Clipping Board » Medical Myths ─ The truth about healthcare is often different from what you intuitively think.
[By Deng Wenchu]
[Abstract] The debate between Chinese and Western medicine since the New Culture Movement is essentially a struggle for discursive power. Westernized intellectuals used the hegemonic discourse of scientism to demonize Chinese medicine, forcing Chinese medicine to adopt Western medical terminology in self-defense, leading to the "loss of voice" in Chinese medicine. Faced with the dominant Western discourse, Chinese medicine must learn the "wisdom of isolation" to survive.
Since the opening of China's maritime borders in the late Qing Dynasty 160 years ago, Chinese society has been caught in the turbulence of Sino-Western conflicts and the transition between the old and the new. Should we Westernize or remain local? Should we be radical or conservative? Should we adhere to tradition or move toward modernity? These debates are merely oscillations squeezed between the cracks of Chinese and Western influences. If we were to find a weather vane for such oscillations, I believe there are two natural indicators: "reading the classics" — a signal of Eastern winds prevailing over Western winds; and "criticizing Chinese medicine" — a sign of Western winds prevailing over Eastern winds.
The topic of reading the classics is beyond the scope of this article and will not be discussed. However, "criticizing Chinese medicine" is an extremely interesting phenomenon. While the academic community generally categorizes it within the realm of cultural conflict and analyzes it from the perspective of intellectual history, this article aims to provide a preliminary analysis of the discursive conflict from the angle of cross-cultural dialogue.
1. "Criticizing Chinese Medicine" Became a Post-Meal Activity for Westernizers
In the book *Impressions of Ding Wenjiang*, there is a couplet by the geologist Ding Wenjiang, who styled himself as "a capable minister in times of peace and a useless person in times of chaos," written to celebrate Gao Mengdan's birthday:
"Climbing mountains, eating meat, and criticizing Chinese medicine — the heart remains youthful over the years;
Writing, drinking, and speaking official language — knowing is hard, and doing is even harder."
Naturally, this is a humorous couplet and should not be interpreted as a historical document.However, several things mentioned therein are quite intriguing. For instance, "speaking official language" is a colloquial term advocating the National Language Movement; "knowing is difficult, and doing is also difficult" refers to the conflict between Hu Shi and the Kuomintang over Sun Yat-sen's views on knowledge and action; "criticizing traditional Chinese medicine" was a post-meal activity among Westernized intellectuals since the May Fourth Movement, with Ding Wenjiang being a key figure, alongside Chen Duxiu, Yu Yunxiu, Fu Sinian, and other scholars.
Fu Sinian, with his pure nature, did not hide his attitude towards traditional Chinese medicine. Wu Xiangxiang, in his "Biographies of One Hundred Figures of the Republic of China," said Fu was "the first to thoroughly criticize the theory of 'national medicine' in the past sixty years," which, though somewhat exaggerated, indeed highlights Fu's most dramatic performance in criticizing traditional Chinese medicine. Liang Shiqiu's "A Few Things About Mr. Hu Shi" records an amusing anecdote about Fu, saying he would "turn red in the face and neck" upon seeing Kong Geng. Once, at a National Political Council meeting, they almost came to blows over a heated argument. Luo Jialun, a fellow leader of the May Fourth Movement, although possibly biased in favor of his friend, vividly recounts the incident as follows:
Once, over the issue of traditional Chinese medicine, Fu Sinian opposed Kong Geng's proposal, leading to a fierce debate. Naturally, Kong Geng couldn't out-argue Fu Sinian, so he resorted to cursing Fu from his seat, using many coarse words. Fu Sinian, also angered, said: "You insult me; after the meeting, I will duel with you."
"Criticizing traditional Chinese medicine" was merely a superficial phenomenon, behind which lay the Westernized intellectuals' vehement rejection of traditional Chinese medicine. This attitude sparked several major debates between Chinese and Western medicine since the New Culture Movement, influencing government policy-making and social stability.
The crisis of traditional Chinese medicine spanned the entire Republican era. During this period, the academic discussion between Chinese and Western medicine spilled over from the medical community into the realm of public discourse, further affecting the political sphere and the entire Republican society. Issues of livelihood and academic theory intertwined, with figures from academia and politics stirring each other, turning a discussion that could have remained academic into a widespread controversy. The debate between Chinese and Western medicine saw four major occurrences with significant impact: the 1920 debate between Yu Yunxiu and Du Yaquan; the 1929 debate over the abolition of traditional Chinese medicine; the 1934 debate on the "so-called national medicine issue" in "Ta Kung Pao" and "Independent Review"; and the 1941 dispute between Fu Sinian and Kong Geng at the National Government's Political Council.
The 1920 debate originated from Yu Yunxiu's article "The First Step in Scientific Research on Domestic Drugs" in "Xueyi" Volume 2, Issue 4. This article was interpreted by Du Yaquan, editor of "Eastern Miscellany," as showing contempt and disdain for traditional Chinese medicine. Du Yaquan promptly responded with an article in "Xueyi," "Research Methods of Chinese Medicine"; Yu Yunxiu's "Discussion on Ling Shu" also faced criticism from Du Yaquan. This debate did not spread beyond the academic community, although figures like Zhang Taiyan and Wu Jianzhai privately discussed the issue of Chinese and Western medicine with both sides of the debate.
Around 1925, the debate over Chinese and Western medicine intensified, directly leading to the subsequent abolition of traditional Chinese medicine. In 1929, the Ministry of Education under the National Government converted traditional Chinese medicine schools into training institutes, and the Ministry of Health changed traditional Chinese medicine hospitals into clinics, prohibiting the use of Western instruments and medicines. This event sparked a nationwide debate. On December 1, 1929, over four hundred representatives from national medical groups convened in Shanghai, passing a resolution to petition the National Government. The abolition of traditional Chinese medicine, affecting the livelihoods of tens of thousands, stirred both the medical and political communities, with the case reaching National Government Chairman Chiang Kai-shek, ultimately resulting in the issuance and subsequent cancellation of a resolution. The clamor of opinions overshadowed academic discussions, and the struggle for survival rights drowned out the fight for discourse rights.The third debate was sparked by Fu Sinian's article "The So-called National Medicine Issue" published in the Ta Kung Pao on March 5, 1934, which led to a debate lasting over half a year. The debate primarily took place in the Ta Kung Pao and the Independent Review. Participants included the Tianjin Chinese Medicine Association and scholars with a Western academic background. A series of articles were published in the Ta Kung Pao on August 13 and 18, 1934, and in issues 115, 118, 120, and 121 of the Independent Review. However, the controversy did not extend to the political sphere or touch the nerves of the lower strata of society.
