ESHS/HSS Annual Meeting

What is “science”? The differing interpretations of “Making Chinese Medicine Scientific” in Republican China(1911-1949)

• In Event: Science, Knowledge, and Technology in Modern China: Vernacularization and Global Diffusion

English Abstract

When “science” was introduced to China in the mid-19th century, it brought subversive reconstruction to China’ s original knowledge system. The original knowledge had to change itself as “scientific” to adapt to the demands of its time. The “Making Chinese Medicine Scientific” during the Republican era exemplifies this phenomenon. There emerged two primary interpretations of “Making Chinese Medicine Scientific”: Some argued it meant applying “scientific methods”—such as information’ s collection, classification, identification, and conclusion —to reorganize and study Chinese Medicine, thereby revealing its inherent scientific nature. Others, however, insisted that “Making Chinese Medicine Scientific” required restructuring Chinese Medicine using “scientific knowledge”, incorporating knowledge from fields like physics, chemistry, anatomy, and physiology into Chinese Medicine’ s theoretical framework to transform it into a science. The crux of this divergence lay in differing perceptions of “science.” If “science” was viewed as systematic knowledge, Chinese Medicine itself could already be considered scientific. It only needs to be adjusted by methodology to restore its system and achieve “Scientize” while retaining its original characteristics. Conversely, if “science” was understood as knowledge—such as chemistry, physics, physiology, or pathology—Chinese Medicine would need to discard “unscientific” doctrines and adopt scientific knowledge to achieve its “scientific transformation.” These disagreements on the understanding of “science” in the “Making Chinese Medicine Scientific” movement reveal that “science,” as imported from the West, often underwent selective interpretation and utilization in local practice. The people who define and apply “science” was not with its active exporters but with its passive recipients.

Author

• Xudong Liu, Fudan University