Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Rupture in Modernity: A Case Study of Radicalism in Late Qing Chinese Press Debate

Cao, Qing

Rupture in Modernity: A Case Study of Radicalism in Late Qing Chinese Press Debate Thumbnail


Authors



Abstract

Drawing on the idea of organic society, this article examines the discourse of modernity in the late Qing press debate between the monarchist periodical Xinmin congbao and the revolutionary Minbao in 1905–1907. Based on corpus-based analysis, the article identifies the negation of Chinese practices and institutions as contributing to a radicalised discourse. It argues that the loss of anchorage in lived experiences erodes the basis of conservatism as a counterbalancing force of social change. The discursive negation constitutes a critical rupture in Chinese modernity. As the broken link between social values and practice, the rupture spawns a utopian imagining of a future China. Revolution as an extreme form of radicalism is symptomatic of the underlying anxieties of the Chinese collective self that struggles to achieve intellectual and emotional integrity in the pursuit of modernity. The article has three parts. The first develops a tripartite organic society model to conceptualise the study. The second part presents a critical study of the late Qing press debate. Finally, conclusions are arrived at by discussing the significance and consequences of the radicalised discourse in the press debate.

Citation

Cao, Q. (2017). Rupture in Modernity: A Case Study of Radicalism in Late Qing Chinese Press Debate. Critical Arts: A Journal of South-North Cultural Studies, 31(6), 9-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2017.1407809

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Nov 21, 2017
Online Publication Date May 10, 2018
Publication Date Nov 2, 2017
Deposit Date Nov 21, 2017
Publicly Available Date Nov 10, 2019
Journal Critical Arts: A Journal of South-North Cultural Studies
Print ISSN 0256-0046
Electronic ISSN 1992-6049
Publisher Taylor and Francis Group
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 31
Issue 6
Pages 9-28
DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2017.1407809

Files




You might also like



Downloadable Citations