Lost Modernities, China, Vietnam, Korea and The Hazards of World History by Alexander Woodside - Book Report/Review Example

Book Review for ‘Lost Modernities, China, Vietnam, Korea and The Hazards of World History’ by Alexander Woodside Context: Alexander Woodside’s book“ Lost Modernities: China, Vietnam, Korea, and the hazards of World History” published by Harvard University Press in 2006, is based on his lectures given in 2001 for the Edwin O. Reischauer lecture series at the University. Woodside is highly impressed by the meritocratic civil services examinations of three Mandarinates which began in China as early as Tang Dynasty (618-907 C.E.). He gives eloquent details of the transparency in these examinations, moreover the social reforms thought at that time are relevant and needed to be addressed today also. Woodside feels almost emotional on loss of such a system from three Mandarinates while the Western world is adopting the same today. Plot: Woodside had organized the book into four chapters emphasizing different aspects of his thinking. The chapter one ‘ questioning Mandarins’ (17-37) is devoted to Introduction of three mandarinates, their civil services examination which were equally instructive in all the three. The author also points out fears for refeudalization and anxiety of transition. Language used was of administrative utility rather than political language. Chapter 2 (38-55) “Meritocracy’s Underworld’ focuses on how Mandarinates anticipated hazards that are now in the western experience. These hazards were instability of administrative power based solely on written examination. Post-feudal assertion of elite to power and that bureaucratic language and approach might lack mass appeal. In the chapter 3 (56-76), entitled ‘Administrative welfare dreams’, Woodside has elaborated social reforms programs pursued by the three Mandarinates. These were the goals like alleviation of poverty and equalization of landholdings. But making poverty an administrative concern, Woodside feared it could ‘decontextualize’ the administrative goal or was a drift from actual purpose of bureaucracy (21). The chapter 4 (77-106), ‘Mandarin Management Theorists’, highlights skepticism about bureaucracy regarding compulsory family program in China, Vietnam. Though, Woodside explains, it was also the revival of mandarinism, albeit slow, in eastern Asia along transnational and cross-cultural lines. Woodside’s book also gives an introduction and a conclusion to his work. Evaluation: Woodside feels that modern may be separate from landmarks of growth viz. Industrialization and Capitalism. He was referring to the mandarinate rulers who separate from hereditary social claims, developed meritocratic civil services through examinations. They trained and tested people to be politically useful rather than taking them as they are. The talent search in this way began as early as Tang Dynasty in China, which had given Chinese government positions to people after scrutiny of candidates for their talent. They had huge examination sites that could house thousands of candidates. Woodside writes that by 1400, the system of examination was highly transparent. The candidates’ answers passed through Collection, registration, collating, recording officers to the readers. The sequence took care to conceal examinee’s name, copied his answers in other person’s handwriting and that more than one examiner evaluated the answer sheets. To further improve the thought process and practical ability, the examiner and examinee both were limited by word counts to their questions and answers respectively (1-3, 17-22). Though the word ‘modern’ emerged for Charlemagne rule but Woodside feels that Tang Dynasty was more modern in political management. Similarly he refers Berman (1983) stating that western legal system modernization began with the papal revolution, much before capitalism and industrialization (4). However the Chinese exams had monoculture linguistically and Manchu and Mongols nobles’ ideas needed to be translated. While the Czech, Croat and Magyar need not Germanize linguistically (6). Besides, the merit-based bureaucracy could not carry out mass mobilization and it invited public apathy. All three Mandarinates made some provisions to overcome reluctance of people to administrative reforms and revitalize public in acceptable way. The task was made difficult, however, by the lower rank bureaucratic officials who were denied the chance to rise in rank and exploited those below them initiating a tradition of corruption which the Mandarinates are still fighting (21). Woodside also debates whether the unique civil services examination was an attempt by the Tang rulers to strengthen their position against the aristocratic power bloc (30). Yuan Shikai abolished the civil services examination, in 1905, just when western world was adopting it. Shikai’s explanation to such a move was that bureaucracy failed to inspire the masses that are needed to win wars. From the win of some countries over their formidable foes, he found that mobilization begins as early as primary school teaching. I t is time when china should move from ‘storing talent’ to create ‘will power’. As a result the exam based civil services system flourished in Western countries while the Asian Mandarinates lost their modernities (10-11). Woodside refers Taylor (1911) who propounded theory of relation between human workers and new industrial machinery. Taylor’s theory was extended to government servants by associating their performances to rewards. It made civil services more materialistic than the less scientific mandarinate civil services which favored Confucian moral nobility and worshipped the scientific governance. Woodside is clearly annoyed at the move, which was influential but inert and based on stretching human performance or technological capacity to its maximum and referring it as modernity (35). But the western administrative principles influenced China heavily and it soon had administrative science journals viz. ‘Administrative Research’ and ‘Administrative Efficiency’ and also an ‘Administrative Efficiency Research Society’. China ignored its two millennia’s bureaucracy experiments and rather opted for British/American Models. Vietnam, which remained a French colony from 1800 to 1954 also got rid of its mandarinate civil services examinations (11-13). The innovative civil services examination no doubt were a most modern step by the Mandarinate rulers even from today’s standards. But the purely written examination to take a candidate suitable for administration had some serious hazards, as Woodside had called these. The selected candidates had individual talent, which could not be translated into mass mobilization. As a result, even the well thought social reforms viz. poverty alleviation, equal land rights and population control did not get public support as expected. Moreover, mass patriotism was not inspired (77-87). The examination-based selection of administration generated administrators having excellent individual capacity to make accurate government reports. Partly it did not succeed, particularly in the later era since the meritocracy, in a way, produced elite from the general public which became aloof from people and neglected their sentiments hence failed even in their well thought and much needed social reforms. It is true that outright rejection of two millennia’s experience for adopting the western scientific administration may have been done in hurry. But losing wars, fighting corruption in the lower rungs of administration and facing public apathy for government moves left little other choice. It is no doubt that inviting and grooming talent from general public, rather than as a hereditary right, for state administration was an idea much ahead of its time, but Woodside’s strong attachment to, and sorrow for loss of Mandarinate civil services system is some what elusive. Since the academically inclined governance can make great policies but rarely mobilize people particularly when it remains stuck to same methodology and changes are not made as required time to time. Nevertheless, the book is a great reading to get an analytical account of Mandarinates’ attempt for good governance and their concept of social engineering. It has given the Western world a foundation to run its academic institutions. Moreover, Woodside almost compels the reader to redefine the world ‘modern’, as he says that a move or system may be called modern all by itself and delinks it with other landmarks of modernity viz. Industrialization and capitalism. Read More