The drama of "criticizing Chinese medicine," with Fu Sinian as the main protagonist, was not yet over. Six years later, the academic dispute finally spilled over into the political arena. In 1941, at the National Government's Political Participation Conference (the first meeting of the second session), a proposal by Hubei councilor Kong Geng titled "Adjusting the Health Administration Structure, Giving Equal Importance to Chinese and Western Medicine, Gradually Seeking Integration to Enhance National Health for the Benefit of the War Effort" sparked a conflict between Fu and Kong. During subsequent meetings, Kong Geng continued to propose a series of similar motions, which were seconded by Sichuan councilor Cao Shubao. Thus, the Fu-Kong conflict evolved from an academic issue into a political one, with debates in the political arena devolving into personal insults.
The conflict between Chinese and Western medicine is naturally a part of the broader conflict between China and the West since the late Qing dynasty. It represents one aspect of the interaction, contention, and dialogue between two systems and cultural trends—Chinese and Western learning, Chinese and Western art, etc. In this intersection of different Chinese and Western perspectives, Chinese medicine, as a part of national learning, has always been passive, struggling for a voice after being deprived of its discourse. The analysis of this struggle for discourse remains relevant even today.
### II. Chinese Medicine under the Westernized Perspective: Demonization
The 1920 debate between Yu and Du was relatively confined to academic discussions. Yu Yunxiu's provocative article "The First Step in the Scientific Study of Domestic Drugs" asserted that Chinese medicine was based on the philosophical fantasy of yin-yang and the five elements, thus being "unscientific." However, he at least acknowledged the practical efficacy of Chinese medicine, albeit separating this efficacy from its theoretical foundations and attributing it to the realm of pharmacology. Yu proposed separating theory from fact, thereby discarding Chinese medical theory and studying its pharmacology. He advocated for the analysis and study of Chinese medical prescriptions using scientific experimental pharmacological methods. In Yu's narrative, the yin-yang and five elements theory of Chinese medicine was treated with an attitude of "acknowledging but not discussing," while the pharmacological effects of Chinese medicine, falling within the scope of scientific research, were approached with a scientific attitude.
In fact, despite his fierce criticism of Chinese medicine, Yu Yunxiu always approached it with a research-oriented attitude. In 1907, while in Japan, Yu studied under the master of Chinese learning, Zhang Taiyan, and maintained a lifelong disciple relationship with him. During the Chinese-Western medicine debates, he frequently corresponded with Zhang Taiyan to discuss these issues. Thus, the debate between Chinese and Western medicine remained an academic one. However, by 1929, the issue had become more complex. To the Westernization faction advocating for the abolition of Chinese medicine, Chinese medicine, whether in theory or practice, could not be a subject of scientific research but was instead the antithesis of science. In other words, in the discourse of the Westernization faction, Chinese medicine had been "othered," or in postmodern terms, "demonized."Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) was equated with superstition and witchcraft, and practitioners were seen as "those who exploit spiritual beliefs for profit." The debate between TCM and Western medicine became a major obstacle to progress and reform. A statement by Yu Yan can be seen as a typical example of this discursive hegemony:
"Opposing the abolition of TCM is to reject the scientification of medicine, to deny the government's role in public health administration, to resist the internationalization of China's medical and health practices, and to passively accept cultural invasion without striving for revitalization. Such actions and desires will only lead to stubbornly clinging to the absurd and baseless metaphysics of a bygone era, reveling in outdated national essence..."
The generalization of academic debates into ideological conflicts, and the treatment of science as a religious belief, reveal that scientism had already become the dominant discourse in that historical context. Interestingly, even Fu Sinian, who was rigorously trained in experimental psychology and physiology, could not escape the dogmatism and hegemony of scientism when refuting TCM. In his 1934 article "The So-Called National Medicine Issue," Fu escalated the academic debate between Chinese and Western medicine into an outburst of "the inherent flaws of the Chinese people." The opening of his article is highly representative of the Westernized view of TCM:
"What is most shameful, hateful, and disheartening in China today is not banditry or foreign aggression, but the so-called debate between Western medicine and Chinese medicine. Banditry, though serious, can be resolved if there is effective governance. Japan's aggression, though formidable, can be countered if we are determined, prepared, and exert great effort while skillfully leveraging the situation. However, the debate between Chinese and Western medicine truly exposes the worst of the Chinese people's inherent flaws! To still be arguing about Chinese and Western medicine today makes it seem as if the Chinese are a different species of humanity. After forty years of modern education, we remain stuck in this medieval stage, making the future seem hopeless!"
If we contextualize Fu Sinian's narrative on TCM within the discourse of the Westernization faction, we can understand the image of TCM in Fu's text. TCM is equated with the Middle Ages (which, in Western discourse, symbolizes darkness, superstition, and witchcraft); it is equated with the inherent flaws of the Chinese people (which, in the Westernization faction's discourse, include ignorance, laziness, filth, conservatism, and degeneracy); TCM is seen as China's "national essence" (which, in the discourse of Hu Shi and other cultural figures, is associated with foot-binding, the eight-legged essay, opium, eunuchs, and concubines); TCM is even portrayed as more heinous than national crises or banditry. By piling accusations onto TCM, Fu Sinian sought to delegitimize TCM on moral grounds. At the same time, he employed demonization tactics, categorizing TCM alongside "divination and astrology," and suggested that the government should place TCM under the jurisdiction of the "Ministry of Internal Affairs' Bureau of Rites and Customs" before abolishing it. Thus, in the discourse of the Westernization faction, TCM was deemed unworthy of being considered within the realm of "science." Science was endowed with moral superiority, thereby transforming into "scientism."
It cannot be said that Fu Sinian's ideological critique of TCM was entirely devoid of academic reasoning, but under the lens of scientism, all academic discussions were inevitably distorted. In Fu's refutation of TCM, the actual efficacy of TCM was an undeniable fact. To address this, Fu Sinian deconstructed the semantics of the term "efficacy," subsuming it under the Western medical concept of "cure," which he framed as a "statistical term": "The term 'cure' is not simple or easy to define. Hospitals cannot report on treatment outcomes without detailed analysis." Because "cure" requires statistical analysis, and TCM lacks such "scientific" methods to prove its efficacy, Fu argued that TCM's so-called "efficacy" was also unreliable. In this way, Fu Sinian dissolved a hard technical issue into discursive deconstruction, thereby undermining TCM's sole basis for legitimacy at the discursive level rather than the technical level.Although Hu Shi did not directly intervene in this debate, he expressed his views on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the preface he wrote for *Man and Medicine* in 1935. From a historical perspective on the divergence between Chinese and Western cultures, he pointed out that Chinese culture lagged behind Western civilization by two thousand years, and TCM was still in the "age of witchcraft" compared to Western culture: "Looking back at our traditional medicine based on yin-yang and the five elements, what position can it occupy in the history of scientific medicine?" {10} In Hu Shi's view, TCM was destined to be grouped with "parallel prose, regulated verse, the eight-legged essay, and meditation-based Neo-Confucianism," forever confined to the darkness of "non-science," with no hope of redemption.
