Between secularist ideology and desecularizing reality: the birth and growth of religious research in Communist China

Sociology of Religion, Summer, 2004 by Fenggang Yang

DANCING UNDER THE SHADOW OF SHACKLES

The discipline of religious research in China has become lively and interesting. Mainstream scholars have gained considerable freedom and shown significant creativity. They are dancing with many new ideas. However, they are still dancing under the shadow of shackles. This can be seen clearly in the uneven development of different subfields within the discipline. Two contrasts are noticeable: the uneven development of Buddhist studies versus Christian studies, and the uneven development of historical studies versus contemporary studies.

Publications and conferences in Buddhist studies far exceed Christian studies. Over 1000 books on Buddhism were published between 1979 and 1998 (Wu [1995] 1998: 30), whereas less than 200 books appeared on Christianity, the majority of which were translations of Western works (Wu [1995] 1998:16). The very few historical studies of Christianity in China, especially those which appeared in the early 1980s (e.g., Gu 1981, 1985), tended to stress the imperialistic nature of Christian missions. In the 1990s, historical studies of pre-1949 Christian universities offered more objective and balanced evaluations (see Shen and Zhu 1998).

Meanwhile, over 60 conferences specifically on Buddhism took place from 1980 to 1998; as well there were many other conferences with Buddhism as one of the major subjects in discussion (Huang 2000:251). In 2000 alone, ten conferences on Buddhism were held covering topics ranging from Buddhist Arts, Tiantai and Chan Sects, Mi-Le Culture, 120 Birthday Commemoration of Master Hong Yi, to the "mutual adaptation of Buddhism and socialist society." On the contrary, conferences on Christianity have been fewer, and have often encountered difficulties in obtaining permission from the authorities.

Two reasons account for this contrast between Buddhist studies and Christian studies. First, there are more historical and textual materials of Buddhism available to China's scholars than those of Christianity, so it is easier to research and write about Buddhism. Second, the political risk in publishing about Buddhism is less than about Christianity. A book or article on Christianity is more likely to be censored or banned from publication than one on Buddhism. Certain persons, events, and issues regarding Chinese Christianity are still off limits for open discussion or publication. This is a reflection of the skewed policies of the CCP toward different religions, which deserves a focused analysis, but is beyond the scope of this paper. It will suffice to say here that some leaders in the CCP and the government tend to favor Buddhism (and Daoism) as a Chinese "native religion" over Christianity as a "foreign religion," and wish to impede the rapid growth of Christianity.

The lack of studies of contemporary religions in Chinese society is another indication of the shackles. The majority of publications are historical studies, whether on Buddhism, Christianity or on any other religion. Empirical research on contemporary religions is extremely rare. Several reasons may account for this. First, availability of historical materials is far more abundant than contemporary data. Second, there is a greater political risk in discussing issues of contemporary religions. This is the greatest obstacle (Wu [1995] 1998: 39-40). Contemporary religious phenomena are often politically sensitive due to their direct association with social stability and government policy. The research offices of the CCP and the government have conducted investigative studies of contemporary religions for policy-making purposes. Occasionally, these studies were contracted out to academic institutes. But the authorities clearly prefer issuing internal reports to publishing the findings in journals or books. In cases where publication is permitted, it is closely scrutinized; interesting information is often taken out from such publications. In addition to political risks, scholars are also discouraged by such publication limits, for the academic principle in China is the same--"publish or perish."