X01: Mid-term Review

High-level indicators

• Critically engages with the text and draws plausible historical inferences
• Connects the document to broader historical events, contexts, themes
• Reflects on the quality and value of the evidence
• Registers assumptions of the author
• Considers our own baises and/or external factors that affect understanding
• Draws conclusion with caution

Low-level indicators

• More descriptive than analytical
• Fails to see the document’s interest and potential value
• Accepts the author’s statements and judgments at face value
• Makes no attempt to evaluate the nature and quality of evidence, or merely asserts “bias” without qualification
• Concludes too emphatically without qualification

• Situates Xue Fucheng and his ideas as part of the self-strengthening movement
• Registers Xue’s conclusion about Chinese tradition as a resource for – rather than obstacle to – reform
• Discusses the difference between the “Immutable way” and “changeable laws” and considers their relationship
• Notes Xue’s understanding of Confucianism as a universal concept, rather than merely a Chinese tradition (“the utilization of the forces of nature for the benefit of the people”)
• Observes Xue’s understanding of utilitarianism and pragmatic statecraft as part of Confucian tradition and its relevance for Qing China

• Examines the relationship between past and present, noting Xue’s departure from traditional notion of cyclical change (“change the present so as to restore the past”) and embrace of linear time (“change the past system to meet present needs”)
• Compares and contrasts with other thinkers, especially his patrons, Zeng Guofan and Li Hongzhang, and other thinkers we have read (e.g. Zhang Zhidong)
• Probes Xue’s nationalism as one defined by culture and civilization, as opposed to race or ethnicity
• Considers the audience of the text – more conservative members at court – and its potential reception among intellectuals
• Offers an assessment of the self-strengthening movement, including its successes, limitations, and legacies

• Fails to contextualize Xue Fucheng as part of the self-strengthening movement and its impact on 19th century China
• Makes binary generalizations about China vs. West, tradition vs. modernity
• Dismisses indigenous roots of modernization and intellectual change
• Misses Xue’s understanding of Confucianism as one based on civilization and universal in nature (“the utilization of the forces of nature for the benefit of the people”)

• Has little to say about specificities of Xue Fucheng’s own writing, especially regarding his notion of historical change and/or relationship between China and the West
• Fails to register Xue Fucheng’s interlocutors (namely more conservative members at court) and the potential reception of his writing
• Concludes the self-strengthening movement as “failure” without considering the context of reforms, and/or considering its intellectual legacies
• Overly negative about the value of the text for understanding intellectual, political, and social change in late 19th-century China

• Registers Xu Jilin’s definition of tianxia (all under heaven) and notes its difference from traditional tianxia (“hirarchical and sino-centric”)
• Notes the Confucian roots of tianxia and tradition of Chinese universalism
• Discusses the motivation of Xu’s writing as one against excessive nationalism and its intended audience

• Examines the inherent tension between universalism and nationalism in Xu’s writing, namely using tianxia, a traditional Chinese concept rooted in hierarchy, to counter sino-centricism and hierarchy
• Compares and contrasts Xu with earlier thinkers calling for Confucianism universalism, such as Kang Youwei
• Considers the efficacy of Xu’s arguments, especially as to whether tianxia (all-under-heaven) offers a viable alternative to the Westphalian world order

• Fails to register Xu’s definition of “tianxia” (all-under-heaven) and its difference from the new tianxia
• Has little to say about universalism in Confucian thinking
• Overlooks the context of Xu Jilin’s writing – a rising and increasingly confident China – and his position vis-à-vis other intellectuals

• Has nothing to say about enduring influence of Confucianism and / or Chinese tradition in contemporary thought
• Makes no attempt to consider the audience of Xu’s writing and potential reception of the text
• Overly dismissive of Xu’s text as nationalistic and its value for understanding Chinese intellectual thought today

• Connects the film to broader gender history: role of women in Chinese communist revolution
• Discusses changes in female representation: Women as victims and heroic martyrs vs. 
• Situates revolutionary feminism under CCP with broader gender transformations in 20th century (e.g. anarchist tradition, etc.)

• Discusses the ambivalences and limits of female emancipation: the Detachment of Women still under male leadership; women’s domestic labor made invisible; etc.
• Examines the ambivalent relationship between party and women: female emancipation as , but women cadres
• Remarks historical parallels between Hua Mulan and Qionghua, and considers the CCP patronage of Chinese cultural tradition

• Overly negative about the value of propaganda for understanding Communist China
• Fails to register the tactic of mass mobilization (e.g. struggle session, speaking bitterness) and their influence on
• Makes little discussion on the relationship between the medium and the message (i.e., socialist realism in cinema)

• Has little to say about CCP gender ideology and policy, and how they worked in practice
• Overly descriptive of the segment and makes no connection to broader history of women in Chinese socialism, relationship between art and politics, and so forth
• Makes no attempt to disaggregate the experiences of Chinese women (rural vs. urban, rich vs. poor, Han vs. minority)
• Overlooks gap between depicted realities and lived experiences: How did Chinese women experience the Communist Revolution?