Suggestions for improvement
Sun Yat-sen research over the past 60 years has made gratifying achievements compared with other areas of modern history. But there still exist underlying apprehensions and deficiencies that should be dealt with quickly.
First, we need to broaden our perspectives on the basis of rational understanding. Only in this way can we find breakthrough points and propose new ideas.
For example, if we introduce the concept of “national conditions” to Sun Yat-sen research, we should broaden our thinking from aspects like the social environment, interests of different groups and social psychology of that time and place Sun Yat-sen under the large-scale and multi-level society of that time, that is, to examine the original appearance of his thoughts and deeds by analyzing “psychology” at the micro level, “group” at the meso level, and “environment” at the macro level.
Taking the relationship between Sun Yat-sen and the warlords for another example, Sun Yat-sen had conflict with both the “individual warlord” and the “warlord group” and had contacts with both the “Southern” and the “Northern” warlords. The situations of Sun Yat-sen’s early and later years were different and his mentality under the favorable circumstances and the unfavorable circumstances was also different, which was a mixture of “illusion” and “strategy”. How to “straighten out” Sun’s relations with the modern warlords? If we can make in-depth exploration from the perspective of the “environment”, “group” and “psychology”, what we get will not be superficial. Speaking of the study of social psychology, Professor Zhang Kaiyuan was very experienced and he stated that the leaders of the Hundred Days’ Reform, the 1911 Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party had always had the sense of historic urgency and the revolutionary acute disease coming along with it. If we want to further our study, we have to explore the historical roots of such social psychology. Leaders often made big promises to win the masses who also had high expectations for the fulfillment of these promises, which created a strong psychological pressure on the leaders, and thus they would easily adopt radical and impractical policies. The radical policies were prone to failure, the result of which would inevitably be the radical replacement of the leadership and ideology. However, the new leadership and ideology often gave more and bigger promises to the masses and made them have higher and more urgent expectations for the new regime, and this invisible psychological pressure would make new leaders be more inclined to adopt radical and unrealistic policies.
This negative cycle was the social and psychological root of the repeatedly frustrated Chinese revolution and modernization.116 If we look at Sun’s thought and practice from this perspective, we may make less far-fetched understanding of some difficult points and doubtful points.
Second, we still need to try the mode combining static and dynamic research in combination with our national conditions. Among the previous studies on Sun Yat-sen, there was much static research (from historical data to the theory they adopted) but little dynamic research (from theory to reality), and research combining the static and dynamic modes was rare. Carrying forward Sun’s thought and spirit is by no means to muse over things of the past, instead, it is to pass down and carry forward the great causes for which the great men had fought in the 20th century. Therefore, the evolutionary trend of different political schools after Sun’s death, that is, the interpretation of Sun Yat-sen’s Three People’s Principles by Hu Hanmin, Dai Jitao, Zhou Fohai, Shao Yuanchong, Gan Naiguang, Yang Youjiong, Cui Shuqin, Ye Qing and others and its influence should be the object of study combining the static and dynamic methods. In recent years, although some scholars have made some achievements in this field, there is still much room left for further study.
Third, our vision should not be limited to the times Sun Yat-sen lived in and the specific issues of China he tried to solve. This can be understood from two aspects. First of all, independence, democracy and prosperity that Sun had strived for all his life are still the major issues faced by most countries in the world calling for democracy and progress. They are of practical significance and should be the guidelines followed by even the developed countries. The topic of independence has always existed, and democracy and prosperity are two topics which could never be studied exhaustively. Therefore, Sun Yat-sen research was of inter-temporal and transnational nature in terms of time and space. In the second place, Sun Yat-sen is not only a great son of Chinese people but also an international personage, and even could be labelled a giant of the world. He never confined his ideas and activities to China and Asia but integrated them with the world, and his footprints and friends could be found all over the world. He incorporated his activities into the struggles of all oppressed nations and progressive mankind. His thought on integrating China and the West is in conformity with the tide of the current world better than Confucianism. If Confucianism, which was born in the agrarian society, can still have dialogue with the culture of the current world, Sun Yat-sen’s concept of civilization, which was formed by “following” the East and “naturalizing” the West innovatively and whose “world value” is higher than Confucianism, ought to join the international academic forum and have dialogue with the world culture with a clear stand.
Fourth, we should refine and deepen our research further. While conducting historical research, the first thing to make clear is “what is it” before asking “why”. Therefore, it has become a common view of scholars that making in-depth study of small topics from a micro perspective and taking the road of refinement is not only fundamental but also inevitable. At present, we still have a lot of work to do to answer the “what” questions.
For example, some researchers pointed out that Sun Yat-sen’s thought was very profound and complicated. Who and whose works on earth had influenced him? There have been few specific and detailed researches on this topic. There were some changes in his thought, and there existed some inherent contradictions in some aspects. A lot of in-depth and detailed research need to be carried out to sort out these questions clearly.
For another example, to study Sun Yat-sen’s practice in allying with Russia and the evolution of his thought, we ought to make a study of the origin of Sun Yat-sen’s alliance with Russia. Soon after the victory of the October Revolution in 1917, Sun Yat-sen came up with the idea of allying with Russia and he once dispatched Cao Yabo as the chief diplomatic envoy to Russia. Cao followed his order and crossed the Mediterranean by ship and managed to arrive in Germany by way of Italy and Switzerland in about January 1918, which took more than a month. Cao couldn’t go to Russia by way of Germany during his two-month staying in Germany, so he had to return to China to report his mission soon after. This event was meant to be a trivial matter. Although the causes and consequences of Cao’s mission, the difficulties and obstacles in negotiating with Germany, and the reasons for the failure in the alliance with Russia are still not clear, it has shown that Sun’s choice and practice in allying with Russia could be traced back to the late 1917 and early 1918.
Sun Yat-sen research is like a grand academic hall with inexhaustible heritages remaining to be explored ceaselessly, which is just like what Sun said in his last teaching: “The revolution has not yet been successful, and the comrades still have to work hard”.