### III. Facing Westernization: The "Aphasia" of Traditional Chinese Medicine
Science rejects TCM, but TCM cannot reject science. In the debate between Chinese and Western medicine, the two sides were unequal from the very beginning.
In the 1920 debate between Yu Yunxiu and Du Yaquan, Du Yaquan was the defender. Du had studied TCM under his father and brothers in his youth and later taught himself Western medicine, thus possessing a knowledge base that integrated both Chinese and Western medical traditions. In the debate, Du did not agree with Yu's outright rejection of TCM, but he acknowledged that attributing everything to yin-yang and the five elements was the work of quack doctors. He argued that TCM, with its thousands of years of experience, excelled in intuitive understanding, while science, being mechanistic, could not grasp the subtleties of the mind. He believed that, apart from the material aspects, the sciences of the mind and society did not rely solely on mechanical experimentation.
Du's view of science, which confined its scope to the material while separating the spiritual and social, foreshadowed the later Science-Metaphysics Debate. It also indicated that, during Du's time, traditional Chinese learning and TCM still held legitimate discursive authority. Nevertheless, Du adopted a strategy of explaining TCM principles using scientific discourse. He argued that TCM explained diseases in terms of "imbalances of yin-yang and qi-blood," which, in Western medical terms, could be understood as "circulatory disorders." All diseases, according to Du, were manifestations of circulatory disorders. He interpreted TCM's concept of "qi-blood" by equating "blood" with the Western concept of "blood" and "qi" with "natural forces" in nature and "nervous functions" in human physiology. The TCM principle that "qi moves blood, and blood contains qi" was, in Du's view, analogous to the interaction between the circulatory and nervous systems in Western medicine. {11} This approach of framing TCM principles within Western medical terminology set the basic format for subsequent debates between Chinese and Western medicine and had a profound influence.
During the 1934 debate on Chinese and Western medicine initiated by Fu Sinian, the defender Liu Xuejun (a scholar trained in experimental phonetics) also used Western medical terminology to explain TCM principles. For example, when explaining TCM's theory of pulse diagnosis, he employed knowledge from medical physiology. Interestingly, in his rebuttal to Fu Sinian, Liu also employed a semantic strategy of "separating name from reality," dissolving a hard scientific problem into a battle of discourse:
From the above facts, it is clear that TCM treats diseases differently from Western medicine, and thus it uses different terminology. Critics of TCM need not focus on its use of fantastical or metaphorical terms. It does not matter if TCM misidentifies the internal structures of the human body. For example, if TCM calls a deer a horse, it is fine as long as it consistently calls a deer a horse. The only concern is inconsistency. Since TCM's references are entirely fixed, they do not hinder medical practice.Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has its own theoretical framework and historical lineage. The theories of Yin-Yang and the Five Elements can be traced back to the "Book of Documents" and the "Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon" and "Su Wen." The origins of pharmacology can be found in the works of the legendary Shennong and historical figures like Sun Simiao and Li Shizhen. Clinical trials can be traced back to Bian Que during the Three Kingdoms period... However, it is interesting to note that when TCM seeks justification for its existence, it "forgets" its own discourse and instead laboriously borrows from another discourse system to prove its legitimacy. Why?
To address this question, we can take the example of Chen Zedong's article from the Tianjin TCM Association.
After Fu Sinian's article was published in the "Ta Kung Pao," it immediately drew dissatisfaction from the Tianjin TCM Association. On August 18, Chen Zedong, commissioned by the Tianjin TCM Association, wrote a rebuttal article titled "On Fu Mengzhen's Insult to National Medicine" and submitted it to the "Ta Kung Pao," but it was rejected. He then submitted it to the "Independent Review," but Hu Shi, the editor at the time, also refused to publish it, stating: "Articles like Chen Zedong's from the Tianjin TCM Association, which discuss the Five Elements, Six Qi, Yin-Yang, and the pinnacle of philosophy, will not be published."
If you recall Wu Zhihui's New Culture Movement slogan, "Throw the thread-bound books into the latrine," and if you remember Chen Duxiu's assertion that science is the absolute truth, you will understand that in the scientific discourse context formed since the May Fourth Movement, Chinese learning is equated with outdated knowledge, and national essence is seen as garbage. The gap between the old and the new is the gap between progress and regression, science and superstition. So-called Chinese learning, national heritage, classics, and TCM are all categorized as old, regressive, superstitious, and to be discarded. Under the discourse hegemony established during the May Fourth era, anything with the prefix "Chinese" lost its legitimacy. The only legitimate discourse was science.
In such a context, the only way to maintain one's survival was to surrender to the discourse of science and submit to its authority.
However, TCM has always been seeking a breakthrough.
In 1941, when the national crisis became the overriding issue and nationalist discourse became the mainstream, Kong Geng cleverly utilized this backdrop to shift the discourse on TCM's struggle for survival from academic discussion to nationalist discourse on national survival. The clamor of the conflict between Chinese and Western medicine thus overshadowed the discussions in the National Political Council, with academic debates fading and ideological disputes dominating the discourse field of cultural conflict.
Just by looking at the titles of the series of proposals Kong Geng submitted to the National Political Council, one can see how he infused nationalist discourse into the debate on TCM:
Proposal by Kong Geng at the Second Session of the National Government Political Council:
"Adjusting Health Administrative Institutions, Giving Equal Importance to Chinese and Western Medicine, Gradually Seeking Integration to Enhance National Health for the Benefit of the War Effort."
Proposal by Kong Geng at the Third Session of the Political Council:
"Requesting the Government to Establish a National New Drug Factory to Achieve Drug Self-Sufficiency and Strengthen National Economic Mobilization."
"Mobilizing National TCM to Establish a Central National Hospital, Setting Up TCM Clinics in Various Institutions to Protect the Health of Soldiers and Civilians."
During the sessions, Kong Geng's proposals received widespread support, as evidenced by Cao Shubao's endorsement of Kong's proposals. Similarly, Cao's TCM proposals were also filled with nationalist discourse:
"Coordinating Chinese and Western Medical Views, Establishing a Research Association to Improve Medicine and Protect Human Life."
"Requesting the Government to Establish TCM Schools to Demonstrate Equal Treatment in Chinese and Western Education, Valuing Human Life and Benefiting the War Effort."
