From Tradition To Transition: Chinese Modern History Research Of John K. Fairbank And Philip A. Kuhn

John K. Fairbank and Philip A. Kuhn are highly representative experts inChinese studies of America. The two had a teacher-student relationship and the sameexperience of working at Fairbank Center had provided similar academic environment.Therefore there are inheritances in Modern Chinese history research of the two. Inaddition, affected by domestic factors, international environment as well as academicthought, Chinese Studies in America showed different characteristics during differentperiods, Which had been reflected on the differences of Chinese modern historyresearch between Fairbank and Kuhn.Based on the above points, this paper consists of three chapters.Chapter one focuses on what Kuhn had inherited from Fairbank’s academicresearch. Two sections are used for the analysis: one stresses the emphasis on the useof Chinese documents and archives; The other discusses the influence of The Annalsoverall view of history. Due to Fairbank, the emergence of using Chinese documentsand archives on the research of its modern history had been appeared in the field ofChinese studies of America. This fine tradition had far-reaching impact on Kuhn’sacademic research. On the research of the event of soulstealers in Qing Dyansty,Kuhn stressed the role Qigong archives had played on the academic research. Whencomes to the aspect of research ideological, affection of overall view of history ofAnnals had been seen. For Fairbank, regional research and traceable method had beenused in his study. He adopted interdisciplinary research, founded Harvard East AsianResearch Center, emphasized the studies of modern Chinese history must be tracedbacked to its traditional culture. For Kuhn, he explained the event of soulstealers fromoverall view of history and multi-disciplinary methods had been used.Chapter two discusses different aspects of academic research between Fairbank and Kuhn from two perspectives, concept of modern history and methods of research.For the former, to analyze how Fairbank put forward “Impact-Response” mode andhow did he use to interpret Chinese modern history. Kuhn’s concepts of ChineseCenter embodied in his analysis of the causes of the outbreak of Taiping Rebellionand other peasant revolts. For the latter, Fairbank’s research perspective is on thenational level, he put great importance on the function of realism of history research,which can be seen from the characteristics of his study in Sino-US relations. However,Kuhn limited his study in the region、province、county or city. Furthermore, he startedthe study of the history of the people. That is why Kuhn selected village clubs and lateQing military organization as his research points.Chapter three looks into as time flied what happened to Chinese studies ofAmerican and how did this affect the academic research of Fairbank and Kuhn. Late1960s and early1970s means significant to America, situation at home and abroadhad changed dramatically, which had provided a new opportunity for the developmentof Chinese studies. Affected by factors of eras, the easing of Sino-US relations as wellas the changing trend of the International Academic, the approach and concepts ofAmerica’s Chinese study had undergone great change. Combine with these elements,the author intends to analyze why there exists transition in the academic research ofFairbank and Kuhn and how does this happen.The final part is the epilogue, which summarizes factors of tradition andtransition between Fairbank and Kuhn’s academic research. More important is to havea depth observation on the characteristics of America’s Chinese Study as eraschanged.