Privilege and Responsibility 1

The Needham Question - Prerequisites for the Scientific Revolution

“Francis Bacon had selected three inventions; paper and printing, gunpowder, and the magnetic compass, which had done more than (anything else), he thought, to transform completely the modern world and mark it off from the antiquity of the Middle Ages. He regarded the origins of these inventions as ‘obscure and inglorious’ and he died without ever knowing that all of them were Chinese. We have done our best to put this record straight.” 
This is what D. Joseph Needham wrote in October, 1985, in his foreword to “The Genius of China.”1  Needham started out his scientific career as a biochemist in the United Kingdom, even though he had first planned to study medicine. When, in 1937, three young Chinese graduate students came to the University of Cambridge, Joseph connected particularly well with one of them, and she taught him Chinese and encouraged him to study the history of Chinese science and technology. This then became his life-long passion. 
Already fairly early in his Chinese research, the man who loved China 2 wondered why all the scientific genius in China had not resulted in a scientific revolution or modern science as had happened in Britain. 

“It haunted him so ceaselessly, and it pervaded so much of what he later wrote, that it was to become his memorializing eponym: it became known as the ‘Needham question’.”  3

At age 84, Needham wrote (In order to answer that question, we must accept the fact that) “in the seventeenth century we have to face a package deal; the Scientific Revolution was accompanied both by the Protestant Reformation and by the rise of capitalism, the ascendancy of the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie.” Just as international trade demanded universal units of measurement, so international scientific cooperation required an international language and methodology (read: mathematics, AS), which then could with proper training be used and mastered by “every man and woman, irrespective of color, creed, and race.” 4
Interestingly, Needham writes he does not want to pick a primary causative factor, for that would depend on one’s own background. A theologian would probably think that the new freedom through the Reformation was responsible, a Marxist would certainly point to the economic and social changes of the time, and “an old-fashioned scientist would naturally think that the scientific movement occurred first.” 5  Although Needham had been somewhat involved with both Christianity and Marxism, I would think that (especially in his senior years) he would see himself mostly as ‘the old-fashioned scientist’, which may have made him at least somewhat reluctant to delve into the religious and socio-economic factors that must have played significant roles. Winchester suggests that “(Since Needham had not given a conclusive answer) it has been left to others to take up the challenge in his place.” Scanning the Internet, we should not be surprised that ‘the Needham Question’ has been a favorite topic for graduate students and students of historical science and technology. In the rest of this article, I will try to give an overview of the most common responses to the question. 
In attempting to classify the different factors that have been presented, I found it hard to present an effective system. Although I divided the possible factors into cultural and political groups, I realize that there is quite some overlap here. Also, cultural factors influence the leaders and their policies, and vice versa. And, although I see myself more as a theologian than a Marxist, I will -at this stage- list ‘religious factors’ under culture. 
Cultural and Political Promoters and Inhibitors for the Rise of Modern Science 

• a: cultural values of religious and/or ideological nature 

• b: the culture’s value placed upon nature observation and experimentation, and 

• c: the ruler’s restrictions and selection procedures for granting special privileges and 

• d: the ruler’s international politics: open or closed 

a: cultural values of religious and/or ideological nature 6

Except for technological discoveries for warfare, it seems that ‘the Genius of China’ was most productive between the 4th century B.C. and about 400 A.D. In ancient cultures, there was only a small portion of the population that could afford to be non-productive and agriculture or craftmanship. These ‘specialists’ were typically the rulers and their servants, advisors, and soldiers, but also the priests, which had to maintain harmony with the gods to ensure their blessings for the nation. This is one reason why religious monasteries and their communities were more likely places to find literacy, libraries, and natural investigation. Consequently, Needham looked at Chinese older religions to find possible motivators for science and technology. 
Christianity and Islam came into China in about A.D. 600 via the Silk Road via the city Xian. Buddhism had arrived perhaps five centuries earlier. Needham did not think Buddhism a suitable basis for the encouragement of studying the natural reality, as it focused more on the spiritual dimension of reality and relatively little on the physical. Today, there is much philosophical discussion about the compatibility of Buddhism and science, but when you try to find Buddhism as (early) promoter and successful producer of science and technology, you find little real evidence. Nevertheless, when printing was developed, Buddhism was interested to pursue this for the distributing of Buddhist texts and the mass production of holy objects. Since Confucianism focuses mostly on rules for social harmony, it is another unlikely promoter for China’s success. 
So, Needham figured that Taoism would be the most likely religious/cultural promoter for scientific inventions. Taoist monks were interested in achieving immortality, and alchemy was seen as a possible path for discovery. Apparently, this was indeed how powerful explosives were discovered, which ironically greatly contributed to mortality in warfare. Nevertheless, in Taoism time is seen as cyclical, not linear, in nature. When viewing the world and its features from this perspective (of what goes around comes around), people typically get frustrated with an apparent ‘vanity’ of finding real meaning in study and exploration. As the biblical ‘Preacher’ sighs, 