For the first time, scientism encountered its opponent: nationalism. We can imagine how the battle for discourse hegemony would unfold. It is no wonder that Fu Sinian, deeply influenced by Western education, engaged in mutual insults with the elderly Kong Geng and even proposed a duel to debate the principles of Chinese and Western medicine.IV. The Self-Preservation of Traditional Chinese Medicine under the Hegemony of Discourse
As mentioned above, under the dominance of scientism, there can be no purely academic discussion. Similarly, under the mainstream discourse of nationalism, there can be no calm cultural dialogue. Scientism does not benefit the dissemination of science, and nationalism cannot save the fate of traditional Chinese medicine. So, under the hegemony of scientism, if we do not intend to isolate ourselves but rather engage in dialogue with Western medicine and science to survive, how should traditional Chinese medicine, as a national study, position itself?
From the perspective of cultural contact, the conflict between Chinese and Western medicine is indeed a conflict between different discourses. Chinese and Western medicine each have their own distinct academic theories, meaning they each possess their own unique symbolic systems. However, in the dialogue or conflict between these different discourse systems, to maintain the effectiveness of the dialogue, there must be a common foundation, which is the so-called "common knowledge" or shared knowledge structure. Since the Republic of China era, the only discourse that could serve as this shared knowledge structure has been the scientific discourse from the West. In other words, adopting the classification and terminology system of Western medicine is the only option for effective dialogue. However, this inevitably leads to traditional Chinese medicine losing its independent symbolic system and, consequently, its discourse power. The ultimate result is: without dialogue, traditional Chinese medicine faces the fate of self-destruction; with dialogue, it faces the fate of "losing its voice."
In fact, this paradox was already recognized by the master of Chinese studies, Zhang Taiyan, at that time. During the increasingly intense debate between Chinese and Western medicine around 1925, Zhang Taiyan always showed great concern but never participated in the disputes. Instead, he mediated the escalating conflicts and guided the direction of the debate through private discussions with the parties involved. He had his own views on cases such as the revival and abolition of traditional Chinese medicine.
Zhang Taiyan's attitude towards the conflict between Chinese and Western medicine, in the terminology of overseas sinology, was to adopt a "wisdom of separation." He consistently believed that traditional Chinese medicine should not be abolished, as it has its own long history and rich experience, but it also has its flaws. Chinese and Western medicine are two different cultural systems. It is ridiculous to label traditional Chinese medicine as "philosophical medicine," and it is even more ridiculous to discuss it in terms of the five elements and yin-yang. "I believe that today's traditional Chinese medicine should strive for self-reliance, not by engaging in petty arguments with Western medicine," Zhang pointed out. He emphasized that traditional Chinese medicine should not compete with Western medicine in rhetoric or hastily seek to affiliate with official academia by entering national universities. Instead, it should build its confidence through solid medical practice. Blind arrogance in traditional Chinese medicine, looking down on Western medicine, and Western medicine's attempt to abolish traditional Chinese medicine due to certain superstitious elements in its theory are both wrong. The self-reliance of traditional Chinese medicine lies in striving to achieve "treating diseases that Western medicine cannot," which is the way for traditional Chinese medicine to survive. Chinese and Western medicine should learn from each other's strengths to create a new medical system with Chinese characteristics.
In a conversation with Chen Cunren, Zhang Taiyan deconstructed the theoretical system of traditional Chinese medicine, separating the parts accused of superstition by Western medicine from its theoretical system. Through such self-reflection and self-awareness, he aimed to prove its basis for survival in practice, rebuild its theoretical system academically, redefine its terminology system, and reclaim its voice in discourse.
At the height of the debate between Chinese and Western medicine, Zhang Taiyan established the first modern Chinese medical college in Shanghai: the China Medical College, and was unanimously elected as its first president.In 1928 and 1929, the China Medical College initiated two national conferences on the compilation of traditional Chinese medicine textbooks, laying a scientific foundation for the revival of Chinese medicine in terms of talent cultivation and discipline construction.
A century has passed, and the conflict between Chinese and Western medicine has settled. Looking back at this grand cultural dialogue, one might feel a sense of detachment, as if watching a fire from across the river. Yet, when we reflect on the society we live in and the global village we inhabit, such discursive conflicts have never truly ended. Increasingly close cultural contacts force us into a state of "aphasia." Particularly, the pressure from mainstream culture on us, who are marginalized in a post-colonial context, compels us to abandon our own discursive systems and even our everyday language. Within the sphere of hegemonic discourse, we are forced to express our thoughts in a non-native language, enduring the pain of having our meanings forcibly distorted and fragmented, and the embarrassment of stuttering like a novice. Who among us has not experienced this, and who could ever forget it?
October 2003, Hangzhou
Notes:
{1} Luo Ergang: "Five Years at the Teacher's Door," Appendix p. 317, Sanlian Bookstore, 1998.
{2} Luo Jialun: "The Vigorous Fu Mengzhen," "Impressions of Fu Sinian," p. 13, Xuelin Publishing House, 1997.
{3} "Chairman Chiang's Defense of National Medicine," "Complete Diary of Hu Shi," Vol. 5, p. 596, Anhui Education Press, 2001.
{4} "Official Letter from the National Government Secretariat," December 23, 1929, see "Complete Diary of Hu Shi," Vol. 5, p. 597.
{5} Gao Like: "The Wisdom of Adaptation," p. 148, Zhejiang People's Publishing House, 1998.
{6} Zhang Taiyan: "Letter to Yu Yunxiu on the Spleen," "Letter to Yu Yunxiu," "Complete Works of Zhang Taiyan," Vol. 8, pp. 371, 471, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1994.
{7} See "Ta Kung Pao," March 17, 1929, Yu Yan's article, quoted from Zhang Ming, "Old Medicine, or Chinese Medicine?," "Reading," Issue 6, 2002.
{8} The definition of scientism by Weimos is: "The term 'scientism'... can be understood as a belief that only modern science and the scientific methods described by modern scientists are the sole means of obtaining knowledge applicable to any reality." See Guo Yingyi, "Scientism in Modern Chinese Thought," Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 1995, p. 16.
{9} Fu Sinian: "The So-called National Medicine Problem," "Independent Review," No. 115.
{10} Hu Shi: Preface to the Chinese translation of "Man and Medicine," see Hu Songping, "Preliminary Draft of the Chronological Biography of Mr. Hu Shi (4)," p. 1430.
{11} Gao Like: "The Wisdom of Adaptation," p. 149, Zhejiang People's Publishing House, 1998.
{12} Liu Xuejun: "My Views on Western Medicine and So-called National Medicine," "Independent Review," No. 121.
{13} Hu Shi: "Editor's Note," "Independent Review," No. 115.
{14} For the proposals by Kong Geng and Cao Shubao, see "Records of the National Political Participation Council," Chongqing Publishing House.
{15} Zhang Taiyan: "Preface to the Issue of Chinese Medicine," "Complete Works of Zhang Taiyan," Vol. 8, p. 348.
{16} Zhang Nianchi, Pan Wenkui: "Preface to the Medical Collection of Zhang Taiyan (8)," "Complete Works of Zhang Taiyan," Vol. 8, Preface p. 12, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1994.
