Sun’s view of Asia and the world
Sun’s view of Asia could be summarized as follows: first, the revival of Asia was an inevitable trend; second, it was Asian people’s responsibility to revitalize Asia; third, to solve China’s problems was the first step to revitalize Asia; fourth, special attention should be paid to “Sino-Japanese cooperation” and “Sino-Japanese alliance”.63 Sun’s view of the world was mainly composed of three levels: in ideology, it was oriented by the advanced theories and practical experiences of the developed countries; in strategy, it focused on striving for the big powers’ non-interference in and even their support for Chinese revolution; in action, it laid stress on seeking the big powers’ material aid. This orientation centering on the big powers could bring the greatest convenience for Chinese revolution and contribute to the independence and liberation of all nations in the world. Therefore, Sun had always adhered to two principles, i.e., making use of the big powers to break the big powers and giving support to the anti-imperialist struggle of the oppressed nations.64 As for the “Great Asianism”, some scholars praised it as “the general program of Sun’s doctrine on the oriental and western culture and the issue of Asia”, and held that “in essence, it was about the contradictions, conflicts and struggles between the Asian national liberation movements and the imperialists’ international colonial system”;65the dissidents argued that “this was a controversial legacy with both positive and negative meaning”,66 and was the core of Sun’s thought on the revitalization of Asia. Its essence was different from the Japanese nationalists’ point of view, but it was not a strict and complete antiimperialist theoretical system.
Sun’s cultural thoughts
There were wide divergences on this topic. On the characteristics of the constitution of Sun’s cultural thoughts, some scholars cited Sun Yat-sen’s self-statement and summarized it as “following conventions and traditions”, “naturalization” and “innovation”. They pointed out that Sun’s comparison of Chinese and Western culture did not completely break away from the stereotype of “Chinese learning for the essential principles and Western learning for the practical applications”.67 Some researchers emphasized that Sun’s attitude toward traditional culture experienced a tortuous course from “running away from it” to “coming back to it”.68 This “coming back” was a process from one negation to another negation, which was a dialectical sublimation. His absorption and utilization of traditional Chinese thought and culture could be summarized as follows: first, inheriting and carrying forward the people-centered thought and the thought of valuing people in Confucianism; second, absorbing the “thought of Great Harmony” in Confucianism; third, inheriting, transforming and utilizing some fundamental ethical conceptions established by Confucianism.69 The dissidents pointed out that Sun had never been “the descendant of Confucius and Mencius” and his choice of some aspects of the traditional culture was of great practical nature, which could be considered as using “Chinese learning for the essential principles and Western learning for the practical applications”.70 Sun’s opinions on China’s inherent morality and old political philosophy expressed in his later years, “were extremely emotional, some of which were even improvised appeals and elaborations”.71
2.3.7 Sun’s thought on opening up and utilizing foreign investment
Some scholars thought that Sun was “a master and pioneer in advocating opening up and utilizing foreign investment in the modern and contemporary history of China”.72 Sun put forward the conception of “opening up”, which “marked that the thought of opening up in modern China had reached a complete and mature stage”.73 Some scholars argued that “it was inappropriate for us to regard Sun Yat-sen’s advocating opening up as a synonym for learning from the West and expanding its content to other aspects like politics, economy and ideology and culture, and even his view of ‘taking Russia as the teacher’”.74
The characteristics of the research during this stage were as follows: first, the research methods had been updated, including both systematic historical analysis and comparative research from multiple perspectives; second, the research field had been broadened, and some monographic studies had been deepened further; third, related works had been published on a large scale. During this stage, more than 900 papers and more than 50 monographs had been published; fourth, the academic atmosphere was relaxed and scholars could learn from each other by exchanging views. They could also objectively absorb and evaluate the works of scholars from Taiwan Province, which had raised the research to a higher level.