“I applied my mind to know wisdom and knowledge, madness and folly; I learned that this too is like “chasing the wind”, for with much wisdom comes much sorrow; as knowledge increases, so does grief.”  7

Stanley Jaki, a philosophy and theology professor at Seton Hall University, wrote that modern science is a unique result of a Hebraic-Christian (read: biblical) linear view of time. In non-Hebraic-Christian cultures, science existed, but the “belief in an eternal, cyclic recurrence of everything in a universe which was taken as the ultimate realty...implies a cosmic treadmill and casts the spell of pessimistic hopelessness,” inhibiting the quest for scientific principles.8   In Needham’s essay, “Time and History in China and the West,” he also argues that the European, or Christian, conception of time and history stems from the Hebraic tradition which depicted world-epiphanies as markers of time with a beginning and end. Christianity, whose roots lay in Israel, formed a “linear redemptive time-process” with God as the “comptroller of time,” and a faith tied to a future as well as a past. So, even if later Confucian scholars began to embrace a linear view of history, originally this was alien in Chinese thinking.9  
Wen-yuan Qian maintains that China remained descriptive while the West explained nature with mathematics. He links Europe’s scientific progress to its desire to conquer nature, whereas the Chinese notion of ‘ataraxia’, contained in Confucian, Daoist and Buddhist thought, favored one personally turning inward for the attainment of equanimity and calmness, rather than outward toward the material world and the cosmos. 10
Albert Einstein and Joseph Needham both argued that the Chinese did not adopt Euclidian geometry, which was an important tool in providing mathematical models for natural patterns and processes.11  Needham thought that the dominant Confucian philosophy may have been an obstacle here. The Chinese generally assumed the universe was not rationally ordered or that there were laws that regulated the natural world. Galileo, on the other hand, argued that natural philosophy should be mathematical in form because nature was inherently mathematical.12  Einstein himself was surprised Interestingly, “that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the study of (the natural) reality”. This was not a surprise for many early scientists, who, from their Christian convictions argued that natural science was actually “thinking God’s thoughts after him”. This was said by Johan Kepler, and made sense in the view that humankind was created in God’s own image. 

b, c the culture’s value placed upon nature observation and experimentation and the ruler’s selection procedures for granting special privileges. 

During my (eight years) teaching experience in China, I noticed that it was generally quite difficult to encourage students to form or formulate personal opinions or to think “outside the box”. If I would ask a student for her personal opinion, I often detected panic as she would try to deduce an opinion that the teacher hoped to hear. You could almost hear her thinking: “What is my personal opinion supposed to be?” Surveys are typically useless in China, as one is supposed to give a favorite reply that benefits one’s own company, town, or country, for that is considered ‘the ethical approach’. 
Scientific progress typically requires freedom of thought and acceptance of an “outside-the-box” approach in thinking. This is often supressed and even punished in traditional societies and cultures. 
Traditionally, and probably enforced by strict emperors and Confucian wisdom, the Chinese rarely questioned authority. In Boyé Lafayette De Mente’s comprehensive description of Chinese culture, we read: 

“In pre-modern China, loyalty and submission to superiors was morally the right thing to do. People did not have rights that were guaranteed by law or by tradition. They had responsibilities and certain privileges that the state could withdraw at any time.” “Individualism was a sin against society and was severely punished.” 13