"Silent" Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Discourse Analysis of the Sino-Western Medical Debate in the Republican Era
[Abstract] The debate between Chinese and Western medicine since the New Culture Movement is essentially a struggle for discursive power. Westernized intellectuals used the hegemonic discourse of scientism to demonize Chinese medicine, forcing Chinese medicine to adopt Western medical terminology in self-defense, leading to the "loss of voice" in Chinese medicine. Faced with the dominant Western discourse, Chinese medicine must learn the "wisdom of isolation" to survive.
Since the opening of China's maritime borders in the late Qing Dynasty 160 years ago, Chinese society has been caught in the turbulence of Sino-Western conflicts and the transition between the old and the new. Should we Westernize or remain local? Should we be radical or conservative? Should we adhere to tradition or move toward modernity? These debates are merely oscillations squeezed between the cracks of Chinese and Western influences. If we were to find a weather vane for such oscillations, I believe there are two natural indicators: "reading the classics" — a signal of Eastern winds prevailing over Western winds; and "criticizing Chinese medicine" — a sign of Western winds prevailing over Eastern winds.
The topic of reading the classics is beyond the scope of this article and will not be discussed. However, "criticizing Chinese medicine" is an extremely interesting phenomenon. While the academic community generally categorizes it within the realm of cultural conflict and analyzes it from the perspective of intellectual history, this article aims to provide a preliminary analysis of the discursive conflict from the angle of cross-cultural dialogue.
1. "Criticizing Chinese Medicine" Became a Post-Meal Activity for Westernizers
In the book *Impressions of Ding Wenjiang*, there is a couplet by the geologist Ding Wenjiang, who styled himself as "a capable minister in times of peace and a useless person in times of chaos," written to celebrate Gao Mengdan's birthday:
"Climbing mountains, eating meat, and criticizing Chinese medicine — the heart remains youthful over the years;
Writing, drinking, and speaking official language — knowing is hard, and doing is even harder."
Naturally, this is a humorous couplet and should not be interpreted as a historical document.However, several things mentioned therein are quite intriguing. For instance, "speaking official language" is a colloquial term advocating the National Language Movement; "knowing is difficult, and doing is also difficult" refers to the conflict between Hu Shi and the Kuomintang over Sun Yat-sen's views on knowledge and action; "criticizing traditional Chinese medicine" was a post-meal activity among Westernized intellectuals since the May Fourth Movement, with Ding Wenjiang being a key figure, alongside Chen Duxiu, Yu Yunxiu, Fu Sinian, and other scholars.
Fu Sinian, with his pure nature, did not hide his attitude towards traditional Chinese medicine. Wu Xiangxiang, in his "Biographies of One Hundred Figures of the Republic of China," said Fu was "the first to thoroughly criticize the theory of 'national medicine' in the past sixty years," which, though somewhat exaggerated, indeed highlights Fu's most dramatic performance in criticizing traditional Chinese medicine. Liang Shiqiu's "A Few Things About Mr. Hu Shi" records an amusing anecdote about Fu, saying he would "turn red in the face and neck" upon seeing Kong Geng. Once, at a National Political Council meeting, they almost came to blows over a heated argument. Luo Jialun, a fellow leader of the May Fourth Movement, although possibly biased in favor of his friend, vividly recounts the incident as follows:
Once, over the issue of traditional Chinese medicine, Fu Sinian opposed Kong Geng's proposal, leading to a fierce debate. Naturally, Kong Geng couldn't out-argue Fu Sinian, so he resorted to cursing Fu from his seat, using many coarse words. Fu Sinian, also angered, said: "You insult me; after the meeting, I will duel with you."
"Criticizing traditional Chinese medicine" was merely a superficial phenomenon, behind which lay the Westernized intellectuals' vehement rejection of traditional Chinese medicine. This attitude sparked several major debates between Chinese and Western medicine since the New Culture Movement, influencing government policy-making and social stability.
The crisis of traditional Chinese medicine spanned the entire Republican era. During this period, the academic discussion between Chinese and Western medicine spilled over from the medical community into the realm of public discourse, further affecting the political sphere and the entire Republican society. Issues of livelihood and academic theory intertwined, with figures from academia and politics stirring each other, turning a discussion that could have remained academic into a widespread controversy. The debate between Chinese and Western medicine saw four major occurrences with significant impact: the 1920 debate between Yu Yunxiu and Du Yaquan; the 1929 debate over the abolition of traditional Chinese medicine; the 1934 debate on the "so-called national medicine issue" in "Ta Kung Pao" and "Independent Review"; and the 1941 dispute between Fu Sinian and Kong Geng at the National Government's Political Council.
The 1920 debate originated from Yu Yunxiu's article "The First Step in Scientific Research on Domestic Drugs" in "Xueyi" Volume 2, Issue 4. This article was interpreted by Du Yaquan, editor of "Eastern Miscellany," as showing contempt and disdain for traditional Chinese medicine. Du Yaquan promptly responded with an article in "Xueyi," "Research Methods of Chinese Medicine"; Yu Yunxiu's "Discussion on Ling Shu" also faced criticism from Du Yaquan. This debate did not spread beyond the academic community, although figures like Zhang Taiyan and Wu Jianzhai privately discussed the issue of Chinese and Western medicine with both sides of the debate.
Around 1925, the debate over Chinese and Western medicine intensified, directly leading to the subsequent abolition of traditional Chinese medicine. In 1929, the Ministry of Education under the National Government converted traditional Chinese medicine schools into training institutes, and the Ministry of Health changed traditional Chinese medicine hospitals into clinics, prohibiting the use of Western instruments and medicines. This event sparked a nationwide debate. On December 1, 1929, over four hundred representatives from national medical groups convened in Shanghai, passing a resolution to petition the National Government. The abolition of traditional Chinese medicine, affecting the livelihoods of tens of thousands, stirred both the medical and political communities, with the case reaching National Government Chairman Chiang Kai-shek, ultimately resulting in the issuance and subsequent cancellation of a resolution. The clamor of opinions overshadowed academic discussions, and the struggle for survival rights drowned out the fight for discourse rights.The third debate was sparked by Fu Sinian's article "The So-called National Medicine Issue" published in the Ta Kung Pao on March 5, 1934, which led to a debate lasting over half a year. The debate primarily took place in the Ta Kung Pao and the Independent Review. Participants included the Tianjin Chinese Medicine Association and scholars with a Western academic background. A series of articles were published in the Ta Kung Pao on August 13 and 18, 1934, and in issues 115, 118, 120, and 121 of the Independent Review. However, the controversy did not extend to the political sphere or touch the nerves of the lower strata of society.
