American Scholars Like Paul Cohen's Dispute Upon John K. Fairbank's "Impact-Response" Model

In the 1950's, American historian John K. Fairbank proposed the famous "Impact-Response" model, which believed that the Chinese society has long been in a basically stagnant circle, without internal motivation to break through the traditional Chinese framework, and that only under the impact of the West in the mid-19th century, could changes into modern society take place. This model dominated the U.S. research on China for a long period of time. Until the late 60s, because of the Vietnam War reflection, American students' criticism, and the influence of international trends, many American scholars began to question the "West-Centered" values, and challenge the west-oriented approach of Chinese history study. Among those American scholars, Paul Cohen is one of the most representative one, who advocated "that American scholars should, with China as the starting point, deeply and precisely explore the internal dynamics and morphostructure of Chinese society, and that multidisciplinary collaborative research should also be encouraged." On this basis, Cohen summarized and promoted the "China-Centered" approach.This thesis attempts to explore the whole process of American scholars'dispute on the "Impact-Response" model and the development of "China-Centered" approach from 1950's to the early 21st century, to clearly show Chinese scholars the transition process of American academic trends on Chinese studies through a kind of academic history review. In that consideration, this thesis is divided into five parts:In the first chapter, Fairbank's proposition, the content and sources of "Impact-Response" model in the 1950s are introduced; chapter II describes and summarizes American scholars'criticism on "Impact-Response" model and new trends of Chinese studies between 1960s and 1970s; chapter III is the main point and focus of this paper, which discusses American scholars'summaries of Chinese studies in the United States in the 1980s, and especially Cohen's criticism on the "Impact-Response" model and summary of "China-Centered" approach; chapter IV probes into Paul Cohen, R. Bin Wong and others scholars'improvement and development of the "China-Centered" approach, and discusses John K. Fairbank's reflection on his own model after the 1990s. Chapter V is the conclustion part, which consists of the following thoughts and enlightment:The long controversy over the "Impact-Response" model for nearly half a century in the U. S. academic history reflects the changes in the international academic trends, exemplifies the deepening and active dynamic process of China understanding of U.S. academics, government think tanks and decision-makers. And one of the most important inspirations from this dispute is how to observe and consider the cognitive change of American and even the whole West's understanding of China. This change of understanding China reflects American's change and China's own change, and it has a significant impact on American policy towards China and Sino-US relations.