble. They would rather murder their critics: No regrets! (as a rule, NEVER regret, retreat, or surrender our theories, which are true). Thanks for sharing, Frans! T
I think professor is not critical to social sciences in general and political science in particular by looking the current state of affairs of the discipline/stream, but rather asking to back to the basics. I can say political science in India, which is nothing but a prepartfor the government job. We don't have a even a average professor in political science in India. 70 % teaching and students positions are reserved for some communities, but we are not able to produce a single scholar in this field. So, I can't say much about its relevance in my country. But, I want to know about what's your thoughts on International relations and foreign affairs studies.
This reminds me how into the 1980s the Chinese Communist Party absolutely hated the social sciences. I'd guess it has something to do with the Party wanting to monopolize the guidelines/theology?/thinking of how society should operate. If you don't have that ambition, what is the point of being totalitarian? The Party eased off for tactical reasons starting in the 1980s with reform and opening and some social scientists of the previous generation such as Fei Xiaotong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fei_Xiaotong re-emerged. Article One of the PRC Constitution guarantees the leadership of the Communist Party and forbids opposition to socialism (of course as defined by the Party).
Under General Secretary Xi Jinping, diversity in thought has been less appreciated and people are increasingly encouraged to appreciate Xi Jinping Thought. He has published oceans of books of Xi Jinping Thought. Not back to the past actually, except as a kind of echo -- the Cultural Revolution was probably the time Xi as a young man he formed some of his views on society.
The social sciences will become stronger or weaker according to how people in society find them useful. Some of that will be popular interest and some government funding decisions which will to some degree reflect public views and to some extent the ideology of the party in power.
Social scientists very often criticize the government and existing social structures and theories --- just as researchers in other fields criticize the old and try to make new theories and practices. So they tend to skew left. Not just in China, but in the USA too officials and politicians find social scientists troublesome. Always criticizing government policy, always looking for evidence that policy is not working.
There are also social scientists at right wing institutions such as the Heritage Foundation heritage.org -- their Project 2025 published last year available online https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf seems to have been taken onboard by the Trump Administration as a policy guide even though then candidate Trump disavowed any connection to it. How to make good policy? Data from many of the social sciences are integrated to help policy makers decide. Helping them as Deng Xiaoping used to say, "feeling for the rocks as they cross the river"
The social sciences are not as neat as math and physical sciences. Some people working in the social sciences are not careful about analyzing their data and extrapolate from very small and unrepresentative data. Some people working in math and the hard sciences do not appreciate the social sciences since they deal with much fuzzier problems. Each generation looks for a different understanding of history and society according to the problems that society faces in a particular era.
So I don't find his arguments persuasive. As he says, wide reading in literature is enlightening. Not an argument against the social sciences though. Nothing new about them. Some people in the USA say such things too.
So much of what is done by governments is unethical. Bullying is endemic. Might is right. I hope that we never lose the ability to work out what is right and what is wrong. That is the thread in the social sciences that justifies the work.
As an engneer who in his later years has ventured into social science and philosophy, I believe Prof Liu makes a very good case for a return to basics and for every publication ask "What is its purpose?" and "how can I assert that it meets this purose?". The article deserves to be widely read, and hopefully it will contribute to improving the "cost-effectiveness" of our intellectual work.
I completely agree and this criticism should extend to academia in general. Despite my love of learning, I'm glad I never entered academia and acquired practical life experiences instead. As I'm planning to start a PhD in the next few years, my goals and perspective are much more realistic now and the approach advocated by this article provides the only meaningful option. I was pleasantly surprised to encounter someone from academia who still knows how to keep it 'real.'
Thanks for the translation of this very interesting text. A lot to agree with.
On the Balzac quote, I was also intrigued as to the original when I read White Deer Plain in a French translation. The original I think is not what you quote from the avant-propos but a passage from Petites misères de la vie conjugale: "le roman est l’histoire privée des nations". The literal translation to English would be "The novel is the private history of nations".