The drama of "criticizing Chinese medicine," with Fu Sinian as the main protagonist, was not yet over. Six years later, the academic dispute finally spilled over into the political arena. In 1941, at the National Government's Political Participation Conference (the first meeting of the second session), a proposal by Hubei councilor Kong Geng titled "Adjusting the Health Administration Structure, Giving Equal Importance to Chinese and Western Medicine, Gradually Seeking Integration to Enhance National Health for the Benefit of the War Effort" sparked a conflict between Fu and Kong. During subsequent meetings, Kong Geng continued to propose a series of similar motions, which were seconded by Sichuan councilor Cao Shubao. Thus, the Fu-Kong conflict evolved from an academic issue into a political one, with debates in the political arena devolving into personal insults.
The conflict between Chinese and Western medicine is naturally a part of the broader conflict between China and the West since the late Qing dynasty. It represents one aspect of the interaction, contention, and dialogue between two systems and cultural trends—Chinese and Western learning, Chinese and Western art, etc. In this intersection of different Chinese and Western perspectives, Chinese medicine, as a part of national learning, has always been passive, struggling for a voice after being deprived of its discourse. The analysis of this struggle for discourse remains relevant even today.
### II. Chinese Medicine under the Westernized Perspective: Demonization
The 1920 debate between Yu and Du was relatively confined to academic discussions. Yu Yunxiu's provocative article "The First Step in the Scientific Study of Domestic Drugs" asserted that Chinese medicine was based on the philosophical fantasy of yin-yang and the five elements, thus being "unscientific." However, he at least acknowledged the practical efficacy of Chinese medicine, albeit separating this efficacy from its theoretical foundations and attributing it to the realm of pharmacology. Yu proposed separating theory from fact, thereby discarding Chinese medical theory and studying its pharmacology. He advocated for the analysis and study of Chinese medical prescriptions using scientific experimental pharmacological methods. In Yu's narrative, the yin-yang and five elements theory of Chinese medicine was treated with an attitude of "acknowledging but not discussing," while the pharmacological effects of Chinese medicine, falling within the scope of scientific research, were approached with a scientific attitude.
In fact, despite his fierce criticism of Chinese medicine, Yu Yunxiu always approached it with a research-oriented attitude. In 1907, while in Japan, Yu studied under the master of Chinese learning, Zhang Taiyan, and maintained a lifelong disciple relationship with him. During the Chinese-Western medicine debates, he frequently corresponded with Zhang Taiyan to discuss these issues. Thus, the debate between Chinese and Western medicine remained an academic one. However, by 1929, the issue had become more complex. To the Westernization faction advocating for the abolition of Chinese medicine, Chinese medicine, whether in theory or practice, could not be a subject of scientific research but was instead the antithesis of science. In other words, in the discourse of the Westernization faction, Chinese medicine had been "othered," or in postmodern terms, "demonized."Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) was equated with superstition and witchcraft, and practitioners were seen as "those who exploit spiritual beliefs for profit." The debate between TCM and Western medicine became a major obstacle to progress and reform. A statement by Yu Yan can be seen as a typical example of this discursive hegemony:
"Opposing the abolition of TCM is to reject the scientification of medicine, to deny the government's role in public health administration, to resist the internationalization of China's medical and health practices, and to passively accept cultural invasion without striving for revitalization. Such actions and desires will only lead to stubbornly clinging to the absurd and baseless metaphysics of a bygone era, reveling in outdated national essence..."
The generalization of academic debates into ideological conflicts, and the treatment of science as a religious belief, reveal that scientism had already become the dominant discourse in that historical context. Interestingly, even Fu Sinian, who was rigorously trained in experimental psychology and physiology, could not escape the dogmatism and hegemony of scientism when refuting TCM. In his 1934 article "The So-Called National Medicine Issue," Fu escalated the academic debate between Chinese and Western medicine into an outburst of "the inherent flaws of the Chinese people." The opening of his article is highly representative of the Westernized view of TCM:
"What is most shameful, hateful, and disheartening in China today is not banditry or foreign aggression, but the so-called debate between Western medicine and Chinese medicine. Banditry, though serious, can be resolved if there is effective governance. Japan's aggression, though formidable, can be countered if we are determined, prepared, and exert great effort while skillfully leveraging the situation. However, the debate between Chinese and Western medicine truly exposes the worst of the Chinese people's inherent flaws! To still be arguing about Chinese and Western medicine today makes it seem as if the Chinese are a different species of humanity. After forty years of modern education, we remain stuck in this medieval stage, making the future seem hopeless!"
If we contextualize Fu Sinian's narrative on TCM within the discourse of the Westernization faction, we can understand the image of TCM in Fu's text. TCM is equated with the Middle Ages (which, in Western discourse, symbolizes darkness, superstition, and witchcraft); it is equated with the inherent flaws of the Chinese people (which, in the Westernization faction's discourse, include ignorance, laziness, filth, conservatism, and degeneracy); TCM is seen as China's "national essence" (which, in the discourse of Hu Shi and other cultural figures, is associated with foot-binding, the eight-legged essay, opium, eunuchs, and concubines); TCM is even portrayed as more heinous than national crises or banditry. By piling accusations onto TCM, Fu Sinian sought to delegitimize TCM on moral grounds. At the same time, he employed demonization tactics, categorizing TCM alongside "divination and astrology," and suggested that the government should place TCM under the jurisdiction of the "Ministry of Internal Affairs' Bureau of Rites and Customs" before abolishing it. Thus, in the discourse of the Westernization faction, TCM was deemed unworthy of being considered within the realm of "science." Science was endowed with moral superiority, thereby transforming into "scientism."
It cannot be said that Fu Sinian's ideological critique of TCM was entirely devoid of academic reasoning, but under the lens of scientism, all academic discussions were inevitably distorted. In Fu's refutation of TCM, the actual efficacy of TCM was an undeniable fact. To address this, Fu Sinian deconstructed the semantics of the term "efficacy," subsuming it under the Western medical concept of "cure," which he framed as a "statistical term": "The term 'cure' is not simple or easy to define. Hospitals cannot report on treatment outcomes without detailed analysis." Because "cure" requires statistical analysis, and TCM lacks such "scientific" methods to prove its efficacy, Fu argued that TCM's so-called "efficacy" was also unreliable. In this way, Fu Sinian dissolved a hard technical issue into discursive deconstruction, thereby undermining TCM's sole basis for legitimacy at the discursive level rather than the technical level.Although Hu Shi did not directly intervene in this debate, he expressed his views on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the preface he wrote for *Man and Medicine* in 1935. From a historical perspective on the divergence between Chinese and Western cultures, he pointed out that Chinese culture lagged behind Western civilization by two thousand years, and TCM was still in the "age of witchcraft" compared to Western culture: "Looking back at our traditional medicine based on yin-yang and the five elements, what position can it occupy in the history of scientific medicine?" {10} In Hu Shi's view, TCM was destined to be grouped with "parallel prose, regulated verse, the eight-legged essay, and meditation-based Neo-Confucianism," forever confined to the darkness of "non-science," with no hope of redemption.
