Sonia Louis

From 1861-1894, China and Japan were determined to undergo a process of modernization. Believing it would make their countries powerful, they went through similar changes. Yet despite this, China failed to succeed in its Self-Strengthening movement and was overtaken by Japan in almost all aspects by the end of the era. This is due to several factors—most of which lay in the difference between the leaders in China and Japan, as well as the political and social situation of both countries at the time.

Meiji: withheld its authoritarian nature and inclusion of semi-feudal structures (control over security). The Meiji leaders never wavered in their focus despite the Saigo-led rebellion and rural peasant revolts

China: This was based on preventing any future opposition. Confucian relations were established between the gentry and the common people to prevent any uprisings, good ability to discuss issues relating to good government, social welfare and projects were sponsored to enforce a system of “Collective responsibility.”

Brief summary: Both sides stuck to their goal of wanting a transformation in their country

China: Mary Wright claimed the short term successes of economic (mainly agriculture) reform were “by the extraordinary efforts of extraordinary men.” They seemingly lifted land taxes in areas that suffered from the previous war. The land tax was permanently reduced in certain provinces (the grain tribute quota was payable in the Susongtai circuit of Jiangsu province). New lands were opened and irrigation schemes were repaired and extended.

Meiji: Tax/currency reform, trade reform and industrial reform.

Brief summary: Economic reform was seemed graciously aimed at the group who was previously suffering the most: the peasants.

Meiji: The leaders recognized inevitable foreign involvement and decided to ‘play the imperial game’ by making their own military strong. This included a new army and navy led by Yamagata Aritomo who enforced conscription in 1872. He inspected European military bases and persuaded the government to equip the army with modern equipment, and sending potential officers to European military academies.

China: Military strengthening was Feng Guifen’s best contribution to the movement. He recognized western superiority and also felt the need to introduce similar technology. Established arsenals and shipyards enabled China to produce effective armaments. By 1863 there was the manufacture of shells and Suzhou arsenals as well as machinery that produced an output of 50 rifles a day.

Brief summary: The recognition of western superiority enabled both China and Japan learn from them, greatly increasing their military power.

China: The leaders of the self-strengthening movement were eager to fuse Confucianism and at the same time, the needs of a modern state. The genesis of this mindset sparked the openness education; specifically foreign languages, mathematics and science.

Meiji: The concept of “western science, eastern ethics” was further implemented; by 1870 educational reform involved new skills and attitudes and an eagerness for broader knowledge. The subject of economics also took flight.

Brief summary: Both sides had a growing eagerness for western education to be adopted in their system

The Japanese and Chinese had goals of modernization and took similar steps to carry them out. Why, then, did China fail at the end of the day? The answer lies with the leadership. The following slides will elaborate on this point.

China: Neo-Confucianism in China confirmed the fact that the self-strengthening leaders were not revolutionaries. They were traditionalists who still had the arrogant outlook of China being the ‘middle kingdom’ and hence more superior than the West. They wanted to use old values to protect themselves against the foreign threat. Yet they also wanted help from them militarily. This contradiction prevented the leaders from having a clear goal to work collaborate with the West in achieving modernization.

Meiji: Japan did the opposite. Although they had their own government they sought to gain respect of the West, particularly Britain so it was no longer a threat. Incorporating a part-British jurisdictional system is a good example of this.

Brief summary: China’s arrogance stood in the way of modernization whilst Japan embraced foreign involvement.

China: Most historians blame Cixi (equivalent to Queen) . She lived a life of extravagance, capriciousness and abuse of power. Instead of solely focusing on Japan, she was drawn to consolidating her position and in turn manipulated sections of the bureaucracy. Not only was she autocratic, but turned against the pragmatic group of other self-strengthening leaders.

Meiji: What saved the Meiji was its leadership consisting of two bodies—the council state and the assembly. The council state worked quietly and ‘behind the scenes’ of the Emperor. In essence, there was no single leader. They Oligarchy worked together to best improve advance Japanese modernization.

China: Leaders Li Hongzhang and Feng Guifen were merely ‘representing’ the restoration. Their support was not reflected in their deeds; the true motive was not to relieve the tax burden or to reduce the demands of Yamen officials, but to secure financial accommodation for the gentry.

No distinction between personal benefit and public good. Not surprisingly, corruption existed in high levels of the government, leading to excessive bureaucratization, hence

(i) no coordination and effective communication between leaders(ii) Lack of financial/moral support for upcoming organizations

Meiji: Members of the house of Peers (former Daimyo) did not have true representation and were not able to deny the government of any money.

Brief Summary: The Leaders of China had poor moral and too much financial power in their hands—a tragic combination, ultimately leading to the movements' downfall. The Meiji government was structured in a way where the government tried to pass all benefits directly to the people.

China: The leaders of Self Strengthening promoted modern projects to to resist foreign aggression, to suppress domestic unrest and fortify their own position of power. They had lack of foresight in the sense that they never saw China being a modern state and they wanted to make the existing order stronger, rather than replace it. Hence their view on China’s development was limited.

Meiji: The Meiji leaders were young revolutionaries who saw the mistakes of the Tokugawa and was determined not to repeat them.

Brief summary: The Japanese saw the difference between adapting their own culture into modernization and forcing old government in a modernization. China did not.

China: The Chinese has recently undergone the Taiping Rebellion that greatly decreased their population and ruined the crippled economy it already had. Their meager efforts were inadequate in the face of the enormity of the problem. There was no effective planning or central, fixed solution, thus modernizations were directed by provincial authorities without central direction, planning and coordination.

Meiji: Japan had not gone through a major crisis—they had dealt with minor opposition which did not effect the outlook of the leaders.

In the words of Hsu… “No attempts were made to No attempts were made to

assimilate Western institutions, assimilate Western institutions, philosophy or culture. The Self philosophy or culture. The Self Strengthening efforts barely Strengthening efforts barely scratched the surface of scratched the surface of modernization, without achieving a modernization, without achieving a breakthrough in industrialization.” breakthrough in industrialization.”