The Chinese title of the work seems to be 夫妻生活的烦恼, which is included in the 23rd volume of the complete works of Balzac in Chinese published by People's Press. The Chinese translation (https://www.tadu.com/book/400626/24309174/) reads “小说是民族的野史”. I can't check if that's also what the Chinese edition of White Deer Plain quotes, but that should be it.
Dr. Pattberg was here. Couldn't agree more.
the state funds academia in most places and the state, no matter how free, is unlikely to support ideas that don’t help it self perpetuate. thus the political sciences always serve as a distorted mirror and decorative art. those who go into social sciences with the aim of changing society are surely likely to be disappointed.
Just a quick further comment: This article brings to mind the fable of the Kings New Clothes.
Brilliant article by Prof. Liu. Very Chinese, encompassing quotation style (including fetish for Western learning which is best). Western scholars wouldn't be that humble. They would rather murder their critics: No regrets! (as a rule, NEVER regret, retreat, or surrender our theories, which are true). Thanks for sharing, Frans! T
I think professor is not critical to social sciences in general and political science in particular by looking the current state of affairs of the discipline/stream, but rather asking to back to the basics. I can say political science in India, which is nothing but a prepartfor the government job. We don't have a even a average professor in political science in India. 70 % teaching and students positions are reserved for some communities, but we are not able to produce a single scholar in this field. So, I can't say much about its relevance in my country. But, I want to know about what's your thoughts on International relations and foreign affairs studies.
This reminds me how into the 1980s the Chinese Communist Party absolutely hated the social sciences. I'd guess it has something to do with the Party wanting to monopolize the guidelines/theology?/thinking of how society should operate. If you don't have that ambition, what is the point of being totalitarian? The Party eased off for tactical reasons starting in the 1980s with reform and opening and some social scientists of the previous generation such as Fei Xiaotong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fei_Xiaotong re-emerged. Article One of the PRC Constitution guarantees the leadership of the Communist Party and forbids opposition to socialism (of course as defined by the Party).
Under General Secretary Xi Jinping, diversity in thought has been less appreciated and people are increasingly encouraged to appreciate Xi Jinping Thought. He has published oceans of books of Xi Jinping Thought. Not back to the past actually, except as a kind of echo -- the Cultural Revolution was probably the time Xi as a young man he formed some of his views on society.
The social sciences will become stronger or weaker according to how people in society find them useful. Some of that will be popular interest and some government funding decisions which will to some degree reflect public views and to some extent the ideology of the party in power.
Social scientists very often criticize the government and existing social structures and theories --- just as researchers in other fields criticize the old and try to make new theories and practices. So they tend to skew left. Not just in China, but in the USA too officials and politicians find social scientists troublesome. Always criticizing government policy, always looking for evidence that policy is not working.
There are also social scientists at right wing institutions such as the Heritage Foundation heritage.org -- their Project 2025 published last year available online https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf seems to have been taken onboard by the Trump Administration as a policy guide even though then candidate Trump disavowed any connection to it. How to make good policy? Data from many of the social sciences are integrated to help policy makers decide. Helping them as Deng Xiaoping used to say, "feeling for the rocks as they cross the river"
The social sciences are not as neat as math and physical sciences. Some people working in the social sciences are not careful about analyzing their data and extrapolate from very small and unrepresentative data. Some people working in math and the hard sciences do not appreciate the social sciences since they deal with much fuzzier problems. Each generation looks for a different understanding of history and society according to the problems that society faces in a particular era.
So I don't find his arguments persuasive. As he says, wide reading in literature is enlightening. Not an argument against the social sciences though. Nothing new about them. Some people in the USA say such things too.
So much of what is done by governments is unethical. Bullying is endemic. Might is right. I hope that we never lose the ability to work out what is right and what is wrong. That is the thread in the social sciences that justifies the work.
As an engneer who in his later years has ventured into social science and philosophy, I believe Prof Liu makes a very good case for a return to basics and for every publication ask "What is its purpose?" and "how can I assert that it meets this purose?". The article deserves to be widely read, and hopefully it will contribute to improving the "cost-effectiveness" of our intellectual work.