### III. Facing Westernization: The "Aphasia" of Traditional Chinese Medicine
Science rejects TCM, but TCM cannot reject science. In the debate between Chinese and Western medicine, the two sides were unequal from the very beginning.
In the 1920 debate between Yu Yunxiu and Du Yaquan, Du Yaquan was the defender. Du had studied TCM under his father and brothers in his youth and later taught himself Western medicine, thus possessing a knowledge base that integrated both Chinese and Western medical traditions. In the debate, Du did not agree with Yu's outright rejection of TCM, but he acknowledged that attributing everything to yin-yang and the five elements was the work of quack doctors. He argued that TCM, with its thousands of years of experience, excelled in intuitive understanding, while science, being mechanistic, could not grasp the subtleties of the mind. He believed that, apart from the material aspects, the sciences of the mind and society did not rely solely on mechanical experimentation.
Du's view of science, which confined its scope to the material while separating the spiritual and social, foreshadowed the later Science-Metaphysics Debate. It also indicated that, during Du's time, traditional Chinese learning and TCM still held legitimate discursive authority. Nevertheless, Du adopted a strategy of explaining TCM principles using scientific discourse. He argued that TCM explained diseases in terms of "imbalances of yin-yang and qi-blood," which, in Western medical terms, could be understood as "circulatory disorders." All diseases, according to Du, were manifestations of circulatory disorders. He interpreted TCM's concept of "qi-blood" by equating "blood" with the Western concept of "blood" and "qi" with "natural forces" in nature and "nervous functions" in human physiology. The TCM principle that "qi moves blood, and blood contains qi" was, in Du's view, analogous to the interaction between the circulatory and nervous systems in Western medicine. {11} This approach of framing TCM principles within Western medical terminology set the basic format for subsequent debates between Chinese and Western medicine and had a profound influence.
During the 1934 debate on Chinese and Western medicine initiated by Fu Sinian, the defender Liu Xuejun (a scholar trained in experimental phonetics) also used Western medical terminology to explain TCM principles. For example, when explaining TCM's theory of pulse diagnosis, he employed knowledge from medical physiology. Interestingly, in his rebuttal to Fu Sinian, Liu also employed a semantic strategy of "separating name from reality," dissolving a hard scientific problem into a battle of discourse:
From the above facts, it is clear that TCM treats diseases differently from Western medicine, and thus it uses different terminology. Critics of TCM need not focus on its use of fantastical or metaphorical terms. It does not matter if TCM misidentifies the internal structures of the human body. For example, if TCM calls a deer a horse, it is fine as long as it consistently calls a deer a horse. The only concern is inconsistency. Since TCM's references are entirely fixed, they do not hinder medical practice.Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has its own theoretical framework and historical lineage. The theories of Yin-Yang and the Five Elements can be traced back to the "Book of Documents" and the "Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon" and "Su Wen." The origins of pharmacology can be found in the works of the legendary Shennong and historical figures like Sun Simiao and Li Shizhen. Clinical trials can be traced back to Bian Que during the Three Kingdoms period... However, it is interesting to note that when TCM seeks justification for its existence, it "forgets" its own discourse and instead laboriously borrows from another discourse system to prove its legitimacy. Why?
To address this question, we can take the example of Chen Zedong's article from the Tianjin TCM Association.
After Fu Sinian's article was published in the "Ta Kung Pao," it immediately drew dissatisfaction from the Tianjin TCM Association. On August 18, Chen Zedong, commissioned by the Tianjin TCM Association, wrote a rebuttal article titled "On Fu Mengzhen's Insult to National Medicine" and submitted it to the "Ta Kung Pao," but it was rejected. He then submitted it to the "Independent Review," but Hu Shi, the editor at the time, also refused to publish it, stating: "Articles like Chen Zedong's from the Tianjin TCM Association, which discuss the Five Elements, Six Qi, Yin-Yang, and the pinnacle of philosophy, will not be published."
If you recall Wu Zhihui's New Culture Movement slogan, "Throw the thread-bound books into the latrine," and if you remember Chen Duxiu's assertion that science is the absolute truth, you will understand that in the scientific discourse context formed since the May Fourth Movement, Chinese learning is equated with outdated knowledge, and national essence is seen as garbage. The gap between the old and the new is the gap between progress and regression, science and superstition. So-called Chinese learning, national heritage, classics, and TCM are all categorized as old, regressive, superstitious, and to be discarded. Under the discourse hegemony established during the May Fourth era, anything with the prefix "Chinese" lost its legitimacy. The only legitimate discourse was science.
In such a context, the only way to maintain one's survival was to surrender to the discourse of science and submit to its authority.
However, TCM has always been seeking a breakthrough.
In 1941, when the national crisis became the overriding issue and nationalist discourse became the mainstream, Kong Geng cleverly utilized this backdrop to shift the discourse on TCM's struggle for survival from academic discussion to nationalist discourse on national survival. The clamor of the conflict between Chinese and Western medicine thus overshadowed the discussions in the National Political Council, with academic debates fading and ideological disputes dominating the discourse field of cultural conflict.
Just by looking at the titles of the series of proposals Kong Geng submitted to the National Political Council, one can see how he infused nationalist discourse into the debate on TCM:
Proposal by Kong Geng at the Second Session of the National Government Political Council:
"Adjusting Health Administrative Institutions, Giving Equal Importance to Chinese and Western Medicine, Gradually Seeking Integration to Enhance National Health for the Benefit of the War Effort."
Proposal by Kong Geng at the Third Session of the Political Council:
"Requesting the Government to Establish a National New Drug Factory to Achieve Drug Self-Sufficiency and Strengthen National Economic Mobilization."
"Mobilizing National TCM to Establish a Central National Hospital, Setting Up TCM Clinics in Various Institutions to Protect the Health of Soldiers and Civilians."
During the sessions, Kong Geng's proposals received widespread support, as evidenced by Cao Shubao's endorsement of Kong's proposals. Similarly, Cao's TCM proposals were also filled with nationalist discourse:
"Coordinating Chinese and Western Medical Views, Establishing a Research Association to Improve Medicine and Protect Human Life."
"Requesting the Government to Establish TCM Schools to Demonstrate Equal Treatment in Chinese and Western Education, Valuing Human Life and Benefiting the War Effort."