Needless to say, such a strict regime with little intellectual freedom did not encourage citizens to explore and test new ideas, to freely discuss new theories in public, or to be dynamic and daring in the pursuit of personal knowledge or wisdom. In Mediaeval Europe, we find a similar situation, but this was dramatically broken during the 16th Century. Martin Luther’s ideas would not have reformed the church if the emperor and pope at the time had not been weak, while the peasant population became increasingly outspoken in its anger and frustration. The sudden availability of mass media by the printing press (although it had to be used in secrecy) was another (unexpected) major contributor in this development. In China, the rulers knew the political potential of printed material, so they often enforced a strict control to ensure that only government-friendly material was published. Actually, not much has changed during the Communist and current regimes. 
Martin Luther, Galileo, and others finally dared to challenge the power of the Roman Church and Empire, which no longer served their God but themselves. Over time, this created freedom to think beyond tradition, which must have been (among others) a major factor for the development of science. 
The pre-Reformation church had adopted much of Aristotle’s teaching, which was not based on careful observations. In his time, tedious, repetitive experimentation was seen as slave labor and had no appeal or respect. The truth was supposed to be discovered by logic and mindpower only. Consequently, Greek traditional ‘science’ was quite different from modern liberal science, for in traditional societies, the masters’ thoughts had to be respected by all means. So, fallacies were easily adopted and enforced through thought-control and discipline, by political and religious authorities. And, this traditional world was broken in the time of the Reformation. 
Rebecca Olerich, in her master’s thesis,14  argues that the imperial examinations in China aided in hindering the development of modern science in China. These exams were extremely demanding, leaving little time for committed candidates to pursue any interests outside the focus of the exam. Yet the passing of the exams was -officially- the only way for one to gain a position of prestige, fame, and wealth. On the other hand, the exam was an effective tool to shape and maintain the country’s culture; the candidate would have to follow the strict code of expectations for the successful complication of the exam. 

“As of 1313, the required reading of all aspiring intellectuals was still narrowly restricted to the Neo-Confucian texts, suppressing the intellectual creativity, needed to create the theoretical and methodological frameworks of modern science.” 15

 Math and science received little attention in these exams, and in general, the study of the natural sciences was often associated with the common people. On the exams, natural phenomena received little attention, as freedom of thought on such issues might have a negative impact on the ‘orthodox’ views of the central government, which was responsible to uphold harmony between heaven, earth, and humankind. 
The rigorous ‘eight-legged essay’ (which formed a significant part of the imperial exams) further contributed to China’s backwardness regarding not only industrialization, but more importantly, to China’s failure to develop science and technology, because “its formulaic structure compelled uniformity and de-emphasized critical thinking in favor of rote learning, which often did not prepare a candidate to adequately function in an official position”. 16

d the rulers’ restrictions on its citizens’ freedom and international contacts 

During Europe’s Mediaeval times technology had helped China’s economy, resulting in a comfortable life for many or most of its population. Possibly, the resulting ‘comfortable life’ reduced the drive to new challenges. 
During this Golden Age, the Yong-le emperor’s admiral Zheng-He made extensive explorations with enormous hard-wooden ships that could transport up to a thousand sailors.17  Yet, when this emperor and his powerful admiral had passed away, rebellion against Yong-le’s brutal government and heavy taxes and national pride seems to have been a dominant factor to abandon such expensive pursuits. 
The year 1644 was the start of the Manchu dynasty; it was the last dynasty of imperial China. The Manchu often tried to keep foreigners, their trade, culture, and religion at arm’s length. So, while the Chinese rulers looked down on the inferior ‘barbarians’ to the West, it experienced an opening up to greater freedom and optimism for a better life. 
Around 1800, when European traders presented their latest technology (like diving bells, hot air balloons, and telescopes), the Chinese were not impressed or interested. They saw little practical potential for such things and saw them as play-things of the West. 
 Earlier already, the Buddhists had opposed Jesuit impact with their religion and mathematical knowledge and astronomical insights. Although western medicine, brought by Protestant missions were generally appreciated, selective ‘narratives’ were used to maintain distrust and suspicion concerning the ‘foreign devils’.  

 