For the first time, scientism encountered its opponent: nationalism. We can imagine how the battle for discourse hegemony would unfold. It is no wonder that Fu Sinian, deeply influenced by Western education, engaged in mutual insults with the elderly Kong Geng and even proposed a duel to debate the principles of Chinese and Western medicine.IV. The Self-Preservation of Traditional Chinese Medicine under the Hegemony of Discourse
As mentioned above, under the dominance of scientism, there can be no purely academic discussion. Similarly, under the mainstream discourse of nationalism, there can be no calm cultural dialogue. Scientism does not benefit the dissemination of science, and nationalism cannot save the fate of traditional Chinese medicine. So, under the hegemony of scientism, if we do not intend to isolate ourselves but rather engage in dialogue with Western medicine and science to survive, how should traditional Chinese medicine, as a national study, position itself?
From the perspective of cultural contact, the conflict between Chinese and Western medicine is indeed a conflict between different discourses. Chinese and Western medicine each have their own distinct academic theories, meaning they each possess their own unique symbolic systems. However, in the dialogue or conflict between these different discourse systems, to maintain the effectiveness of the dialogue, there must be a common foundation, which is the so-called "common knowledge" or shared knowledge structure. Since the Republic of China era, the only discourse that could serve as this shared knowledge structure has been the scientific discourse from the West. In other words, adopting the classification and terminology system of Western medicine is the only option for effective dialogue. However, this inevitably leads to traditional Chinese medicine losing its independent symbolic system and, consequently, its discourse power. The ultimate result is: without dialogue, traditional Chinese medicine faces the fate of self-destruction; with dialogue, it faces the fate of "losing its voice."
In fact, this paradox was already recognized by the master of Chinese studies, Zhang Taiyan, at that time. During the increasingly intense debate between Chinese and Western medicine around 1925, Zhang Taiyan always showed great concern but never participated in the disputes. Instead, he mediated the escalating conflicts and guided the direction of the debate through private discussions with the parties involved. He had his own views on cases such as the revival and abolition of traditional Chinese medicine.
Zhang Taiyan's attitude towards the conflict between Chinese and Western medicine, in the terminology of overseas sinology, was to adopt a "wisdom of separation." He consistently believed that traditional Chinese medicine should not be abolished, as it has its own long history and rich experience, but it also has its flaws. Chinese and Western medicine are two different cultural systems. It is ridiculous to label traditional Chinese medicine as "philosophical medicine," and it is even more ridiculous to discuss it in terms of the five elements and yin-yang. "I believe that today's traditional Chinese medicine should strive for self-reliance, not by engaging in petty arguments with Western medicine," Zhang pointed out. He emphasized that traditional Chinese medicine should not compete with Western medicine in rhetoric or hastily seek to affiliate with official academia by entering national universities. Instead, it should build its confidence through solid medical practice. Blind arrogance in traditional Chinese medicine, looking down on Western medicine, and Western medicine's attempt to abolish traditional Chinese medicine due to certain superstitious elements in its theory are both wrong. The self-reliance of traditional Chinese medicine lies in striving to achieve "treating diseases that Western medicine cannot," which is the way for traditional Chinese medicine to survive. Chinese and Western medicine should learn from each other's strengths to create a new medical system with Chinese characteristics.
In a conversation with Chen Cunren, Zhang Taiyan deconstructed the theoretical system of traditional Chinese medicine, separating the parts accused of superstition by Western medicine from its theoretical system. Through such self-reflection and self-awareness, he aimed to prove its basis for survival in practice, rebuild its theoretical system academically, redefine its terminology system, and reclaim its voice in discourse.
At the height of the debate between Chinese and Western medicine, Zhang Taiyan established the first modern Chinese medical college in Shanghai: the China Medical College, and was unanimously elected as its first president.In 1928 and 1929, the China Medical College initiated two national conferences on the compilation of traditional Chinese medicine textbooks, laying a scientific foundation for the revival of Chinese medicine in terms of talent cultivation and discipline construction.
A century has passed, and the conflict between Chinese and Western medicine has settled. Looking back at this grand cultural dialogue, one might feel a sense of detachment, as if watching a fire from across the river. Yet, when we reflect on the society we live in and the global village we inhabit, such discursive conflicts have never truly ended. Increasingly close cultural contacts force us into a state of "aphasia." Particularly, the pressure from mainstream culture on us, who are marginalized in a post-colonial context, compels us to abandon our own discursive systems and even our everyday language. Within the sphere of hegemonic discourse, we are forced to express our thoughts in a non-native language, enduring the pain of having our meanings forcibly distorted and fragmented, and the embarrassment of stuttering like a novice. Who among us has not experienced this, and who could ever forget it?
October 2003, Hangzhou
Notes:
{1} Luo Ergang: "Five Years at the Teacher's Door," Appendix p. 317, Sanlian Bookstore, 1998.
{2} Luo Jialun: "The Vigorous Fu Mengzhen," "Impressions of Fu Sinian," p. 13, Xuelin Publishing House, 1997.
{3} "Chairman Chiang's Defense of National Medicine," "Complete Diary of Hu Shi," Vol. 5, p. 596, Anhui Education Press, 2001.
{4} "Official Letter from the National Government Secretariat," December 23, 1929, see "Complete Diary of Hu Shi," Vol. 5, p. 597.
{5} Gao Like: "The Wisdom of Adaptation," p. 148, Zhejiang People's Publishing House, 1998.
{6} Zhang Taiyan: "Letter to Yu Yunxiu on the Spleen," "Letter to Yu Yunxiu," "Complete Works of Zhang Taiyan," Vol. 8, pp. 371, 471, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1994.
{7} See "Ta Kung Pao," March 17, 1929, Yu Yan's article, quoted from Zhang Ming, "Old Medicine, or Chinese Medicine?," "Reading," Issue 6, 2002.
{8} The definition of scientism by Weimos is: "The term 'scientism'... can be understood as a belief that only modern science and the scientific methods described by modern scientists are the sole means of obtaining knowledge applicable to any reality." See Guo Yingyi, "Scientism in Modern Chinese Thought," Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 1995, p. 16.
{9} Fu Sinian: "The So-called National Medicine Problem," "Independent Review," No. 115.
{10} Hu Shi: Preface to the Chinese translation of "Man and Medicine," see Hu Songping, "Preliminary Draft of the Chronological Biography of Mr. Hu Shi (4)," p. 1430.
{11} Gao Like: "The Wisdom of Adaptation," p. 149, Zhejiang People's Publishing House, 1998.
{12} Liu Xuejun: "My Views on Western Medicine and So-called National Medicine," "Independent Review," No. 121.
{13} Hu Shi: "Editor's Note," "Independent Review," No. 115.
{14} For the proposals by Kong Geng and Cao Shubao, see "Records of the National Political Participation Council," Chongqing Publishing House.
{15} Zhang Taiyan: "Preface to the Issue of Chinese Medicine," "Complete Works of Zhang Taiyan," Vol. 8, p. 348.
{16} Zhang Nianchi, Pan Wenkui: "Preface to the Medical Collection of Zhang Taiyan (8)," "Complete Works of Zhang Taiyan," Vol. 8, Preface p. 12, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1994.