Personal Observations 

Joseph Needham had very much respect for Chinese ingenuity, and his question did certainly not stem from a disdain of their accomplishments. In modern China, we see that China has become a world player in modern science. So, in the final analysis, the quest reveals more about the special conditions and circumstances that played a role in Europe’s development than about the temporary stagnation of scientific progress in China. And this is also why the Needham question is of significance in the context of our quest about the roots (and possible demise) of Western blessings. And, from a Christian point of interest, there are several important aspects, which are linked to the things we have discovered at this point: 
1. A linear view of time The Bible presents time as narrative along a line; there is a beginning (Creation), after which there is a rebellion (Fall). The biblical story then shows us how the Creator in time and space and through his active interaction with humans, made in his image, brings about a final Restoration. Although within this story we find numerous cycles (God makes something good, humans destroy, God makes a new beginning), the overall pattern is linear and the outcome is good for those who do good (by living in harmony with their Creator-Provider). And, although a godless perspective ‘under the sun’ may be rather repetitive without a final purpose, there is ultimate significance and beauty in all that is going on in the world. Apparently, this biblical perspective is quite unique and has given purpose and hope to humanity throughout space and time. 
2. The separation of the spiritual and the natural realm In pantheism, the whole natural world is ‘infused with the divine.’18  Not only does ‘the divine’ indwell all human beings but also animals, and even non-living matter found in rocks and minerals. The biblical revelation that, while God is omnipresent, yet he is distinct from his creation is liberating. The notion that all humankind was created in his image especially gives optimism that we can ‘think God’s thoughts after him’. 
3. A personal freedom and responsibility It is a very natural thing that powerful people lord it over others, whether it is for pure self-interest or to build and maintain a stable society according to the rulers’ vision. Although the woke folk are convinced that ‘white culture’ always seeks oppression, while others do not, this is based on irrational beliefs and not on historical evidence. So, in a setting of common corruption, driven by power and/or wealth, rulers need to exercise strict control to maintain stability and ‘peace’. If there is little freedom to ‘think outside the box’ and thereby to challenge established convictions, science cannot flourish. And, where people cannot be trusted, there will be little sharing of knowledge and ideas; and this was often the case in imperial China. Although in modern-day China real communism has been abandoned to allow for some freedom of enterprise, the country’s ‘representatives of the people’ are still paranoid about much ‘thinking outside the box’ and a free ‘sharing of information’ through the Internet. 
In the biblical record we find the unusual notion that all people (must) live under the rule of God. Therefore, no human ruler can claim absolute sovereignty. In many cultures, it was common that the rulers would claim godly status for themselves, but from a biblical viewpoint, this would be untenable. Over time, the ruler -in his mortality, immorality, or other folly- would disprove his divine status, and this would also be the implicit curse of the only God. In 16-th Century Europe, the Reformation made it clear that popes and emperors only had power ‘by the grace of God’, and if they went against the explicit Law of God, their underlings were called to challenge them with the apostles’ question ‘whether it would be right to obey the authorities, if thereby one would disobey the will of God’. And, this is the problem for any totalitarian government, for it cannot tolerate a higher law. 
Martin Luther did the unthinkable in his days by challenging ‘the church’ to defend themselves from the Word of God. The church authorities, of course, saw no need for that. They were, as-it-were by definition right, so Luther was declared a heretic- not for opposing Scripture but for opposing the authority of the Church and its (God-appointed) leaders. Nevertheless, God used the Reformation to reform the church to live under the ultimate authority of the Word of God. 
And the blessed by-product was the scientific revolution. This blessing, much desired by those have not enjoyed its fruits, were not without problems. There were opportunities for greed and abuse to taint the blessings. Those who believe the lie that the world would have been better without the scientific revolution or Christianity might not see it as a blessing. Nevertheless, for those who honestly evaluate the gains in hygiene, nutrition, health, and life expectancy, the beneficial fruits are obvious. 

 

Notes  

1. Introduction by Joseph Needham, in Robert Temple: The Genius of China - 3000 years of science, discovery, and invention. (London, 1986)
2. Simon Winchester used this as title for his biography of Joseph Needham. (Harper Collins, 2008)
3. Winchester: The Man who Loved China. p.260.
4. Joseph Needham's Introduction, see note 1. p.7.
5. Idem, p.7,8.
6. For a. and b., I used a number of ideas, provided by Melvyn Bragg and guests in a BBC podcast in the series: In Our Time, this issue on The Needham Question. (available on www.bbc.co.uk.)
7. Ecclesiastes 1, esp. vs.17.
8. Stanley L. Jaki: The History of Science and the Idea of an Oscillating Universe., History and Theology, ed. Wolfgang Yourgrau and Allen P. Breck. (New York, 1977), 247. Quoted in Rebecca L. Olerich: An Examination of the Needham Question: Why didn't China have a Scientific Revolution Considering its Early Scientific Accomplishments?
9. Joseph Needham: Time and History in China and the West, Leonardo 10, no.3 (Summer, 1977), p. 233.
10. Wen-yuan Qian: The Great Inertia- Scientific Stagnation in Early China, p.101,102,. 

Quoted in Rebecca L. Olerich: An Examination.

11. There were European textbooks on Euclidian Geometry and superior technology in China, but scholars had no access to this material, as it was shelved by the governors.
12. in The Assayer
13. Boyé Lafayette de Mente: The Chinese Have a Word for it.- The Complete Guide to Chinese Thought and Culture. (Passport Books, 2000). p. 66,112,262.
14. Rebecca L. Olerich: An Examination. p.5.
15. Idem, p.46.
16. Hilde de Weerdt: Competition over Content- Negotiating Standards for the Civil Service Examinations in Imperial China, p.66,67, quoted in Rebecca L. Olerich: An Examination. p.88.
17. 1404-1433
18. Greek: pantos = all, theos = god